2014 Legislative Session: Second Session, 40th 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)

Wednesday, March 26, 2014

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 9, Number 1

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)
ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 26, 2014

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

[1335]

Introductions by Members

N. Simons: I'm very happy to be able to introduce a well-loved family from Powell River who have joined us here in the House for question period.

Powell River is a wonderful place to live, in part because of people like Mohinder Singh, his wife, Janmeet Kaur, and their daughter Asees Kaur. Not only are they a well-loved family, they are proud owners of what's becoming an iconic restaurant in Powell River, the Little Hut Curry.

Will the House please join me in welcoming them here.

Hon. T. Lake: I have two sets of introductions today. First of all, I would like to introduce the team from the Victoria Epilepsy and Parkinson's Centre, who are joining us in the House. We have: Barb Gilmore, Jenn Morgan, Terri Beaton, Joanne Lefler, Christina Middleton, Pauline Johnson and Lise Anthony — who has her seizure dog, Bond, attending with her as well.

This is a non-profit society that supports the Victoria capital regional district with information and education services. With their help, those suffering with these neurological disorders are better able to manage the physical, psychological and social effects so that they can lead active lives and fully participate in society.

Would the House please make this group very welcome.

K. Corrigan: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to welcome two of the members of a large delegation of Korean constituents from across the Lower Mainland, largely. I'm pleased to introduce Song Ja Lee and Yun Ik Schallert. I would point out that Yun Ik is the president of the Korean Senior Society. So it gives me a great deal of pleasure, and I hope the House will make them all feel welcome.

R. Sultan: ALS, otherwise known as Lou Gehrig's disease, is a neurological disorder with devastating consequences. The ALS Society of British Columbia provides patients with support, raises funds for services to help them and raises public awareness of this dreadful disease.

With us today in the galleries are five representatives of the society: Rick Poliquin, director; Dr. Neil Cashman, director — heavily involved in research, by the way; Ann McArthur, patient services committee; Wendy Toyer, executive director; and a person who really, for many of us, needs no introduction, former MLA Susan Brice — former MLA for Saanich South, as a matter of fact — vice-president of the Victoria chapter.

Would the House please make these guests welcome.

G. Holman: I would like to introduce to the House today my young constituency assistant, Ryan Painter, a frighteningly enthusiastic young man. He's just doing a great job for me making me look good, which, as some of you have come to know, is a difficult task indeed.

Would the House please welcome Ryan Painter to the House today.

J. Tegart: I'm pleased to introduce Doreen Gowans, Agnes Geiger and Gisela Montague from the B.C. and Yukon council of the Catholic Women's League of Canada. They presented to our caucus outreach this morning, sharing concerns.

I ask the members of this House to make them welcome.

J. Shin: Joining us today in the gallery are British Columbians of Gangnam style, people who built the ruins of the war into the 15th-largest economy in the entire world in just one generation and ranking seventh in the 2008 and fifth in the 2012 Olympics and, of course, sweeping the globe with their K-pop and their K-fashion trends.

They contribute their incredible work ethics and bring their big social hearts and all their kimchi-loving ways to the multicultural society of our province.

[1340]

They are really my extended mamas and papas in the House today, who worry if I'm eating okay, who cup my face to tell me that I can do it. When I greeted them earlier today at the entrance of this building and said, "Welcome home. This is your House," their eyes teared up instantly, and so my heart is very full today.

[Korean was spoken.] Would the House please make the delegation of 30 leaders from the Korean-Canadian community in Metro Vancouver feel very, very welcome.

Hon. J. Rustad: It's a great pleasure today to have somebody from my riding down here, not just because it's — I don't know if you'd say — rare to have people from Nechako Lakes be able to travel down here, but also because this individual was able to help witness the signing of an incremental treaty agreement with Lake Babine Nation. Would the House please make welcome the Deputy Chief of Lake Babine Nation, Frank Alec.

A. Dix: I wish to welcome someone from my constituency of Vancouver-Kingsway today, part of the delegation of Korean Canadians who've joined us: Sun Ja Im. I'd like the House to make Sun Ja Im welcome.
[ Page 2428 ]

E. Foster: It gives me great pleasure to rise today to introduce five special guests to the House. First and foremost, of course, is my long-suffering wife of almost 30 years, Janice Foster. With Janice today, with my wife, are four international students: two Rotary exchange students that are staying with us in Vernon right now, an international student in the international program at school district 22 and a fourth young lady who is here visiting. She was a Rotary exchange student in Vernon last year.

From Turkey we have Zenab Janare; from Italy, Giovana Paulino; from South Korea, Kae Yon Kim; and Thu Dah, who is my good friend who was here from Thailand last year and visiting again. I apologize to any Thai speakers in the audience. Kotai Dah — her last name is Chunsirecuhunai. That's why we call her Dah. If the House would please make them all welcome.

R. Fleming: Joining us today from Reynolds Secondary School are 29 grade 11 students with their teacher Ms. Sara Reside. It's great to have this group of grade 11 students here. They come from a wonderful school that has an incredibly inclusive culture and a connectedness between students and the broader community. There's a very strong sense of civic engagement at this school and active citizenship. Reynolds is known for that in our community. I would ask the House not only to make them welcome but not to disappoint them in any way in our democratic chamber this afternoon.

Hon. T. Lake: In the House today — I had the pleasure of having lunch with these two fine gentlemen along with the MLA for Fraser-Nicola — we have the chair of the Thompson-Nicola regional district, from my constituency, Barriere mayor Bill Humphreys, as well the CAO of the Thompson-Nicola regional district, Sukh Gill. These are two gentlemen that have been a pleasure to work with over the years and enjoyed a great time at lunch. I would hope the House would please make these hard-working local government representatives welcome.

H. Bains: Of the delegation that my colleague from Burnaby-Lougheed mentioned earlier, one of them is a Surrey-Newton resident, Ji Won Chung. She is there a director of the Korean Society of B.C. Please help me welcome her to this beautiful House.

[1345]

M. Dalton: Joining us in the gallery today are some special guests of mine. John and Val Hatch from Tsawwassen are here. John is my brother-in-law and is the deputy fire chief in New Westminster. Sitting next to him is his gorgeous sister Marlene, who also happens to be my wife. We also have Bill and Jean Jones, who are from Victoria. Previously Bill was the fire chief in Galiano. Would the members please make them feel welcome.

C. James: I have two very important guests visiting the gallery today. The Rt. Rev. Bishop Logan McMenamie is here with his executive assistant, Imelda Secker, and I'll have a little more to say about the reverend a little bit later. Would the House please make them very welcome.

S. Simpson: I'm pleased to join with my colleague from Burnaby-Lougheed in her greetings for our friends from the Korean-Canadian community. I particularly want to welcome Ms. Lotus Chung, who's the former president of the Korean Lions Club, and Mr. Ho Jin Lee, who is a director of the Korean Society of B.C. Please make them very welcome.

D. Eby: It's my pleasure to join with my colleague from Burnaby-Lougheed in welcoming the Korean delegates here today and, in particular, Ok Hwa Hwang, the director of the Korean Senior Society. Welcome to you today.

M. Farnworth: It's a pleasure to actually introduce someone from my riding. I can't remember the last time I've have done it in this chamber. It gives me great pleasure to welcome two members of the delegation of Korean leaders. They are Yong Pil Kim, who is a director of the Korean Society of B.C. and a Korean War veteran. Accompanying him is Duck Jin Kim. I'd ask the House to please make them both very welcome.

J. Darcy: The list of people to introduce keeps growing. I'd like to join with my colleagues in welcoming two members of the Korean-Canadian delegation that are here today, from my constituency: Mr. Chin Uook Kim, the new president of the Korean Senior Society, and Mrs. Bok Gyoum Kim. Please join me in welcoming them to this House.

It also gives me great pleasure to add a welcome to the deputy chief of the New West fire department, who I've encountered, unfortunately, on two occasions recently at the site of fires in New Westminster. Our New West fire department does an absolutely fabulous job, and we are grateful for them every single day. I will join my colleague on the other side of the House in making them welcome today.

We're also very grateful that members of the ALS Society of British Columbia are here today. They've been previously introduced, so in the interests of time, I won't mention all of their names. I certainly look forward to meeting with them later on today because the ALS Society of British Columbia is absolutely dedicated to providing direct support to ALS patients along with their families and caregivers and also ensuring that we find a cure for ALS. Please make them welcome in this House.

G. Heyman: It was a great pleasure earlier today to meet with members of the Korean-Canadian delegation, talk with them a bit, and in particular to see the regard
[ Page 2429 ]
with which they held the first Korean-Canadian MLA, my colleague from Burnaby-Lougheed. So it gives me great pleasure to introduce Jieni Quan and Hui Lin Shen. They serve as Chinese-Korean community liaisons. Will the House please make them very welcome.

R. Chouhan: I would also like to join my colleague from Burnaby-Lougheed in welcoming some of my constituents from the Burnaby-Edmonds area. Haeng Ja Kim is the director of the Korea Reunification Society; Dong Im Seo, director of the Korean choir; Woong Lai Noh, the principal of Korean senior school; and Suk Ja Lee, his wife, director of the Korean Senior Society. Please join me to welcome them.

S. Robinson: It gives me great pleasure as well, along with my other colleagues, to welcome a number of constituents and people who call Coquitlam home, who are part of this Korean-Canadian delegation.

[1350]

I'd like the House to join me in welcoming Mr. Yong Hoon Lee and his wife, Mrs. Kyung Sook Lee — Mr. Lee is the former outgoing president of the Korean Society of British Columbia — and Mr. Hyea Jung Park; and Mrs. Zoo Youl Kim. Mr. Park is the president of the Korean Literacy Association.

Miss In Soon Lee is the president of the Korean Women's Society. Mr. Jeong Yoo Joo is the director of the Korean Society of British Columbia. Miss Eun Sook Park is the director of Korea Reunification Society. Mr. Yo Sang Song is the president of the North Korean Escapee Advocacy Society. Mr. Young Suk Choi is the president of the Korean Business Association.

I am very proud that they call Coquitlam home, and I'd like to ask the House to make them feel very welcome.

B. Ralston: I, too, would like to join with the member for Burnaby-Lougheed in welcoming Miss Eun Sook Seo, who is a director of the Korean Senior Society.

M. Elmore: It's a very great honour and privilege to welcome our friends from the Korean-Canadian community and really recognize them for their leadership commitment in not only building the Korean community but also contributing to our rich tapestry here in British Columbia.

I'm very pleased to welcome Harry Hur, the former president of the Korean Business Association, as well as Annis Eun Sook Hur, the wife of the former president of the Korean Business Association, and also to welcome Yong Suk Choi and Jin Yuong Lee, directors of the Korean Society of B.C.

D. Routley: I was never able to introduce my father in this House, George Thomas Routley, because several years before I became an MLA he passed, from ALS. I feel that my dad had such great courage, particularly in that time. I want to thank the people from the ALS Society for what they've done for our family and for being here today.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL 20 — LOCAL ELECTIONS
CAMPAIGN FINANCING ACT

Hon. C. Oakes presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Local Elections Campaign Financing Act.

Hon. C. Oakes: I move that Bill 20, entitled Local Elections Campaign Financing Act, be read for the first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. Oakes: I am pleased today to present the Local Elections Campaign Financing Act. The legislative update of the campaign finance rules for local governments is the most significant modernization of these rules in two decades. This legislation will help bring greater transparency and accountability to local elections. It will apply to election participants in municipalities, regional districts, the Islands Trust, parks boards and school boards.

It will also strengthen compliance to new campaign finance rules and establish a formal process to guide educational resources to help candidates, election organizations, third-party advertisers and citizens to understand these new rules. More specifically, the proposed legislation will require all election advertising to identify sponsorship information. It will authorize Elections B.C. to play a new key role in local government elections, enforcing compliance with campaign finance rules.

It will require third-party advertisers to register with Elections B.C. before sponsoring third-party advertising. It will require campaign finance disclosure statements to be filed with Elections B.C. within 90 days following the election, instead of 120 days. It will authorize Elections B.C. to post on line all candidate, electoral organization and third-party advertiser disclosure statements.

[1355]

The Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development, Elections B.C. and other key stakeholders involved in the administration of local elections will provide ongoing education and advice to help all election participants learn the new rules about campaign finance.

Changes to local government elections captured by this legislation are based on joint recommendations of the B.C. government, Union of B.C. Municipalities and Local Government Elections Task Force.

I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
[ Page 2430 ]

Bill 20, Local Elections Campaign Financing Act, 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.

BILL 21 — LOCAL ELECTIONS
STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

Hon. C. Oakes presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Local Elections Statutes Amendment Act, 2014.

Hon. C. Oakes: I move that Bill 21, entitled the Local Elections Statutes Amendment Act, be read for the first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. Oakes: I am pleased to present the Local Elections Statutes Amendment Act. This legislation is a necessary companion piece to the new Local Elections Campaign Financing Act.

With the Local Elections Campaign Financing Act focusing on campaign finance rules, there are a number of other statutes that require amendment. These statutes include the Local Government Act, the Vancouver Charter, the Community Charter, the Islands Trust Act, the Cultus Lake Park Act and the School Act.

The proposed Local Elections Statutes Amendment Act also addresses the recommendations made by the Local Government Elections Task Force, which are not specific to campaign financing. These recommendations include a change to four-year terms of office for local elected officials, a change of the election date from November to October, a requirement that nomination documents include a solemn declaration that a person is aware of and will comply with the Local Elections Campaign Financing Act, and an enhanced oath requiring election officials to exercise their powers faithfully and impartially.

I want to note that both the Union of British Columbia Municipalities and the B.C. School Trustees Association support the change to four-year terms of office. UBCM has also endorsed moving the general local election date to October. In addition, this legislation contains the rules which will govern the transition from the existing local elections legislation to the new campaign financing rules under the Local Elections Campaign Financing Act.

Lastly, the Local Elections Statutes Amendment Act addresses minor amendments and housekeeping matters. This includes giving regional districts and the city of Vancouver power to establish their own oath of office as other local governments in British Columbia already do.

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

Bill 21, Local Elections Statutes Amendment Act, 2014, 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.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

COLORECTAL CANCER
AWARENESS AND PREVENTION

E. Foster: March is National Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month. While most Canadians don't like to talk about colorectal cancer, this is a great time to change that.

Talking about this disease can save lives. Colorectal cancer is one of the only cancers that can be prevented through regular screening. That means that the disease is preventable, treatable and beatable when detected early.

Currently colorectal cancer is the second-leading cause of cancer-related deaths for men and the third-leading cause of cancer-related deaths for women in Canada, after lung and breast cancers. More than 90 percent of cases of colorectal cancer occur in people aged 50 or older, and the risk increases as we age. This government aims to reduce incidences of colorectal cancer through awareness, screening and planning.

A simple test exists called the fecal immunochemical test — or FIT, we'll call it — that will help save lives by supporting the early detection of this disease. Since April 2013…. This test, funded by the government, is easy for patients to complete and does not have any dietary or medication restrictions.

[1400]

On November 15, 2013, the provincial colon screening program was rolled out to all health authorities in B.C. for residents aged 50 through 74. This program has a primary care focus with general practitioners referring patients between the ages of 50 and 74 years of age for a screening test. Average-risk patients are then referred for an FIT, while patients with significant family history of colorectal cancer will be referred for a screening colonoscopy.

The good news is that more British Columbians are aware of this program and the life-saving effects of early screening to help detect or even prevent colorectal cancer. This month share information with your family and your friends about the importance of regular screening and discussing cancer prevention with your doctor. If colon cancer is detected in its early stage, patients have a 90 percent chance of survival, and that is something to talk about.

CONTRIBUTIONS OF IMMIGRANTS

J. Shin: As we all know, the faces of British Columbia have greatly diversified in the last three decades. With more than 20 percent of all Canadians born abroad,
[ Page 2431 ]
Statistics Canada estimates that by 2030 net immigration will make up 90 percent of our population growth. Many of us are among the wonderful mosaic landscape that we enjoy today as one of the seven million immigrants, from Vietnam to Iran, who have made Canada our home.

Now, what is it about B.C. that attracts so many of us? When I ask this question of the many immigrant families that I serve in Burnaby-Lougheed, I hear the same answers over and over again: parents who came looking for accessible quality education for their children, families who came looking for peace of mind with medicare, kids looking to grow up in the magnificent nature and wildlife that our province is famous for, seniors looking for a dignified retirement with their loved ones, people looking for the right to respect and to be respected in their workplace and in choosing who they love.

However, the history shows that life as an immigrant wasn't a fair one. Even in just this past decade the income profile of recent immigrants deteriorated significantly. So did their quality of life here. So it is with profound gratitude that I recognize the contributions and celebrate the legacies of many minority community organizations and societies like the ten Korean-Canadian associations that are present here with us today that stood up and fought for equality.

Immigrants have been a vital pillar for our labour and investment economy and for the wonderful social diversity that makes Canada. I hope we can honour their incredible value by always challenging ourselves to build an even better society.

OSCAR SCHULTZ

L. Throness: I rise today to honour a constituent of mine who passed away on March 2 after a short illness. Oscar Schultz was born in Manitoba in 1931 and, like so many who endured the Dirty '30s found his way to the green paradise of the Fraser Valley. He graduated from Chilliwack Senior Secondary School; met the love of his life, Joyce Cramer, in 1953; and spent the next six decades with her, raising four fine children.

His entire career was spent in the berry-processing industry, 42 years with York Farms, where Oscar worked his way up from bookkeeper to company president of a plant in Chilliwack named Berryland.

Oscar loved sports, and he travelled a lot for work and pleasure. He also loved his church, where he held just about every job, including treasurer, in the days when the church had a big debt and interest rates were over 20 percent.

Oscar was also a great supporter of mine, offering constant encouragement even when politics weren't going so well. He would often invite me to meet him at White Spot for his favourite meal, fish and chips, and regale me with stories about his days working for the company's owner, Jimmy Pattison, for whom he had a great deal of respect.

Perhaps Oscar's legacy, besides his 12 grandchildren and 11 great-grandchildren, can be summed up by Jimmy Pattison himself, who sent this message to the Schultz family: "Oscar was a true man of God and a wonderful employee. I have many fond memories of our years together at Berryland. May God wrap his loving arms around you as you grieve the loss of this wonderful man."

We in Chilliwack will miss him too. We are lucky to have known him.

WASTE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING

D. Routley: I rise to speak of something that British Columbians are rightly very proud of, and that is their continent-leading recycling programs. Our ubiquitous blue boxes, green bins and yellow bags represent a provincewide commitment by the people of this province to recycling, composting and reducing our waste stream.

[1405]

Managed by local governments and involving private and non-profit players, recycling is a conservative activity, reclaiming resources from the waste stream. Did you know that more gold is harvested through recycling than through mining today?

We have a consumer society that has vast amounts of superfluous packaging, and that equals waste. We use resources borrowed from the future. Many resources recycled today had no recycling potential just a few years ago.

The demand to reduce our waste stream incents innovation in recycling, reuse and reduction. Making the issue go away through incineration, using the atmosphere as a dump, will disincent improvements in waste reduction and recycling. Landfills are currently mined today for their resources. Using the atmosphere as a dump is not the answer.

California is avoiding incineration, moving to zero waste. California is the economy of scale on the west of the continent of North America. San Francisco is the first major city to ban bottled water just this week. B.C. has two times the land mass of California, yet California has 25 times the population. They led the way, banning leaded gas. They led the way in automobile safety standards that changed the world in terms of automobile production.

We have the means, the mechanisms and the ability to get to zero waste and to do what's right for the future. Our recycling programs in B.C. are continent-leading, and we need to be very, very proud of them.

PURPLE DAY AND EPILEPSY AWARENESS

D. Plecas: I rise today to remind the House that today, March 26, is Purple Day, a global effort to promote awareness about epilepsy. Purple Day was founded just five years ago by a young woman named Cassidy Megan
[ Page 2432 ]
in Nova Scotia. Cassidy wants to get people talking about epilepsy in an effort to dispel myths and to remind those who suffer from epilepsy that they are not alone.

The colour purple was chosen because the lavender flower is often associated with solitude, which is reflective of the feeling of isolation often felt by many people affected by this disorder.

Epilepsy is not a disease. It's a neurological disorder that affects approximately 1 percent of Canadians. It affects about 65 million people worldwide. It is the most common neurological disorder in the world. Unfortunately, though, it's not well understood. Many people living with epilepsy experience social isolation, work barriers and relationship issues.

Here in British Columbia help is available. Any time, day or night, HealthLink B.C. provides access to non-emergency health information and advice. Individuals with questions or concerns about epilepsy can contact HealthLink at 811 and speak to a nurse, a pharmacist or a health representative. Also, people will want to know that translation services are available in 130 different languages.

Thank you, hon. Speaker and members of this House, for observing 2014 Purple Day in British Columbia.

ELECTION OF LOGAN McMENAMIE AS
BISHOP OF ANGLICAN DIOCESE

C. James: I'm proud to stand today and share with this House the story of Victoria's own Dr. Logan McMenamie, who was named the 13th bishop of the Anglican Diocese of British Columbia earlier this month. His election as bishop is a culmination of a remarkable journey that took him from 63 years ago in Greenock, Scotland, right here to Victoria. It was in Scotland that Bishop McMenamie met his wife, Marcia. She was a Victoria resident, and the pair moved to Canada in 1974.

They settled in Port Alberni, and Marcia began attending the Anglican parish. Before long, her husband joined her, and he began teaching Sunday school and serving as a youth leader. He had some experience of that, being the father of seven children. Encouraged by his family and others in the parish, he earned his master of divinity degree and was ordained as a deacon in 1986. He served as pastor in Port Hardy, Ucluelet, Duncan and Nanaimo before becoming rector and dean of Christ Church Cathedral in Victoria in 2006.

[1410]

When Anglican bishop James Cowan announced his retirement last year, work began to choose a successor. Voting commenced on December 7, with Victoria's own dean winning the job. In his role, Bishop McMenamie will travel around the province, but he will return home to lead services at Christ Church for Christmas, Easter and ordinations.

Over my years as a local MLA, I've had the privilege of getting to know Logan McMenamie the person. In our community he's helped lead the way on issues such as homelessness, poverty, addictions, mental health, and healing and reconciliation with First Nations people. He's worked to bring together diverse groups of people to address the challenges all around us, and no issue was ever off the table. They were not always easy discussions, but Bishop McMenamie shared his strong leadership, which was always focused on inclusion, problem-solving and action, and did it with humour and warmth.

Please congratulate Bishop McMenamie on his election.

Oral Questions

PROTECTION OF FOREIGN WORKERS'
RIGHTS AND BLACKLISTING OF WORKERS
BY MEXICAN GOVERNMENT

A. Dix: My question is to the Premier. On March 20 the B.C. Labour Relations Board ruled that the Mexican government had blacklisted a Mexican seasonal worker from returning to Canada because of suspected union sympathies. This is after the Mexican government had attempted to prevent former employees from voluntarily testifying, claiming sovereign immunity.

The rights of workers are a fundamental foundation of Canadian society, including their rights to freely associate and to join unions if they desire. The news that a foreign government is attempting to remotely restrict those rights by blacklisting workers is disturbing, to say the least, and cannot be allowed to continue.

What actions is the current government taking to ensure that workers contributing to our economy are guaranteed human rights when they come to Canada and that temporary foreign workers receive the same rights as all workers in British Columbia?

Hon. C. Clark: Everyone who comes to work in Canada is entitled to the rights that are afforded to Canadians. We believe very passionately in supporting human rights in all cases across our province. I'd remind the member we certainly, I think in the last few months, have shown our willingness to work with trade unions, public sector unions, finding settlements — respectful, fair settlements — spending time meeting with them, learning about their issues and finding ways that we can come together. We know that we can only grow our economy if we decide we want to do that together.

Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition on a supplemental.

A. Dix: Hon. Speaker, what we're talking about here…. Over ten years we've seen a 141 percent increase in the number of temporary foreign workers in British
[ Page 2433 ]
Columbia and in the most recent period of time when British Columbians are leaving British Columbia for other provinces. We're talking about people whose rights are routinely disrespected.

What I'm asking the Premier, given in this case that we're talking about the blacklisting of people who are asking for their basic employment rights…. That's what we're talking about. Will the Premier, given the decision and the ruling of B.C. Labour Relations Board, take action to ensure that workers in that situation get the same rights as every other worker in British Columbia?

Hon. C. Clark: Certainly, every worker in British Columbia is protected by the same rules and has the same rights, as they should. Canada was built by people who came from all over the world. Nobody called them temporary. They came here; they built our country — immigrants from every corner of the globe.

[1415]

Those immigrants, some of whom I saw members opposite welcoming today in this chamber, built our country and continue to build our country. Some of them, after they start joining with us in building our country, decide to stay, and we hope they do.

When it comes to growing our economy, here is our policy. As we grow this economy, as we see the benefits of liquefied natural gas and the 100,000 new jobs that will come to British Columbia, we want to make sure that every British Columbian has the first crack at those jobs; and then second, to look across the country and invite Canadians, wherever they come from, to come to British Columbia to work. Then in peak periods, when we have trouble meeting those demands, we will certainly be looking across the border and overseas.

But our policy is this: we believe British Columbians should be first in line for those jobs. That's how you build a country.

Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition on a supplemental.

A. Dix: Well, rights have to exist in reality, not just in law. Here in British Columbia the majority of immigrants — the only province in Canada where this is the case, and it's directly because of the policies of this government — are temporary foreign workers not allowed to stay and not permanent residents.

I don't know what planet the Premier is living on, when she responds to a question about a person in British Columbia who has been denied fundamental human rights, with that fatuous answer.

We're talking about something basic here, and we're asking whether the government of British Columbia will stand up for people who come to British Columbia and expect to see their rights protected.

Will they stand up? Will she take action? Will she join with me, for example, in sending a joint letter to the Mexican consulate saying that this practice is completely unacceptable to her?

Hon. C. Clark: We absolutely on this side of the House believe that every worker in British Columbia has the right to be protected. Every worker in British Columbia deserves to know that the law is there to protect them.

We believe in that. We stand for that, and those rules exist across the board to protect people no matter where they come from. This country was built by immigrants. The people who come here from overseas to find jobs and often start as temporary foreign workers are people who we all hope will stay and continue to build this country.

We hope that this will be a place that welcomes them, that protects them and that ensures that their rights are defended. We believe in those things, we stand for those things, and as we continue to grow our economy, we are going to need every single helping hand from across this country and across this province to make sure we can grow it.

N. Simons: That's a hard act to follow, I have to say. I'm a little bit surprised that the Premier — whatever planet she's on — doesn't know the rules of British Columbia.

We're talking about a temporary foreign worker program for seasonal agricultural workers. A Mexican worker was blacklisted because he was involved in union activity.

The question to the Premier is: has she spoken to our federal counterparts to say that this isn't acceptable on the part of British Columbians? Is she going to do that? Is she going to tell us when she's going to do that?

Hon. C. Clark: I'm sure it was obvious to everyone who was listening, so I probably don't need to say it, but I will. That wasn't actually the question.

Nonetheless, I will repeat my commitment to what I said a little bit earlier but add this, though, too. Temporary foreign workers are people that deserve the attention of policy-makers all across governments in this country.

I have sat down recently, as the members may know, with Jim Sinclair, who's the leader of the B.C. Federation of Labour, and spoken to him specifically about what we can do together in ensuring that the rights of temporary foreign workers are respected, including building a list, as they have done in other provinces, of temporary foreign workers that are residing in British Columbia.

[1420]

It's worked and is working in other places in helping governments ensure that we are able to work to defend and protect those rights of those workers who are welcomed into Canada under what is ultimately a federal program. We have responsibilities to fulfil. We intend to fulfil them. We want to ensure that every worker in our province, whether they are temporary or whether
[ Page 2434 ]
they are permanent, has their rights respected as they should be.

Madame Speaker: Powell River–Sunshine Coast on a supplemental.

N. Simons: The Labour Relations Board found that Mexican officials in Mexico told a worker that his visa had been denied by Canada when, in fact, a valid visa existed. It also found that the worker had all his documentation and, in fact, had a job. He was denied because it was noted on internal consulate records that he was involved in union activities.

Now, I can't imagine that the Premier believes this is correct or appropriate, and I wonder why the Premier doesn't say that she's going to do something about it. This, in fact, has a huge impact on British Columbia's economy.

Does the Premier know how many other workers have been turned down due to similar practices in other countries?

Hon. C. Clark: Certainly, if the member has information that he would like me to act on, I'd ask him to make sure he gives it to me, and I will certainly endeavour to make sure that we take whatever action is necessary. We certainly do want to make sure that we protect the rights of workers — union, non-union, permanent and temporary — across the province.

Of course, that's why I had a discussion about this very recently with Jim Sinclair from the B.C. Federation of Labour and a number of other labour leaders. I do meet with labour leaders quite regularly. In fact, I've met with some of them today here at this Legislature to talk about the issues that are facing people who are working in our province and who are building our economy — the people who put their shoulders to the wheel every single day and create wealth in every single corner of this great province.

EARTHQUAKE PREPAREDNESS

K. Corrigan: One of the key responsibilities of the provincial government is to help British Columbians respond to and recover from major natural disaster. That requires the provincial government to first be prepared for such emergencies.

However, the latest Auditor General's report makes it clear that the Liberals have been negligent in their responsibility to ensure their emergency management program is ready to deal with a major catastrophic earthquake. It's also clear from the report that earthquake preparedness has essentially been treated as a side-of-the-desk exercise, even though "the majority of B.C.'s population lives in a highly active earthquake zone."

Can the minister for public safety please explain why this administration has utterly failed in its responsibility to prepare British Columbia for a major catastrophic earthquake?

Hon. S. Anton: I'd like to thank the Auditor General for his report because this is a matter of vital importance to us in British Columbia. We do live in an area where there could be a catastrophic earthquake.

A tough report is a great opportunity. This is an opportunity for us to fill in some of the gaps that were identified by the Auditor General in his reporting.

It's 50 years since the Alaska earthquake — 50 years tomorrow. There are many people in British Columbia who still remember how terrible that earthquake was and who remember the tremendous response along British Columbia's coastline.

We have to be sure that we are ready for the next big earthquake. That is why we are accepting all nine of the Auditor General's recommendations. That is why we have two immediate actions right now. One is to have a broader consultation around British Columbia. We've hired Mr. Renteria to do that — to go around communities in British Columbia, assess their readiness. That is why we are going to develop a long-term plan in government to identify the gaps and to talk about the issues that the Auditor General identified in his report.

[1425]

Madame Speaker: Recognizing Burnaby–Deer Lake on a supplemental.

K. Corrigan: This government has had an opportunity for 12 years to prepare for a major earthquake and has known for the whole of its mandate that we have problems. The Auditor General finds that B.C. is not "prepared to manage the effects of a catastrophic earthquake" and that the provincial government needs to provide adequate resources towards earthquake preparedness.

This was made apparent in real terms two years ago when Haida Gwaii was hit by an earthquake. In its aftermath, Emergency Management B.C. identified major shortcomings, including insufficient personnel with the experience, knowledge and training to effectively respond to an earthquake and tsunami event. The Auditor said that Emergency Management B.C. does not have the necessary capacity to address identified critical gaps and that the Liberals essentially have deflected responsibility to local government.

The gaps became obvious after the Haida Gwaii earthquake. Why has the Liberal government failed to close those gaps over the past two years?

Hon. S. Anton: Emergency Management B.C., of course, is the agency in government which deals with emergencies. It, in fact, deals with 6,000 emergencies a year. Many people in British Columbia who have experienced a fire or a flood will have seen Emergency
[ Page 2435 ]
Management B.C. in action. They do a fantastic job.

Every time they go out to an emergency, they learn from that. They develop their plans, and they do their work. We actually do have many plans in British Columbia which are current. We have a B.C. earthquake plan. We have a tsunami notification process plan. We have Provincial Emergency Coordination Centre operational guidelines. We have the B.C. Seismic Safety Council. We have many, many agencies in British Columbia which are working extremely hard on this kind of coordinated effort that the Auditor General is looking for.

What we don't have and what the Auditor General is asking for and which I am committed to deliver — we are committed to deliver, in government — is the big picture plan, the big piece that puts all the pieces together, that identifies exactly what we are doing, where the gaps are. We're committed to delivering that, and we will be delivering that.

SEISMIC UPGRADES FOR SCHOOLS

R. Fleming: This government promised in 2005 that it would complete seismic upgrades at all schools in British Columbia at risk of significant damage in an earthquake by 2020 or sooner. Almost ten years later government's own report shows that less than half of seismically unsafe B.C. schools have been upgraded. As of last month upgrades of 177 schools have not been done; 104 have not even been approved to proceed. In Vancouver alone, 50 schools are at high risk of collapse during an earthquake.

I would ask the minister responsible for public safety: following this audit, when will the B.C. Liberal government show that the seismic upgrading of schools can be completed by 2020 or sooner, and will she release a credible plan that demonstrates to parents and those in the education sector that this will be done?

Hon. P. Fassbender: Absolutely, this government is committed to the safety of students throughout this province. We have dedicated $2.2 billion to make sure that we upgrade schools throughout the province. In the city of Vancouver we have already identified those schools and are working with the school district in the city of Vancouver for them to bring their priorities.

We've done a lot of work on schools already, and we're going to continue to work with them, as we do with every school district, to make sure we meet our goals of keeping students safe throughout the province.

Madame Speaker: Recognizing Victoria–Swan Lake on a supplemental.

R. Fleming: Here's what the chair of the Vancouver school board said about buildings where children in this province spend their days.

[1430]

The chair of the Vancouver school board said: "Some of these buildings are made of the worst kind of material in construction that you can have in the event of an earthquake. They're very brittle, heavy, old buildings."

Seismic experts and school leaders know what the problem is. They know how to fix it. We need to get on with it. Again, I would ask the minister for public safety…. It's your job to preserve public safety in this province. Will your government finally give the assurances backed up by a plan to show British Columbians that you have a plan to seismically upgrade schools by 2020 or sooner?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I believe that the member opposite is repeating some comments made by the chair of the Vancouver school board. But here are the facts. Right now in the city of Vancouver we've identified 89 schools. We have a plan. We're working with them. Their responsibility is to develop a project office that will identify the priorities in working with us.

We have an award-winning seismic program that is recognized right across the country. We're working with professional organizations. The engineers and we are developing a program that is meeting the needs as identified by the Vancouver school district. They need to help us put that project office together so that we can ensure that the priorities are met and that the moneys that we are investing and have already invested are used to their best ability.

EARTHQUAKE PREPAREDNESS

S. Fraser: This Friday marks the 50th anniversary of the Port Alberni tsunami. This anniversary in the same week as the Auditor General's stark report, grim report, is a great reminder of how inactive this government has been when it comes to emergency preparedness and just how at risk my constituents in Alberni–Pacific Rim are because of that inaction.

We were lucky that not a single life was lost in the tsunami 50 years ago, but we may not be so lucky the next time. The Auditor General's scathing report is clear. Can the minister responsible for public safety explain this government's public safety negligence in preparing for the next earthquake's devastating effect or a tsunami?

Hon. S. Anton: Indeed, 50 years ago there was the great Alaskan earthquake. It was not miraculous, but it was extremely fortunate that nobody died. The reason nobody died is because the communities themselves sprang into action. There was individual resilience and individual enterprise that went and knocked at doors and made sure that people were notified and got out of their homes safely. There was property damage, but there were no deaths.

It is that individual resilience and that individual preparedness, along with the things that communities do
[ Page 2436 ]
and along with the things the provinces do, which is needed for all of us in British Columbia. Indeed, the province has some gaps to fill. But one of the gaps we need to fill is to make sure that communities are working hard, which they are, and to make sure that individuals are prepared.

Does everybody in this room have water in their garage? Did they change it on the spring equinox? Do we all have food in our storage? The first responder is your neighbour. Every individual in British Columbia needs to be ready for two or three days, four days. If there is a catastrophic earthquake, it may be awhile before help actually comes. That's what the province's job is, and that's the piece we're working very hard on right now.

ST. PAUL'S HOSPITAL REDEVELOPMENT
AND SEISMIC SAFETY

G. Heyman: This government has been promising to make needed infrastructure improvements at St. Paul's Hospital since 2002. That's 12 years of promises made and 12 years of promises broken.

[1435]

When an earthquake happens, two-thirds of the hospital is at high or extreme risk of failure. The central building will almost certainly collapse into the emergency department, which will be needed in that event.

Can the minister responsible for public safety tell us when exactly her government will face up to the inevitability of an earthquake in British Columbia and take the action promised to protect workers and patients at St. Paul's?

Hon. T. Lake: St. Paul's Hospital. I was there last week, and I just want to commend the men and women who work in that hospital and do such a fantastic job, as we open the acute behavioural stabilization unit. That hospital has looked after British Columbians for many, many years, as we all know. It is in the stages of design. The business case is being reviewed. We will replace St. Paul's Hospital, unlike the NDP who were in power, who chose not to upgrade Van Tech Secondary but, rather, upgraded to seismically protect a liquor distribution warehouse.

We have priorities on this side of the House. St. Paul's is one of those priorities, and we will make sure that it is replaced and it is held safe for the men and women who work every day in that hospital.

HIRING OF JOHN LES FOR EARTHQUAKE
PREPAREDNESS POSITION AND
RELEASE OF AUDITOR GENERAL REPORT

S. Simpson: When the Attorney General broke the government's own procurement policies and appointed John Les to his $140,000 patronage job without following government hiring processes, she made the excuse that it was done under emergency provisions. The minister's official statement said B.C.'s procurement policy allows for direct awards "when there is an urgent need, particularly in the case of an emergency." A member of the press gallery, on a tweet, asserted that this was a preposterous response, and I agree with the member of the press gallery.

Will the Attorney General admit that the only emergency was a looming political problem for the B.C. Liberals, knowing the Auditor General's report on earthquake preparedness was coming?

Hon. S. Anton: Indeed, when we announced the public consultation to go around British Columbia to consult with communities and consult with individuals…. At the time of that announcement, it was made in acknowledgment that the Auditor General's report was coming. So yes indeed, we did. We have put that consultation in place, knowing that it was needed. It is needed because it is an urgent matter. It is urgently required by the Auditor General. It's urgently required by citizens of British Columbia.

We need to be ready in the case of a catastrophic earthquake. That's why we have committed to implementing the Auditor General's recommendations. That's why we are doing the consultation around British Columbia. And that's why we will be taking further actions over the next few months and years as we develop our longer-term planning.

MULTI-MATERIAL B.C.
RECYCLING PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION

L. Popham: My question is to the Premier over concerns about the Multi-Material B.C. system that's going to be implemented in less than eight weeks. Businesses across B.C. are very concerned because they don't know how the new rules will affect them. The ones that do understand, like newspapers, landscape nurseries and recycling businesses, just to name a few, say the impact will be severe. As well, municipalities say that they've been pressured into signing contracts with inadequate compensation for their costs. The Premier is chucking B.C.'s recycling system into a giant dumpster by completely botching the implementation.

British Columbia deserves to get our recycling right. Will the Premier stop the implementation of MMBC until businesses, environmental organizations and municipalities have been properly consulted?

[1440]

Hon. N. Yamamoto: It's a little surprising to hear the member opposite oppose a program that essentially transfers the recycling costs from taxpayers to the actual people, the producers, who produce the packaging and the printed paper in the first place. Now, if the member opposite is opposed to that principle, then she should
[ Page 2437 ]
say so right now.

How many of us have come home after purchasing a relatively small item, struggled to unpackage the item and then found ourselves with a mountain of waste material that we have no control over? This program actually provides an incentive to producers to reduce their packaging.

We heard some concerns from the small business community. We asked MMBC to work with the small business community and the B.C. Chamber of Commerce to actually create a small business policy. That's been done. A new policy has been created, and more than 99 percent of all small businesses will be exempt from recycling costs and reporting of this program.

[End of question period.]

Standing Order 81

BILL 25 TO PROCEED THROUGH
TWO OR MORE STAGES IN ONE DAY

Hon. M. de Jong: Yesterday, members will recall, I brought an application before the House with respect to Standing Order 81. I rise with respect to Standing Order 81 again.

The Chair entertained submissions from myself and the hon. Opposition House Leader. I indicated then, at the conclusion of my submissions, that I would alert you and the House to any changed circumstances that might negate the need for a ruling.

I can advise…. In fact, I request that the Chair, if you saw fit, would delay issuing that ruling until 4 p.m. today.

B. Ralston: Given the representations of the Government House Leader, we're prepared to agree to his proposal.

Madame Speaker: Thank you both very much.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, Committee of Supply, for the information of members, are the estimates of the Minister of Aboriginal Relations.

In calling Bill 14, I might suggest a brief recess to give members an opportunity to take account of the changed call. Members opposite would not have had notice until now that we're calling second reading of Bill 14.

The House recessed from 2:43 p.m. to 2:49 p.m.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 14 — JUSTICE STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

Hon. S. Anton: I move that Bill 14, the Justice Statutes Amendment Act, 2014, now be read a second time.

Deputy Speaker: Proceed.

Hon. S. Anton: Bill 14 amends a number of statutes. First of all, the Adult Guardianship Act and Patients Property Act amendments will enable provisions of the Adult Guardianship and Planning Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, which update the statutory guardianship process to work in conjunction with the Patients Property Act.

The amendments are required to support a phased approach to implementation of the 2007 legislative reforms relating to statutory guardianship. This approach will allow adult guardianship reforms to move forward as opportunities for full implementation continue to be examined.

[1450]

The proposed amendments will also add notice requirements relating to the issuing of a certificate of incapability and will make technical amendments, such as ensuring sufficient regulation-making authority. A proposed amendment to the Public Guardian and Trustee Act will ensure that there is sufficient time for the Public Guardian and Trustee to take action to protect the financial interest of vulnerable persons in urgent circumstances.

Minor amendments are proposed to the Family Law Act to make needed corrections and clarifications. The majority of these proposed amendments address issues about the division of property between spouses but also include amendments that strengthen the protection order regime and allow for the future development of regulations, setting minimum training or practice standards for professionals who write parenting arrangement reports.

Next, the bill proposes minor amendments to sections of the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act that were consequentially changed or otherwise affected by the enactment of the Family Law Act. The changes ensure that the policies of the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act are clear and remain consistent with the Family Law Act.

Next, minor changes are also proposed to two sections of the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act that clarify the intent of the section in order to avoid unintended interpretation.

Next, proposed amendments to the Police Act further our government's response to the recommendations of the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry and specific action items in the B.C. Policing and Community Safety
[ Page 2438 ]
Plan. Specifically, the bill responds to recommendations of Commissioner Oppal that government improve police accountability of major crime investigations and investigations of missing persons as well as police accountability to the communities they serve.

The changes include new proposed authorities to allow for the establishment of additional provincewide standards for policing as well as a new process whereby government can order an audit of an inactive major case investigation by an external police department when there's reason to believe that provincially established best practices for major case investigations have not been followed.

Next, the proposed amendments to the Provincial Court Act will bring into effect the recent reorganization of the Provincial Court's judicial administrative structure and provide clarification in sections related to family matters. These amendments support a new and more efficient judicial administrative structure. The amendments reflect the chief judge's reduction in the number of judicial regions from 12 to five and shift from administrative judges to regional administrative judges.

These amendments also clarify a judge's discretion to exclude a child or a party from a proceeding and make changes to permit, rather than require, each municipality to have a family court committee.

Next, the Wills, Estates and Succession Act amendments are minor and housekeeping in nature. Since the act came into force, other legislation has been amended or enacted requiring cross-references and language to be updated. The ministry is also being responsive to stakeholders in the legal profession and is modifying language to clarify the intent of some provisions.

Finally, an amendment to the Provincial Symbols and Honours Act will provide authority for government to recognize and honour the dedicated service of senior-ranking members of the municipal police departments by conferring commissions on those who meet the required criteria and qualifications.

I now welcome comments from other members of the House.

L. Krog: It's always a pleasure to stand up and speak to the miscellaneous bills. I firstly want to express my gratitude to the hon. Attorney General and her staff who provided a briefing. As I mentioned the other day when speaking to another bill, there are generally three reasons that I believe — we in the opposition believe, at any rate — the government provides briefings. Firstly, out of courtesy. Secondly, because the bill is so technical in nature that it requires some explanation so the opposition doesn't waste the House's time too much. Thirdly, we suspect government is trying to put one over on us.

In this case, items 1 and 2 most clearly apply. I am grateful for the opportunity that both my colleague and myself, who share the critic role for this particular ministry, had with minister's staff to review the number of changes.

From the public outside, this may not appear to be terribly exciting. It probably doesn't draw as much interest from the news media as the debate did yesterday around Bill 25. But the reality is that all of the changes that are made here actually have a real impact — although not significant, because the changes are relatively minor — on the lives of British Columbians.

[1455]

In an aging population, the Adult Guardianship Act and Patients Property Act are extremely important because we are working on what has to be one of the longest-going legal and political projects in British Columbia's history, which is to bring about the implementation of the Adult Guardianship and Planning Statutes Amendment Act, etc.

When I was here, back in what I know my friends on the opposite side of the House like to refer as the dismal decade…. I like to think of it as the great decade of the last century, when peace and good order and good government were in power in British Columbia, and I see my friend from Fernie nodding sagely, of course. I remember, I think it was, Colin Gabelmann, who was Attorney General, trying to commence bringing all the parties together and dealing with the complex issues surrounding adult guardianship representation or what we now know as representation agreements, etc. — a very complex and difficult matter.

A number of these amendments are highly technical in nature. What they're trying to do…. I think I can safely say to the minister now — I know she's just waiting with bated breath for me to say this — that we're going to support the bill. What these amendments essentially do is have the effect of clarifying process, making it easier for that process to continue.

But in fairness, it is also an acceptance that things haven't gone smoothly for the government, because this has come back to the House again for amendment, all trying to put in place a process by which those amongst us who face some disability or change in our circumstance or our abilities will have our affairs, both personal and monetary, governed.

In an aging population, which British Columbia most certainly has, in many respects — as I think many of the members know, Qualicum Beach itself is now, demographically speaking, the oldest community in Canada — these issues are important. These issues, in fact, are ones that lawyers, particularly with applications of the existing Patients Property Act, have to deal with on a quite regular basis. There is a great deal of case law developed around it.

These represent matters that, as I say, may not appear to be as exciting as yesterday's debate but most certainly are important to average British Columbians, because the possibility that we will, as individuals, face a period of incapability increases consistent with the nature of the
[ Page 2439 ]
demographic of the population. We have welcomed and encouraged people to retire to British Columbia. We are living longer, statistics confirm. Advertisements, health care organizations, health care providers remind us constantly to look out for our own health because we are going to live that much longer.

What those studies' experts tell us with some depressing frequency is that we may spend a number of the years, the declining years — the years that some jokingly refer to as waiting in God's waiting room — in a degree of health that no one wishes to suffer, where we're either incapable in a physical sense or in a mental sense or in both, in many cases. Perhaps a clear mind trapped in a decaying body, perhaps a decaying body with a clear mind trapped in it — all sorts of possible combinations.

It's important that the Legislature get this right. It's important that we have a statute in place to take care of these situations that is both effective and understandable and provides the kinds of guarantees and security to people that they will not lose control of their affairs, unless it is appropriate, and that if they do lose control of their affairs or control of their health care or whatever the case may be, it will be in circumstances where there is a system in place to guarantee their security, their safety and that respects their rights.

[1500]

These amendments are, I would argue, not exciting but important. The bill also quite specifically deals with what has become an issue of increasing concern and a concern that I've had expressed from many constituents over the last few years in particular — not so much in the '90s, but certainly now. Notice will be required to be given and an opportunity to respond with respect to the issuing of certificates of incapability by the Public Guardian and Trustee.

What that means is that opposed to suddenly discovering that Uncle George is no longer in his house or has control of his bank accounts, there will be a requirement that notice be given with respect to spouses, obviously — that's pretty straightforward — but also near relatives.

The reality is that not everybody has a spouse, and not everybody has children. For those of us who have parented teenagers, sometimes I'm sure we all wish we never had children. But that does pass, and then we get to the wonderful stage where grandchildren arrive. Like the former member for Chilliwack, you can spend hours in this chamber announcing the arrival of another one, with the same regularity that the weather changes.

It's important that families have an opportunity to get notice of the process because their attitude, their knowledge, their particular viewpoint, if you will, their advice, their assistance and their support are all things that need to be considered when something as dramatic as the issuance of a certificate of incapability is granted.

With great respect to the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee, who do their best, if you have got some family support and family who care about you, I think many of us would agree that that is the best form of support possible. The fact that these changes ensure that there is that kind of consultation occurring — that is a very positive step.

With respect to the changes around the Family Law Act, as listeners may or may not know — because, hopefully, they are still involved in happy relationships — this province proclaimed last year the new Family Law Act, which is a significant change to the law relating to property division, support, parenting and all matters related.

Significant changes that have a significant legal impact. In other words, I come back to my point about these changes on the face of it not appearing to be exciting and not drawing much public interest or comment. But in fact, the Family Law Act was a major change.

What these amendments do…. I suspect that I have to do my job as critic. I suspect what it means is: we didn't get it right the first time. But this won't be the first government or the first Legislative Assembly that didn't get it right the first time and has to come back and correct it.

But I must say: we're coming back fairly quickly. As the House well knows, this legislation was passed back in 2011. We took two years — intensive public education and programs — to enable the legal community to get up to speed before it was actually proclaimed.

Now, not quite a year after proclamation, we're looking at making a number of amendments that run for several pages of this bill. Literally, sections 10 all the way through 28, making a number of what I think are relatively speaking smaller changes in order to refine the legislation and define more clearly exactly what the existing and proclaimed act means to those who resort to it or, alternatively, the legal practitioners who are going to do their best working with it in our court system.

Finally, with respect to the amendments to the Provincial Court Act, those changes reflect, I believe, a growing sense in the provincial judiciary that they have to improve their administrative efficiency.

[1505]

It sees a reduction — taking into account that we're reducing to five judicial administrative regions from 12, which I suspect most British Columbians would probably see as a positive thing. I hope and trust that over time that will, in fact, prove to be the case. Although, I believe that someone once said the road to hell was paved with good intentions. But I suspect and would hope that, in fact, it will make things more efficient.

Finally, with respect to the Police Act, I am going to defer to the wisdom of my friend from Burnaby, who will make significant comment on that. Again, a significant series of amendments having to deal with issues arising out of the Oppal Commission.

The Missing Women Commission of Inquiry represents, I think, for most British Columbians, one of the most awful indictments of a society and of attitudes in
[ Page 2440 ]
society and amongst police forces and others involved in our justice system and of our government and politicians in general, who for so long so overlooked and ignored information and evidence and failed to coordinate efforts in such a way that ultimately allowed a notorious serial killer to carry on heinous activities that I don't think most British Columbians even feel comfortable thinking about let alone verbalizing. It also reflected an attitude from the darkest times of colonialism in this province.

A number of recommendations were made, and these changes to the Police Act are a step forward. I suspect the member from Burnaby is going to have something more to say about that, because it's not going to go far enough. That is always a disappointment — when we don't see prompt action on this.

Wally Oppal was not just a former judge of our superior trial court and the Court of Appeal. He was also a former Attorney General and understood the politics of this as well. I would hope that it would represent a greater priority for government.

Finally, the proposed amendments to the Wills, Estates and Succession Act are largely housekeeping in nature. Again, I think it's another time when the government has to admit that "oops, we didn't quite get it right the first time."

That act was passed so very long ago that the present Government House Leader was the Attorney General at the time. As I recall, Mr. Barisoff was Speaker, and we spent numerous hours in very diligent work in committee stage of that bill. Then it mouldered, so to speak, for quite some considerable period of time before it was actually in a position to be proclaimed.

Of course, April 1 you'll now have a great number of lawyers in the province, I can assure you, rushing to court registries all around the province, attempting to file their applications for what we still refer to as grants of letters probate or letters of administration, as the case may be, or whatever.

Again, this is a significant change to the law. What these changes represent are, in effect, correcting cross-references, ensuring that the legislation contains up-to-date references. It also clarifies the role and responsibilities of the Public Guardian and Trustee.

This is kind of like your opportunity when you're a student to get a preliminary mark on your essay. It gets handed back. You didn't do very well, so we're going to give you that opportunity to fix it up. That's really what we're doing with the bill overall. The government is getting an opportunity to make some corrections, to clarify, to do what is appropriate to ensure that the legislation is, in fact, effective.

Subject to the kind of criticisms that one expects from the opposition and what we're going to hear from my friend, I can again assure the Attorney General that the act will generally receive our support but our scrutiny.

[1510]

I do look forward, of course, to committee stage, because there are a number of sections that are so definitely technical that they're going to require the kind of explanation that I know the Attorney General will be able to deliver — certainly with the advice and assistance of the able staff of the ministry.

With that, hon. Speaker, I cede the floor to any other members who wish to speak.

K. Corrigan: I will be addressing the provisions that largely are related to the Police Act and have left it to my able colleague to deal with all the arcane amendments that have to do with a whole variety of areas, to do with the Adult Guardianship Act and so on, which were all very important. I left those to him — those complex changes, some of which were important and some of which were more housekeeping types of provisions.

With regard to the Solicitor General side of the act — the provisions that relate to the Solicitor General, the Police Act and that area, for which I am critic — I will make some comments. The number of changes that are related to the Police Act are fairly small, but there are a few that are very significant, and I will comment on those.

A small change, but one that will make a difference to municipal police boards, is the fact that this act increases the maximum number of people that can be appointed by the province on a municipal police board from five to seven. Up till now, there have been five appointments by the provincial government on municipal police boards, and then the mayor and a councillor can be appointed as well.

My understanding from our briefing is that this came out of…. We can certainly ask about this when we get to the clause-by-clause in committee stage. I believe it was a request from the police chiefs of British Columbia. I'm also checking with some of the local police boards to some of the cities to see how they respond to that, what their feeling is. It's not a huge change.

The only caveat that I would note is that the percentage, the proportion of representation from the local community may go down, because I don't believe there's anything in the act that requires that a provincial appointee have any particular connection with a community. Certainly, I don't believe that there is a requirement that those individuals be approved by the local community at all.

It is a small concern I have that if you are having a board of seven and you have two of those seven being the mayor and a councillor, you at least have that percentage of representation. Now that percentage of representation goes down to around a quarter — two out of nine. That is a little bit of a concern. I'll be interested in hearing from the minister, when we ask questions at the committee stage, why that was necessary and whether or not there was consideration given to possible concerns by local communities.

I know that in my community we have an RCMP detachment, so we do not have a local police board. We
[ Page 2441 ]
certainly feel in our community…. I think the mayor and council in our community feel that they have an excellent relationship with the local detachment. The senior ranks of the local detachment — the leadership has been excellent for many, many years, and it's very much a cooperative exercise. With the detachment having a fair amount of autonomy, certainly that's the case. In the goals and the aims and so on for the community, it has been very cooperative.

I hope that this move will not mean that there's less of a local reflection and less representation in terms of electoral representation. In other words, it is an appointment that is done in consultation with the director of police services, I believe, so there is not anybody voting for those individuals. They are provincial appointments.

It is a small concern that I have, but if it means that police boards run more effectively, that there's more of a spreading of work, then perhaps that is a good idea.

[1515]

I am continuing to investigate and find out the response to that, but I suspect that we will support that. That's a one-liner change, but it can have an impact on municipalities.

There are some provisions, some fairly long provisions, in this act that do address some of the recommendations that were in the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry, in Justice Oppal's report. We are always pleased to hear that there is progress being made.

We are very concerned that some of the priorities that this government has set in terms of implementation have not been ones that members of the community most closely affected have been concerned about. I think the primary one that is not represented here and that we haven't heard about yet would be a higher priority than those changes that are represented in these amendments and these additions to the Police Act. It would be to reappoint a champion.

We know that we had the champion in hon. Mr. Steven Point. He was on the job for a while. He was appointed as the champion of the implementation of the recommendations of the Missing Women Inquiry, but he has been gone since May.

I believe that the minister has said in this House that the work was done to champion, and now we're on to implementation. I think the reality is that if you do not have a person whose sole focus is to make sure that the recommendations of the Oppal Inquiry, the Missing Women Inquiry — if you don't have a champion for those recommendations — then you don't have somebody who is watching closely and making sure.

You don't have that person who is spending all of their time ensuring that they are in communication with and listening to and really understanding the desires and the priorities of those people who are affected. I think, for example, of the Missing and Murdered Women's Coalition. They are one group that has said that reappointing a champion, having a new champion, is instrumental in terms of implementing these recommendations. That is a concern.

I know another primary concern of that coalition and many others — many others in the north, particularly — would be to ensure that we have transportation along the Highway of Tears. I recall and remind this House that the government said at the time that the report on the missing women was published that government was fully behind the recommendations.

This has been a key recommendation. We in the official opposition have raised this repeatedly, and still there is no action in terms of making sure that people, particularly women, can travel safely along the Highway of Tears, which I understand could be described in some areas as positively desolate with not many people along.

Unfortunately, because the commercial transportation and the Greyhound route was cut, women continue to hitchhike along that highway. It has such an unfortunate and tragic history that this was seen as a key recommendation. Unfortunately, there has been no action whatsoever on this recommendation, so that's another that has not been acted on.

I would give the government credit for recently announcing compensation for the families, the children, of the missing and murdered women. That was a priority for the families and for the coalition. Those children having been through a death and then an inquiry and a trial, it is good to hear that that compensation has been provided.

There are many other recommendations that have not been fulfilled, but there is in this bill one of the recommendations that was made by Commissioner Oppal. That was that when a serious case involving missing persons or complex crimes or serious crimes — those major cases — has gone unsolved for a year, Justice Oppal recommended that there be an audit.

[1520]

The way he framed it, he said that the director will appoint…. It would be a mandatory audit, and the suggested requirement is that the director will appoint another police department to conduct an independent audit of the prior investigation and conduct such additional investigatory steps as it deems necessary.

Now, the government, in this bill, has changed that, has not done that. It slightly weakens Justice Oppal's recommendation in that rather than requiring the director, it gives the director the option to have a major case investigation audited. I would read from the bill itself. "The director may require an audit of a major case investigation if, after reviewing the internal review report of the major case investigation, the director considers that the entity, designated board, municipal police board or chief of the police service, as the case may be, did not ensure compliance with the director's standards referred to" in an earlier section.

At the time that the bill was first tabled, I did express
[ Page 2442 ]
some concern, and I said what I continue to believe is the appropriate way to deal with this: we'll monitor this. We'll take a look at this and see how this works. I believe that it has been said…. The minister has said that the decision about whether or not there would be an audit would be complaints-driven. I hope I'm not misrepresenting what the minister said. That was my understanding from our briefing. That concerns me a bit because we want to know…. I'm a little concerned about decisions being made on the basis of whether or not there is a squeaky wheel, and I hope that's not entirely the case.

I do understand that the reason why these audits in major cases that have gone cold are not being made mandatory is that…. Part of the mitigating reason for that is that there will be an internal review of inactive major case investigations first. The extra step is the internal review that will be done at the local level, so that does mitigate to some degree the fact that there will not be a mandatory audit of these major case investigations that have gone cold.

As I said, we will monitor. We will see how that goes, watch it closely over the next few years. But I've got to say there is another section here related to that which really concerns me.

What has happened here is if an audit is directed and it's the director of police services that makes the decision…. If there is a direction from the director of police services that an audit takes place, then that audit will be an outside audit. The responsibility for the cost of that audit in relation to a major case investigation is going to largely, in most cases, be the responsibility of the municipalities where the case has originated or where the case went cold.

So if it is in a community with a population of less than 5,000, the government will cover the cost, as the government does cover the cost of policing in small municipalities of less than 5,000. In the case of a municipality with a population of more than 5,000 people, then the municipality itself will be responsible for the costs. Then it also says that if the major case investigation was conducted by a designated policing unit, the entity on behalf of which the designated policing unit was established will be responsible. I would assume that that is going to refer to RCMP communities — like the community that I live in, Burnaby — that they would be the designated policing unit.

What this is doing is passing the costs on for these audits, for which they have no control, to municipalities or the RCMP, which also essentially will be the municipality.

[1525]

When we were briefed by the ministry about what work and what analysis had been done in terms of how much this would cost, we were told — my colleague and I — that no analysis had been done. So I said: "Well, how much would one of these audits cost?" The response again was: "We don't know. We really don't know." I said: "So $50,000 per audit. Maybe much higher, in some cases."

It really troubles me that, once again, we have a government imposing a responsibility on a local government. The provincial government decides that there's going to be an audit, saying, "We make the decision. We have no responsibility financially, but we can make the decision to impose an audit," which in some very, very complex cases might cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. It is passed on to the responsibility of the local government and could be very expensive for local governments.

If you had one or two audits in a year…. I don't imagine that would happen, but I don't know there either. We asked about whether or not there'd been analysis of how many audits there would be. I think we got an estimation that there had been…. The cases that would qualify would be, I think, somewhere in the range of 50 cases a year.

I could see that in a large municipality — like Vancouver or Surrey or Richmond or Coquitlam or Victoria or Prince George and other communities getting up there in size — you could have an audit that essentially, in a complex case, could have a very significant budget impact for that municipality — and then even more so, I guess, for a smaller municipality.

There's no reason that a smaller municipality can't have a very complex case that ends up going to audit. That could end up costing a small municipality, presumably…. There's really no knowledge of how much it could cost. So that part of it concerns me.

I'm going to say that it concerns me that when you look at the implementation of recommendations as a whole…. For example, we've dealt with the missing-persons case. Now we have a recommendation that there be audits in some cases that have gone cold, serious cases of missing persons or murder or other serious cases. It really concerns me that it seems to me that in most of these situations where the government has taken action, the actions have been ones that cost them little or no money or resources. It is municipalities and their police forces that are going to pay the price.

I hope that what government is not doing is casting its eye upon the recommendation of the Missing Women's Inquiry and choosing to implement those recommendations and prioritizing not on the basis of whether or not these are important things to do, in order to satisfy the very important recommendations that were made by Justice Oppal, but instead casting their eye and prioritizing on the basis of: "Well, we won't have to pay for this one. We won't have to pay for this one."

That is true of the two major pieces that have brought forward by this government, other than the compensation. These ones will cause major costs. The Missing Persons Act will be at the door of the local municipalities, the costs related to that, and this requirement for audits. Again, it's going to be the local municipalities.

I don't believe that there was any consultation with
[ Page 2443 ]
municipalities about that. I could be incorrect, but it is my understanding that there wasn't. I know that certainly with my local municipality, I asked if there was any understanding this was about to happen, and there was not. There was real concern, because it's an unknown budget cost.

That does not mean it's not a good idea. It is a good idea, and we thank the government for bringing this change forward for that. But it is a major weakness, and it really concerns me.

[1530]

The final thing that I wanted to talk about does also to some degree satisfy another recommendation, which was a series of recommendations around making sure that when investigations are done, they are done with sensitivity and cultural understanding, that there's a clear set of standards and protocols about how major investigations with regard to missing persons — or investigations which are complex or involve serious crimes like murder, attempted murder, sexual assault, kidnapping, armed robbery or money laundering — that there be standards….

One of the sections of the amendments in this act, section 39, will amend section 40 of the Police Act to say, essentially, that the director can set standards with respect to the things I was just talking about — in other words, "cooperation and coordination among the provincial police force, municipal police departments and designated policing units" in relation to those types of investigations that I talked about.

It also says that the director can set standards respecting the "principles, practices and strategies to be used in investigations" and set standards with regard to "the promotion of unbiased policing and law enforcement services delivery" and standards with regard to "community consultation regarding the priorities, goals and objectives for policing and law enforcement."

These changes, I think, can potentially improve investigations and the sensitivity of investigations, the protocols and, certainly, consistency of investigations with regard to serious crimes. In that regard we are certainly supportive of this section and this change.

I do want to go back to the very serious question and, finally, remind government that we need to look at all the recommendations of the Oppal Inquiry, listen very closely to the coalition and to others and families that have been most closely affected. I'll remind that the government needs to fully implement the Highway of Tears Symposium action plan in a manner that ensures involvement of all affected communities along Highway 16.

The provincial government needs to provide additional funding to aboriginal women's organizations to create programs addressing violence on reserves so that fewer women and youth are forced to escape to urban areas. And the provincial government — again, another Oppal Inquiry recommendation — provide additional funding to aboriginal women's organizations to provide more safe houses and counselling programs run for and by aboriginal women and youth.

Going back to my earlier remarks about there have been some actions, that some of the actions simply impose, while good protocols or laws, the cost will be borne by municipalities. The preponderance of costs associated with the recommendations that have been implemented so far are downloaded and won't cost this province anything.

These ones that I have just mentioned that are priorities would be provisions, would be recommendations that, if implemented, would cost the provincial government some money. The provincial government is happy to impose recommendations and implement recommendations that cost local governments money. I think it's time for the provincial government to step up and implement some of the very important recommendations that will require provincial resources as well.

Finally, there is one other part of the act that gives the province the ability to award police commissions. I did not know that there was such a thing. I've heard of commissions, I think, at the federal level. My understanding is that it's an honorary type of provision for somebody who has a great deal of respect and meets criteria and has the qualifications, which we haven't seen yet. People can be given a police officer commission, and we certainly will be supporting that.

[1535]

With that, those are the comments that I have. I'm looking forward to a chance to more deeply explore some of the questions and concerns when we go to the next stage of this bill, which will be the committee stage.

There are many, many sections, and probably my colleague from Nanaimo will ask most of the questions, because most of this bill does deal with provisions that are on the Attorney General's side. But some of them that are very important, like the provisions that deal with recommendations from the Oppal Commission, are ones that I will be exploring more deeply. I look forward to doing that — some serious questions.

With that, I will take my seat.

K. Conroy: My colleagues from Burnaby–Deer Lake and Nanaimo have spoken very eloquently about this bill. I just have to say a few words to say how delighted I am to see the amendments to the Adult Guardianship Act.

There are a number of times I've had families of seniors in my offices, calling me, expressing real concern because their loved one has suddenly come under the guardianship of the Public Guardian. Without their knowledge or without any notification, the health authority has suddenly decided that a senior is incompetent and doesn't have the capability to take care of themselves anymore, and the Public Guardian has taken over the senior's life.

This happens more often than not, so I'm really delighted to see the changes to the act — the fact now that before a health authority can designate the Public Guardian,
[ Page 2444 ]
family members have to be notified, a loved one has to be notified. I've had common-law spouses who have lost the ability to speak for their common-law spouse, because they did not know that this was happening.

This is a real win for seniors in this province. This is a win for people that have had to go through this process. I've talked to people who thought they had gone through the whole process of becoming the committee for a senior, a legal process that is really quite expensive, only to have that senior come under the Public Guardian.

It's really difficult for families, difficult for relatives. Nieces and nephews have spoken to me about it. I think this is a real win for seniors in this province. I'm delighted to see it's in here.

I have some concerns around the time frame, which I'm sure, as my colleague said, we'll drill down under the committee stage — time frames for families to get back to the health authority's designate to let them know that they do speak on behalf of their seniors, making sure that there is enough of a time frame given so that those adults will be able to have their relatives and loved ones speaking for them.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to make sure I was on record that I am really happy to see this, happy to see the changes. I know many different groups in the province have been asking for these changes, so it's really good that these changes have come into being.

Deputy Speaker: I thank the member, and seeing no further speakers, I'll call on the Attorney General to close debate.

Hon. S. Anton: I thank the members opposite for their remarks. Generally, I am glad that we did the technical briefing, as the member for Nanaimo pointed out, because a lot of these amendments are rather technical. There are some substantive items which have been identified, which we will go further into in the committee stage.

It is a grouping of a variety of statutes that all fall under Justice. They do some corrections, and they make important changes. In particular, they respond to some of the things in the Missing Women Inquiry, which are very important to respond to.

With that, I move second reading of Bill 14.

Motion approved.

[1540]

Hon. S. Anton: I move that Bill 14 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

Bill 14, Justice Statutes Amendment Act, 2014, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. B. Bennett: I move that Bill 5 be referred to the Committee of the Whole.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 5 — FORESTS, LANDS AND NATURAL
RESOURCE OPERATIONS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 5; D. Horne in the chair.

The committee met at 3:44 p.m.

On section 1.

Hon. S. Thomson: I look forward to the clause-by-clause sections on this bill. I'd just like to introduce the staff that are with me and say that, given it's a miscellaneous statutes bill covering a number of different areas, we'll be having to do some switching of staff as we move through the sections of the bill. I appreciate the patience and cooperation in making those changes when we need to.

To introduce who's with me currently: Richard Grieve, with our legislative branch; Adria Fradley, with the legislative branch; and Blair Pigeon, who is our senior tenures forester. With that, we look forward to the discussion.

[1545]

N. Macdonald: Again, thanks to the minister for the briefings. It's nice to see the staff again and thank them for the briefing as well. Since this was introduced, there have been a number of conversations during the briefing as well as in the hallway, so some of the questions, of course, will be repetitive, but it's just to make sure that they're on the record.

As I indicated in second reading, this is a miscellaneous statutes act, so a number of different acts are being changed here. What we indicated to the minister is that there are a few areas, which we have spoken to the ministry and the staff about, that we have concerns or questions on.

If we're not convinced it's the right direction to go, we'll be voting against individual sections rather than voting against the bill as a whole. Being a miscellaneous statutes amendment act, it deals with a number of areas, some supportable and some possibly supportable if the minister makes the case to us that they should be supported. So that's what we'll do as we move through.

To begin with section 1, changes to the Forest Act, the question is: what is the change that is suggested here intended to achieve?

Hon. S. Thomson: This amendment provides authority to restrict harvesting under a forest licence to a portion of a timber supply area or to a type of timber or
[ Page 2445 ]
terrain. Currently under the legislation, the ability to restrict harvesting under that licence to a portion of any area can only be used in forest licences awarded under section 14.1, which is a mountain pine beetle salvage area.

What we're looking for with this amendment is to expand the ability to restrict that harvesting to all types of forest licences going forward — for example, a non-replaceable forest licence or not just a forest licence issued for purposes of mountain pine beetle salvage.

The rationale for this, as we know, going forward, with timber supplies tightening across the province, is that we want to have the ability that we may need in areas to provide those. We're looking for opportunities we may need to ensure that we have the ability, when we're looking at providing an opportunity under any licence, to put that licence and restrict it to certain areas, certain terrain, a certain species profile.

It's just broadening the ability that we currently have beyond the mountain pine beetle salvage area to the broader timber supply area.

N. Macdonald: If I understand the minister, we're talking about species-specific designations? But it sounded like the minister was also talking about geographical areas, sort of physically delineating the areas. Is it a combination of those two? What sort of partitioning are we talking about? It sounded like it's more than simply a partition of the cut.

Hon. S. Thomson: If you look at the legislation, it includes all of those. It could be a portion of the area. It could be a type — species-specific or combination of species. It could be a type of terrain as well. The legislation provides that ability to look at that from all of those perspectives.

B. Routley: You rightly pointed out the timber type is one of the options. Other than pine and spruce and aspen, what would be some of the other tree species that may qualify under that clause?

[1550]

Hon. S. Thomson: The member opposite mentioned a number of other species, as well, so it could be, for example, hemlock stands or hemlock-balsam. You may want to direct activity into those areas where you're looking to protect another species — for example, fir or something like that. You could look at it in terms of remote areas.

We know that as you work with the economics, you may want to be able to provide those opportunities in a specific area, a remoter area. You could restrict the licence to that area. So as was pointed out in the legislation, it's really giving us the flexibility around all of those areas — within a portion of the area, within a type of timber. And that is all species or a type of terrain.

N. Macdonald: This was originally an idea introduced into the pine beetle area. Could the minister explain what, specifically, the government was trying to do when it first introduced this type of action in the pine beetle area and then explain why it now makes sense to extend that into areas where, presumably, the ministry in the past didn't think it properly applied?

Hon. S. Thomson: The original rationale, as I think the member opposite will know, in terms of being able to apply this to the mountain pine beetle salvage areas, was to direct harvest towards the mountain pine beetle–impacted areas and dead pine stands. That was the rationale for the current provisions under the legislation. What we're looking at now is to say that that principle or that rationale around directing the harvest….

We're dealing with a constrained land base. When we look through areas and people are looking for opportunities, we want to be able to have that flexibility to put that finer touch to it. We want to be able to have the flexibility to expand that kind of rationale and the original policy rationale for that original basis in the legislation to the broader area — to have that tool going forward, when we're looking at other licences, to be able to say: "Does it make sense here to direct that towards a certain region, a certain part of the area? Does it direct it to a certain species?" It provides us that additional tool in the legislation.

B. Routley: Just for greater certainty, would this also apply to, for example, a bench or a ridge on a mountainside where you could direct heli-logging and that kind of thing? Is that something that's contemplated as well?

[1555]

Hon. S. Thomson: Yes, that could be done. It could be, say, for helicopter logging in a certain type of terrain in a certain area, so down to that level. It would probably be a tool that would be utilized a little more broadly than that, but with the abilities there, you could focus it down to that narrow an area within a region.

N. Macdonald: Would the minister describe special conditions which might be put on a forest licence.

Hon. S. Thomson: Just for example, the conditions that could be placed on the licence…. I'll maybe use a couple of examples — an interior and a coastal situation.

In the interior, for example, you could put the conditions on it that said that that licence — if it was a non-replaceable licence, for example — would be in the back end of an area. That may be where it was available. Then you could also say: "Well, it's that area, but it's also going to be to a certain species." You could add that condition to it and say it's in the back end of that area but targeted at pine species, for example. Or on the coast you could say that it's a hem-bal stand in a certain area.
[ Page 2446 ]

It gives you that flexibility to add those types of conditions to the licences. The special conditions would be limited to whether you're trying to limit it to area or species or to the type of terrain that you're targeting or a combination of those.

N. Macdonald: Thanks for that answer. I understand what you're trying to do. But what sorts of circumstances would lead the government to putting those special conditions on a forest licence? Clearly, this is intended to solve a problem. So what are the problems that exist that lead to this change?

[1600]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Hon. S. Thomson: I think the member asked a couple of questions here: what are the circumstances, or what are the problems you're trying to address? I'll just use an example that I think probably would clarify where we might look at the opportunities.

As you know, where we're trying to make fibre available, we're trying to satisfy a whole variety of needs and interests. You may have an example in terms of supporting the pellet industry or pellet plants. You may want to be able to provide a licence that targets a specific type of stand — you know, a small, non-economic stand, as far as the sawlog component of it, for example. You might want to be able to provide that licence where you would be able to, say, direct it to that type of area, the type of species and that sort of thing.

It's really designed to give us an additional tool that would help us to look at those more specific conditions on some of those licences. You will be able to do it in a way that you know that you're looking at providing that opportunity for the licensee who'd be holding those licences without negatively impacting the other licensees and the other users. That would be just be an example.

That's a type of circumstance that we're trying to address, the type of problem that comes forward as we're trying to deal with the variety of needs and demands that come forward to us.

N. Macdonald: Have any First Nations raised concerns with this or the other sections in this bill that amend the Forest Act?

Hon. S. Thomson: They've not raised any concerns with this portion of the legislation. I think the members opposite may be aware — because I know they may have received a copy of it, as we did, from First Nations — of some concerns around the section on free use permits. We'll be able to address that when we get to that section, but with reference to these portions of it, no.

B. Routley: Just again for greater clarity, would this type of timber also apply to, say, cedar stands or old-growth spruce stands on the coast of British Columbia? Again, I'm thinking heli-logging or remote areas that may not be harvested otherwise. Is that also something that could be contemplated?

Hon. S. Thomson: It could be used. It's not really contemplated here in terms of this, but theoretically, it could be. There are other tools in the legislation with respect to partitioning things that can deal with that as well. It wasn't really what was contemplated in bringing this forward. It was contemplated more around a number of the examples that I've already provided. But theoretically, if that made sense and you wanted to very narrowly target an opportunity, this would provide us the opportunity to do that.

[1605]

B. Routley: Is this contemplated to apply in every situation — to a company A and a company B, for example? Or could it be company A getting a petition for a partition for some reason, like the same company applying?

I think I heard you say that this would be outside the regular AAC determination, whether it be in a TSA or TFL. Maybe you didn't say it clearly, but I just wanted to be clear. If there was a partition and, let's say, company B took over and was utilizing some material that might otherwise have been wasted and they were going to use it for pellets or other products, would this then not count against the annual allowable cut or the timber supply of company A?

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to clarify, because there are many other provisions currently in the legislation. I just want to make it clear that this provision that's being provided for here, first of all, applies only to new licences. It needs to be a licence, and those licences would be within the AAC. This is not outside the AAC.

What it simply does is that on those new licences or opportunities, if we do need the ability to direct that licence into a certain area or a certain species or a certain terrain, we would have that ability. But it would only apply to new licences going forward, and it would be within the AAC.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

On section 3.

N. Macdonald: Just coming back to a question that I asked in section 1, but the minister referred me to this section. It is: what's the minister's response to the First Nations' concerns which, I think, were raised about this section? If not, I'll ask the question again if it's a section further on. What can the minister say to the concerns that First Nations raised about this particular section?

[1610]

Hon. S. Thomson: This section introduces a new section which enables the free use permits to be issued in woodlot licences, community forest agreements and First Nation woodland licences. We currently don't have that provision.

This expands the opportunities, and it is for traditional and cultural purposes for First Nations. This gives them, particularly First Nations, broader opportunities for free use permits, because they currently would not be able to have that ability to go into community forests or any of those areas for free use for traditional and cultural purposes. This gives us the ability to do that.

I think the most important provision in this — and we've made it clear in the legislation — is that this is with the consent of the licence holder. So it doesn't give anybody, for example, an access to free use permits into a First Nations woodland licence or into a community forest or into woodlot unless the licence holder consents.

N. Macdonald: Maybe just to put it on the record, in what circumstances will the government issue these free use permits? Just so people reading this can get a sense of what exactly we're talking about with the free use permits.

Hon. S. Thomson: Under this section, free use permits can be issued to a person who requires a personal Christmas tree, a person or a school board for firewood purposes, a person for the purpose of scientific research or a person who requires timber, as I pointed out earlier, for traditional and cultural purposes.

They can also be issued to treaty First Nations outside of a treaty in accordance with their agreements. Other commercial purposes, including for purposes of mineral claims or coal licences, were not included in this provision. In terms of those First Nations woodland licences, woodlot licences and community forest agreements, that provision would not apply. So it is for the normal provisions of free use permits.

B. Routley: Well, you didn't name them, so I need to ask about them. For example, could this lead to better utilization of wood that would otherwise be burned, and could that wood be used for other than firewood? Could it be used for pellets? Could it be used for wood chips?

[1615]

Hon. S. Thomson: Free use permits, as you'll note in the legislation, are limited for volume — or cannot be issued — to up to 50 cubic metres and not for commercial purposes. The provisions for access to waste and for those other purposes are under other provisions of the legislation. They can be issued for traditional or cultural purposes outside of area-based tenures for volumes up to 200 cubic metres, and that's really the volume that's required to build a house, in a sense. So that's the traditional and cultural purposes. But given the limitations and the size, it would not apply in the circumstances that the member opposite is outlining.

N. Macdonald: Are there any liability issues that were considered in putting forward this change to basically harvest in community forests or woodlots?

Hon. S. Thomson: It's important to point out that this is a policy that we already have in place. This is not new. People couldn't go into tree farm licences with free use permits, so this just simply expands that existing ability to those area-based licences.

So the liability issues. The people who are doing that — we would expect that they would obey the rules of the road and do all of those kinds of things. We didn't specifically address liability issues in this because it is really a provision that already exists. We're just extending that ability into those additional areas. But again, to point out clearly, this case is only with the consent of the licence holder.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

N. Macdonald: Section 4. What are the circumstances that would create the need for a bonus-bid equalization payment, and when would it be imposed by government?

Hon. S. Thomson: This section, as you know, brings in a new section that requires a licence with a bonus bid to pay the government the difference between the bonus bids when a volume of timber harvest is attributed from one licence to another. We have the situations where the licensee receiving the volume is to pay a bonus bid on every cubic metre harvested. However, technically, the licence receiving the volume did not harvest the timber; they only received it. So currently government has no ability to collect the bonus bids owing on those volumes attributed to the licence holder who did not physically do the harvesting.

What these amendments will do is give us the ability to collect bonus bids under all circumstances, and it removes an obstacle that prevents the transfer of timber from one licence holder to another, which will facilitate the flow of fibre by encouraging the transfer of cut timber from one licence holder to another.

N. Macdonald: Under the new section it says the equalization payment would be needed if "a volume of timber harvested under another licence is attributed to the holder's licence." It's just that language. Can the minister simplify that language for me so that its meaning is clearer?

[1620]

Hon. S. Thomson: Sorry, my apologies. I'm wondering if I could just ask the member opposite, so that I can give the correct answer here: which specific section, which wording were you referring to specifically? Just so I make it clear here, because I was just a little unclear. I apologize.

N. Macdonald: You don't need to apologize. I hope I have it correct here. The quotation is: "a volume of timber harvested under another licence is attributed to the holder's licence…." I don't see specifically where that is, but that's in this section. I just wonder what that language means. I hope that helps the minister, if he's able to see it and clarify it for me.

Hon. S. Thomson: Maybe the best way to do this is just to look at the example. What it really is saying here is that the bonus bid would be applied to the volume of the timber harvested, so that's the amount cut. And that bonus-bid amount would be transferred to the receiving licence, to licence B.

An example would be that somebody competitively bids on a small non-replaceable forest licence and then has somebody else do the harvesting. What we're correcting here is that currently it's the ability to be able to apply that bonus-bid payment…. Right now the legislation says that it directs it at the person doing the harvesting when that person is doing the harvesting in agreement with another person who has the licence. So it's the ability to make sure that the bonus-bid requirement that was part of that bid is attributed back to the licence and that we have the ability to collect it.

Right now what this does is basically correct the situation in the legislation where we don't have that ability to apply it back to the original licence — the licence B, as we call it in this case.

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

N. Macdonald: Section 5 refers to a supplemental forest licence under section 14.2 of the act. This is sort of an interesting piece in that I couldn't find 14.2 actually in the acts that we have here in the chambers.

[1625]

Of course, I just want to thank Andrea Lee, who is the reference librarian here who explained to me that it was something that had been passed. But my understanding is that it hasn't been brought into force by regulation yet, so it didn't show up in the act. I was going to ask you why you're referring to something I couldn't find, but it was explained to me by the support that we have in the library. I guess the question is, just for the minister: would he explain the nature of the supplemental forest licences referred to here?

Hon. S. Thomson: I appreciate that the situation we have here, the supplemental forest licence, was something that was brought through in Bill 8. The reason you haven't seen this is because we haven't brought it into force yet because we have to fix the situation with the rent before we can make it an effective tool. This was something that should have been done then, but as we were working through the regulation — the limitation of it — we realized that we needed to fix this portion first.

I think, if you recall, the discussion we had on the supplemental forest licence…. It's a unique licence. It's a licence that provides harvesting rights to wood manufacturers when their traditional fibre supplies are curtailed. A supplemental forest licence holder may only harvest the timber when the licensee can demonstrate that the traditional supplies cannot meet the raw material requirement.

In a sense, I think we described it as the backstop licence. So when the traditional commercial arrangements aren't available, they have the ability to apply for that supplemental licence. But we needed the ability to apply the rent to that before we could bring it into force.

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

N. Macdonald: Section 6 is just one sentence, but it's a significant one in the sense that it changes the current language in section 128(2)(b), which gives the minister the ability to export 5,000 bone-dry units of chips and substitutes it with 200,000 bone-dry units, which is a significant change.

Section 128 is a section of part 10, as the minister knows, in the Forest Act. The title of part 10 in the Forest Act is actually "Manufacture in British Columbia." I mean, that's the title.

If you look at the sections that are subsequent to that in part 10, you see a philosophy that is laid out and a philosophy that's been there for over a hundred years.

Section 127 says that it is the law that Crown timber be manufactured in British Columbia, and section 128 lays out what was once an onerous process to export raw logs or chips.

This was clearly seen as something that was going to be the exception. So the premise was that our Crown timber should be manufactured here.

[1630]

In 2001 when this government took power, there were exports of raw logs, but it was to the extent of one million cubic metres. We are up to 6.8 million cubic metres of raw logs being exported.

In fact, very often when the government talks about the increase in exports to China, what they don't talk about is the fact that almost all of that growth is in these products which should be manufactured here, providing
[ Page 2449 ]
employment for our workers in our communities, but instead are sent in the rawest form to other jurisdictions to create jobs with.

Here we are moving from a situation where the minister has the ability to allow the export of 5,000 bone-dry units and moving it up to 200,000 bone-dry units — moving it away from the philosophy that is expressed in section 127. That philosophy is that if it is part of that resource, it is something that should go to manufacturing. It should be difficult to export.

We know that with chips…. Earlier on, in the summer, we had an exchange in question period about a ten-year deal that allowed 300,000 bone-dry units per year for ten years. I think it's the deal — the minister would know — with Fibreco. It was against the advice of the Chip Export Advisory Committee.

I guess what I would say is…. We know that we import and export chips. But we export chips in a way that clearly should be limited, and we import, surely, to meet a need that we have for chips.

When I talk to people in Quesnel and up in Prince George, we know that we are facing a looming shortage of chips. We know that that threatens pulp. We know it threatens other facilities for manufacturing as the chips that are needed become more and more difficult to get. I know this is a philosophical question.

I know, in practical terms, the restrictions that are supposed to be in place to make it difficult for chips to be exported have basically been removed. There was supposed to be the Chip Export Advisory Committee making recommendations on what was appropriate or not. We had the same thing with the Timber Export Advisory Committee. These are routinely ignored, and in many cases they're not even asked for their views on whether something should be exported or not in its rawest form.

I know we are doing that anyway, but I think this is clearly where we will have a philosophical difference with the government. We simply think that the government is going in the completely wrong direction by taking a valuable resource and basically surrendering on the idea that we could manufacture these products here in British Columbia. We have done it for 100 years. We have, surely, the ability to do it going into the future.

I understand the section. I'm sure the minister has a different view of where we're going with this, but I think philosophically we want to signal that we think the approach the government is taking on this, and with raw logs as well, is simply the wrong approach to take.

I know that we're joined in that view by many that are involved in the industry and rely on these resources for their livelihood. PPWC has been out on this, and other unions, certainly the Steelworkers, are very concerned about it.

[1635]

I guess the question would be: why the change? Why is there a need to move from 5,000 bone-dry units that the minister can simply sign-off on up to 200,000 that the minister can sign-off on, without going through a process that includes referring it to the Chip Export Advisory Committee? What's the need that this change is seeking to take care of?

Hon. S. Thomson: What's important to recognize in this section of what we're proposing here…. I know there will be the philosophical differences in the arguments, but in this case, all we are doing here is simply changing the threshold level for the decision as to whether it's a ministerial decision or it's one that has to go OIC — from 5,000 to 200,000. It does not change…. Anything above that would still be required to go through the OIC process.

Secondly, it does not mean that any of those decisions anywhere between 5,000 and 200,000 tonnes would not go through the same process that currently takes place. All of those applications would be reviewed by the Chip Export Advisory Committee — the processor, the user committee, the producer committee. Nothing changes.

The reason for the change in the threshold level is simply a matter of timeliness and streamlining in terms of the process so that in that range, those decisions could be put through the process. They would still have to meet the tests, and exemption must not be given unless under (3)(a), (b) and (c), and they would still all go through the process. All we're doing is just setting a threshold level as to whether it's an order or an OIC process. Anything larger than 200,000 would still have to go through the OIC process.

N. Macdonald: Of course, it is basically a philosophical objection that we would have. I mean, there's no question that if the restrictions that were in place…. I think if they aligned with the spirit of the language of the legislation, we would not be having the level of exports of raw chips or of law logs. Clearly, this is a direction that the government is going. Whether it's 5,000 or 200,000, the end result really hasn't changed.

It's a section that we'll vote against because we feel that it's just a continuation of where we're going, where it's becoming simpler and simpler and just more normal to simply send our rawest of materials away to be creating manufacturing jobs in other jurisdictions. I just think that we should not give up on the idea that we can make things here.

We are, in certain areas, some of the most sophisticated manufacturing operations in the world, with one of the best workforces in the world. We should be looking at value-added opportunities. I think the minister will agree that we don't really have a value-added strategy compared to many other jurisdictions.

That's where we're going to go with that. I just have a question about that volume, the 200,000. Is it 200,000 a year? Is there any restriction, or is it just a one-time
[ Page 2450 ]
200,000 and the same operator could come back with a separate application for 200,000? I'm sure it's a fairly simple answer to that, but if the minister could explain how that works.

[1640]

Hon. S. Thomson: That limitation or that threshold or provision applies to each application. It's an application-driven process. It's not limited in terms of the number of applications you could make, but each application has to come in, has to be judged against the criteria and be referred to the Chip Export Advisory Committee. In this case, it's simply a change in the threshold level around, when it's gone through the process and a decision is made, whether it's a decision that is an order or a decision that has to go through order-in-council to cabinet. That's the only change here.

I know there are philosophical arguments around whether the tests are applied and how they're applied. That's separate from…. That's a debate that we've had in here and in estimates and that I expect we will continue to have. With respect to this legislation, it simply is just a change of the threshold level, the point at which, once it's run through all the process and everything….

It's something, in fact, that has been requested by industry generally, to say: "We know the process. We know the steps it goes through. Sometimes, why does it take so long?"

There was consideration at one point to having a much higher threshold level to deal with more of the applications. On balance, we decided that there was still a threshold level above which it should have that cabinet-level decision on it, when you're looking at the larger applications. So 200,000 was chosen as a level that dealt with a good portion of the applications that come in, but we recognize there are still circumstances where there may be higher-level applications that you want to make sure go through that process.

B. Routley: Just on the technical question, for clarity. The 200,000 bone-dry units — if you were to do whole-log chipping in order to create 200,000 bone-dry units, what would be the volume of logs in metres that would have to be ground up in order to create that?

Hon. S. Thomson: Just trying to do the calculations here. I'm wondering if I could…. What I'll commit to do is take the question under notice and provide that information.

The issue is that a bone-dry tonne is 2,400 pounds at zero moisture content, so it is different by species and all those other things. It's a complicated calculation and something where we would be able to provide a range. It would be something that would be of interest, I know, to the member and something that would be of interest to me as well, so we can undertake to provide that calculation.

B. Routley: As a follow-up question, is the minister aware of the volume of logs that are actually chipped in the remaining pulp mills in British Columbia for the purposes of making units of chips?

[1645]

I'm personally aware that there have been mills that have chipped logs that would have possibly gone into a mill, so a gang log, for example. At some points in time, depending on the market, a log can be a gang log or it can be a chip log or a pulp log — determining the quality of that log.

Obviously, the concern is: is this just another way to mask rising log exports by filling up all the empty spaces on the ship with chips? And I might as well ask this question…. Well no, I'll wait. Got to keep them one at a time.

Hon. S. Thomson: I don't have the volume of logs that go into that whole log chipping program. I think the important point, again, to point out is that in the process of application, the wood residue is surplus to the requirements of processing facilities in British Columbia. So this is surplus to the requirements. It has to meet that test. It has to be surplus. This is the situation where the mills and the processing facilities don't require that.

It's based on ensuring that the value and the economics are there. Again, applications are made. It's put through the test. If those chips are needed in processing facilities and mills in British Columbia, then they're made available there.

As was pointed out, we import chips as well. I think it's important to point out that British Columbia is, in fact, the only province that has this restriction in place for chips and residue. It is something that's unique to British Columbia, making sure we have that test applied on the chips or on the residue.

B. Routley: Again, I join with my friend in the concern philosophically about rising log exports, and now this alarming increase from 5,000 bone-dry units to 200,000 bone-dry units. I am aware of at least six pulp mills that have closed in British Columbia. Obviously the more mills that are closed, the more wood there is that's surplus to the needs of British Columbians. It's not creating value-added or manufacturing jobs here in British Columbia when that occurs.

I'd be interested in the growing trend to more and more chips, because I think you indicated that the industry had said to you: "Gee, do we really have to go through this complicated process for more than 5,000 bone-dry units? Let's ramp it up to 200,000, and in fact, even more than that would be really, really nice." But you settled in on 200,000.

[1650]

Of course, as I understand it, this could be an application put in today by a company and then tomorrow and then the day after that, really. The 200,000 is a bit off in
[ Page 2451 ]
terms of sounding like there's some kind of a limit. It's not a limit for a year or a week. It's as you put it on an application.

My question is: what is the growing need? What need are you trying to fill as Minister of Forests? What's in the public good for British Columbians? How are you trying to meet that need, and where are these chips going?

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to confirm, the member opposite talks about an alarming increase. I just want to be clear. This is no change in terms of the current policy, in terms of the number of applications that may be expected, the process around how applications are judged. The only change here is the threshold level at which a decision, after being through the process and the advisory processes with the Chip Export Advisory Committee — both the producers and the processors…. It's whether the decision is a ministerial order or a decision that is taken all the way through the process with order-in-council. There's no other change in policy or approach here.

What the industry has said, in terms of having been through that process and having had the recommendations, is that they would like timely decisions made. As the member opposite will know, in terms of a timely decision process, to take it all the way through that process with order-in-council and, ultimately, to cabinet and all those things takes time. What they're looking for here is a process where those more timely decisions are made so that they can react to markets and to contracts.

I think it's important to point out that the ten-year average annual export of residual wood chips is 370,000 bone-dry units. Two-thirds of that volume goes to Japan. One-third goes to the U.S. and Alberta pulp mills. This is less than 5 percent of the B.C. chip supply.

Section 6 approved on division.

On section 7.

N. Macdonald: Section 7, then, is the Land Title Act. This is, again, an interesting one. The minister will be aware of the concerns that have been raised. Of course, we've had discussions in the hallway and in different places, so I understand that the minister's view is that the concerns that are raised about this section are concerns that are simply arising from a misunderstanding. I'll give an opportunity for the minister to explain that.

Before I do that, I'll just put on the record the concerns that were raised with my colleague and me. I think we agree this is a fairly obscure — I think your staff described it as obscure — change to the Land Title Act.

[1655]

I'll just write some of the feedback that has been directed to us on this change. They refer to a dispute that is in the Merritt area with the Douglas Lake Cattle Company.

You have there the Nicola Valley Fish and Game Club, I think the name of the group is, and individuals from that club. Essentially, there is an ongoing dispute where, on roads that lead to public bodies of water, the Minnie and Stoney lakes, Douglas Lake Ranch has started to lock gates and has instead decided to use those lakes as private lakes with a private lodge. The lodge charges, according to club members, $349 a night, and then, for an additional $195, you can get a fishing guide.

The view of people in that area, as expressed in the letters we have received, is that people are being excluded from what is a public body of water. And there is a court case going on around that.

How it relates to this section…. The assertion is that this section took a body of water that was private land and then, with modifications, it became public under common law. Now this section gives the cabinet the ability to again make it private, and therefore — according to the concerns that are expressed in the letters we've received — restrict people from going to lakes that they feel should be public and having areas that they've fished in for a long, long time.

Added to this, of course, is a sense that this is a David versus Goliath story, since Douglas Ranch is owned by an American billionaire. More than just a billionaire — connected to one of the wealthiest families in the world.

That's the issue that I brought first to staff, as the things that we were hearing, and also to the minister. I'm sure the minister is prepared to explain the genesis of this particular piece of legislation.

Like I say, the concern that was expressed to us is that this is a very connected, powerful family that wants to keep local fishermen and people who want to fish out of a lake that they've fished in for a long time. That's what the minister is, hopefully, going to be able to explain — what the genesis of the legislation actually is, if that's not the case.

I guess if the minister could please fully explain what this section accomplishes and where did the change originate, because it is obscure. If it's not intended to deal with the issue that I've outlined, then it would be helpful if the minister could use real examples of the problem that this change is supposed to solve.

[1700]

Hon. S. Thomson: What the provisions put forward here are intended to address…. Currently as it stands, any private land that is submerged under water that is adjacent to Crown land is deemed Crown property when that land is subdivided. So if a subdivision application comes forward and there is a subdivision process, any private land submerged under that water and adjacent to Crown land is deemed Crown property when the subdivision takes place. There is a process currently for an exemption from that.

The situation we're addressing here is historical, where
[ Page 2452 ]
prior to 1965 the reversion of those lands that were submerged was automatic. In many cases landowners at that time did not know that that private land had reverted so had carried on continuing as though they had ownership of that property.

This was not a piece of legislation that was brought forward designed to address the situation at Douglas Lake, and in fact, it doesn't apply because there isn't a subdivision in that case.

This came forward as we're moving forward with looking at land issues, particularly on the coast, in looking at opportunities for moving forward with LNG projects and things where there is, historically, land which was held privately with private land adjacent to that where the ownership continued on by the private owners as though they owned that land. They had not realized that it had reverted.

What we're doing here is putting in place a process to be able to apply for an exemption from that automatic reversion of that private land. It's an application process, and it provides for that exemption for lands pre that time frame that reverted back to the Crown when those landowners did not realize, because it was automatic, and it wasn't registered on title.

I understand the concerns and the issues around the Douglas Lake situation and everything with that, but those are completely separate and independent from this legislation and, in fact, do not apply in that case.

N. Macdonald: We'll later just examine exactly what the circumstances are around the LNG or natural gas situation the minister is describing. But just to go through for the people that would be concerned about the Douglas Ranch situation, is the minister saying…? Just so that I understand.

[1705]

My understanding was that with Minnie and Stoney lakes…. These are lakes that were established from streams that were dammed and that flooded — what now would be described as a lake. Under common law, if a body of water becomes permanent, then under the water becomes Crown land. That was my understanding, but that's not what the minister described. The minister described a different process.

I think that's the understanding of the people who have written to raise concerns. The minister has already, I think, said that this could not be applied to the bodies of water here, but maybe let's just be a bit more categorical and make sure it's really specific in terms of what the minister is saying.

Does this give the cabinet the authority to retroactively make a body of water private property again, such as was described with, in particular, Minnie and Stoney lakes? Can it be used in any way to be applied to the situation that I've described for you? Is it incorrect, as the letter has said, that without this amendment lakes such as Minnie and Stoney would be deemed Crown land and public but, with this legislation, could be turned into private lakes?

I think the minister has already said privately and is going to say again publicly that that's categorically not what this does, but let's just make sure that we're absolutely clear on the record with that, and then we'll move into an examination of where this is actually intended to apply.

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, just to confirm and then to say clearly that this amendment and this section do not apply to that situation. That's a different body of law, and the legal issues around that process are being contested or going through that process…. In the case there — we've checked thoroughly — there is no subdivision.

What this section applies to is when there was a subdivision of private land, submerged private land, adjacent to private land that then reverted to the Crown. That was an automatic provision.

Where there is, for example, uncertainty over ownership…. We're not aware of many situations in this case, but we are aware of one that gave rise to the need for the legislation. It's also clear that this process would have to be a process of application and cabinet decision in order to provide the exemption.

[1710]

Currently when it happens and there is a subdivision, it automatically reverts, but there is an existing process for an exemption to be provided. Previously, historically, that process of exemption didn't apply. It was an automatic reversion.

N. Macdonald: I guess here again is where it's useful to do the work. With the ministry giving staff to us and with the discussion, I think we were able to outline to his staff what we've been hearing so that the minister had a chance to look into it. I think the minister has been categorical about that part of it — Merritt — but of course I'm curious about the specific property now which this legislation is intended to deal with.

I mean, we are, again, talking about an obscure change. We are talking about something that pre-exists 1965. It is a specific property. It's related to LNG. Could the minister explain what public good the change is intended to meet? Pretty clearly, this is a very specific situation. Could the minister make the case that this is a clear public good that we're talking about?

Hon. S. Thomson: What this is…. This relates back to section 108(2). As pointed out, it is known to create uncertainty of land ownership. There are situations where private titleholders in an area have always been operating with the understanding that they own the land despite the provision. There are also circumstances where the automatic reversion to the Crown of submerged land could be undesirable to government and not generally in
[ Page 2453 ]
the public interest, so that's why the exemption process is currently there.

What we're looking at is a historical situation, so what this amendment does is create landowner certainty and restore the integrity in the land title system by providing that retroactive exemption in those areas.

[1715]

It still needs to be approved by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. It still needs to be deposited with the registrar of land titles.

Where the issue has arisen is in Kitimat Harbour lands. There's infrastructure that's critical to the development of our liquefied natural gas industry. If land ownership over Kitimat Harbour lands was not clarified, there was likely a process that we would need to pursue a more lengthy and costly legal resolution, which would impede those goals of natural gas development in the area.

What we're doing with this amendment is providing the certainty of land title, ensuring that this is the most efficient sort of cost-effective solution to this: by dealing with an application basis that would provide for that retroactive exemption.

In the Kitimat Harbour lands there were subdivisions on the private lands and submerged water lots, submerged private land, that industrial operators in that area considered were still their private lands. When the uncertainty came up of whether they owned those lands or whether they had reverted to the Crown, it's in the public's interest that that certainty is confirmed so that we can move forward with the processes of securing those opportunities for the LNG proponents and for access to those water lots, the submerged private lands.

If it's unsure as to whether it has reverted to the Crown or whether it's still owned by the private entity, we wanted to make sure that we had the ability to go back and retroactively consider an exemption from the automatic reversion process in the areas where it's in the public interest to be able to move forward with providing that certainty so that we can move forward with making the commercial arrangements to provide for those proponents and for the industrial owners of those properties in the Kitimat Harbour lands to be able to know for certainty when they're making the arrangements of who has the land.

N. Macdonald: I'm curious about that now. The minister has basically said that this is an expedient way to deal with a particular issue. The minister talked about doing this instead of a more lengthy process. Now, it could be that the other processes are unnecessarily lengthy. It could also mean that the other processes are actually a fairer process.

I just want to understand here. In doing this, are we talking about now taking Crown land, which is…? Presumably, this is land that has reverted to the Crown and is going to be given to a business, and the trade-off, as I understand the minister is saying, is that if we want LNG to go, we're going to have to make some of these deals, and this is one of those deals to get things moving.

I want to understand whose other interests are being compromised. There's a value to the land, which I think that the minister will agree the Crown now owns or would assert that they own. As well, there's likely other interests if this was Crown land, such as First Nations interests.

Can the minister explain to me what process is being avoided by going through this process of changing a very obscure law and thereby transferring Crown property to a private interest in Kitimat Harbour?

[1720]

Hon. S. Thomson: The situation we're dealing with here is the fact that there is a real lack of clarity in terms of legal opinion being divided on whether it did revert or not. What this provision is doing is providing that clarity and avoiding a long dispute over whether the property did revert or not.

In view of the interests in ensuring that we have that certainty on there, the provisions are being brought forward to provide that ability to have the exemption from what was an historical automatic reversion. But even in this case, it's not clear that that automatic reversion took place and was understood at the time.

Where we have situations that landowners, particularly, or that private owners in these situations have acted and operated and continued on the assumption that they had ownership of those properties when they may or may not have, as I said, the legal uncertainty is there.

[1725]

It's our view that having the ability within the legislation to be able to provide that certainty will, first of all, avoid that long uncertain legal position.

It will also ensure that the underlying land ownership has that title certainty so that we can ensure that we have the ability to move forward on providing, as commercial arrangements come forward, that certainty for ensuring that we can move forward with having that infrastructure in place that allows us to complete arrangements for projects and for proponents and, in this case, particularly in the Kitimat Harbour lands, where this situation exists because of the urgent requirements with respect to being able to provide certainty around LNG opportunities.

V. Huntington: I'm extremely pleased that my colleague from Columbia River–Revelstoke has brought this up, because as the minister's staff will know, during my briefing I was deeply concerned about this section and was having trouble sorting out precisely what my concerns were. I have gone through dozens of scenarios, some of which I would like to explore with the minister, as potential issues that might arise.

If we take the situation that the minister has outlined,
[ Page 2454 ]
that this is specifically an issue that has arisen as a result of ownership issues in the Kitimat area, could I then ask the minister or do a scenario for the minister?

What we have is an upland owner who, say, is a sawmill operator. Over the last 20, 30, 40 years they've had a log sorting area in front of the sawmill. Now they're saying: "Okay, I have Imperial Oil sniffing around and suggesting that they might like to build their LNG plant here, and they want the water lot."

So the province, instead of saying, "Hey, that's Crown land. We'll lease the water lot as a revenue generator for the province," is saying the upland owner can…. Gee, he figures he's had that log sorting area for three dozen years, and he thinks that really he owns it. We're going to say: "Okay, you do own it." So he obtains the benefit of what everybody on the coast realizes is a Crown water lot. He obtains that whole benefit in his private sale.

Is that the scenario that the minister is talking to? If not, could he be really quite specific? I'm having trouble within the water lot scenario along this coast, which we're all fairly familiar with, that anybody would think that they own the submerged land. So if there's an historic situation, could the minister be quite specific about what the potential ownership of that submerged land could be?

[1730]

Hon. S. Thomson: The situation here is…. We're dealing with a historical situation with the application of how the reversion takes place. For example, if a sawmill owner, as in your example, owned the upland lot and owns the water lot and has historically owned it and has not subdivided that previously, he still owns the private lot and owns the water lot — owns the submerged land. This doesn't change that at all.

Under the way the legislation operates currently, if he applied to subdivide that upland property, then he can apply at that point for…. He could say, "I don't want that to revert to the Crown," and that provision would be applied, because it wouldn't automatically revert in that case.

Historically what has happened is that in the case of a subdivision, that submerged lot reverted to the Crown. He may have owned it, but if he subdivided it, it automatically reverted to the Crown, and he may not have known that.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

We've got situations, historical situations, where that is the case. It reverted, and the owners are not aware that it had reverted. That's the situation we're addressing here.

It would have to be by application. It would have to be viewed in the test of whether the operation of that section was inappropriate or unfair because the person, including the registered owner, was of the belief that he had title to the land, that he "(i) has incurred costs in the past, (ii)…suffer loss in the future, or (iii) is otherwise prejudiced."

Each case would have to be taken against that and brought forward and applied for. This doesn't automatically undo all of those situations. It's where they're identified. We don't think there are very many of them, and they'd still have to come forward.

If the land currently private and currently Crown — a water lot in front of that…. This section doesn't change that at all unless historically that person had subdivided that portion off, and then that submerged portion would have reverted to the Crown, and they may not even have realized it.

V. Huntington: Could the minister — with the help, I'm sure, of his staff at this point — tell me: at what point in the past were water lots owned by a private individual? Can you give me examples where water lots are owned by private individuals? Have they not always been Crown? When were we selling water lots?

[1735]

Hon. S. Thomson: This relates to early historical Crown grants for early settlement and for industrial purposes. The Land Act has changed over time, but these are addressing situations where there was early historical, early 1900s…. During that early settlement there would have been circumstances where the water lots or the submerged land was part of it — part of the grant process.

It's not current policy, and that has shifted over time. But there are historical situations where this is the case.

V. Huntington: If we were to go and do a title search of lands in the Kitimat area, we would find upland zones that have water lots attached to the ownership? Is that correct?

Hon. S. Thomson: Correct.

V. Huntington: I'll shortly sit down and ask a few more questions after my colleague has asked more.

I think one of the things that disturbs me about this section 7, as we go through the historic nature of the purpose for the section, is that that's not indicated in this. I would rather see a specific OIC, for instance, with a policy attached to the specific lots that you're concerned about, rather than leaving this an open-ended, inexplicable, obscure provision in an act that is a very important one to the people of the province.

I mean, this has taken a long time to narrow down just what the ministry is intending here, and yet, I could ask a dozen different scenarios that I think this section could apply to in the future, because it's not narrowed down to an historic provision in the document. It doesn't apply to specific situations in the document.

It leaves open, under sub (5.1)(b)(ii): "…likely to suffer loss in the future…." It really isn't tying itself to the historic
[ Page 2455 ]
situation substantially, nor does it explain to anybody that's reading this what precisely it's attempting to do.

After my colleague has asked his further questions, I'm going to get up and ask you: could it apply to (a)? Could it apply to (b)? Could it apply to (c) in any situation? That's the language.

I want to know: what is the order of proof that you require for sub (i), (ii) and (iii)? Your staff said during the briefing — quite rightly, I'm assuming — that the decision will be weighted in the public interest and will be done through a process of consensus.

Well, what's the process of consensus? What is the public interest that will be used or calculated? Is it going to be a public hearing process within regulation?

These things are not defined in this section. This is a very critical issue for a lot of us. We want to see this defined more specifically in order that Crown land isn't disposed of in a sudden rush to application.

I just would like some further satisfaction that the ministry actually feels that this section is tight enough to do precisely what it wants and no more.

[1740]

Hon. S. Thomson: Hopefully, I can provide some clarity. First of all, it's very clear who this applies to. It only applies in situations where there is an owner who has upland, private land and owns submerged private lands, and then there has been a subdivision which is adjacent to Crown lands.

[1745]

In those situations when they do that, the submerged private land reverts to the Crown. It reverts automatically unless they apply for that exemption.

What we're dealing with here is situations where that took place, so you have to have the circumstances where you had upland, private land, where you owned the submerged private land and there was a subdivision, and where there is not clarity as to whether that land reverted to the Crown or not. It has to be adjacent to Crown land.

There are very, very limited circumstances where this would apply. We haven't gone and looked through all of the records to determine where this…. We think it's in very, very limited circumstances, where there is that uncertainty.

Again, if it is identified, then it needs to be brought forward on the basis and be put through the tests that are laid out in the legislation of whether it is desirable to clarify the land title because there is uncertainty, whether it was inappropriate or unfair because the registered owner was of the belief that they owned title to land, that they'd incurred costs in the past, likely several losses in the future.

It's very, very limited circumstances in which this would apply.

V. Huntington: If we look at that word "belief…." If we're using the scenario of an upland owner who may be selling the land to Imperial Oil and wants that submerged land attached to that title, you're looking at a situation, probably, where he is going to say: "I am likely to suffer loss in the future because I believed what is truly Crown land actually belongs to me."

I guess as a citizen of the province I'm having a little bit of trouble coming to grips with the idea that someone who believes a piece of Crown land is theirs can come to the Crown and say, "I want you to give this back to me because I think it is mine," when in fact…. Where on the face of this earth, or especially under the common land title system in this country, is anybody given ownership of land just because they believe it to be theirs, when in fact it's Crown? I'm just hoping that we're not deserting the public interest as we go forward on this.

Hon. S. Thomson: The situation here is, in fact, that the land was theirs. It's not a case of them just believing that it was theirs. They owned that land. What happened was that through the act of a subdivision, it was reverted to the Crown. That happened automatically without their permission.

They owned the land. They did it. They actually continued to believe they owned the land. It was not a situation where you've got upland ownership and you had Crown land that was Crown land.

Now, you can't come and make a case that "I think I own it because I've used it under a water lot lease," or any of those kinds of things. At a point, they've actually had to physically own that land. It only applies in those situations. As we said, that was based on historical situations where private ownership was granted.

As I've said, the policy and the approach has changed. This is not the ability for people to come in and start arguing: "This Crown land in front of me — I've never owned it, it was never private, but I think it is, just because it's in front of me, and I'd like to have it." That's not the case.

[1750]

You had to have owned it previously. There has to have been an active subdivision where it would be reverted. If you owned it historically and you haven't subdivided, then you still own it. This is only dealing with those very, very limited circumstances where there was an automatic reversion on subdivision — very, very limited application.

V. Huntington: Could I ask, just for clarification…? I accept that. Could the minister point us to the words in this amendment that define the historic nature of the transactions?

Hon. S. Thomson: There isn't a word specifically in the legislation that says that. The situation only exists…. What this is addressing is because of historical grants where the private ownership was applied there. You don't need to describe it because, as I pointed out, it only applies in those circumstances.
[ Page 2456 ]

There's no necessity to say, "It only applies to something that was done between 1890 and 1910" — or whatever like that. The nature of it is that it only applies in those circumstances, as I said, where you've had a private upland owner, private ownership of the land under the water, and where there has been a subdivision.

N. Macdonald: We are talking about a specific case. Part of what we want to understand here is…. The minister has characterized this as a way of moving on a specific case to avoid a more lengthy process. As I said before, what we want to be sure of is that, in doing that, we're not undermining a process that should be in place.

So just a few specific questions. Is this a deal with the Haisla?

Hon. S. Thomson: No.

N. Macdonald: What private company does this deal with?

[1755]

Hon. S. Thomson: I think we've explained quite clearly the circumstances under which this applies. What's important here is that given the legal uncertainty that's been identified and given the sensitive nature of negotiations and commercial arrangements that are being considered here, I don't think it is appropriate to name the specific industrial landowner that this is addressing.

I think what we're looking at here, as we've pointed out, are Kitimat Harbour lands and a number of private submerged uncertainty issues. Again, we very clearly have explained the circumstances under which this would apply and the legal uncertainty that this is addressing. The historical operation of this section has been probably less than certain. This legislation is being brought forward here to provide the opportunity that where the situation is in the public interest, where there is that uncertainty, where it does meet these tests, we have the ability to bring it forward.

The legislation requires it to be brought through by order-in-council decisions of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, so these will be brought forward in a transparent manner. Given, as the members opposite know, sensitive commercial negotiations and arrangements that are underway, I'm not prepared at this time to name the specific company.

N. Macdonald: The minister has referred to Kitimat Harbour. It's a private harbour, of course. Are we talking actually about Kitimat Harbour, or are we talking about further down Douglas Channel where much of the LNG activity is taking place?

Hon. S. Thomson: In this case the situation is relative to Kitimat Harbour lands.

B. Routley: Could you tell us roughly how many hectares or acres are involved?

[1800]

Hon. S. Thomson: Staff have advised me that we can provide that information. We don't have it currently, but we will, in order to ensure that it's…. There's a consideration here of what they think it is, but I just want to make sure I provide the correct information on the record here. We'll provide that information for you.

B. Routley: Could the minister tell us whether there are tax implications for this change? As it will be deemed to not have been transferred, will there be any other kind of retroactive owing of taxes in any way?

Hon. S. Thomson: On the basis that the ownership at this time has been on the assumption that they own the lands…. They've been paying the taxes on those lands but wouldn't have any retroactive tax implications because that is the case on which the uncertain ownership of it has been in place — as though they have owned it. So there wouldn't be any retroactive tax provisions applied because those have been paid currently.

B. Routley: Is the minister aware of any ecological zones or regional district or other municipal interests in the particular land, and has there been any consultation with municipal authorities?

[1805]

Hon. S. Thomson: We're not aware of any ecological issues with respect to local governments and those. In these situations what we're doing is providing the certainty where in all respects that's the way the land has been known and been operated. The local governments would have known and been under the assumption that the land was in private ownership.

I think we're focusing on a specific point here, but the more…. What we're bringing forward with this legislation is to provide the amendments to the Land Title Act that provide us with the ability to…. While there may be a specific situation that's generated, this is one that is needed to provide that clarity and that certainty provincewide where these situations may occur. As I said, we are not aware of very many of them. It relates back to historical private submerged land, land ownership.

Again, with the way that the legislation has been drafted, it would require it to be brought through those tests. It would require an order-in-council process in order to retroactively provide that exemption, which we currently provide under the legislation now, in which we're dealing with those historical situations, pre-1965, when reversion would have happened automatically without anybody being aware of it.

Section 7 approved.
[ Page 2457 ]

On section 8.

N. Macdonald: Now we move into a series of sections that amend the Range Act. Again, an awful lot of work has gone into this, and there are quite a few of the sections that we'll move through fairly quickly.

I do want to give the minister an opportunity to address an issue that was in the media and that we've, again, talked about many times. When this bill was introduced, the minister and others will have received letters.

I have two here. One is from a combination of organizations that invest in the public lands or in lands for conservation. It's Ducks Unlimited, Habitat Conservation Trust Foundation, the Nature Trust of British Columbia. Also, it's B.C. Nature. They sent a letter with concerns around this bill and the provisions of the Range Act.

Basically, they're saying that they're concerned about the extension of tenures. They feel that there are grazing tenures on property that they purchased to set aside for wildlife and so on. I know the minister is familiar with the issues that they raised. My understanding — in speaking to the minister's staff, and I think to the minister as well — is that a solution has been found or an explanation is to be provided.

I know section 8 doesn't specifically, necessarily, deal with that issue. But at some point as we go through the Range Act — if the minister could describe the solution to the concerns raised by Ducks Unlimited, Habitat Conservation Trust, Nature Trust and B.C. Nature, as well as other organizations — if he could address that issue, it would allow us to move through the other sections much quicker.

I also want to say that I appreciate how much work has been done on this section. I know it comes out of a consultation process that was broad and extensive. I realize that this is the sum of some of your staff's work that, as I say, is extensive.

[1810]

As I say, if the minister could at this time or at some point explain how they've addressed the concerns expressed by the various conservancy organizations.

Hon. S. Thomson: The member opposite is correct. We did receive a number of pieces of correspondence in relation to this when the bill was tabled. Just to be clear, the concerns raised addressed a pre-existing concern. This legislation has no bearing on it one way or the other, in terms of the specificity of the legislation. What it did do is trigger those concerns coming forward on management of conservation lands.

What we have done is undertaken a consultation process with all of the organizations. We're in direct engagement with them. We've agreed to undertake an assessment based on some of the concerns they've brought forward. We're working between them and with the Cattlemen's Association on that.

We're of the view that the areas where it may be applied, or where maybe the concerns are, are limited, where there are ways to address the concerns they've brought forward in those areas. We're underway in a separate process. We're corresponding back to all of those groups. We've talked to them all.

They're all comfortable currently that the process we are undertaking through our range staff in consultation with them will allow their concerns to be assessed and looked at. They all understand currently that the legislation we're bringing through here today does not relate to their concerns and that that needs to be addressed in a separate process, which is underway.

Sections 8 and 9 approved.

On section 10.

N. Macdonald: Thank you for the explanation. I think what triggered the actual concern was likely section 10, where they started to see that it was an extended period of time, and then they started to look at what exists right now and raised questions. I'm glad to hear that the discussions have taken place and that they are discussions where it's working for all the parties involved. Of course, these organizations do important work, and I know the government recognizes that, and certainly the minister does.

With section 10, I guess the question is: will there be a review to see which lands potentially would be pulled off the table because they're not appropriate for tenure? Is that the sort of discussion that is taking place?

[1815]

Hon. S. Thomson: To reaffirm, that the sort of question that's being asked doesn't relate to the bill, but I can again confirm that an assessment is underway. We're working with the organizations. A number of ones that have come forward with some of the concerns I think, as I said, have had…. Once it's understood there are limited concerns and the concerns can be addressed…. That's the purpose of the assessment.

I think the position is that if in that assessment and that consultation process between the organizations there are situations, we would do what we would normally do in any of those circumstances, and that is look at the concerns, renegotiate the arrangements, take a look at how the concerns can be addressed where there are potential overlap issues.

I think, as I said, what I have heard from the organizations that have contacted us is that they are very pleased with the response that has been provided. They are pleased with the assessment that is underway. We feel in that process that we can address the concerns. As the member opposite pointed out, those organizations do very, very important, beneficial, good work for the province, and
[ Page 2458 ]
we want to make sure that we're not negatively impacting those interests and those objectives.

That process and assessment is ongoing. It doesn't relate specifically to the legislation. I think the legislation was just a trigger that provided the opportunity for the concerns to come forward. That was an immediate reaction to looking at this until they had a chance to sit down and discuss it with us and have that consultation process.

I think we're in a good place there in terms of the relationship between those organizations and the province. They are supportive of the overall benefits that this provides the cattle and range sector. They are supportive of the objectives we're trying to achieve through this process with the changes in legislation. They just want to make sure they have a process that addresses those other concerns, and we've provided that.

B. Routley: Could the minister tell us what kinds of criteria he would use in determining whether or not it should be not less than 15 years and not more than 25? How would you determine whether it was going to be a 15-year period or a 25-year period? This is probably just one of those quick questions.

The second part is: is this like a tree farm licence where after, say, five years it can be renewed? If it was granted for 15 or 25 years, after what period of time could they renew it for a further period of time, or is it fixed? Like, once you use whatever criteria you have and determine how many years it's going to be…. Anyway, maybe I'm getting too muddly there.

[1820]

Hon. S. Thomson: The criteria that would be used would be based on the range use plans, the history of use. If an application was made to increase the term, I think what is probably fair to say is that in the majority of cases where the term was extended, it would be to the 25-year term. That's the purpose of looking at the extension, to provide that increased certainty in terms of the investments they make on the range and things.

What we did do, though, is we wanted to leave ourselves some flexibility. If there are some other considerations in relation to that, we wanted to have the flexibility that it could be shorter. But I think the general intent based on the work the Ranching Task Force did was to look to that longer term. We could have gone just to increase to 25, but we wanted to give ourselves a little bit of flexibility where it could be shorter. They are required to submit the range use plans, and where there may have been concerns about history of use or anything, we wanted to be able to have that shorter term.

In terms of replacement, there's a section coming up in section 29, in this, that talks about the replacement two years before the expiry of the term of the licence.

Section 10 approved.

On section 11.

N. Macdonald: Just one quick question on the grazing permits, the fees associated with that. Is there any thought to a portion of those fees going into a wildlife enhancement fund?

Hon. S. Thomson: At this point no, there isn't that consideration. There are other processes for funding for that, like the habitat conservation fund and others. There is not consideration at this point for dedicating a portion of the fees to that purpose.

Sections 11 to 14 inclusive approved.

On section 15.

[1825]

N. Macdonald: In this section there's the removal of the reference for the need to consult with stakeholders when deciding on eligibility. I guess just the question would be: why would that be removed?

Hon. S. Thomson: This was just essentially sort of a cleanup of the legislation, as we had the chance to do it. This is something we do. We didn't need to have it specifically in the legislation when all of the criteria is being considered. That's just part of the process. We just didn't feel it needed to be specifically set in the legislation.

B. Routley: In section 10(a) I don't think we can just let it pass that we're waving goodbye to more and more district managers and seeing more and more centralized control as a result of the new strategy to have a Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations.

It's personally for me a sad day to see the end of the B.C. Forest Service and more and more evidence that it's gone. But I would like to ask the minister: obviously, given that in both places the district manager has been replaced by yourself, and it's very unlikely that you'll actually be doing the work, could you give us a hint on who might likely be assigned or normally be assigned the duties that we're changing this to here?

Hon. S. Thomson: The reason the change is being made is so that it replaces the specific reference to district manager with the minister. Removing the references to the named officials enables us to delegate the powers and duties to the officials necessary to optimize the decision-making process and improve the efficiency. This could be a regional executive director at that level. It provides that flexibility in terms of…. Instead of making him a specific individual, it allows the delegated decision process to work.

N. Macdonald: Just to move things along here, there's
[ Page 2459 ]
a series of sections within the bill that are self-explanatory. I don't think we need to go into any details, so just for the information of the Chair, the next question we'll have is on section 62.

Sections 15 to 61 inclusive approved.

On section 62.

[1830]

N. Macdonald: Section 62 removes the ability of an applicant to appeal. Can the minister explain why applicants are no longer able to appeal?

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to point out that this section only applies to the award of a licence or permit. There are appeal mechanisms in place. There is an appeal process to the district manager, an appeal process from that to the director of range and ultimately to the Court of Appeal. This was a piece that was only in this specific legislation, in the Range Act. It was the only place that this appeared, so this makes it consistent with our other legislative pieces, but this is not removing an ability or a process of appeal that is in place through the steps I just mentioned: district manager, director of range and then Court of Appeal.

Sections 62 and 63 approved.

On section 64.

N. Macdonald: Section 64 looks fairly straightforward. Could the minister give a quick explanation for section 64, which is…? Obviously, we're moving to a new act that's being amended — and just again to compliment the work done on changes in the preceding act. Just a quick explanation of what's going on with section 64.

The Chair: I believe the minister has an amendment as well.

Hon. S. Thomson: There is an amendment to this section on notice that is standing in my name. The amendment is to section 66.1 of the Wildfire Act, repealing subsections (3) and (4) and substituting the following:

[SECTION 64, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

64 Section 66.1 of the Wildfire Act, S.B.C. 2004, c. 31, is amended,

(b) by repealing subsections (3) and (4) and substituting the following:

(6) Subsection (3) does not apply to a legal proceeding against the government commenced on or before the date this subsection received First Reading in the Legislative Assembly February 13, 2014.]

[1835]

On the amendment.

Hon. S. Thomson: The purpose of that is to provide the complete clarity as to when this section applies, which is the date, rather than leave it open as to what a date might be. It specifically names the date. Just a minor amendment change to make it clear as to when this provision takes place.

Amendment approved.

On section 64 as amended.

N. Macdonald: On 64, just an explanation quickly on the purpose of the amended section.

Hon. S. Thomson: This is a new subsection. The basic purpose of it is to prohibit legal proceedings against the government for anything done or omitted or in exercising a power or performing a duty or function under the Wildfire Act. Immunity protection — it will prevent lawsuits from commencing against the government for recovery of losses from damage caused by wildfire.

What it does is change the onus of provision in how action may be taken against the province. It shifts it from steps where we have to defend ourselves to a step where they would have to prove wilful negligence — wilful negligence on the part of the employees — in bringing the action forward.

Section 64 as amended approved.

On section 65.

N. Macdonald: In section 65 we're now into the changes to the Wildlife Act. The first of these changes in section 65 repeals and replaces the definition of "assistant guide" and "person."

I guess a couple of questions there. With this change, are there any requirements that assistant guides be trained, under this new definition? A second question would be: will an assistant guide be required, I would presume, to hold a resident hunting permit? As well, are there age requirements to be an assistant guide?

If the minister could answer those questions, and if he wants to add further clarity to what is intended with this section, that would be welcome.

Hon. S. Thomson: This section just deals with the definition. In order to answer the question… Firstly — I'm not sure I've got them in the exact order — 18 years. They would not have to have a resident hunter licence. They will be required to undertake an exam in order to be an assistant guide.

[1840]

That'll be provided for in the regulations, and we will be consulting with the industry in developing the regulations. Through this process, we'll actually be more stringent or more rigid than is currently the case.
[ Page 2460 ]

N. Macdonald: I know that this is just a definition section, so this is again stretching the boundaries a little bit. But just for the public record, the assistant guide — are they presumably able to guide alone, or must they always accompany a licensed guide?

Hon. S. Thomson: Under the section 48 provision, which isn't changing with these amendments, a guide-outfitter must be present in his or her guiding area during substantially all of the times when his or her assistant guides are guiding for game. There's no change in the current provision.

Sections 65 to 67 inclusive approved.

On section 68.

N. Macdonald: In this section everything is left for regulation. Does the minister have a clear idea of what requirements will be set up during or under regulation?

Hon. S. Thomson: The regulations will require that the assistant guide pass an exam. The guide-outfitter will be required to keep records. He'll not be able to employ anybody who's currently prohibited from guiding. That's in the legislation currently. The exam will be constructed in a way to demonstrate knowledge about wildlife, safety, firearms. The exam will be subject to the approval of the director of fish and wildlife.

I think there's another important point here in moving to this process. We've had the discussions with the guide-outfitters. It'll be very important from their perspective to ensure that the examination process and the test and the requirements will be rigorous and stand up to scrutiny. It will be required to be approved by the director of fish and wildlife.

[1845]

Again, as I pointed out earlier, those will be developed in consultation with the organizations, and the process will be to make sure that the examination process and the requirements are valuable and rigid in the process.

B. Routley: Does the minister have any idea of the number of guide-outfitters who intend to have an assistant in guiding? Will there be any limitation? Can one guide-outfitter have more than one assistant?

Hon. S. Thomson: On average there are about 1,000 assistant guide licences per year. And no, there is not. A guide outfitter can have more than one. We didn't provide any limit on that. That's in recognition of the various sizes and scopes of guiding operations. We didn't want to limit them. They need to hire in order to meet their needs.

Section 68 approved.

On section 69.

V. Huntington: Can the minister explain why an angling guide would be required to be a Canadian citizen when the assistant guide-outfitter is not required anymore to be a Canadian citizen? What is the difference here in thinking?

Hon. S. Thomson: The Guide Outfitters Association requested the change for two reasons. One is in recognizing the labour needs for the industry — to be able to have that ability. They also wanted the ability to be able to hire foreign-speaking assistant guides to help serve their clientele, so that's why the change is made there. We're leaving the requirement in place for the angling assistant guides because the Fishing Resorts and Outfitters Association said that they did not need the change.

B. Routley: I noticed that section 69 still has the "regional manager or the regional manager's designate." Maybe you got tired of turning everything into the "minister."

Could we have some idea of what the "regional manager's designate" might be? Is there a system, for example…? There are computerized ways to get a fishing licence. I don't know if that will be available. But given the remote nature of a number of these guide-outfitters, I just wondered how realistic it was to even find a regional manager.

[1850]

Hon. S. Thomson: The reason this section is here, first of all, is to…. The reason that we had to…. We're not making any changes to the assistant angling guide process in this legislation. We had to sort of separate out this section because the previous section had the reference to the assistant guide licence. So we had to redo the section, not making any changes at all for the angling guide section.

In terms of the regional manager or his designate, the designate would be a section head for fish and wildlife. We haven't had any issues with respect to the issuance of assistant guide licences.

Sections 69 to 71 inclusive approved.

Hon. S. Thomson: Noting the hour, I move the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:53 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
[ Page 2461 ]

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

Standing Order 81

BILL 25 TO PROCEED THROUGH
TWO OR MORE STAGES IN ONE DAY

Hon. M. de Jong: Madame Speaker, I indicated earlier this day that I would report back to the House. It is a bit beyond the time that I had intended, but I am happy to inform you and the House that the reasons that gave rise to the original application yesterday under Standing Order 81 and the requirements for a ruling from the Chair on that matter, happily, have been negated.

Madame Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Hon. M. de Jong moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: This House, at its rising, stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 6:55 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ABORIGINAL RELATIONS
AND RECONCILIATION

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); M. Dalton in the chair.

The committee met at 2:56 p.m.

On Vote 11: ministry operations, $36,495,000 (continued).

Hon. J. Rustad: Before we start the questions, as per yesterday, I want to make sure that I introduce the staff who are with me here today. I've got my deputy, Steve Munro; Peter Walters, Peter Cunningham and Neilane Mayhew, who are assistant deputy ministers; and Shauna Brouwer, who is the assistant deputy minister for corporate services for the natural resource sector.

With that, I welcome the critic's questions.

D. Donaldson: Thank you to the minister, and welcome to the staff, again, today. I'm hoping to have a very fulsome and interesting discussion today on the minister's roles and responsibilities under this budget cycle.

I'm going to ask a series of questions, and I'll hold them to the ministry's operations part of the budget. Then once we finish that, I have some around the treaty-related part of the budget. But I'll start off with the ministry operations.

My first question for the minister is: in his dealings with First Nations in B.C., what does the minister understand to be meant by the "honour of the Crown"?

Hon. J. Rustad: The honour of the Crown is a legal term. Because of that, what I'd like to do for the critic is to get a legal definition from our staff, from our legal counsel. I'll make sure that I get that to the member opposite.

What we try to accomplish at the ministry, of course…. This is about building relations with First Nations. It's about trying to reach reconciliation. That's the focus of our ministry and the type of work that we try to do with our First Nations partners.

D. Donaldson: Can the minister give me an example of how building relations demonstrates what he believes to be the honour of the Crown?

[1500]

Hon. J. Rustad: As I mentioned earlier, our ministry is about building relationships. It's about reaching reconciliation. An example of that in terms of reaching out and finalizing, I guess, the ultimate reconciliation that you can have between a First Nation and government is a treaty. So I'll give the example of the Tsawwassen treaty, a treaty that has been reached between the federal government, between the provincial government, between the Tsawwassen people. That is the ultimate form of reconciliation.

It helps to define government structures. It helps to define how we work together. It helps to define how to carry forward with our relationships and be able to achieve things. I think that's probably the highest example that I could give the member opposite.

D. Donaldson: Thank you for that answer. I want to make it clear that I'm not trying to catch the minister out on this in any way whatsoever. I think the honour of the Crown is something that's an important term when it comes to getting down the road to consultation, to accommodation, to reconciliation. It's important for me and, I think, the people watching and the First Nations and aboriginal peoples of the province to understand what the minister's perception of the honour of the Crown is.

When he mentioned a treaty, which is an agreement, what would the minister say that a treaty acknowledges in reference to the honour of the Crown?

[1505]

Hon. J. Rustad: Treaty is the ultimate form of reconciliation, as I mentioned, and it really is an opportunity for the Crown — the federal government and the provincial government — to work with the First Nations to address aboriginal rights and title and to be able to look at, through a negotiated process, how we can come to that settlement. It really enables self-government. It enables a whole host of things that allows a First Nation to be able to determine its own future, to be able to move forward with projects.

In the case of Tsawwassen, as I mentioned, they've got a couple of great projects they're working on, on their territory — a massive commercial development, some residential, as well as a project to manage wastewater and how they're going to be able to service those. It's through the ability of treaty — through the reconciliation that we have met, through the recognition of aboriginal rights and title that you find within that — that the Tsawwassen Nation has been enabled to be able to move forward with those kinds of projects.

I hope that has been able to provide an answer for what the member was looking for.

D. Donaldson: Thank you for that answer.

I'm going to read a portion of the ruling in the Haida case from 2004 to put a fine point on how important the definition and what is meant by the honour of the Crown is in negotiations and settlement. Here's the quote.

"The government's duty to consult with aboriginal peoples and accommodate their interests is grounded in the honour of the Crown. The honour of the Crown is always at stake in its dealings with aboriginal peoples…. It is not a mere incantation but…a core precept that finds its application in concrete practices.

"The historical roots of the principle of the honour of the Crown suggest that it must be understood generously in order to reflect the underlying realities from which it stems. In all its dealings with aboriginal peoples, from the assertion of sovereignty to the resolution of claims and the implementation of treaties, the Crown must act honourably. Nothing less is required if we are to achieve 'the reconciliation of the pre-existence of aboriginal societies with the sovereignty of the Crown.'"

That's from Chief Justice McLachlin in the Haida case in 2004.

Considering that the honour of the Crown, as the chief justice has said, is a core precept and not a mere incantation, I was curious to ask the minister why there is no description of the honour of the Crown in the updated procedures for meeting legal obligations when consulting with First Nations — the document that the government uses to guide its consultations with First Nations. The latest version was published in 2010.

[1510]

The Chair: Minister, prior to your comments I'd like to recognize a guest in the House. My wife, Marlene, is here with my legislative assistant, Derek. She is checking up on me. How's my tie?

Hon. J. Rustad: Well, hon. Chair, it's a little crooked at the moment.

The Chair: It's a little crooked. Okay, I'm in trouble.

Hon. J. Rustad: Sorry. Perhaps that was a poorly chosen word. It's on a little bit of a slant at the moment.

As government, of course we have many points of contact with First Nations. We're out doing a lot of work. We have a lot of activities that are happening on the land base.

I didn't catch the name of the guide, but I believe the guide that the member is referring to is about how government interacts. It's about how we go about doing consultation with First Nations. It's designed to be a guideline to help government work through and to make sure that we are meeting aboriginal rights and title, going out and in doing that engagement.

I think, more importantly, what we try to do is more than just legal obligations. We're out trying to build relationships as part of our ministry. We're out trying to find ways to reach reconciliation. The ultimate form is through treaty, but we also recognize that not all nations are interested in reaching treaties, so we also look at other arrangements and other types of things we can do, working with First Nations to build those respectful relationships and to work government to government with First Nations.

The document I believe he is referring to is a guide for how our staff work, but our ministry does go beyond just trying to meet those obligations, in terms of having that respectful relationship with First Nations.

D. Donaldson: Thank you for that. Again, with honour of the Crown being a core precept, I appreciate and take up the minister's offer to provide, in writing, what that means, if he offered that.

I believe that if it's a core precept, as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court says, then I think it would therefore be incumbent to ensure that the ministry staff and all government ministries know what the fundamentals of that core precept are, as far as a definition.

I'll move on to another topic. It's related, though, to the honour of the Crown. It's around consultation and accommodation and engagement with First Nations.

The First Nations Leadership Council recently completed a document in 2013 sponsored by the First Nations Summit, the B.C. Assembly of First Nations and the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs on a framework for consultation and engagement, an overview and a framework.

[1515]

The First Nations Leadership Council, in the document, says that sovereignty reconciliation under section 35 and a process of consultation and accommodation are all linked. This is an important concept that they put forward. That consultation and accommodation's purpose is to…. Well, the controlling question is: what is required
[ Page 2463 ]
to maintain the honour of the Crown to effect reconciliation between the Crown and the aboriginal peoples with respect to the interests at stake?

From that, they say it's purposive. Consultation and accommodation is not an end in itself. It has a purpose. It's meant to advance reconciliation. In Haida we know that reconciliation is a process flowing from the rights guaranteed by section 35. It's a process that "flows from the Crown's duty to honourable dealing towards aboriginal peoples," which arises from the Crown's assertion of sovereignty over and de facto control of land and resources that were formerly under control of the people.

Then they go on and ultimately say that consultation and accommodation and reconciliation lead to the question of resolving sovereignty. From that aspect, what Delgamuukw says is that the purpose of the enshrinement of aboriginal title and rights in section 35 of the constitution is aimed at the reconciliation of the prior occupation of North America by distinctive aboriginal societies with the assertion of Crown sovereignty over Canadian territory.

It's a progression from the linkages between consultation and accommodation, between what reconciliation is about in regard to section 35 and then, finally, the question of sovereignty and the issue of resolving sovereignty and coming to an agreement on sovereignty. Does the minister agree with this understanding of the purpose of consultation and accommodation as set out by the First Nations Leadership Council?

Hon. J. Rustad: The First Nations Leadership Council has done a lot of work with regards to this, and they've provided us with that information. We are looking at that, and we're actually in discussions with the First Nations Leadership Council about the document that they had produced.

But I want to reiterate that my ministry, the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, is not just about trying to tick off a box in terms of what a legal definition is. We actually try to go beyond that. This is about how we try to work, government to government, how we build the relationships, how we build trust and how we can find ways to reach reconciliation.

[1520]

What we find often is that if you try to define that tightly in terms of a legal definition, it misses the intent of what we're really trying to do, which is to work respectfully together to try to make sure that we address concerns and issues that we share in common, to try to make sure that we find ways to be able to continue to grow together, government to government, and find ways that we can reach reconciliation.

That's what our ministry is about. Those are things that we try to achieve, and those are the things that we will continue to work on in the future.

D. Donaldson: Thanks for that answer. I will get to some of the points you made in that as we use our time here over the next few hours.

There have been over 100 legal cases brought by First Nations about consultation and accommodation since 2004. I think this makes it pretty apparent that the approach taken by this government on consultation and accommodation isn't working. Something isn't working if you've got over 100 cases.

The First Nations Leadership Council says: "The current status quo of how consultation and accommodation takes place between the Crown and First Nations is largely dysfunctional, does not reflect core legal principles, including those of sovereignty and reconciliation, and does not properly incorporate the indigenous perspective." Does the minister agree with this statement?

Hon. J. Rustad: I thank the member opposite for the question. We actually do not agree with the premise of what the member has suggested from the First Nations Leadership Council. In fact, what we have done, just over the last eight years, is actually being able to achieve literally hundreds of agreements with First Nations. We've been out building significant relationships, and our goal through this is actually to be able to avoid litigation by reaching agreements and finding ways to be able to work together.

For example, we have strategic engagement agreements and other agreements like reconciliation framework agreements which are negotiated agreements that define how we go about doing consultation. It helps to bring First Nations together. It helps to build the relationship between government and First Nations. It defines the things that we need to look at, the types of levels of consultation. They're really designed around strategic, high-level ways to be able to actually work together.

[1525]

What we're finding across the province is that more and more First Nations are interested in reaching this and going that route as opposed to going the route of litigation. So over time what we're seeing is more and more of these agreements in place. I think we now have eight strategic engagement agreements in place as well as the other agreements that we have. We're finding an appetite for even more of these types of things.

Once again, this is about trying to build the relationships and finding respectful ways to be able to work together, government to government, to be able to achieve the things that we have a mutual interest in being able to see happen out within the province both on the social side as well as on the economic side.

I think the evidence that we are on the right track and that our government is finding ways to be able to work and build relations with First Nations is the fact of the number of agreements that we have been able to reach and the way that we have been able to define those relationships and expand on them.
[ Page 2464 ]

D. Donaldson: Well, as we pursue this budget estimates discussion, I'll be providing some alternate evidence that demonstrates that there are many examples of the government not being on track, and I think part of the reason for that is the approach to consultation and accommodation. That's why I want to continue this discussion around that.

The minister mentioned that they were in discussions with the First Nations Leadership Council regarding this document from 2013, Advancing an Indigenous Framework for Consultation and Accommodation in B.C. Has the minister met with the authors of the document?

Hon. J. Rustad: The document actually in question was provided to me by one of the authors, former Chief Doug White.

D. Donaldson: So I take it you haven't met with Mr. White on this document?

Hon. J. Rustad: As I mentioned, I actually had a meeting with former Chief Doug White, who presented the document.

D. Donaldson: In Delgamuukw one of the findings of the Supreme Court was that ultimately: "The only fair and just reconciliation is one which takes into account the aboriginal perspective while at the same time taking into account the perspective of the common law. True reconciliation will equally place weight on each."

The First Nations Leadership Council says that indigenous perspectives and legal orders must inform consultation and accommodation, which follows quite well from what the Supreme Court has said. My question to the minister is: how is B.C. ensuring that principles, practices and procedures of consultation and accommodation are being shaped as much by First Nations perspectives and legal orders as by that of the Crown and common law?

[1530]

Hon. J. Rustad: The examples I gave earlier of strategic engagement agreements, reconciliation frameworks and such are a negotiated agreement.

We sit down with the leadership and, in many cases, the leadership of a number of bands. We bring in their perspective. We bring in their interests, and between us, we set out how that can be structured and how we can move forward together. In many cases we do try to bring in the aboriginal perspective as part of how we work together and how we try to build better relationships.

D. Donaldson: I think what I'm asking is the step before that.

The province, the government, has created consultation and accommodation guidelines. They have updated procedures for meeting legal obligations when consulting with First Nations. This is the 2010 document that the government, I understand, uses within its ministries to fulfil their consultation and accommodation requirements.

In creating the policy for consultation and accommodation, how did the government incorporate indigenous perspectives and legal orders?

[S. Sullivan in the chair.]

[1535]

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. J. Rustad: Thank you, hon. Chair, and welcome to the chair.

To the member opposite, the document he's referring to is something that, as I mentioned earlier, is about how government people in a variety of ministries go out and work with First Nations in terms of the legal consultation issues that arise.

My ministry, the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, works on a daily basis with First Nations around the province. We bring in their perspective. We bring in their interests. We take those into consideration in terms of the way we go out and build relationships, the way we go out and formulate many of the agreements that we try to put in place.

Although those are guidelines in terms of staff interaction, like I said, our ministry goes beyond what is in there in terms of how we reach out to build those respectful relationships and how we try to work government to government and try to bring forward the ability to achieve objectives that we both have interests in.

D. Donaldson: I understand another document that guides consultation and accommodation approaches is something called the preliminary assessment policy. I'm curious about what it actually addresses. In the title it says "assessment," so I gather, I deduce, that it's assessment regarding, perhaps, strength of claim.

My question is, to the minister: when there is a model, when aboriginal title is already proven or a given and it's legally established, why is it necessary to then demonstrate a strength of claim or undergo a strength-of-claim assessment? Is this what the preliminary assessment policy actually lays out?

[1540]

Hon. J. Rustad: When there's an activity that happens on the land base — when the proponent wants to go out and do something or there's something that may be happening — one of the things that's very important is to know who you need to go out and speak with and find how you go out and do that.

Of course, it's important, initially, when something is
[ Page 2465 ]
happening, to be able to know which First Nations you want to or need to engage with. That's part of the process of going out and doing the consultation and determining who may be impacted or who may have an interest in a particular project that's going on.

D. Donaldson: I understand that these are complex issues and questions, so I appreciate the minister trying to provide answers as quickly as he can on these.

However, I didn't hear anything about the preliminary assessment policy document in his answer. I think I'm going to relate this back to the honour of the Crown and how, in a situation….

For instance, if there's a village site and a First Nation has to deal with the Crown by having to prove a strength of claim or deal with a strength-of-claim assessment by the province over that, that could be frustrating and could be seen as not a very honourable act by the Crown when aboriginal title, in that kind of situation, isn't in question.

So my question to the minister is: how does the ministry deal with those kinds of issues? Is the preliminary assessment document something that deals with that? If so, why are First Nations having to prove strength of claim over sites that I think any fair-minded person would deem fully within their claim?

Hon. J. Rustad: One of the things I'm sure the member is well aware of is that around the province there are multiple claims, there are multiple interests. In fact, there are a number out there. I don't know if this is accurate or not, but I'll throw it out there just in the context of the discussion. There is about 110 percent of the province that falls under different claims and overlapping interests.

One of the things that government needs to do is it needs to be able to go out and make sure that we address all parties' interests that may be in a specific area. So it's important to look to see which nations you need to be engaged with.

I think, probably more importantly…. To go back to the point I was making earlier, as a ministry we are out trying to build those relationships and address those interests in a respectful way with all nations. Some may be of a greater strength, and some may be of a lesser strength in terms of their level of interest in a particular area.

[1545]

But it's important for us to be able to go out and build those relationships and ultimately find ways to be able to work towards reconciliation.

D. Donaldson: I was going to address this later in the discussion, but the minister brought it up in his last question, when I asked about assessment policy and strength of claim and those kinds of topics. He said that this kind of policy enables his government or directs his government about who to go to speak with.

My question is: in an area where there's a well-established hereditary system, and the government has recognized that with a number of First Nations in agreements they've signed with, when the ministry approaches a governance-to-governance discussion, do they recognize and deal with the hereditary governance model or a band council model?

Hon. J. Rustad: When there are activities, when there are things happening out on the land base and even beyond that, what we try to do within our ministry is actually go out and engage with the First Nations people. We want to engage and respect the First Nations people, and we want to work with the First Nations people in the way that they would like to engage with us.

D. Donaldson: Well, I'll be addressing that further on in the questioning, that answer.

At this time I'd like to ask…. I think this relates to the minister's repetition of engagement and respect being the hallmarks of the ministry. I appreciate that that's valid.

My question is: in the minister's mind, what's the purpose of his ministry's policies with respect to engagement with First Nations in British Columbia? Is it to advance reconciliation? Is it to meet legal standards? Is it to protect and advance a legal position? Or is it to maintain or change the structure of government decision-making? There are four, and I can repeat those again.

The question is: what does he see as the purpose of the policies with respect to engagement with First Nations in B.C.? Is it to advance reconciliation? Is it to meet legal standards? Is it to protect and advance a legal position? Or is it to maintain or change the structure of government decision-making?

[1550]

Hon. J. Rustad: I apologize to the member opposite for taking a bit of time to answer the question.

I think the important thing to think about in terms of the question in the context of what you've asked is that my ministry, the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, is about reaching out, building relations and trying to reach reconciliation in a variety of forms and through a variety of processes.

D. Donaldson: Thanks for that answer. It's better than I expected. I thought you would say: "A bit of everything." From what I heard, you narrowed it down to "to advance reconciliation" is the primary purpose of what you and this ministry see as the purpose of engagement with First Nations in British Columbia. I'll take that in regards to consultation and accommodation.

My question now…. I'm going to move on to a slightly different topic area. Does the minister acknowledge that there is an economic component to aboriginal title and rights?

[1555]

Hon. J. Rustad: I think it's important to start off by saying there are differences of opinion with regards to aboriginal title and rights. Some of the things that we are working on within our ministry is really around how we go out…. As I mentioned before, we build the relationships. We try to reach reconciliation. We find ways that First Nations communities and our aboriginal people can actually try to participate more in economic development and in economic opportunities.

For example, to date we have reached ten — I think it is — economic and community development agreements. These are agreements that are between First Nations and the province around mining interests, through new or expanded mines. It creates an opportunity for economic engagement. It creates opportunities to be able to try to look at some of the cultural and social issues, as well, within First Nations. That's just one of a number of examples.

We have forest consultation and revenue-sharing agreements. We've got, as I mentioned before, things like strategic engagement agreements. We've got First Nation clean energy agreements and revenue-sharing on these.

All of these types of agreements we work on help to further the relationships that we have between the province and First Nations. It helps to build the opportunity to be able to engage in the economy, to see some benefits that come from that, and it helps First Nations to be able to explore their own goals and objectives — the things that they want to be able to work towards.

As a ministry, we're out engaging in a wide range of things that have economic components with them, but it's all about how, ultimately, we can try to change some of those socioeconomic factors that we see within First Nations territories.

D. Donaldson: In respect to the agreements, are they negotiated agreements as a result of meaningful consultation and engagement or policy and template agreements as provincially developed documents?

Hon. J. Rustad: When we're out working with First Nations…. We've gone out now for many years, obviously, listening to First Nation interests and trying to incorporate those interests in the types of things that we work on and the types of agreements that we reach.

For example, the economic community development agreements — I don't think there are any two that are absolutely alike. There are differences that do happen within that. We do engage with First Nations on, like I've mentioned before, things like strategic engagement agreements, which are very different depending on the nations involved and the process.

[1600]

Then there are things that are more standard in terms of how some of the agreements and relationships can work. Even for things that are somewhat more standard, there is flexibility that comes in through other types of agreements that we reach, such as the strategic engagement agreements.

It's through a package of types of things that we try to work with First Nations and recognize that each First Nation is different, has different interests, has different needs. We try to accommodate that where we can through the agreements that we reach.

D. Donaldson: Well, I gather the minister is trying to assert that there is some flexibility in these economic measures that are presented to First Nations, although I think that flexibility is minimal. For example, on the mining revenue taxation share, the government comes to the table with a 37½ percent share of the taxation revenues or less. It seems like that template has already been set before a First Nation gets to the table with the province.

Some First Nations, I think, have told me that they don't feel that there's a lot of flexibility in these templates. It comes to a take-it-or-leave-it kind of position or offer. As we know, many First Nations communities are in very, very difficult socioeconomic times. When faced with that, there's not a lot of negotiating, from what I understand.

Continuing along this line, are the economic measures that the minister has discussed an element required for accommodation, in his view?

Hon. J. Rustad: I think, going to the preamble before the question that has just been posed, I just want to have a little bit of a response. British Columbia is actually very proud of the work that we're doing with First Nations on revenue-sharing. In many cases, we're leading the country in our policies and the way that we're reaching out, in the way that we're trying to have First Nations engage and in what those opportunities are.

I think that when you look at the differences it's made for many First Nations around the province, it's quite remarkable. I can give a whole host of examples.

For example, a young lady in Fort St. James was living on the street — a single mom, didn't have optimism for the future. Because of an agreement that we have in place, there are more training opportunities that are available. She's entered into college, and she's taken some training. It's changed her entire outlook on life. She said to me that it's made her a better mother, made her a better community member. She's more engaged. She's optimistic about her future. She's optimistic about how her life is going.

It's these types of agreements that we have been able to reach that have been able to make significant changes for many First Nations people and many First Nations communities across the province. Like I say, it's something we're very proud of, and we're leading in the country.

Specifically to the member's question, though, the answer is no.

D. Donaldson: I appreciate the succinct answer. I will address the preamble instead.
[ Page 2467 ]

I think that when First Nations for decades have seen natural resources off unceded territories leaving their area by the truckload, by the trainload, and then there's an opportunity presented by the provincial government with a take-it-or-leave-it approach to say, "Here's a percentage of that that you can have," of course, it's going to make a difference in some people's lives within the community. Let's not discount that, but the fact is that it's based on a history of a very uneven and unlevel playing field.

Getting back to the answer that the minister gave to: "Are these economic measures an element required for accommodation?" He said no. Does the province insist that offers of revenue-sharing in economic and community development agreement discussions are not, in fact, accommodation?

[1605]

Hon. J. Rustad: When we go out and look at activities on the land base, whether it's a mining company that wants to sink $1 billion in the ground or whether it's forest companies that are out creating activity on the land base or any other types of things, one of the challenges, of course, is that you want to have certainty.

I think you want to have certainty for First Nations. You want to have certainty for proponents that have activities. You want to have certainty for the province. Part of what we try to do with these agreements with First Nations is to try to help bring that certainty so that investors can make decisions to invest and create the economic activity.

Along with that, these agreements, as I mentioned earlier, also provide the ability to participate and benefit from these activities. Really, what these activities are around is being able to unleash some of that potential, that economic opportunity, to make sure that First Nations can participate in that activity and to bring certainty so that we can see the types of investments that are appropriate and that are done appropriately on the land base — meeting, of course, all the standards and also taking into consideration First Nation interests.

D. Donaldson: When a First Nation signs an economic and community development agreement with the province, does the province insist that this is acknowledgment that accommodation has been provided?

[1610]

Hon. J. Rustad: Economic and community development agreements have, as I mentioned before, made a significant difference for many First Nations people around the province. The revenue stream, but also the other benefits that flow on it, is making a real difference, I think, for many First Nations.

As I mentioned before, this is around trying to bring certainty on the land base and engaging and making sure, through negotiation with First Nations, that aboriginal rights and title are being addressed. I want to stress once again that these agreements are around how we can move together, how we can find ways to be able to work together and partner on what the real potential is on the land base and make sure that the benefits can be shared.

D. Donaldson: I didn't quite get an answer to my question in what the minister just said, so I'm going to pose something to him so he can respond, and perhaps we'll get at it this way. The province maintains that these economic measures are not an element required for accommodation, but when they do sign economic and community development agreements with a First Nation they require the acknowledgment and release from that First Nation that accommodation has been provided.

On one hand, you say there's no economic…. "Don't worry. We don't have to provide any economic measure around accommodation, but by the way, if you sign one of these agreements around economic development, that is accommodation." I have trouble determining how this can be portrayed as honourable dealings when we talk about the honour of the Crown.

The minister has said that these kinds of agreements, ECDAs, aren't part of engagement. He has said the purpose of the engagement with B.C.'s First Nations is reconciliation, and yet reconciliation depends on the honour of the Crown.

[1615]

Hon. J. Rustad: When activities occur on the land base and we're out engaged with First Nations, I think it's important to recognize that through part of that engagement what we try to do is we try to recognize what a First Nation's interest might be, what sort of impact there may be on the land base and try to find ways to mitigate any potential impact that may be in place.

That's part of the overall components of going out and doing those engagements. But I think it's probably worth noting that not in all cases is there an offer of accommodation, because we are able to mitigate whatever the impacts are through those negotiations and discussions.

I think the agreements that are in place are forward-looking. They look at what will be happening over time and help to bring certainty on the land base, help bring certainty, I think, for the proponents, for the First Nations, in terms of the activity, and for the province. We do look at how these can address the aboriginal title and rights.

D. Donaldson: Could the minister provide an example of how mitigation has occurred so the province didn't have to accommodate with a first First Nation?

Hon. J. Rustad: I think the member opposite is trying to suggest that there is a financial component associated
[ Page 2468 ]
to accommodation in order for it to mitigate for various interests. I'll give some examples that the member might be interested in and probably aware of.

For example, when there are forestry activities on a land base, there may be an adjustment that's made to a block to take into consideration things like culturally modified trees or other particular aboriginal interests. A road, for example, that they're going through — a course on a road — may be adjusted to help to accommodate for a First Nation interest so that it doesn't have an impact.

There are literally thousands of examples of that around the province that show that when we go out and we work with First Nations and we take their interests into consideration, we find ways to try to mitigate what those issues are and accommodate those interests by making adjustments to the way things can be done or other types of methodologies.

D. Donaldson: I think that helps clarify. I believe what the minister said previously was "mitigate so don't have to accommodate." But I appreciate if he meant that accommodation does not always mean economic measures and that accommodation could mean a mitigative measure that doesn't involve a financial element. That clarifies it for me. I hope that typifies what the minister meant as well. I'm sure he'll let me know if it doesn't.

I'm going to move on to some specific examples that are in the general category of economics and First Nations. In the minister's mandate letter from the Premier there are seven priorities. One of the priorities that is ranked highly is to work with First Nations "that are in the area of a new proposed refinery to ensure they are provided with the opportunity to participate in and benefit from this economic opportunity."

The minister's service plan, on page 6, says: "The ministry is also currently engaged in negotiations with First Nations whose traditional territory is in the area of a newly proposed refinery." Could the minister elaborate on the nature of these negotiations?

[1620]

Hon. J. Rustad: There is a proponent that is looking to build a refinery. The reference to it is Kitimat Clean. That proponent has been out engaging with a number of First Nations around that. In particular, one of the sites that's being looked at falls within the traditional territory of the Kitselas. We have been engaged also with the Kitselas about this, but it is just in preliminary discussions, in terms of that engagement.

I know that the company has been out working with the First Nation around that. As that project advances, we will continue to be engaged with the Kitselas or any other First Nations that may end up being involved in a project of that nature.

D. Donaldson: Thank you to the minister. The service plan says that the ministry is currently engaged in negotiations, and now I understand it's with the Kitselas peoples. How often are you meeting? How often do you plan to meet in the coming year? It's in the service plan, so it's got some weight.

Hon. J. Rustad: It's interesting that the hon. member asked this question. Just recently I was up in the Terrace area and actually had a meeting with Kitselas.

It's probably important to note that we are in advanced stages of treaty discussions with the Kitselas. We've got a handshake on an agreement-in-principle with them. We are exploring a wide variety of economic interests with the Kitselas people. Our teams are quite engaged with Kitselas on a wide variety of topics. This is one component of that engagement.

D. Donaldson: I appreciate the minister's comments. Of course, negotiations are on a wide variety of topics, but this particular one is mentioned specifically not only in the service plan but in the mandate letter of the minister from the Premier.

[1625]

I would be seeking some more details. For instance, the mandate letter talks about exploring opportunities and benefits around a proposed oil refinery. What is the nature of the negotiations with the Kitselas on the opportunities and benefits from a proposed oil refinery on their traditional territories?

Hon. J. Rustad: I think it's important to note that this is a project that is still conceptual. There haven't been any final investment decisions. I understand the proponent is looking at a number of potential locations.

We have had meetings with the proponent and with the First Nation, but as I said, there isn't a set schedule. There isn't a set framework around those types of discussions, but we do meet on a regular basis and continue to meet on a regular basis with Kitselas, associated with our treaty discussions, and we're hoping to continue to advance those.

They have a number of interests associated with the discussions that they're having with the proponent, and we're working with Kitselas to see how we can move forward their specific interests, especially in terms of reaching a final agreement.

D. Donaldson: The mandate letter and the service plan specifically mention an oil refinery. This means it's significant. It's a high priority, according to the Premier. There could be a number of things mentioned in a service plan or in a mandate letter, but the Premier has chosen to mention and make a priority of discussions, negotiations, on an oil refinery.

And then the minister, under purpose of the ministry, doesn't talk about general terms and negotiations with
[ Page 2469 ]
the Kitselas First Nation on a treaty. He talks specifically about engaging in negotiations with a First Nation whose traditional territory is in the area of a newly proposed refinery. Again, this refinery is mentioned.

[J. Sturdy in the chair.]

My question to the minister is…. The refinery doesn't exist on its own. The raw product needs to get to that refinery, which means a pipeline — a bitumen pipeline or a raw-oil pipeline. Has the minister entered into discussions with neighbouring First Nations around a pipeline that would supply this refinery?

[1630]

Hon. J. Rustad: Hon. Chair, welcome to our discussion.

To the member opposite, I think it's probably worth noting that our service plan does reflect, obviously, the mandate that the Premier has given us in terms of going forward. This is something, should a project like this go forward, that has a very significant economic impact. It would be a very significant investment. It's only logical that it would be part of a mandate that would flow through towards our service plan in terms of how something would go forward.

As I mentioned earlier, this is under the early stages. The proponent is still trying to work through a number of things. The proponent has not put forward a plan yet as to how its product would be moved to a facility. We have not been engaged with any First Nations about that.

I think it's also important to remember that for any project that is put forward in the province that would require the movement of oil, we have set five conditions that must be met.

D. Donaldson: Well, it's a scary thing. It seems like the minister was possibly reading my mind, because that's where I'm going with my next question. I don't know what that says. It could be good; it could be bad. You never know.

One of the five conditions the Premier has regarding the northern gateway and Enbridge tar sands pipeline proposal is, and this is directly relating to the condition: "Legal requirements regarding aboriginal and treaty rights are addressed."

My question to the minister is: what is the work being undertaken to meet this condition by your government with B.C. First Nations?

[1635]

Hon. J. Rustad: As we mentioned before, the province has put five conditions in place associated with the movement of oil through British Columbia. In particular, the member referenced the northern gateway project. To date none of the conditions have been met at this particular point.

Condition 4, which I just want to make sure I reiterate into the record, is: "Legal requirements regarding aboriginal and treaty rights are addressed and First Nations are provided with opportunities, information and resources necessary to participate in and benefit from a heavy oil project."

To date the province has not been engaged with First Nations on any of the oil pipeline projects.

D. Donaldson: Well, we know that there's been a decision by the joint review panel on the northern gateway project, and there have been conditions. We know that many First Nations are not supportive of this project. One of the five conditions is that, as the minister stated, First Nations are provided necessary resources. Can the minister tell me which First Nations are being provided resources under this condition, and what are they for?

Hon. J. Rustad: The member mentioned the NEB decision. That is still not complete in terms of meeting the first condition in terms of the permitting. I think it's important to note that British Columbia is not providing resources to First Nations with regards to the northern gateway project at this time.

D. Donaldson: Well, if this is a condition that the Premier set out and relates directly to this ministry — that legal requirements regarding aboriginal and treaty rights are addressed — when does the province and when does this ministry anticipate that this will take place?

[1640]

Hon. J. Rustad: As this project continues to move forward or not, it's important to note that at this particular stage this project is in federal jurisdiction in terms of the process. If the project were to go forward — and to be able to meet the conditions that we've laid out — when it would fall into provincial jurisdiction, obviously, we would be out and engaged with First Nations.

At this time, hon. Chair, I'm just wondering if we can request a brief recess.

The Chair: Very good.

The committee recessed from 4:42 p.m. to 4:49 p.m.

[J. Sturdy in the chair.]

D. Donaldson: I have another question on this topic, just to follow on what the minister was talking about, condition No. 4. Condition No. 4 is about "legal requirements regarding aboriginal and treaty rights are addressed" — this is in reference to northern gateway — and resources to First Nations regarding this.

The joint review panel has handed down its decision
[ Page 2470 ]
endorsing the northern gateway, with 209, I believe, conditions. The clock is ticking. We're expecting to hear the federal government's response to that recommendation from the panel quite soon.

[1650]

My question to the minister is: are there resources in this budget cycle or in the three-year budget plan to be provided not just for the ministry to determine legal requirements, as stated in the Premier's fourth condition, but also for the resources mentioned for First Nations? If not, this issue is upon us, and if not, then the words that are put down under this condition seem to ring pretty hollow.

Hon. J. Rustad: I think it's important to note that when you look at condition 4, where it talks about that "…are provided with the opportunities, information and resources necessary to participate in and benefit from heavy oil projects," that's really referring to the component of a proponent going forward and saying: "How will First Nations be able to benefit and participate in various projects?"

I think it's also important to note that the member opposite talked about whether or not there is money in our budget and in future years in terms of the discussions. Our budget is set in terms of how we go out and engage with First Nations on a variety of issues that come up. From time to time there may be a need for additional resources. I think that can be reflected in the budget discussions, as you can see how we have added some additional resources specifically around liquefied natural gas and how we're out and engaged with First Nations around what that opportunity can mean.

It's an opportunity that we're very, very excited about. What liquefied natural gas can do for the province of British Columbia is absolutely enormous. What it can do in terms of the potential for aboriginals and First Nation communities is equally as enormous.

So we're out doing a lot of that work in there. We have flexibility within our budget to be able to manage within that. Where necessary, we brought in additional resources, because we want to make sure that liquefied natural gas has the ability to reach its full potential for aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike in B.C.

D. Donaldson: It's two hours into our budget estimates, and it's the first time LNG has come up, so I congratulate the minister on not going overboard on the future potential of LNG.

But we are talking about the northern gateway here, and we are talking about the Enbridge tar sands pipeline. My question is….

[1655]

These five conditions, the ones being set out by the Premier, one being: "…legal requirements regarding aboriginal and treaty rights are addressed." Does the minister see that that is a provincial responsibility, considering that the pipeline will be crossing large portions of unceded aboriginal First Nations territory?

Hon. J. Rustad: As I mentioned before, we have set out five conditions for any project that is going to be looking at movement of oil through the province. Because those projects are in federal jurisdiction, at some point if those projects were to move from federal to provincial jurisdiction in terms of permitting or other types of process and, of course, if these projects have met the conditions that we have laid out, there would be a requirement, obviously, for the province to engage on any activities that would fall within provincial jurisdiction.

D. Donaldson: The minister, if I'm hearing him correctly, is saying that aboriginal title over sections of territory that aren't covered in treaty by B.C. First Nations where the Enbridge northern gateway tar sands pipeline is planned is not something that the province considers as a legal requirement regarding aboriginal rights under condition 4?

Hon. J. Rustad: I think it's probably important to note that this is a project right now in its current form that is within the federal jurisdiction, so it is the federal jurisdiction and the federal responsibility to make sure that issues of aboriginal and treaty rights are addressed.

D. Donaldson: The Premier has made one of her conditions — specifically in regards to aboriginal and treaty rights around the northern gateway project — of approval on an area of jurisdiction that the province has no control over. Is that what the minister is saying?

Hon. J. Rustad: I'll give you a very brief answer. A successful completion of the environmental review process is also something that is not within the provincial jurisdiction, but it is one of the requirements that had been laid out as part of the five requirements in order for a project to move forward.

D. Donaldson: I'd like to move on now to another economic-related topic that's mentioned in the service plan and that I want to get the minister's perspective on.

[1700]

The service plan asserts an improved investment climate. I can give you the quote on the page, but I won't bother you with that. Yet in a significant sector, as it relates to First Nations and the provincial economy, the government ranks extremely low on investor confidence with regards to uncertainty stemming from consultation and accommodation, reconciliation and sovereignty, as we discussed earlier.

The Fraser Institute reports surveying mining companies and investment climate in 96 jurisdictions and places
[ Page 2471 ]
B.C. 17th from the bottom when it comes to uncertainty regarding disputed land claims. Mongolia, Chile and Peru are some of the 79 countries and other jurisdictions ahead of us.

The New Prosperity Taseko mine was twice turned down by the federal environmental review process, in part because of its impacts on the Chilcotin aboriginal rights. Yet this government's Mines Minister went to Ottawa to try to convince the federal cabinet to overturn the decision, at the direction of the Premier. He was on record as saying that it was a number one priority to get the mine to go ahead. It's no wonder investor confidence is low when you see that behaviour.

Even Prime Minister Harper acknowledged the issue of aboriginal title after his cabinet endorsed the federal environmental review rejection. I'll quote here. He said, the Prime Minister: "I'll be frank. It's also in an area with unresolved land claim issues with local aboriginal groups. Considering all the environmental and legal advice the government received, we do not have the grounds to approve the project." That's the Prime Minister.

Can the minister describe the advice his ministry gave to the Mines Minister on this file as part of your cross-ministry role before the Mines Minister's trip to Ottawa?

Hon. J. Rustad: My apologies. I can't resist a little bit in the context of the question and the preamble that went to it.

Back 12 or 13 years ago we had about $29 million worth of investment in exploration. We had come out of a period where for every mine that opened, two mines closed.

What we're seeing now in British Columbia is a tremendous amount of confidence in mining, in mining exploration. I think the number — I'm using this off the top of my head, so I hope I've got this number right — for the previous year was around $680 million in exploration.

We've seen companies put forward a significant number of projects. We have a bunch of new mines that are opening or that are in the process, that have been permitted to move forward, and I think what you're seeing is significant confidence in British Columbia. In particular from a measure…. The reason why I talked about exploration and the exploration numbers is that you have to look at what the overall exploration is across Canada.

[1705]

Back in 2001 we had about 6 percent of the overall investment across Canada. Once again, I'm just writing these the numbers off the top of my head. Today we're up now close to around 20 percent, give or take. When you look at that, what you're seeing is the investment that's coming into British Columbia. It's because of the confidence they have in what we've been able to achieve and do within the province.

What we are doing now within my ministry is very much that we're out engaging with First Nations around economic and community development agreements. As I mentioned earlier in the questions, we're leading the country in terms of how these agreements are working and building the potential and the opportunity for First Nations to engage in mining projects. We have ten of these agreements. We're hoping that we'll be able to sign more of these agreements in the very near future.

I think it's also important to note, in terms of that engagement and the work that we're doing, that the mining industry actually employs more aboriginal people than any other industry in Canada. It's an industry that has been very successful in engaging with First Nations. It's been very successful, particularly in this province, in terms of the types of agreements that we've been able to reach.

Specifically to the question, though, that the member asked, which is around the Minister for Energy and Mines's trip to Ottawa and whatever process was around that, I'm actually going to put to the member that that's a question that would be much better put to the Minister of Energy and Mines.

D. Donaldson: There was no briefing material supplied by the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation to the Mines Minister before he went to Ottawa, regarding the background of this aboriginal objection to the New Prosperity mine?

Hon. J. Rustad: The Tsilhqot'in people have a relationship, obviously, with the province. We have a number of agreements in place — things like strategic engagement agreements, with the Tsilhqot'in people. We are looking, obviously, to be able to expand into other types of agreements with the Tsilhqot'in.

As I mentioned, we also have things like economic and community development agreements, and there are opportunities and potential for that should any type of other activity arise within the area.

[1710]

I think it's important to note that this is a project — the Prosperity project, as it's known — that has been around for in the vicinity of 25 years, give or take. There has been lots of back and forth in this project over that period of time. There has been a myriad of information that has been provided and discussions that have happened between the Ministry for Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation and the Ministry for Energy and Mines.

D. Donaldson: I want to talk a little bit more about the Tsilhqot'in since we're in their area, the topic area. Of course, the comments, the preamble, I would have to address — that the minister put out earlier around the mineral exploration industry.

I want to point out that you can't take credit for market factors. Right now the market factors are very good. That's obviously why exploration is very good. The market factors near the period that the minister was referring
[ Page 2472 ]
to in the late '90s were poor. Copper at that point was in the 60-cent a pound range. It's five times as much now. Gold is six times as much.

I think that I don't ever discount the importance of mining, especially to the First Nations and aboriginal employment perspective. That is why I'm concerned about, under this government, the Fraser Institute issuing a report that the uncertainty over land claims…. We're one of the worst jurisdictions when it comes to that, regarding investment. So that is something that's a fact. I'm concerned about it, and I'm sure the minister is as well.

With the Tsilhqot'in, I wanted to say that they were in front of the Supreme Court in early December on a forest-related case that has wound its way through the courts for probably over 20 years now. It will likely be the first ruling on actual aboriginal title in B.C. and Canada since the Delgamuukw case confirmed that aboriginal title existed in Canadian law and had components of consultation, accommodation and compensation.

We're expecting this ruling this year. In fact, I had discussions with the Tsilhqot'in today, and it appears that the decision might be imminent. A positive outcome is a high likelihood, and the decision is expected this year. The implications are huge for consultation and accommodation and reconciliation. In the words of Chief Jody Wilson-Raybould of the B.C. Assembly of First Nations, this decision could change the landscape when we're talking about consultation, accommodation and reconciliation.

In this budget estimates and in this budget cycle we're considering, I wanted to ask the minister: how is the minister preparing the government for this eventuality of a potential positive decision?

Hon. J. Rustad: Since the preamble seems to have carried on for a number of questions, I feel obliged to respond in kind. I think it's important to note that in British Columbia we have always had a mining industry, and mining has always been very, very important in our economy and to, ultimately, the development of the province.

Back through the '80s and even into the '70s and up to the early '90s I think it's important to note that British Columbia used to have 12 to 16 percent or thereabouts. Once again, these are numbers from the top of my head, so I don't know the exact numbers. But we had about that much of the exploration budget in Canada.

[1715]

It was pretty consistent. It moved up and down in that range. Whether there were market factors involved because there were high spikes up and spikes down…. We always had sort of that level of confidence. Through the '90s that plummeted. The mining industry in the province lost complete confidence. That's why we were down around 6 percent, or less, of that exploration budget in terms of the total of what was happening within Canada.

Since we have come in, through our policies and development we've seen that increase, as I mentioned before, to now where we're actually above the historical average. We've managed to recover from that entire period of time, and industry is showing significant confidence in mining.

That's the measure of confidence that you want to see within the province. We are above the average in terms of the share that we're seeing across Canada. Companies are optimistic about being able to move forward projects. There are quite a few in the member's riding that companies are still working through and hopeful to see happen. I look forward to celebrating the opening of Red Chris in the member opposite's riding, which will happen, hopefully, this summer, I think is the schedule around that.

Specifically to the member's question about the case, at this particular stage we are still waiting for that decision to come down. That's a case, obviously, and it was actually argued back in November in the Supreme Court. We're waiting for that decision, and it would be inappropriate of me at this point to comment about what that decision may be.

D. Donaldson: Goodness, I never thought I'd hear "it's before the courts" come out in budget estimates, but we'll let that one slide.

As far as the back-and-forth on the mining issue, I could debate that further, but we're in budget estimates regarding Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation. That's where I want to focus on the mining topic and the fact that the Fraser Institute has ranked us so low in the investment climate around when it comes to investing in unsettled land claims.

The Morrison mine I wanted to bring up with the minister. He has spoken to me about it on occasion. The decision came down from the environmental assessment office in B.C. rejecting the mine. There was a lot of back-and-forth around the process and around the environmental mitigative measures. I think what was overlooked was the fact that….

I've read the full document cover to cover a couple of times, and what was overlooked is that the three First Nations who were granted status within the environmental assessment — the Lake Babine Nation, the Gitksan and Gitanyow — all rejected the notion that there wouldn't be any significant long-term impacts and, in fact, supported the final decision by the executive director of the B.C. environmental assessment office to reject the project. They also said that nothing that occurred within the B.C. environmental assessment process around the mine, in their view, constituted consultation.

I'm a bit curious as to why, or if, the minister, since this was a rejection of consultation, did not point this out. Has he pointed it out to his government and to his cabinet? This government made a decision not to challenge the fact that the court ruled in favour of a second review for the company in this mine.
[ Page 2473 ]

[1720]

Hon. J. Rustad: About the Morrison project. There was a decision that was made by the Ministry of Environment in terms of whether or not to proceed with an appeal of the court decision. Ultimately, I think, with regards to that project, because it is under the environmental assessment, I'm sorry to say I'm going to have to refer you to go and ask that question to the Minister of Environment.

D. Donaldson: I was asking the minister to comment on the fact that the Lake Babine Nation, who were in the Legislature today, and the Gitxsan and the Gitanyow did not acknowledge, did not accept that the process was considered consultation, in their minds.

Hon. J. Rustad: This links back, actually, to our earlier conversations about the ministry. I think it's important to note that our ministry is responsible for relations and reconciliation. Consultation and the discussions that go on around consultation associated with the environmental assessment do fall under the Ministry of Environment, which is why I suggest that the member needs to pose this question to the Ministry of Environment.

D. Donaldson: In the material that is considered by the government when considering consultation, the B.C. environmental assessment process is typified as deep consultation. The deepest consultation with First Nations is through the B.C. environmental assessment process. Yet the three nations that I mentioned — the Lake Babine Nation, the Gitxsan and the Gitanyow — said that they rejected that anything in the process around Morrison mine regarding the B.C. environmental assessment process constituted consultation.

Does that not give the minister who's in charge of aboriginal relations and reconciliation cause for concern?

Hon. J. Rustad: Because consultation is part of what the environmental assessment process is about, with regards to the level of consultation or other types of issues around consultation that have been undertaken, once again I am going to have to refer you to the Ministry of Environment.

[1725]

N. Simons: Thank you to the minister for being here. It was nice to see you in Powell River at the celebration of the Tla'amin treaty just a couple of weekends ago, I think.

My question has to do with the Shishalh Nation and their hope that the St. Mary's Hospital name change will go through. It's the understanding of Chief Feschuk…. I want to congratulate him, while I'm standing, on his seventh grandchild, Lillian, born this morning to his son Steven and Steven's partner, Debra-Lee. He and I have worked very closely together, and he's about to step aside to become a councillor. Another chief, Calvin Craigin, will be taking over at the beginning of April.

Chief Feschuk is concerned that the process of renaming St. Mary's Hospital in Sechelt has to go through a number of processes that I don't think they were necessarily forewarned about. It is our understanding that ultimately the decision to name St. Mary's Hospital with a new name, possibly Shishalh — Sechelt — hospital, is the decision of the minister.

Recognizing the minister's interest in reconciliation happening at all sorts of levels, I'm just wondering if the minister could assure the people of Sechelt…. I believe people in the constituency are quite supportive of this name change. Would the minister be able to add his support to renaming the hospital on the land donated by the Shishalh Nation? It was part of the residential school way back in the day — not that long ago, actually. Would the minister be able to weigh in on that issue and ensure that the name reflects the history of the hospital and the land upon which it sits now?

[G. Kyllo in the chair.]

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. J. Rustad: Hon. Chair, welcome to the chair. It's good to see you.

To the member opposite for Powell River–Sunshine Coast, it was a great honour to be able to be at that Tla'amin signing, and I'm happy that you were there to be able to witness that. It is one of those moments for me that I will always remember because of the significance of what we were doing in terms of doing the official signing of the treaty.

Also, I want to extend my congratulations to the Chief on the grandchild. I certainly wish him and his family the best for the future.

Specifically, with the Sechelt Nation…. I mean, we've been very engaged with many First Nations around the province on issues such as name and on recognition. It's part of what we do in terms of reconciling around the province. Obviously, the big ones are things like the change in name for Haida Gwaii, things like the Salish Sea and other types of things around the province.

I'm happy to work with the Sechelt Nation, and I believe it's the Minister of Health that has the responsibility around naming, to look at what would be appropriate for that site.

[1730]

N. Simons: Thank you for the response. Yes, Chief Feschuk and his wife, Pauline, are thrilled that little Lillian was born this morning. I'm sure he appreciates your congratulations.

Would it be fair for me to ask the minister to make sure that he has a conversation, if possible, with the Minister
[ Page 2474 ]
of Health to make sure that the Sechelt Nation's desire to have the hospital's presence reflect the territory where it is and the people who donated it…? And can I reassure the Chief that you will have a discussion with the minister responsible?

Hon. J. Rustad: That is my commitment — that I will have a conversation with the Minister of Health about this. As well, my staff will be engaged with the Sechelt Nation on this issue, and we'll see where that conversation can go.

B. Routley: Thank you for this opportunity to ask a question.

I do have, on behalf of the Cowichan Tribes…. We've got one of the largest First Nation groups in British Columbia right here on southern Vancouver Island, in the Cowichan Tribes, which is really six bands that have made up that rather large First Nations group.

We've had a group of women that have come together and have been meeting in our office to deal with their own pain, having had children taken away from them. One of the things that they have in common is that they either had alcohol or other family issues, and as a result, they had children taken away from them. As you may know, there is a large number of suicides that we've had in the Cowichan Valley.

I'd like to add that we've had, recently, a Métis fellow…. His name is Michael Dufrane. I've had meetings with him and Keith Henry to deal with some of his concerns. He's very distressed and distraught about having his child removed at birth. He talked about having the home ready for his son to come home and the distress that they felt in going to the Stone Church and crying and praying together, having lost their child and it being removed.

There seems to be an inordinate number of First Nations children being removed from First Nations in British Columbia. My question to the minister is: could the minister give me the statistics on how many B.C. First Nations children have been removed from their homes at birth as compared to other situations, I guess, in British Columbia?

Mainly the number that I need to know or am concerned about is…. Well, they literally come right out to me and say "Is there a form of racism going on in British Columbia?" with the high numbers of children that seem to be removed from the home in amongst various tribes here in British Columbia. So if you have an answer to the issue about the numbers, and if there are any other suggestions or ideas that you have that I could take back to these families that are meeting amongst themselves….

I don't know of any special programs, if there are any available, to help First Nations women that have this kind of issue. But I did want you to be aware that it's very real and it's a problem that's alive and well in the Cowichan Valley. It's not one that I'm happy to have.

I would rather not have people gathering in my office concerned about the number of children, and mothers sharing their stories and their pain together. It just seems alarming. I don't have any other groups asking to meet in my office to talk about a similar type of situation.

[1735]

Hon. J. Rustad: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. I share your concern about those issues, and I'm glad that you have brought them forward. They are issues that are very significant. Certainly, I think no one wants to see these sorts of things happening.

Specifically to the question around the numbers in terms of removed children and the ratios, of course that responsibility is not under my ministry. It is under the Ministry of Children and Family Development, around trying to get that direct information.

However, there are a number of initiatives that the province, the Canadian government and the Cowichan Tribes are working on. There are a number of things that are happening between those groups to try to help improve the situation and to try to address things. I'd be happy to offer a briefing to the member opposite from my staff with regard to those initiatives and where things are at.

D. Donaldson: My question is going to follow on the same lines as my colleague who just asked, and it's around children in care. There are two First Nations in Stikine who are using the authority and jurisdiction inherent in their traditional governance systems to provide for the care of children in need, and they're very successful examples. I believe the minister might be aware of them.

One of them is the Wet'suwet'en Hereditary Chiefs' approach to care and delivery service called ANABIP, which translates along the lines of: "We're talking about our laws, our ways." They've had amazing results supported through the Office of the Wet'suwet'en.

This is typified by one Wet'suwet'en youth who came to my office in Smithers and read a letter to me that he wrote to the children's representative's office and to the Ministry of Children and Family Development which he later used in a presentation to the Hereditary Chiefs. ANABIP has made all the difference in his life and the lives of other Wet'suwet'en children.

The other example, and I believe the minister is aware of this one as well, is the Stikine Wholistic Working Group composed of Kaska, Tlingit and Tahltan Nations. They've had unprecedented results, including the largest historical reduction of children protection files — 50 percent — across B.C.'s largest region, with B.C.'s highest aboriginal population, and an equally stunning more-than-50-percent decrease in the number of children in care. It's a unique collaboration with positive results extending even beyond the working group.
[ Page 2475 ]

They're two very successful approaches to creating a community of care for First Nations and aboriginal children that put the child and community at the centre and where direct service delivery is in the context of what's been successful for 10,000 years and has only gone unrecognized since our western system became dominant in their territories. The authority of the traditional system remains strong, and it's at the basis of the successful ANABIP and the Stikine Wholistic Working Group.

They're both awaiting answers from the Ministry of Children and Family Development about whether this government will continue to support them in their efforts, in their successful efforts. I have encouraged the Minister of Children and Family Development to support their efforts and partner with them. They still don't know.

The end of the fiscal year is less than a week away. They still don't know whether they'll be able to be funded in a wholesome manner, or funded at all.

[1740]

They're linking both the Stikine Wholistic Working Group — I think the second word there is the most important, "wholistic" — and also the ANABIP, which is "Our laws, our ways." Both those approaches are linked to a bigger picture of children in care, but the traditional territories and the extended family and the laws and governance of the Wet'suwet'en and then the Kaska, Tlingit and Tahltan Nations…. It's linked to reconciliation. It's linked to the honour of the Crown. I know that the minister has taken an active interest in both their cases and that MARR, the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, has played a role.

Could the minister describe the nature of the role MARR has played in these two groups trying to get a continuance of their funding and what advice they gave to the Ministry of Children and Family Development, again, in the context of this being only a few days away from when they might have to close down their doors?

Hon. J. Rustad: I think the wellness initiative or the ANABIP initiative, as well as the Stikine Wholistic Working Group, are doing good work. In particular, I think the ANABIP has shown some great results in the approach that it has taken. I've had a number of opportunities to speak directly with the Office of the Wet'suwet'en around that initiative. I have also had an opportunity to meet with the chiefs from the three First Nations around the Stikine Wholistic Working Group and had an opportunity for discussion around that as well. They brought information in.

Right now there is a process that has been put out by the Minister of Children and Family Development, and I think it's important to note that that is not, obviously, within my ministry in terms of the direct involvement, but that process is ongoing. There are some decisions that I think will be happening soon. We're hoping to be able to work with First Nations and to be able to bring some certainty to them around the future. My hope is that the good work that is being done will be able to continue and go forward.

I just want to reiterate, as I have right from the beginning, that my ministry is not responsible in terms of delivering services, but we are responsible in terms of building relations and trying to reach reconciliation with First Nations. I recognize that we're short on time for the rest, but I am going to ask for one very brief recess if we may.

The Chair: The committee will stand in recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 5:44 p.m. to 5:48 p.m.

[G. Kyllo in the chair.]

D. Donaldson: Before the short break we were discussing two initiatives. One of them was the Stikine Wholistic Working Group, and the Tahltan are members of that. I wanted to ask a question that relates to their territory in regards to the area called the Sacred Headwaters, an area I visited last August. It's in the constituency of Stikine.

The question to the minister is: given the 2013 platform commitments by his government to "examine the feasibility…of a provincially designated protected area in the Klappan," what steps are being taken to achieve this examination, what is the status of the examination, and what is the role that his ministry is playing in that?

[1750]

Hon. J. Rustad: The issue of the Klappan and the commitment — I believe it's in the letter from the Premier — is actually under the Ministry of Environment. Questions specifically around that should be directed to the Minister of Environment.

My ministry is working with the Ministry of Environment, as are other ministries. Specifically, my ministry, of course, is involved with the relationship and reconciliation. We have, with the Tahltan people, a strategic engagement agreement. Through the terms in that agreement, when there is a dispute that has arisen like that, we've actually struck what is called a level 4, and I believe it's called a strategic working group, that falls under that strategic engagement agreement to try to find ways to address this.

Specifically, it is the Minister of Environment that is leading those discussions.

D. Donaldson: This has come up several times, and it came up in other estimates last year that we had around the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation role. I'm just trying to get a picture of this. The minister has mentioned it a couple of times, but this might be a
[ Page 2476 ]
good example for him to paint the picture a little bit more.

You said the ministry is involved in the relationship building and reconciliation. Then agreements get signed, like the shared decision-making agreement. Then issues arise, like the establishment of a protected area in the Sacred Headwaters, and the minister says: "That's the Minister of Environment's mandate."

So what role does MARR have? Do you just convene the meeting and sit around the table and not offer any advice to your staff and let Ministry of Environment and Ministry of Energy and Mines go back and forth with the Tahltan, or do you get involved? Are you chairing these meetings? Maybe you can paint a better picture.

Hon. J. Rustad: It's probably worth just taking a moment to talk about the relationship between the Tahltan and the province. My ministry is responsible for what we put together in terms of what's called a framework agreement with the Tahltan. Under that there are things like the strategic engagement agreement that I talked about earlier. There are revenue-sharing agreements that are in place as well. Of course, the Stikine Wholistic Working Group falls within that.

Our role with the ministry is really around…. Like I said, it's about the relationship; it's about reconciliation. So we act as a coordinator. Other ministries will come in — for example, the Ministry of Environment, which has a responsibility about protected areas, for example, parks or other types of things.

We will work with the other ministries and with the First Nation, but ultimately, the decisions around what may or may not take place on a land base around the Klappan fall under the jurisdictions of other ministries. We have more of a coordinating and supporting role in terms of the relationship, in terms of the agreements we have in place.

[1755]

C. Trevena: The minister is most likely aware of a protest by the Kwakiutl First Nation outside Port Hardy. They've been protesting for more than two months now, 24-hour protests, protesting the logging by Island Timberlands on their land. It does impact their territory. The harvesting is being done on private lands. Western was allowed to pull from the TFL in 2006.

The title to the lands was established by Douglas treaty signed 163 years ago and confirmed by the courts last June. I wondered whether the minister would be in a position to urgently meet with the elected Chief, councillors and elders of the Kwakiutl First Nation to try and resolve this before it gets any further along the road. As I say, they have been protesting 24 hours a day for eight weeks now.

Hon. J. Rustad: Member for North Island, thank you for the question, and thank you for participating in the estimates process as well. We take the issues of the Douglas treaty and all of our treaties and agreements very seriously. We work with First Nations on those issues. We work with First Nations with the agreements that we have in place.

We always prefer to be able to sit down and negotiate over litigation or other types of issues. Unfortunately, because this situation is in the middle of litigation, it means I am not in a position where I can comment a lot further on it. I would be very interested in sitting down with the Chief and with the council to discuss the issue, but once again, unfortunately, when it is in litigation, I am unable to actually do that.

As with other nations that have Douglas treaty rights or other issues, we work with them. We have a number of tools that are available, a number of things that we can discuss on how we can shape and do things. I'd be very interested in sitting down with the Kwakiutl Nation to discuss that and those things as well, but unfortunately, I can't do that while we're in the process of litigation.

C. Trevena: I thank the minister, and I understand what he's saying. The situation is escalating there, though, Minister. I've heard talk that now they're moving on towards a hunger strike. They feel that nobody is listening to them.

I asked the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. Like yourself, he said that because there is court involvement, he cannot get involved. The Minister of Aboriginal Relations is saying that also. The First Nation feels very…. There is a real problem here.

They have what they see as a legitimate concern, and the people that they turn to as signatories of a treaty or the holders of the treaty are the ministers of the Crown. They want the Crown to be involved in this directly. I wonder if the minister can actually get in touch with the elected Chief, get in touch with the elders to explain why he cannot get involved with this at the moment.

[1800]

Hon. J. Rustad: I'm disturbed about the situation and how it develops as well. Obviously, I'm concerned for the safety of individuals. I'm concerned about where things could escalate to.

We actually were engaged with the First Nation on discussions around a forest consultation and revenue-sharing agreement, around how that can work and the various engagements and components. Unfortunately, they decided to break away from those discussions and go into the litigation process.

As much as I would like to be able to come out and sit down with them and have discussion — sit down with the people that are on the line and sit down with the Chief and sort of even talk about the stress that's in the relationship — unfortunately, because it is in litigation, I just can't do it.

If you could pass that message on to them, I'd be…. If
[ Page 2477 ]
the litigation were to stop or there was some way that we could have a period to be able to do an intervention, at that point, you know, I'd be happy to sit down with them and have the discussions.

A. Weaver: First off, my apologies to both the minister and the critic. I typically like to give questions in advance so that you have time to reflect upon the questions I'm asking — and the responses.

I have three questions, but I'm only going to ask one. With the minister's leave, I'd like to hand them for a written response at a later date. If you could let me know in your response if that's possible.

My question is this. One of the foundational documents for this ministry is the New Relationship instituted by this government a number of years ago. In the document the ministry stated that it would work to "develop new institutions or structures to negotiate government-to-government agreements for shared decision-making regarding land use planning, management, tenuring and resource revenue- and benefit-sharing."

The ministry also stated it would "identify institutional, legislative and policy changes to implement this vision and these action items."

The question is, then: can the minister please explain how some of these new institutions or policy changes are represented in this budget? I'd be happy to pass the rest of the questions through written form.

Hon. J. Rustad: Happy to take those questions from you and be able to provide a written response. Provide them over, and we'll get them back in terms of a response as quickly as we can.

Specifically to the New Relationship, you know, we can provide even some more information in writing about that too, if required.

[1805]

I think it's important to note that, basically, eight years ago or thereabouts when the New Relationship document came out, when we started talking about the new relationship, we had very few, if any, agreements with First Nations. We now have literally hundreds of agreements in place with First Nations across the province.

They are engaged with everything from governance to consultation to strategic engagements to reconciliation. We have revenue-sharing on things like clean energy, mines, and oil and gas. There is a wide range of agreements that we now have in place with First Nations, and in many cases we're leading the country in how those relationships have been developed.

I think, also, it's important to note that the new relationship isn't just about a ministry's interaction. It's really about how government has changed its approach and its interaction with First Nations across the province. The level of success that we've seen in the changes that it has brought about, through the new relationship and through these types of agreements, is really quite remarkable.

In some places it might be a little slower than in other places in terms of it, but it really has allowed us to be able to reach out and change the nature of the relationship for many First Nations with government, bringing in respect, bringing in government-to-government discussions. Ultimately, all of this is also a building block towards how we can reach ultimate reconciliation, which is, of course, to be able to reach treaty.

I think it's important to note that reaching treaty isn't even the end. It is actually the beginning. It's defining how we can continue to work together in the future and how we can try to reach other agreements and try to bring certainty both for First Nations and non–First Nations.

There has been a tremendous amount of work that's been done. The new relationship has been the foundation for many of the policies and decisions and the process that we now have in place, and we continue to expand that today.

D. Donaldson: I'm interested in another economic-related matter that's referenced in the service plan. This is to do with tourism and, in the service plan, the references to economic development in an area such as tourism with First Nations. I'm curious about the role that the ministry played.

We know that just recently the aboriginal tourism industry was very, very upset about ferry cuts — the cutting of route 40 from Port Hardy to Bella Coola. Aboriginal tourism in B.C. earned $45 million last year, and it was up from $20 million in 2012.

The head of the Aboriginal Tourism Association of B.C., Keith Henry, said the cuts would have immediate and significant negative financial impacts on aboriginal market-ready businesses and product development work. It's in many regions, including the north and Cariboo-Chilcotin. These are jobs now for First Nations and aboriginal people, and the ferry cuts are going to impact those jobs negatively, as pointed out by the head of the Aboriginal Tourism Association.

I'm curious, since the service plan mentions tourism and economic development in that regard, what role the ministry had in advising the Ministry of Transportation around these cuts before they happened and what consultation they undertook with First Nations on the coast and in the central Interior who are negatively impacted by these cuts from a tourism perspective.

[1810]

Hon. J. Rustad: Tourism is a phenomenal opportunity, I think, for First Nations around the province. As a matter of fact, I know the member opposite participated in the incremental treaty agreement signing that we did just today with Lake Babine Nation. That actually had an
[ Page 2478 ]
ecotourism component in it. There's a piece of property, which will be transferred under the incremental treaty agreement to Lake Babine Nation, that has cabins on it, that has access for hunting and fishing and hiking. It's an opportunity that they hope to be able to explore in terms of expanding the potential for ecotourism.

Really, across the province many First Nations are looking for these opportunities and potential. It's things that we are engaged with, with First Nations, whether it falls in under treaty or whether it falls in under other types of agreements that we try to reach with First Nations.

I think many of the agreements that we're making — even at the broad level with the engagement agreements, the framework agreements, or at the level of agreements that are more specific around economic community development…. It really helps to enable First Nations to be able to explore and expand on the opportunities that they want to look at, be it tourism or other types of business opportunities.

I have to say, specifically to the member's reference on the B.C. Ferries and issues associated with B.C. Ferries, any time you have to make decisions that are difficult, I mean, it is difficult. It is done taking things into consideration, but it's also done with an eye of what the overall impacts would be.

In my mandate letter, as I'm sure in all ministries' mandate letters, the number one thing is to balance our budget. That means you have to be able to make tough decisions. You have to be able to think about things in the overall context. But those are tough choices that need to be made collectively to be able to meet our goal of balancing our budget and being able to do the right thing for the taxpayers and for the children and for the future of our province.

Specifically to decisions around routes and around the components of those routes, unfortunately, I am going to have to once again ask the member to speak directly to the Minister of Transportation around those issues.

D. Donaldson: Thank you for the answer. Tough decisions don't have to be uninformed decisions, and good data makes good decision-making. I will look forward to asking the Minister of Transportation whether an economic analysis was done regarding the impact of this ferry cut to aboriginal tourism, because if you don't have informed decisions, then you can end up in the role of cutting off your nose to spite your face when it comes to trying to save a dollar and actually causing a loss of dollars and jobs.

The Site C dam proposal is what I would like to canvass the minister on next. The First Nations involved in Treaty 8 are adamantly opposed to the Site C dam proposal. Treaty Tribal Chief Liz Logan says: "The elders tell us that this treaty was an agreement to share, coexist and to live in peace with the settlers, and we have done that, but we are currently being pushed off and out of our land. We are now being told by our elders that enough is enough and to stand up and fight for it, and that's what we're doing." That's in relation to the Site C dam.

[1815]

She goes on to say they're not opposed to development, but they want to see activities that help to create economic certainty for their people. Here's the quote again: "We just ask that there be a balance and development be done with as minimal impact as possible." In the case of Site C, "This project and its impacts far outweigh any benefits."

Roland Willson, the Chief of the West Moberly First Nations, is adamantly opposed to this project. He says the lands that would be flooded are key to his livelihood. Here's his quote: "It's a key spot for us. It provides us fish. It provides us food. It's a refuge for animals. Everything comes to this area, and then they move out from there, and then they come back in, and they move out. It's like your lungs in your body."

My question to the minister is in regard to the Treaty 8 perspective on Site C and his repetition that the ministry is about relationships. In the context of relationships between the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation and the Treaty 8, how is he advocating their perspective on Site C to B.C. Hydro and other parts of government?

Hon. J. Rustad: I just want to go back to the previous preamble for a second, as a bit of a follow-up. That is, I also recommend that the member talk to the Ministry of Jobs and Tourism specifically around some of those things and some of the things that they're actually trying to do in terms of mitigating and enhancing tourism opportunities around some of those decisions around ferries. So just something for the member if he wanted to follow up in terms of that.

Specifically to Site C and our relationship with the Treaty 8 Nations, we've been working with the Treaty 8 Nations for a long period of time. We have a number of agreements in place. In particular, we've got economic benefit agreements in place that really engage around the Treaty 8 Nations, around activities and things that are happening on their land base.

We're actually in the process of having discussions with the Treaty 8 Nations around those agreements, where those agreements can go, how we can potentially update those agreements. We're hopeful we will be in a situation where we'll see updated agreements come out of that.

Specifically, though, to the discussions on Site C, that really is an engagement, once again, with B.C. Hydro in terms of those discussions and through the Ministry of Energy and Mines. Once again, unfortunately, I'm going to have to ask the member to engage with the Minister of Energy and Mines around those discussions.

[1820]

D. Donaldson: Okay, we'll try another question. Hopefully, it'll be within the mandate of the ministry.

When I questioned the minister earlier around the purpose of engagement from his perspective, he focused on reconciliation as being the priority when it comes to engagement of First Nations. We know from the Haida decision that reconciliation is a process flowing from the rights guaranteed by section 35. It's a process that flows from the Crown's duty of honourable dealing towards aboriginal people, which arises from the Crown's assertion of sovereignty over and de facto control of the land and resources that were formally in control of that people. Reconciliation is a process flowing from the rights guaranteed by section 35, and the minister says that the main purpose of engagement is reconciliation.

Section 35, as laid out in the Van der Peet case, says the purpose of 35.1 is "the protection and the reconciliation of the interests which arise from the fact that prior to the arrival of the Europeans in North America, aboriginal peoples lived on the land in distinctive societies with their own practices, customs and traditions." I want to apply that frame of reconciliation in section 31.5 and the other priority that the minister has outlined for his ministry about relationships with First Nations to a situation that the Gitanyow face.

The Gitanyow have, as the minister is aware, a reconciliation agreement with the province that includes a land use plan. They're faced with the situation that every time there is a proponent through the government who is proposing to impact their traditional territory in some way, whether it's mining or a power line or pipelines, they are put in a situation of having to defend and support their strength of claim, even though they have a reconciliation agreement with a land use plan, and the land use plan outlines their territory and the different zones and uses in their territory. Every time there's a proponent through the government that wants to work on the territory, they have to engage in a strength-of-claim analysis and a discussion and a rebuttal.

What's been put to me is: where is the honour in that? If you're concerned about reconciliation and the rights guaranteed through section 35.1 around the interests that were in place prior to the arrival of Europeans and relationship-building, then why would this government put the Gitanyow through a process like that? When they already have a reconciliation agreement and a land use plan, why would they put them through the process of having to debate and prove strength of claim every time there's that proponent development?

[1825]

Hon. J. Rustad: We have a reconciliation agreement with the Gitanyow. Part of that actually is a strategic engagement agreement. Through the strategic engagement agreement, we actually have an agreed-to process about how we will engage and work with the Gitanyow.

I'm a little confused about the question and where things are going with that. What I'd like to ask is if the member can either provide some more information or perhaps if you want to provide that in a written form, we can get some more information back to you on that.

D. Donaldson: Yes, I will provide that in writing — examples and where the confusion comes from. I think I'll be able to detail some of the examples where they've had to prove and verify strength of claim on a variety of projects. That seemed to them to run counter to the reconciliation agreement and the honour of the Crown. I'll provide written questions to the minister on that one.

I understand that the minister recently met with the Wet'suwet'en Nation, and I have a question. In the service plan there's mention of government-to-government relationships, and the minister has talked about relationships. The Wet'suwet'en have — as the minister is, I'm sure, quite aware, since he has recently met with them — a very strong hereditary system.

As they partnered with the Gitxsan in bringing Delgamuukw to the Supreme Court of Canada, they were able to really spend a lot of time and a lot of work on delineating their traditional territories and the aboriginal title that flows from that in a way that the western court system could understand. Of course, in the hereditary system it was well understood — the boundaries and the specific territories that belonged to the house groups in the Wet'suwet'en territory.

There are at least two proposed natural gas pipelines that relate to a proposed LNG export industry that would cross a number of the hereditary chiefs' traditional territories that have been recognized in many of the different agreements the Wet'suwet'en Nation has signed with the provincial government, and the hereditary system and those hereditary chiefs have been recognized.

My question is with regards to the LNG pipelines, the natural gas pipelines and the government-to-government relationship. Does the ministry recognize the hereditary chiefs as titleholders on the pieces of land that the proposed pipelines will cross?

Hon. J. Rustad: I've had the pleasure now of meeting with the Office of the Wet'suwet'en a number of times. Actually, I met with them before even becoming minister because, obviously, some of the issues were directly associated with my riding.

[1830]

Specifically to the question, though, about the liquefied natural gas and the natural gas pipelines that are proposed through that territory. Our ministry is out engaging with the Wet'suwet'en people. We want to continue that engagement. We've asked them: "How would you like us to work in terms of that engagement?" It's part of a discussion that is ongoing.
[ Page 2480 ]

D. Donaldson: As part of that relationship and development that is a focus of the ministry, what did the ministry hear from the office of the Wet'suwet'en about who they believe the provincial government should recognize as the proper titleholders when it comes to the proposed natural gas pipelines through their territory?

Hon. J. Rustad: In the opportunities that I've had to meet with the office of the Wet'suwet'en, I think what we have heard is that the Wet'suwet'en people want to be able to have a relationship with the province. They want to be able to be respected and have their interests respected. That's what I have expressed interest in doing as well — in exploring our relationship, being able to expand what we can do and work on together.

The office of the Wet'suwet'en has a number of interests, obviously, through the area. The ANABIP project that we talked about earlier is one of those projects. There are forestry interests. There are, of course, the natural gas lines, which are one of those interests.

What I've heard from them is that they want to be engaged. They want to have the opportunity to have those discussions. We have teams that are ready and willing and want to be engaged with the Wet'suwet'en people about those projects. I actually look forward to how our relationship will develop over the coming weeks, months and years.

D. Donaldson: As we move into the future under this budget cycle and the minister develops that relationship with the Wet'suwet'en that he believes is reciprocal — that the Wet'suwet'en want to develop a relationship with the minister and this government — will he then be pursuing the hereditary chiefs as the proper titleholders when it comes to discussions that his ministry is mandated to work on when it comes to pipelines associated with LNG development?

Hon. J. Rustad: As I mentioned, we've met with the Wet'suwet'en. We've met with the hereditary chiefs.

[1835]

Specifically to projects, we will be continuing to engage with them. We are going to continue to build respectful relationships and have discussions. We're going to continue to work with them on how they would like us to be engaged. Our teams will be out having those discussions with the Wet'suwet'en people.

Like I say, it's all relationships. As they start and as they build, they'll continue to expand, and I very much look forward to how that relationship will develop in the coming time.

D. Donaldson: Having worked closely for the last 25 years with the Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs, I believe you will enjoy working with them into the future.

What they have told me and what is very clear from Delgamuukw and subsequent cases is that the hereditary chiefs have the authority and jurisdiction over their traditional territories, and they are the proper titleholders when it comes to making agreements with the province regarding potential natural gas pipelines through their territories. That's what they say to me, and I know from living amongst the Wet'suwet'en and the Gitxsan that that hereditary system is the system that has the jurisdiction and authority over the traditional territories.

The service plan does reference LNG, so we're going to have an ability to talk about LNG, which I know that the minister and his government are very keen to talk about all the time. It mentions that "in 2014-15 the central focus of the ministry" — this is from the service plan — "will be developing and negotiating benefit-sharing agreements with First Nations on liquefied natural gas development projects."

Given that these kinds of agreements take a lot of time because they're complex, and given that we've just had a flimsy, two-page tax regime in regards to LNG from the Minister of Finance that's taken at least a year to develop, can the minister give me some information and examples of what a benefit-sharing agreement with First Nations on liquefied natural gas development would look like?

Hon. J. Rustad: As much as I would like to go on at great length about liquefied natural gas, I also recognize that the member has questions, so I won't go on at too much length. But I will talk a little bit about some of the excitement around liquefied natural gas. When you think about the jobs that can be created from liquefied natural gas — from the industry, that is — when you think about what that means in terms of training and what that means in terms of changing lives, really, for so many people across the north, aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike, it is a tremendous opportunity. That's why we're so very excited about liquefied natural gas.

[1840]

More specifically — the opportunities that have been created already with the first agreement that was in place around the Pacific Trail pipeline, which is connected to the Apache-Chevron project…. There was an agreement that was reached with 15 First Nations along the pipeline route. I think it's $32 million in benefits that will flow from the province once certain conditions are met, of course, through that. We have what's called a framework agreement that's in place with the Haisla,which defines how Haisla can directly participate and benefit in the industry and the opportunities that'll be created in and around the Kitimat area.

Upstream we have economic benefit agreements with the Treaty 8 Nations that, over time now, have seen about $65 million worth of benefits flow to the Treaty 8 Nations. As I mentioned before, we're looking to update those agreements in relationship to what the liquefied natural gas industry could bring in terms of additional extraction and other sorts of things.
[ Page 2481 ]

There are a number of agreements that we have in place, and we will be out working with First Nations on the other projects as they come forward, looking for similar types of arrangements. As I mentioned, when you look at what this industry can mean…. In particular, when you look at what it will mean over the long period of time, there is no other opportunity that I can think of in B.C.'s history that can bring this much change and this much potential for aboriginal communities across the north — and non-aboriginal communities. Quite frankly, it's also an industry that….

I can't think of another opportunity that would come, for generations, should we happen to miss this opportunity. It's one that…. We've been out. We've been working with First Nations throughout the north, and we know that they're interested in what this potential can mean and the differences that it could make for their people.

I think one last other component that's important to talk about in terms of this is that despite the benefits and the opportunity with this industry, we also want to make sure it's done right. We want to make sure it takes into consideration aboriginal interests. We want to make sure that it's done right, from an environmental perspective, and we want to make sure that there is a long-lasting benefit for all of the people in B.C., aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike.

D. Donaldson: The minister mentioned the $32 million associated with the province making this commitment to the First Nations Limited Partnership. That was an announcement in February of last year that was associated with last year's budget. I questioned the Minister of Finance on that, because I wasn't able to find it in last year's budget — the $32 million. I wasn't able to find where it was.

This was before the election. The Ministry of Finance got back to me and said: "That's because it's in this year's budget." Now, we've had a close look at this year's budget and can't locate where that $32 million has been allocated in this coming budget.

Has this potential benefit that the minister gave as an example actually been put into the budget? Where is it, and is it, in fact, a reality?

[1845]

Hon. J. Rustad: I will answer the question, and I appreciate the question specifically around budget, which is a bit refreshing. It's been three hours, and I know there have been some references around budget, but it actually is refreshing.

The agreement, as it's been struck, actually has trigger points. The way it is structured is that if the pipe is ordered, if construction starts, then there are a number of triggers that happen, and resources would start flowing to the First Nations associated with that.

We don't know specifically when that may happen. We're hoping that will happen this year. If it could, that would be great news. But if it happens in future years, of course, that's also good news.

Exactly how the mechanism will work…. It's within our overall financial plan in terms of structure. For the details on that — I hate to do this — I'm going to suggest that the member would like to canvass the Minister of Finance more specifically about details on how that would flow.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:46 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2014: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada