2004 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MAY 5, 2004

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 25, Number 3

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading

of Bills

Securities Act (Bill 38)

Hon. J.

Les

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

B.C. Community Achievement Awards

G. Trumper

Multiple sclerosis

W. Cobb

Chinese heritage day

P. Wong

Oral Questions

Costs of B.C.Rail–CN Rail

agreement and payment of property transfer tax

J. Kwan

Hon. K.

Falcon

MacPhail

Wage reductions for Hospital

Employees Union members

R. Nijjar

Hon. G.

Bruce

B.C. Rail–CN Rail agreement

Nettleton

Hon. K.

Falcon

Call for public inquiry into case

of Frank Paul

J. Kwan

Hon. R.

Coleman

Site for Olympic speed-skating oval

H. Bloy

Hon. J.

Les

Petitions

W. McMahon

Committee of the Whole House

College and Institute Amendment

Act, 2004 (Bill 26)

Mayencourt

Hon. S.

Bond

Report and Third Reading of

Bills

College and Institute Amendment

Act, 2004 (Bill 26)

Committee of the Whole House

Agricultural Land Commission

Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 27)

Halsey-Brandt

Hon. G.

Abbott

V. Roddick

MacPhail

W. Cobb

D. MacKay

Lekstrom

J. Wilson

Report and Third Reading of

Bills

Agricultural Land Commission

Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 27)

Committee of the Whole House

Passenger Transportation Act (Bill

30)

B. Belsey

Hon. K.

Falcon

Report and Third Reading of

Bills

Passenger Transportation Act (Bill

30)

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Sustainable

Resource Management (continued)

MacPhail

Hon. G.

Abbott

R. Sultan

[ Page 10861 ]

WEDNESDAY, MAY 5, 2004

The House

met at 2:04 p.m.

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

MacKay: Today in the gallery, joining us from Smithers, are my two

constituency assistants, Sharon Eastabrook and Judy VanderMeulen. I would ask

the House to please make them welcome.

[1405]

Hon. G.

Campbell: We could all set a new record for time for introductions if we

introduce all the constituency assistants, so let me just say this, Mr. Speaker.

We're all very pleased that the constituency assistants are here today. They've

come from all over the province, and each of them spends countless hours serving

the public of British Columbia and providing each MLA with substantial,

significant personal and professional support.

I want to

say thank you to them for their commitment to public life, for their commitment

to the people of British Columbia and for providing them with the best possible

service. I hope the House will make all of the constituency assistants from all

parties recognize how much we appreciate the work they do for us.

Hon. L.

Reid: I am very pleased to welcome to the gallery today individuals

representing the Salvation Army. They do amazing work in each of our communities

across British Columbia. I am pleased to tell you that the federal government

relations director Dani Shaw has joined us. She's accompanied by Colonel Copple

and Capt. John Murray, who continue to know that building relationships across

British Columbia is the essence of success in communities. I'd ask the House to

please make them very welcome.

Trumper: In the House today from my constituency we have Mayor Dianne St.

Jacques from Ucluelet; Mayor Ken McRae from Port Alberni; the chair of the

Alberni-Clayoquot regional district, Hira Chopra; and our economic development

officer, Jane Schlackl, who are here to talk to the Minister of Fisheries about

hake. Would the House please make them welcome.

W. Cobb:

With us in the House today we have representatives from the Multiple

Sclerosis Society. We have Chris Fortune, the president of the capital region

chapter; Bonnie Pasek, who is the client service coordinator; Clem Lagimodier,

who is a member; and Kathy Grouch, who is a volunteer. I ask the House to please

make them welcome.

Roddick: In the precincts today are Margaret Jensen and Mrs. Yoshihara, two

ESL teachers from Tsawwassen's Pebble Hill Elementary School, along with 11

Korean international students from grades 4 to 7. These students attend school

and live in homestays in our riding for a two-year period. Not only do they

keeping up with their Korean education so they can make a seamless return to

school in Korea after their stay. Would the House please make them most welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

SECURITIES ACT

Hon. J. Les

presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled

Securities Act.

Hon. J.

Les: I move that Bill 38 be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. J.

Les: I am pleased to introduce Bill 38. The government is introducing a new

Securities Act to better protect B.C. investors and improve the B.C. investment

climate. The new act, together with rules and regulations that the act enables,

will better protect investors through results-based regulation that focuses

companies and securities firms on what is best for investors — improved,

plain-language disclosure; increased enforcement powers; sanctions and

penalties; and broader remedies for investors to sue for damages.

The new

legislative framework will improve the B.C. business climate by enabling

companies to raise capital faster, and at much lower cost, and by replacing

detailed and prescriptive requirements with a more streamlined and results-based

approach to securities regulation. Despite this new approach to securities

regulation, the new framework is built on the same fundamental principles as the

legislative frameworks elsewhere in Canada and has the same objectives of strong

investor protection and efficient regulation.

I move that

the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

[1410]

Bill 38

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) B.C. COMMUNITY ACHIEVEMENT AWARDS

Trumper: Yesterday was a special day for 36 British Columbians who were each

awarded the British Columbia Community Achievement Awards at Government House.

This was an award under the leadership of the Premier of the province. These are

excep-

[ Page 10862 ]

tional people who contribute in so many ways to their community to make life

better for so many people.

In the

community I live in, Vera Seydel and Robert Dennis were recipients. For the past

20 years Vera has run the Bread of Life, a non-profit service that provides hot

meals to those in need in the Alberni Valley. Starting with serving meals, the

Bread of Life has opened a thrift shop, and a hostel was opened on the premises

last weekend. She has given selflessly to the community.

Robert

Dennis of the Huu-ay-aht band in Bamfield has steered his community to an

agreement-in-principle. He has worked for a community forest for his area and

has worked hard to make sure that the village of Bamfield has been included in

all their projects and in building community capacity.

Also,

although he was not a recipient of the award…. This week the west coast of

Vancouver Island celebrated Forestry Week, and this year Don McMillan of

Interfor was awarded the Forest Stewardship Recognition Program award. This is a

national award for leadership to demonstrate innovative leadership in forestry

and biodiversity conservation.

These three

people are passionate about their communities and are committed to making a

difference.

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS

W. Cobb:

May is Multiple Sclerosis Month, and that's why we have guests with us here from

the local

chapter today. I thank all for acknowledging and wearing their

carnations today. We have more available for those who didn't quite make it

earlier. The carnation campaign is a major fundraiser for MS, and I thank those

who donated. The funds are used for research and support for people with this

debilitating disease.

MS affects

about 8,000 B.C. residents and over 50,000 Canadians. This number is expected to

rise due to the growing recognition that very young people are now being

diagnosed with MS. The symptoms are as diverse as the individuals who contract

the disease. MS is episodic, often invisible and progressive. Symptoms and

challenges can include extreme weakness, lack of coordination, numbness and

paralysis. Blurred vision, incontinence, pain and cognitive difficulties are

also some of the symptoms.

This

disease affects every aspect of one's family, work and community life. It

affects approximately twice as many women as men and is more prevalent between

the ages of 20 and 40. There are no known causes of this disease, and therefore

it is almost impossible to find a cure.

As some of

you know, my wife suffers from MS. One of the challenges she faces, as others

with a secondary progressive diagnosis, is not knowing from one day to the next

what stage it will progress to, and it impacts if she can even get out of bed.

At times it moves more quickly than others, and I must say my wife, Lynnette,

meets that challenge with the stamina and determination I could not even begin

to meet. I also admit that one of the biggest challenges my wife meets on a

day-to-day basis is being married to me, and I thank for her that.

CHINESE HERITAGE DAY

P. Wong:

It is again time to celebrate the Chinese heritage day. I am delighted to rise

in the House to invite, through you, Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleagues and all the

staff and friends working in the Legislature — and of course, our reporter

friends included — to join the festivities today.

[1415]

At 4 p.m.

on the front steps of the legislative buildings, cultural ceremonies will begin.

At 4:45 members and their guests will be invited inside, and at 5:15 an Asian

buffet will commence. Today's event is proudly hosted by the members for Oak

Bay–Gordon Head, Burnaby North and myself.

Mr.

Speaker, multiculturalism is the foundation of this country and this province.

By celebrating diversity and participating in events and activities that further

our knowledge of each other, we grow even stronger.

The Chinese

Canadian population has a long history in British Columbia. Chinese immigrants

helped build this province in its early days and continue to contribute to its

social and economic fabric in a myriad of ways. Vancouver and Victoria both

boast wonderful and historic Chinatowns — popular tourist destinations and a

hit with locals.

Today's

events include cultural performances, calligraphy and a buffet of traditional

Chinese food. It will be a wonderful time and a chance to share in the delights

that the Chinese culture has to offer.

Mr.

Speaker: That concludes members' statements.

Oral Questions

COSTS OF B.C. RAIL–CN RAIL

AGREEMENT AND PAYMENT OF

PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX

J. Kwan:

We learned last week that it is costing taxpayers $900,000 to cancel the Roberts

Bank spur. Now we learn it's costing taxpayers $14 million and counting for the

government to sell B.C. Rail and break its new-era commitment. To the Minister

of Transportation: how much of that additional $14 million to sell B.C. Rail was

spent on communications and spin?

Hon. K.

Falcon: The member should know; we canvassed this pretty extensively at

estimates. The member should also know that that $14 million is well below

commercial norms for a transaction of that size.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has another question.

J. Kwan:

According to the government, $1 million has been spent to date on communications

and spin for the B.C. Rail broken promise — $1 million to tell British

[ Page 10863 ]

Columbians that the deal is not a broken promise, $1 million to sell a deal

that nobody wants, $1 million that could have gone to more important priorities

like keeping the promise to reduce wait-lists.

Again to

the Minister of Transportation. The government spent $1 million on spin. Can the

minister tell this House how much they spent on lawyers to finance this 990-year

lease-sale of B.C. Rail?

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please, hon. members.

Hon. K.

Falcon: Mr. Speaker, all I can tell you is that we certainly spent enough to

make sure we didn't get into the kind of crazy, stupid deals that that

government got us involved with.

You know,

$14 million…. Let's understand this, because clearly the member probably

doesn't grasp this. If you look at any transaction of that size, this is well

below commercial norms. I will say this to the member. Actually it's important,

when putting together a deal like this, that you make sure you have the best

available advice to ensure that you do protect the public interest. That's why

we've done that, and that's why there are the kinds of benefits in this deal

that actually see folks throughout the province recognizing the value right

across British Columbia with the B.C. Rail–CN partnership.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a further

supplementary.

J. Kwan:

Mr. Speaker, $900 million wasted because of police raids, $1 million on

communications and spin. Now we have $5 million that was spent on lawyers to

break a new-era promise. I know the minister is proud that this government broke

the promise, but I can tell this minister that British Columbians who have seen

wait-lists go up by 25 percent can think of better ways to spend that money.

[1420]

The

Property Transfer Tax Act says that any lease over 30 years is a taxable

transaction. As we know, the B.C. Rail deal lasts at least until 2064 and

potentially until 2994 — in either case, well over 30 years. To the minister

again: how much money in property transfer tax is owed on this sale, and who's

picking up the tab — CN Rail or the taxpayer?

Hon. K.

Falcon: I do take some interesting note of that question. In the

preamble to

that question, this member talked about her concern about wait-lists. Well, you

know, there are a lot of folks across the province that would have rather not

seen us spend over a billion dollars in tax write-offs on a railway that was

losing money year after year after year. It's interesting that that member and,

apparently, her leader want to take more of the scarce tax dollars that we are

putting into health care and education and funnel that into a government-run

railway that has continued to lose money over the last 15 years.

What we are

actually doing is maintaining public ownership. I know the member has a tough

time understanding it, but we're maintaining public ownership of the railbed and

rights-of-way because that's where there is a strong provincial interest. And

we're bringing in the private sector to operate on the rail line, because the

private sector will invest their dollars — not tax dollars — and ensure that

we get the kind of investment we need to ensure that northern communities will

benefit right across the province.

MacPhail: I note that the minister didn't answer the question. According to

internal sources, CN was let off the hook on the $24 million property transfer

tax. That's a $24 million taxpayer subsidy to CN — a $24 million taxpayer

subsidy to the new owner of B.C. Rail. That's $24 million that could have gone

to save programs for autistic children that have now been closed, $24 million

that could have gone to reduce wait-lists. Every day we learn more about the

true costs of this broken promise. The Property Transfer Tax Act is very clear.

A lease that exceeds 30 years requires the payment of property transfer tax.

Will the

minister immediately release a full accounting of how much it cost to sell B.C.

Rail and how much the taxpayer is subsidizing CN to help the B.C. Liberals break

their election promise?

Hon. K.

Falcon: It's day in and day out — this member constantly criticizing,

constantly misunderstanding the nature of this deal, calling sales when they're

not sales, misunderstanding the difference between a lease term and an option to

renew. On and on it goes. But I will tell the member this, because she should

know this. The $38 million last year that we paid in interest costs on the half

a billion dollars in debt that B.C. Rail carries will no longer have to be paid.

That's $30 million that taxpayers can now invest in health care, in education

and in other options that British Columbians have recognized as a priority here

in this province.

Mr.

Speaker: Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question.

MacPhail: The Property Transfer Tax Act defines a taxable transaction as a

lease "between a lessor and a lessee of land such that, following the

transaction, that lessee and any other person, if any, having the right to

occupy the land under a lease agreement, will have the right to occupy the land

for a period that exceeds 30 years." That means the property transfer tax

should have been paid by CN.

[ Page 10864 ]

Every time

the government hides the truth from the public, it's another nail in the coffin

of this deal. The process has been so botched that no one believes a word this

minister or this government says anymore. He won't answer the question. He

continues to hide behind spin that has nothing to do with this botched deal.

Will the

minister come clean and admit that they gave a $24 million subsidy to CN when

they didn't make them pay the property transfer tax?

Hon. K.

Falcon: I'm happy to get that member all the information regarding the tax

treatment. In fact, we canvassed some of this in estimates. I said to the member

then — and I'll say it today — that all of the tax treatment associated with

this has been gone over and been reviewed by the comptroller general, by the

auditor general, by some of the top tax lawyers in the province. I'd be happy to

get that information to the member.

[1425]

WAGE REDUCTIONS FOR

HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES UNION MEMBERS

Nijjar: My question is to the Minister of Skills Development and Labour. In

my community I have many HEU members, as all of us do throughout British

Columbia. One of the issues that has come up that needs clarification — it has

come up in the media — is about the 15 percent savings. There's a perception

out there that the 15 percent savings means that the paycheques will be reduced

by 15 percent. Can the Minister of Skills Development and Labour clarify what

exactly the 15 percent means, what options are available, and how it relates to

wages and benefits?

Hon. G.

Bruce: This is a very important point. What's required is for the union to

ask of me to appoint an arbitrator so that the actual devolving, if you like, or

adjusting between wages and benefits can happen. I've yet to hear from the

union. I'm hoping that I will.

Given that

they would go down that process, it's with all likelihood that the actual

reduction to the paycheque could be somewhere in the neighbourhood of 3 to 4

percent, not the 14 percent against the paycheque. They can mitigate that

against the rest of the benefits as was done with a different agreement recently

with community health, where it was a 13 percent rollback. They had negotiated

that, and 4 percent actually went against the wages and 9 percent against the

benefits.

B.C. RAIL–CN RAIL AGREEMENT

Nettleton: This government taking extreme and unyielding positions leads me

to a what-if question on B.C. Rail with respect to all impacted parties,

including first nations. To the Minister of Transportation…. He was not the

Minister of Transportation at the time information was leaked to CN. From the

perspective of the briefing the minister received to enable him to take up this

position and comparing that with the benefit of hindsight, is there anything he

would have done differently from his predecessor regarding the B.C. Rail deal,

or would he have done it in exactly the same way?

Hon. K.

Falcon: I'm glad to actually go on the record about this, because, I'll tell

you, this is a great deal for British Columbia. I have never been more convinced

that this is the right thing to do for British Columbia. I've never been more

convinced that it always makes more sense when we can bring in a private sector

partner to operate the railway as efficiently and effectively as the private

rail partner will do.

I reminded

the Leader of the Opposition in estimates that CN actually used to be a

government-run railway. She may not remember that or chooses to forget that,

because when it was losing billions of tax dollars, they conveniently forget

that. Now it's one of North America's most successful railways. It will be a

great partner in British Columbia, and it will open up the north. It will

revitalize northern communities, and it will ensure that shippers get their

goods to market more effectively and more efficiently. I'm proud to stand behind

that partnership.

CALL FOR PUBLIC INQUIRY INTO

CASE OF FRANK PAUL

J. Kwan:

The Solicitor General has rejected requests from the independent police

complaint commissioner and others to hold a public inquiry into the death of

Frank Paul. Why? Because he was worried it might bring up charges of racial

discrimination. As the Solicitor General knows, Vancouver's police chief now

admits that the Vancouver police department did not take the necessary steps to

safeguard the life of Frank Paul.

Given this

new information, will the Solicitor General stop stonewalling this case and

finally act to call a full public inquiry so that something can be learned from

this tragic death of Mr. Paul?

Hon. R.

Coleman: What the chief of Vancouver wrote to Vancouver city council is not

new information. There was discipline dealt with at the time of this incident.

There was a coroner's inquiry at the time of the incident. There were

recommendations that have been implemented as a result of that. We have had this

aired in a number of venues.

I have met

with the First Nations Summit with regards to it and to how we can find a

process going forward where we can find a way to deal with this type of

situation in the future, relative to the duty of care, with the Ministry of

Health Services, the police, ourselves and the first nations. We've agreed to do

that.

SITE FOR OLYMPIC SPEED-SKATING OVAL

H. Bloy:

My question is to the Minister of Small Business and Economic Development. Due

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

[ Page 10865 ]

Whistler 2010 Olympic committee is considering moving the speed skating oval

to a venue other than Simon Fraser University.

[1430]

Simon

Fraser University officials recognize the tremendous long-term benefits that are

available as a result of this being home to the Olympic site. It's an Olympic

site, but the real legacy is the research and classroom space that will be

developed. The real legacy is the sports centre for excellence that will be

developed. Also, Simon Fraser University has committed to raising the necessary

funds to cover any unanticipated costs. The SFU dollar commitment will come from

new sources.

question, Mr. Minister: can you assure my constituents and the residents of the

northeast sector that SFU is still considered as a venue for the Olympic

speed-skating oval and accompanying centre for sports excellence?

Hon. J.

Les: I thank the member for the question. First of all, I want to underline

again the excitement that is shared by all British Columbians that in 2010, we

will have the opportunity to host the Olympic Games here in British Columbia.

At a

business summit we hosted just the day before yesterday with 750 business and

community leaders from around the province, the excitement in the room was

almost palpable. Dick Ebersol from NBC predicted we would host the most

successful Olympic Games ever in the history of the sport.

With

respect to the member's specific question, I think he knows that exactly where

the facilities are to go is not government's call to make. But I am encouraged

that SFU has clearly signalled that it is open to a creative dialogue in terms

of bringing that facility to the SFU campus. I am sure they will be engaged with

VANOC as it carries on that due diligence. I am encouraged that VANOC is doing

the due diligence to ensure that at the end of the day, the taxpayers of British

Columbia receive value for their hard-earned taxpayer dollars.

[End

of question period.]

Mayencourt: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave

granted.

Introductions by Members

Mayencourt: During question period we were joined by two very good friends

of mine, Lt.-Col. Don Copple from the Salvation Army and Capt. John Murray, also

from the Salvation Army. I hope the House will join me in welcoming them here.

Petitions

McMahon: I rise in the House today to present a petition signed by 899 of my

constituents from Golden and area requesting that Casey Phillips receive care in

his home community.

MacKay: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave

granted.

Introductions by Members

MacKay: Joining us late in the gallery today are 23 adult students and one

child student from the Ted Williams Memorial Learning Centre at Burns Lake,

along with two chaperons, Tianne Paulsen and Louise Lacerte. I would ask the

House to make them welcome.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: I call Committee of the Whole House for consideration of Bill 26.

[1435]

Committee of the Whole House

COLLEGE AND INSTITUTE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2004

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 26; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The

committee met at 2:36 p.m.

On

section

Mayencourt: I'm not sure how relevant this is to this section, but perhaps

the minister can let the House know why these changes are being made and what

the intended effects of these legislative amendments are.

Hon. S.

Bond: Well, first of all, one of the things that we certainly believe in and

think is important as a government as a whole is looking at the issue of

streamlining and trying to make sure that our legislation is both efficient and

effective. One of the jobs that we did in our ministry, as other ministries did,

is look through our legislation and try to determine if there were places where

there was overlap. Were there areas we could look at combining? In effect, what

you're finding today is the fact that we're taking two acts and going to create

a new one under Bill 26.

The

Institute of Technology Act actually gives BCIT statutory authority to operate

as an institution. It had its own separate act. In fact, we found that the

College and Institute Act also provided many of the same provisions for

colleges, universities and institutes. So in essence, we had two acts for a

group of institutions, and we just felt that from our perspective, we needed to

try to begin to eliminate overlap. There were also ambiguities in language

between the two acts.

In fact,

what we're doing is that we're going to repeal the Institute of Technology Act,

and we want to put BCIT under the College and Institute Act so that

[ Page 10866 ]

we can eliminate duplication and streamline the legislation. From our

perspective, it was one of the commitments we also made as a government — to

look at integrating our mandates and to clarify those roles across the system.

So we're taking two acts, we're putting them together, and we're sorting out

some of the challenges that we found and some of the duplication and overlap in

terms of mandate.

Mayencourt: How does BCIT feel about this? I mean, before they had their own

act, and now they're coming under this one. Have you had conversations with

them? What are their feelings about this change?

Hon. S.

Bond: That's a great question, because you're right. Often people do want

their own act, and they think that's an important thing. We've had a number of

discussions with the B.C. Institute of Technology. In addition to the

streamlining and the important reduction of overlap of regulations, the other

thing that we're able to do here, in legislation, is bring a formalization to

something that BCIT has been doing for a long time — that is, to give it

recognition as a polytechnic in British Columbia.

They are

actually, I think, pleased. We've worked closely with them. We wanted to make

sure that the legislation didn't impede any of the work they're currently doing

but also allowed BCIT to be recognized for some very substantial work they're

doing and give them the recognition as a polytechnic in British Columbia.

[1440]

Mayencourt: Can you expand on what the benefit is of the word

"polytechnic" to BCIT?

Hon. S.

Bond: What this legislation will do is formalize recognition of BCIT, as I

mentioned earlier, as a polytechnic institution. I'm actually going to give you

the dictionary definition of polytechnic, so people understand what it is. It's

harder to pronounce than it is to understand what it does. The dictionary says

that it's "an institution of higher education offering courses in many,

especially vocational, subjects at degree level or below" — in essence,

very much a focus on vocational course offerings.

Having said

that, there are a number of polytechnics across the country. In fact, there's an

association of schools that are called polytechnics. Really, it's an excellent

marketing tool for BCIT, and from our perspective it is a definition that does

reflect the work they have done. There are also, obviously, numerous

institutions around the world that are quite renowned and using that as part of

their name. We feel it's appropriate for BCIT to be recognized in this way.

Really, it

gives us an opportunity, with the combining of the two acts, to do two things,

as I mentioned: to reduce the overlap and the duplication and also to recognize

and formalize, in essence, what BCIT has come to be known for and what it does

so well in British Columbia.

Mayencourt: Thank you for that description. That helps a bit, and I

appreciate that.

Does this

change to polytechnic offer BCIT any additional degree-granting status?

Hon. S.

Bond: In fact, there's just more good news for BCIT, although not directly

related to the title of polytechnic. With the piece of legislation that we

passed called the Degree Authorization Act, one of the things that it did was

allow BCIT and Emily Carr to actually offer applied master's degrees, and that

has not happened before. To date, BCIT is, as far as we know, the only

polytechnic in Canada that will be able to offer applied master's degrees. In

Europe and other parts of the world, they have already been able to do that, but

in Canada it's the first time. That came as a result of the Degree Authorization

Act and not as a result of this designation.

[1445]

In fact,

the Degree Authorization Act expanded their mandate in that way. The legislation

today does not do that. What it does is formally recognize a name that actually

has been associated with BCIT, one they've wanted to be called for quite some

time. That's been done in an informal way. In this combining of legislation,

we're actually able to formalize that designation.

Section

1 approved.

On

section

Mayencourt: That question on the degree-granting status, I see, most

probably belongs under

section 2. I notice here that they also have the ability

to…. I'm not angling for one, but I understand they have honorary

degree–granting status as well. Is that something new?

Hon. S.

Bond: The majority of institutions — let's put it that way, because we're

not certain about one or two — actually have the authority to grant honorary

degrees, the member will be delighted to know — as will my colleagues behind

me, who are all angling for one. For some reason they all want to be called

"Dr." something.

In fact,

the majority of institutions are able — they have the authority — to offer

honorary degrees, and whether or not all of them do, we don't know at this point

in time. Certainly, BCIT has the authority to be able to grant honorary degrees.

Mayencourt: My colleagues over here have told me to be not quite so shy. I

guess the good news is that I have five institutes of higher learning in my

riding, so maybe things will work out.

An Hon.

Member: What were your marks?

Mayencourt: None that I can remember, actually.

That sort

of concludes my questions on

section 2.

[ Page 10867 ]

Sections

2 and 3 approved.

section 4.

Mayencourt: This

section seems to deal with the powers of the board of

governors. Can the minister please give this House a

summary of those and, if

there are changes, what those changes are intended to accomplish?

[1450]

Hon. S.

Bond: In fact, what we're doing here is making sure there is consistency in

board authority across institutions. What we wanted to make sure of is that the

governance powers of all boards in the non-university sector are uniform, so we

wanted to be very clear about which matters must be governed through bylaws. We

wanted, most importantly — something that we believe very strongly in — to

give institutions autonomy and flexibility to manage their institutions. We

believe that we wanted to bring consistency to that across the system.

In terms of

benefits, we think that what this actually does is allow us to reflect much

better the current roles and responsibilities that boards already have. Let me

give you an example. Under the College and Institute Act, board meetings must be

held at intervals of not more than three months apart. This legislation allows

that boards will still be required to meet four times a year, but they can

actually have some flexibility in scheduling their meetings. For example, a gap

of three months and two days doesn't mean you've suddenly violated the act. Of

course, there are obviously additional meetings when things are necessary.

In fact,

we're simply saying that we want to level the playing field in terms of the

powers of boards, and we want to give them more flexibility. When you look at

something as simple as scheduling meetings, there were prescribed amounts of

time within which a board would have to meet. We're simply bringing the powers

of the boards in line across the non-university sector.

Mayencourt: Also on

section 4, referring to

section 19 as amended,

subsection (a)(1)(b): "Manage, administer and control the property,

revenue, expenditures, business and affairs of the institution." It seems

to me that in other discussions we've had around colleges and institutions,

there have been some pretty clear guidelines as to budgeting and such that are

done in consultation with the minister. We're not conceding any of that through

this, are we?

Hon. S.

Bond: No, and that's a great question, because we are not interested in sort

of claiming back those kinds of roles for the ministry. You're absolutely

correct. We deal with institutions in a block funding mechanism because we want

to give them as much flexibility and autonomy in making those decisions. Really,

the purpose of this particular

section is to make sure that boards are the ones

who have the power and authority to be able to delegate things where they think

that's appropriate. We get quite specific about that in part of the bill.

In essence,

what we're saying is that we want boards to concentrate on governance. We

believe in that principle. We want to encourage autonomy and flexibility. In

answer to the member's question, the ministry isn't interested in taking back

those principles at all. We're simply saying the board should be put in the

position of being able to delegate those things that it feels it can delegate to

other people, such as the president or other staff members. So not at all. The

ministry wants to encourage autonomy and flexibility, of course, built in a

framework of accountability.

[1455]

Mayencourt: Just a little further down there in…. I'm sorry. I'm having a

little trouble. We're still within

section 4, but I'm looking at (6):

"Information requested under subsection (5) (

a) may include personal

information about a student." In subsection (7) personal information

obtained under this may not be used to make a decision respecting an individual

student. I'm just confused about what the meaning is there. Can you give me an

example of why that kind of wording is in there?

Hon. S.

Bond: In fact, this is a status quo item in legislation. We're not changing

anything here. In order to clarify, this is actually about the protection of

privacy for students. We collect information and issue them a personal education

number. This is very much about protecting the privacy of student information.

It is not new to the act; it is a status quo practice.

Mayencourt: Okay. Thank you. Going down just a little bit further on that

page…. Sorry. I guess what I'm after right now is actually

section

Section

4 approved.

On

section

Mayencourt:

Section 5 seems to deal with the powers of the institutional

president. The minister just mentioned that. Can the minister give the House a

summary of what these changes are and what they're intended to accomplish?

Hon. S.

Bond: This was one of the sections where we discovered ambiguity. Again, it

comes back to the ability of the board to be able to delegate its authority. The

act was not clear, and there was ambiguity in the language about what boards

could delegate and what they had to do themselves.

I'll try to

just summarize what we've done now. College and institute boards will now have

uniform power to delegate certain authority to their presidents. Typically, they

would be able to say: "We would like the president to be able to do these

things." When authorized by their boards…. That's an important thing to

note. When a president is given authority by the board or it's delegated to

them, they will actually now be able to ap-

[ Page 10868 ]

point, promote and remove staff directly — that's, of course, within the

context of collective agreements; we want to make sure we say that clearly —

rather than merely recommend them. Legislatively, they would be able to

recommend appointments, promotions and removals to the board. That's implied by

our current legislation. What the proposed changes allow us to do and allow

boards to do is to actually say the president can hire, promote and remove

someone from their position.

[1500]

I think the

added benefit that the changes to legislation bring is the fact that the board

can then also serve as an appeal board. They obviously couldn't do that if they

were in the position of making those decisions themselves.

What this

does is clear up language that was confusing and, in some cases, contradictory

to practice, to be candid. This actually brings the legislation in line to what

is often current practice. The board would choose to give the authority to their

president to make those specific decisions.

Section

5 approved.

On

section

Mayencourt:

Section 6 says that

section 39 is repealed. Under the old act,

that dealt with the issue of the requirement of the board to appoint a bursar. I

noted a little earlier that the board can in fact establish and administer trust

funds for scholarships and bursaries and so on. Can you tell me the reason for

that and the effect that is intended?

Hon. S.

Bond: Again, this is one of those cases where across a variety of

legislation and across the sector, we had cases where you shall have one or you

may have a bursar. If we look across the sector, most institutions have either a

bursar or someone who works in that financial capacity, such as the chief

financial officer. So we're simply creating consistency across the sector,

including the university sector, that institutions may have a bursar, but we're

certainly not requiring them to have one.

Section 6

approved.

On

section

Mayencourt:

Section 7 refers back to

section 40, which is amended "by

adding the following subsection: (5) Subsections (2), (3) and (4) do not apply

to BCIT."

What are

those subsections, and why are they being excluded in this particular bill?

[1505]

Hon. S.

Bond: The sections that are referred to are actually related to the public

service, in effect. There are a number of them, as was noted by the member. The

easiest way to explain this is to look at what we're attempting to do here.

There are currently personnel relationships in place at BCIT and in the college

and institute sector. What we wanted to do was keep the status quo in effect.

It's working very well in both parts of the system. This is one of the places

where we're actually taking the status quo from the BCIT act — I just want to

make sure that's correct — and amalgamating it and making sure that the

college and institutes are not affected by this in any way either.

In

summary,

there are no changes to labour relations in any of the non–university sector

institutions. We thought that was important, so existing personnel relations

provisions in the College and Institute Act will continue to be applied to

public colleges, university colleges and other institutes, while the personnel

provisions for BCIT under the Institute of Technology Act will simply be added

to the College and Institute Act but will only apply to BCIT. The best way to

describe this is that it's status quo in those institutions, and we're simply

bringing both of those pieces together in this one bill.

Mayencourt: So that would sort of cover off

section 9 as well, then.

Sections 7

to 33 inclusive approved.

Title

approved.

Hon. S.

Bond: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without

amendment.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 3:08 p.m.

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 26,

College and Institute Amendment Act, 2004, reported complete without amendment,

read a third time and passed.

Hon. G.

Bruce: I call committee stage on Bill 27.

[1510]

Committee of the Whole House

AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2004

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 27; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The

committee met at 3:11 p.m.

On

section

Halsey-Brandt: I have a number of questions for the minister, and I've got a

few under

section 1, under

[ Page 10869 ]

the

definitions. Because it is an amendment act, please bear with me. Not

having the other act to go back and forth to, we may jerk around a wee bit as we

go ahead and deal with the different sections. As I say, because it is an

amendment act, some of the statements in the legislation are a little confusing

unless you take the other act into consideration.

My first

question under the

definitions, to sort of set the scene in terms of the

agricultural land reserve: does that affect first nations reserves at the

present time? Does it have effect on those reserves?

Hon. G.

Abbott: The short answer is no. Because they are federal lands, the

designation would not apply.

Halsey-Brandt: They would apply at the present time to proposed treaty

settlement lands. Under the definition, when a treaty is then ratified, my

understanding is that a reserve turns into treaty settlement lands along with

additional treaty settlement lands to become a larger piece of treaty settlement

lands. Will the ALR then apply to the entire treaty settlement lands?

Hon. G.

Abbott: The short answer is no. The reserves would become treaty settlement

lands, but again, the act would not have application to those lands.

Halsey-Brandt: If under the legislation, there was an application, let's

say, to exclude some land under the proposed treaty settlement lands, there

would not then be an ability to compensate, for example, some exclusion under

the proposed treaty settlement lands by an inclusion under the existing reserve

lands.

Hon. G.

Abbott: While it's difficult to contemplate every potential eventuality, the

first nation would — at least conceptually or in principle — have the

opportunity to do that, if they wished to put a proposal forward. The

legislation certainly doesn't inhibit them from doing that.

Halsey-Brandt: On the definition of first nation government. Later on, that

definition plays out in different sections of the act, and I assume that it

contemplates two governments. One is the existing government that's authorized

as part of the treaty negotiation process to negotiate on behalf of the band.

[1515]

Once a

treaty is negotiated, as I understand it, there would be a new election — or

whatever type of format is used — to create a new first nations government,

which will then have to take whatever exclusion or whatever was done with the

ALR to the members of that first nation group for ratification. We're sort of

dealing with two governments at two different stages. Is that correct?

Hon. G.

Abbott: The member's suggestion is correct. A band council would bring a

proposal to the Agricultural Land Commission, or they would make the

application. They would make that application prior to a final treaty

ratification. In short, they can bring it during the AIP, or

agreement-in-principle, stage to the commission.

What then

occurs, we hope, of course, is that the AIP becomes a treaty. The treaty will

have within it transitional provisions for new governance, which may or may not

look like the old council or may look like something different, depending on

what's negotiated within the bounds of the treaty. That new government would

have the responsibility of taking any tentative approval by the commission for

the proposal to their band, and they would have to ratify it through band

processes.

Halsey-Brandt: The definition of owner. I think it becomes a little more

complicated when we're dealing with this legislation. I guess my first question

is: if it's Crown land, can the Crown apply to the Land Commission at the AIP

stage?

Hon. G.

Abbott: The answer to the question is that this bill does not embrace the

opportunity for the Crown to go directly to the commission. An application by

the Crown, regardless of the purpose of it, would mean that they would have to

go through the existing processes — i.e., first, a reference to the local

government in the area before going on to the commission.

Halsey-Brandt: I just wondered if you could clarify that. The Crown could

apply — I'm not quite sure who that would be — to the local government that

now has jurisdiction over the proposed treaty settlement land, and then the

local government would send the application through to the Land Commission. Is

that…?

[1520]

Hon. G.

Abbott: The Crown would have to take the application through the local

government. For example, I understand that in fact there was an application of

this nature recently in Prince George. The Crown makes application to the

regional district or the local government. Local government debates it and

brings their recommendation to the commission.

Halsey-Brandt: I guess I'm perhaps a little concerned. My question revolves

around the commission members of the agricultural land reserve. I'll split the

difference now between the AIP stage and the final stage. Let's say you've been

negotiating seven or eight years with a particular band. Now they're at the AIP

stage, and they apply for exclusion of some property. Do you not think that

would place tremendous pressure on the land commissioners who have got to make a

decision?

Let's say

they refuse the exclusion. They may send the whole treaty negotiation process

back to square one, and they could lose years and years of negotiations. Yet

their responsibility is the preservation of quality agricultural land, which

really has perhaps nothing to do with fish and money and land and all the other

things on the negotiating table.

[ Page 10870 ]

Would you

not be concerned that you're putting some commissioners, which the government

appoints, in a position where they're trying to make a decision around

agricultural land, but it's in the context of a much broader and larger treaty

negotiation table?

If I could

just add to that. Would it not be better to do that when you have a treaty? Then

the local government can take that to the Land Commission, like any other local

government or individual could, at the conclusion.

Hon. G.

Abbott: I'll try to address the point as thoughtfully as I can. The purpose

of this legislation is to ensure that both parties to a treaty between a first

nation and the province have some certainty with respect to the lands which are

included within the treaty area — the treaty lands. The purpose of allowing a

first nation to go at the AIP stage is so that, again, they have some knowledge

of what's going to be available to them, should they move to embrace a final

treaty with the province and with the federal government. It is a matter of

clarifying and providing certainty to the parties to the agreement.

[1525]

Of course,

there is the additional safeguard that there is not final approval of that until

after the treaty is finalized, and there is additional ratification of the

proposal by the new first nations government. In terms of whether that provides

a more difficult decision format for the Land Commission panel than it would,

for example, when a local government — whether it is a municipality or

regional district — brings a broad-brush proposal to the panel, I suppose in

both cases those are difficult. Local governments represent a lot of people as

well, and they bring compelling reasons why, from their local government

perspective, a particular change ought to be made to the boundaries of the

agricultural land reserve.

We had in

estimates yesterday an interesting discussion of that particular issue. In

either case, whether it is a first nations government or a local government, the

commission is going to be responsible for trying to achieve a balanced response.

They'll look at a whole range of issues, including the quantity and quality of

land, the adjacent agricultural land uses and a host of other factors that

invariably come into play in these things.

I think the

methodology here is sound. I think that while the member is right, it's not easy

being in a decision-making role in any event. Certainly, these won't be easy

decisions for the commission, but I suspect the easy ones are few and far

between.

Halsey-Brandt: The minister may want to defer to the Attorney General and

Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiations. It does impact this point that

we're at in our discussion. As I understand it, in the negotiation process when

the Crown — either the federal government or the provincial government —

puts something on the table, whether it be a cash amount or some land or some

forest reserves or some fish, it is not acceptable, then, to take those items

off the table. That's my understanding of the process — somewhat limited. We

may get advice from another ministry.

Let's say

you're at this stage in agreement-in-principle, and the land is in the

agricultural land reserve. It's for farmland now, and everything's on the table

— which it is at the agreement-in-principle stage. The Land Commission

appreciates the position of the first nations and, let's say, excludes all or

some of the land and puts it into housing or industrial or commercial or

whatever, which gives it a very significant increase in value. What would that

do to the negotiation process? Do other things come off the table as a result of

that? Is that why we're trying to remove the uncertainty at this stage of the

game?

Hon. G.

Abbott: The member, in his question, anticipated at least a portion of my

answer. I'm not going to go too far into the parameters of the AIP and treaty

process, but I will say this, which I think really answers the member's

substantive question. That is that treaty-making is a dynamic process. The

elements involved in it do shift and change. They're not a constantly building

set of plateaus. It's a dynamic process, and things are put on the table on a

without-prejudice basis.

[1530]

I think,

again, this goes back to the answer to the earlier question from the member.

That is that the object of the exercise is to provide certainty. By achieving

that certainty at the AIP stage, the parties can then move with confidence

towards a final resolution of this without having one element of it unresolved.

Halsey-Brandt: When a local government applies or an individual applies,

it's in the context of an official community plan, an official regional plan or

settlement plan so that not only the regional district but the rest of the

community and the neighbouring municipalities understand in terms of how that

land use fits within their own community and within the neighbourhood. So not

only the Land Commission can make a judgment, but at the public hearing

individuals and adjoining municipalities can make a judgment.

I struggled

in here, and I couldn't find anything, certainly in the

definitions and earlier

sections, where it said that similar provisions were in place on reserves when a

first nation wished to apply at the agreement-in-principle stage or, in fact,

even at the final stage. Are you saying that they are obligated on reserve lands

and treaty settlement lands to lay out a community plan and show us and have

public hearings and meetings in terms of how that land use is affected?

Hon. G.

Abbott: The member's question, if I may summarize it, is that typically when

municipalities or regional districts bring forward proposals to the commission,

they are — again typically, but not always — in conformity with the official

community plan of those local governments. It is not our intention through this

bill…. Well, the treaty negotiations office has the general responsibility in

this area, but there is no sugges-

[ Page 10871 ]

tion of an imposition of an obligation by first nations to have an OCP-like

mechanism to deal with this. However, it is certainly clear that, again, all of

the issues that the commission would be looking at in terms of the potential

success of a first nations application would include, among other things, how

harmoniously that first nations proposal fit into the adjacent land uses, which

presumably would be fee simple lands on the edge of the proposed first nations

land.

So while

they may not have a formal obligation to produce a plan, in all probability the

first nation — in order to strengthen its proposal to the commission — will

likely take account of adjacent land uses and will likely set out in some form

their own ideas for land uses within those lands they are bringing forward to

the commission. The commission might well, as it reviewed the application, make

provision for buffering adjacent properties. They might make provision for

fencing and those sorts of things, which they would do as if it were a proposal

from a local government as well.

[1535]

Halsey-Brandt: My final comment and question really relate to a letter — I

should have given you a copy of this, but I just got it before we came in —

from the mayor of the city of Richmond, which my constituency is in. I'll just

read it briefly.

"Specifically,

Richmond is concerned that proposed Bill 27 will enable first nations who have

land in the ALR due to treaty agreements-in-principle and final treaties to

apply directly to the Agricultural Land Commission to exclude land from the

agricultural land reserve without having to first consult with adjacent

municipalities.

"Richmond

is concerned, as its livability, land use servicing, urban design,

sustainability and environmental objectives will be jeopardized. More

consultation between first nations and municipalities during ALR exclusions is

requested to ensure cooperative and coordinated social, economic and

environmental development."

think really what they're talking about is relating servicing, parks, social

services — all those sorts of things that neighbours are going to share. Their

concern, and my question, is: if you don't do that at the exclusion stage, when

do you do it? Once it's excluded, you're really behind the eight ball in terms

of trying to resolve those sorts of questions. I think they should be resolved

at the application-for-exclusion stage.

Hon. G.

Abbott: First of all, neither I nor my staff have received the

correspondence that the member read from. I think I caught the general gist of

it. We'll try to respond, but if the member could make a copy and send it over

to me at some point, that would be useful. Perhaps we can provide an even more

full response to the issues raised in the letter than I can at this point in

time.

There are a

number of things that I think need to be noted here. First of all, when a first

nation moves forward or is contemplating moving forward with an application to

the commission, among their obligations will be the obligation to post the

property, just as a private land owner would or just as, I suppose, a

municipality or local government would if they were planning to bring a formal

request to the commission as well.

As well as

the public notification, there will be an obligation for a public hearing, which

of course the public would have an opportunity to attend. The application….

Once it's gone forward to the commission, the commission would take account of

the submissions made at the public hearing, just as they would at any other

public hearing on issues like this. If, for example, the land in question is on

the edge of a municipality, the municipality in question would certainly have an

opportunity to raise any concerns they had through the referral process. That

will be a part of this as well.

[1540]

If they had

concerns around types of land uses, the need for buffering or any of those

things, they certainly could raise them through the referral process. Again,

those issues would form part of the volume of information and evidence which the

commission would consider in determining the success or failure of the first

nations application.

A final

point here, at least until we have a look at the letter and see if there are

additional issues from it which we ought to address. If a first nation wants to

undertake a development which requires servicing with water or sewer and they

hope to secure those services from the adjacent municipality, they would have to

negotiate with the municipality for those services, just as any other property

owner would have to negotiate with them or just as an adjacent local government

or an organized territory would have to negotiate with the local government for

those services. Ultimately, those are things that are consensual, and certainly

the provincial government can't oblige them, nor could the Agricultural Land

Commission.

Roddick: Obviously, there is much concern over this bill in my riding of

Delta South, which is home to 22,000 acres of top-grade agricultural land,

because a large portion of the land up for treaty negotiations has been

expropriated — therefore now Crown land — and is in the ALR.

Really,

could you try to explain to an average citizen like myself: under the definition

section, what does this act do that is different at all from the original act,

which deals with the municipality? Does it read — technically, word for word

— what direction it gives to the municipality, like the municipality of Delta?

When you add this amendment, does it just give the Tsawwassen first nation, for

example — which is now an AIP, so it can apply to the Land Commission —

absolutely exactly the same rules, regulations and procedures as the

municipality of Delta has to adhere to?

Hon. G.

Abbott: The answer to the question is yes. What this bill will do is put a

first nation in precisely the same position as a local government is in relation

to the commission, whether they be a municipality or a regional district.

[ Page 10872 ]

Roddick: Then one that I hope will clarify it for a lot of us…. Just two

other quick things. One thing I am a little confused on, and I'm hoping you can

clarify…. You say that the agreement-in-principle, therefore, the TFN….

[1545]

Roberts

Bank backup land is essentially Crown land. If the province wanted to develop

that Crown land, does it have to go to the municipality first? That land that's

up there…. I know that my colleague sort of asked the same question, but not

quite. Is the Delta municipality first, and not the TFN? This is confusing. The

way I read it, it sounds as though if it's Crown land, the province has to take

it to the municipality to ask for permission to develop it. If it's Crown land

and it's in the agreement-in-principle, they don't have to take it to the

municipality. Please clarify this.

Hon. G.

Abbott: These are important questions. I'll do my best to answer carefully,

because the answers might be as important as the questions.

The issue

canvassed briefly by the member for Richmond Centre was in terms of the process

the Crown would follow. If it was purely a Crown application for their own Crown

land, the normal process would engage in that case. The Crown or its agency —

in all probability, Land and Water B.C. — would go to the local government

through the normal application process. That application would be considered by

the municipality or local government. They would make their recommendation, and

it would go to the commission.

In the case

of Crown land which has become the subject of a treaty negotiation process and

which may form in some part a component of the agreement-in-principle, the Crown

is effectively delegating authority for that land to the first nation for the

purposes of an Agricultural Land Commission application. The first nation would

then, at that point, be able to take that piece of Crown land directly to the

commission, as is laid out in this bill.

Roddick: So just to walk that right back to the municipality, it is in the

province's ability to do exactly the same thing to a municipality — i.e., if

there was a piece of Crown land that was the province's domain, it could give it

over to the municipality to make its own decision on what it wanted to do.

Hon. G.

Abbott: Yes. On those occasions when the Crown exercised that remarkable

generosity that's occasionally contained in free Crown grants, the

responsibility for that would shift to the local government, and they might

bring application to the Land Commission for some use of the property other than

agricultural or for exclusion of the property.

[1550]

Roddick: Thank you for that clarification.

Treaty

settlement lands and proposed treaty settlement lands. There is a concern in my

riding as to when…. These lands right now have the ALR designation. Could you

clarify when the federal government, under the Treaty Commission Act…? Is that

federal, or is this our act? The concern is — and then maybe you can help me

here — that once these lands are released to the first nations, the federal

government could then say they will have nothing to do with the agricultural

land reserve. What we want to hear is: how strong is the agricultural land

reserve throughout the province in these negotiations? Does it stick to these

lands until they make the right application, just like any other municipality?

Hon. G.

Abbott: I will take a little bit of time here just to make sure we all have

a clear understanding. First of all, as we have discussed previously but I think

is worth noting again, there is no final change in terms of the designation of

the land until after the treaty is finalized and until after whatever the new

governance structure of the first nation is secures the support of that

government to the proposal. It doesn't immediately change.

Now, at

that AIP stage, presumably…. Obviously, they can take lands to the commission

after, if they wish to. That would be their choice. What's really at stake here

is around the pre-treaty area. When they take a piece of land to the commission,

they may, for example, apply for exclusion of that land from the agricultural

land reserve. Let's say, hypothetically, it's 100 hectares that they make an

exclusion application for. The commission has a number of alternatives that it

could look at in terms of what the outcome will be. They may say: "Fine, we

support your application for exclusion." The 100 hectares is removed from

the land reserve and is subject again to final ratification, and those final

processes that have to be undertaken by the first nations government will be

excluded. That's one potential.

However,

it's possible, again at the AIP stage, that the first nations government might

apply, rather than for exclusion, for some permitted use within the agricultural

land reserve. The commission might support that. Or it is possible, again on our

100 hectare parcel, that they might say: "We are prepared to exclude 50

acres for the following reasons. But for another set of reasons, we are

retaining 50 acres within the bounds of the agricultural land reserve." In

that case, again, that would remain, even post-treaty, as a part of the

agricultural land reserve. Hopefully, that clarifies the point and answers the

member's question.

[1555]

Roddick: Maybe I didn't make myself abundantly clear — federal. Does this

agricultural land thing…? Right now we as a province have an agricultural land

reserve in this province, but the federal government doesn't have to recognize

it. Is it going to recognize this once we have gone through the AIP into the

treaty? Or can it come in and say: "Nix it"?

A perfect

example of how it happens right now is on the Alaksen bird sanctuary at the end

of Westham

[ Page 10873 ]

Island. They don't have to apply to anybody to do anything with it. It is

federal government. Our land use issues do not apply.

Hon. G.

Abbott: I know there is a dictum somewhere about not answering hypothetical

questions because it gets you into all manner of difficulties that you shouldn't

plunge into, but I will try here anyway.

I think the

member outlined a hypothetical situation where the federal government — for

the purposes, presumably, of securing a treaty — purchased some quantum of

land. Again, let's say 100 hectares. What is clear to us is this. Post-treaty,

if those 100 hectares were outside the agricultural land reserve, they would

remain outside the agricultural land reserve. But again, post-treaty, if they

were in the agricultural land reserve, they would be in the agricultural land

reserve. In short, the lands post-treaty would become

section 92 lands and would

be subject to provincial law.

MacPhail: My questions are along the same topic — the application of this

law.

I was just

wondering. I have heard that the Union of B.C. Municipalities' executive is

scheduled to review this legislation with the government this coming Friday. Has

the minister or his staff or the Agricultural Land Commission met and

communicated with the Union of B.C. Municipalities on these matters? Of course,

this legislation, I assume, will be passed, and then they will get their

briefing. So that might be backwards.

Hon. G.

Abbott: There has been full discussion of this matter between the

Agricultural Land Commission and the executive director of UBCM. I'm trying to

recall whether in my quarterly meetings with them this has been an issue. I

don't believe it has, but I certainly look forward to meeting with UBCM.

MacPhail: Did those discussions raise any matters? Is the UBCM comfortable

with this legislation, the application of the legislation pursuant to the

discussions that occurred?

[1600]

Hon. G.

Abbott: We understand them to be comfortable. They had a good deal of

interest with respect to the posting and notification and public hearing

provisions that would be the subject of this bill. Again, I think they generally

find comfort in that the provisions or obligations which a first nation will

have with respect to Agricultural Land Commission application processes will

very much mimic those which local governments in British Columbia have to

observe as well.

MacPhail: Has the minister or the ALC staff or ministry staff met with the

lower mainland treaty advisory committee on this issue?

Hon. G.

Abbott: The answer is no. We have not met with LMTAC.

MacPhail: I want to quote what the Attorney General said directly on this

point yesterday in his estimates here in this Legislature. I'm not going to ask

the minister to comment on it, but I'll ask a follow-up question. Here's what

the Attorney General said yesterday:

"We

have dealt with agricultural land issues in some of the treaty negotiations,

including at least two of the negotiations that are now in the final agreement

stages. There are provisions in the Tsawwassen AIP and the Lheidli T'enneh AIP

that deal with the fact that lands that are of interest to the Lheidli T'enneh

and the Tsawwassen are within the agricultural land reserve, and the AIP

contains a process for ensuring that those issues can be resolved. In both cases

that resolution process will involve the Land Commission at some point making a

decision in response to the applications that are made to it. The decision will

be made by the Land Commission as an independent agency, having regard to their

statutory mandate and the principles and policies they have adopted for dealing

with these issues."

That's

the end of the quote. So as I read his comments, the Attorney General is saying

that both the AIPs, Tsawwassen and Lheidli T'enneh — and my apologies for the

pronunciation on the latter — have a process in them and that this bill would

simply allow the Agricultural Land Commission to make a determination. Yet the

inclusion of land or exclusion of land would not take place until after the

final treaty was signed. So why is this legislation necessary? I don't see why

this legislation is necessary.

Hon. G.

Abbott: I hope I can answer the member's question. In the case of the first

nations lands near Prince George, I think the pronunciation is klekletennie.

The reason

for this bill. It is a bill that is very much based on the principle that first

nations should have the same opportunities in law to advance proposals to the

Land Commission that a local government, be they a municipality or a regional

district, also now enjoys. We've talked a certain amount about that today. That

is the principle which grounds this bill.

[1605]

The current

legislation under which we work in the province in relation to the intersection

between first nations and the commission is that the first nation must secure

the authorization of a local government before taking that application to the

Agricultural Land Commission. That's the current….

What we are

saying as a matter of principle is that first nations should have the

opportunity to go directly, without securing the permission of a local

government in order to do that. Just as — again, to be hypothetical about this

— I'm sure the corporation of the city of Delta would not want to have to

secure the permission of the city of Richmond before going to the Agricultural

Land Commission, similarly, we believe that first nations governments ought to

be on the same legal basis as local governments.

W. Cobb:

We are, in fact, not actually defining government or what government would look

like. As I

[ Page 10874 ]

understand it, in a number of agreements-in-principle, the governance model

or the form of government has not been defined, and in some cases it's deferred

to a later negotiation or a treaty negotiation. What do we do in that case? If

there isn't an actual authority, then what do we do?

Hon. G.

Abbott: The precise nature of the governance model that is embraced by the

first nation through the final treaty is one of the important components of that

treaty. What is clear — and that's, I think, all we need to know for the

purposes of this bill — is that there would not be any final changes in

respect of Agricultural Land Commission lands until a final treaty. Of course, a

final treaty is not possible without a finalization of issues around a model of

governance.

W. Cobb:

A band, as it sits today, if they're not in the treaty negotiation, would not

have the authority to do this. Am I correct?

Hon. G.

Abbott: The first nations government would have to be at least at the AIP

stage in order to do this.

W. Cobb:

We're acknowledging first nations as an organization, if they're in the process,

or their local government. We're suggesting that they be qualified to be

appointed to the commission, and yet as I understand it, local government is not

appointed to the commission, the ALR.

Hon. G.

Abbott: In answer to the member's question, we have just added one

additional element to the list, which is knowledge of first nations.

W. Cobb:

Sorry, I don't understand that then. You add knowledge of first nations

government as a qualification for appointment to the commission. Are we talking

about the Agricultural Land Commission, then? I guess that's my question. Local

government, whether it be the regional district or the municipality, is not

appointed to the ALR, so why would this other form of government be allowed to

sit on the commission?

Hon. G.

Abbott: I'm sorry about the confusion, but we're still on the

definitions

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

section 5?

W. Cobb:

Actually, it's

section 2.

The

Chair: We're still dealing with

section 1.

MacKay: I have a couple of questions having to do with the proposed treaty

settlement lands. I'm really confused about a part of this. It says:

"…land described in an agreement in principle as the land that will

become, in whole or in part…."

Is this the

land mass we're talking about that they can apply to have excluded from the

agricultural land reserve — the part that may become treaty settlement land

after the treaty is signed off?

Hon. G.

Abbott: Yes.

[1610]

MacKay: I understand what you've said, but I'm confused and a little bit

concerned about a couple of treaties. The Nisga'a treaty is a good example where

we see powers afforded the Nisga'a government, powers that usurp the provincial

and the federal power-making authority. They can actually create laws that

override provincial and federal legislation. I'm concerned.

When you

look at the definition of treaty settlement lands, it says: "…land, other

than land located within a reserve as defined in the Indian Act…that is

subject to the legislative authority of a first nation…." If in fact a

treaty is now signed off getting the native band a treaty and a piece of land

that has been excluded from the agricultural land reserve, subject to the

Agricultural Land Commission approving that, what happens if the treaty

authorizes or gives authority to the band that usurps the provincial authority?

Are they required to still go back to the Agricultural Land Commission to make

application to remove the land if we've given them the authority to legislate

— make laws for the governance of the use of land within that treaty?

Hon. G.

Abbott: Again, there is nothing different here than it would be in the case

of an individual or a municipality. If the application at AIP stage had been for

exclusion and if the commission had accepted or approved that application

post-treaty, the land would be excluded, as it would be for you or for Smithers

or for whoever. It would be excluded from the land reserve, and obviously the

range of uses that might be contemplated on that land is going to be greater

than it was within the agricultural land reserve.

However,

here's the important point. Again, as I noted in an earlier question, the

commission might say: "Well, we know the application is for exclusion, but

we are only going to provide for that on 50 of the 100 hectares that are under

application here. Fifty will remain within the bounds of the agricultural land

reserve." Or they may say: "No, we won't accept the exclusion

application, but we will provide for some conditional use within the ALR of that

land or any other combination of things. It would be the commission that will

determine the success or failure or the outcome of the application.

Again,

there was no ALR land in the Nisga'a treaty sense, but there is nothing here —

or nothing that I'm aware of, and I'd defer to the experts from the TNO here —

that suggests that there is any less diminution of ALR oversight or

responsibility for agricultural land reserve lands within that treaty lands

area.

MacKay: If the land that has been excluded from the ALR subject to the

signing-off of the final treaty…. I suspect those lands are now going to be

set aside, be-

[ Page 10875 ]

cause they form part of the treaty. It's the extra land that has been given

to the native band as part of the final treaty package. Are you saying that they

will not have the authority to override provincial jurisdiction on the removal

of that land from the agricultural land reserve?

[1615]

Hon. G.

Abbott: That is precisely what I'm saying. The first nation laws would not

override provincial law, including the Agricultural Land Commission laws. They

would have to make application, just like any other local government, for

something other than existed.

Lekstrom: In dealing with this bill — it's quite in depth, and when you

look at it, it has significant impact…. A simple question: could land be

excluded by a first nation prior to the signing of a final agreement?

Hon. G.

Abbott: No, and they would need to enact a law after that in order to

achieve it.

Lekstrom: I guess that leads to my next question. Why the need to allow for

an application for exclusion at the AIP process, then? I'm missing something

there. If you can apply — and, as I read, agreement-in-principle means a

non-binding agreement negotiated among a first nation government — then why

the need to apply or give permission to apply at AIP?

Hon. G.

Abbott: It is to provide the first nation and all band members within their

jurisdiction with certainty with respect to what the package is that they are

considering as part of the treaty-making process.

Lekstrom: Thank you. That does bring up the idea that it can significantly

change the potential financial impact of a treaty — I mean, land that's in the

ALR versus land that's out of the ALR. What I understand is that we reach an

agreement-in-principle based on a number of things. We then allow for the first

nation to apply for exclusion to the commission, and that land can or cannot be

decided by the commission at that point.

I'll use an

example. An application goes through as an AIP has been reached. The commission

makes a decision that yes, we're going to exclude it. What happens if that AIP

falls apart? Where's that land? Is it then not excluded? Or — the next

applicant — should that land not be first nations and that AIP falls apart,

it's obviously automatic that that land would come out, because we've approved

it once.

Hon. G.

Abbott: Nothing changes until after treaty. Presumably the block of land

becomes the object of an application to the Agricultural Land Commission. They

give their approval for the application. Subsequently, the

agreement-in-principle does not move forward to final treaty ratification. In

that case, the original ALC designation remains on the land.

The other

point references back to the question by the member for Bulkley

Valley–Stikine. Again, I want to emphasize this point just to make sure

everyone understands this. Within a local government jurisdiction, if there is a

piece of Crown land — as there often is — and the local government believes

it would like to have that Crown land within the local government domain, they

make, first of all, an application for a free Crown grant to the province. Let's

say they get it — hypothetically. They take an exclusion application to the

commission. The commission approves it.

At that

point the local government, as per their control of zoning, is going to

determine what the land use designation is going to be on that land unless, of

course, it's already been determined as part of a negotiation process around the

free Crown grant. Again, what I'm trying to say here is that this model is very

much built around fairness, and I think it stands the test well.

[1620]

Lekstrom: Yes, maybe just for clarification…. I guess my concern still

lies with a couple of things. Under 1(b), agreement-in-principle means a

non-binding agreement, although we're giving AIP the ability as owner of the

land when you read this piece of legislation…. We're giving them those powers

under the application process. Those two don't seem to meld, in my mind.

I want to

go back. Definitely, we touched on this earlier. You mentioned that it could

allow the first nation to know what they're negotiating with. You reach an AIP

before you can actually apply, so the only thing that can change in favour would

be the value to the first nation, should the commission make a decision to

exclude this land. It's my understanding that negotiations could be affected in

that once an AIP is reached, an application to the commission is put forward.

It's excluded. The value goes up significantly. The Crown can come back. You're

seeing where I'm heading with this question…? Okay.

Hon. G.

Abbott: I think if we work on it long enough, you'll come to completely

agree with me on this point.

The

exclusion does not occur until after the final treaty. There is no exclusion at

AIP stage. That provisional approval does not become an exclusion until after

the treaty is ratified and until after the new first nations government goes

through whatever ratification processes are necessary in their government.

There's no exclusion until then.

If we take

that hypothetical 100 hectares that we've been using here and it doesn't get

excluded, it legally remains with whatever portion of the Agricultural Land

Commission purview over it was there before AIP ever began.

I wasn't

clear on the first part of the member's question. I wonder if he might reframe

it, and we'll try to address that one as well.

Lekstrom: I understand what you're saying. It doesn't come out until final

agreement. Then for the life

[ Page 10876 ]

of me — either I'm thick, and like you say, we may take some time and we

may come to the same agreement here…. Why would we give the ability to apply

at AIP if nothing is final until final agreement? Why wouldn't we say that once

we reach final agreement, apply for exclusion?

Hon. G.

Abbott: The short answer is because it can become a very important component

as the first nation looks at the land quantum associated with a potential

treaty. That can be a very important issue for them. Obviously, there are other

dimensions of the AIP as well. They may involve money or resources or any number

of other things. The land quantum is going to be very much a product of those

discussions and other related discussions. This step will give them a good deal

more certainty and, hopefully, produce the positive outcome that our government

looks forward to.

Lekstrom: I guess I'm just going to continue on this track, and hopefully we

will reach agreement at one point.

I still,

for the life of me, cannot figure why…. We're negotiating and we're reaching

an agreement-in-principle. The land is there; the product is there in the

negotiation, and so on. We could significantly alter the value of the property

we're talking about through exclusion.

Does that

mean, then, we can go back to the table and say, "My goodness. That piece

came out. Instead of being worth X, it's now worth 5X," and use that as a

bargaining issue to draw something off the table?

[1625]

Hon. G.

Abbott: As I understand the member's question, his concern revolves around

what implications this process might have on the market value of a given piece

of land. Again, it's important to recall the principle that the government is

not going to expropriate any fee simple lands in order to make a treaty work.

In all

likelihood, the land that might be subject to the consideration we've been

talking about is going to be acquired by the Crown for these purposes, or it may

be a fee simple holding that the owner in question agrees to delegate to the

first nation for its consideration. I presume those would be the two most likely

scenarios. In either case, the market value of that land I don't think is going

to be markedly changed — certainly not until after post-treaty, because there

is no change in respect of the application of the Agricultural Land Commission

on that land until at least after the final ratification.

I've gone

through a number of hypothetical scenarios where it could be exclusion, but it

might be partially exclusion, or it might be conditional use, or it might all be

retained by decision within the land reserve but contemplating some additional

purposes for the land. There's a range. In any eventuality, nothing changes

until the treaty is ratified, and then at that point it becomes part of the

treaty lands package.

I think

everybody is going into these negotiations with their eyes open. They're

thinking about the quantum of land and the value of land. They're thinking about

the quantum of resources and the value of those resources. They are thinking

about the quantum of money, in all likelihood, in some instances — perhaps

every instance. I'm getting into the Attorney General's field here.

If the

member's point is around market value, hopefully my answer addresses that.

MacPhail: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave

granted.

Introductions by Members

MacPhail: In the gallery with us right now watching this debate, which I

think is a very good debate amongst all of us, is Van Tech Secondary School —

13 grade 11 students. They're accompanied by their student teacher, Ms. Lindsay

May, and their sponsor teacher, Ms. Shelfontiuk. Would the House please make them

welcome.

Debate Continued

Lekstrom: I want to thank the minister for his answers. We're still trying

to get to the end resolve here, with an understanding. The financial is just

part of my questioning.

I'm still,

on the issue, understanding very clearly that the land…. A decision could be

made by the commission. A first nation who has reached an AIP can act as owner

and apply to have that land excluded. The commission can say, "Yes, it's

excluded," and nothing happens to that land unless a final agreement is

reached. If I'm understanding this correctly, if the AIP falls apart, nothing

happens. That land then is not excluded anymore, although the commission has

already said it is.

Hon. G.

Abbott: No, we never said that.

The

Chair: Through the Chair, please, minister.

Lekstrom: Pardon me. Then I guess the question would be…. I do have a

slight misunderstanding. AIP is reached. First nations apply to have an

exclusion. The commission gets that application, and they make a decision on

that application. That's my understanding. I'm going to say, hypothetically,

that they make a decision to exclude it. What happens at that point?

Hon. G.

Abbott: Hon. Chair, thank you for reminding me not to attempt to answer the

question so quickly across the floor of the House, because that would be out of

sequence with the debating that has been going on here.

The

approval by the commission at the agreement-in-principle stage is a conditional

approval. The condi-

[ Page 10877 ]

tions, as we've been talking about, are at least final ratification and

proper adoption by the new aboriginal government, in that case.

[1630]

Again, it's

a conditional approval at AIP — conditional upon things — and if the

conditions are not met, then the approval is no longer there. There is no

exclusion unless the conditions are followed.

Lekstrom: You tweaked my interest, minister, when you talked about

conditional approval. I want to use an example again: a piece of property held

by a city. It's in the reserve. They have an interested party that wants to

purchase it but won't purchase it unless it's out of the ALR. Can they apply,

get conditional release of that from the ALR, finalize the sale, and then it

comes out?

[H.

Long in the chair.]

Hon. G.

Abbott: The member should take note of my answer here because I may have

misunderstood his question. We want to be sure that we understood the question

and, hopefully, that the answer is understood.

I spent a

long time in local government before coming here, so I think I have a pretty

good sense of the issues. Again, let's take an example of where a municipality

might want to go to the commission and get a piece of land excluded from the

Agricultural Land Commission. I think that's central to the member's question.

For the sake of argument, let's take, for example, a piece of land, and it's in

the agricultural land reserve. Let's say it's 100 hectares, and the municipality

has come into possession of that 100 hectares. Perhaps it was fee simple land.

Perhaps it was Crown land that was vacant, and they acquired it through some

means or another.

The

municipality, being the landowner, goes directly to the commission, presumably

after they've resolved as a council that that's what they want to do. Of course

they'll want to do that. They resolve as a council that they are going to

attempt to secure an exclusion for this property from the Agricultural Land

Commission because they want to create an industrial park there. So they go to

the commission directly with their application. As is contemplated in this and

in current provisions around this, the municipality might have a public hearing

and notification and posting and all of that stuff. They go to the commission.

They advance their arguments and their evidence for exclusion. The commission

says: "Yeah, we're persuaded — application approved." There is no

conditional step in that. They will approve it, or they will reject it.

There is

nothing that is tantamount to the movement from an AIP to a final treaty in

local government. Local government effectively makes that decision when council

determines as a group that they think that the application is appropriate. There

isn't a second stage. The only change that a local government might contemplate

is if some of the members of council got some pressure from the public and

decided that it was the wrong thing to do. They could raise it at council again,

but there's nothing like the AIP-to-treaty change.

[1635]

Lekstrom: Again, I thank you for your answers, minister. I guess the

struggle I have with the entire process is the issue of AIP-given status as

owner-of-the-land ability to apply. That is a challenge for me. I know you have

tried long and hard to put those answers forward to me. I can't understand

why…. I mean, in looking at this, really we're not talking private land; we're

talking Crown, traditionally. Going back to your answers earlier, this could

change part of what the treaty is — what the value is, for instance. I can't

understand why the Crown wouldn't have it excluded and then use it as part of

the treaty process to reach that final agreement.

My issue is

one where I don't think it's needed to authorize, once an AIP is reached, to

give them the status of owner of that property — to apply and be given status

for a conditional approval. I am much more comfortable that upon final agreement

of a treaty…. That's the process I would be much more comfortable with.

I thank the

minister for his answers and his indulgence in my questions.

Hon. G.

Abbott: Again, the member is certainly knowledgable on the issues here now.

But just again so we're clear, the Crown, should it choose, can acquire a piece

of fee simple land, or they can take a piece of their own Crown land. Because

the Crown needs to go through the local municipality, they could do that. They

could go to the local municipality or the local regional district and say:

"We're making an application as the Crown for exclusion of this to the Land

Commission." They could do that. The local government would make their

recommendation, and it would go on to the commission. The commission might say

yes or no. If the Crown chose to take that route in terms of finding appropriate

land for that land quantum within a treaty, that's perfectly within their ambit.

In fact,

this opens up more flexibility for the Crown in terms of how the land quantum

will be determined. It puts first nations governments on precisely — and I

think we've tested this very well in a long series of questions — the same

basis as local governments in terms of moving forward with these kinds of

applications. The issue of how the Crown does it, how the Crown lines up and

balances off that quantum — that's up to the Crown. The Crown determines that

through the treaty negotiations office as they move forward. I hope that

answered that final point the member had.

Lekstrom: It did answer it. Apparently, we will see the issue somewhat

differently. Again, I'll just close by thanking the minister for his answers. We

will, I guess, see this one issue — we're dealing with

section 1 right now —

somewhat differently, but again I thank you.

MacKay: Just looking at the existing Agricultural Land Commission Act's

section 17, when I read

[ Page 10878 ]

the inclusion applications, it says: "…on an application by a local

government." There's no mention in there about an individual applying for

an exclusion of land under the agricultural land reserve. But I notice that

under Bill 27, we have the term "person" appearing now for the first

time in the definition section. I don't see the definition

section in the

existing ALC act. I see no mention there about the word "person," but

I see it's now in the new proposed amendment. I'm wondering why it is necessary

to have: "'person' includes a first nation government." Why was that

necessary?

[1640]

Hon. G.

Abbott: I hope you're forgiving us, hon. Chair, for moving off the

definition

section before we actually vote on it. That's fine. We're good to

bounce around.

If the

member could reference

section 20 and

section 21, not of this Bill 27 but of the

Agricultural Land Commission Act…. I think he was quoting from another

section

of it earlier.

Section 20(1) of the Agricultural Land Commission Act says that a

person must not use agricultural land for non-farm use unless permitted by the

act, etc.

As another

example, if one looks at

section 21(1), a person must not subdivide agricultural

land unless permitted by this act, etc.

It is

essential, therefore, for first nations to be included in the definition of

"persons" so that they would be able to do those things, which are

contemplated in sections 20 and 21 of the existing Agricultural Land Commission

Act.

MacKay: Final question to the minister. When I look at

section 17, it talks

about local governments who have the legislative power provided to them from the

province through the British North America Act. They have legislative authority

from the province. Are we now, with Bill 27, acknowledging the third order of

government — that is, the third order of government by the natives?

[1645]

Hon. G.

Abbott: The legislation that's before us has no bearing around the debate

with respect to a third order of government. This simply clarifies the position

of first nations in relation to their opportunity to take applications directly

to the Agricultural Land Commission.

MacKay: It's my understanding, then, from the Agricultural Land Commission

that to apply to remove land from the agricultural land reserve, you have to get

either the regional district or the municipal government to process the

application. Those are both elected powers — elected by the people to that

position. So we seem to be making an exception here for the natives to apply for

the exclusion of that land that could be part of the treaty process — treaty

lands after the treaty is signed off. Perhaps I'm reading it wrong. It sounds to

me as if we are acknowledging a level of government in Bill 27. Is that a

correct assumption?

Hon. G.

Abbott: Again, I think the parallels between a local government's

relationship with the Agricultural Land Commission and a first nations

government's relationship with the Agricultural Land Commission are very similar

or the same, if you like. Again, if the district of Sicamous, which is my

hometown, decides that it wants to see a piece of land that it owns excluded

from the Agricultural Land Commission, they would have to resolve as a council

that they wanted to do that and then make application directly to the commission

in order to do that.

For a first

nations government to carry forward an application to the Agricultural Land

Commission, their band council would have to vote first at the AIP stage to take

that application forward to the commission. Further, after the treaty has been

finalized, if indeed it is, we would again demand…. Before there is any change

made in the status of that land in relation to the Agricultural Land Commission,

there would have to be a resolution adopted by that new first nations government

to confirm that, indeed, that was what they wanted to do.

MacKay: Based on the answer that the minister just gave me, it would not be

up to the treaty negotiators to apply to have that land excluded. It would have

to come from a band council meeting. In order for a band council meeting to be

approved…. I do believe it's got to go back to Ottawa to be approved by Indian

Affairs before it can be accepted as a band bylaw that has been approved by the

council. So there's a step involved there.

[1650]

Does the

treaty negotiator actually have the authority to make application or suggest

that that land should be applied for, for exclusion? That's a bit confusing to

me. I wonder if the minister can clarify that.

Hon. G.

Abbott: An interesting question posed by the member. Again, I think the

important elements are these. The band council will make a decision with respect

to whether to proceed with an application. This is at the AIP stage. The band

does not need to get any sign-off from Ottawa with respect to that. There is no

approval process from Ottawa. They make the decision, and the proposal goes

forward to the commission. There is no sign-off by Ottawa on it.

MacKay: I thank the minister for his patience as we wade through a rather

contentious part of Bill 27.

In some

cases we have several bands that are involved in treaty negotiations under an

umbrella. I don't know of any in the lower mainland, but I do know of some in

the northern part of this province where there are actually several bands. Would

just one of the bands have to apply to have that exclusion made to remove the

land from the agricultural land reserve? I'm confused about that, where we have

several bands that are in different communities. I can give you an example of

Burns Lake, where we've got the Burns Lake band. Part of their band lives in

Burns Lake, and part of their band lives at Fort Babine, which is east of

Smithers. They

[ Page 10879 ]

don't always get along with one another. They have different opinions. I

wonder how that would work if we have several bands split up. Do they all have

their own governance structure?

[1655]

Hon. G.

Abbott: The member asks interesting, perplexing questions. They do stretch

one's thought processes to the maximum, but it's a very good thing on a

Wednesday afternoon to have that occur.

Here is the

answer to the question. The member is asking about an AIP that embraced more

than one band, as we understand it. We haven't actually seen that situation yet,

but likely we will see at some point a situation where an AIP does embrace more

than one band.

If all the

bands — and let's say, hypothetically, there are six, as I think the member's

question posed…. If all six bands are signatories to the

agreement-in-principle — and again, recognizing that the

agreement-in-principle is going to lay out a lot of these issues — any one of

those bands or any multiple up to six, presumably, could make application to the

commission.

However, at

the next stage that we've been talking about, which is the final treaty and

ratification processes, all would have to ratify that change before it occurred.

MacKay: I just want to thank the minister and his staff for the

patience and the responses to the questions that were put to them as it relates

to the definition

section of Bill 27. Thank you very much.

Wilson: I've listened with some interest as we've gone through the details

on this bill — rather a lot of detail. Things became probably a little less

clear as we proceeded. I'm having trouble seeing the forest for the trees now.

[1700]

If the

minister could…. I'll try and do a short

summary as to what I get out of this,

having listened to this debate. Hopefully, the minister can tell me whether I

have it right or wrong. My understanding is that under the treaty lands that go

forward in an agreement or a treaty, the use on those lands will have the same

designation as the existing treaty lands that are there. We will simply have an

expansion. Is that…?

Hon. G.

Abbott: If I can assist in achieving some clarification here for the member.

Again, the first distinction we need to make is between the lands which might be

subject of an application within the ambit of Bill 27 versus Indian reserve

lands, which are not subject to the purview of the Agricultural Land Commission

or the agricultural land reserve. Indian reserve lands are not a part of the

domain of the Agricultural Land Commission.

The second

point I think is just as important in terms of a clear understanding here.

Whatever the existing designation of the land is — and presumably it is

entirely encompassed within the ALR — if the land is in the ALR, it is going

to remain in the ALR at least until after the treaty is ratified and any final

law created by the new first nations government has ratified the change as well.

Further —

and we talked about this earlier in the discussion — it is also important to

note that the application, whether it is for exclusion or other, is not

necessarily going to be simply approved or not approved by the commission. For

example, as is commonplace with an individual application or with an application

from a municipality, the commission — on hearing the argument and evidence of

the first nations government — may decide that, conditionally, it would be 50

acres in and 50 acres out. Or they may decide that, conditionally, there might

be some permitted use within that area, but it would not be excluded from the

ALR. So there is, in fact, no change in the legal designation of those lands

until after the treaty is ratified and the related measures are also completed.

[1705]

Wilson: I thank the minister for his answer. My understanding is that when

these treaties are ratified by the federal government, we do not know exactly

how they will come out. My understanding is that there can be a variation in the

authority the band has or the jurisdiction they have over the land they've been

given. It's not a cookie-cutter model. Each one can vary. My understanding is

there is the possibility that a treaty agreement that was reached could give the

first nation legislative authority that might usurp the Land Commission's

authority.

Hon. G.

Abbott: There are at least three important issues that are raised by the

member's question. Let's be clear and definitive on the first. There is nothing

in the creation of the treaty which in any measure lessens the authority,

whatever it may be, of the Agricultural Land Commission over those lands. If the

land in question is within the agricultural land reserve prior to treaty, if all

or some portion of it remains in the land reserve post-treaty, the authority of

the Land Commission remains. There is nothing the federal government can or will

do to change that. I guess the final point is that the treaty itself will define

the shape of first nations government authority through that final treaty

detail.

Wilson: That helps considerably. I thank the minister for his answer. It

gives me a sense of security here.

We know

that these things may arise when we do add treaty lands into a settlement.

Should there be a breach of contract or a breach of the use of that land, who is

going to take the necessary enforcement actions? Is it going to be the Crown, or

will it be the first nations, who in most cases are responsible for their own

policing?

Hon. G.

Abbott: If the land remains in the ALR, the enforcement responsibility would

rest with the commission, just as it does today.

Wilson: Under the

definitions, the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine

talked about "persons." The

[ Page 10880 ]

minister alluded that persons meant, in this case, first nations. When I read

the definition, it says: "…includes a first nation government…."

Could the

minister list the other components of "includes"? Includes is more

than one.

[1710]

Hon. G.

Abbott: While it's not specified in this act, nor in the Agricultural Land

Commission Act, "person" is defined in the

Interpretation Act — not

surprisingly, under "person." It includes "a corporation,

partnership or party, and the personal or other legal representatives of a

person to whom the context can apply according to law."

Wilson: I thank the minister.

If an

individual first nation member went to the ALC, this would allow that individual

to approach them directly. They would not have to go through the regular

channels that someone else may have to.

Hon. G.

Abbott: For the purposes of this bill, a first nations individual could not

proceed under the terms of this to the commission with an application. I guess

the approach here and the definition here of "person," defined as a

first nations government, would limit that opportunity — in fact, prevent that

opportunity.

More

importantly, this whole bill is built around the process that first an AIP has

to be in place. Then a band council would have to mandate the application. The

application would then go to the commission. It's very clear that a first

nations individual could not use this process to — in, I guess, crude terms

— short-circuit the existing processes.

Wilson: To the minister. I'm a little confused on this. If the first nations

individual wanted to do something with regard to land use under a designation,

if they went to their band council or whoever is running things and said,

"I want to do this. Can I go and approach the commission?" and they

said, "Sure, go ahead," then you would be dealing with an individual,

I believe.

[1715]

Hon. G.

Abbott: I thank the member for his interesting question. But again, I think

the answer here is very clear. Prior to a final treaty, an individual first

nation owner of a piece of property, whether it is located adjacent to an

agricultural land reserve or whether it is a fee simple land in a municipality

or regional district…. If they want to change the designation of their

property — and obviously you're not going there unless it's in the

agricultural land reserve — they would have to make application through their

local government. It wouldn't be their band council. It would be through their

local government, whether it be a regional district or municipality. For the

approval it would go to the local government, and then it would go on to the

commission, just as it would for any other citizen in British Columbia.

Post-treaty,

when there has been a final determination around the treaty and all the details

have been resolved with respect to the shape of the entity…. After that, if

there is within that first nation an individual who was through whatever means

an owner of land, they would then — again, completely consistent with what any

other citizen would do in the province — take that to their first nations

government. The first nations government would give their support or whatever,

and the issue would go on to the commission for determination.

Section 1

approved on division.

On

section

W. Cobb:

I had a question earlier that wasn't answered. In regard to the local

government, it says: "…adds knowledge of first nation government as a

qualification for appointment to the commission." Because it was out of

that section, the local government is not appointed to the commission. So are we

now appointing first nations government to the commission?

Hon. G.

Abbott: I apologize to the member. I do recollect him asking this question

now, and I know I didn't get him a proper answer. I do apologize for that.

The answer

would be clearest if the member had a copy of

section 5(1) of the Agricultural

Land Commission Act in front of him, but I will try to convey the change here as

neatly as I can. The current

section 5(1) reads: "The commission consists

of at least 7 individuals appointed under this

section who are knowledgeable in

matters relating to agriculture, land use planning or local government."

That's the end of 5(1).

Section 2

of Bill 27 would amend 5(1) by striking out "or local government" and

substituting "local government or first nation government." The

amended 5(1) will now read: "The commission consists of at least 7

individuals appointed under this

section who are knowledgeable in matters

relating to agriculture, land use planning, local government or first nation

government."

Sections 2

and 3 approved.

On

section

[1720]

W. Cobb:

On this

section it is the manner, and after giving the notice required to the

regulation…. Will the first nations, when applying here, whether it is under

AIP or whatever government they have — and it also ties in with

section 2 —

have to give notice for a public hearing to the properties adjacent to it? If I

happen to own property next to a reserve or a treaty land, will they then have

to give me notice prior to them having a piece of property taken out of the ALR?

It's probably under

section 2, as categories of persons. Are they defined?

Hon. G.

Abbott: They would have to give notice, just as is required under the

current procedures.

[ Page 10881 ]

Section 4

approved.

section 5.

Cobb: The question here is how we will monitor this when in fact we as a

province — I don't know; maybe it is different when it becomes a treaty —

don't have any authority over native lands or treaty lands. How are we going to

have any authority to make sure that this is actually monitored or that they

adhere to an application after it is treaty land?

Hon.

G. Abbott: The distinction noted earlier between Indian reserve lands and

provincial lands is important here. The commission does not have now, nor will

it have after, any jurisdiction with respect to Indian reserve lands. The lands

in question, which we've been discussing, might be the subject of a proposal at

the AIP stage should they change designation subject to a final treaty

ratification. But should they change, those would become provincial lands, and

the jurisdiction of the Agricultural Land Commission over those lands will be

there to the extent that the lands are within the agricultural land reserve.

I have run

through scenarios previously which said there may be some instances where it's

partially in, partially out. The jurisdiction of the commission will remain to

the extent that it is in the agricultural land reserve.

Cobb: I think I missed something there. I don't know quite how to put it. I

think I heard you say the treaty land, in fact, will be under the jurisdiction

of the province then, and that is not the way I understand treaties. Once

they're in the treaty, they belong to that government, and we as a province then

have no more jurisdiction over it. In fact, the ALR will have no jurisdiction

over it.

Hon. G.

Abbott: Post-treaty, those lands upon which Agricultural Land Commission

jurisdiction continues will become

section 92 lands. They will be lands under

provincial jurisdiction. To the extent there is an agricultural land reserve on

those lands, the authority of the commission will be over those lands.

Again, if

we march backwards for a moment…. I've used this hypothetical example of a 100

hectare parcel that becomes the subject of an application by a first nations

government. After an AIP is concluded, the commission may determine, after

hearing argument and evidence, that all of the land should be excluded. They may

determine that only a portion of it should be excluded, or they may determine

that some mix of permitted uses is possible on the land, but it all remains in

the agricultural land reserve.

[1725]

There is

any number of possibilities that might flow. To the extent that the commission's

authority remains post-treaty, the jurisdiction of the commission also remains.

W. Cobb:

Then I think I have to go back to the question that was asked earlier. Why would

they bother having a piece of land or an application under an AIP or a treaty,

when in fact it could be part of the treaty to negotiate it out of the ALR

anyway? I guess the question that comes back is: what do we need this

legislation for? They could in fact negotiate it away under a treaty anyway.

Hon. G.

Abbott: There is a simple answer to that question. I'm advised by the treaty

negotiations office representative here that the Crown simply cannot negotiate

an ALR jurisdiction out through a treaty. It cannot be done. That's the short

answer to the question.

W. Cobb:

The Crown including the federal government?

Hon. G.

Abbott: The federal government has no jurisdiction to do that either.

Wilson: Earlier the member for Peace River South raised the issue that if we

go through this process and we establish a value on these lands, if a piece of

this land that's going to be treaty land can be taken out of the ALR, that gives

it a much higher value — commercial value. If we're going to put a value on

land — I want to take the other approach here — you are going to put the

lowest value you can on the land when you're dealing in a negotiation because

you want to get….You know, land is an asset, and it's worth money.

We want to

amass as much land as we can at the lowest common denominator, which is land in

the agricultural land reserve. We all know that. Post-treaty, we now have an

option of opening the door, going directly to the ALC and saying, "Hey, we

need this land out. Let's talk about it," and the process begins. You end

up with more land in settlement lands — maybe five times, ten times —

because it has a lower common denominator as agricultural land, knowing down the

road you are going to maybe hit the 6/49 here. When the time comes, you can bet

that's what will happen.

The

Agricultural Land Commission is then sitting with the responsibility of saying:

"Well, yes, we can let 500 hectares out, we let a thousand out, or we can

let it all out or none." When that happens, if they say, "Well, here's

part of it," will the door be open six months later to come back for

another chunk and another chunk and another chunk? Or is there anything to cap

it?

[1730]

Hon. G.

Abbott: The member's point about the value of land in the ALR versus out of

the ALR is probably true, generally speaking, although one would probably find

considerable variations regionally, and so on, around that point.

Here's the

important point. Whether it's John's ranch, George's farm, the city of Delta or

a first nation, post-treaty, if we want to have our property excluded from the

agricultural land reserve, we all have to go to the commission and argue the

merits of our case. A first nation under this act is no different than a local

[ Page 10882 ]

government, whether it's a regional district or a municipality.

Post-treaty,

if they want to argue that they should get a piece of their fee simple or other

land out of the agricultural land reserve, they're going to have to go to the

commission and argue the merits of it, just as John, George, Sicamous or the

Columbia-Shuswap regional district would. The issue remains the same.

What we are

establishing here is a fair process in order to do that. There's no argument

about…. Well, I guess there might be an argument, but there's no argument from

me. All things being equal, it's apt to produce higher values if it's outside

the land reserve. As a society, we have formed some conclusions embodied in the

Agricultural Land Commission Act that say we want to protect viable agricultural

lands for agricultural purposes. What we do here is set out a framework whereby

we can have fair, orderly, reasonable and well-informed processes that lead to

conclusions about what lands should or should not be within the ALR and what

kinds of uses should be on them. I think, again, the issue of values is the same

regardless of whether one is discussing a post-treaty application or John's

application.

Sections 5

to 7 inclusive approved.

On

section

W. Cobb:

I guess, a little more clarification on this…. What I'm asking here is: who

would have the authority to delegate powers? Again, we're back to the question

of what would happen if that delegated power, whether it be federal government

or not, was contrary to the ALR. I think you answered it, but I just want a

further clarification on that.

Hon. G.

Abbott: We actually had a little chat about this in estimates the other day,

so I'm pretty familiar with it. The commission has been moving towards

delegation agreements with local governments for purposes such as administering

subdivision within the ALR. We have a delegation agreement in place with the

Fraser–Fort George regional district. What this

section would do is

contemplate the future possibility of a delegation agreement with a first

nations government, just as we would with other local governments in British

Columbia.

Sections 8

to 21 inclusive approved.

section 22.

[1735]

MacKay: Dealing with

section 22, which actually refers to

section 58 under

the old act. More specifically, I'd like to refer to

section 58(2)(

g) of the old

act. I'll just read it where it says: "…respecting the manner of holding

hearings and meetings and prescribing notice requirements for applications,

hearings and other matters." We're repealing that and substituting it with:

"…respecting the manner of holding hearings and meetings, obtaining

public comment and prescribing notice requirements for applications, hearing and

other matters, which regulations may be different for different categories of

persons." I wonder if the minister could explain the intent of that new

subsection.

Hon. G.

Abbott: It's put in there for flexibility to ensure that it covers all

manner of applications.

MacKay: I'm sorry. I didn't hear the answer.

Hon. G.