British Columbia Hansard — Wednesday, May 5, 2004

h0505pm-03

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

5th Session, 37th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) Wednesday, May 5, 2004 Afternoon Sitting Volume 25, Number 3 THE HONOURABLE CLAUDE RICHMOND, SPEAKER ISSN 0709-1281

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Honourable Iona Campagnolo 5TH SESSION, 37TH PARLIAMENT SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Claude Richmond EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council ............................................................................................................Hon. Gordon Campbell Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations ...............................................................................................................Hon.

Sindi Hawkins Deputy Premier and Minister of Children and Family Development ................................................................................ Hon. Christy Clark Minister of State for Early Childhood Development...................................................................................................................Hon. Linda Reid Minister of Advanced Education................................................................................................................................................ Hon.

Shirley Bond Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries..................................................................................................................... Hon. John van Dongen Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiations..................................................................................... Hon. Geoff Plant Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services ................................................................................................ Hon.

Murray Coell Minister of State for Women's and Seniors' Services................................................................................................................... Hon. Ida Chong Minister of Education ............................................................................................................................................................Hon. Tom Christensen Minister of Energy and Mines...............................................................................................................................................Hon.

Richard Neufeld Minister of State for Mining...................................................................................................................................................................Hon. Pat Bell Minister of Finance.........................................................................................................................................................................Hon. Gary Collins Minister of Forests................................................................................................................................................................... Hon.

Michael de Jong Minister of State for Forestry Operations.................................................................................................................................. Hon. Roger Harris Minister of Health Services.........................................................................................................................................................Hon. Colin Hansen Minister of State for Mental Health and Addiction Services ....................................................................................................Hon.

Susan Brice Minister of Human Resources........................................................................................................................................................Hon. Stan Hagen Minister of Management Services ............................................................................................................................................. Hon. Joyce Murray Minister of Provincial Revenue.................................................................................................................................................... Hon.

Rick Thorpe Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General...................................................................................................................... Hon. Rich Coleman Minister of Skills Development and Labour......................................................................................................................Hon. Graham P. Bruce Minister of Small Business and Economic Development ...............................................................................................................Hon.

John Les Minister of Sustainable Resource Management ....................................................................................................................Hon. George Abbott Minister of State for Resort Development............................................................................................................................... Hon. Sandy Santori Minister of Transportation...........................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Kevin Falcon Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection ............................................................................................................................... Hon.

Bill Barisoff LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Deputy Speaker ....................................................................................................................................................................................John Weisbeck Leader of the Opposition .......................................................................................................................................................................Joy MacPhail Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole..............................................................................................................................................

Harold Long Clerk of the Legislative Assembly ........................................................................................................................................... E. George MacMinn Clerk Assistant.........................................................................................................................................................................................Robert Vaive Clerk Assistant and Law Clerk ...............................................................................................................................................................Ian D.

Izard Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees ....................................................................................................................................... Craig H. James Clerk Assistant and Committee Clerk ..........................................................................................................................................Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sergeant-at-Arms............................................................................................................................................................................. A.A.

Humphreys Director, Hansard Services ..................................................................................................................................................Anthony Dambrauskas Legislative Librarian ..................................................................................................................................................................................Jane Taylor Legislative Comptroller...............................................................................................................................................................................Peter Bray Published by British Columbia Hans ard Services, and printed under the authority of the Speaker by the Queen's Printer, Victoria.

Rates: single issue, $2.85; per calendar year, mailed daily, $298. GST extra. Agent: Crown Publications Inc., 521 Fort St., Victoria, B.C. V8W 1E7. Telephone: (250) 386-4636. Fax: 386-0221. www.leg.bc.ca Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.

Party Standings: Liberal 74; New Democratic 2; Independent Liberal 3 ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Abbott, Hon. George (L) ..........................................................................Shuswap Anderson, Val J. (L)............................................................... Vancouver-Langara Barisoff, Hon. Bill (L)...............................................Penticton–Okanagan Valley Bell, Hon.

Pat (L) ..................................................................Prince George North Belsey, Bill (L)....................................................................................North Coast Bennett, Bill (L) ..............................................................................East Kootenay Bhullar, Tony (Ind. L) ................................................................... Surrey-Newton Bloy, Harry (L).....................................................................................Burquitlam Bond, Hon. Shirley (L)..........................................

Prince George–Mount Robson Bray, Jeff (L) ........................................................................Victoria–Beacon Hill Brenzinger, Elayne (Ind. L)...........................................................Surrey-Whalley Brice, Hon. Susan (L)...................................................................... Saanich South Bruce, Hon. Graham P. (L) ................................................. Cowichan-Ladysmith Campbell, Hon. Gordon (L) ..............................................

Vancouver–Point Grey Cheema, Gulzar S. (L).....................................................Surrey–Panorama Ridge Chong, Hon. Ida (L) ......................................................... Oak Bay–Gordon Head Christensen, Hon. Tom (L) ...................................................... Okanagan-Vernon Chutter, Dave (L) ..............................................................................Yale-Lillooet Clark, Hon.

Christy (L) ....................................................Port Moody–Westwood Cobb, Walt (L) ................................................................................Cariboo South Coell, Hon. Murray (L) ..........................................Saanich North and the Islands Coleman, Hon. Rich (L)................................................Fort Langley–Aldergrove Collins, Hon. Gary (L) ..........................................................Vancouver-Fairview de Jong, Hon. Michael (L) ........................................Abbotsford–Mount Lehman Falcon, Hon.

Kevin (L) ............................................................ Surrey-Cloverdale Hagen, Hon. Stan (L) ......................................................................Comox Valley Halsey-Brandt, Greg (L) ............................................................Richmond Centre Hamilton, Arnie (L)..............................................................Esquimalt-Metchosin Hansen, Hon. Colin (L) .......................................................Vancouver-Quilchena Harris, Hon.

Roger (L) ................................................................................Skeena Hawes, Randy (L)............................................................... Maple Ridge–Mission Hawkins, Hon. Sindi (L) ........................................................... Kelowna-Mission Hayer, Dave S. (L) ..................................................................... Surrey-Tynehead Hogg, Gordon (L)................................................................... Surrey–White Rock Hunter, Mike (L) .....................................................................................

Nanaimo Jarvis, Daniel (L)........................................................North Vancouver–Seymour Johnston, Ken (L).............................................................. Vancouver-Fraserview Kerr, Brian J. (L) ................................................................ Malahat–Juan de Fuca Krueger, Kevin (L)................................................... Kamloops–North Thompson Kwan, Jenny Wai Ching (NDP)................................

Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Lee, Richard T. (L).........................................................................Burnaby North Lekstrom, Blair (L)................................................................... Peace River South Les, Hon. John (L).................................................................... Chilliwack-Sumas Locke, Brenda (L) ............................................................. Surrey–Green Timbers Long, Harold (L) .................................................... Powell River–Sunshine Coast MacKay, Dennis (L).........................................................

Bulkley Valley–Stikine McMahon, Wendy (L).............................................. Columbia River–Revelstoke MacPhail, Joy (NDP) ............................................................ Vancouver-Hastings Manhas, Karn (L) ..............................................Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Masi, Reni (L) ..................................................................................... Delta North Mayencourt, Lorne (L)............................................................Vancouver-Burrard Murray, Hon. Joyce (L).............................................................

New Westminster Nebbeling, Ted (L)..................................................... West Vancouver–Garibaldi Nettleton, Paul (Ind. L) ...................................................Prince George–Omineca Neufeld, Hon. Richard (L) .......................................................

Peace River North Nijjar, Rob (L).....................................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Nuraney, John (L)..................................................................Burnaby-Willingdon Orr, Sheila (L) .............................................................................Victoria-Hillside Penner, Barry (L)......................................................................... Chilliwack-Kent Plant, Hon. Geoff (L) ...........................................................

Richmond-Steveston Reid, Judith (L)....................................................................... Nanaimo-Parksville Reid, Hon. Linda (L) ..................................................................... Richmond East Richmond, Hon. Claude (L)...................................................................Kamloops Roddick, Valerie (L)............................................................................ Delta South Sahota, Patty (L).......................................................................Burnaby-Edmonds Santori, Hon. Sandy (L) ..............................................

West Kootenay–Boundary Stephens, Lynn (L).................................................................................... Langley Stewart, Ken (L)........................................................ Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Stewart, Richard (L)........................................................Coquitlam-Maillardville Suffredine, Blair F. (L)..................................................................Nelson-Creston Sultan, Ralph (L) .........................................................West Vancouver–Capilano Thorpe, Hon.

Rick (L)............................................................Okanagan-Westside Trumper, Gillian (L)..................................................................Alberni-Qualicum van Dongen, Hon. John (L)..................................................Abbotsford-Clayburn Visser, Rod (L)...................................................................................North Island Weisbeck, John (L).......................................................... Kelowna–Lake Country Whittred, Katherine (L).............................................

North Vancouver–Lonsdale Wilson, John (L)..............................................................................Cariboo North Wong, Patrick (L)..............................................................Vancouver-Kensington LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Clayburn ........................................................ Hon. John van Dongen Abbotsford–Mount Lehman................................................Hon. Michael de Jong Alberni-Qualicum ........................................................................

Gillian Trumper Bulkley Valley–Stikine ................................................................ Dennis MacKay Burnaby North................................................................................ Richard T. Lee Burnaby-Edmonds.............................................................................. Patty Sahota Burnaby-Willingdon ........................................................................John Nuraney Burquitlam............................................................................................

Harry Bloy Cariboo North..................................................................................... John Wilson Cariboo South........................................................................................Walt Cobb Chilliwack-Kent ................................................................................ Barry Penner Chilliwack-Sumas ........................................................................... Hon.

John Les Columbia River–Revelstoke .....................................................Wendy McMahon Comox Valley .............................................................................Hon. Stan Hagen Coquitlam-Maillardville............................................................... Richard Stewart Cowichan-Ladysmith .........................................................Hon. Graham P.

Bruce Delta North.............................................................................................Reni Masi Delta South...................................................................................Valerie Roddick East Kootenay .....................................................................................Bill Bennett Esquimalt-Metchosin .................................................................... Arnie Hamilton Fort Langley–Aldergrove....................................................... Hon.

Rich Coleman Kamloops ......................................................................... Hon. Claude Richmond Kamloops–North Thompson.......................................................... Kevin Krueger Kelowna–Lake Country .................................................................John Weisbeck Kelowna-Mission ...................................................................Hon. Sindi Hawkins Langley........................................................................................... Lynn Stephens Malahat–Juan de Fuca.......................................................................

Brian J. Kerr Maple Ridge–Mission ......................................................................Randy Hawes Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows............................................................... Ken Stewart Nanaimo .............................................................................................Mike Hunter Nanaimo-Parksville..............................................................................Judith Reid Nelson-Creston......................................................................... Blair F.

Suffredine New Westminster .................................................................... Hon. Joyce Murray North Coast .......................................................................................... Bill Belsey North Island.......................................................................................... Rod Visser North Vancouver–Lonsdale .................................................... Katherine Whittred North Vancouver–Seymour ..............................................................

Daniel Jarvis Oak Bay–Gordon Head.................................................................Hon. Ida Chong Okanagan-Vernon ..............................................................Hon. Tom Christensen Okanagan-Westside................................................................... Hon. Rick Thorpe Peace River North ...............................................................Hon. Richard Neufeld Peace River South ..........................................................................Blair Lekstrom Penticton–Okanagan Valley...................................................... Hon.

Bill Barisoff Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain......................................................Karn Manhas Port Moody–Westwood ...........................................................Hon. Christy Clark Powell River–Sunshine Coast............................................................Harold Long Prince George North .........................................................................Hon. Pat Bell Prince George–Mount Robson................................................. Hon. Shirley Bond Prince George–Omineca .................................................................

Paul Nettleton Richmond Centre ...................................................................Greg Halsey-Brandt Richmond East ............................................................................ Hon. Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston ...................................................................Hon. Geoff Plant Saanich North and the Islands..................................................Hon. Murray Coell Saanich South............................................................................. Hon. Susan Brice Shuswap ................................................................................

Hon. George Abbott Skeena .......................................................................................Hon. Roger Harris Surrey-Cloverdale ....................................................................Hon. Kevin Falcon Surrey–Green Timbers.....................................................................Brenda Locke Surrey-Newton ..................................................................................Tony Bhullar Surrey–Panorama Ridge............................................................ Gulzar S.

Cheema Surrey-Tynehead .............................................................................Dave S. Hayer Surrey-Whalley ........................................................................ Elayne Brenzinger Surrey–White Rock.......................................................................... Gordon Hogg Vancouver-Burrard .................................................................. Lorne Mayencourt Vancouver-Fairview..................................................................Hon. Gary Collins Vancouver-Fraserview .....................................................................

Ken Johnston Vancouver-Hastings......................................................................... Joy MacPhail Vancouver-Kensington .................................................................... Patrick Wong Vancouver-Kingsway............................................................................ Rob Nijjar Vancouver-Langara...................................................................... Val J. Anderson Vancouver–Mount Pleasant .............................................Jenny Wai Ching Kwan Vancouver–Point Grey..................................................... Hon.

Gordon Campbell Vancouver-Quilchena ............................................................. Hon. Colin Hansen Victoria–Beacon Hill ...............................................................................Jeff Bray Victoria-Hillside.....................................................................................Sheila Orr West Kootenay–Boundary ......................................................Hon. Sandy Santori West Vancouver–Capilano ............................................................... Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Garibaldi............................................................

Ted Nebbeling Yale-Lillooet .....................................................................................Dave Chutter

CONTENTS Wednesday, May 5, 2004 Afternoon Sitting Routine Proceedings Page Introductions by Members ....................................................................................................... ............................................ 10861 Introduction and First Reading of Bills........................................................................................ ....................................... 10861 Securities Act (Bill 38) Hon. J.

Les Statements (Standing Order 25B) .............................................................................................................................. ........... 10861 B.C. Community Achievement Awards G. Trumper Multiple sclerosis W. Cobb Chinese heritage day P. Wong Oral Questions................................................................................................................. ....................................................... 10862 Costs of B.C.Rail–CN Rail agreement and payment of property transfer tax J. Kwan Hon. K. Falcon J.

MacPhail Wage reductions for Hospital Employees Union members R. Nijjar Hon. G. Bruce B.C. Rail–CN Rail agreement P. Nettleton Hon. K. Falcon Call for public inquiry into case of Frank Paul J. Kwan Hon. R. Coleman Site for Olympic speed-skating oval H. Bloy Hon. J. Les Petitions...................................................................................................................... ............................................................. 10865 W.

McMahon Committee of the Whole House................................................................................................... ........................................ 10865 College and Institute Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 26) L. Mayencourt Hon. S.

Bond Report and Third Reading of Bills .............................................................................................. ......................................... 10868 College and Institute Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 26) Committee of the Whole House................................................................................................... ........................................ 10868 Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 27) G. Halsey-Brandt Hon. G. Abbott V. Roddick J. MacPhail W. Cobb D. MacKay B. Lekstrom J. Wilson

Report and Third Reading of Bills .............................................................................................. ......................................... 10884 Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 27) Committee of the Whole House................................................................................................... ........................................ 10884 Passenger Transportation Act (Bill 30) B. Belsey Hon. K.

Falcon Report and Third Reading of Bills .............................................................................................. ......................................... 10884 Passenger Transportation Act (Bill 30) Committee of Supply............................................................................................................ ................................................. 10885 Estimates: Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management (continued) J. MacPhail Hon. G. Abbott R. Sultan

10861 WEDNESDAY, MAY 5, 2004 The House met at 2:04 p.m. Prayers. Introductions by Members D. MacKay: Today in the gallery, joining us from Smithers, are my two constituency assistants, Sharon Eastabrook and Judy VanderMeulen. I would ask the House to please make them welcome. [1405] Hon. G. Campbell: We could all set a new record for time for introductions if we introduce all the con- stituency assistants, so let me just say this, Mr. Speaker. We're all very pleased that the constituency assistants are here today.

They've come from all over the prov- ince, and each of them spen ds countless hours serving the public of British Columbia and providing each MLA with substantial, significant personal and profes- sional support. I want to say thank you to them for their commit- ment to public life, for their commitment to the people of British Columbia and for providing them with the best possible service. I hope the House will make all of the constituency assistants from all parties recognize how much we appreciate the work they do for us. Hon. L.

Reid: I am very pleased to welcome to the gallery today individuals representing the Salvation Army. They do amazing work in each of our communi- ties across British Columbia. I am pleased to tell you that the federal government relations director Dani Shaw has joined us. She's accompanied by Colonel Copple and Capt. John Murray, who continue to know that building relationships across British Columbia is the essence of success in communities. I'd ask the House to please make them very welcome. G. Trumper: In the House today from my constitu- ency we have Mayor Dianne St.

Jacques from Ucluelet; Mayor Ken McRae from Port Alberni; the chair of the Alberni-Clayoquot regional district, Hira Chopra; and our economic development o fficer, Jane Schlackl, who are here to talk to the Mini ster of Fisheries about hake. Would the House please make them welcome. W. Cobb: With us in the House today we have re- presentatives from the Multiple Sclerosis Society. We have Chris Fortune, the president of the capital region chapter; Bonnie Pasek, who is the client service coordi- nator; Clem Lagimodier, who is a member; and Kathy Grouch, who is a volunteer.

I ask the House to please make them welcome. V. Roddick: In the precincts today are Margaret Jensen and Mrs. Yoshihara, two ESL teachers from Tsawwassen's Pebble Hill Elementary School, along with 11 Korean international students from grades 4 to 7. These students attend school and live in homestays in our riding for a two-year period. Not only do they learn English and our B.C. curriculum, but they spend three afternoons a week keeping up with their Korean education so they can make a seamless return to school in Korea after their stay. Would the House please make them most welcome.

Introduction and First Reading of Bills SECURITIES ACT Hon. J. Les presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Securities Act. Hon. J. Les: I move that Bill 38 be introduced and read a first time now. Motion approved. Hon. J. Les: I am pleased to introduce Bill 38. The government is introducing a new Securities Act to bet- ter protect B.C. investors and improve the B.C. invest- ment climate.

The new act, together with rules and regulations that the act enables, will better protect in- vestors through results-based regulation that focuses companies and securities firms on what is best for in- vestors — improved, plain-language disclosure; in- creased enforcement powers; sanctions and penalties; and broader remedies for investors to sue for damages.

The new legislative framework will improve the B.C. business climate by enabling companies to raise capital faster, and at much lower cost, and by replac- ing detailed and prescriptive requirements with a more streamlined and results-based approach to secu- rities regulation. Despite this new approach to securi- ties regulation, the new fr amework is built on the same fundamental principles as the legislative frameworks elsewhere in Canada and has the same objectives of strong investor protection and efficient regulation.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. [1410] Bill 38 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. Statements (Standing Order 25

B) B.C. COMMUNITY ACHIEVEMENT AWARDS G. Trumper: Yesterday was a special day for 36 British Columbians who were each awarded the British Columbia Community Achievement Awards at Gov- ernment House. This was an award under the leader- ship of the Premier of th e province. These are excep-

10862 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, MAY 5, 2004 tional people who contribute in so many ways to their community to make life better for so many people. In the community I live in, Vera Seydel and Robert Dennis were recipients. For the past 20 years Vera has run the Bread of Life, a non-profit service that provides hot meals to those in need in the Alberni Valley. Start- ing with serving meals, the Bread of Life has opened a thrift shop, and a hostel wa s opened on the premises last weekend. She has given selflessly to the commu- nity.

Robert Dennis of the Huu-ay-aht band in Bamfield has steered his community to an agreement-in- principle. He has worked for a community forest for h i s a r e a a n d h a s w o r k e d h a r d t o m a k e s u r e t h a t t h e village of Bamfield has been included in all their pro- jects and in building community capacity. Also, although he was not a recipient of the award…. This week the west coast of Vancouver Island celebrated Forestry Week, and this year Don McMillan of Interfor was awarded the Forest Stewardship Rec- ognition Program award.

This is a national award for leadership to demonstrate innovative leadership in forestry and biodiversity conservation. These three people are passionate about their com- munities and are committed to making a difference. MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS W. Cobb: May is Multiple Sclerosis Month, and that's why we have guests wi th us here from the local

chapter today. I thank all for acknowledging and wear- ing their carnations today. We have more available for those who didn't quite make it earlier. The carnation campaign is a major fundraiser for MS, and I thank those who donated. The funds are used for research and support for people with this debilitating disease. MS affects about 8,000 B.C. residents and over 50,000 Canadians. This number is expected to rise due to the growing recognition that very young people are now being diagnosed with MS. The symptoms are as diverse as the individuals who contract the disease.

MS is episodic, often invisible and progressive. Symptoms and challenges can include extreme weakness, lack of coordination, numbness and paralysis. Blurred vision, incontinence, pain and cogn itive difficulties are also some of the symptoms. This disease affects every aspect of one's family, work and community life. It affects approximately twice as many women as men and is more prevalent between the ages of 20 and 40. There are no known causes of this disease, and therefore it is almost impos- sible to find a cure. As some of you know, my wife suffers from MS.

One of the challenges she faces, as others with a secon- dary progressive diagnosis, is not knowing from one day to the next what stage it will progress to, and it impacts if she can even get out of bed. At times it moves more quickly than others, and I must say my wife, Lynnette, meets that ch allenge with the stamina and determination I could not even begin to meet. I also admit that one of the biggest challenges my wife meets on a day-to-day basis is being married to me, and I thank for her that. CHINESE HERITAGE DAY P. Wong: It is again time to celebrate the Chinese heritage day.

I am delighted to rise in the House to invite, through you, Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleagues and all the staff and friends working in the Legislature — and of course, our reporter friends included — to join the festivities today. [1415] At 4 p.m. on the front steps of the legislative build- ings, cultural ceremonies will begin. At 4:45 members and their guests will be in vited inside, and at 5:15 an Asian buffet will commence. Today's event is proudly hosted by the members for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, Burnaby North and myself. Mr. Speaker, multiculturalism is the foundation of this country and this provin ce.

By celebrating diversity and participating in events and activities that further our knowledge of each other, we grow even stronger. The Chinese Canadian population has a long his- tory in British Columbia. Chinese immigrants helped build this province in its early days and continue to contribute to its social and economic fabric in a myriad of ways. Vancouver and Vict oria both boast wonderful and historic Chinatowns — popular tourist destina- tions and a hit with locals. Today's events include cultural performances, cal- ligraphy and a buffet of traditional Chinese food.

It will be a wonderful time and a ch ance to share in the de- lights that the Chinese culture has to offer. Mr. Speaker: That concludes members' statements. Oral Questions COSTS OF B.C. RAIL–CN RAIL AGREEMENT AND PAYMENT OF PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX J. Kwan: We learned last week that it is costing taxpayers $900,000 to cancel the Roberts Bank spur. Now we learn it's costing taxpayers $14 million and counting for the government to sell B.C. Rail and break its new-era commitment. To the Minister of Transpor- tation: how much of that additional $14 million to sell B.C. Rail was spent on communications and spin? Hon. K.

Falcon: The member should know; we canvassed this pretty extensively at estimates. The member should also know that that $14 million is well below commercial norms for a transaction of that size. Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has another question. J. Kwan: According to the government, $1 million has been spent to date on communications and spin for the B.C. Rail broken promise — $1 million to tell British

WEDNESDAY, MAY 5, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 10863 Columbians that the deal is not a broken promise, $1 million to sell a deal that nobody wants, $1 million that could have gone to more important priorities like keep- ing the promise to reduce wait-lists. Again to the Minister of Transportation. The gov- ernment spent $1 million on spin. Can the minister tell this House how much they sp ent on lawyers to finance this 990-year lease-sale of B.C. Rail? Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. Hon. K.

Falcon: Mr. Speaker, all I can tell you is that we certainly spent enough to make sure we didn't get into the kind of crazy, stupid deals that that gov- ernment got us involved with. You know, $14 million…. Let's understand this, because clearly the member probably doesn't grasp this. If you look at any transaction of that size, this is well below commercial norms. I will say this to the member. Actually it's important, when putting to- gether a deal like this, that you make sure you have the best available advice to ensure that you do protect the public interest.

That's why we've done that, and that's why there are the kinds of benefits in this deal that actually see folks throughout the province recognizing the value right across British Columbia with the B.C. Rail–CN partnership. Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a further supplementary. J. Kwan: Mr. Speaker, $900 million wasted because of police raids, $1 million on communications and spin. Now we have $5 million that was spent on lawyers to break a new-era promise.

I know the minister is proud that this government broke the promise, but I can tell this minister that British Columbians who have seen wait-lists go up by 25 perc ent can think of better ways to spend that money. [1420] The Property Transfer Tax Act says that any lease over 30 years is a taxable transaction. As we know, the B.C. Rail deal lasts at least until 2064 and potentially until 2994 — in either case, well over 30 years. To the minister again: how much money in property transfer tax is owed on this sale, and who's picking up the tab — CN Rail or the taxpayer? Hon. K.

Falcon: I do take some interesting note of that question. In the preamb le to that question, this member talked about her concern about wait-lists. Well, you know, there are a lot of folks across the prov- ince that would have rather not seen us spend over a billion dollars in tax write-offs on a railway that was losing money year after year after year. It's interesting that that member and, apparently, her leader want to take more of the scarce tax dollars that we are putting into health care and education and funnel that into a government-run railway that has continued to lose money over the last 15 years.

What we are actually doing is maintaining public ownership. I know the member has a tough time un- derstanding it, but we're maintaining public ownership of the railbed and rights-of-way because that's where there is a strong provincial interest. And we're bringing in the private sector to operate on the rail line, because the private sector will invest their dollars — not tax dollars — and ensure that we get the kind of invest- ment we need to ensure that northern communities will benefit right across the province. J. MacPhail: I note that the minister didn't answer the question.

According to internal sources, CN was let off the hook on the $24 million property transfer tax. That's a $24 million taxpayer subsidy to CN — a $24 million taxpayer subsidy to the new owner of B.C. Rail. That's $24 million that could have gone to save pro- grams for autistic children that have now been closed, $24 million that could have gone to reduce wait-lists. Every day we learn more about the true costs of this broken promise. The Property Transfer Tax Act is very clear. A lease that exceeds 30 years requires the pay- ment of property transfer tax.

Will the minister immediately release a full ac- counting of how much it cost to sell B.C. Rail and how much the taxpayer is subsidizing CN to help the B.C. Liberals break their election promise? Hon. K. Falcon: It's day in and day out — this mem- ber constantly criticizing, constantly misunderstanding the nature of this deal, ca lling sales when they're not sales, misunderstanding the difference between a lease term and an option to renew. On and on it goes. But I will tell the member this, because she should know this.

The $38 million last year that we paid in interest costs on the half a billion dollars in debt that B.C. Rail carries will no longer have to be paid. That's $30 million that tax- payers can now invest in health care, in education and in other options that British Columbians have recognized as a priority here in this province. Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Opposition has a sup- plementary question. J.

MacPhail: The Property Transfer Tax Act defines a taxable transaction as a lease "between a lessor and a lessee of land such that, following the transaction, that lessee and any other person, if any, having the right to occupy the land under a leas e agreement, will have the right to occupy the land for a period that exceeds 30 years." That means the prop erty transfer tax should have been paid by CN.

10864 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, MAY 5, 2004 Every time the government hides the truth from the public, it's another nail in the coffin of this deal. The process has been so botched that no one believes a word this minister or this government says anymore. He won't answer the questi on. He continues to hide behind spin that has nothing to do with this botched deal. Will the minister come clean and admit that they gave a $24 million subsidy to CN when they didn't make them pay the property transfer tax? Hon. K. Falcon: I'm happy to get that member all the information regarding the tax treatment.

In fact, we canvassed some of this in estimates. I said to the mem- ber then — and I'll say it today — that all of the tax treatment associated with th is has been gone over and been reviewed by the comptroller general, by the audi- tor general, by some of the top tax lawyers in the prov- ince. I'd be happy to get that information to the mem- ber. [1425] WAGE REDUCTIONS FOR HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES UNION MEMBERS R. Nijjar: My question is to the Minister of Skills Development and Labour. In my community I have many HEU members, as all of us do throughout British Columbia.

One of the issues that has come up that needs clarification — it has come up in the media — is about the 15 percent savings. There's a perception out there that the 15 percent savings means that the pay- cheques will be reduced by 15 percent. Can the Minis- ter of Skills Development and Labour clarify what ex- actly the 15 percent means, what options are available, and how it relates to wages and benefits? Hon. G. Bruce: This is a very important point.

What's required is for the union to ask of me to appoint an arbitrator so that the actual devolving, if you like, or adjusting between wages and benefits can happen. I've yet to hear from the union. I'm hoping that I will. Given that they would go down that process, it's with all likelihood that the actual reduction to the pay- cheque could be somewhere in the neighbourhood of 3 to 4 percent, not the 14 perc ent against the paycheque. They can mitigate that against the rest of the benefits as was done with a different agreement recently with community health, where it was a 13 percent rollback.

They had negotiated that, and 4 percent actually went against the wages and 9 percent against the benefits. B.C. RAIL–CN RAIL AGREEMENT P. Nettleton: This government taking extreme and unyielding positions leads me to a what-if question on B.C. Rail with respect to all impacted parties, including first nations. To the Minister of Transportation…. He was not the Minister of Transportation at the time in- formation was leaked to CN.

From the perspective of the briefing the minister received to enable him to take up this position and comparing that with the benefit of hindsight, is there anything he would have done dif- ferently from his predecesso r regarding the B.C. Rail deal, or would he have done it in exactly the same way? Hon. K. Falcon: I'm glad to actually go on the re- cord about this, because, I'll tell you, this is a great deal for British Columbia. I have never been more con- vinced that this is the right thing to do for British Co- lumbia.

I've never been more convinced that it always makes more sense when we can bring in a private sec- tor partner to operate the railway as efficiently and effectively as the private rail partner will do. I reminded the Leader of the Opposition in esti- mates that CN actually used to be a government-run railway. She may not remember that or chooses to for- get that, because when it was losing billions of tax dol- lars, they conveniently forget that. Now it's one of North America's most successful railways. It will be a great partner in British Columbia, and it will open up the north.

It will revitalize northern communities, and it will ensure that shippers get their goods to market more effectively and more efficiently. I'm proud to stand behind that partnership. CALL FOR PUBLIC INQUIRY INTO CASE OF FRANK PAUL J. Kwan: The Solicitor General has rejected requests from the independent police complaint commissioner and others to hold a public inquiry into the death of Frank Paul. Why? Because he was worried it might bring up charges of racial discrimination.

As the Solici- tor General knows, Vancouver's police chief now ad- mits that the Vancouver police department did not take the necessary steps to safeguard the life of Frank Paul. Given this new information, will the Solicitor Gen- eral stop stonewalling this ca se and finally act to call a full public inquiry so that something can be learned from this tragic death of Mr. Paul? Hon. R. Coleman: What the chief of Vancouver wrote to Vancouver city council is not new informa- tion. There was discipline dealt with at the time of this incident. There was a coroner's inquiry at the time of the incident.

There were re commendations that have been implemented as a result of that. We have had this aired in a number of venues. I have met with the First Nations Summit with re- gards to it and to how we can find a process going forward where we can find a way to deal with this type of situation in the future, re lative to the duty of care, with the Ministry of Health Services, the police, our- selves and the first nations. We've agreed to do that. SITE FOR OLYMPIC SPEED-SKATING OVAL H. Bloy: My question is to the Minister of Small Business and Economic Deve lopment.

Due to what are being described as geotechnical issues, the Vancouver-

WEDNESDAY, MAY 5, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 10865 Whistler 2010 Olympic committee is considering mov- ing the speed skating oval to a venue other than Simon Fraser University. [1430] Simon Fraser University officials recognize the tre- mendous long-term benefits that are available as a re- sult of this being home to the Olympic site. It's an Olympic site, but the real legacy is the research and classroom space that will be developed. The real legacy is the sports centre for excellence that will be devel- oped.

Also, Simon Fraser University has committed to raising the necessary funds to cover any unanticipated costs. The SFU dollar commitment will come from new sources. My question, Mr. Minister: can you assure my con- stituents and the residents of the northeast sector that SFU is still considered as a venue for the Olympic speed-skating oval and accompanying centre for sports excellence? Hon. J. Les: I thank the member for the question.

First of all, I want to un derline again the excitement that is shared by all British Columbians that in 2010, we will have the opportunity to host the Olympic Games here in British Columbia. At a business summit we hosted just the day before yesterday with 750 business and community leaders from around the province, th e excitement in the room was almost palpable. Dick Ebersol from NBC predicted we would host the most successful Olympic Games ever in the history of the sport.

With respect to the member's specific question, I think he knows that exactly where the facilities are to go is not government's call to make. But I am encour- aged that SFU has clearly signalled that it is open to a creative dialogue in terms of bringing that facility to the SFU campus. I am sure they will be engaged with VANOC as it carries on that due diligence. I am en- couraged that VANOC is doing the due diligence to ensure that at the end of th e day, the taxpayers of Brit- ish Columbia receive value for their hard-earned tax- payer dollars. [End of question period.] L.

Mayencourt: I seek leave to make an introduction. Leave granted. Introductions by Members L. Mayencourt: During question period we were joined by two very good friends of mine, Lt.-Col. Don Copple from the Salvation Army and Capt. John Murray, also from the Salvation Army. I hope the House will join me in welcoming them here. Petitions W. McMahon: I rise in the House today to present a petition signed by 899 of my constituents from Golden and area requesting that Casey Phillips receive care in his home community. D. MacKay: I seek leave to make an introduction. Leave granted. Introductions by Members D.

MacKay: Joining us late in the gallery today are 23 adult students and one child student from the Ted Williams Memorial Learning Centre at Burns Lake, along with two chaperons, Tianne Paulsen and Louise Lacerte. I would ask the House to make them welcome. Orders of the Day Hon. G. Collins: I call Committee of the Whole House for consideration of Bill 26. [1435] Committee of the Whole House COLLEGE AND INSTITUTE AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 26; J. Weisbeck in the chair. The committee met at 2:36 p.m. On

section 1. L. Mayencourt: I'm not sure how relevant this is to this section, but perhaps the minister can let the House know why these changes are being made and what the intended effects of these legislative amendments are. Hon. S. Bond: Well, first of all, one of the things that we certainly believe in and think is important as a government as a whole is looking at the issue of streamlining and trying to make sure that our legisla- tion is both efficient and effective.

One of the jobs that we did in our ministry, as ot her ministries did, is look through our legislation and try to determine if there were places where there was overlap. Were there areas we could look at combining? In effect, what you're finding today is the fact that we're taking two acts and going to create a new one under Bill 26. The Institute of Technology Act actually gives BCIT statutory authority to operate as an institution. It had its own separate act. In fact, we found that the College and Institute Act also provided many of the same pro- visions for colleges, universities and institutes.

So in essence, we had two acts for a group of institutions, and we just felt that from our perspective, we needed to try to begin to eliminate overlap. There were also ambiguities in language between the two acts. In fact, what we're doing is that we're going to re- peal the Institute of Technology Act, and we want to put BCIT under the College and Institute Act so that

10866 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, MAY 5, 2004 we can eliminate duplication and streamline the legis- lation. From our perspective, it was one of the com- mitments we also made as a government — to look at integrating our mandates and to clarify those roles across the system. So we're taking two acts, we're put- ting them together, and we're sorting out some of the challenges that we found and some of the duplication and overlap in terms of mandate. L. Mayencourt: How does BCIT feel about this? I mean, before they had their own act, and now they're coming under this one.

Have you had conversations with them? What are their feelings about this change? Hon. S. Bond: That's a great question, because you're right. Often people do want their own act, and they think that's an important thing. We've had a num- ber of discussions with the B.C. Institute of Technol- ogy. In addition to the st reamlining and the important reduction of overlap of regulations, the other thing that we're able to do here, in legislation, is bring a formal- ization to something that BCIT has been doing for a long time — that is, to give it recognition as a poly- technic in British Columbia.

They are actually, I thin k, pleased. We've worked closely with them. We wanted to make sure that the legislation didn't impede any of the work they're cur- rently doing but also allowed BCIT to be recognized for some very substantial work they're doing and give them the recognition as a polytechnic in British Co- lumbia. [1440] L. Mayencourt: Can you expand on what the bene- fit is of the word "polytechnic" to BCIT? Hon. S. Bond: What this legislation will do is for- malize recognition of BCIT, as I mentioned earlier, as a polytechnic institution.

I'm actually going to give you the dictionary definition of polytechnic, so people un- derstand what it is. It's harder to pronounce than it is to understand what it does. The dictionary says that it's "an institution of higher education offering courses in many, especially vocational, subjects at degree level or below" — in essence, very much a focus on vocational course offerings. Having said that, there are a number of polytech- nics across the country. In fa ct, there's an association of schools that are called polytechnics.

Really, it's an ex- cellent marketing tool for BCIT, and from our perspec- tive it is a definition that does reflect the work they have done. There are also, obviously, numerous institu- tions around the world that are quite renowned and using that as part of their name. We feel it's appropri- ate for BCIT to be recognized in this way.

Really, it gives us an opportunity, with the combin- ing of the two acts, to do two things, as I mentioned: to reduce the overlap and the duplication and also to rec- ognize and formalize, in essence, what BCIT has come to be known for and what it does so well in British Co- lumbia. L. Mayencourt: Thank you for that description. That helps a bit, and I appreciate that. Does this change to polytechnic offer BCIT any ad- ditional degree-granting status? Hon. S. Bond: In fact, there's just more good news for BCIT, although not directly related to the title of polytechnic.

With the piece of legislation that we passed called the Degree Authorization Act, one of the things that it did was allow BCIT and Emily Carr to actually offer applied master's degrees, and that has not happened before. To date, BCIT is, as far as we know, the only polytechnic in Canada that will be able to offer applied master's degrees. In Europe and other parts of the world, they have already been able to do that, but in Canada it's the first time.

That came as a result of the Degree Authorization Act and not as a result of this designation. [1445] In fact, the Degree Authorization Act expanded their mandate in that way. The legislation today does not do that. What it does is formally recognize a name that actually has been as sociated with BCIT, one they've wanted to be called for quite some time. That's been done in an informal way. In this combining of legislation, we're actually able to formalize that desig- nation.

Section 1 approved. On

section 2. L. Mayencourt: That question on the degree- granting status, I see, most probably belongs under

section 2. I notice here that they also have the ability to…. I'm not angling for one, but I understand they have honorary degree–granting status as well. Is that something new? Hon. S. Bond: The majority of institutions — let's put it that way, because we're not certain about one or two — actually have the authority to grant honorary degrees, the member will be delighted to know — as will my colleagues behind me, who are all angling for o n e . F o r s o m e r e a s o n t h e y a l l w a n t t o b e c a l l e d " D r . " something.

In fact, the majority of institutions are able — they have the authority — to offer honorary degrees, and whether or not all of them do, we don't know at this point in time. Certainly, BCIT has the authority to be able to grant honorary degrees. L. Mayencourt: My colleagues over here have told me to be not quite so shy. I guess the good news is that I have five institutes of higher learning in my riding, so maybe things will work out. An Hon. Member: What were your marks? L. Mayencourt: None that I can remember, actually. That sort of concludes my questions on

section 2.

WEDNESDAY, MAY 5, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 10867 Sections 2 and 3 approved. On

section 4. L. Mayencourt: This

section seems to deal with the powers of the board of governors. Can the minister please give this House a

summary of those and, if there are changes, what those changes are intended to ac- complish? [1450] Hon. S. Bond: In fact, what we're doing here is making sure there is consistency in board authority across institutions. What we wanted to make sure of is that the governance powers of all boards in the non- university sector are uniform, so we wanted to be very clear about which matters must be governed through bylaws. We wanted, most importantly — something that we believe very strongly in — to give institutions autonomy and flexibility to manage their institutions.

We believe that we wanted to bring consistency to that across the system. In terms of benefits, we think that what this actu- ally does is allow us to reflect much better the current roles and responsibilities that boards already have. Let me give you an example. Under the College and Insti- tute Act, board meetings must be held at intervals of not more than three months apart. This legislation al- lows that boards will still be required to meet four times a year, but they can actually have some flexibility in scheduling their meetings.

For example, a gap of three months and two days doesn't mean you've sud- denly violated the act. Of course, there are obviously additional meetings when things are necessary. I n f a c t , w e ' r e s i m p l y s a y i n g t h a t w e w a n t t o l e v e l the playing field in terms of the powers of boards, and we want to give them more flexibility. When you look at something as simple as scheduling meetings, there were prescribed amounts of time within which a board would have to meet. We're simply bringing the powers of the boards in line across the non-university sector. L. Mayencourt: Also on

section 4, referring to sec- tion 19 as amended, subsecti on (a)(1)(b): "Manage, ad- minister and control the property, revenue, expendi- tures, business and affairs of the institution." It seems to me that in other discuss ions we've had around col- leges and institutions, there have been some pretty clear guidelines as to budgeting and such that are done in consultation with the minister. We're not conceding any of that through this, are we? Hon. S. Bond: No, and that's a great question, be- cause we are not interested in sort of claiming back those kinds of roles for the ministry. You're absolutely correct.

We deal with institutions in a block funding mechanism because we want to give them as much flexibility and autonomy in making those decisions. Really, the purpose of this particular

section is to make sure that boards are the ones who have the power and authority to be able to delegate things where they think that's appropriate. We get quite specific about that in part of the bill. I n e s s e n c e , w h a t w e ' r e s a y i n g i s t h a t w e w a n t boards to concentrate on governance. We believe in that principle. We want to encourage autonomy and flexibility. In answer to the member's question, the ministry isn't interested in taking back those principles at all.

We're simply saying the board should be put in the position of being able to delegate those things that it feels it can delegate to other people, such as the president or other staff members. So not at all. The ministry wants to encourage autonomy and flexibility, of course, built in a framework of accountability. [1455] L. Mayencourt: Just a little further down there in…. I'm sorry. I'm having a little trouble. We're still within

section 4, but I'm looking at (6): "Information requested under subsection (5) (

a) may include personal informa- tion about a student." In su bsection (7) personal infor- mation obtained under this may not be used to make a decision respecting an individual student. I'm just con- fused about what the meaning is there. Can you give me an example of why that kind of wording is in there? Hon. S. Bond: I n f a c t , t h i s i s a s t a t u s q u o i t e m i n legislation. We're not changing anything here. In order to clarify, this is actually about the protection of pri- vacy for students. We collect information and issue them a personal education nu mber.

This is very much about protecting the privacy of student information. It is not new to the act; it is a status quo practice. L. Mayencourt: Okay. Thank you. Going down just a little bit further on that page…. Sorry. I guess what I'm after right now is actually

section

Section 4 approved. On

section 5. L. Mayencourt:

Section 5 seems to deal with the powers of the institutional president. The minister just mentioned that. Can the minister give the House a

summary of what these chan ges are and what they're intended to accomplish? Hon. S. Bond: This was one of the sections where we discovered ambiguity. Again, it comes back to the ability of the board to be able to delegate its authority. The act was not clear, and there was ambiguity in the language about what boards could delegate and what they had to do themselves. I'll try to just summarize what we've done now. Col- lege and institute boards will now have uniform power to delegate certain authority to their presidents.

Typi- cally, they would be able to say: "We would like the president to be able to do these things." When author- ized by their boards…. That's an important thing to note. When a president is given authority by the board or it's delegated to them, they will actually now be able to ap-

10868 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, MAY 5, 2004 point, promote and remove staff directly — that's, of course, within the context of collective agreements; we want to make sure we say that clearly — rather than merely recommend them. Legislatively, they would be able to recommend appointments, promotions and re- movals to the board. That's implied by our current legis- lation.

What the proposed changes allow us to do and allow boards to do is to ac tually say the president can hire, promote and remove someone from their position. [1500] I think the added benefit that the changes to legisla- tion bring is the fact that the board can then also serve as an appeal board. They obviously couldn't do that if they were in the position of making those decisions themselves. What this does is clear up language that was con- fusing and, in some cases, contradictory to practice, to be candid. This actually brings the legislation in line to what is often current practice.

The board would choose to give the authority to their president to make those specific decisions.

Section 5 approved. On

section 6. L. Mayencourt:

Section 6 says that

section 39 is re- pealed. Under the old act, that dealt with the issue of the requirement of the boar d to appoint a bursar. I noted a little earlier that the board can in fact establish and administer trust funds for scholarships and bur- saries and so on. Can you tell me the reason for that and the effect that is intended? Hon. S. Bond: Again, this is one of those cases where across a variety of legislation and across the sector, we had cases where you shall have one or you may have a bursar.

If we look across the sector, most institutions have either a bursar or someone who works in that financial capacity, such as the chief finan- cial officer. So we're simply creating consistency across the sector, including the univ ersity sector, that institu- tions may have a bursar, but we're certainly not requir- ing them to have one.

Section 6 approved. On

section 7. L. Mayencourt:

Section 7 refers back to

section 40, which is amended "by adding the following subsection: (5) Subsections (2), (3) and (4) do not apply to BCIT." What are those subsection s, and why are they being excluded in this particular bill? [1505] Hon. S. Bond: The sections that are referred to are actually related to the public service, in effect. There are a number of them, as was noted by the member. The easiest way to explain this is to look at what we're attempting to do here. There are currently personnel relationships in place at BC IT and in the college and institute sector. What we wa nted to do was keep the status quo in effect.

It's working very well in both parts of the system. This is one of the places where we're actually taking the status quo from the BCIT act — I just want to make sure that's correct — and amalga- mating it and making sure that the college and insti- tutes are not affected by this in any way either. In

summary, there are no changes to labour rela- tions in any of the non–univ ersity sector institutions. We thought that was importan t, so existing personnel relations provisions in the College and Institute Act will continue to be applied to public colleges, univer- sity colleges and other institutes, while the personnel provisions for BCIT under the Institute of Technology Act will simply be added to the College and Institute Act but will only apply to BCIT. The best way to de- scribe this is that it's status quo in those institutions, and we're simply bringing both of those pieces together in this one bill. L.

Mayencourt: So that would sort of cover off sec- tion 9 as well, then. Sections 7 to 33 inclusive approved. Title approved. Hon. S. Bond: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment. Motion approved. The committee rose at 3:08 p.m. The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair. Report and Third Reading of Bills Bill 26, College and Inst itute Amendment Act, 2004, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed. Hon. G.

Bruce: I call committee stage on Bill 27. [1510] Committee of the Whole House AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 27; J. Weisbeck in the chair. The committee met at 3:11 p.m. On

section 1. G. Halsey-Brandt: I have a number of questions for the minister, and I've got a few under

section 1, under

WEDNESDAY, MAY 5, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 10869 the

definitions. Because it is an amendment act, please bear with me. Not having the other act to go back and forth to, we may jerk around a wee bit as we go ahead and deal with the different sections. As I say, because it is an amendment act, some of the statements in the legislation are a little confusing unless you take the other act into consideration. My first question under th e

definitions, to sort of set the scene in terms of the agricultural land reserve: does that affect first nations reserves at the present time? Does it have effect on those reserves? Hon. G. Abbott: The short answer is no. Because they are federal lands, the designation would not apply. G. Halsey-Brandt: They would apply at the present time to proposed treaty settlement lands. Under the definition, when a treaty is then ratified, my understand- ing is that a reserve turns into treaty settlement lands along with additional treaty settlement lands to become a larger piece of treaty settlement lands.

Will the ALR then apply to the entire treaty settlement lands? Hon. G. Abbott: The short answer is no. The re- serves would become treaty settlement lands, but again, the act would not have application to those lands. G. Halsey-Brandt: If under the legislation, there was an application, let's say, to exclude some land un- der the proposed treaty se ttlement lands, there would not then be an ability to compensate, for example, some exclusion under the proposed treaty settlement lands by an inclusion under the existing reserve lands. Hon. G.

Abbott: While it's difficult to contemplate every potential eventuality, the first nation would — at least conceptually or in principle — have the opportu- nity to do that, if they wished to put a proposal for- ward. The legislation certai nly doesn't inhibit them from doing that. G. Halsey-Brandt: On the definition of first nation government. Later on, that definition plays out in dif- ferent sections of the act, and I assume that it contem- plates two governments.

One is the existing govern- ment that's authorized as part of the treaty negotiation process to negotiate on behalf of the band. [1515] Once a treaty is negotiated, as I understand it, there would be a new election — or whatever type of format is used — to create a new first nations government, which will then have to take whatever exclusion or whatever was done with the ALR to the members of that first nation group for ratification. We're sort of dealing with two governments at two different stages. Is that correct? Hon. G. Abbott: The member's suggestion is cor- rect.

A band council would bring a proposal to the Ag- ricultural Land Commission, or they would make the application. They would make that application prior to a final treaty ratification. In short, they can bring it dur- ing the AIP, or agreement- in-principle, stage to the commission. What then occurs, we hope, of course, is that the AIP becomes a treaty. The treaty will have within it transitional provisions for new governance, which may or may not look like the old council or may look like something different, depending on what's negotiated within the bounds of the tr eaty.

That new government would have the responsibility of taking any tentative approval by the commission for the proposal to their band, and they would have to ratify it through band processes. G. Halsey-Brandt: The definition of owner. I think it becomes a little more complicated when we're deal- ing with this legislation. I guess my first question is: if it's Crown land, can the Crown apply to the Land Commission at the AIP stage? Hon. G. Abbott: The answer to the question is that this bill does not embrace the opportunity for the Crown to go directly to the commission.

An application by the Crown, regardless of the purpose of it, would mean that they would have to go through the existing processes — i.e., first, a reference to the local govern- ment in the area before going on to the commission. G. Halsey-Brandt: I just wondered if you could clar- ify that. The Crown could apply — I'm not quite sure who that would be — to the local government that now has jurisdiction over the proposed treaty settlement land, and then the local government would send the application through to the Land Commission. Is that…? [1520] Hon. G.

Abbott: The Crown would have to take the application through the local government. For exam- ple, I understand that in fact there was an application of this nature recently in Prince George. The Crown makes application to the regional district or the local government. Local government debates it and brings their recommendation to the commission. G. Halsey-Brandt: I guess I'm perhaps a little con- cerned. My question revolv es around the commission members of the agricultural land reserve. I'll split the difference now between the AIP stage and the final stage.

Let's say you've been negotiating seven or eight years with a particular band. Now they're at the AIP stage, and they apply for exclusion of some property. Do you not think that would place tremendous pres- sure on the land commissioners who have got to make a decision? Let's say they refuse the exclusion. They may send the whole treaty negotiation process back to square one, and they could lose years and years of negotia- tions.

Yet their responsibilit y is the preservation of quality agricultural land, which really has perhaps nothing to do with fish and money and land and all the other things on the negotiating table.

10870 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, MAY 5, 2004 Would you not be concerned that you're putting some commissioners, which the government appoints, in a position where they're trying to make a decision around agricultural land, but it's in the context of a much broader and larger treaty negotiation table? If I could just add to that. Would it not be better to do that when you have a treaty? Then the local gov- ernment can take that to the Land Commission, like any other local government or individual could, at the conclusion. Hon. G. Abbott: I'll try to address the point as thoughtfully as I can.

The purpose of this legislation is to ensure that both parties to a treaty between a first nation and the province have some certainty with re- spect to the lands which are included within the treaty area — the treaty lands. The purpose of allowing a first nation to go at the AIP stage is so that, again, they have some knowledge of what's going to be available to them, should they move to embrace a final treaty with the province and with the federal government.

It is a matter of clarifying and providing certainty to the par- ties to the agreement. [1525] Of course, there is the additional safeguard that there is not final approval of that until after the treaty is finalized, and there is addi tional ratification of the proposal by the new first nations government. In terms of whether that provides a more difficult decision for- mat for the Land Commission panel than it would, for example, when a local government — whether it is a municipality or regional district — brings a broad- brush proposal to the panel, I suppose in both cases those are difficult.

Local governments represent a lot of people as well, and they bring compelling reasons why, from their local gove rnment perspective, a par- ticular change ought to be made to the boundaries of the agricultural land reserve. We had in estimates yesterday an interesting dis- cussion of that particular i ssue. In either case, whether it is a first nations government or a local government, the commission is going to be responsible for trying to achieve a balanced response.

They'll look at a whole range of issues, including the quantity and quality of land, the adjacent agricultural land uses and a host of other factors that invariably come into play in these things. I think the methodology here is sound. I think that while the member is right, it's not easy being in a deci- sion-making role in any even t. Certainly, these won't be easy decisions for the commission, but I suspect the easy ones are few and far between. G. Halsey-Brandt: The minister may want to defer to the Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiations.

It does impact this point that we're at in our discussion. As I understand it, in the negotiation process when the Crown — either the fed- eral government or the provincial government — puts something on the table, whether it be a cash amount or some land or some forest reserves or some fish, it is not acceptable, then, to take those items off the table. That's my understanding of the process — somewhat limited. We may get advice from another ministry. Let's say you're at this stage in agreement-in- principle, and the land is in the agricultural land re- serve.

It's for farmland no w, and everything's on the table — which it is at the agreement-in-principle stage. The Land Commission appreciates the position of the first nations and, let's say, excludes all or some of the land and puts it into housing or industrial or commer- cial or whatever, which gives it a very significant in- crease in value. What would that do to the negotiation process? Do other things come off the table as a result of that? Is that why we're trying to remove the uncer- tainty at this stage of the game? Hon. G. Abbott: The member, in his question, an- ticipated at least a portion of my answer.

I'm not going to go too far into the parameters of the AIP and treaty process, but I will say this, which I think really answers the member's substantive question. That is that treaty- making is a dynamic process. The elements involved in it do shift and change. They're not a constantly build- ing set of plateaus. It's a dynamic process, and things are put on the table on a without-prejudice basis. [1530] I think, again, this goes back to the answer to the earlier question from the member. That is that the ob- ject of the exercise is to provide certainty.

By achieving that certainty at the AIP stage, the parties can then move with confidence towards a final resolution of this without having one element of it unresolved. G. Halsey-Brandt: When a local government ap- plies or an individual applies, it's in the context of an official community plan, an official regional plan or settlement plan so that not only the regional district but the rest of the community and the neighbouring mu- nicipalities understand in terms of how that land use fits within their own community and within the neighbourhood.

So not only the Land Commission can make a judgment, but at the public hearing individuals and adjoining municipalities can make a judgment. I struggled in here, and I couldn't find anything, certainly in the

definitions and earlier sections, where it said that similar provisions were in place on reserves when a first nation wished to apply at the agreement- in-principle stage or, in fact, even at the final stage. Are you saying that they are obligated on reserve lands and treaty settlement lands to lay out a community plan and show us and have public hearings and meetings in terms of how that land use is affected? Hon. G.

Abbott: The member's question, if I may summarize it, is that typically when municipalities or regional districts bring fo rward proposals to the com- mission, they are — again typically, but not always — in conformity with the official community plan of those local governments. It is not our intention through this bill…. Well, the treaty negotiations office has the gen- eral responsibility in this area, but there is no sugges-

WEDNESDAY, MAY 5, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 10871 tion of an imposition of an obligation by first nations to have an OCP-like mechanism to deal with this. How- ever, it is certainly clear that, again, all of the issues that the commission would be looking at in terms of the potential success of a first nations application would include, among other things, how harmoniously that first nations proposal fit into the adjacent land uses, which presumably would be fee simple lands on the edge of the proposed first nations land.

So while they may not have a formal obligation to produce a plan, in all probability the first nation — in order to strengthen its proposal to the commission — will likely take account of adjacent land uses and will likely set out in some form their own ideas for land uses within those lands they are bringing forward to the commission. The commission might well, as it re- viewed the application, ma ke provision for buffering adjacent properties. They might make provision for fencing and those sorts of things, which they would do as if it were a proposal from a local government as well. [1535] G.

Halsey-Brandt: My final comment and question really relate to a letter — I should have given you a copy of this, but I just got it before we came in — from the mayor of the city of Richmond, which my constitu- ency is in. I'll just read it briefly. "Specifically, Richmond is concerned that proposed Bill 27 will enable first nations who have land in the ALR due to treaty agreements-in-principle and final treaties to apply directly to the Agricultural Land Commission to exclude land from the agricultural land reserve without having to first consult with adjacent municipalities.

"Richmond is concerned, as its livability, land use servicing, urban design, su stainability and environ- mental objectives will be jeopardized. More consultation between first nations and municipalities during ALR ex- clusions is requested to ensure cooperative and coordi- nated social, economic and environmental development." I think really what they're talking about is relating servicing, parks, social services — all those sorts of things that neighbours are going to share. Their con- cern, and my question, is: if you don't do that at the exclusion stage, when do you do it?

Once it's excluded, you're really behind the eight ball in terms of trying to resolve those sorts of question s. I think they should be resolved at the application-for-exclusion stage. Hon. G. Abbott: First of all, neither I nor my staff have received the correspondence that the member read from. I think I caught the general gist of it. We'll try to respond, but if the member could make a copy a n d s e n d i t o v e r t o m e a t s o m e p o i n t , t h a t w o u l d b e useful. Perhaps we can provide an even more full re- sponse to the issues raised in the letter than I can at this point in time.

There are a number of things that I think need to be noted here. First of all, when a first nation moves for- ward or is contemplating moving forward with an ap- plication to the commission, among their obligations will be the obligation to post the property, just as a private land owner would or just as, I suppose, a mu- nicipality or local government would if they were planning to bring a formal request to the commission as well. A s w e l l a s t h e p u b l i c n otification, there will be an obligation for a public hearing, which of course the public would have an opportunity to attend. The appli- cation….

Once it's gone forward to the commission, the commission would take account of the submissions made at the public hearing, just as they would at any other public hearing on issues like this. If, for example, the land in question is on the edge of a municipality, the municipality in question would certainly have an opportunity to raise any concerns they had through the referral process. That will be a part of this as well. [1540] If they had concerns around types of land uses, the need for buffering or any of those things, they certainly could raise them through th e referral process.

Again, those issues would form part of the volume of informa- tion and evidence which the commission would con- sider in determining the success or failure of the first nations application. A final point here, at least until we have a look at the letter and see if there are additional issues from it which we ought to address.

If a first nation wants to undertake a development which requires servicing with water or sewer and they hope to secure those ser- vices from the adjacent municipality, they would have to negotiate with the muni cipality for those services, just as any other property owner would have to nego- tiate with them or just as an adjacent local government or an organized territory would have to negotiate with the local government for those services. Ultimately, those are things that are co nsensual, and certainly the provincial government can't oblige them, nor could the Agricultural Land Commission. V.

Roddick: Obviously, there is much concern over this bill in my riding of Delta South, which is home to 22,000 acres of top-grade agricultural land, because a large portion of the land up for treaty negotiations has been expropriated — therefore now Crown land — and is in the ALR. Really, could you try to explain to an average citi- zen like myself: under the definition section, what does this act do that is different at all from the original act, which deals with the municipality? Does it read — technically, word for word — what direction it gives to the municipality, like the municipality of Delta?

When you add this amendment, does it just give the Tsaw- wassen first nation, for example — which is now an AIP, so it can apply to the Land Commission — abso- lutely exactly the same rules, regulations and proce- dures as the municipality of Delta has to adhere to? Hon. G. Abbott: The answer to the question is yes. What this bill will do is put a first nation in precisely the same position as a local government is in relation to the commission, whether they be a municipality or a regional district.

10872 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, MAY 5, 2004 V. Roddick: Then one that I hope will clarify it for a lot of us…. Just two other quick things. One thing I am a little confused on, and I'm hoping you can clarify…. You say that the agreement-in-principle, therefore, the TFN…. [1545] Roberts Bank backup land is essentially Crown land. If the province wanted to develop that Crown land, does it have to go to the municipality first? That land that's up there…. I know that my colleague sort of asked the same question, bu t not quite. Is the Delta municipality first, and not th e TFN? This is confusing.

The way I read it, it sounds as though if it's Crown land, the province has to take it to the municipality to ask for permission to develop it. If it's Crown land and it's in the agreement-in-principle, they don't have to take it to the municipality. Please clarify this. Hon. G. Abbott: These are important questions. I'll do my best to answer care fully, because the answers might be as important as the questions. The issue canvassed briefly by the member for Richmond Centre was in terms of the process the Crown would follow.

If it was purely a Crown applica- tion for their own Crown land, the normal process would engage in that case. The Crown or its agency — in all probability, Land and Water B.C. — would go to the local government through the normal application process. That application would be considered by the municipality or local government. They would make their recommendation, and it would go to the commis- sion.

In the case of Crown land which has become the subject of a treaty negotiation process and which may form in some part a component of the agreement-in- principle, the Crown is effectively delegating authority for that land to the first nation for the purposes of an Agricultural Land Commission application. The first nation would then, at that point, be able to take that piece of Crown land directly to the commission, as is laid out in this bill. V.

Roddick: So just to walk that right back to the municipality, it is in the province's ability to do exactly the same thing to a municipality — i.e., if there was a piece of Crown land that was the province's domain, it could give it over to the municipality to make its own decision on what it wanted to do. Hon. G. Abbott: Yes.

On those occasions when the Crown exercised that remarkable generosity that's oc- casionally contained in free Crown grants, the respon- sibility for that would shift to the local government, and they might bring application to the Land Commis- sion for some use of the pr operty other than agricul- tural or for exclusion of the property. [1550] V. Roddick: Thank you for that clarification. Treaty settlement lands and proposed treaty set- tlement lands. There is a co ncern in my riding as to when…. These lands right now have the ALR designa- tion.

Could you clarify when the federal government, under the Treaty Commission Act…? Is that federal, or is this our act? The concern is — and then maybe you can help me here — that once these lands are released to the first nations, the federal government could then say they will have nothing to do with the agricultural land reserve. What we want to hear is: how strong is the agricultural land reserv e throughout the province in these negotiations? Does it stick to these lands until they make the right application, just like any other municipality? Hon. G.

Abbott: I will take a little bit of time here j u s t t o m a k e s u r e w e a l l h a v e a c l e a r u n d e r s t a n d i n g . First of all, as we have discussed previously but I think is worth noting again, there is no final change in terms of the designation of the land until after the treaty is finalized and until after whatever the new governance structure of the first nation is secures the support of that government to the proposal. It doesn't immedi- ately change. Now, at that AIP stage, presumably…. Obviously, they can take lands to the commission after, if they wish to. That would be their choice.

What's really at stake here is around the pr e-treaty area. When they take a piece of land to the commission, they may, for example, apply for exclusion of that land from the agri- cultural land reserve. Let's say, hypothetically, it's 100 hectares that they make an exclusion application for. The commission has a number of alternatives that it could look at in terms of what the outcome will be.

They may say: "Fine, we support your application for exclusion." The 100 hectares is removed from the land reserve and is subject again to final ratification, and those final processes that have to be undertaken by the first nations government will be excluded. That's one potential. However, it's possible, again at the AIP stage, that the first nations government might apply, rather than for exclusion, for some perm itted use within the agri- cultural land reserve. The commission might support that.

Or it is possible, again on our 100 hectare parcel, that they might say: "We are prepared to exclude 50 acres for the following reasons. But for another set of reasons, we are retaining 50 acres within the bounds of the agricultural land reserve. " In that case, again, that would remain, even post-treat y, as a part of the agri- cultural land reserve. Hopefully, that clarifies the point and answers the member's question. [1555] V. Roddick: Maybe I didn't make myself abun- dantly clear — federal. Does this agricultural land thing…?

Right now we as a province have an agricul- tural land reserve in this province, but the federal gov- ernment doesn't have to recognize it. Is it going to rec- ognize this once we have gone through the AIP into the treaty? Or can it come in and say: "Nix it"? A perfect example of how it happens right now is on the Alaksen bird sanctuary at the end of Westham

WEDNESDAY, MAY 5, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 10873 Island. They don't have to apply to anybody to do any- thing with it. It is federal government. Our land use issues do not apply. Hon. G. Abbott: I know there is a dictum some- where about not answering hypothetical questions because it gets you into all manner of difficulties that you shouldn't plunge into, but I will try here anyway. I think the member outlin ed a hypothetical situa- tion where the federal government — for the purposes, presumably, of securing a treaty — purchased some quantum of land. Again, let's say 100 hectares.

What is clear to us is this. Post-treaty, if those 100 hectares were outside the agricultural land reserve, they would re- main outside the agricultural land reserve. But again, post-treaty, if they were in the agricultural land re- serve, they would be in the agricultural land reserve. In short, the lands post-treaty would become

section 92 lands and would be subject to provincial law. J. MacPhail: My questions are along the same topic — the application of this law. I was just wondering. I have heard that the Union of B.C. Municipalities' executive is scheduled to review this legislation with the government this coming Fri- day. Has the minister or his staff or the Agricultural Land Commission met and communicated with the Union of B.C. Municipalities on these matters? Of course, this legislation, I assume, will be passed, and then they will get their briefing. So that might be backwards. Hon. G.

Abbott: There has been full discussion of this matter between the Agricultural Land Commission and the executive director of UBCM. I'm trying to recall whether in my quarterly meet ings with them this has been an issue. I don't believe it has, but I certainly look forward to meeting with UBCM. J. MacPhail: Did those discussions raise any mat- ters? Is the UBCM comfortable with this legislation, the application of the legislation pursuant to the discus- sions that occurred? [1600] Hon. G. Abbott: We understand them to be com- fortable.

They had a good deal of interest with respect to the posting and notification and public hearing pro- visions that would be the subj ect of this bill. Again, I think they generally find comfort in that the provisions or obligations which a first nation will have with re- spect to Agricultural Land Commission application processes will very much mimic those which local gov- ernments in British Columbia have to observe as well. J. MacPhail: Has the minister or the ALC staff or ministry staff met with the lower mainland treaty advi- sory committee on this issue? Hon. G. Abbott: The answer is no.

We have not met with LMTAC. J. MacPhail: I want to quote what the Attorney General said directly on this point yesterday in his es- timates here in this Legislature. I'm not going to ask the minister to comment on it, but I'll ask a follow-up ques- tion. Here's what the Attorney General said yesterday: "We have dealt with agricultural land issues in some of the treaty negotiations, including at least two of the negotiations that are now in the final agreement stages.

There are provisions in the Tsawwassen AIP and the Lheidli T'enneh AIP that deal with the fact that lands that are of interest to the Lheidli T'enneh and the Tsawwassen are within the agricultural land reserve, and the AIP con- tains a process for ensuring that those issues can be re- solved. In both cases that resolution process will involve the Land Commission at some point making a decision in response to the applications that are made to it.

The decision will be made by the Land Commission as an in- dependent agency, having regard to their statutory man- date and the principles and policies they have adopted for dealing with these issues." That's the end of the quote. So as I read his com- ments, the Attorney General is saying that both the AIPs, Tsawwassen and Lheidli T'enneh — and my apologies for the pronunciation on the latter — have a process in them and that this bill would simply allow the Agricultural Land Commission to make a determi- nation.

Yet the inclusion of land or exclusion of land would not take place until after the final treaty was signed. So why is this legislation necessary? I don't see why this legislation is necessary. Hon. G. Abbott: I hope I can answer the member's question. In the case of the first nations lands near Prince George, I think the pronunciation is klekleten- nie. The reason for this bill.

It is a bill that is very much based on the principle that first nations should have the same opportunities in law to advance proposals to the Land Commission that a local government, be they a municipality or a regional district, also now enjoys. We've talked a certain amount about that today.

That is the principle which grounds this bill. [1605] The current legislation under which we work in the province in relation to the intersection between first nations and the commission is that the first nation must secure the authorization of a local government before taking that application to the Agricultural Land Com- mission. That's the current…. What we are saying as a matter of principle is that first nations should have the opportunity to go directly, without securing the permissi on of a local government in order to do that.

Just as — again, to be hypothetical about this — I'm sure the corporation of the city of Delta would not want to have to secure the permission of the city of Richmond before going to the Agricul- tural Land Commission, similarly, we believe that first nations governments ought to be on the same legal basis as local governments. W. Cobb: We are, in fact, not actually defining gov- ernment or what government would look like. As I

10874 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, MAY 5, 2004 understand it, in a number of agreements-in-principle, the governance model or the form of government has not been defined, and in some cases it's deferred to a later negotiation or a treaty negotiation. What do we do in that case? If there isn' t an actual authority, then what do we do? Hon. G. Abbott: The precise nature of the govern- ance model that is embraced by the first nation through the final treaty is one of the important components of that treaty.

What is clear — and that's, I think, all we need to know for the purposes of this bill — is that there would not be any final changes in respect of Ag- ricultural Land Commission lands until a final treaty. Of course, a final treaty is not possible without a final- ization of issues around a model of governance. W. Cobb: A band, as it sits today, if they're not in the treaty negotiation, would not have the authority to do this. Am I correct? Hon. G. Abbott: The first nations government would have to be at least at the AIP stage in order to do this. W.

Cobb: We're acknowledging first nations as an organization, if they're in the process, or their local government. We're suggesting that they be qualified to be appointed to the commission, and yet as I under- stand it, local government is not appointed to the commission, the ALR. Hon. G. Abbott: In answer to the member's ques- tion, we have just added one additional element to the list, which is knowledge of first nations. W. Cobb: Sorry, I don't understand that then. You add knowledge of first nations government as a quali- fication for appointment to the commission.

Are we talking about the Agricultural Land Commission, then? I guess that's my question. Local government, whether it be the regional district or the municipality, is not appointed to the ALR, so why would this other form of government be allowed to sit on the commission? Hon. G. Abbott: I'm sorry about the confusion, but we're still on the

definitions section, as I understand it. We're not quite sure. Is the member going to

section 5? W. Cobb: Actually, it's

section 2. The Chair: We're still dealing with

section 1. D. MacKay: I have a couple of questions having to do with the proposed treaty settlement lands. I'm really confused about a part of this. It says: "…land described in an agreement in principl e as the land that will be- come, in whole or in part…." Is this the land mass we're talking about that they can apply to have excluded from the agricultural land reserve — the part that may become treaty settlement land after the treaty is signed off? Hon. G. Abbott: Yes. [1610] D. MacKay: I understand what you've said, but I'm confused and a little bit concerned about a couple of treaties.

The Nisga'a treaty is a good example where we see powers afforded the Ni sga'a government, powers that usurp the provincial and the federal power- making authority. They can actually create laws that override provincial and federal legislation. I'm con- cerned. When you look at the definition of treaty settlement lands, it says: "…land, other than land located within a reserve as defined in the Indi

an Act…that is subject to the legislative authority of a first nation…." If in fact a treaty is now signed off getting the native band a treaty and a piece of land that has been excluded from the agricultural land reserve, subject to the Agricultural Land Commission approving that, what happens if the treaty authorizes or gives authority to the band that usurps the provincial author ity? Are they required to still go back to the Agricultural Land Commission to make application to remove the land if we've given them the authority to legislate — make laws for the governance of the use of land within that treaty?

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, there is nothing different here than it would be in the case of an individual or a municipality. If the application at AIP stage had been for exclusion and if the commission had accepted or approved that application po st-treaty, the land would be excluded, as it would be for you or for Smithers or for whoever. It would be excluded from the land re- serve, and obviously the range of uses that might be contemplated on that land is going to be greater than it was within the agricultural land reserve. However, here's the impo rtant point.

Again, as I noted in an earlier question, the commission might say: "Well, we know the application is for exclusion, but we are only going to provide for that on 50 of the 100 hec- tares that are under application here. Fifty will remain within the bounds of the agri cultural land reserve." Or they may say: "No, we won't accept the exclusion ap- plication, but we will provide for some conditional use within the ALR of that land or any other combination of things. It would be the commission that will deter- mine the success or failure or the outcome of the appli- cation.

Again, there was no ALR land in the Nisga'a treaty sense, but there is nothing here — or nothing that I'm aware of, and I'd defer to the experts from the TNO here — that suggests that there is any less diminution of ALR oversight or responsibility for agricultural land reserve lands within that treaty lands area. D. MacKay: If the land that has been excluded from the ALR subject to the signing-off of the final treaty…. I suspect those lands are now going to be set aside, be-

WEDNESDAY, MAY 5, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 10875 cause they form part of the treaty. It's the extra land that has been given to the native band as part of the final treaty package. Are you saying that they will not have the authority to override provincial jurisdiction on the removal of that land from the agricultural land reserve? [1615] Hon. G. Abbott: That is precisely what I'm saying. The first nation laws woul d not override provincial law, including the Agricultural Land Commission laws. They would have to make application, just like any other local government, for something other than existed. B.

Lekstrom: In dealing with this bill — it's quite in depth, and when you look at it, it has significant im- pact…. A simple question: could land be excluded by a first nation prior to the signing of a final agreement? Hon. G. Abbott: No, and they would need to enact a law after that in order to achieve it. B. Lekstrom: I guess that leads to my next question. Why the need to allow for an application for exclusion at the AIP process, then? I' m missing something there.

If you can apply — and, as I read, agreement-in- principle means a non-binding agreement negotiated among a first nation government — then why the need to apply or give permission to apply at AIP? Hon. G. Abbott: It is to provide the first nation and all band members within their jurisdiction with cer- tainty with respect to what the package is that they are considering as part of the treaty-making process. B. Lekstrom: Thank you. That does bring up the idea that it can significantly change the potential finan- cial impact of a treaty — I mean, land that's in the ALR versus land that's out of the ALR.

What I understand is that we reach an agreemen t-in-principle based on a number of things. We then allow for the first nation to apply for exclusion to the commission, and that land can or cannot be decided by the commission at that point. I'll use an example. An application goes through as an AIP has been reached. The commission makes a decision that yes, we're going to exclude it. What hap- pens if that AIP falls apart? Where's that land? Is it then not excluded?

Or — the next applicant — should that land not be first nations and that AIP falls apart, it's obviously automatic that that land would come out, because we've approved it once. Hon. G. Abbott: Nothing changes until after treaty. Presumably the block of land becomes the object of an application to the Agricultural Land Commission. They give their approval for the application. Subsequently, the agreement-in-principle does not move forward to final treaty ratification. In that case, the original ALC designation remains on the land.

The other point references back to the question by the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine. Again, I want to emphasize this point just to make sure everyone understands this. Within a local government jurisdic- tion, if there is a piece of Crown land — as there often is — and the local government believes it would like to have that Crown land within the local government domain, they make, first of all, an application for a free Crown grant to the province. Let's say they get it — hypothetically. They take an exclusion application to the commission. The commission approves it.

At that point the local government, as per their con- trol of zoning, is going to determine what the land use designation is going to be on that land unless, of course, it's already been determined as part of a negotiation process around the free Crow n grant. Again, what I'm trying to say here is that th is model is very much built around fairness, and I think it stands the test well. [1620] B. Lekstrom: Yes, maybe just for clarification…. I guess my concern still lies with a couple of things.

Under 1(b), agreement-in-principle means a non-binding agree- ment, although we're giving AIP the ability as owner of the land when you read this piece of legislation…. We're giving them those powers under the application process. Those two don't seem to meld, in my mind. I want to go back. Definitely, we touched on this earlier. You mentioned that it could allow the first na- tion to know what they're negotiating with. You reach an AIP before you can actually apply, so the only thing that can change in favour would be the value to the first nation, should the commission make a decision to exclude this land.

It's my understanding that negotia- tions could be affected in that once an AIP is reached, an application to the commission is put forward. It's excluded. The value goes up significantly. The Crown can come back. You're seeing where I'm heading with this question…? Okay. Hon. G. Abbott: I think if we work on it long enough, you'll come to completely agree with me on this point. The exclusion does not occur until after the final treaty. There is no exclusio n at AIP stage.

That provi- sional approval does not become an exclusion until after the treaty is ratified and until after the new first nations government goes through whatever ratification processes are necessary in their government. There's no exclusion until then. If we take that hypothetical 100 hectares that we've been using here and it doesn't get excluded, it legally remains with whatever portion of the Agricultural Land Commission purview over it was there before AIP ever began. I wasn't clear on the first part of the member's ques- tion. I wonder if he might reframe it, and we'll try to address that one as well. B.

Lekstrom: I understand what you're saying. It doesn't come out until final agreement. Then for the life

10876 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, MAY 5, 2004 of me — either I'm thick, and like you say, we may take some time and we may come to the same agreement here…. Why would we give the ability to apply at AIP if nothing is final until final agreement? Why wouldn't we say that once we reach final agreement, apply for exclusion? Hon. G. Abbott: The short answer is because it can become a very important component as the first nation looks at the land quantum associated with a potential treaty. That can be a very important issue for them. Obviously, there are other dimensions of the AIP as well.

They may involve money or resources or any number of other things. The land quantum is going to be very much a product of those discussions and other related discussions. This step will give them a good deal more certainty and, hopefully, produce the posi- tive outcome that our government looks forward to. B. Lekstrom: I guess I'm just going to continue on this track, and hopefully we will reach agreement at one point. I still, for the life of me, cannot figure why…. We're negotiating and we're reaching an agreement-in- principle. The land is there; the product is there in the negotiation, and so on.

We could significantly alter the value of the property we'r e talking about through ex- clusion. Does that mean, then, we can go back to the table and say, "My goodness. That piece came out. Instead of being worth X, it's now worth 5X," and use that as a bargaining issue to draw something off the table? [1625] Hon. G. Abbott: As I understand the member's question, his concern revolv es around what implica- tions this process might have on the market value of a given piece of land.

Again, it's important to recall the principle that the government is not going to expropri- ate any fee simple lands in order to make a treaty work. In all likelihood, the land that might be subject to the consideration we've been talking about is going to be acquired by the Crown for these purposes, or it may be a fee simple holding that the owner in question agrees to delegate to the first nation for its considera- tion. I presume those would be the two most likely scenarios.

In either case, the market value of that land I don't think is going to be markedly changed — cer- tainly not until after post-treaty, because there is no change in respect of the application of the Agricultural Land Commission on that land until at least after the final ratification. I've gone through a number of hypothetical scenar- ios where it could be exclusion, but it might be par- tially exclusion, or it might be conditional use, or it might all be retained by decision within the land re- serve but contemplating some additional purposes for the land. There's a range.

In any eventuality, nothing changes until the treaty is ratified, and then at that point it becomes part of the treaty lands package. I think everybody is going into these negotiations with their eyes open. They'r e thinking about the quan- tum of land and the value of land. They're thinking about the quantum of resour ces and the value of those resources. They are thinking about the quantum of money, in all likelihood, in some instances — perhaps every instance. I'm getting into the Attorney General's field here. If the member's point is around market value, hopefully my answer addresses that. J.

MacPhail: I seek leave to make an introduction. Leave granted. Introductions by Members J. MacPhail: In the gallery with us right now watching this debate, which I think is a very good de- bate amongst all of us, is Van Tech Secondary School — 13 grade 11 students. They're accompanied by their student teacher, Ms. Lindsay May, and their sponsor teacher, Ms. Shelfontiuk. Would the House please make them welcome. Debate Continued B. Lekstrom: I want to thank the minister for his answers. We're still trying to get to the end resolve here, with an understanding. The financial is just part of my questioning.

I'm still, on the issue, understanding very clearly that the land…. A decision could be made by the com- mission. A first nation who has reached an AIP can act as owner and apply to have that land excluded. The commission can say, "Yes, it's excluded," and nothing happens to that land unless a final agreement is reached. If I'm understanding this correctly, if the AIP falls apart, nothing happens. That land then is not ex- cluded anymore, although the commission has already said it is. Hon. G. Abbott: No, we never said that. The Chair: Through the Chair, please, minister. B. Lekstrom: Pardon me.

Then I guess the question would be…. I do have a slight misunderstanding. AIP is reached. First nations a pply to have an exclusion. The commission gets that application, and they make a decision on that applicatio n. That's my understanding. I'm going to say, hypothetica lly, that they make a deci- sion to exclude it. What happens at that point? Hon. G. Abbott: Hon. Chair, thank you for remind- ing me not to attempt to answer the question so quickly across the floor of the House, because that would be out of sequence with the debating that has been going on here.

The approval by the co mmission at the agreement- in-principle stage is a conditional approval. The condi-

WEDNESDAY, MAY 5, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 10877 tions, as we've been talking about, are at least final rati- fication and proper adoption by the new aboriginal government, in that case. [1630] Again, it's a conditional approval at AIP — condi- tional upon things — and if the conditions are not met, then the approval is no longer there. There is no exclu- sion unless the conditions are followed. B. Lekstrom: You tweaked my interest, minister, when you talked about conditional approval. I want to use an example again: a piec e of property held by a city. It's in the reserve.

Th ey have an interested party that wants to purchase it but won't purchase it unless it's out of the ALR. Can th ey apply, get conditional release of that from the ALR, finalize the sale, and then it comes out? [H. Long in the chair.] Hon. G. Abbott: The member should take note of my answer here because I may have misunderstood his question. We want to be sure that we understood the question and, hopefully, that the answer is understood. I spent a long time in local government before com- ing here, so I think I have a pretty good sense of the issues.

Again, let's take an example of where a munici- pality might want to go to the commission and get a piece of land excluded from the Agricultural Land Commission. I think that's central to the member's question. For the sake of argument, let's take, for ex- ample, a piece of land, and it 's in the agricultural land reserve. Let's say it's 100 hectares, and the municipality has come into possession of that 100 hectares. Perhaps it was fee simple land. Perhaps it was Crown land that was vacant, and they acquired it through some means or another.

The municipality, being the landowner, goes di- rectly to the commission, presumably after they've re- solved as a council that that's what they want to do. Of course they'll want to do that. They resolve as a council that they are going to attempt to secure an exclusion for this property from th e Agricultural Land Commis- s i o n b e c a u s e t h e y w a n t t o c r e a t e a n i n d u s t r i a l p a r k there. So they go to the co mmission directly with their application.

As is contemplated in this and in current provisions around this, the municipality might have a public hearing and notificati on and posting and all of that stuff. They go to the commission. They advance their arguments and their evidence for exclusion. The commission says: "Yeah, we're persuaded — applica- tion approved." There is no conditional step in that. They will approve it, or they will reject it. There is nothing that is tantamount to the move- ment from an AIP to a final treaty in local government.

Local government effectively makes that decision when council determines as a grou p that they think that the application is appropriate. There isn't a second stage. The only change that a local government might con- template is if some of the members of council got some pressure from the public and decided that it was the wrong thing to do. They could raise it at council again, but there's nothing like the AIP-to-treaty change. [1635] B. Lekstrom: Again, I thank you for your answers, minister.

I guess the struggl e I have with the entire process is the issue of AIP-given status as owner-of-the- land ability to apply. That is a challenge for me. I know you have tried long and hard to put those answers for- ward to me. I can't understand why…. I mean, in looking at this, really we're not talking private land; we're talking Crown, traditionally. Going back to your answers earlier, this could change part of what the treaty is — what the value is, for instance. I can't understand why the Crown wouldn't have it excluded and then use it as part of the treaty process to reach that final agreement.

My issue is one where I do n't think it's needed to a u t h o r i z e , o n c e a n A I P i s r e a c h e d , t o g i v e t h e m t h e status of owner of that property — to apply and be given status for a conditional approval. I am much more comfortable that upon final agreement of a treaty…. That's the proce ss I would be much more comfortable with. I thank the minister for his answers and his indul- gence in my questions. Hon. G. Abbott: Again, the member is certainly knowledgable on the issues here now.

But just again so we're clear, the Crown, should it choose, can acquire a piece of fee simple land, or they can take a piece of their own Crown land. Because the Crown needs to go through the local municipalit y, they could do that. They could go to the local municipality or the local regional district and say: "We're making an application as the Crown for exclusion of this to the Land Commis- sion." They could do that. The local government would make their recommendation, and it would go on to the commission. The commission might say yes or no.

If the Crown chose to take that route in terms of finding appropriate land for that land quantum within a treaty, that's perfectly within their ambit. In fact, this opens up more flexibility for the Crown in terms of how the land quantum will be determined. It puts first nations governments on precisely — and I think we've te

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	h0505pm-03
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	h0505pm 03
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	2d2fc50c85b709da1ab103ff061e9d05c204c088

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).