2007 Legislative Session: Third Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2007

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 24, Number 2

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First

Reading of Bills

Agricultural Land Reserve

Protection Act, 2007 (Bill M224)

Gentner

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

Proposed Austin Heights Business

Improvement Association

Thorne

Cranbrook amateur athletes meet

B.C. Lions

Bennett

2008 North American Indigenous

Games in Cowichan

Routley

Fraser Valley Wine Tasting

Festival

M. Polak

Historic Japanese garden in

Esquimalt

Karagianis

National Technology Week

R. Lee

Oral Questions

Vancouver Convention Centre

expansion costs

C. James

Hon. G.

Campbell

Macdonald

H. Bains

Ralston

Fleming

J. Kwan

Chudnovsky

Farnworth

Committee of the Whole House

Tsawwassen First Nation Final

Agreement Act (Bill 40) (continued)

Fraser

Gentner

Hon. M.

de Jong

C. Wyse

Lekstrom

H. Lali

Sather

Reporting of Bills

Tsawwassen First Nation Final

Agreement Act (Bill 40)

Committee of the Whole House

Final Agreement Consequential

Amendments Act, 2007 (Bill 41)

Hon. M. de Jong

Reporting of Bills

Final Agreement Consequential

Amendments Act, 2007 (Bill 41)

Third Reading of Bills

Final Agreement Consequential

Amendments Act, 2007 (Bill 41)

Committee of the Whole House

Treaty First Nation Taxation Act

(Bill 42)

Hon. M. de Jong

Reporting of Bills

Treaty First Nation Taxation Act

(Bill 42)

Third Reading of Bills

Treaty First Nation Taxation Act

(Bill 42)

Second Reading of Bills

Greater Vancouver Transportation

Authority Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 43) (continued)

Trevena

L. Krog

[ Page 9055 ]

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2007

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. G. Campbell: I am pleased to say that in the precinct

today we have 75 students visiting us from West Point Grey Academy, from my

constituency in Vancouver–Point Grey. They are grade 11 students and are

travelling with their teacher Ms. Boland and some of their parents. They are

here to experience the Legislature and to find out some of the history of

British Columbia as we prepare for our 150th anniversary celebration next year.

I hope the Legislature will make them feel welcome.

M. Sather: Joining us in the gallery today is one of my

constituency assistants, Sheryl Seale. Sheryl is giving me a hand here in

Victoria. I know members have talked about what great CAs they have and how they

have the best, but if Sheryl is not the best, I tell you she's got to be among

the top 1 percent. So would everybody please welcome Sheryl.

Hon. S. Hagen: We're honoured to have in the galleries

today the hon. Phil Goff from the government of New Zealand. He is the Minister

of Trade, the Minister of Defence, the Minister for Disarmament and Arms

Control, and the Associate Minister of Finance. Would the House please join me

in welcoming Minister Goff.

J. McIntyre: I'd like to introduce three very special

guests who are in the gallery visiting the Legislature today to see us in

action. I would start with Jane Baynham, who I'm proud to say is a very close

personal friend who's a dedicated teacher in the North Van school district. We

were born three weeks apart and lived blocks away many years ago, and it took a

move to the west coast for us to finally meet, much to my pleasure.

With her is her daughter Kelsey, who after an exchange in

Australia is now back at UVic studying political science, and also her niece

Jennifer Day, who is a compassionate neonatal nurse at Mount Sinai Hospital in

Toronto. I'd like to ask the House to make them feel very welcome.

R. Cantelon: In the gallery joining us today is George

Hanson. George is the executive director of the Downtown Nanaimo Partnership.

His job is to make the various community groups, the city centre association,

the old city quarter association and city council work together. It's been

characterized as like herding cats, but George has done a wonderful job. There

are over 115 new businesses downtown and over 1,100 new jobs in downtown

Nanaimo. If you haven't seen it, it's bustling and hustling. So please give the

executive director and leader of this group, George Hanson, warm applause.

Hon. B. Penner: A moment ago my colleague the Minister of

Tourism, Sport and the Arts introduced Minister Phil Goff from New Zealand. As

we heard, he wears a number of very important hats in that particular

government.

In addition, I had a chance to not only meet with him but also Her

Excellency Kate Lackey, High Commissioner of New Zealand to Canada — my second

chance to meet with her. She was joined by a number of other people: Her

Excellency Penny Reedie, High Commissioner of Canada to New Zealand; Mr. Jeremy

Spanjaard, adviser to Minister Goff; Mr. Richard Trow, press secretary; Mr.

Peter Bull, regional director for the Americas for New Zealand's Department of

Trade and Enterprise; and Ms. Elizabeth Dixon, second secretary. I ask that the

House make all of those individuals most welcome.

Hon. I. Chong: I know they're in the precinct but perhaps

not yet in the gallery, but I would still like to introduce and have the House

welcome a class of grade 5 students — 41 of them — from Glenlyon Norfolk School

along with their teachers Benjamin Brooks, Ms. Tanya de Hoog and Ms. Clare

Tanner. I hope we could make them welcome and be officially acknowledged in

Hansard .

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVE

PROTECTION ACT, 2007

G. Gentner presented a bill intituled Agricultural Land Reserve

Protection Act, 2007.

Motion approved.

G. Gentner: It is a little disconcerting to have to

introduce the Agricultural Land Reserve Protection Act, 2007, because we've

taken for granted that the ALR was protected. But we shouldn't take anything for

granted with this government.

[1340]

This bill amends the Agricultural Land Commission Act with the

provision that any future land removed from the agricultural land reserve for

the purposes of treaty-making must meet the requirements for exclusion through

application to the Agricultural Land Commission.

There is a better way of resolving treaties. The future of our

food supply is at stake. Climate change is directly impacted by the loss of

local farmland. It is time to act now to keep arable land in the agricultural

land reserve and not allow B.C.'s very best agricultural land to be bartered

away without due process, as set out in the Agricultural Land Commission Act.

I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill M224, Agricultural Land Reserve Protection Act, 2007,

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.

[ Page 9056 ]

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) PROPOSED AUSTIN HEIGHTS

BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION

D. Thorne: In my constituency of Coquitlam-Maillardville

there are several small business organizations. I'm a member of the Austin

Heights group that is working hard to start a BIA. Work on establishing the

Austin Heights Business Improvement Association began almost two years ago,

mainly through the efforts of Diana McLaren, owner of a hairdressing salon.

She and a few other business owners and nearby residents

recognized the need to update the image of the area and to deal with safety,

traffic and marketing issues. A community cleanup was organized as well as an

RCMP forum to discuss crime prevention strategies. These successful efforts

confirmed support for the confirmation of a BIA.

As a small business owner myself, I appreciate the effort and time

it takes to make a small business successful. Owning and operating three Big O

Tire stores for almost 40 years convinced me of the importance of self-help

business groups such as BIAs, which are designed to assist local business people

and property owners to upgrade and promote both their own businesses and their

shopping district in order to increase the prosperity and sense of community of

the whole area.

Within the Austin Heights area, where my constituency office is

located, there are 51 property owners and approximately 230 business owners. The

annual property taxes collected last year from our area totalled almost $2

million. A request has now gone to the city of Coquitlam to officially designate

the Austin Heights BIA, a designation that will secure long-term funding and

enable our group to expand our activities. As one of the original members of

this group, I continue to monitor the progress and support the goals of the

Austin Heights BIA.

CRANBROOK AMATEUR ATHLETES

MEET B.C. LIONS

B. Bennett: The ActNow mantra is: "Every move is a good

move." This past weekend there was a group of young football players from

Cranbrook that came all the way down from Cranbrook to Vancouver to go to the

B.C. Lions' last regular season game. It's a 13-hour bus ride, I should say,

from Cranbrook down to Vancouver.

This team located in Cranbrook is a group of 16-to-19-year-old

young men. They have no league to play in. They have essentially no budget —

just whatever they can pick up in the community and from their parents. They

wore borrowed uniforms until very recently. They've got new uniforms and just a

lot of spirit and a lot of commitment from them, their parents and their

community.

They play in Alberta, in our region in B.C. and also in the U.S.

When they go to the U.S. to play football, they play U.S. rules. When the U.S.

teams come to the east Kootenay to play, they play Canadian rules. It's kind of

a fun league, but they take it very seriously. They get a lot of exercise and

like to compete.

This trip to Vancouver was a trip of a lifetime for these young

guys. I didn't realize many of them had never been to Vancouver before. They'd

been to Calgary. If you come from where I come from, Calgary is a little bit

closer, but Calgary is obviously no Vancouver. So they were pretty excited to be

there.

Going inside the airlock of B.C. Place, they were quite rowdy.

They were tossing the football around, and they were pretty excited, making lots

of noise and so forth. The B.C. Lions had arranged for us to go in, go on to the

field, stand on the sidelines and watch the two teams prepare for the game. We

did that.

We met Lui Passaglia. Lui took his Grey Cup ring off, and they

passed it around amongst the young men. Then Paris Jackson came over and said

hello because one of the players — our quarterback, in fact — was wearing

Paris's number.

[1345]

The distinguished Minister for ActNow had arranged for us to go on

the field between the third and fourth quarter to sing the Grey Cup theme song,

which we did, and we were very happy to do it. We then had a push-up contest

between five of the players.

We just had a lot of fun. I want to thank the minister, I want to

thank the players, and I want to thank the team for coming down.

2008 NORTH AMERICAN

INDIGENOUS GAMES IN COWICHAN

D. Routley: I rise in the House today to welcome all the

people in this House and all the people of British Columbia to Cowichan, the

warm land, for the 2008 North American Indigenous Games, August 3 to 10.

Cowichan Valley does translate as "warm land" in Coast Salish. We invite you to

enjoy the beauty and hospitality of Cowichan.

There you'll witness a true effort in bridge-building between

cultures. Started as a dream in 1975 at the National Indian Athletic Association

meeting, the NAIG became a reality in 1990 in Edmonton, where 60 percent of the

participants were under 18 years of age.

The North American Indigenous Games employ the healing power of

sports and culture to make a tremendous impact on the healthy, active lifestyles

of aboriginal youth — 7,000 athletes will participate in 16 sports.

For thousands of years before contact with outsiders, indigenous

peoples held games throughout this continent. The games obviously led to many of

our modern sports, and that's well understood by many people in British

Columbia. But it's not well understood, perhaps, that the games also were a

curriculum for a culture, a way that this society passed down its treasured

qualities of honesty, courage, respect, personal excellence, and gratitude for

the guidance of parents, elders and communities. They prepared children for

their lives ahead.

[ Page 9057 ]

It is important for all of our peoples, indigenous and otherwise,

that we recapture those values wherever possible. The elders speak of snuw

uy'ulh , the code of honour, conduct and respect, and they hope that these

games will bring a reconnect to that great spirit.

I invite all of you for one week of bridge-building, true

reconciliation and great sport in the spirit of nuts'a'maat shquwaluwun —

the spirit of working together as one.

FRASER VALLEY WINE TASTING FESTIVAL

M. Polak: When one thinks of wine regions, one thinks of

the south of France, the Napa Valley in California and the Okanagan Valley in

British Columbia. I am pleased today to tell members about an exciting and

emerging wine region, the Fraser Valley.

On Saturday evening Willowbrook mall in Langley opened its doors

after hours for the 18th annual Fraser Valley Wine Tasting Festival.

Presentation tables from more than 30 wineries lined the mall walkways, offering

an amazing variety of wine samples from the traditional to the exotic. It was a

fantastic opportunity to sample the best of the best of winemaking in the region

and to enjoy good company and tasty hors d'oeuvres, all while raising money for

charity.

The wine festival was presented by Rotary Club of Langley Central.

This year funds raised will be donated to Big Brothers Big Sisters and other

Langley community charities.

The dedicated Rotary Club volunteers are joined by their title

sponsor, Envision Credit Union, along with Earl's, Milestone's, the Keg, Barnes

Wheaton, Britco, Moxie's, ContainerWorld, Kidd and Company, Nufloors, Langley

Toyotatown, Cruise Ship Centres, Procom, Preston Chevrolet, BDO Dunwoody, the

Langley Advance , Lindsay Kenney, Langley Super 8, Clover Towing, B.C. Liquor

Stores and Willowbrook mall.

I'm sure there are many members of this chamber who, on occasion,

enjoy a glass of wine. The next time they do, I want to encourage them to

consider a Langley wine, perhaps a Wild West Blackberry Port from the Fort

winery, or a gamay noir from Glenugie Winery, or a Canoe Cove cabernet merlot

from Domaine de Chaberton. Better yet, next year join us in Langley for the

Fraser Valley Wine Tasting Festival.

HISTORIC JAPANESE GARDEN

IN ESQUIMALT

M. Karagianis: I stand in the House today to talk about the

Esquimalt Japanese garden. Created by Yushijuro "Joe" Kishida, his father

Isaburo and Hayato "Harry" Takata, Esquimalt's Japanese garden opened along the

Gorge waterway on July 11, 1907. Now, to mark the 100th anniversary of the

garden, the township of Esquimalt is hoping to bring it back to its former

glory.

The garden was situated in the B.C. Electric Gorge Park, opened in

1905 and named after the trolleys that ran from the park into downtown Victoria.

It was the place to go in those days and featured an amusement park, an outdoor

theatre and floating sampan tea house.

[1350]

The garden thrived until the 1920s, but a fire in 1925 caused

considerable damage. The final blow came in 1942 when, following the Japanese

attack on Pearl Harbor, the Takata and Kishida families were shipped off to

camps.

Everything that could be moved in the tea house and the garden was

auctioned off. The tea house was vandalized and fell into disrepair. In the

1950s the municipality took over the park, but little was done until the last

few years.

In 1986 the Takata Japanese Garden Society began working on the

dream to re-establish the Japanese garden with a theme of renewal. A management

plan for the park was created in 2002 to guide its development, and in July of

last year the Esquimalt Gorge Park creek was finally reopened.

As part of the rejuvenation, the township of Esquimalt has applied

for assistance through the Spirit Squares grants from the province and are

hoping to hear back soon on that. Precisely 100 years after it began as a

hopeful place of harmony and nature, the Japanese garden may again flourish. It

would be a fitting tribute to the pioneering Japanese Canadians who made it so.

NATIONAL TECHNOLOGY WEEK

R. Lee: I am honoured to stand in the House today to share

with everyone here that November 5 to 9 is now proclaimed as National Technology

Week. This is a testimony that we all recognize the applied science and

technology sectors within our provincial economy.

I am pleased to see this happen, as technology has been a large

part of my career. Before being elected I was a programmer analyst. I worked in the

fields of physics, computer science and applied mathematics at TRIUMF, Canada's

national laboratory for particle and nuclear physics.

The technology sector is a large part of our economy. I am pleased

with the recent announcement that Metro Vancouver will soon be home to

Microsoft's first software development centre in Canada. This facility will have

about 200 employees, and it will draw on software developers from around the

world. This is an exciting announcement for us. Burnaby is already home to IBM

Centres for Solution Innovation, with a cross-functional team of more than 240

engineers, web designers and architects.

Our province has an innovative and skilled workforce. As the

gateway location between North America and Asia, we provide the foundation for

almost unlimited economic opportunities.

B.C.'s economy is doing very well. Between 2001 and 2004,

companies from outside Canada spent over $17 billion for business expansion,

modernization and new facilities within British Columbia. Over 1,500

non-Canadian firms have recently expanded their British Columbia operations and

invested in our province. The

[ Page 9058 ]

high-tech sector is a growing part of British Columbia's diverse economy,

offering prospects of strong economic growth in the years to come.

So today I say congratulations and happy National Technology Week,

everyone.

Oral Questions

VANCOUVER CONVENTION CENTRE

EXPANSION COSTS

C. James: The Vancouver Trade and Convention Centre is

already $400 million over budget. The Auditor General was clear. The leadership

of this project, from the Premier on down, has been a failure. From his decision

to link the project to the Olympics to the inexperienced and incompetent board

that he chose, the Premier has mismanaged this project from the start.

My question is to the Premier. He promised, "On time and on

budget," and failed at both of those. So when he made that promise, did he

mislead the public or was he misled?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Campbell: I am pleased to be able to respond to the

Leader of the Opposition's question.

First, let's look at what has taken place with the convention

centre. We have an opportunity to generate economic activity, public sector and

private sector investment — literally millions and millions. In fact, it was the

previous government who suggested that if we didn't have a convention centre

expansion, we were looking at a $100 million-a-year loss in terms of economic

activities. This government decided to proceed with that. We have.

I looked through the Auditor General's report. Not one time does

the Auditor General use the word "waste." Not one time does the Auditor General

use the word "mismanagement." In fact, what the Auditor General says is that all

major capital projects, whether private or public sector, have a number of

inherent risks.

[1355]

The Convention Centre

expansion project is no exception. In

addition to standard construction risks, this project has been managed during a

period of high inflation in the construction market. I think it's important to

note this is a project that should be done, it's going to be done, it's going to

benefit British Columbians, and it's going to benefit in the long term. It's a

great project for B.C.

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

C. James: It's pretty clear that the Premier doesn't want

to pay attention to the Auditor General's report. So let's use his own words.

The Premier's own words said: "Count on it. This will be built on time and on

budget." That was the Premier. Those were the Premier's words.

This has been his project from the start. He had his top official

sitting on that board. The Premier knew about the mismanagement, and he hid it

from the public. The Premier knew in 2003 that the project would be at least

$637 million; the government's own internal report said that. Did the Premier

come clean and tell the public then? No. The information was kept hidden.

So again to the Premier: why did he go public with a misleading

budget and betray the trust of British Columbians?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Campbell: You know, the goal that you set when you

set a budget and you set a project is…. You say to the people who come and say

they'd like more: "Go back, and find scope savings." Unfortunately, that was not

able to happen because of cost escalations that were taking place. There were

savings in scope.

There were also additional benefits. The new green roof is an

additional benefit. We could have said that the convention centre will not be a

display case for British Columbia building products. We could have said: "Strip

out the wood." We're not going to do that on this side of the House, because

we're proud of British Columbia building products on this side of the House.

When the opposition was in government, they wasted $73 million —

not one benefit for any British Columbian. The fact of the matter is that this

is a project that is going to generate literally hundreds of millions of dollars

of economic activity, thousands of direct and indirect jobs. Am I happy about

the cost escalations? No, I'm not.

Am I happy that the cost of concrete has gone up, that the cost of

steel has gone up? I wish that I'd had a crystal ball, that I could've looked at

that muck underneath the water and known what to do.

But I know this. When that convention centre opens, British

Columbians are going to be proud of it. It's going to generate economic

activity. It's going to generate jobs. It's going to generate a better future

for British Columbians.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members on both sides.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.

C. James: The Premier talked about all the things he could

have done. He could have come clean with the public. He could have made sure

this information went public, and he could have saved the taxpayers $400

million. That's what he could have done.

The Premier can…

[ Page 9059 ]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

C. James: …make all the excuses that he wants. The facts

are very clear. His top official sat on this board. There is a direct pipeline

to his office. The Premier drove the costs up and then kept that hidden from the

public. The Premier promised: "On time and on budget." His ministers promised:

"On time and on budget." On all of those they failed, and now the Premier is

trying to run away from a project that has ballooned in costs.

When will the Premier come clean with British Columbians, admit

this project has been mismanaged from the Premier's office from the beginning,

and when is he going to hold someone accountable?

[1400]

Hon. G. Campbell: You know, this government, in fact, did

get the economy going. I plead guilty to that. This government….

I wish, Mr. Speaker….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Premier, just wait a second.

As we continue, I just want to welcome the class of young people

that are up above.

Go ahead, Premier.

Hon. G. Campbell: I'd like to welcome the class of young

people who are above and remind them that this was the government that actually

took a province that was a have-not province and made it one of the most

successful economies in the country. It's an economy where every one of those

young people can look for a job in British Columbia.

Having said that…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Campbell: …I've got to admit I did not anticipate

that construction inflation would have grown by not 4 percent, as we anticipated

in 2002, but by 11 percent — a 47-percent increase in cost escalation.

Interjections.

Hon. G. Campbell: I understand, and I think everyone would

rather that those cost escalations did not take place. But already we know this.

We have 77 conventions that are already booked into the new facility. It will

generate $1.6 billion of economic activity.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that when that convention centre opens,

every single member on the other side of the House will want to be there,

because British Columbians will be celebrating.

N. Macdonald: Can the Premier tell us when Ken Dobell told

him that the convention centre expansion project was going wildly over budget,

and who made the decision to keep that fact hidden from the people of British

Columbia?

Hon. G. Campbell: The facts with regard to the convention

centre were put out on a regular basis. In fact, I believe there were quarterly

audits done by the Auditor General. It's important to note that one of the

things we think is important is that we built a partnership here. Because of the

work of Mr. Dobell and the convention centre board, we were able to secure

$312.5 million as a contribution.

Just so the member opposite knows, in fact, it's his side of the

House that said they were not going to proceed with the convention centre

because they couldn't find a federal partner and they couldn't find a private

sector partner. We found both, and that's why we're going to have a convention

centre that will drive jobs and economic opportunity well into the future of

British Columbia.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

The member has a supplemental.

N. Macdonald: The Premier evaded a very clear question. The

question is this. I'll reword it for him so that he understands the context. The

cost that the Premier used again and again was $495 million, but he knew that

the real cost was $637 million.

The question is: who made the decision to use a fictional figure

to give the cost of the convention centre? Was it the Premier, or was it Ken

Dobell? Who made that decision?

Hon. G. Campbell: This government made the decision to

regularly report on the status of the convention centre. This government made

the decision to ensure that as we reported, we were upfront about both the cost

escalations and the opportunities that were developed.

[1405]

I think the member opposite should actually be cheering the

partnership that was built by Mr. Dobell and the board. It's a partnership that

he's directly benefited from. It's a partnership between British Columbia and

Ottawa that generated $222.5 million towards this centre. It's a partnership

that's allowed us to create, for the first time in a long time, an improvement

to the Kicking Horse Canyon. It's a partnership that that member should be

cheering.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

H. Bains: Between July 2005 and February 2007, the budget

for this boondoggle ballooned from $615 million to over $800 million. The

Minister of Finance

[ Page 9060 ]

met with Ken Dobell and the minister responsible four times during this time.

My question to the Premier is: when was it that the Minister of

Finance advised the Premier that this budget was going into cost overrun?

Hon. G. Campbell: You know, hon. Speaker, only the NDP

would say that something that was going to generate…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Campbell: …$1.6 billion in economic activity to

date was, as he called it, a boondoggle.

Do you want to see a boondoggle, Member? Go down to Burrard Inlet.

Look across the inlet, and you'll see three fast ferries that are shrink-wrapped

— $463 million down the tube. That's a boondoggle.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

H. Bains: Hon. Speaker, you know, this Premier can duck; he

can hide; he can run. All the footprints of this boondoggle are leading up to

his office.

We know through the Auditor General's report that it was the

Premier who was behind the decision to rush construction without even having the

design finalized, to meet the Olympic deadlines.

My question is again to the Premier, which he hasn't answered so

far: who made the decision to hide the true cost of this boondoggle?

Hon. G. Campbell: First, as I have said, the reporting on

this project has been ongoing. We have pointed out the cost escalations

throughout the project. I think what's important to note is that the Auditor

General, in fact, audited the books and commented on the books. All of those

things have been public.

To be candid, I'm not enthusiastic about these cost escalations,

but the fact of the matter is that they're there. They're there because concrete

costs are up, steel costs are up and labour costs are up. Every single dollar is

going to add value to the convention centre and, I think, the convention centre

expansion.

What I think is critically important here…. Were we anxious to get

on with building the convention centre expansion? You bet your life we were

anxious to get on with building the convention centre expansion. Did we want to

capture that estimated $100 million a year of additional benefits, Mr. Speaker?

You bet your life, because this is what's happened. In the time that we've been

building, we've watched as by 2012 there will be $650 million in annual benefits

from this investment.

Now, I know the NDP decided that they were going to….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Campbell: I know the NDP wanted to expand the

convention centre in '95 — couldn't do it. I know they looked for partners —

couldn't do it. I know they had an economic opportunity in front of them —

couldn't grab it.

This government is a government that's going to take advantage of

economic opportunity, is going to drive investment, is going to drive jobs and

improve the economy of British Columbia.

[1410]

Mr. Speaker: I'll just remind members to listen to the

question and listen to the answer.

B. Ralston: The Premier has acknowledged that there was

regular reporting on the costs of this project, but the point here is: why

didn't he tell the public? Why did the Premier decide to keep the knowledge of

those cost overruns secret for 18 months?

Hon. G. Campbell: As I've said, we reported out on the

costs of the convention centre. We reported out on the cost escalations. No one

is happy about the cost escalations, but I can tell you this. We on this side of

the House are all happy about the fact we're going to complete a convention

centre that's ready to go in 2009.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Ralston: The convention centre budget went to the

Treasury Board on six separate occasions. Will the Premier commit here today to

table all those Treasury Board submissions?

Hon. G. Campbell: I appreciate the question from the

member. I can tell you this. The public reporting — both the Auditor General's

report, which we called for, and the ongoing reporting on this convention centre

expansion — will be public. It will be there available for people to see. And

I'll tell you this. The public will be able to judge whether this was a smart

investment or not as we move through the years.

R. Fleming: In assessing the largest cost overrun in B.C.

history, $400 million and counting, the Auditor General said the board lacked

experience and ability to manage a construction project of this size. Who made

the decision to appoint Ken Dobell and other members, like the former B.C.

Liberal Party president Andrew Wilkinson, to the board?

Hon. G. Campbell: Obviously, the government made that

decision. I don't think that comes as a surprise.

You know, I believe the opposition often talks about public

servants in a derogatory manner. I can tell you this. Mr. Dobell has experience.

Mr. Taylor had experience. Mr. Wilkinson had experience. Mr. Dobell has 30 years

of public sector experience of building projects on time and on budget.

The fact of the matter is, as the Auditor General says in his

report, that in addition to standard construc-

[ Page 9061 ]

tion risk, the project has been managed during a period of high inflation.

Not even Mr. Dobell, not even Paul Taylor, who was a deputy minister of Finance

in this government and who turned an economy that was going downhill into one of

the best economies in the country…. Not even they could anticipate a 4-percent

inflation rate, which would grow to 11 percent — a 47-percent increase in

construction costs. They couldn't anticipate that.

I'll tell you what they did anticipate. They anticipated the

benefits. They found scope savings. They looked for ways that we could find

additional revenues. The fact of the matter is that because of their work and

because of the work of that team, we're going to have today $1.6 billion of

economic activity and benefits.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: I again remind the members to listen to the

question and listen to the answer.

The member has a supplemental.

R. Fleming: The Premier keeps going to this idea that he's

held blameless because the discussion in the report does talk about rising

construction costs. But it puts that at a 47-percent unanticipated cost. So at

best, the Premier's defence is that his government is only 53 percent

incompetent.

The Premier's special adviser chaired the board for four years. He

presided over $400 million of overspending. He chaired the audit committee as

well. Who made the decision to retain him as chair for those four years of cost

overruns repeatedly?

Hon. G. Campbell: I understand that the opposition is

opposed to this project. We are obviously for this project. We are for this

project because it's going to add substantially both to the economy and to the

well-being of the tourism industry in this province.

[1415]

Having said that, there is no question — and we have identified

this — that there were scope changes. We decided to go with the green roof. We

think that's a smart thing to do. We decided that we were going to actually

improve the project by making sure that B.C. building materials were included in

that project. We assured that it was working in concert with the city of

Vancouver, which added some additional scope costs.

At the end of the day there is no question that there were cost

escalations. There is also no question that there are huge economic benefits.

We're going to be proud of that. British Columbians are going to be proud of

that, and the opposition is welcome to come to the opening.

J. Kwan: The government's own internal documents don't lie.

The documents said that the trade and convention centre would cost at least $637

million, yet the public figure that was given to British Columbians was $495

million.

My question to the Premier is this. When did he know that there

was a cost overrun to the trade and convention centre, and why didn't he come

clean and tell British Columbians the truth?

Hon. G. Campbell: Throughout the process we've been letting

the public know about what the costs of the convention centre expansion are

going to be. We've tried to inform them about why those costs are in place.

As I've said, I wish that I'd had a crystal ball. I wish I could

have said what was available underneath the ocean. I wish I could have said what

the costs of the pilings were going to be, but I'm not in a position where I can

honestly say that to the public.

I can say to the public that we have provided….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Premier.

Hon. G. Campbell: I can say to the public that in fact we have

in place a budget that we believe will provide for long-term economic growth in

the province. That economic growth has also continued to rise.

The fact of the matter is that when you look at the convention

centre expansion, we are going to see a project that the world will look at, the

world will embrace and British Columbians will embrace. It will generate

economic activity, it will generate jobs, and it will generate a positive future

for the entire province.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

J. Kwan: The Premier doesn't need a crystal ball. What the

Premier needs to do is do his homework. Had he actually done the work in

figuring out the design component of the trade and convention centre, he might

have come closer to a budget that reflected the actual cost. Had the Premier

actually read his own internal reports, he would have put out honest information

to British Columbians. He refused to do all of that.

The questions have not changed for the Premier. When did he know

that there was a cost overrun, and by how much, and why didn't he come clean and

tell British Columbians the truth? Honesty and accountability.

Hon. G. Campbell: When we knew what the budgets were going

to be, we made sure that the public knew. As the opposition knows….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. G. Campbell: As the opposition knows, we have been

reporting out on the convention centre expansion for some time. We have watched

as cost escalations have been there. We've stood up, and we have accepted

responsibility for those. We have said that it's important for us. We've said

that it's important to look at what the future of the tourism and convention

centre industry is in British Columbia.

[ Page 9062 ]

You know, the question for the opposition is: would they have

stopped that project from going ahead? We did not want to stop it. We wanted to

go ahead because it generates jobs, investment and economic activity. Frankly,

it's great news for British Columbia.

[1420]

D. Chudnovsky: The budget for the project was $495 million.

The overrun was to $637 million, and this government knew that.

Will the Premier stand in this House and tell the people of

British Columbia who, sitting on that side of the aisle, is accountable for that

difference and for the fact that the people of the province weren't told?

Hon. G. Campbell: There's no question of who is responsible

for the convention centre expansion. This government is responsible for the

convention centre expansion. This government said we were going to do it. This

government is going to deliver on it, to generate the economic activity and to

generate the jobs.

M. Farnworth: My question is to the Premier. The convention

centre has been his pet project — on time, on budget. It was the Premier who

appointed four different ministers, all of whom have mismanaged this file. It

was the Premier who appointed two of his best and closest friends to provide him

with information and to oversee the project. Either they failed, or he chose not

to listen. Either way, the Premier failed British Columbians.

Will the Premier stand up in this House today, take full

responsibility for a $400 million overrun and hold himself accountable to the

people of British Columbia?

Hon. G. Campbell: I'm pleased to stand here and be very

clear. This government, this Premier, will be held accountable by the people of

British Columbia for every decision that we've made, including these decisions.

Mr. Speaker, let me tell you this. This government will be held

accountable for the fact that we have returned British Columbia to a triple-A

credit rating. This government will be held accountable for the fact that we

have been able to generate additional and significant surpluses so we can invest

in hospitals, universities and transportation infrastructure in British

Columbia.

When it comes to the convention centre…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Premier.

Hon. G. Campbell: …let me say this. This government will be

held accountable for the number of new conventions that we will bring in.

Already there are 37 conventions that never would have come, had we not had this

on the books. By 2012, $650 million of additional annual benefits — we'll be

accountable for that. By 2012, 7,000 direct and indirect jobs — we'll be

accountable for that.

This is a government that will be accountable for taking this

economy from last to best. This is a government that will go to the convention

centre opening and will be proud of what's taken place, proud of the B.C.

products and B.C. workers and proud of the future of British Columbia.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call continued committee stage debate on

Bill 40.

[1425]

Committee of the Whole House

TSAWWASSEN FIRST NATION

FINAL AGREEMENT ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 40; H.

Bloy in the chair.

The committee met at 2:28 p.m.

section 3 ( continued ).

S. Fraser: On Thursday we were just coming to a close on

questioning on

chapter 17. I did note — and I'm going to say this with some

dismay — that the last question was not answered. A substantive amount of time

was used up by the minister, I thought, when he could have been answering the

question.

I know I'm mindful of the time and that we are trying to get

through this, with all respect for the Tsawwassen and the importance of the

treaty. I believe that it is the right of a member here from any side of the

House to ask a question and that the minister should attempt to answer the

question. He has the resources that we do not have on this side of the House

and, I believe, that members from the government side don't have either. With

that, I'm going to leave the…. I believe there's a question coming forward that

was placed to the minister towards the end of the last session.

G. Gentner: The last question that we ended with was

relative to the provision of water. "Before the Effective Date, British Columbia

will ensure that the Greater Vancouver Water District will supply water on

reasonable terms to Tsawwassen First Nation as a member of the Greater Vancouver

Regional District, and a member of the Greater Vancouver Water District."

The question, of course, was: how will Delta and the GVRD be

compensated for the many trunk lines and infrastructure that will provide water

today and that have been built for many, many years?

[1430]

Hon. M. de Jong: There are no direct compensatory

mechanisms spelled out in the agreement, but as the

[ Page 9063 ]

member knows, there are and have been ongoing discussions between the

Tsawwassen First Nation and its neighbouring jurisdictions around the supply of

water. That is something that could instruct those discussions, either the ones

that have taken place or the ones going forward.

G. Gentner: What type of procedure or insurance, if you

will…? Did the province assure the GVRD and Delta that there will be some type

of procedure in place whereby the parties will receive compensation?

Hon. M. de Jong: There are no specific provisions in this

agreement that speak to or guarantee compensation, which is why I referenced the

ongoing discussions around the water supply agreements as a forum where that

issue could be pursued.

G. Gentner:

Section 27, under "Provision of water," states:

"The Minister has absolute power and authority to settle the terms and

conditions upon which Tsawwassen First Nation is added to the Greater Vancouver

Water District."

Will the minister assure this House that through this power and

authority, he will fulfil an obligation to local government and the regional

governments that are impacted by this needed capacity of water and further

infrastructure moneys that were paid out by other local governments?

The Chair: Member for Delta North, could you repeat the

last part, please.

G. Gentner: Under

section 27: "The Minister has absolute

First Nation is added to the Greater Vancouver Water District."

That power and authority, I would hope, would include some

reasonable compensation to the local government and to the region, which spent a

lot of money over the years providing these trunk lines and which, of course,

will be impacted by increased capacity and upgrades. Through his authority, will

he assure the House that the local government and regional governments will be

compensated accordingly?

Hon. M. de Jong: To answer the question directly, I don't

anticipate the minister exercising the discretionary authority provided for in

the

section referenced by the member in the manner he suggests.

G. Gentner: I gather from the answer that no, the minister

will not provide any compensation at any time, even though he has that authority

and power. Does he think that by ignoring the situation and not coming up to the

plate, there will be peace in the valley between the various local governments

trying to find the funding to maintain that infrastructure?

[1435]

Hon. M. de Jong: I believe that the parties, the

neighbouring jurisdictions, have already demonstrated a remarkable ability to

sit down and develop the kinds of sharing agreements — multi-jurisdictional

agreements — that we hope and expect would develop between neighbouring

jurisdictions.

Happily, we don't have to rely on merely my views on that matter.

Recent history confirms that fact. There are policing agreements in place. There

are negotiations dealing with water taking place at this moment.

I am not going to impose myself or this debate on those

negotiations where the parties have already demonstrated a positive ability to

sit down and work out the kinds of sharing agreements that we hope will arise

between adjoining jurisdictions.

G. Gentner: Well, I have to remind the minister that there

was a pending court case by the corporation of Delta and very much concern over

this type of issue, because it's a question of how we get along.

It's all very well for the province to put in place this treaty,

but we know there was a complete lack of consultation with local government,

particularly the corporation of Delta. Because of it, there's been a lot of

infighting going on as to what jurisdictions are going to help pay for a very

large portion of infrastructure. As the minister knows, money in local

government is not what you see; it's what's in the ground with infrastructure.

I think this is a major issue, frankly. This is how the bar has

been set, and we're going to continue along this way with urban treaties. We

have to address capacity of water, because in the event that the TFN have a plan

— and yet we've seen a plan in 2003 from city consultants on behalf of the TFN —

we know that the present trunk lines aren't going to facilitate the needed water

for that area.

Again, does the minister believe that the government has any

commitment to the provision of this type of infrastructure?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think that in the member's last

question, he spoke to the issue of developing future infrastructure or expanded

infrastructure. I think those matters are dealt with, in particular, in sections

24 and, to a lesser extent, 25.

C. Wyse: Hon. Chair, there are some very distinct

differences between this

section on the provision of water and other sections

that the minister has referred to. Previous sections contained in the bill

dealing with local government use the word "may," and it's very clear.

However, when the provision gets into here for the provision of

water, it changes drastically. I would expect that it's because this particular

commodity is so important and so significant. That's why the words change, and

change significantly.

I would suspect, though the minister seems not to be acknowledging

the importance of

section 27 where the authority for resolving this issue of

provision of water is left directly with a court — the minister — where there is

no appeal…. That's how important an item of this nature is.

[ Page 9064 ]

Now, when you go back to local governments such as Delta or the

GVRD, they have built into their system an expansion capacity in their

infrastructure. That expansion capacity will be used up by providing for a need,

albeit important, that the province has said should be matched.

[1440]

So my question comes back around to the minister. Why does the

province feel that local government must swallow the cost for the provision of

their expansion through their infrastructure?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, I've been careful to try and

understand the essence of the member's question. I'll try this as a means of

explaining the rationale for the provisions of the agreement in their entirety.

They are built around the proposition that the Tsawwassen First

Nation is entitled to a secure and adequate supply of water — safe drinking

water — and that the mechanism for doing that would be for them to be added to

the Greater Vancouver water district on terms and circumstances that equate with

how any other community would be added. These provisions reflect that.

I will say and acknowledge to the member that I am supportive of

that proposition. I think it makes sense that this new community, this new

government representative of this community, should have that right. It is

provided for here. It is a community situate in the heart of the lower mainland,

the regional district.

Whilst some people here can say that this is a decision the

provincial government is making to foist some obligations on people, I think

this makes eminent sense — that this community, having acquired the status that

this agreement provides to them, would be added in the same way as any other

community.

Now, if the member or some of the members opposite disagree and

think that the Tsawwassen should be put to some extraordinarily different onus

or test in order to secure a reliable and safe supply of drinking water, then

I'm interested to know that. But that is not my position. That has not been the

position of the provincial government, and that is why the provisions exist in

the manner that they do.

C. Wyse: At no time in the discussion, as I would have

heard it, was it implied that there was any difficulty in ensuring that any

party would be entitled to the provision of water. The discussion has been about

the province not having taken into apparently adequate consideration of where

the new groups — the new "local governments" — in these type of discussions, the

TFN and their surrounding neighbours, in resolving their issues from here on in,

once the treaty is signed….

[1445]

I appreciate the answer that the minister has given me. In sharing

with the House, in finishing, it seems to me that as we move forward and develop

more treaties of an urban nature, we have clearly demonstrated through our

discussions here today that there is a responsibility for ensuring that the

working relationships for the new bodies that now must work together are not

left in such a situation — in which one side is left to pick up the cost where,

in my judgment, the province should have been considering where those things go.

With that, I thank the minister for the time that he's shared with

me, and I hope through this discussion that we have learned something here for

future negotiations on these treaties.

The Chair: Member for Delta North on

chapter 17.

G. Gentner: Hon. Chair, when I had discussion earlier with

the minister, we discussed the notion of sewage. Frankly, I don't recall. I

squiggled it in

chapter 17, under "Services and authorities." Perhaps it came

out of "Governance," but I truly couldn't find it.

My question to the minister is: with the provision of sewage, does

that fall under federal jurisdiction or provincial?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm struggling with the first part of the

question. I heard the member say: "Sewage — is that federal or provincial?" I'm

not certain I understand what the member…. Both seem capable of generating a

fair amount of it, but I'm not sure specifically what he meant by that.

G. Gentner: Let's put it this way. The regulatory authority

regarding sewage within the TFN — is that regulated through the province or

through the federal government?

[1450]

Hon. M. de Jong: Presently, as a reserve, the regulatory

regime would be exclusively federal. Under the provisions of this final

agreement, my expectation is that the regulation of sewage then acquires the

involvement of the provincial regulatory structure, as opposed to whatever

federal regulations might apply to a reserve.

G. Gentner: Therefore, what is committed by the province on

the provision of sewage trunk lines and all the other stuff that's going to be

needed, since the TFN has taken land out of the ALR possibly to develop?

Hon. M. de Jong: I am advised that the Tsawwassen First

Nation presently has tertiary treatment capacity, which is at present deemed to

meet provincial requirements. They'll have a decision to make about whether or

not to enter into negotiations in the future to tie into the regional district's

sewage treatment facilities.

I can advise the member that sections 14 through 18 describe the

process by which the Tsawwassen First Nation and the regional authorities can

enter into those negotiations, if they decide they want to pursue a partnership

with respect to the treatment of sewage.

G. Gentner: Just one quick follow-up, and I think I'm done

with this.

[ Page 9065 ]

There are a number of septic fields in the TFN, groundwater

leeching, etc. Which jurisdiction will be responsible?

[1455]

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm advised that the answer to that

question is found back in

chapter 15, sections 1 and 2, where the authority to

make laws is created and exists for the Tsawwassen First Nation with respect to

Tsawwassen First Nation settlement lands. But in the event of a conflict between

those laws and provincial law, it is provincial law that would prevail.

The Chair: Member for Alberni-Qualicum on

chapter 18.

S. Fraser: Yes, I'll be very quick on

chapter 18.

I have no questions on the capital transfer. On the negotiation

loan repayment, just firstly, sections 3 and 4. This loan repayment is for

negotiations of treaty, and that's an exclusively federal repayment. There are

no requirements for repayment of anything from the provincial end of things. Is

that correct?

Hon. M. de Jong: I believe the member is correct. That is

an exclusively federal issue as set out in the section.

S. Fraser: Is it possible for the minister or his staff to

give us the amount of that federal loan to be repaid, which was incurred through

this lengthy process?

Hon. M. de Jong: The amount that the member will see

referred to in

schedule 2…. Actually, the amount $5.6 million and the repayment

schedule are specifically laid out in

schedule 2 of the agreement. It lists the

various anniversary dates of payments.

The Chair: Member for Alberni-Qualicum on

chapter 19.

S. Fraser: Still

chapter 18. I've got one more question.

Thanks to the minister for that answer. I know the schedule. I

just wanted to clarify that that was the total amount and that it was all

federal. That's fine.

On the prepayment calculations at

section 6, I note that the "n"

anniversary is determined in accordance with the following formula. You've got:

"Future Value = Prepayment * (1+

C) K * (1+C*H/365)."

I know that's simple on the surface, but is there anything

unforeseen that we should know about with that calculation?

I'm being somewhat facetious here. Is that just some standard

formula that if we were all accountants we'd understand? If so, I'm happy with

that. It is particularly confusing.

[1500]

Hon. M. de Jong: The member is correct. It is a rather

remarkable piece of arithmetic, breathtaking in its simplicity.

However, in all seriousness, it is the methodology that the

parties have agreed upon. I take it that it is designed to ensure that there's

an agreement upon the interest rate and agreement upon the means by which the

parties take into account the moneys that have already been prepaid. It is also,

I am told and advised, consistent with the same formula that was to have been

applied in the Lheidli T'enneh treaty, and that we will see later this month in

the Maa-nulth treaty.

The Chair: We're on

chapter 20.

B. Lekstrom: A couple of questions under the taxation

chapter. When I read

section 1.a, "Direct taxation of Tsawwassen Members

within…." Well, I should clarify. It states: "Tsawwassen Government may make

laws in respect of: a. Direct taxation of Tsawwassen Members within Tsawwassen

Lands in order to raise revenue for Tsawwassen First Nation purposes."

I do want to then move down. My correlating question is with

section 4.a, which talks about the ability of the Tsawwassen government to tax

non-members under subsection 1.a. Just a question to the minister. Can you give

me some example of where this would come into play? I can't get my head around

that.

Hon. M. de Jong: The example that immediately comes to

mind, and the only example at this point that I could think of, would be

property taxes.

B. Lekstrom: I thank the minister for that. I do want to

move on to a question under

chapter 20,

section 16, "Indian Act tax exemption

and transitional exemption." I'll make my question general in nature.

It's my understanding that, certainly after the eight-year period,

the transition taxes will then begin to be paid by Tsawwassen members. Following

the 12th year all other taxes, which would be income tax, property, I believe….

Is there anywhere in this agreement…?

I'm led to believe, in my looking into this and the other

agreements, that once the Tsawwassen First Nation member pays that tax, they are

not reimbursed anything following the eight years or 12 years respectively, but

that a portion of what they pay will be remitted back to the Tsawwassen

government. I'm led to believe that 50 percent of all PST paid by a Tsawwassen

member is remitted back to the Tsawwassen First Nation government as well as 100

percent of the GST and income tax.

Can the minister tell me if I've interpreted what I've read

properly?

[1505]

Hon. M. de Jong: Hopefully, I'll capture all of the

relevant details in my answer. The agreement,

section 4 of this chapter,

certainly contemplates the negotiation of agreements. Such an agreement is one

we just referred to, relating to the remittance of property taxes back to the

Tsawwassen First Nation or the collection by the Tsawwassen First Nation, as it

were. There have been some exploratory discussions around the notion of sales

tax provisions. Nothing has been concluded,

[ Page 9066 ]

but it is certainly conceptually something that the government has indicated

a willingness to discuss with the Tsawwassen First Nation.

B. Lekstrom: Just looking to wrap up my questions on this

issue. I thank the minister for his response, but I know that certainly myself

and, I think, British Columbians are looking for finality in a treaty. What I've

just heard the minister say is that we still have a great deal of work to do

here if we haven't reached agreement on the issue of a rebate or remittance of

either PST, GST or income tax.

Is there a time limit set on these negotiations, and if so, could

the minister comment on that? Are we talking in the next 30 days, 60 days? I'm

up asking this question for not only myself but the people I represent. It does

not make sense to me that upon expiration of the eight-year or 12-year period,

when we all become equal Canadians, we would remit PST, GST or income tax back

to a level of government that no other level of government enjoys.

Hon. M. de Jong: I think I understand the point that the

member wants to make. It's an important point, and it's one that, over the

course of the last decade, I have actually come to regard somewhat differently.

The short answer is that there is not a deadline or a cutoff, per

se, in the same way that there is between communities and the province, or the

province and the federal government, or communities and the federal government.

The notion of negotiating fiscal sharing agreements is something that is ongoing

just as, for example, this government a few years ago decided to transfer the

proceeds of motor vehicle fines to communities. That is the notion that there

would be ongoing discussions between the government and first nations. That's

going to become a reality and is a feature of these agreements.

It will have to be captured, however, in formal agreements that

flow from negotiations, so to that extent there will be a degree of formality to

it.

The

chapter creates the means by which, government to government,

these negotiations can take place and these agreements are arrived at. That will

provide the parties with that ability. One such agreement has been negotiated.

There is a willingness to discuss a second one relating to some of the taxes

that the member mentioned, and the government has had some things to say about

its willingness to embark upon those discussions.

What will it all look like 15, 30 or 50 years from now? Just as

the arrangements the provincial government has with the municipalities of Dawson

Creek or Abbotsford or Chilliwack or Langley, it's hard to say. It does mean,

however, that the means to negotiate those kinds of agreements will exist and

become a feature of the government-to-government relationship.

B. Lekstrom: The reason I've asked this question is…. I've

had the opportunity to read the Tsawwassen First Nation survival guide to the

Tsawwassen First Nation final agreement. In there it states that the payment of

sales taxes will be phased out over eight years, and the phasing out of income

and property taxes will be over a 12-year period following the implementation of

the treaty.

[1510]

That's what I read, as well, and I interpreted it that way.

However, their survival guide goes on to say: "No one likes to pay taxes.

However, it helps when you know that your taxes will be coming back to the

community to pay for such things as…." That's the concern I have. It's led me to

believe that maybe we already have an agreement of some sort, and that's what

I'm trying to flush out here.

As I said, the minister and I see the treaty differently, as many

of my colleagues and I do, but having had the opportunity to ask questions, this

is one that's jumped out at me. Although I appreciate the minister's responses,

that concludes the questions I have on this treaty — not without certain

concerns. I thank the minister for his responses.

The Chair: Questions on

chapter 21.

S. Fraser: Just a clarification on this chapter,

"Eligibility and Enrolment," if I could. I know this is a tripartite agreement.

I'm curious. The issues of eligibility and enrolment are largely bipartite;

they're federal and Tsawwassen government. It involves the Indian Act, the

constitution even.

Can the minister clarify: did the province play a role here, or

was it a passive role? Was this arrived at largely between the federal

government and the Tsawwassen government?

Hon. M. de Jong: Yeah, it's a good question. Maybe the best

way I can answer it is to say that historically these questions of enrolment

have tended to engage the first nation and the federal government. In the

context of this tripartite discussion, however, the province certainly had and

has an interest in ensuring that enrolment takes place in a way that doesn't

disenfranchise someone with links and rights related to the Tsawwassen First

Nation.

Yes, some of the specific negotiations around language may have

engaged interests on the federal part but, at the end of the day, the province

is equally interested in ensuring that the

definitions and the enrolment

mechanisms here are fair to all and that no one is left in a position after the

fact where they're saying they were disenfranchised from being able to vote in

the ratification process.

That's the best way I can think of to describe the provincial

interest in this.

S. Fraser: I thank the minister. In the interests of

expediency, I have no further questions on

chapter 21 through to

"Implementation,"

chapter 25.

As far as I know, we could be ready to vote on

section 3.

[1515]

[ Page 9067 ]

Sections 3 to 8 inclusive approved.

section 9.

H. Lali: I was going through the notes from the debates

when the member for Nelson-Creston and the minister were debating the

agricultural land reserve and the impact the treaties are having on the ALR. I'm

trying not to ask some of the same questions, but there are some gaping holes in

terms of the information that this side of the House is looking for,

specifically this member standing up.

I want to go back…. I don't know if the minister's answer was

really satisfactory or if he didn't have the information at the time, but I know

my colleague from Nelson-Creston asked how the 207 hectares of land was arrived

at, and also, why they didn't have to go through the Agricultural Land

Commission application aspect of it. So a lot of my questions will be centred

around that.

I'd like to ask the hon. minister: what was the yardstick that was

used by the provincial negotiators in actually coming to 207 hectares of Crown

ALR being transferred to Tsawwassen First Nation as a part of this treaty?

Hon. M. de Jong: The quantum, specifically, was purely a

function of the negotiation.

H. Lali: I take it from the minister's answer that that was

the figure that the Tsawwassen First Nation had put forward. Let me rephrase

that. So that was the figure of 207 hectares that was agreed upon by the

parties, but what was the figure that was originally put forward by the

Tsawwassen First Nation?

Hon. M. de Jong: It won't surprise the member…. I'm not

going to start delving into what the Tsawwassen may have brought or didn't bring

to the table as an opening position.

I can tell the member this. They started by filing a statement of

intent with the Treaty Commission process that the member, when he was in

government, helped set up. So that's a pretty good indication of the position

they took at the opening of negotiations.

H. Lali: Perhaps that wasn't a very fair question after

all. But what does the 207 hectares represent? What was the value that was

attached to it? I know my hon. colleague from Nelson-Creston asked that

question, and the minister's response at the time was, basically — and I'm

paraphrasing — that no valuation was done.

Again, I just want to point out to the minister, in negotiating

treaties…. If you compare the Nisga'a treaty, for instance…. Obviously, it's a

rural treaty. It's way up on the north coast. There are a lot fewer people up

there. In the lower mainland there are a lot more people. There's more land

available, more resource-based land, wilderness areas, etc., in rural B.C. than

there is in urban B.C. That's the standard. We know that. We understand that.

In terms of Crown land, whether it's ALR or non-ALR Crown land

that the province owns, there's lesser availability of that because so much of

the lower mainland is already developed and built up.

Having said that, there are other treaties with overlapping

claims, and we have a situation with 207 hectares that were assigned here. So

following up on the debate between the minister and the member for

Nelson-Creston, I want to repeat the question. Is the minister then saying that

no entity in government actually put a value to that land or put any valuation

to that land in terms of what it was worth in 2007 dollars?

[1520]

Hon. M. de Jong: The member fairly points out that we

canvassed some of this earlier, but I want to be as clear and fair and

unambiguous as I can. The negotiators for the province received a mandate from

the government, from people like me and the cabinet, that said: "We are prepared

and, in fact, accept the proposition that as part of a settlement lands package

the Tsawwassen First Nation should have the right to make some decisions around

land use that extend beyond the narrow provisions, as laudable as they are, of

the agricultural land reserve and the Agricultural Land Commission."

That principle is one that the government embraced. I think I

understand that the member does not. It is a question that some of his

colleagues are exceedingly troubled by. They have articulated it here in the

committee in this chamber.

What follows from having made that decision is a question around

what the quantum is. How much? I am prepared and the government is prepared to

recommend to this chamber a treaty that says: "Here is a settlement package,

including over 700 hectares of land. A portion of that was in the ALR and today

is in the ALR. We are suggesting and recommending that we should remove a

portion of those lands and transfer the land use planning jurisdiction to the

Tsawwassen."

I understand that the member disagrees with that. He has heard my

rationale for why I believe it is justifiable and also, procedurally, why I

believe it is the best way to proceed and to ensure the ongoing integrity of the

Agricultural Land Commission.

That, roughly speaking, is a

summary of the rationale that was

employed, and that I continue to employ, in explaining why I believe this is a

responsible way of proceeding and why I think it will serve all parties well,

including the broader interests of British Columbia.

H. Lali: From my perspective, the debate is not around

whether aboriginal people should or should not be allowed to do zoning on

Tsawwassen First Nation land. That's not really the question here.

The question is really in terms of value. I know there's a sum of

money that is attached as a result of the consummation of this treaty. There's a

certain amount of land that has been transferred. There are 207 hectares which

have been taken out of the ALR. There is an additional sum — I don't have the

exact figure in front of me here — that is also transferred from ALR Crown land

but is not pre-removed from the agricultural land reserve.

[ Page 9068 ]

Obviously, there is a value attached to this. My question, which

I'm going to ask the minister, is not different from the questions that the

opposition asked during the whole Nisga'a treaty debate. In terms of 2007

dollars, what is the total value of this treaty that has been signed with the

Tsawwassen First Nation, including not only the monetary transfer but also the

value of the land, including the 207 hectares that have been removed from the

ALR and the other number of hectares that are also transferred from Crown land?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think I understand what the member is

driving at with respect to these lands. The difficulty I'm having, of course, is

that ultimately, for the 207 hectares the member is particularly interested in,

this will be strongly influenced by the decisions that are made around its

ultimate land use and what decisions are made around land usages.

[1525]

It is conceivable that the Tsawwassen might impose conditions over

a certain portion of those lands even more restrictive than those which are

included or which exist for ALR lands. That would impact its value. Conversely,

if a decision were made…. I suspect the Tsawwassen will want to use a portion of

these lands for some manner of development, whether it's residential, commercial

or industrial, and that will influence the value.

That is why I am reluctant. I know the member is quick and astute

enough that if I offer a figure based on one set of assumptions, he will jump to

his feet and say, "Ah, but I can substitute for those assumptions an entirely

different set," and we would come to a different figure. That's why I'm

reluctant.

The member knows, I suppose, what the market indications for 207

hectares of agricultural land in the area are. It's likely that following the

effective date, the Tsawwassen First Nation government will make some decisions

about those 207 hectares, and that will impact on their ultimate value.

H. Lali: There's a value on the land as it is. I don't

think the minister actually answered my question. I know he didn't answer my

question. There is a value that is attached to the land as agricultural land as

it exists today. I'm not asking the minister: "What if the land were going to be

zoned by the Tsawwassen First Nation as commercial, residential, industrial or

whatever it is?" That's not the question I'm asking.

The question I'm asking the minister is: what is the value of the

land as it exists in 2007 dollars today, based on its zoning as agricultural,

both for that land taken out of the ALR and for those lands not taken out of the

ALR? And add that to the monetary transfer that has also taken place.

I know the minister knows what my question is, and I'd like the

minister to actually answer that question. I think I've been fairly detailed

here. Let me recap it. I'd like the minister to tell me the monetary value of

the land. Add that on to the Crown ALR land that has been transferred and other

lands that have been transferred to the Tsawwassen First Nation as well as the

207 hectares that have been taken out of the ALR already.

Hon. M. de Jong: I wasn't meaning to avoid the member's

question. In fact, I think, as I understand it, he's looking for an estimate on

the per-hectare, per-acre value of agricultural land or land within the ALR. I'm

endeavouring to get the figure that's available. If the member wants to

continue, I'm sure that within a few minutes we'll have that information for

him.

H. Lali: Yes, absolutely. I'll come back to the value of

the land question in a little while.

I'll just move on to another line of questioning here. I would

like the minister to tell me, or he could refresh my memory: in terms of other

first nations across the province coming to the table, is Crown agricultural

land on the table for negotiations as part of the transfer of land as part of

treaties?

[1530]

Hon. M. de Jong: I am going to try and remain closely

aligned with

section 9 of the treaty. I'll do this once, because I think I

answered it earlier.

The policy is, in every case, to avoid incursions or intrusions

into lands that are ALR lands or to avoid disruption of ALR lands. That is the

approach we take. It's the approach, actually, that was taken in these

negotiations as well.

The reality, of course, is that because of the unique locale of

the Tsawwassen First Nation and the fact that all of the Crown land in the area

was contained within the ALR, we weren't able to conclude an agreement that

didn't have some impact on the ALR.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

H. Lali: I take it the answer is yes. Would the minister

then explain to me if Crown leases by ranchers are also on the negotiating table

in treaties in future?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think it's an important discussion for

us to have, and I'm sure we'll have it at some point. To my knowledge, there are

no ranchers or ranch-related leases involved in the Tsawwassen lands or those

lands which are the subject of

section 9.

Given that we are dealing with a specific final agreement, I'm

going to suggest that we do that — without suggesting that it isn't an important

area for the member and I to canvass at some point. I'm just having trouble

relating it to the provisions of

section 9.

H. Lali: Well, in the spirit of the debate and the

negotiation of treaties, what happens here in the case of the Tsawwassen will

have an effect on future treaty-making.

The minister has already answered that, yes, Crown agricultural

land would be on the negotiating table. My question is now more specific, as it

relates to leases, which are also Crown agricultural land, open range.

My constituents — especially in the Merritt and Nicola valley

areas, in the Similkameen valley, in the

[ Page 9069 ]

Princeton-Keremeos area as well as from Lytton to Lillooet, all across my

constituency, even up from Merritt towards Logan Lake — are heavily into

agriculture. Cattle ranching is very big, as the minister knows.

The Douglas Lake Ranch was at one time the largest ranch in the

entire world at 600,000 acres. It has now only been superseded because of the

purchase by some billionaire, I think in Texas, of three or four ranches

combined, but it is still the largest single-holding ranch in the entire world.

That's just one example.

There are dozens and dozens and dozens of ranches and ranchers

spread all throughout the constituency of Yale-Lillooet, and they are concerned.

My constituents are concerned, and they have a right to know what the intention

of this government is.

I think it is totally appropriate to ask this question here. In

terms of the Tsawwassen First Nation treaty and the statement that the minister

has already made, how do Crown leases fit into this particular area? I repeat my

question to the minister. Are Crown leases that ranchers throughout my

constituency hold — some of them on a ten-, 20-, 30-, 40- or 50-year basis and

in between — also on the negotiating table for treaties?

[1535]

Hon. M. de Jong: Hon. Chair, I want to make sure I

understand. The member is referring to Crown grazing leases?

H. Lali: Correct.

Hon. M. de Jong: The lands referred to in

section 9 do not

include any Crown grazing leases.

H. Lali: Could the minister repeat that? I was in a bit of

a side discussion here. Sorry.

Hon. M. de Jong: The lands that are referred to in

section

9 include no Crown grazing leases.

H. Lali: I was wondering if the value of that land has been

arrived at or if the information been made available.

Hon. M. de Jong: In 2000, as negotiations were at that

point, the agricultural land in the area was being valued at $60,000 per

hectare. I suspect it has gone up. We have heard from some members who assure us

of that fact — that it has gone up, just as land right across the lower mainland

has gone up in the intervening seven years.

H. Lali: Is the minister saying that that's the last figure

available to his ministry, this 2000 figure, in terms of the value of the land

in question?

Hon. M. de Jong: That represents the last formal appraisal.

As I said earlier, I suspect it has gone up.

H. Lali: Well, obviously it has gone up. My question to the

minister is: as part of his negotiations, is the minister now saying there was

nobody on our side — and by our side, I mean the provincial government — who was

actually sitting there with a calculator and trying to calculate the present

value of that land in question? Was there nobody on his entire team who was

actually sitting there calculating what the value was, nobody who went to some

real estate office or appraiser's office to find out what the actual value was

today in 2007 dollars, in this year?

Is that what the minister is saying? Nobody on his team actually

sat there and had any discussions or even thought of putting some value to that

land?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the member is experienced enough

to know that in a negotiation as complex as this, one of the defining moments is

when the parties sit down to begin the question of land selection. That is made

all the more challenging in an area where there is precious little land,

complicated further by virtue of the fact that the Crown land available here

almost exclusively was…. Usages were constrained by the ALC/ALR legislation.

At a certain point, the parties say: "All right, let's have a

negotiation. Let's decide what we think is reasonable." The Tsawwassen First

Nation says: "We have expectations built around establishing a sufficient land

base to generate economic activity, to form an economic foundation going forward

that will allow us to meet our housing needs, some of our commercial needs,

industrial needs and training needs." At a certain point, the parties come to a

meeting of the minds around what that is going to be.

I don't think you can then, as a party to those discussions,

return to the table at a certain point and say: "Oh my goodness, land values are

appreciating, and we need to revisit that quantum." There might be an element of

that, but you'd have to be careful about exposing yourself to an argument of

bad-faith negotiations, once you have agreed in principle to the fact that a

certain quantum of land is appropriate. I think the member knows all that and

appreciates all that.

[1540]

There were initial appraisals done. You'd have to be living on the

moon not to realize that, with the way the economy has taken off in British

Columbia, these lands have appreciated in value. At the same time, we have

accepted the notion that the Tsawwassen deserve the opportunity to secure a

sufficient land base in the area to achieve certain objectives. As a function of

the negotiation, we settled on an overall quantum in excess of 700 hectares and

within this a quantum of land that today is in the ALR but that post–effective

date would be removed from the specific provisions of the ALR.

H. Lali: It was really a non-answer. The minister said that

it's inappropriate to go back once that quantum of land has been decided. That

is what the minister has said.

My question is not to go back once a quantum of land has been

decided. My question actually precedes that. Before a quantum of land was

decided, on what basis would that have been decided, if it wasn't to actually

sit there and work out some sort of value in terms of protecting the interests

of the province and of

[ Page 9070 ]

those who may be affected by future treaties, in terms of protecting their

interests as you flow upriver or go upcountry?

I mean, that's the question here. The minister said that these are

very complex negotiations. At some point you've got to just get beyond that.

Those weren't his words, but that's what it sort of relates to or means. Anytime

individuals go to a store and want to buy something or they're trying to get a

contract for building a house, purchasing a car or whatever it is, they're

negotiating a price. Somebody is sitting there with a calculator on both sides.

Anytime a union and management are up for renewal of a collective

agreement, a contract, you've got the bean-counters on both sides sitting there

punching out numbers on a calculator to decide what the price is and what's

going to bring them to agreement. Anytime governments negotiate with each other,

whether it's with a municipality or with private developers who want to develop

a certain portion of Crown land or want an access to a highway system because

they've got a development going up, there are people sitting there on both sides

crunching numbers with a calculator.

Here we have a treaty and the transfer of land, and the moneys

that are going to be transferred are not just in the millions. They're in the

tens of millions and the hundreds of millions. The minister wants us to sit here

and believe that nobody on the negotiating team on the provincial side actually

sat there with a calculator or went to talk to somebody in the real estate

industry to find out what the prices were, and that the last available prices

were in the year 2000, in the era of another government. Nobody on that side,

nobody on the government side on the negotiating team, actually sat there to try

to put a value, because that's what the minister is saying. That's exactly what

the minister is saying.

Hon. B. Penner: Let them vote against it.

H. Lali: It's a very legitimate question.

I have a tough time believing that there was nobody on the

provincial side who was sitting there with a calculator or talking to somebody

in the real estate industry trying to find out what the value was of that

agricultural land that was under the domain of the Crown. I find that hard to

believe, so I again ask the minister: was there nobody on the provincial side

that was actually working out the value of the land? Was there nobody who

actually thought about putting a value to that land?

Is the minister also telling me that if somebody were to put in an

FOI in terms of what kind of stuff went on, we would not be able to find a

single piece of paper or a conversation that took place or an e-mail stating

that there was anything going on in terms of actually putting a value to that

piece of land?

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for the

statement/question. I can assure the member that the provincial negotiators took

very seriously the task of ensuring that what was arrived at was a fair and

equitable arrangement. When we talk about values, we're talking about a

collection of interests, of which land represents one portion.

[1545]

At the end of the day, this agreement must withstand scrutiny in

its entirety. There will be people — I believe, the majority of people in the

province — who believe that it represents a fair and reasonable settlement of

this long-unresolved question.

I know that at a certain point negotiators would have had to take

account of the fact that through to the last part of the 1990s, land values were

falling — a rather remarkable situation in British Columbia — and that as we

moved through the early part of the 2000s and through these latter years, the

values of people's homes and properties in British Columbia are appreciating

significantly. I happen to think that's a good thing.

At the end of the day, this agreement needs to be assessed in its

entirety as a fair settlement of these issues. I think the majority of members

in the House have expressed their views on that. They did so at second reading.

I can't recall if the member did so or not. I don't think he did.

This agreement will have to withstand that level of scrutiny, that

level of assessment. I and the government commend it to the committee and the

chamber as a fair and reasonable settlement.

I think, Madam Chair, I have a colleague who seeks leave to make

an introduction.

Introductions by Members

Hon. O. Ilich: I just want to make an introduction of a

group of students who are here visiting today. I think the Premier already

introduced them earlier in the day. They're a group of students who go to school

in his riding. They're from West Point Grey Academy.

I'm here doing this again because I want to embarrass my nephew,

who is amongst that group. Tanner Ilich is here.

I'd like everybody to say welcome to the group visiting us from

West Point Grey.

Debate Continued

H. Lali: Earlier in a debate with the member for

Nelson-Creston…. The process of the agricultural land reserve, with the

applications going to the commission, was actually kiboshed. Cabinet decided to

take out these 207 hectares without going through the process.

In terms of the question that the hon. member had asked on that —

why this wasn't included as a part of the ALC process — the minister's response,

referring to the Tsawwassen First Nation, was: "That was not their first

choice."

Basically, what I'd like to state is that somewhere along the line

it was decided that it was going to be 207 hectares. Somewhere it was decided

that it was going to be taken out of the ALR without having to go through the

process. Obviously, the authorities want to build and expand the Delta port.

[ Page 9071 ]

It just seems a little bit too coincidental that this would all

happen at approximately the same time and that nobody on the government side

actually put any sort of value on that land. That's absolutely unbelievable.

I think there isn't a single person in British Columbia who

believes that the government did not have their folks who were negotiating,

sitting there with calculators and actually trying to figure out what the value

of that land was going to be. It's absolutely unbelievable. Nobody out there in

British Columbia actually believes that either. It really seems a little too

coincidental.

In all of this process — if the Delta port was to be built and

they wanted to use the Tsawwassen First Nation treaty as an excuse to try to get

around the Agricultural Land Commission — was there ever any thought given, or

have the minister and the government given a thought, that this would be the

last treaty where land would be automatically taken out of the ALR without going

to the commission — that it's not going to be red-circled? Is this the final

treaty where it's going to be red-circled, and other treaties are not going to

go through that same process?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'll say this one more time for the

member. I wish we were dealing with circumstances that were different and that

there was available Crown land that doesn't fall within the ALR. This is a

unique set of circumstances.

[1550]

Part of what the member has said…. If he said it, fine, and I'll

say it even more clearly. These settlement lands, the vast majority of them,

were covered by the provisions of the ALC/ALR. The Tsawwassen, as you might

expect, wanted more options around the use of that land than the ALR would have

provided for.

There were different approaches that we could take. Someone has

mentioned in this chamber that we could have or should have negotiated a

conditional deal whereby the Tsawwassen would have gone to the ALC. I don't,

quite frankly, know how you technically do that. I know the prospects of

negotiating it with the Tsawwassen First Nation were virtually nil.

I'll say this for the last time. The decision to facilitate this

agreement by removing this land from the ALR is a decision the government has

made. I think that is far more appropriate — so that members like the member for

Yale-Lillooet can stand up and criticize the government for that — in my view

than to come to an agreement and then place what to my mind would be an entirely

unfair set of circumstances on the Agricultural Land Commission and say: "Now,

this deal will live or die based on your decision."

They have a specific mandate. Their mandate is contained within

that legislation. This is a government-to-government-to-government negotiation

aimed at resolving a longstanding dispute and a longstanding uncertainty, and

this is the mechanism that we have chosen in as forthright and transparent a way

as possible. That's why the member can stand up and make his criticisms and

express why he is opposed and the problem this causes.

That's the rationale. I've said it earlier in these debates, and

I've repeated it. As I say, I don't begrudge the member standing here and

articulating why he is opposed or hesitant. That's fine. That's what this

chamber is for.

H. Lali: This will be my last question, but I will read

some quotes into the record before I sit down. Basically, the question here is

not for myself and others, whether it was the right thing to do or not in terms

of the transfer of land. The question is about the integrity of the Land

Commission.

Now the minister admits that they actually wanted to keep the

commission from having to decide whether the treaty fails or not. Really, that's

why the 207 hectares came preapproved in terms of being taken out of the ALR

without having to go through the application process that everybody else would

have to go through in British Columbia. The minister admits that it was done out

of political expediency as opposed to actually doing the right thing.

According to a document called ALR Erosion , BIV 786, by

Gordon Price: "The ALR also became the basis of the 'green zone' that currently

constrains sprawl in the lower mainland, one of the four pillars that make up

the livable region strategic plan…of the GVRD." Basically, agricultural land

really constrains the urban sprawl.

In 2004 the David Suzuki Foundation released a report criticizing

the B.C. Liberals and wanted them to actually protect farmland from other types

of development. They suggested that in the north of B.C. there was some land of

lesser productive value that was brought in, but land of higher productive value

in fertile areas such as the lower mainland was actually taken out.

In 2006 the Minister of Agriculture and Lands' own report entitled

B.C.'s Food Self-Reliance says:

"To produce a healthy diet for the projected B.C.

population in 2025, farmers will need to have 2.78 million hectares in

production, of which 281,000 will need access to irrigation. This means that to

produce a healthy diet for British Columbians in 2025, given existing production

technology, the farmland with access to irrigation will need to increase by

92,000 hectares, or 49 percent, over 2005 levels.

"To maintain the current level of self-reliance

through to the year 2025, farmers will need to increase production by 30 percent

over 2001 levels. The increased production will be concentrated on the land that

has access to irrigation — land that is typically near urban centres."

[1555]

I also want to now read into the record. On December 8, 1998,

referring to treaties in this House, here is what the Premier — the then

opposition leader — said during question period. He's talking to the Minister of

Agriculture and Lands in an NDP government.

"The minister's own experts have told him this: at the

present rates treaties would likely consume the majority of Crown ALR —

approximately 2.5 million hectares. The question is to the Minister of

Agriculture and Lands. Can you explain to the people of British Columbia and to

this House why you have not told them about the im-

[ Page 9072 ]

pacts of your government's treaty policies on agriculture and lands in

British Columbia?"

My final question, before I sit down, to the minister is….

You have the livable region strategic plan of the GVRD from the mid-1990s. You

have the warnings from the David Suzuki Foundation given to this government in

2004. You have the ministry's own report that says land that is the most fertile

is at the edges of where the urban sprawl is taking place. It's also the land

that needs irrigation, has the highest productivity and needs to be protected,

and 92,000 additional hectares have to be brought in. And there's the Premier's

statement that he made in this House in 1998.

How does this treaty, with the pre-approved 207 hectares that have

come out of the ALR — taken out by cabinet — actually help to achieve the goals

of the livable region strategic plan, given the warnings of Dr. Suzuki, the

Minister of Agriculture and Lands' own report and sanctioned by this government

and the statements that the Premier made?

Hon. M. de Jong: I heard the reference to a debate in this

chamber in 1998, and I couldn't help but cast my mind back and wonder if that

was roughly the same time the member was standing on this side of the House

defending his government's removal of hundreds of hectares for the Six Mile

Ranch project.

Let me say this, and I'll say it as succinctly and briefly as I

can. I believe and the government believes that confronted by some difficult

choices, ensuring that the Tsawwassen First Nation has a fair opportunity to

develop as a community — to develop an economy, to develop infrastructure, to

develop and train their individuals — they deserve the same opportunities every

other community in the province has.

The removal of 207 hectares from the ALR — as troubling as that

might be for the member and as much as people would have liked to avoid that

necessity — is at the end of the day a reasonable exchange, a reasonable price

to pay to ensure that they have that opportunity.

I take it the member disagrees, and insofar as he has gone to

great pains to point out his disagreement, I presume he will take advantage of

the opportunity to register that disagreement at the appropriate time in these

debates.

M. Sather: Continuing with the debate on

section 9 with

regard to the agricultural land reserve. The parcels of land that the member for

Yale-Lillooet is talking about are shown, if viewers want to look at it

sometime, in appendix G-1 of the agreement. They're nicely coloured in orange,

those being the lands that are exempted from the authority of the ALC —

Agricultural Land Commission — and those in brown being those that remain within

the jurisdiction of Agricultural Land Commission. The former are around some 500

acres, and it looks to me by looking at the map that the latter is a little bit

smaller.

[1600]

The minister has said that the Tsawwassen First Nation did not

want to be bound by the constraints of the Agricultural Land Commission in their

ability to develop their lands. My first question to the minister is…. I really

don't know the answer to this. I really have been curious about it for a while.

Why were only some of those agricultural lands removed from the jurisdiction of

the Agricultural Land Commission? If the Tsawwassen wanted more flexibility, why

weren't all of them removed from the jurisdiction of the ALC?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think it's an excellent question,

because it demonstrates and speaks to the importance that the government,

through its negotiators, actually places on agricultural land and preserving to

the maximum extent possible the integrity of the ALR.

If you are someone involved in a negotiation — I don't think this

comes as a shock to the member — and you are poised to receive certain benefits

that result from that negotiation, you would like to receive those benefits free

to the greatest extent possible of any constraints that might inhibit your

future use of those benefits — in this case, land. So that was very much a

function of the negotiation.

I can't say this with specific numbers in mind, but the settlement

lands here…. If I were negotiating on behalf of the Tsawwassen, I would want the

greatest flexibility possible going forward. Our negotiators were fully aware of

the importance that the government attaches to agricultural lands. That is why,

ultimately, the final figure was the product of a negotiation, and that's what

is reflected here.

The government simply wasn't prepared to take the view or agree to

a position that said all of the provincial Crown settlement lands were going to

be removed from the ALR. That was not a position that our negotiators were

authorized to take.

M. Sather: Just to clarify then. The Tsawwassen First

Nation did want all of those lands removed from the jurisdiction of the ALC, but

the province said no. Is that correct?

Hon. M. de Jong: Actually, what I said is that in a

negotiation like this, it should not surprise the member that a party in the

position of the Tsawwassen would seek to acquire these benefits and assets free

to the greatest extent possible from constraining regulation.

M. Sather: Well, following, I think, logically from what

the minister said…. He said that the Tsawwassen would want the most amount of

freedom possible around the use of those lands. He said that the government

values agricultural lands, however. Therefore, the fact that they weren't all

removed from the jurisdiction of the Agricultural Land Commission speaks to that

commitment of the government.

So it seems to follow for me — and I wouldn't be surprised at it —

that the Tsawwassen wanted all of those lands out of the jurisdiction of the

Agricultural Land Commission, and the province said no. Isn't that, in effect,

what the minister is saying?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, the member can pursue with Chief

Baird and the Tsawwassen what their posi-

[ Page 9073 ]

tion was and how it may have evolved. I've already said once this afternoon

that it is not my purpose nor am I qualified to stand here and try to interpret

authoritatively what may have motivated the negotiating positions of the

Tsawwassen First Nation. I'm not going to do that.

M. Sather: For some reason, and I don't know why, the

minister won't answer my question directly.

I want to make reference to what the minister just did say,

though, because he's said a number of times that he's not going to venture into

the territory of speculating on what the Tsawwassen First Nation may have had in

mind, etc. But the problem is that this whole treaty, I guess like any other

treaty, was negotiated behind closed doors. The lower mainland treaty advisory

committee did have access to some of those negotiations. The negotiators were

sworn to secrecy. They couldn't tell other local governments about what they

were discussing.

So I think it's really fair and reasonable that in this venue, the

government should be most forthcoming about what the discussions were around the

treaty. This is the only way that the public are going to get any sort of clear

understanding of what happened during those negotiations.

[1605]

Referring back to the lands again, those that are qualified as DL

108, 107 and 183 are some of the ones that were removed from the jurisdiction of

the ALC and are closest to Deltaport Way. Why were those particular lands

removed from the jurisdiction of the ALC?

Hon. M. de Jong: If I have misunderstood his question, I'm

sure he will correct me in short order. But I took the question to be, in

effect: how do you, Minister, account for a negotiation wherein all the lands

that are being recommended for removal from the ALR are those lands closest to

the port or the port causeway? If that was the assertion or the premise of the

question, my response is: well, that's just not so.

I know some of the members opposite have convinced themselves that

this is all done to achieve some nefarious purpose or hidden agenda and that the

Tsawwassen First Nation is some pawn in a greater play. I won't assign those

exact words to the member himself, but I think it is unfortunate that people

would have so little regard for the abilities and the right of the Tsawwassen

First Nation to make some decisions around the use of these lands.

We are saying here that there will be 207 hectares of settlement

lands that the Tsawwassen will have the right to make some decisions around.

They're going to need some housing. They're going to want to develop some

housing.

There are lands that are part of the

schedule we're talking about,

which fall along the Highway 17 corridor. I don't know if that's where the

Tsawwassen will choose to explore a housing opportunity or some kind of

commercial venture instead. I don't know that. I do know that to my mind and the

mind of the government, it is appropriate for them to have that option in the

same way that other communities have those options.

I rather suspect that nothing I say here to this committee or to

the member is going to convince him otherwise, but as long as he keeps trying, I

guess I'll keep trying.

M. Sather: Thanks to the minister.

What I'm trying to figure out — and I'm hopeful that the minister

will help me with this — is: how did the parcels…? As we started with, there are

some that are still in the jurisdiction of the ALC and some that aren't. I know

there must have been lengthy discussions about this. The negotiators wouldn't

have just taken a dart and thrown it at the wall.

[1610]

In a more general sense, then — because I realize there are two

parcels in orange — how did the negotiations come about that these particular

lands, let's say, were taken from the jurisdiction of the ALC, but not the

others? There must have been some reason for that.

Hon. M. de Jong: In very general terms, I can advise the

member that there were at least two things that were on the minds of people as

they went through this exercise. He will notice from the

schedule he is

correctly referring to that the lands that are the subject of this

section have

one thing in common, and that is they both rest along transportation corridors —

in the one case, the port corridor; in the other case, the Highway 17

transportation corridor.

The other thing that a portion of the lands have, which is

significant, is their proximity to the existing residential core. That might be

a more elaborate phrase than is appropriate, but it's where most of the houses

are now on the Tsawwassen reserve. The Tsawwassen negotiators were concerned

that they have some means in the future to provide enhanced housing alternatives

in a way that was consistent with the existing residential development.

M. Sather: Well, thanks to the minister. I think we're

getting somewhere now. The minister said that those two parcels were along

transportation routes, and that was a considerable reason why they were chosen.

That's what I believe to be the case as well.

I wanted, though, also to challenge the minister on…. He said

repeatedly last week in this House that no one should make any presumptions

about how the Tsawwassen First Nation are going to use their land. I would say

uncategorically that that's demonstrably not the case, at least for some of

those lands.

We have to go back again, of course, to look at the court case

that the Tsawwassen First Nation launched in 2002 against the port authority and

others. That was settled in 2004 out of court. There were provisions that were

made in that settlement agreement and the memorandum of agreement that the two

parties settled on.

For example, and most specifically,

section 27 of the memorandum

of agreement, which was part of a $10 million joint venture investment fund paid

for by the port…. The $10 million was paid and was to be jointly developed by

the two parties: the port and the Tsaw-

[ Page 9074 ]

wassen First Nation. It says, in part, "The VPA and TFN agree that

development of a container handling facility shall be a priority project for a

joint investment of the JVIF" — the investment fund.

They're talking about the importance of a container handling

facility, which must be and would be on dry land. It says further: "…the parties

will work jointly to ensure that the TFN settlement lands that are required for

the project are expeditiously transferred to the TFN and removed from the

application of the agricultural land reserve designation."

Now, we know, in retrospect, that that's in fact what has

happened. Lands are being moved from the ALC. This agreement talks very clearly

about a container handling facility for the port. It also says, "In any case,

the land will be leased to the project or the entity managing the project," and

that's the project of the joint venture investment fund.

[1615]

So this is an agreement that was an out-of-court settlement. It

has teeth in it. It's subject to arbitration if the parties break this agreement

or don't agree to it. If the arbitration doesn't work, it's subject to the

Supreme Court of Canada. So clearly, the TFN is bound by this agreement, and

this agreement says that they will work with the government to obtain the land

out of the Agricultural Land Commission, out of the ALR, by having it removed

from the jurisdiction of the ALC for the development of a container handling

facility. It's quite specific.

So I want to ask the minister: did the port and/or the Tsawwassen

First Nation discuss with the province during these negotiations getting land

out of the ALR for a container handling facility for port development?

Hon. M. de Jong: I am advised that the negotiators were not

involved in that nature of discussion.

M. Sather: Whether the negotiators were involved in that

discussion…. Quite frankly, I find it unbelievable that the province, at least,

was not aware of this agreement that was signed between the two parties, of

their intent and of how they needed the agreement of the province to consummate

the arrangement.

I mean, it was a big deal. The TFN called it a $47 million deal

when they came up with the memorandum of agreement. It's very clear what their

intentions were, and it's very clear where we ended up. It's very difficult to

assume that there's no relationship between the deal that was made between the

TFN and the port, and the province.

I want to go back a minute. Back in December of 2006, Chief Baird

of the Tsawwassen First Nation said that they would be making an application to

the Agricultural Land Commission to get land out for development. That was back

in December of 2006. When was the decision made, then, to circumvent the

necessity to make an application from the ALC? When was the decision made, in

other words, to remove the jurisdiction of the ALC from this process?

Hon. M. de Jong: The information the member has conveyed

here today serves to emphasize the importance that the Tsawwassen First Nation

and their leadership placed in acquiring lands that were suitable for

development, be it residential, commercial or industrial.

At that point the resolution of these negotiations was far from

certain, but again, I have never been shy about acknowledging the interests that

the Tsawwassen First Nation have and had in acquiring the ability to develop

lands to the benefit of their community. So I don't see the disconnect, and I

don't see any inconsistency whatsoever. In fact, this agreement is a reflection

of that interest and a negotiated resolution of that interest.

M. Sather: Is it the case that the decision to remove the

ALC's jurisdiction was, in fact, made within days — or perhaps a week, or

thereabout — of the signing of the final agreement? Wasn't it an eleventh-hour

decision? Is that not the case?

Hon. M. de Jong: No, that would not be a fair assessment.

M. Sather: Specifically, then, when was the Tsawwassen

First Nation aware that the jurisdiction of the Agricultural Land Commission

would be removed?

[1620]

Hon. M. de Jong: Prior to the initialling of the final

agreement, because it was an important component of the final agreement for the

Tsawwassen.

M. Sather: I realize it would be prior to the signing of

the final agreement, but how much prior?

Hon. M. de Jong: Actually, I chose my words carefully. The

final agreement has not been signed yet. It was initialled by the negotiators.

It was certainly prior to that initialling, in the last stages of the

discussion. It was one of the key features of the negotiation that was taking

place at the time.

M. Sather: Well, the minister is being quite evasive here.

Let's put another time frame on it. Was the Tsawwassen First Nation made aware

more than two weeks prior to the initialling that the ALC's jurisdiction would

be removed? Was it more than two weeks or was it less than two weeks from the

initialling?

Hon. M. de Jong: The reason I'm choosing my words carefully

is that I don't want the member to come back later and suggest that somehow I

was trying to mislead him or members of this committee.

There's no doubt that throughout the negotiation, as the topic of

land transfer was discussed, the Tsawwassen and the negotiators would have been

talking about the fact and been aware of the fact that most of these lands, if

not all of them, are covered by the ALR. At a point prior to finalizing the

text, the government would have conveyed to negotiators the authority to advise

the Tsawwassen that the government was

[ Page 9075 ]

prepared, as part of a settlement package, to facilitate legislatively the

removal of these lands from the ALR.

That information would have been shared by the negotiators,

obviously, prior to the initialling of the final agreements — in what I think

was December of 2006. Conveying that information and agreeing to that provision

was instrumental, in fact, in helping to facilitate the final agreement.

M. Sather: As evasive as the minister is being, I think

it's clear that the government was intimately involved in the commercial

transaction — they don't want to admit it — of port development. That's not to

say, you know, that that was…. I think it was a bad thing, to alienate

agricultural land. But the Tsawwassen First Nation, perhaps, doesn't think it's

a bad thing to do it in that way.

The point is that there was a deal done. I submit that the

Tsawwassen First Nation wasn't fully informed of all the details of this

negotiation until the eleventh hour, which speaks to the fact that the

government had a very heavy hand in this. The port, I am sure, was very much

informed of the status of the negotiations.

I would submit further that this deal would never have happened

without the arrangements for the container handling facility. It wouldn't have

gotten done. It got done because it was being pushed very hard by the port and

with full support of this government to make that happen. I think that the

Tsawwassen First Nation were hanging on and doing their best to get the best

deal that they could out of what was essentially a commercial deal.

My final question. The minister mentioned, in his answer to the

member for Yale-Lillooet, an appraisal being done or an appraiser being used.

Can the minister just tell us what appraising firm the government used and hired

in that case?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm sorry. I don't have that information

here.

G. Gentner: I, too, would like to pick up some of the

exploratory discussion or debate between the member for Nelson-Creston and the

minister last Wednesday. I know the minister had suggested that he preferred a

discussion regarding the broad issues of the land use in

section 9, so here we

are.

[1625]

The minister had said: "There were discussions around where the

overall land would come from, given the restrictions that existed from the

availability of Crown land." I just want to understand this. Who was he

referring to with regards to these discussions?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm sorry. I'm not sure I understand what

the member is referring to. Is he referring to

section 9, which we're discussing

here?

G. Gentner: Yeah, I believe we're in

section 9, Minister. I

think it's

section 9.

I just asked a question relative to Hansard. You suggested

to the member for Nelson-Creston, regarding discussions of the availability of

Crown lands, that the discussions were where the overall land would come from,

given the restrictions that existed around the availability of Crown land.

I'm just asking you who conducted those discussions. Was it simply

there other parties?

Hon. M. de Jong: The discussions that I believe I was

referring to in that exchange with the member for Nelson-Creston related to the

parties to this negotiation.

G. Gentner: The discussions were strictly the government of

Canada, the province, and the TFN, if I have that correct? Yes? No other

parties?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, the member will forgive me for being

exceedingly cautious, but I am alive to the fact that on one occasion where I

misspoke myself, the member rushed off and quickly began drawing conclusions.

We've had a very expansive, very important exchange. The member

has asked some good questions. But I am trying to be as precise as I can,

because if the member is referring to one thing and I answer referring to

something else, I have no doubt that this member will rush outside and use that

as an indication that somehow I'm trying to evade his question or provide

inaccurate information.

I think the member is asking me about a comment I made earlier in

this debate referring to discussions between parties. I believe, not having had

the benefit of reviewing the entire exchange, that I was referring to

discussions between the parties to this negotiation — the governments of Canada,

British Columbia and the Tsawwassen First Nation.

G. Gentner: I want to pick up the discussion from the

previous speaker, the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows. I just want to pick

up on this. I didn't quite understand it. The question was similar, and I'm

paraphrasing. Why didn't the TFN insist upon more land out of the ALR that was

closer to Highway 17?

The Chair: Member, I think that question has been

canvassed, if not once, several times, and I wonder if we could move on with

section 9, please.

G. Gentner: If the land that was closer to Highway 17

wasn't being used, was it because the land would not assist the Vancouver Port

Authority's desire for container storage?

[1630]

Hon. M. de Jong: I can advise the member that the parties

explored a range of options and further advise that there are lands captured by

the provisions we are dealing with in

section 9 that run along the Highway 17

corridor as opposed to being directly adjacent to the port corridor.

G. Gentner: Last week the minister went on to say that it

was the TFN that "had certain objectives they

[ Page 9076 ]

were seeking to satisfy around residential, commercial and other uses of the

land."

According to the TFN plan created in 2003, it was clear that the

emphasis was on commercial, residential and other uses that were not necessarily

industrial. But then comes the VPA-TFN agreement, and we have the northern end

of the settlement lands earmarked for industrial development.

This, Minister, was not part of the TFN's original plan. So what

was the provincial interest in pushing these northern parcels out of the ALR?

Hon. M. de Jong: Sorry, I heard the

preamble but not the

question. What was the provincial interest in what?

G. Gentner: Pushing the northern parcels — I think they're

108, 107 and 183 — out of the ALR.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

Hon. M. de Jong: The premise is somewhat flawed. The

province wasn't pushing any component of the removal of ALR lands. It was,

again, a function of a negotiation, and ultimately the province arrived at a

place with the other negotiating parties where we thought we could accept the

land selection and the land designation and move ahead with settlement

legislation on the basis of what members see here.

G. Gentner: Okay. We'll take it that the government wasn't

pushing these parcels. But what provincial interests did the province have in

ALR removal of these lands?

Hon. M. de Jong: I actually think that is a very fair

question, and an appropriate one, because it goes to the heart of something I

have tried to advance throughout these discussions. A comprehensive settlement

with the Tsawwassen First Nation, as set out in this final agreement, that

provides the Tsawwassen First Nation with the essential ingredients that any

community requires to be able to provide a sound economic future for their

people and community is in the provincial best interest.

I'm actually very happy that the member put it in those terms,

because that, in a sense, is the choice. That was part of the decision. That was

part of what went into deciding whether or not to do something.

I've been at this a while. I'm not blind to the fact that

decisions of this sort attract a fair degree of criticism, but you try to weigh

the benefits, try to weigh the various principles at play here. The provincial

interest — in my mind, the mind of the government and of the parties to this

agreement — is ultimately best served by ensuring that the Tsawwassen are

provided with the means and economic base, a land base, that they can pursue in

the way that communities right across British Columbi