British Columbia Hansard — Tuesday, October 28, 2003 (37th Parliament, 4th Session) (H1028am-10) (H1028am 10)

H1028am-10

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

4th Session, 37th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) Tuesday, October 28, 2003 Morning Sitting Volume 17, Number 10 THE HONOURABLE CLAUDE RICHMOND, SPEAKER ISSN 0709-1281

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Honourable Iona Campagnolo 4TH 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.

Greg Halsey-Brandt Deputy Premier and Minister of Education ....................................................................................... ..................................Hon. Christy Clark 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 Children and Family Development.................................................................................... ..............................Hon. Gordon Hogg Minister of State for Early Childhood Development.............................................................................. .................................Hon.

Linda Reid Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services......................................................................... .................. Hon. George Abbott Minister of State for Community Charter........................................................................................ .................................. Hon. Ted Nebbeling Minister of State for Women's Equality ......................................................................................... .................................... Hon.

Lynn Stephens Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise ................................................................................ ..................................Hon. Rick Thorpe Minister of State for Deregulation ............................................................................................. ............................................ Hon. Kevin Falcon Minister of Energy and Mines................................................................................................... ....................................... Hon.

Richard Neufeld Minister of Finance ............................................................................................................ ....................................................... Hon. Gary Collins Minister of Forests ............................................................................................................ .................................................. Hon. Michael de Jong Minister of Health Planning .................................................................................................... ............................................ Hon.

Sindi Hawkins Minister of Health Services.................................................................................................... ................................................ Hon. Colin Hansen Minister of State for Mental Health ............................................................................................ ...................................Hon. Gulzar S. Cheema Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care ............................................................................. Hon.

Katherine Whittred Minister of Human Resources.................................................................................................... ............................................Hon. Murray Coell Minister of Management Services................................................................................................ .........................................Hon. Sandy Santori Minister of Provincial Revenue................................................................................................. ................................................Hon.

Bill Barisoff Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General ................................................................................ ..................................Hon. Rich Coleman Minister of Skills Development and Labour...................................................................................... .............................Hon. Graham P. Bruce Minister of Sustainable Resource Management.................................................................................... ..................................Hon.

Stan Hagen Minister of Transportation..................................................................................................... .................................................... Hon. Judith Reid Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection..................................................................................... ....................................Hon. Joyce Murray 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/Committee Clerk................................................................................................ ............................................ Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sergeant-at-Arms ............................................................................................................... .........................................................A.A. Humphreys Director, Hansard Services ..................................................................................................... ........................................

Anthony Dambrauskas Legislative Librarian.......................................................................................................... ............................................................. Joan A. Barton Legislative Comptroller ........................................................................................................ .................................................................Peter Bray Published by British Columbia Hansard 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 75; New Democratic 2; Independent Liberal 2. ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Abbott, Hon. George (L) ....................................................................... Shuswap Anderson, Val J. (L) .............................................................Vancouver-Langara Barisoff, Hon. Bill (L)............................................. Penticton–Okanagan Valley Bell, 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 H ill Brenzinger, Elayne (L) ...............................................................

Surrey-Whalley Brice, Susan (L) ............................................................................Saanich South Bruce, Hon. Graham P. (L)................................................ Cowichan-Ladysmith Campbell, Hon. Gordon (L)............................................. Vancouver–Point Grey Cheema, Hon. Gulzar S. (L) ..........................................Surrey–Panorama Ridge Chong, Ida (L)................................................................ Oak Bay–Gordon Head Christensen, Tom (L) .............................................................

Okanagan-Vernon Chutter, Dave (L) ........................................................................... Yale-L illooet 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, Hon. Greg (L) ..................................................Richmond Centre Hamilton, Arnie (L)............................................................Esquimalt-Metchosin Hansen, Hon.

Colin (L) .....................................................Vancouver-Quilchena Harris, Roger (L)......................................................................................Skeena Hawes, Randy (L) ............................................................ Maple Ridge–Mission Hawkins, Hon. Sindi (L).......................................................... Kelowna-Mission Hayer, Dave S. (L) ................................................................... Surrey-Tynehead Hogg, Hon. 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, John (L) .......................................................................... Ch illiwack-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, Hon. 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-W illingdon Orr, Sheila (L) ...........................................................................Victoria-Hillside Penner, Barry (L)....................................................................... Ch illiwack-Kent Plant, Hon. Geoff (L) ......................................................... Richmond-Steveston Reid, Hon.

Judith (L)............................................................Nanaimo-Parksv ille 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, Hon.

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, Hon.

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.......................................................................G illian 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 .................................................................................

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 ............................................................................... Hon. 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 ...................................................................Hon. Judith Reid Nelson-Creston.......................................................................Blair F. Suffredine New Westminster ..................................................................Hon. Joyce Murray North Coast ........................................................................................Bill Belsey North Island........................................................................................Rod Visser North Vancouver–Lonsdale.......................................... Hon.

Katherine Wh ittred North Vancouver–Seymour .............................................................Daniel Jarvis Oak Bay–Gordon Head .......................................................................Ida Chong Okanagan-Vernon .................................................................... 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................................................................................Pat Bell Prince George–Mount Robson................................................Hon.

Shirley Bond Prince George–Omineca................................................................Paul Nettleton Richmond Centre......................................................... Hon. Greg Halsey-Brandt Richmond East .......................................................................... Hon. Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston ................................................................ Hon. Geoff Plant Saanich North and the Islands ............................................... Hon. Murray Coell Saanich South...................................................................................

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

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

Gary Co llins 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 ................................................. Hon. Ted Nebbeling Yale-Lillooet .................................................................................. Dave Chutter

CONTENTS Tuesday, October 28, 2003 Morning Sitting Routine Proceedings Page Introductions by Members....................................................................................................... ............................................... 7575 Committee of the Whole House ................................................................................................... .......................................... 7575 Land Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 46) (continued) D. Jarvis Hon. S. Hagen J. MacPhail M. Hunter J. Bray G. Trumper W. Cobb B. Penner J. Wilson B.

Suffredine Report and Third Reading of Bills .............................................................................................. ........................................... 7588 Land Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 46)

7575 TUESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2003 The House met at 10:03 a.m. Prayers. Introductions by Members Hon. S. Hagen: It's a privilege for me to introduce to the House today two friends: one from Langley, Dave McTaggart, who is the senior pastor at Southgate Chris- tian Fellowship; and his brother-in-law, actually, Marlon B. Carlson. Would the House please make them welcome. [1005] Orders of the Day Hon. M. de Jong: I call Committee of the Whole House. For the information of members, the committee will be considering Bill 46. Committee of the Whole House LAND AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 (continued) The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 46; L. Mayencourt in the chair. The committee met at 10:07 a.m. On

section 1 (continued). D. Jarvis: I'm not sure which specific points they have gone into up to this time, but I have a question. I appreciate that this bill is ostensibly on the working forest, but I have questions as to the subsurface rights as they pertain to mining. If I had a mineral tenure se- curity, can it be taken away as a result of this bill? Sec- o nd l y , ho w d o e s i t af f e c t m i n i ng i n t he p r e v i o u s t wo - zone policy that we have in this province? Hon. S. Hagen: With regard to tenure, this act does not take away any tenure, and the two-zone policy is intact under this act. D.

Jarvis: You were mentioning previously that they could sell Crown land. Does this now allow the government to sell land to anyone they feel like — even if they are offshore people, people that aren't citizens of this province? Hon. S. Hagen: The policies of Land and Water B.C., which actually controls the sale or tenure or lease of Crown land, are not affected by this act. [1010] J. MacPhail: I g o t s o m e f e e d b a c k f r o m o u r d e b a t e last night, and I want to ask the minister this. He was quoting at length — or, I should say, not at length but frequently —

section 23 of the Land Act. Was there a similar provision in the Forest Act, and what happened to that? Hon. S. Hagen: We are not aware of a

section un- der the Forest Act. That question should probably be directed to the Minister of Forests, because I'm not re- sponsible for that act. J. MacPhail: Sorry, that won't do. Last night the final comment this minister made was that he and he alone is now in charge of land use, including certainty of tenure. The Minister of Sustainable Resource Man- agement said last night that the Minister of Forests is no longer responsible for that. I would put it to the Minister of Sustainable Re- source Management that the very

section of the Forest Act that guaranteed the parameters upon which Crown land could be sold was removed from the Forest Act. I'm trying to demonstrate here a trend that this gov- ernment is moving toward privatizing Crown land. Here's why the suspicion: this minister has cut out the Minister of Forests from any land use decisions. He's cut out the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection from any land use decisions. The Forest Act has been changed to delete what used to be the same protection as is now

section 23 of the Land Act about prohibiting privatization of land for forestry purposes. The icing on the cake is from a worker who last night reminded me of this

article that appeared Satur- day, April 5, 2003, in the Vancouver Sun : "Industry Claims Victoria Has Sent Signals." Let me read it, Mr. Chair. It's by Gordon Hamilton: "The B.C. forest industry is getting signals from Victoria that it may be open to privatizing some Crown forest lands, TimberWest president Paul McElligott said Friday. McElligott, whose company is the largest forest landowner in B.C., said in an interview that he has received some indication that the sale of Crown lands may be an option the government might consider.

"He offered no details in response to questions, saying: 'There's nothing that specific. It's just the odd comment. I think that there are many in government, in the bureaucracy, that this would solve a lot of problems, including the softwood lumber trade file. But if you're asking if this is an issue for a second mandate or is it going to be done in the first mandate, I don't know. If I had to put money on it, I'd say probably the second mandate.' "McElligott is the second person to raise the privatization issue in as many weeks.

Former National Bank financial analyst Reid Carter stated in a March 31 research paper for clients that he has received 'strong indications' that privatization will be a second-term initiative of the government. Like McElligott, Carter would not disclose his sources: 'But I've had many conversations with people in government, both elected and bureaucrats, who believe that privatization makes tremendous sense.'" [H. Long in the chair.] Then, Mr. Chair, there's a response from the Minis- ter of Forests to that, but of course we now know that the Minister of Forests has been completely cut out of

7576 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2003 land use decisions. The final paragraph of this

article from the Vancouver Sun, April 5, says: "'The reforms provided opportunities for the private sector to expand,' he said. McElligott raised the privatization issue in an address to the Vancouver Board of Trade. In his talk he said: 'A little bit of spadework has to be done to make privatizing forest lands politically palatable.' That work is up to the industry, he said. McElligott said private ownership allows companies like TimberWest to make long-term investments, something the reforms do not accomplish." [1015] That

article was faxed to me this morning from a concerned forest participant. I won't say, Mr. Chair, but you cannot assume that it was from a forestry worker. It could be from a forestry owner. Does this minister guarantee that

section 23 of the Land Act will remain in place through this govern- ment's tenure? Hon. S. Hagen: The answer is yes. J. MacPhail: Did the minister dissuade or dispel Mr. McElligott's speculation that he had an inside track — that privatizing of forest lands would be permitted by this government either in their first term or in their second term? Or, if he hasn't dissuaded them yet, what would he say to Mr. McElligott now? Hon. S. Hagen: First of all, I think it's old news. It goes back to April. Second, I've not had a discussion with the person in question with regard to the sale of land.

If I had a discussion with him today or tomorrow, i t w o u l d b e t h a t f o r e s t l a n d i s n o t f o r s a l e b e c a u s e o f clause 23 of the act. I'd like to read it into the record again. Clause 23 says: "Unless, in the opinion of the minister, Crown land is required for agricultural set- tlement and development or other higher economic use, Crown land that is suitable for the production of timber and pulpwood must not be disposed of by Crown grant under this Act." J. MacPhail: I must say thank you to the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management. He has guaranteed that

section 23 of the Land Act will not change as long as his g overnment is in powe r. That's f abulous. I l aud the minister for making that commitment. Well, I can only celebrate his commitment to that. It is a guarantee for as long as they remain in government. I'm sure that is a strong enough message to send to Mr. McElligott and all of the forestry giants who would actually prefer to have Crown land for forestry purposes privatized. S o i t ' s a g o o d d a y . I t ' s a n e x c e l l e n t d a y — that the commitment has been made.

Perhaps the minister could explain to us what he meant when he said in the Legislature: "We're offering certainty through the strategic sale of Crown land, which will be a catalyst for economic partnerships." Did he mean economic partnerships other than those that would involve forestry? Hon. S. Hagen: What she is talking about is what Land and Water B.C. does. They sell Crown land, they lease Crown land, and they give tenures for Crown land. J. MacPhail: So there's nothing new when he said that? Hon. S. Hagen: No. J.

MacPhail: I'm just wondering how the year of forestry is moving along here when the minister stands up and says everything's exactly the same. He and his caucus make broad-based statements like the member for Prince George North, for whom I have a great deal of respect in this file. He has a great deal of knowledge and claims there's been huge strategic shifts. So I'm just trying to find out where they are. Mind you, I'm thrilled that the minister is saying: "No, nothing has changed." Well, I'm not thrilled for the forest industry, which is in the doldrums.

I'd like a lot changed in terms of the resolution of the softwood lumber dispute. But it is interesting to see exactly what the heck it is that the minister is championing here. Well, let me ask this, then.

During second reading, the member for Prince George North said this: "Another key initiative — I can't overemphasize how important this is and really, in my mind, how courageous this is for this minister — is to move from the model of statutory decision-making authority where the decision is vested in an individual within the bureaucracy — typically a regional manager or district manager — to a delegated decision-making authority where ultimately the elected official has the end decision- making authority or that decision is made by order-in- council — one of the two." [1020] Basically, the member from Prince George said it was a really big step to go from decisions that one can move from legislation and statute to behind closed doors by the cabinet.

But perhaps I've got that wrong. Can the minister explain the difference between statutory decision- making and delegated decision-making authority? Hon. S. Hagen: In answer to the member opposite, statutory decision-making is allocated under the law. A delegated authority is delegated by me with direction and guidance. J. MacPhail: How is it better, according to what the member from Prince George said? And he said that this minister was very courageous. How is it that decision- making is now taken out of a statute, out of the law, and given to the minister to make himself?

How is that better that we now have very sensitive decisions of land use made by a politician, as the minister just stated, rather than a meritoriously hired non-partisan, expert public servant? How is that a move in the right direction? Hon. S. Hagen: First of all, the decision on land use is now being taken by cabinet in open cabinet — okay? So you can't say it's a closed sort of thing. The recommendation comes to me after it's gone through a huge public process with input from all of

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7577 the various people who want the use of the land and who want something to say about the land. It comes to me, goes through to open cabinet where all cabinet ministers have a say, including the Minister of Forests and the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection. The difference is and the delegated authority is that that's done now with government policy being consid- ered. That's important. You know, when the member opposite talked about what strategic shifts have taken place, the biggest stra- tegic shift that took place was on May 16, 2001.

The people of the province said: "We don't want the old government anymore; we want a new government." That's the biggest strategic shift that can happen. When that happened, there was a huge change in the province, as we can see by the activity in the land titles office. There's a lot of business going on now in the province. Sure, there are still some areas of the province that are hurting, which we're trying to deal with in this act, but there was a huge positive message that went out to the world with the change in govern- ment that took place. J.

MacPhail: I'm not quite sure at all what the min- ister's referring to in relationship to this legislation. I asked how it's better to take decisions out of a non- partisan, expert public service and put it into the minis- ter's hands solely, and he came up with some rant about an election. Let me ask this of the minister, then: is he guaran- teeing that every single land use decision will only be decided in open cabinet meetings, that there will be no discussions about land use decisions by cabinet behind closed doors? Is that the guarantee he's making? Hon. S.

Hagen: The new-era commitment — and I'm paraphrasing because I don't have it in front of me — is that land use decisions will be taken in open cabi- net. J. MacPhail: Perhaps the minister could answer my question. Is he guaranteeing, by quoting that new-era commitment, that all land use decisions will be dis- cussed only at open cabinet meetings — yes or no? Hon. S. Hagen: The new-era commitment is that we will take land use decisions in open cabinet. Land use decisions will be taken in open cabinet. [1025] J. MacPhail: Could the minister just say whether that's a yes or a no to my question?

I think he's waf- fling. I expect there's a reason why he's waffling. It is because he's nervous about answering a very simple question with yes or no. The minister's making a huge deal about the new-era commitment that all land use decisions will be taken in open cabinet meetings. Of course, there's a huge sort of smirk — it's a provincewide smirk — about open cabinet meetings. Even the media call them infomercials now. Even the ordinary public have tuned out, because they don't consider them even close to reality TV — not even close. But I'm actually testing that.

I'm saying: is every land use decision going to be taken at open cabinet meetings? In other words, the central coast land use plan — will it always, when it's considered by cabinet, be considered at an open cabinet meeting? Hon. S. Hagen: The new-era commitment is that we will take decisions on land use at open cabinet. In the example quoted, the member asked: "Will that de- cision be taken at open cabinet?" The answer is yes. J. MacPhail: Well, the minister's made a huge commitment. I can hardly wait to see the toing and froing at an open cabinet meeting about land use deci- sions.

I can hardly wait to see what the Attorney Gen- eral has to say about first nations certainty issues around a land use proposal. Mr. Chair, I hate to say it, but I think the member may be a little bit strange to the truth on this one. I actually believe that he's not coming clean. I'm willing to give him the chance. In fact, I expect that when that open cabinet meeting occurs around a land use decision, he will be able to say this is the first time that land use decision has been discussed. Will he be able to do that? Hon. S.

Hagen: The new-era commitment — para- phrasing — is that land use decisions, or decisions re- garding land use, will be taken at open cabinet, and that certainly will be the case with the central coast LRMP. J. MacPhail: Oh no. I just used that as an example. It will be for all land use decisions, that there will be no discussion about land use decisions except at open cabinet meetings. That's what the minister has commit- ted to, and I'm finding it a little difficult to swallow, actually. Interjection. J. MacPhail: Oh, the minister is saying no, that's not what he committed to.

Perhaps he could say where I'm wrong. Hon. S. Hagen: I would never be that presumptu- ous to say where the member opposite is wrong. What I have said quite clearly is that we've made a commit- ment in the New Era document that all decisions re- garding land use will be taken at open cabinet. J. MacPhail: Well, I can hardly wait. I actually think the minister is misspeaking himself. I think that deci- sions will be taken behind closed doors and there will merely be a presentation of those decisions at the open cabinet meeting.

To date, we have seen no discussion on TV in an open cabinet meeting about anything — about anything. Maybe it is that every single cabinet minister agrees with the other cabinet minister regardless of the topic. I

7578 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2003 can hardly wait for the minister responsible for tourism to talk about land use decisions and the working forest. It will be fascinating to see the toing and froing of these very complex matters on TV, but I wouldn't expect anything nearly as exciting even as Survivor with this cabinet, given their experience so far in this area. [1030] Well, let me ask another question that arises out of t h e m e m b e r f o r P r i n c e G e o r g e N o r t h , w h a t h e s a i d a t s e c o n d r e a d i n g .

H e s a i d t h a t w h e n h e l o o k e d t h r o u g h the legislation last spring, he noticed that we are taking 48 percent of the province and establishing it as a work- ing landscape. Perhaps the minister can point to the part of the bill that references "the working landscape." Hon. S. Hagen: It's not referenced in the bill. It's not intended to be referenced in the bill. J. MacPhail: Then, did the minister correct the member for Prince George North?

Or maybe it was in a secret closed caucus meeting that the member found out about working landscape, because he said he looked through the legislation last spring and noticed that we are taking 48 percent of the province and estab- lishing it as a working landscape. Here's a minister who has just committed that he was going to do everything in open cabinet, and he's got a member of his own caucus saying something that, clearly, he found out in a private, behind-closed-doors meeting — not through the legislation.

Well, let me ask this: can the minister point to the part of the bill that states we are taking 48 percent of the province and establishing it as a working land- scape? Where's the 48 percent in this legislation? Hon. S. Hagen: It's not in the legislation. J. MacPhail: So where would the member from Prince George have gotten that idea in this open and accountable government? Where would he have got that? Hon. S. Hagen: I don't know. You should ask the member where he got it. I don't have that answer. J.

MacPhail: I've been paying close attention to this debate, because the minister is somehow suggesting that there's been a big strategic shift, a huge strategic shift. It turns out it's only in the minds of the Liberals them- selves, because everything the Liberals have been talking about so far has nothing to do with this legislation. There's no commitment, and in fact we now know that any of the discussions around the working forest have all been done behind closed doors, not through legislation. I expect that that's the way it's going to con- tinue: behind closed doors.

Perhaps the minister could point to the part of the legislation, this bill, that deline- ates the boundaries of that working forest. Hon. S. Hagen: As I explained last night, that will be done through the LRMP processes around the prov- ince and through the order-in-council. J. MacPhail: So in fact, there's no guarantee what- soever — none. All right. Let me ask this, then.

The member for Prince George North went on at second reading to say: "I think one of the features some folks find to be of concern to them is the notion of no net loss to the working landscape" — oops, there's that term again, working landscape, but he goes on to say — "but that really is what makes this legislation work.

When you have a no-net-loss clause that ensures that you continue to manage that landscape where you have 45 million hectares on an ongoing basis as you move forward, then people are a lot more thoughtful in the decisions they have to make about just how important the area is." Can the minister point to the piece of legislation that the member from Prince George referred to, which states: "There will be no net loss of the working land- scape"? Hon. S.

Hagen: What the government is achieving through this bill, Bill 46, is certainty on the land base, the balance between the economy and communities and the environment and the balance between the us- ers of the land base. We want to make sure that indus- try knows what's available so that they will make in- vestments and thereby create jobs for people through- out the province and so that we can rebuild the econ- omy again. This is an enabling piece of legislation, and that's the purpose of it. J.

MacPhail: That's all very well and good, but I'm just trying to get an understanding of what the Liberal members think this legislation is about, and the mem- ber from Prince George was very clear. He said, "That's what really makes this legislation work," and he was talking about the Land Amendment Act. He says, "When you have a no-net-loss clause that ensures…." And he carries on. So we no w kno w that the member f r o m P r i n c e G e o r g e w a s n ' t s a y i n g w h a t w a s i n t h i s legislation, because the minister couldn't answer that question.

Well, perhaps the minister could tell us what "no net loss" means. What does that mean? [1035] Hon. S. Hagen: The term "no net loss" is not in- cluded in this piece of legislation. My meaning would be speculative. I haven't considered it, because it's not part of the legislation. J. MacPhail: Well, what was the member from Prince George…? What piece of legislation was he talk- ing about when he debated it at second reading under Bill 46? The minister has no idea what the member from Prince George meant when he said that there was a guarantee of no net loss. That's interesting. Well, that's a big shift, isn't it?

That's a strategic shift that every- body will be wrapping their arms around. The minister doesn't have a clue what that means. It's not in the leg- islation. The member from Prince George was talking about fantasy. This is all very reassuring.

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7579 Okay. Let me go on here. This will be the final sec- tion where I refer to the member for Prince George North. He said at second reading: "The working forest is really about long-term management. It's about think- ing how we're going to manage this province ten years from now, 20 years from now, 50 years from now — but, more importantly, 100 years, 200 years or 300 years from now.

One of the things I believe this government has not gotten any credit for up until now is our long- range planning." I'm a bit reluctant to ask the minister why the member for Prince George North gave him this praise about long-range planning when the minister so far hasn't had a clue what the member from Prince George has been talking about, but let me try one final ques- tion. Does the minister believe that this bill will stand the test of time 300 years into the future? Can he de- scribe for us what the member from Prince George and this minister envision resource-based communities will look like that far out?

Hon. S. Hagen: This bill is about bringing certainty to the land base. It's about creating an atmosphere that would welcome investment. Certainly, when you do land use planning, you have to look out into the future. At the tables around the province that are now work- ing hard to meet their deadlines in delivering their land use plans, this is what they're looking at. The various groups at the table are bringing their thoughts to the table about what these areas are going to look like into the future, whether that future is 100 years, 200 years, 300 years or 50 years.

The desire of this bill and of this government is to make sure that the resource-based communities around the province will be there and will enjoy the economies that they've had over the past years and will continue to do that. I believe we can have sustainability in our forest industry and in other resource industries in the province. That is exactly what the land use planning tables are working towards and what this government is working towards with this bill. J. MacPhail: Well, we'll see. I don't think this gov- ernment has a clue what it's doing in the area of forestry.

T h i s y e a r o f f o r e s t r y h a s b e e n a n u n m i t i g a t e d f a i l u r e , probably the worst since 1983. The minister will be fa- miliar with that era, because he was part of that as well. Oh, I'm sorry. I withdraw. I withdraw. That's a se- rious allegation, Mr. Chair. My apologies to the minis- ter for accusing him of being a Socred. I'm sorry for doing that. This year has been the worst since 1983-84 — a ter- rible year of forestry. It's clear that this government d o e s n ' t h a v e a c l u e w h a t i t ' s d o i n g i n t h e a r e a o f f o r - estry.

You have government caucus members standing up and claiming great success about a piece of legisla- tion, and the minister doesn't even have any idea what they're talking about. Certainly, there's nothing in the legislation to in any way confirm that the backbench- ers, the government caucus members, have any idea what they're talking about. It was quite pathetic. [1040] Now, on

section 1, regarding

section 93.1, which is being added to the Land Act.

Section 93.1(

a) says that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make orders designating areas of Crown land for "conserving or managing natural resources." Let me ask him this. I won't ask him to commit; I'll just ask him an open-ended question. Does this mean we can expect to see more than the current 13 percent of the land base set aside and protected from industrial development? Hon. S. Hagen: We don't know that yet, because the land use planning processes are not complete. J. MacPhail: Well, let me ask a question, then. Whatever the LRMP table comes up with, does the minister say he'll just ratify that, not change it?

Hon. S. Hagen: The LRMP tables bring their rec- ommendations to the minister. The minister then de- cides whether or not those are the recommendations he will bring on to cabinet, so I have that discretion. J. MacPhail: Will the minister guarantee that every single one of his recommendations will be discussed only in open cabinet? Hon. S. Hagen: The commitment the government made in the New Era d o c u m e n t i s t h a t l a n d u s e d e c i - sions will be taken in open cabinet. M.

Hunter: I thought I would try and move us to a slightly different subject, because some of this debate I heard last day in the House. My questions to the minister have to do with the

section 1,

section 93.3 of the bill, which is the

section entitled "Establishing objectives for designated Crown land by order-in-council." I understand the role of the cabinet, Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, in doing the things that it is going to be required to do under sec- tion 93.1. In

section 93.3, the cabinet is also authorized to do a couple of things. It may establish objectives that are consistent with the land use designations decided upon under

section 93.1. Secondly, it must specify — and I emphasize "must" — in relation to those objectives that it may set, one or more officials that have discretion under this act or other enactments. I want to focus on this discretion- ary authority of officials, because one of the good things about this bill, in my opinion, is that it does away with a statutory authority that pre-existed. I per- sonally have some difficulties with the existence of statutory authorities. I happen to believe that parlia- mentary democracy requires that the ministers and cabinet be accountable, and there are areas where that is not the case today. So this is an important

section of this bill, in my opinion. My concern — and maybe the minister could com- ment on this — is that I'm a little confused and a little concerned that we are attempting to deal with statu-

7580 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2003 tory authority and the removal thereof, but we don't quite get there. Let me explain. If cabinet may establish objectives consistent with designations and cabinet does not do that for whatever reason, but it does — because it must — give officials discretion under the act, which must be exercised in accordance with those objectives, I'd like to complete the circle. If there are no objectives set, how does an official know whether or not he or she is acting in concert and applying their discretion appropriately? Hon. S.

Hagen: If any designations are required, the loop is closed, because cabinet will instruct the offi- cials what the designations will be. [1045] M. Hunter: To the minister: I thank you. I under- stand that. It's with respect to the objectives that I'm concerned, because I think the minister will recognize the bill says that the cabinet may establish objectives in

section 93.3, and it's very clear that any officials must exercise their discretion under this act or another en- actment in a way that is consistent with the objectives. My concern is if there are no objectives. I don't know whether that is a reasonable proposition or not. I don't know in what circumstances cabinet would establish objectives or when they wouldn't, but if they don't, then the discretion of the officials is not being carried out under any guidance from the Lieutenant- Governor-in-Council — i.e., cabinet. That's my concern. I don't think, with respect, the minister answered that question. E.

Brenzinger: I ask leave to make an introduction. Leave granted. Introductions by Members E. Brenzinger: I'm sitting here working in the House, and I look up and see all these students. I thought I'd like to recognize them. They're having an opportunity to see us go through the motions of bills, and I think it's great — although dry, good education. I'd like to welcome Semiahmoo School. Could the House please help me make them welcome. Debate Continued Hon. S.

Hagen: In answer to the member's ques- tion: if cabinet believes that officials must exercise au- thority consistent with any designation, cabinet will identify the objectives and specify the official. M. Hunter: That's very helpful. I just wonder, if that's the case — and I appreciate that's on the record — why we would use the word "may" in

section 93.3(1)(

a) if the intention is, where there are to be objec- tives or exercise of discretion, the objectives will be set. Would the minister like to comment on that? Does this wording reflect exactly what's intended, in light of his last answer? [1050] Hon. S. Hagen: I t d o e s g i v e s o m e a l l o w a n c e f o r cabinet to put in a designation without identifying an objective. M. Hunter: Can the minister explain in what cir- cumstances that might happen — a designation gets made but an objective would not? Could he help me with an example? Hon. S.

Hagen: An example might be, in light of the fires in the Okanagan this summer, that cabinet might choose to make a decision that some of that would be declared a historic site or something like that. That's sort of the best example I can think of. M. Hunter: So if I could summarize…. I think this has answered my question. If I could try and put words in the minister's mouth, what he's saying is that only on quite rare and unusual occasions would he anticipate that there would be a land use designation without an accompanying objective being specified by c a b i n e t .

I s t h a t a f a i r s u m m a r y o f w h a t w e ' v e c o n - cluded in this discussion? Hon. S. Hagen: Yes, that's a fair capsulation. J. MacPhail: Well, it's interesting to hear the ques- tions from the member for Nanaimo and the minister's commitments. I'm on

section 93.1(

b) that says the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make orders for "balancing multiple natural resource uses." Now, bal- ancing is a subjective criterion. Let me ask the minister a very practical question on how he will apply a subjec- tive criterion. It arose out of our debate last night, where I got a note from first nations. Supposedly, the government claimed last night that they have a won- derful working relationship with first nations, and eve- rything is moving along absolutely wonderfully in terms of land use planning. Well, let me quote from the Prince George Citizen. The member for Prince George North wrote an

article in the Saturday report of Prince George Citizen, and it was entitled "Bringing Forestry into Focus." The Carrier- Sekani tribal council responded to that and were very good enough thi s morni ng to send me a copy of their response that appeared in the Prince George Citizen this morning. It starts off: "Member from Prince George Comments Ignorant." That's the title. [1055] "For more than two years, first nations have opposed the changes to forestry legislation and policy because their concerns were ignored.

Our office alone sent more than 50 letters to the Premier, Minister of Forests, Minister of Sustainable Resource Management and their staff, requesting meaningful consultation and accommodation. Last year a mine in northwest B.C. and a timber transfer on Haida Gwaii were both quashed by judges due to a lack of consultation and accommodation.

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7581 "Last week's meeting in Prince George further solidified a provincewide alliance amongst first nations. This occurred because of the province's lack of good faith while dealing with first nations when it comes to land and resource discussions. First nations will now work together to ensure that our interests are protected. "The member for Prince George North's comments in the Prince George Citizen, Saturday, October 25 report are ignorant and contradictory. He states that he is not interested to deal with people who litigate with them.

In September his government made an offer of 20 percent of the Haida territory to the Haida people if they would agree to drop their title case. "The working forest legislation is another example of the ridiculous nature of the member for Prince George North's comments. He states: 'The legislation is about working with first nations, which is absolutely critical in this new era.' Wake up, member for Prince George North. More than 400 first nations representatives have stated, both in Prince George and Kelowna, that they oppose the working forest, as has 97 percent of the non- native public.

Many first nations are negotiating at the treaty table in good faith. If your government changes forest policy and land designation while negotiations occur with first nations, we question your good faith." I'll read into the record the rest of the letter from Chief Harry Pierre. "The treaty process may be compromised by your actions. First nations may bring this message to the investment community unless you repeal this legislation. Lastly, the member for Prince George North comments that the Liberals have done more in two years than any other government. This is true.

You have alienated our trust by a referendum on the treaty process, angered us with your line, 'B.C. is open for business,' without including first nations and disappointed us because of your take-it-or-leave-it approach in negotiations. "B.C. is not open for business unless first nations are involved through meaningful consultation and accommodation in every community. Thank you for uniting first nations across B.C.

"Chief Harry Pierre Tribal Chief, Carrier-Sekani tribal council" Given that — those comments within the last 48 hours from first nations — how does the minister pro- pose to balance land use with the subjective criterion of balancing multiple natural resource uses? Hon. S. Hagen: As I said last night, nothing in this act, Bill 46, compromises treaty or treaty negotiations. This act does not impact the process of treaty negotia- tions. The balancing that takes place, as I also explained last night, takes place at the land use planning table, where first nations are fully engaged.

The ones that we are expecting in the next nine months include Sea to Sky, which involves two first nation bands; the central coast LRMP, involving 18 first nation bands; the north coast LRMP, which includes seven first nation bands; and the Queen Charlottes Haida Gwaii, which includes the Haida. The balancing takes place at the table. The first na- tions bring their concerns to the table. The environmen- talists bring their concerns. Industry brings its con- cerns. Communities bring their concerns. The various users of the land base — forestry, mining, tourism, conservation — bring their concerns to the table.

That's what's being worked on now. That will come to a com- pletion at varying stages, as I said last night, in Decem- ber, March and June. Those will be recommendations that come to me as a result of two years — in some cases, slightly less time — of consultation. J. MacPhail: Maybe the minister could clarify, then, for the alliance of first nations: what is the relationship between the treaty process and land use designation? Is the minister suggesting there will be no overlap? Hon. G. Hogg: I s e e k l e a v e t o m a k e a n i n t r o d u c - tion. Leave granted. Introductions by Members Hon. G.

Hogg: I would like the House to join me in welcoming 45 grade 10 students, six parents and su- pervisors, and their teacher, Ms. Rehnby, from Semi- ahmoo high school in Surrey–White Rock — my alma mater. Would the House please make them most wel- come. [1100] Debate Continued Hon. S. Hagen: I'm not sure if I understood the question properly, but I'll try and answer what I think she said. The lands that will be needed in the negoti- ated settlements with first nations will be there. That's not impacted by this bill. Were you asking about overlapping claims with first nations?

Is that what your overlapping comment was? I wasn't clear on that. J. MacPhail: Well, no. That was not what I was ask- ing. I'm talking about overlap where there's a land base as part of treaty negotiations being discussed and someone trying to make an alternate land use designa- tion of that same land. How do those two mesh? Hon. S. Hagen: That's part of the discussion at the table, and in some cases first nations might be involved in the treaty process, and in some cases they're not in- volved in the treaty process.

If a first nation at the table is involved in the treaty process, I'm sure they'll be thinking about that as they put their thoughts out on the table about how the land should be used. This is all about achieving balance. It's dealing with all of the users of the land base, all the people who want to use the land base. Those concerns are brought to the table and dealt with at the table. J.

MacPhail: Yes, but we've already heard from the minister that he alone will make the final land use de- cisions, that he will only use the LRMP process as a process of making recommendations to him, and then he alone will decide about what recommendations to

7582 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2003 proceed with or not proceed with. That's hardly cer- tainty. That's hardly a guarantee of duty to accommo- date that's required under the law by this government to first nations. If this government thinks that in this great year of forestry they're moving toward land certainty and therefore economic certainty, I expect investors proba- bly have a different point of view.

New York and Chi- cago and Montreal investors always ask this first ques- tion, and they continue to do so with this government: when are land claims, when are treaties, going to be settled? And it doesn't look like this government is on the path to settling treaties, given their most recent actions and given the kind of alliance that this govern- ment has forced first nations to forge. Well, let's ask this question. What is the difference between "a plan for a specified use" in subsection (

c) and "specified economic development opportunities" found in this subsection? Hon. S. Hagen: In the case of subsection (c), that's part of the enabling part of the legislation. In (

e) what we're talking about…. We wanted to make sure that the economic necessities were recognized. As you know, we went through ten years of land use planning where the economic part of the equation was not ad- dressed very well, and so our government made the decision, on behalf of communities and workers around the province, to make sure that the economic part of the equation is addressed as well as the envi- ronmental and the community aspects. J. MacPhail: Let's be clear, Mr. Chair. There are communities around this province saying: "Don't touch our land use plan that we made in the 1990s.

Please e x e m p t u s f ro m any as p e c t of t hi s l e g i s l at i o n. " I d o n't think there's anybody — so far, I haven't heard of any- one — saying: "Oh, please include us under this work- ing forest initiative, because it's so superior." I think the minister may be…. I know he likes to be partisan in his rhetoric, but his partisanship is completely without substance, in fact. [1105] I'll leave it up to the public to decide whether they understood at all what the minister meant in terms of the difference between a plan for a specified use and specified economic development opportunities.

It sure a s h e c k i s g o i n g t o b e i n t e r e s t i n g t o s e e h o w , i n o p e n cabinet, the government has a wide-ranging discussion about how they're matching those two objectives and to see what the toing and froing of the discussion will be amongst the various cabinet members. J. Bray: I have a series of questions under

section 1. Certainly, when we rose during second reading debate, I did emphasize that my role as an MLA is to make sure that I bring issues and concerns forward. Certainly, on the working forest concept and Bill 46 in particular, I got a great deal of feedback from my community. As I engaged in dialogue with my constituents, I would ask them to provide more specific issues, so I'd like to sort of canvass, under

section 1, a series of those particular issues. The questions may not be absolutely sequential, but they are the issues that my constituents brought forward to me. I hope this makes some sense at the end of it and that I can convey these messages back to my constituents as to what our discussions were. I guess one of the first concerns the people in my community expressed was that Bill 46 was somehow changing forestry practices, mining practices and how people actually access Crown land through other ave- nues. My first question is: does

section 1 change the way in which somebody accesses Crown land through for- estry tenures or mining tenures, or do those processes that currently exist with the ministry still stay intact? Hon. S. Hagen: The applicable legislations that the member talked about remain intact. This is simply an enabling piece of legislation that gives cabinet the au- thority — for instance, when the land use plans are fin- ished — to implement what those land use plans say. J. Bray: The other issue that, of course, I hear a lot in my constituency is….

There is a great interest in the environment in my riding, and a lot of issues and ques- tions come forward as to areas around environmental protection. Given that this is, as the minister just re- sponded, an enabling piece of legislation as opposed to prescriptive in any particular forms, is it fair to say, then, that existing environmental regulations or per- haps others that may come forward through Water, Land and Air Protection or other ministries are unaf- fected by Bill 46? Hon. S. Hagen: The answer is yes. J. Bray: I thank the minister for that answer, Mr. C hai r.

I n t hi s s t re am o f p art i c u l ar i s s u e s t h at m y c o n- stituents were asking me about and asking me to clar- ify with the minister here in the House was the issue around Crown land and, in particular, forest land and whether or not that was available for corporate buyoff or corporate control and privatization. These themes came through quite regularly from my constituents. In second reading debate I read into the record sec- tion 23 of the Land Act, which states that the Crown cannot, through that act, sell Crown land designated for timber or pulp.

I'm just wanting to clarify now from the minister that my understanding is correct that this bill in no way changes

section 23 that which allows for the selling of timber lands through a Crown action. Hon. S. Hagen: He's absolutely correct. J. Bray: The amendment 93.1 has a series of desig- nations, and these are some of the questions that I think my constituents are trying to understand. What do these designations mean, and what does this act ac- complish with respect to these designations? [1110] Because there's been some other debate around this, in 93.1(

a) through (

e) there are several designations

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7583 that this act contemplates that cabinet may make some decisions on. These designations — what cabinet may designate — come through the land and resource man- agement plan process that happens out in the commu- nity, so the designations aren't originated from cabinet. In fact, they are designations that come through the recommendations of the LRMP process. Am I correct in that understanding? Hon. S. Hagen: I'd just like to clarify to the member that these are not, under 93.1, designations. They are actually purposes, and there is a difference.

But the anticipation is that those purposes would flow up through the land use planning tables. J. Bray: So is it fair to say, then, that these designa- tions don't come forward until the LRMP process is complete in any particular geographic area? Hon. S. Hagen: Yes, and I'd just like to clarify, again, that it's not a designation. It's a purpose. But that's the expectation — that it will come up through the LRMP tables.

I mean, you have to leave the door open that something may happen, for instance, in the case of a fire or something else, but the general expectation is that this will come from the land use planning tables. J. Bray: I thank the minister for that clarification. Could the minister explain, then, the difference be- tween purpose and designation in a term that an ur- banite like me can understand? Hon. S. Hagen: The purposes give cabinet sort of an overview of what they should be looking at. A des- ignation is a final designation made by cabinet, taking those purposes into consideration. J.

Bray: Okay, that's very helpful. J. MacPhail: It is? J. Bray: Well, it is. J. MacPhail: Explain it back what he meant, then. Explain it back. J. Bray: As a matter of fact, that's exactly what I was going to do, because this is fundamental to, I think, what Bill 46 is enabling to have happen. I want to ask the minister to confirm whether or not my understand- ing is correct. Communities in any particular geographic area, civic politicians, first nations, industry, other users and community members work through the land use plan- ning process and come up with a final plan.

What I understand has been the difficulty is after that point in time, there was no clarity around what you do with that afterwards.

My understanding is, then, that once that process has occurred and the community has gen- erally agreed on how they see land use happening, Bill 46 allows for the decision-makers — that's government — to then put life down on top of that particular plan as to what the general purposes are, which have been agreed on by the community, and then how that will actually look with respect to targets for forestry, conser- vation, ecotourism, wildlife preserve — to then actually give those specific designations so everybody knows how to implement that land and resource management plan in a practical sense.

Is that my understanding? Hon. S. Hagen: The member's understanding is very accurate. J. Bray: My last question. One of the issues we talked about during the election was the innovation of open cabinets and the significance of having open cabinets at least once a month to deal with issues, to give a different way for the public to see how cabinet operates and some of the issues that come before it. I disagree with the Leader of the Opposition. I think it's been a very helpful process and very instructive in areas. Certainly, in my community, one of the areas was around land use or around designation of parks.

I'm just wanting to clarify, then, that as Bill 46 is actu- ally made into action and we're actually seeing it move forward, those decisions, in fact, will be made in the open cabinet session. Is that correct? [1115] Hon. S. Hagen: That is correct. G. Trumper: This is obviously a bill of great inter- est to those of us who live in resource-based communi- ties and who rely on the resources for our well-being. There does appear to be a lot of misunderstanding of Bill 46 by some groups. I know that some of the ques- tions have been asked, but I have specifically been asked to raise two issues dealing with the bill.

I had something said to me over the phone yesterday, and I realize exactly where it came from, because it was word for word…. The comment that was made to me was: "Working forest initiative will mean a sell-off and giveaway of vast areas of B.C. to corporations as part of the privatization issue and part of the privatization agenda." I hear that frequently from some groups.

So my question to you is: although those concerns were raised during the consultation process and with respect to that, could you please explain to these con- stituents how this bill could affect the privatization of Crown lands for forestry purposes? Hon. S. Hagen: It's unfortunate there was one group out there that consistently made that statement, which is not true. I would just like to read into the re- cord again clause 23 of the Land Act, which we are not amending, which we are not changing and which I have said we will not change. J. MacPhail: Forever. Hon. S. Hagen: As long as I'm alive.

According to the Leader of the Opposition, that may not be too much longer.

7584 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2003 J. MacPhail: I never said that. I look forward to a long and healthy life. Hon. S. Hagen: I'm glad you didn't say relation- ship. Interjections. Hon. S. Hagen: Mr. Chair, if I could have the atten- tion of the members, I'd like to read into the record why the government is not going to do what a certain group has said we're going to do.

"Unless, in the opin- ion of the minister, Crown land is required for agricul- tural settlement and development or other higher eco- nomic use, Crown land that is suitable for the produc- tion of timber and pulpwood must not be disposed of by Crown grant under this Act." G. Trumper: Thank you to the minister for that answer. I do hope that it sets some minds to rest on that particular issue. The other issue that certainly has been raised to me and has certainly been raised in the House this morn- ing is the issue of the aboriginal consultation.

I just want to say at this time that in the area that I come from, we've just signed an AIP with five bands who really do believe we've done a great deal in the last two years compared to the past decade in moving towards treaty. In fact, somebody did say it publicly. George Watts did say publicly that he had to admit we had done more in the last two years than had been done over a considerable length of time towards getting to AIPs and treaty. Those bands do want to move forward and obviously have an interest in this.

I would ask the minister, in a conversation that was had over the weekend with some of the representatives of those bands when they brought to your attention their concerns about the issue of Bill 46 regarding abo- riginal lands and moving towards treaty, if you would please reiterate the comments you made to them about the concerns they have raised with you. [1120] Hon. S. Hagen: It was a privilege for me to meet with the people from your area on the weekend, who did express this concern. I think I allayed their concern.

I will reinforce that by confirming that Bill 46 does not compromise treaty negotiations in any way, shape or form, and it does not impact the process of treaty nego- tiations and does not impact the land available for treaty negotiations. J. MacPhail: Who did the minister meet with? Could he name names, please? Hon. S. Hagen: I don't have the names in front of me, but…. J. MacPhail: You just met with them. Who were they? Hon. S. Hagen: Well, it was Saturday night, but…. The Chair: I think the Leader of the Opposition should wait to go through the Chair for her second question. J.

MacPhail: You're absolutely right. Hon. S. Hagen: I think the member opposite has been here long enough that she should know the proc- ess of going through the Chair. Anyway, I'll get you a list of the names. J. MacPhail: It was just Saturday. Given the fact that the vibrance and health of the minister is not in question here, surely he can remember who they were. What bands or tribal councils were they from? I'm cu- rious, because we're also speaking with first nations who continue to raise a substantial number of con- cerns. So who were they? Hon. S. Hagen: These were, I believe, members of the Nuu-chah-nulth.

J. MacPhail: So the Nuu-chah-nulth. On Saturday night. Okay. Well, that's one tribal council. That's good. I'll certainly contact the Nuu-chah-nulth directly now and ask them how they felt about the meeting and the reassurances. I am very curious about the government caucus members standing up and asking the minister to reaf- firm how little this bill means. Basically, the question from the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill was, "Could you please reassure me that this bill means nothing," in terms of changes to the environment or land use plan- ning, etc. That's a real rousing endorsement.

That's certainly different from the member for Prince George North, who said: "My God, look how much this legisla- tion means." Now, the minister couldn't agree with anything that the member from Prince George had said in his wild claims of the substantive change, but he was able to agree with the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill that basically this legislation means nothing. That's an interesting debate. I can hardly wait to see how that plays out at the cabinet table in open cabinet meetings, where all those matters will be dis- cussed — and only at open cabinet meetings.

Does this legislation mean something, or doesn't it mean something? My question arises from that dilemma about the value of this legislation or whether it's just for show.

Section 93(2) says that any order made under

section 93(1) cannot conflict with an already established use for a parcel of Crown land. I think what 93(2) does is rank the order of priority of legislation, the paramountcy of legislation. I think — it's my

interpretation of 93(2) — that all other pieces of legislation which designate Crown land come before this Land Amendment Act, 2003. Is that correct? Hon. S. Hagen: The answer is no. This section, 93(2), simply confirms that we don't have conflicting uses on the land base.

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7585 W. Cobb: I guess my question is on the same…. I'm going to read it in its entirety, because that's where I have problems with it: "A designation under

section 93(1) of an area of Crown land must not be made for a purpose that conflicts or is inconsistent with a purpose for which, under another enactment, that area of Crown land is designated or otherwise reserved or set aside." [1125] I was involved in land use tables and what not. Many, many times during those tables, there were ar- eas set aside through orders-in-council, memorandums of understanding, protected areas — all sorts of differ- ent designations. I guess my concern is that those were set aside during the discussion table. They were not part of the final agreement.

But because they are orders- in-council and other things, does this legislation mean that now — because those are designated — they can- not be taken out? If so, that is my concern. Hon. S. Hagen: This

section requires cabinet to review any current designations. If cabinet decides it wants to make a different designation, they can't do that without changing the first designation. B. Penner: Just to get into this debate a little bit, I heard earlier reference made to the protected-area strategy and the amount of protected areas we have in the province of British Columbia.

Just to set this debate in context and make it a bit clearer, I wonder if the minister could confirm what the percentage is of the land base now in British Columbia that is included in protected areas, parks and other designations that limit the access to that land base. Hon. S. Hagen: There's a slightly different percent- age depending on whether you're talking about for- estry or mining, but it's approximately 12.3 percent. B. Penner: It's 12.3 percent as a provincial average, and my understanding is that that percentage varies depending on which part of the province you're look- ing at.

For example, the Chilliwack forest district. Up to about 22 percent of that entire land base has now been designated as parks or protected areas, taking a very significant chunk out of the working forest. Tradition- ally, we have had a very important component to our economy — that being forestry. In recent years we've seen a significant decline.

I wonder if the minister could just maybe recap for us the process that took place in the 1990s — I believe it was an initiative of the previous government; if the minister could confirm that, I'd appreciate it — that evaluated a number of areas for inclusion in protected areas and led to this increase in the percentage of the land base that is now effectively off-limits for forestry or other economic uses. Hon. S. Hagen: The member is correct. This was done under the previous government in the 1990s. It was a regional public advisory committee that was set up by the government.

The government accepted the recommendations that committee brought in, which I guess provided the 22 percent of protected area. At this time we have no intention of relooking at that. B. Penner: I appreciate that clarification, because it helps highlight some of the inconsistencies of the Leader of the Opposition and her comments around a local issue involving the proposed and current selective harvesting in an area near Elk Creek.

I heard her make reference earlier and use the expression "ignorant and contradictory" to refer to one of the other members of this legislative chamber, and I would suggest that that phrase is more aptly posed in terms of describing her conduct in discussion around the issue of Elk Creek. The minister maybe can help clarify this issue further by confirming whether or not Elk Creek was specifi- cally looked at during that collaborative regional plan- ning process in the 1990s and what the conclusion was of that collaborative process with respect to the inclu- sion of Elk Creek in a protected area. Hon. S.

Hagen: Apparently, Elk Creek was looked at, as were a number of areas in that area. [1130] B. Penner: My understanding is that the recom- mendations from this regional collaborative group were reached through consensus, that a variety of things were looked at, that among the recommenda- tions that came forward were protecting new areas and creating new parks, that in total about 24 new parks and 823,000 hectares of new areas were set aside in our region through this process, but that Elk Creek was not one of those areas that was recommended for this type of designation.

Can the minister confirm if those num- bers are correct? Hon. S. Hagen: I can't confirm that. I was not in- volved in the process at that time. B. Penner: Well, I think the minister's notes will reflect that the discussion did take place around that. In fact, I think I've seen some correspondence from the minister's office to that extent. What I'm looking for, I g u e s s , f r o m t h e m i n i s t e r i s t h i s p a r t i c u l a r a c t , i n t h e

section that we're debating and the various amend- ments that are affected by it…. Would the minister see this as affecting current land use planning in the Fraser Valley and Chilliwack in particular? Hon. S. Hagen: This Bill 46 would not impact that or affect that. B. Penner: Just before yielding the floor to the Leader of the Opposition, I note that she also stated and it was reported in a newspaper

article in the Chilliwack Progress dated October 7 that there are no enforcement and monitoring activities taking place with respect to the selective harvesting that's currently taking place in 5 percent of the Elk Creek area. That

7586 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2003 remark, I'm sure, came as a surprise to the compliance and enforcement officials with the Ministry of Forests, who have been very busy over the last month or so closely scrutinizing and monitoring the selective har- vesting activity that's currently taking place at Elk Creek. I note with some dismay that when the Leader of the Opposition was in Chilliwack, she said with some glee that Chilliwack would become the new ground zero in the war in the woods. Sadly, to some extent that has come true. It's certainly not something we relish.

I note that today one of the local papers is reporting that a resident of Thunder Bay, Ontario, has got himself mixed up in an altercation in the Elk Creek area, and I think that's regrettable. I know the land use planning process the previous government launched in the 1990s was expected or at least advertised to resolve these issues once and for all. I know we've concluded a land use planning process for the Chilliwack forest district.

As noted, now 22 per- cent of the entire land base in the Chilliwack forest district has been designated as parks and protected areas, including 24 new parks and more than 800,000 hectares of land base taken out as a result of that col- laborative process that proceeded by consensus. The Elk Creek area was left as part of the non-protected, non-park area. I note, by way of interest, that just less than a cou- ple of kilometres away there is a provincial park called Bridal Falls Provincial Park that's well known, and it encompasses many of the same attributes and charac- teristics as the Elk Creek area.

That might be of interest to people participating in this debate. J. MacPhail: It is interesting to note that once again the member for Chilliwack-Kent got up and said, "Please tell me how this legislation has no meaning," and the minister confirmed: "Yes, this legislation has no meaning." I love it.

I also note that the member for Chilliwack-Kent is completely out of touch with his community in terms o f wh at t he y v al u e i n t e rm s o f l a nd u s e p l a nni n g and that what worked extremely well in the 1990s has been changed completely by his own government in terms of land use — that what was a protected watershed as a drinking water source area is no longer that now, and therefore the…. I'm sorry. I hope I'm not interfering with the Minis- ter of Sustainable Resource Management and the dis- cussion he had with the member for Chilliwack-Kent and Chilliwack-Kent trying to do casework.

The Chair: Member, is this on

section 1? J. MacPhail: Yes, I assume that's what the member for Chilliwack-Kent was talking about. I'm just carry- ing on the discussion that the member for Chilliwack- Kent started. I hope the government doesn't mind. I hope the opposition has the same right to discuss mat- t e r s r a i s e d a s d o t h e g o v e r n m e n t m e m b e r s . B u t , M r . Chair, I'm more than willing to suggest that the mem- ber for Chilliwack-Kent didn't know what he was talk- ing about, if that's where you want to go.

If not, we will look at an area where there are changes in land use planning that are absolutely needed to protect land use now and that were not considered in previous land use plans. The government has just said: "Oops. No, this legislation won't have anything to do with changing land use planning." To carry on, on

section 93.2. The way I read this is that every other act that designates Crown land gets priority before the Land Amendment Act designation of Crown land occurs. Am I wrong? [1135] Hon. S. Hagen: This clause,

section 93.2, requires cabinet to review any current designation. If cabinet wants to change or make a different designation, then it must first remove a previous designation. J. MacPhail: Yes, thank you. In other words, legis- lation that has already designated Crown land takes precedence over this act unless the government changes that act. Is it very hard for the minister to say that all other acts supersede this act? Is that hard for him to say? Hon. S. Hagen: Government doesn't have to change the act. They just have to change the designa- tion. J.

MacPhail: And how would the government do that — behind closed doors? Hon. S. Hagen: If it's a land use decision, which in this case it would be, we have said in our New Era document and the commitment we made in the cam- paign is that we will do land use decisions at open cabinet. J. MacPhail: I expect there's someone in the Pre- mier's office quaking with all of the commitments this minister is making that go against, entirely, the intent that they had — what they have promised to forest companies.

I look forward to the fact that any land use deci- sion, pursuant to this act, that requires change — under the Park Act, for instance; designation under the Park Act — will be debated and made at an open cabinet meeting. I look forward to that. J. Wilson: This bill is something this province has needed for many years, and I think it's going to be the chance or the opportunity for us to move forward here. There are a couple of questions I had for the minister, and that's under objectives and designations.

Is this or c a n t h i s b e u s e d a s a w a y o f s o m e h o w , i n t h e f u t u r e , inventorying some of our land base? Hon. S. Hagen: I think a direct answer to the mem- ber is no, because we already do that inventory work, and we don't need this act to do it. However, when this

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7587 act designates the land use plans, that information ob- viously flows into the inventory. J. Wilson: When we set down objectives for land use, in a sense that sort of spells out what…. Whether it comes out of a land use plan or not will spell out what that use should be. [1140] In my previous life I worked the better part of three years in land use planning, in our Cariboo-Chilcotin land use plan. All of the way through that we felt the d o c u m e n t w e c a m e u p w i t h a t t h e e n d o f t h e p r o c e s s was something that….

Well, it had to be completed. There were sub-regional plans and all the rest that went along with it, which had to be completed. They are just now reaching the point where they're nearing completion. Some have been done, and some have yet to be done. Once these are done, then the land use plan will give the direction to government as to how this land use should be dealt with.

All through the land use planning we felt and be- lieved that the land use planning document was a liv- ing document, which meant it could be subject to change anytime in the future should the necessity arise where any of the goals were going to be impacted or needed to be changed to address situations as they arise. I guess my question to the minister is this: if we deal with land use planning when we come to comple- tion on it, is there a process in place that allows the change, should it be recognized that it's needed in those plans, and then will that be reflected in this bill? Hon. S.

Hagen: That decision could be made by order-in-council by cabinet. The intention here is to bring certainty, but we know there is a requirement for flexibility, as well, if there are some changes. I guess the fires this summer would be an example of that. Those decisions could be taken through order-in- council by cabinet. J. MacPhail: My question is on 93.2, pursuing this issue about land use decisions and land use designa- t i o n s t h a t w i l l a l l b e m a d e i n o p e n c a b i n e t .

W e h a d a very interesting discussion under the right-to-farm act last week — Bill 48, I think it is — where the govern- ment amended the definition of Crown land to include land covered by water and said there was a certain way in which land use decisions would be made under the right-to-farm act relating to fish farms. Is the minister guaranteeing that fish farm place- ment and fish farm decisions — Crown land decisions pursuant to Bill 48 — will be made in open cabinet as they pertain to Crown land as well? Hon. S.

Hagen: I believe those are operational deci- sions that are made by Land and Water B.C. and also by Department of Fisheries and Oceans. J. MacPhail: No, that's wrong, I'm sorry to say, and I'm sorry that the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management missed the scintillating debate we had last week in the Legislature around Bill 48.

Land use decisions relating to fish farms will be made by this government, specifically where there's a conflict between what the local government wishes and what this government designates as appropriate use for Crown land, which they've now changed to also include water that covers Crown land. The debate made it clear that those changes in terms of land use decisions — Crown land use decisions — were specifi- cally to accommodate aquaculture. [1145] I know, clearly, the minister can't give me an in- formed answer, because he wasn't aware of that.

But I assume that given this minister's commitment that all land use designations and decisions about land use designations, including Crown land, which now in- cludes water that covers land, will be made in open cabinet, including decisions about where aquaculture operations are located. The minister has made that commitment. Hon. S. Hagen: I'm not able to make that commit- ment at this time. W. Cobb: A few quick questions. I kind of lost track of what sections we're on here. I'm on 93.5, and it fol- lows through with some of the other discussion we've had. The way I'm reading

section 93.5(2) is that cabinet can, in fact, overrule a decision made or a recommen- dation made by the minister and/or his delegate. It basically says that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council prevails over the order of the minister. Hon. S. Hagen: That's correct. W. Cobb: Further in that section, 93.6(2)(

a) says: "(

a) is of the opinion that the order is urgently required to protect a resource value…." Does this mean all re- sources — whether it's forestry, mining, agriculture, tourism, environment? Hon. S. Hagen: Could I ask the member to repeat his question, please? W. Cobb: Y e s . U nd e r t h at s e c t i o n, I 'm as k i n g … . I t says it's to protect a resource value. I assume that is meaning any resource — whether it's forestry, mining, environment or whatever. Hon. S. Hagen: That's correct. W. Cobb: My last question is 93.7. This is more of a reaffirmation of what was already said in some discus- sion we had.

It's around the delegate of authority. I g u e s s m y c o n c e r n , a s I ' v e s t a t e d t o y o u m a n y , m a n y times, is statutory authority. I want a clarification that this in fact is a delegated authority, not a statutory au- thority. Hon. S. Hagen: That's absolutely correct.

7588 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2003 J. MacPhail: I'm quite disturbed by the minister's refusal to give a commitment that he will make deci- sions around location of fish farms in open cabinet. He is reneging on his commitment now to make all land use decisions in open cabinet. He should know, as the minister responsible for aquaculture sitings, that Bill 48 allows cabinet to override municipal bylaws that re- strict fish farms. That's what Bill 48 was all about.

Bill 48 gives his government, his cabinet, the right to designate Crown land which is covered by water for fish farm siting, even if a municipal council or a re- g i o n a l d i s t r i c t o b j e c t s . I t i s s h o c k i n g t h a t h e n o w r e - fuses to give a commitment, his new-era commitment — that those kinds of decisions now will not be made in open cabinet. Hon. S. Hagen: The new-era commitment is that we will make land use decisions in open cabinet. [1150] B. Suffredine:

Section 93.1 provides for l and to be designated for a number of specific purposes. There are many diverse users who want to use Crown land in my riding, and reconciling mining and snowmobiling and diverse uses like that is fairly difficult. Whether they are commercial or recreational users, they're a little bit uneasy about how this plan is going to work. I'd ask the minister to explain how he envisions the imple- mentation being something that'll encourage a wide variety of uses. Hon. S. Hagen: The member is absolutely correct. Those decisions are sometimes not easy decisions; they're quite complex decisions.

But I've seen the staff in my ministry work wonders. I've seen them negotiate between heliskiing and caribou. I've seen them negoti- ate between snowmobilers and caribou migration pat- terns. I've seen them negotiate between heliskiing and snowmobilers. What I've found is that they're very adept at this. They bring the groups to the table, they talk it out, and they find out what each group needs and work these things out. I think that's the strength of the process we're in.

We actually bring people to the table, and we invite them to bring their concerns to the table and then work with them to alleviate those concerns. B. Suffredine: Under

section 93.4(1)(

c) there's a reference to private land. I wanted to have some clarity about how the Crown has any jurisdiction over private land under the Land Act. Hon. S. Hagen: T h i s r e f e r s t o p r i v a t e l a n d t h a t i s subject to tree farm licence, woodlot licence or commu- nity forest agreements. It is only for those lands cap- tured under tenure. B. Suffredine: The draft

section 93.7 provides for delegation of the minister's powers. Can the minister explain when it would be appropriate or necessary for the minister to delegate those powers? Hon. S. Hagen: If you go to the previous page, this is only under the Forest and Range Practices Act objec- tives. It's sort of the day-to-day work that the ministry does.

Section 1 approved on the following division: [1155-1200] YEAS — 46 Falcon Hogg Halsey-Brandt Whittred Cheema Hansen Bruce Santori Roddick Wilson Hagen de Jong Nebbeling Stephens Abbott Neufeld Coleman Chong Penner Orr Harris Nuraney Brenzinger Belsey Chutter Mayencourt Trumper Johnston R. Stewart Hayer Christensen Bray Les Bhullar Wong Suffredine MacKay Cobb K. Stewart Visser Lekstrom Hamilton Sahota Manhas Hunter Brice NAYS — 3 Nettleton MacPhail Kwan Sections 2 to 8 inclusive approved. Title approved. Hon. S. Hagen: I'm pleased to rise and report the bill complete without amendment. Motion approved.

The committee rose at 12:01 p.m. The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair. Report and Third Reading of Bills Bill 46, Land Amendment Act, 2003, reported com- plete without amendment, read a third time and passed. Hon. M. de Jong moved adjournment of the House. Motion approved. Mr. Speaker: The House is adjourned until 2 o'clock this afternoon. The House adjourned at 12:02 p.m.

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	H1028am-10
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	H1028am 10
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	7e906066356a207bdee8a3c52d4df6a423b3afa2

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