Hansard -- Tuesday, October 28, 2003 a.m. -- Vol. 17, No. 10 (HTML)


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Introductions by Members		7575

Committee of the Whole House		7575
	Land Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 46) (continued)
	D. Jarvis
	Hon. S. Hagen
	J. MacPhail
	M. Hunter
	J. Bray
	G. Trumper
	W. Cobb
	B. Penner
	J. Wilson
	B. Suffredine

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

Hon. S. Hagen: It's a privilege for me to introduce to the House today two friends: one from Langley, Dave McTaggart, who is the senior pastor at Southgate Christian Fellowship; and his brother-in-law, actually, Marlon B. Carlson. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call Committee of the Whole House. For the information of members, the committee will be considering Bill 46.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 46; L. Mayencourt in the chair.

D. Jarvis: I'm not sure which specific points they have gone into up to this time, but I have a question. I appreciate that this bill is ostensibly on the working forest, but I have questions as to the subsurface rights as they pertain to mining. If I had a mineral tenure security, can it be taken away as a result of this bill? Secondly, how does it affect mining in the previous two-zone policy that we have in this province?

Hon. S. Hagen: With regard to tenure, this act does not take away any tenure, and the two-zone policy is intact under this act.

D. Jarvis: You were mentioning previously that they could sell Crown land. Does this now allow the government to sell land to anyone they feel like — even if they are offshore people, people that aren't citizens of this province?

Hon. S. Hagen: The policies of Land and Water B.C., which actually controls the sale or tenure or lease of Crown land, are not affected by this act.

J. MacPhail: I got some feedback from our debate last night, and I want to ask the minister this. He was quoting at length — or, I should say, not at length but frequently — section 23 of the Land Act. Was there a similar provision in the Forest Act, and what happened to that?

Hon. S. Hagen: We are not aware of a section under the Forest Act. That question should probably be directed to the Minister of Forests, because I'm not responsible for that act.

J. MacPhail: Sorry, that won't do. Last night the final comment this minister made was that he and he alone is now in charge of land use, including certainty of tenure. The Minister of Sustainable Resource Management said last night that the Minister of Forests is no longer responsible for that.

I would put it to the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management that the very section of the Forest Act that guaranteed the parameters upon which Crown land could be sold was removed from the Forest Act. I'm trying to demonstrate here a trend that this government is moving toward privatizing Crown land. Here's why the suspicion: this minister has cut out the Minister of Forests from any land use decisions. He's cut out the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection from any land use decisions. The Forest Act has been changed to delete what used to be the same protection as is now section 23 of the Land Act about prohibiting privatization of land for forestry purposes.

The icing on the cake is from a worker who last night reminded me of this article that appeared Saturday, April 5, 2003, in the Vancouver Sun: "Industry Claims Victoria Has Sent Signals." Let me read it, Mr. Chair. It's by Gordon Hamilton:

Then, Mr. Chair, there's a response from the Minister of Forests to that, but of course we now know that the Minister of Forests has been completely cut out of

land use decisions. The final paragraph of this article from the Vancouver Sun, April 5, says:

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

Does this minister guarantee that section 23 of the Land Act will remain in place through this government's tenure?

J. MacPhail: Did the minister dissuade or dispel Mr. McElligott's speculation that he had an inside track — that privatizing of forest lands would be permitted by this government either in their first term or in their second term? Or, if he hasn't dissuaded them yet, what would he say to Mr. McElligott now?

Hon. S. Hagen: First of all, I think it's old news. It goes back to April. Second, I've not had a discussion with the person in question with regard to the sale of land. If I had a discussion with him today or tomorrow, it would be that forest land is not for sale because of clause 23 of the act. I'd like to read it into the record again. Clause 23 says: "Unless, in the opinion of the minister, Crown land is required for agricultural settlement and development or other higher economic use, Crown land that is suitable for the production of timber and pulpwood must not be disposed of by Crown grant under this Act."

J. MacPhail: I must say thank you to the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management. He has guaranteed that section 23 of the Land Act will not change as long as his government is in power. That's fabulous. I laud the minister for making that commitment. Well, I can only celebrate his commitment to that. It is a guarantee for as long as they remain in government. I'm sure that is a strong enough message to send to Mr. McElligott and all of the forestry giants who would actually prefer to have Crown land for forestry purposes privatized. So it's a good day. It's an excellent day — that the commitment has been made.

Perhaps the minister could explain to us what he meant when he said in the Legislature: "We're offering certainty through the strategic sale of Crown land, which will be a catalyst for economic partnerships." Did he mean economic partnerships other than those that would involve forestry?

Hon. S. Hagen: What she is talking about is what Land and Water B.C. does. They sell Crown land, they lease Crown land, and they give tenures for Crown land.

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

Well, let me ask this, then. During second reading, the member for Prince George North said this:

Basically, the member from Prince George said it was a really big step to go from decisions that one can move from legislation and statute to behind closed doors by the cabinet. But perhaps I've got that wrong. Can the minister explain the difference between statutory decision-making and delegated decision-making authority?

Hon. S. Hagen: In answer to the member opposite, statutory decision-making is allocated under the law. A delegated authority is delegated by me with direction and guidance.

J. MacPhail: How is it better, according to what the member from Prince George said? And he said that this minister was very courageous. How is it that decision-making is now taken out of a statute, out of the law, and given to the minister to make himself? How is that better that we now have very sensitive decisions of land use made by a politician, as the minister just stated, rather than a meritoriously hired non-partisan, expert public servant? How is that a move in the right direction?

Hon. S. Hagen: First of all, the decision on land use is now being taken by cabinet in open cabinet — okay? So you can't say it's a closed sort of thing.

The recommendation comes to me after it's gone through a huge public process with input from all of

the various people who want the use of the land and who want something to say about the land. It comes to me, goes through to open cabinet where all cabinet ministers have a say, including the Minister of Forests and the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection. The difference is and the delegated authority is that that's done now with government policy being considered. That's important.

You know, when the member opposite talked about what strategic shifts have taken place, the biggest strategic shift that took place was on May 16, 2001. The people of the province said: "We don't want the old government anymore; we want a new government." That's the biggest strategic shift that can happen.

When that happened, there was a huge change in the province, as we can see by the activity in the land titles office. There's a lot of business going on now in the province. Sure, there are still some areas of the province that are hurting, which we're trying to deal with in this act, but there was a huge positive message that went out to the world with the change in government that took place.

J. MacPhail: I'm not quite sure at all what the minister's referring to in relationship to this legislation. I asked how it's better to take decisions out of a non-partisan, expert public service and put it into the minister's hands solely, and he came up with some rant about an election.

Let me ask this of the minister, then: is he guaranteeing that every single land use decision will only be decided in open cabinet meetings, that there will be no discussions about land use decisions by cabinet behind closed doors? Is that the guarantee he's making?

Hon. S. Hagen: The new-era commitment — and I'm paraphrasing because I don't have it in front of me — is that land use decisions will be taken in open cabinet.

J. MacPhail: Perhaps the minister could answer my question. Is he guaranteeing, by quoting that new-era commitment, that all land use decisions will be discussed only at open cabinet meetings — yes or no?

Hon. S. Hagen: The new-era commitment is that we will take land use decisions in open cabinet. Land use decisions will be taken in open cabinet.

J. MacPhail: Could the minister just say whether that's a yes or a no to my question? I think he's waffling. I expect there's a reason why he's waffling. It is because he's nervous about answering a very simple question with yes or no. The minister's making a huge deal about the new-era commitment that all land use decisions will be taken in open cabinet meetings.

Of course, there's a huge sort of smirk — it's a provincewide smirk — about open cabinet meetings. Even the media call them infomercials now. Even the ordinary public have tuned out, because they don't consider them even close to reality TV — not even close. But I'm actually testing that. I'm saying: is every land use decision going to be taken at open cabinet meetings? In other words, the central coast land use plan — will it always, when it's considered by cabinet, be considered at an open cabinet meeting?

Hon. S. Hagen: The new-era commitment is that we will take decisions on land use at open cabinet. In the example quoted, the member asked: "Will that decision be taken at open cabinet?" The answer is yes.

J. MacPhail: Well, the minister's made a huge commitment. I can hardly wait to see the toing and froing at an open cabinet meeting about land use decisions. I can hardly wait to see what the Attorney General has to say about first nations certainty issues around a land use proposal. Mr. Chair, I hate to say it, but I think the member may be a little bit strange to the truth on this one. I actually believe that he's not coming clean.

I'm willing to give him the chance. In fact, I expect that when that open cabinet meeting occurs around a land use decision, he will be able to say this is the first time that land use decision has been discussed. Will he be able to do that?

Hon. S. Hagen: The new-era commitment — paraphrasing — is that land use decisions, or decisions regarding land use, will be taken at open cabinet, and that certainly will be the case with the central coast LRMP.

J. MacPhail: Oh no. I just used that as an example. It will be for all land use decisions, that there will be no discussion about land use decisions except at open cabinet meetings. That's what the minister has committed to, and I'm finding it a little difficult to swallow, actually.

J. MacPhail: Oh, the minister is saying no, that's not what he committed to. Perhaps he could say where I'm wrong.

Hon. S. Hagen: I would never be that presumptuous to say where the member opposite is wrong. What I have said quite clearly is that we've made a commitment in the New Era document that all decisions regarding land use will be taken at open cabinet.

J. MacPhail: Well, I can hardly wait. I actually think the minister is misspeaking himself. I think that decisions will be taken behind closed doors and there will merely be a presentation of those decisions at the open cabinet meeting. To date, we have seen no discussion on TV in an open cabinet meeting about anything — about anything.

Maybe it is that every single cabinet minister agrees with the other cabinet minister regardless of the topic. I

can hardly wait for the minister responsible for tourism to talk about land use decisions and the working forest. It will be fascinating to see the toing and froing of these very complex matters on TV, but I wouldn't expect anything nearly as exciting even as Survivor with this cabinet, given their experience so far in this area.

Well, let me ask another question that arises out of the member for Prince George North, what he said at second reading. He said that when he looked through the legislation last spring, he noticed that we are taking 48 percent of the province and establishing it as a working landscape. Perhaps the minister can point to the part of the bill that references "the working landscape."

Hon. S. Hagen: It's not referenced in the bill. It's not intended to be referenced in the bill.

J. MacPhail: Then, did the minister correct the member for Prince George North? Or maybe it was in a secret closed caucus meeting that the member found out about working landscape, because he said he looked through the legislation last spring and noticed that we are taking 48 percent of the province and establishing it as a working landscape.

Here's a minister who has just committed that he was going to do everything in open cabinet, and he's got a member of his own caucus saying something that, clearly, he found out in a private, behind-closed-doors meeting — not through the legislation.

Well, let me ask this: can the minister point to the part of the bill that states we are taking 48 percent of the province and establishing it as a working landscape? Where's the 48 percent in this legislation?

J. MacPhail: So where would the member from Prince George have gotten that idea in this open and accountable government? Where would he have got that?

Hon. S. Hagen: I don't know. You should ask the member where he got it. I don't have that answer.

J. MacPhail: I've been paying close attention to this debate, because the minister is somehow suggesting that there's been a big strategic shift, a huge strategic shift. It turns out it's only in the minds of the Liberals themselves, because everything the Liberals have been talking about so far has nothing to do with this legislation.

There's no commitment, and in fact we now know that any of the discussions around the working forest have all been done behind closed doors, not through legislation. I expect that that's the way it's going to continue: behind closed doors. Perhaps the minister could point to the part of the legislation, this bill, that delineates the boundaries of that working forest.

Hon. S. Hagen: As I explained last night, that will be done through the LRMP processes around the province and through the order-in-council.

J. MacPhail: So in fact, there's no guarantee whatsoever — none. All right. Let me ask this, then. The member for Prince George North went on at second reading to say:

Can the minister point to the piece of legislation that the member from Prince George referred to, which states: "There will be no net loss of the working landscape"?

Hon. S. Hagen: What the government is achieving through this bill, Bill 46, is certainty on the land base, the balance between the economy and communities and the environment and the balance between the users of the land base. We want to make sure that industry knows what's available so that they will make investments and thereby create jobs for people throughout the province and so that we can rebuild the economy again. This is an enabling piece of legislation, and that's the purpose of it.

J. MacPhail: That's all very well and good, but I'm just trying to get an understanding of what the Liberal members think this legislation is about, and the member from Prince George was very clear. He said, "That's what really makes this legislation work," and he was talking about the Land Amendment Act. He says, "When you have a no-net-loss clause that ensures…." And he carries on. So we now know that the member from Prince George wasn't saying what was in this legislation, because the minister couldn't answer that question. Well, perhaps the minister could tell us what "no net loss" means. What does that mean?

Hon. S. Hagen: The term "no net loss" is not included in this piece of legislation. My meaning would be speculative. I haven't considered it, because it's not part of the legislation.

J. MacPhail: Well, what was the member from Prince George…? What piece of legislation was he talking about when he debated it at second reading under Bill 46?

The minister has no idea what the member from Prince George meant when he said that there was a guarantee of no net loss. That's interesting. Well, that's a big shift, isn't it? That's a strategic shift that everybody will be wrapping their arms around. The minister doesn't have a clue what that means. It's not in the legislation. The member from Prince George was talking about fantasy. This is all very reassuring.

Okay. Let me go on here. This will be the final section where I refer to the member for Prince George North. He said at second reading: "The working forest is really about long-term management. It's about thinking how we're going to manage this province ten years from now, 20 years from now, 50 years from now — but, more importantly, 100 years, 200 years or 300 years from now. One of the things I believe this government has not gotten any credit for up until now is our long-range planning."

I'm a bit reluctant to ask the minister why the member for Prince George North gave him this praise about long-range planning when the minister so far hasn't had a clue what the member from Prince George has been talking about, but let me try one final question. Does the minister believe that this bill will stand the test of time 300 years into the future? Can he describe for us what the member from Prince George and this minister envision resource-based communities will look like that far out?

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

The desire of this bill and of this government is to make sure that the resource-based communities around the province will be there and will enjoy the economies that they've had over the past years and will continue to do that. I believe we can have sustainability in our forest industry and in other resource industries in the province. That is exactly what the land use planning tables are working towards and what this government is working towards with this bill.

J. MacPhail: Well, we'll see. I don't think this government has a clue what it's doing in the area of forestry. This year of forestry has been an unmitigated failure, probably the worst since 1983. The minister will be familiar with that era, because he was part of that as well.

Oh, I'm sorry. I withdraw. I withdraw. That's a serious allegation, Mr. Chair. My apologies to the minister for accusing him of being a Socred. I'm sorry for doing that.

This year has been the worst since 1983-84 — a terrible year of forestry. It's clear that this government doesn't have a clue what it's doing in the area of forestry. You have government caucus members standing up and claiming great success about a piece of legislation, and the minister doesn't even have any idea what they're talking about. Certainly, there's nothing in the legislation to in any way confirm that the backbenchers, the government caucus members, have any idea what they're talking about. It was quite pathetic.

Now, on section 1, regarding section 93.1, which is being added to the Land Act. Section 93.1(a) says that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make orders designating areas of Crown land for "conserving or managing natural resources."

Let me ask him this. I won't ask him to commit; I'll just ask him an open-ended question. Does this mean we can expect to see more than the current 13 percent of the land base set aside and protected from industrial development?

Hon. S. Hagen: We don't know that yet, because the land use planning processes are not complete.

J. MacPhail: Well, let me ask a question, then. Whatever the LRMP table comes up with, does the minister say he'll just ratify that, not change it?

Hon. S. Hagen: The LRMP tables bring their recommendations to the minister. The minister then decides whether or not those are the recommendations he will bring on to cabinet, so I have that discretion.

J. MacPhail: Will the minister guarantee that every single one of his recommendations will be discussed only in open cabinet?

Hon. S. Hagen: The commitment the government made in the New Era document is that land use decisions will be taken in open cabinet.

M. Hunter: I thought I would try and move us to a slightly different subject, because some of this debate I heard last day in the House.

My questions to the minister have to do with the section 1, section 93.3 of the bill, which is the section entitled "Establishing objectives for designated Crown land by order-in-council." I understand the role of the cabinet, Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, in doing the things that it is going to be required to do under section 93.1. In section 93.3, the cabinet is also authorized to do a couple of things. It may establish objectives that are consistent with the land use designations decided upon under section 93.1.

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

My concern — and maybe the minister could comment on this — is that I'm a little confused and a little concerned that we are attempting to deal with statu-

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

Hon. S. Hagen: If any designations are required, the loop is closed, because cabinet will instruct the officials what the designations will be.

M. Hunter: To the minister: I thank you. I understand that. It's with respect to the objectives that I'm concerned, because I think the minister will recognize the bill says that the cabinet may establish objectives in section 93.3, and it's very clear that any officials must exercise their discretion under this act or another enactment in a way that is consistent with the objectives. My concern is if there are no objectives. I don't know whether that is a reasonable proposition or not. I don't know in what circumstances cabinet would establish objectives or when they wouldn't, but if they don't, then the discretion of the officials is not being carried out under any guidance from the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council — i.e., cabinet. That's my concern. I don't think, with respect, the minister answered that question.

E. Brenzinger: I'm sitting here working in the House, and I look up and see all these students. I thought I'd like to recognize them. They're having an opportunity to see us go through the motions of bills, and I think it's great — although dry, good education.

I'd like to welcome Semiahmoo School. Could the House please help me make them welcome.

Hon. S. Hagen: In answer to the member's question: if cabinet believes that officials must exercise authority consistent with any designation, cabinet will identify the objectives and specify the official.

M. Hunter: That's very helpful. I just wonder, if that's the case — and I appreciate that's on the record — why we would use the word "may" in section 93.3(1)(a) if the intention is, where there are to be objectives or exercise of discretion, the objectives will be set. Would the minister like to comment on that? Does this wording reflect exactly what's intended, in light of his last answer?

Hon. S. Hagen: It does give some allowance for cabinet to put in a designation without identifying an objective.

M. Hunter: Can the minister explain in what circumstances that might happen — a designation gets made but an objective would not? Could he help me with an example?

Hon. S. Hagen: An example might be, in light of the fires in the Okanagan this summer, that cabinet might choose to make a decision that some of that would be declared a historic site or something like that. That's sort of the best example I can think of.

M. Hunter: So if I could summarize…. I think this has answered my question. If I could try and put words in the minister's mouth, what he's saying is that only on quite rare and unusual occasions would he anticipate that there would be a land use designation without an accompanying objective being specified by cabinet. Is that a fair summary of what we've concluded in this discussion?

J. MacPhail: Well, it's interesting to hear the questions from the member for Nanaimo and the minister's commitments. I'm on section 93.1(b) that says the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make orders for "balancing multiple natural resource uses." Now, balancing is a subjective criterion. Let me ask the minister a very practical question on how he will apply a subjective criterion. It arose out of our debate last night, where I got a note from first nations. Supposedly, the government claimed last night that they have a wonderful working relationship with first nations, and everything is moving along absolutely wonderfully in terms of land use planning.

Well, let me quote from the Prince George Citizen. The member for Prince George North wrote an article in the Saturday report of Prince George Citizen, and it was entitled "Bringing Forestry into Focus." The Carrier-Sekani tribal council responded to that and were very good enough this morning to send me a copy of their response that appeared in the Prince George Citizen this morning. It starts off: "Member from Prince George Comments Ignorant." That's the title.

Given that — those comments within the last 48 hours from first nations — how does the minister propose to balance land use with the subjective criterion of balancing multiple natural resource uses?

Hon. S. Hagen: As I said last night, nothing in this act, Bill 46, compromises treaty or treaty negotiations. This act does not impact the process of treaty negotiations. The balancing that takes place, as I also explained last night, takes place at the land use planning table, where first nations are fully engaged. The ones that we are expecting in the next nine months include Sea to Sky, which involves two first nation bands; the central coast LRMP, involving 18 first nation bands; the north coast LRMP, which includes seven first nation bands; and the Queen Charlottes Haida Gwaii, which includes the Haida.

The balancing takes place at the table. The first nations bring their concerns to the table. The environmentalists bring their concerns. Industry brings its concerns. Communities bring their concerns. The various users of the land base — forestry, mining, tourism, conservation — bring their concerns to the table. That's what's being worked on now. That will come to a completion at varying stages, as I said last night, in December, March and June. Those will be recommendations that come to me as a result of two years — in some cases, slightly less time — of consultation.

J. MacPhail: Maybe the minister could clarify, then, for the alliance of first nations: what is the relationship between the treaty process and land use designation? Is the minister suggesting there will be no overlap?

Hon. G. Hogg: I would like the House to join me in welcoming 45 grade 10 students, six parents and supervisors, and their teacher, Ms. Rehnby, from Semiahmoo high school in Surrey–White Rock — my alma mater. Would the House please make them most welcome.

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm not sure if I understood the question properly, but I'll try and answer what I think she said. The lands that will be needed in the negotiated settlements with first nations will be there. That's not impacted by this bill.

Were you asking about overlapping claims with first nations? Is that what your overlapping comment was? I wasn't clear on that.

J. MacPhail: Well, no. That was not what I was asking. I'm talking about overlap where there's a land base as part of treaty negotiations being discussed and someone trying to make an alternate land use designation of that same land. How do those two mesh?

Hon. S. Hagen: That's part of the discussion at the table, and in some cases first nations might be involved in the treaty process, and in some cases they're not involved in the treaty process. If a first nation at the table is involved in the treaty process, I'm sure they'll be thinking about that as they put their thoughts out on the table about how the land should be used. This is all about achieving balance. It's dealing with all of the users of the land base, all the people who want to use the land base. Those concerns are brought to the table and dealt with at the table.

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

proceed with or not proceed with. That's hardly certainty. That's hardly a guarantee of duty to accommodate that's required under the law by this government to first nations.

If this government thinks that in this great year of forestry they're moving toward land certainty and therefore economic certainty, I expect investors probably have a different point of view. New York and Chicago and Montreal investors always ask this first question, and they continue to do so with this government: when are land claims, when are treaties, going to be settled? And it doesn't look like this government is on the path to settling treaties, given their most recent actions and given the kind of alliance that this government has forced first nations to forge.

Well, let's ask this question. What is the difference between "a plan for a specified use" in subsection (c) and "specified economic development opportunities" found in this subsection?

Hon. S. Hagen: In the case of subsection (c), that's part of the enabling part of the legislation. In (e) what we're talking about…. We wanted to make sure that the economic necessities were recognized. As you know, we went through ten years of land use planning where the economic part of the equation was not addressed very well, and so our government made the decision, on behalf of communities and workers around the province, to make sure that the economic part of the equation is addressed as well as the environmental and the community aspects.

J. MacPhail: Let's be clear, Mr. Chair. There are communities around this province saying: "Don't touch our land use plan that we made in the 1990s. Please exempt us from any aspect of this legislation." I don't think there's anybody — so far, I haven't heard of anyone — saying: "Oh, please include us under this working forest initiative, because it's so superior." I think the minister may be…. I know he likes to be partisan in his rhetoric, but his partisanship is completely without substance, in fact.

I'll leave it up to the public to decide whether they understood at all what the minister meant in terms of the difference between a plan for a specified use and specified economic development opportunities. It sure as heck is going to be interesting to see how, in open cabinet, the government has a wide-ranging discussion about how they're matching those two objectives and to see what the toing and froing of the discussion will be amongst the various cabinet members.

J. Bray: I have a series of questions under section 1. Certainly, when we rose during second reading debate, I did emphasize that my role as an MLA is to make sure that I bring issues and concerns forward. Certainly, on the working forest concept and Bill 46 in particular, I got a great deal of feedback from my community.

As I engaged in dialogue with my constituents, I would ask them to provide more specific issues, so I'd like to sort of canvass, under section 1, a series of those particular issues. The questions may not be absolutely sequential, but they are the issues that my constituents brought forward to me. I hope this makes some sense at the end of it and that I can convey these messages back to my constituents as to what our discussions were.

I guess one of the first concerns the people in my community expressed was that Bill 46 was somehow changing forestry practices, mining practices and how people actually access Crown land through other avenues. My first question is: does section 1 change the way in which somebody accesses Crown land through forestry tenures or mining tenures, or do those processes that currently exist with the ministry still stay intact?

Hon. S. Hagen: The applicable legislations that the member talked about remain intact. This is simply an enabling piece of legislation that gives cabinet the authority — for instance, when the land use plans are finished — to implement what those land use plans say.

J. Bray: The other issue that, of course, I hear a lot in my constituency is…. There is a great interest in the environment in my riding, and a lot of issues and questions come forward as to areas around environmental protection. Given that this is, as the minister just responded, an enabling piece of legislation as opposed to prescriptive in any particular forms, is it fair to say, then, that existing environmental regulations or perhaps others that may come forward through Water, Land and Air Protection or other ministries are unaffected by Bill 46?

J. Bray: I thank the minister for that answer, Mr. Chair. In this stream of particular issues that my constituents were asking me about and asking me to clarify with the minister here in the House was the issue around Crown land and, in particular, forest land and whether or not that was available for corporate buyoff or corporate control and privatization. These themes came through quite regularly from my constituents.

In second reading debate I read into the record section 23 of the Land Act, which states that the Crown cannot, through that act, sell Crown land designated for timber or pulp. I'm just wanting to clarify now from the minister that my understanding is correct that this bill in no way changes section 23 that which allows for the selling of timber lands through a Crown action.

J. Bray: The amendment 93.1 has a series of designations, and these are some of the questions that I think my constituents are trying to understand. What do these designations mean, and what does this act accomplish with respect to these designations?

Because there's been some other debate around this, in 93.1(a) through (e) there are several designations

that this act contemplates that cabinet may make some decisions on. These designations — what cabinet may designate — come through the land and resource management plan process that happens out in the community, so the designations aren't originated from cabinet. In fact, they are designations that come through the recommendations of the LRMP process. Am I correct in that understanding?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'd just like to clarify to the member that these are not, under 93.1, designations. They are actually purposes, and there is a difference. But the anticipation is that those purposes would flow up through the land use planning tables.

J. Bray: So is it fair to say, then, that these designations don't come forward until the LRMP process is complete in any particular geographic area?

Hon. S. Hagen: Yes, and I'd just like to clarify, again, that it's not a designation. It's a purpose. But that's the expectation — that it will come up through the LRMP tables. I mean, you have to leave the door open that something may happen, for instance, in the case of a fire or something else, but the general expectation is that this will come from the land use planning tables.

J. Bray: I thank the minister for that clarification. Could the minister explain, then, the difference between purpose and designation in a term that an urbanite like me can understand?

Hon. S. Hagen: The purposes give cabinet sort of an overview of what they should be looking at. A designation is a final designation made by cabinet, taking those purposes into consideration.

J. Bray: As a matter of fact, that's exactly what I was going to do, because this is fundamental to, I think, what Bill 46 is enabling to have happen. I want to ask the minister to confirm whether or not my understanding is correct.

Communities in any particular geographic area, civic politicians, first nations, industry, other users and community members work through the land use planning process and come up with a final plan. What I understand has been the difficulty is after that point in time, there was no clarity around what you do with that afterwards. My understanding is, then, that once that process has occurred and the community has generally agreed on how they see land use happening, Bill 46 allows for the decision-makers — that's government — to then put life down on top of that particular plan as to what the general purposes are, which have been agreed on by the community, and then how that will actually look with respect to targets for forestry, conservation, ecotourism, wildlife preserve — to then actually give those specific designations so everybody knows how to implement that land and resource management plan in a practical sense. Is that my understanding?

J. Bray: My last question. One of the issues we talked about during the election was the innovation of open cabinets and the significance of having open cabinets at least once a month to deal with issues, to give a different way for the public to see how cabinet operates and some of the issues that come before it. I disagree with the Leader of the Opposition. I think it's been a very helpful process and very instructive in areas. Certainly, in my community, one of the areas was around land use or around designation of parks. I'm just wanting to clarify, then, that as Bill 46 is actually made into action and we're actually seeing it move forward, those decisions, in fact, will be made in the open cabinet session. Is that correct?

G. Trumper: This is obviously a bill of great interest to those of us who live in resource-based communities and who rely on the resources for our well-being. There does appear to be a lot of misunderstanding of Bill 46 by some groups. I know that some of the questions have been asked, but I have specifically been asked to raise two issues dealing with the bill. I had something said to me over the phone yesterday, and I realize exactly where it came from, because it was word for word…. The comment that was made to me was: "Working forest initiative will mean a sell-off and giveaway of vast areas of B.C. to corporations as part of the privatization issue and part of the privatization agenda." I hear that frequently from some groups.

So my question to you is: although those concerns were raised during the consultation process and with respect to that, could you please explain to these constituents how this bill could affect the privatization of Crown lands for forestry purposes?

Hon. S. Hagen: It's unfortunate there was one group out there that consistently made that statement, which is not true. I would just like to read into the record again clause 23 of the Land Act, which we are not amending, which we are not changing and which I have said we will not change.

Hon. S. Hagen: As long as I'm alive. According to the Leader of the Opposition, that may not be too much longer.

Hon. S. Hagen: Mr. Chair, if I could have the attention of the members, I'd like to read into the record why the government is not going to do what a certain group has said we're going to do. "Unless, in the opinion of the minister, Crown land is required for agricultural settlement and development or other higher economic use, Crown land that is suitable for the production of timber and pulpwood must not be disposed of by Crown grant under this Act."

G. Trumper: Thank you to the minister for that answer. I do hope that it sets some minds to rest on that particular issue.

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

I would ask the minister, in a conversation that was had over the weekend with some of the representatives of those bands when they brought to your attention their concerns about the issue of Bill 46 regarding aboriginal lands and moving towards treaty, if you would please reiterate the comments you made to them about the concerns they have raised with you.

Hon. S. Hagen: It was a privilege for me to meet with the people from your area on the weekend, who did express this concern. I think I allayed their concern. I will reinforce that by confirming that Bill 46 does not compromise treaty negotiations in any way, shape or form, and it does not impact the process of treaty negotiations and does not impact the land available for treaty negotiations.

The Chair: I think the Leader of the Opposition should wait to go through the Chair for her second question.

Hon. S. Hagen: I think the member opposite has been here long enough that she should know the process of going through the Chair.

J. MacPhail: It was just Saturday. Given the fact that the vibrance and health of the minister is not in question here, surely he can remember who they were. What bands or tribal councils were they from? I'm curious, because we're also speaking with first nations who continue to raise a substantial number of concerns. So who were they?

J. MacPhail: So the Nuu-chah-nulth. On Saturday night. Okay. Well, that's one tribal council. That's good. I'll certainly contact the Nuu-chah-nulth directly now and ask them how they felt about the meeting and the reassurances.

I am very curious about the government caucus members standing up and asking the minister to reaffirm how little this bill means. Basically, the question from the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill was, "Could you please reassure me that this bill means nothing," in terms of changes to the environment or land use planning, etc. That's a real rousing endorsement. That's certainly different from the member for Prince George North, who said: "My God, look how much this legislation means." Now, the minister couldn't agree with anything that the member from Prince George had said in his wild claims of the substantive change, but he was able to agree with the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill that basically this legislation means nothing.

That's an interesting debate. I can hardly wait to see how that plays out at the cabinet table in open cabinet meetings, where all those matters will be discussed — and only at open cabinet meetings. Does this legislation mean something, or doesn't it mean something?

My question arises from that dilemma about the value of this legislation or whether it's just for show. Section 93(2) says that any order made under section 93(1) cannot conflict with an already established use for a parcel of Crown land. I think what 93(2) does is rank the order of priority of legislation, the paramountcy of legislation. I think — it's my interpretation of 93(2) — that all other pieces of legislation which designate Crown land come before this Land Amendment Act, 2003. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Hagen: The answer is no. This section, 93(2), simply confirms that we don't have conflicting uses on the land base.

W. Cobb: I guess my question is on the same…. I'm going to read it in its entirety, because that's where I have problems with it: "A designation under section 93(1) of an area of Crown land must not be made for a purpose that conflicts or is inconsistent with a purpose for which, under another enactment, that area of Crown land is designated or otherwise reserved or set aside."

I was involved in land use tables and what not. Many, many times during those tables, there were areas set aside through orders-in-council, memorandums of understanding, protected areas — all sorts of different designations. I guess my concern is that those were set aside during the discussion table. They were not part of the final agreement. But because they are orders-in-council and other things, does this legislation mean that now — because those are designated — they cannot be taken out? If so, that is my concern.

Hon. S. Hagen: This section requires cabinet to review any current designations. If cabinet decides it wants to make a different designation, they can't do that without changing the first designation.

B. Penner: Just to get into this debate a little bit, I heard earlier reference made to the protected-area strategy and the amount of protected areas we have in the province of British Columbia. Just to set this debate in context and make it a bit clearer, I wonder if the minister could confirm what the percentage is of the land base now in British Columbia that is included in protected areas, parks and other designations that limit the access to that land base.

Hon. S. Hagen: There's a slightly different percentage depending on whether you're talking about forestry or mining, but it's approximately 12.3 percent.

B. Penner: It's 12.3 percent as a provincial average, and my understanding is that that percentage varies depending on which part of the province you're looking at. For example, the Chilliwack forest district. Up to about 22 percent of that entire land base has now been designated as parks or protected areas, taking a very significant chunk out of the working forest. Traditionally, we have had a very important component to our economy — that being forestry. In recent years we've seen a significant decline.

I wonder if the minister could just maybe recap for us the process that took place in the 1990s — I believe it was an initiative of the previous government; if the minister could confirm that, I'd appreciate it — that evaluated a number of areas for inclusion in protected areas and led to this increase in the percentage of the land base that is now effectively off-limits for forestry or other economic uses.

Hon. S. Hagen: The member is correct. This was done under the previous government in the 1990s. It was a regional public advisory committee that was set up by the government. The government accepted the recommendations that committee brought in, which I guess provided the 22 percent of protected area. At this time we have no intention of relooking at that.

B. Penner: I appreciate that clarification, because it helps highlight some of the inconsistencies of the Leader of the Opposition and her comments around a local issue involving the proposed and current selective harvesting in an area near Elk Creek. I heard her make reference earlier and use the expression "ignorant and contradictory" to refer to one of the other members of this legislative chamber, and I would suggest that that phrase is more aptly posed in terms of describing her conduct in discussion around the issue of Elk Creek. The minister maybe can help clarify this issue further by confirming whether or not Elk Creek was specifically looked at during that collaborative regional planning process in the 1990s and what the conclusion was of that collaborative process with respect to the inclusion of Elk Creek in a protected area.

Hon. S. Hagen: Apparently, Elk Creek was looked at, as were a number of areas in that area.

B. Penner: My understanding is that the recommendations from this regional collaborative group were reached through consensus, that a variety of things were looked at, that among the recommendations that came forward were protecting new areas and creating new parks, that in total about 24 new parks and 823,000 hectares of new areas were set aside in our region through this process, but that Elk Creek was not one of those areas that was recommended for this type of designation. Can the minister confirm if those numbers are correct?

Hon. S. Hagen: I can't confirm that. I was not involved in the process at that time.

B. Penner: Well, I think the minister's notes will reflect that the discussion did take place around that. In fact, I think I've seen some correspondence from the minister's office to that extent. What I'm looking for, I guess, from the minister is this particular act, in the section that we're debating and the various amendments that are affected by it…. Would the minister see this as affecting current land use planning in the Fraser Valley and Chilliwack in particular?

B. Penner: Just before yielding the floor to the Leader of the Opposition, I note that she also stated and it was reported in a newspaper article in the Chilliwack Progress dated October 7 that there are no enforcement and monitoring activities taking place with respect to the selective harvesting that's currently taking place in 5 percent of the Elk Creek area. That

remark, I'm sure, came as a surprise to the compliance and enforcement officials with the Ministry of Forests, who have been very busy over the last month or so closely scrutinizing and monitoring the selective harvesting activity that's currently taking place at Elk Creek.

I note with some dismay that when the Leader of the Opposition was in Chilliwack, she said with some glee that Chilliwack would become the new ground zero in the war in the woods. Sadly, to some extent that has come true. It's certainly not something we relish. I note that today one of the local papers is reporting that a resident of Thunder Bay, Ontario, has got himself mixed up in an altercation in the Elk Creek area, and I think that's regrettable.

I know the land use planning process the previous government launched in the 1990s was expected or at least advertised to resolve these issues once and for all. I know we've concluded a land use planning process for the Chilliwack forest district. As noted, now 22 percent of the entire land base in the Chilliwack forest district has been designated as parks and protected areas, including 24 new parks and more than 800,000 hectares of land base taken out as a result of that collaborative process that proceeded by consensus. The Elk Creek area was left as part of the non-protected, non-park area.

I note, by way of interest, that just less than a couple of kilometres away there is a provincial park called Bridal Falls Provincial Park that's well known, and it encompasses many of the same attributes and characteristics as the Elk Creek area. That might be of interest to people participating in this debate.

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

I also note that the member for Chilliwack-Kent is completely out of touch with his community in terms of what they value in terms of land use planning and that what worked extremely well in the 1990s has been changed completely by his own government in terms of land use — that what was a protected watershed as a drinking water source area is no longer that now, and therefore the….

I'm sorry. I hope I'm not interfering with the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management and the discussion he had with the member for Chilliwack-Kent and Chilliwack-Kent trying to do casework.

J. MacPhail: Yes, I assume that's what the member for Chilliwack-Kent was talking about. I'm just carrying on the discussion that the member for Chilliwack-Kent started. I hope the government doesn't mind. I hope the opposition has the same right to discuss matters raised as do the government members. But, Mr. Chair, I'm more than willing to suggest that the member for Chilliwack-Kent didn't know what he was talking about, if that's where you want to go. If not, we will look at an area where there are changes in land use planning that are absolutely needed to protect land use now and that were not considered in previous land use plans. The government has just said: "Oops. No, this legislation won't have anything to do with changing land use planning."

To carry on, on section 93.2. The way I read this is that every other act that designates Crown land gets priority before the Land Amendment Act designation of Crown land occurs. Am I wrong?

Hon. S. Hagen: This clause, section 93.2, requires cabinet to review any current designation. If cabinet wants to change or make a different designation, then it must first remove a previous designation.

J. MacPhail: Yes, thank you. In other words, legislation that has already designated Crown land takes precedence over this act unless the government changes that act. Is it very hard for the minister to say that all other acts supersede this act? Is that hard for him to say?

Hon. S. Hagen: Government doesn't have to change the act. They just have to change the designation.

Hon. S. Hagen: If it's a land use decision, which in this case it would be, we have said in our New Era document and the commitment we made in the campaign is that we will do land use decisions at open cabinet.

J. MacPhail: I expect there's someone in the Premier's office quaking with all of the commitments this minister is making that go against, entirely, the intent that they had — what they have promised to forest companies.

I look forward to the fact that any land use decision, pursuant to this act, that requires change — under the Park Act, for instance; designation under the Park Act — will be debated and made at an open cabinet meeting. I look forward to that.

J. Wilson: This bill is something this province has needed for many years, and I think it's going to be the chance or the opportunity for us to move forward here. There are a couple of questions I had for the minister, and that's under objectives and designations. Is this or can this be used as a way of somehow, in the future, inventorying some of our land base?

Hon. S. Hagen: I think a direct answer to the member is no, because we already do that inventory work, and we don't need this act to do it. However, when this

act designates the land use plans, that information obviously flows into the inventory.

J. Wilson: When we set down objectives for land use, in a sense that sort of spells out what…. Whether it comes out of a land use plan or not will spell out what that use should be.

In my previous life I worked the better part of three years in land use planning, in our Cariboo-Chilcotin land use plan. All of the way through that we felt the document we came up with at the end of the process was something that…. Well, it had to be completed. There were sub-regional plans and all the rest that went along with it, which had to be completed. They are just now reaching the point where they're nearing completion. Some have been done, and some have yet to be done. Once these are done, then the land use plan will give the direction to government as to how this land use should be dealt with.

All through the land use planning we felt and believed that the land use planning document was a living document, which meant it could be subject to change anytime in the future should the necessity arise where any of the goals were going to be impacted or needed to be changed to address situations as they arise.

I guess my question to the minister is this: if we deal with land use planning when we come to completion on it, is there a process in place that allows the change, should it be recognized that it's needed in those plans, and then will that be reflected in this bill?

Hon. S. Hagen: That decision could be made by order-in-council by cabinet. The intention here is to bring certainty, but we know there is a requirement for flexibility, as well, if there are some changes. I guess the fires this summer would be an example of that. Those decisions could be taken through order-in-council by cabinet.

J. MacPhail: My question is on 93.2, pursuing this issue about land use decisions and land use designations that will all be made in open cabinet. We had a very interesting discussion under the right-to-farm act last week — Bill 48, I think it is — where the government amended the definition of Crown land to include land covered by water and said there was a certain way in which land use decisions would be made under the right-to-farm act relating to fish farms.

Is the minister guaranteeing that fish farm placement and fish farm decisions — Crown land decisions pursuant to Bill 48 — will be made in open cabinet as they pertain to Crown land as well?

Hon. S. Hagen: I believe those are operational decisions that are made by Land and Water B.C. and also by Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

J. MacPhail: No, that's wrong, I'm sorry to say, and I'm sorry that the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management missed the scintillating debate we had last week in the Legislature around Bill 48.

Land use decisions relating to fish farms will be made by this government, specifically where there's a conflict between what the local government wishes and what this government designates as appropriate use for Crown land, which they've now changed to also include water that covers Crown land. The debate made it clear that those changes in terms of land use decisions — Crown land use decisions — were specifically to accommodate aquaculture.

I know, clearly, the minister can't give me an informed answer, because he wasn't aware of that. But I assume that given this minister's commitment that all land use designations and decisions about land use designations, including Crown land, which now includes water that covers land, will be made in open cabinet, including decisions about where aquaculture operations are located. The minister has made that commitment.

W. Cobb: A few quick questions. I kind of lost track of what sections we're on here. I'm on 93.5, and it follows through with some of the other discussion we've had. The way I'm reading section 93.5(2) is that cabinet can, in fact, overrule a decision made or a recommendation made by the minister and/or his delegate. It basically says that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council prevails over the order of the minister.

W. Cobb: Further in that section, 93.6(2)(a) says: "(a) is of the opinion that the order is urgently required to protect a resource value…." Does this mean all resources — whether it's forestry, mining, agriculture, tourism, environment?

W. Cobb: Yes. Under that section, I'm asking…. It says it's to protect a resource value. I assume that is meaning any resource — whether it's forestry, mining, environment or whatever.

W. Cobb: My last question is 93.7. This is more of a reaffirmation of what was already said in some discussion we had. It's around the delegate of authority. I guess my concern, as I've stated to you many, many times, is statutory authority. I want a clarification that this in fact is a delegated authority, not a statutory authority.

J. MacPhail: I'm quite disturbed by the minister's refusal to give a commitment that he will make decisions around location of fish farms in open cabinet. He is reneging on his commitment now to make all land use decisions in open cabinet. He should know, as the minister responsible for aquaculture sitings, that Bill 48 allows cabinet to override municipal bylaws that restrict fish farms. That's what Bill 48 was all about.

Bill 48 gives his government, his cabinet, the right to designate Crown land which is covered by water for fish farm siting, even if a municipal council or a regional district objects. It is shocking that he now refuses to give a commitment, his new-era commitment — that those kinds of decisions now will not be made in open cabinet.

Hon. S. Hagen: The new-era commitment is that we will make land use decisions in open cabinet.

B. Suffredine: Section 93.1 provides for land to be designated for a number of specific purposes. There are many diverse users who want to use Crown land in my riding, and reconciling mining and snowmobiling and diverse uses like that is fairly difficult. Whether they are commercial or recreational users, they're a little bit uneasy about how this plan is going to work. I'd ask the minister to explain how he envisions the implementation being something that'll encourage a wide variety of uses.

Hon. S. Hagen: The member is absolutely correct. Those decisions are sometimes not easy decisions; they're quite complex decisions. But I've seen the staff in my ministry work wonders. I've seen them negotiate between heliskiing and caribou. I've seen them negotiate between snowmobilers and caribou migration patterns. I've seen them negotiate between heliskiing and snowmobilers.

What I've found is that they're very adept at this. They bring the groups to the table, they talk it out, and they find out what each group needs and work these things out. I think that's the strength of the process we're in. We actually bring people to the table, and we invite them to bring their concerns to the table and then work with them to alleviate those concerns.

B. Suffredine: Under section 93.4(1)(c) there's a reference to private land. I wanted to have some clarity about how the Crown has any jurisdiction over private land under the Land Act.

Hon. S. Hagen: This refers to private land that is subject to tree farm licence, woodlot licence or community forest agreements. It is only for those lands captured under tenure.

B. Suffredine: The draft section 93.7 provides for delegation of the minister's powers. Can the minister explain when it would be appropriate or necessary for the minister to delegate those powers?

Hon. S. Hagen: If you go to the previous page, this is only under the Forest and Range Practices Act objectives. It's sort of the day-to-day work that the ministry does.

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm pleased to rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 46, Land Amendment Act, 2003, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.


	YEAS — 46

Falcon	Hogg	Halsey-Brandt
Whittred	Cheema	Hansen
Bruce	Santori	Roddick
Wilson	Hagen	de Jong
Nebbeling	Stephens	Abbott
Neufeld	Coleman	Chong
Penner	Orr	Harris
Nuraney	Brenzinger	Belsey
Chutter	Mayencourt	Trumper
Johnston	R. Stewart	Hayer
Christensen	Bray	Les
Bhullar	Wong	Suffredine
MacKay	Cobb	K. Stewart
Visser	Lekstrom	Hamilton
Sahota	Manhas	Hunter
	Brice

	NAYS — 3

Nettleton	MacPhail	Kwan

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY