Hansard -- Tuesday, May 4, 2004 p.m. -- Vol. 25, No. 2 (HTML)

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page



Introductions by Members		10831

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		10831
	North Shore film industry
	R. Sultan
	Mental health awareness
	V. Roddick
	Summer music festivals in B.C.
	B. Suffredine

Oral Questions		10832
	Impact of legislation on health support workers
	J. Kwan
	Hon. G. Bruce
	Autism services in B.C.
	J. Kwan
	Hon. C. Hansen
	J. MacPhail
	Hon. L. Reid
	Audit involving Doug Walls
	J. MacPhail
	Hon. G. Collins
	Softwood lumber exports to U.S. and trade tribunal ruling
	B. Suffredine
	Hon. M. de Jong
	Avian flu and compensation for poultry industry
	P. Sahota
	Hon. J. van Dongen

Speaker's Statement		10835
	Rules for questions in question period

Committee of Supply		10836
	Estimates: Ministry of Attorney General and Ministry Responsible for Treaty Negotiations (continued)
	J. Kwan
	Hon. G. Plant

Committee of the Whole House		10845
	Partnership Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 35)
	R. Sultan
	Hon. G. Collins
	B. Kerr

Reporting of Bills		10850
	Partnership Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 35)

Third Reading of Bills		10850
	Partnership Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 35)

Committee of the Whole House		10851
	Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 33)
	R. Visser
	Hon. M. de Jong
	B. Kerr
	B. Belsey
	B. Suffredine
	B. Bennett
	J. MacPhail

Report and Third Reading of Bills		10859
	Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 33)

W. Cobb: With us in the House today — or in the precinct, anyway; I've seen one of them — are three people from three different communities in my riding. First of all, there's Mayor Donna Barnett. She's a tireless community worker who is here today to take part in the Community Achievement Awards. She was on the review committee. Two are the recipients of that award: Jim Fraser from Williams Lake and Barb Shaw from Cache Creek. I ask the House to congratulate them and help me make them welcome.

Hon. L. Reid: I'd ask the House to please welcome today 27 students representing Richmond Christian School in my riding. They are accompanied by Mr. Roodnick, and I'd ask the House to please make them very, very welcome.

D. Hayer: It gives me great pleasure to introduce 28 grade 5 students visiting from Pacific Academy School in my riding of Surrey-Tynehead. Joining them is their teacher, David Buzza, as well as several parent volunteers who have taken time out of their busy schedule to accompany them. Would the House please make them all very welcome.

Hon. J. Les: I have some very special guests in the House this afternoon. They are my aunt and uncle. They are here from the Netherlands: my Aunt Henny and my Uncle Jan Jordaan.

Hon. J. Les: They are from the community of Veenendaal. The member for West Vancouver–Garibaldi, of course, wants to enter into a debate about the correct pronunciation. It is indeed my Tante Henny and Ome Jan. Inexplicably, this is the first time that they've been here for a visit to British Columbia, but now that they've tasted British Columbia hospitality, I'm sure they'll be back many more times in the future. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

J. Bray: Joining us in the gallery today are two folks. One is an old family friend of ours, Bill Robinson. The other is someone I've introduced many times before: my father, Marshall Bray, QC They both enjoyed the hospitality of Mr. Speaker at lunch. I'd ask the House to please make both these gentlemen very welcome.

R. Stewart: I'm delighted today to welcome two of our valuable research assistants, Milan Pavlic and Rick Sousa. I've known Rick for a few years, as he lived in Coquitlam prior to taking the job here in Victoria. I'm pleased to announce that Milan and Rick will be married this Saturday, May 8, at my own parish, All Saints Church in Coquitlam. I'm actually honoured to be a part of their memorable day, as they've asked me to be organist for the service. I'd ask the House to join me in welcoming and congratulating these two young people.

D. Chutter: Joining us today in the House is the mayor of Lytton, Chris O'Connor, and the Lytton administrator, Tom Dall. Would the House please join me in welcoming them.

B. Suffredine: I want to send best wishes to a great group of young competitors today. We often stand up in the House and urge on our professional sports teams, like the Canucks, in competitions where professionals are paid large salaries to compete in those activities. The group I want to encourage today is a group of dedicated competitors of a different kind.

Destination ImagiNation is a competition for young people in problem-solving. The global competition is in Knoxville, Tennessee, in mid-May. Seven hundred teams will participate in solving five different problems and in different age categories. After competing in regional and provincial competitions in B.C., the under-age-15 team is from a small school called Brent Kennedy in the Slocan Valley. They're raising money to pay for their trip, so I have pledged to dedicate 25,000 Air Miles to them to help defray those costs. I want to send congratulations and say good luck to Rylan Horwood, Javin Johnson, Christopher Laramie, Bryden Chernoff, Nicole Amos, Rachel Troop and their manager, Gail Mackie Richards.

Hon. M. de Jong: Roy and Janet Rolstone are longtime residents of Victoria. They are involved in the textiles trade, the coffee trade and the popcorn trade, but around here they are most notable for being the parents of my ministerial assistant, their son Derek. They are visiting, and I hope the House will make them welcome today.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, joining us in the House from Aurora, Ontario, and celebrating her ninetieth birthday today is Ethel Adamthwaite. Ethel is the mother of our Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms, Dave Adamthwaite. Accompanying Ethel today, also from Aurora, are her daughter, Nancy-Lee Sassur, and son-in-law, Tony Sassur; her eldest son, Paul, from London, Ontario; and her daughter-in-law, Felicity, from Victoria. Would the House please make Ethel and her family welcome.

One bright sunny afternoon a few days ago I attended an outdoor barbecue hosted by the mentorship program of the Canadian Film and Television Production Association, a sort of apprenticeship program for young professionals in the film industry. I met an earnest young producer just finishing a documentary, a bearded director who had left his shoes at home, and a beautiful and friendly young actress just back from Hollywood where, I was assured, her startling good looks combined with a college degree and five years of acting school marked her for stardom.

The entrepreneurial enthusiasm of this crowd was contagious. It would have been alien to ask, in their world, whether fair compensation involved a 40-hour week. These people work for nothing for 100 hours a week on their dreams. Some of them, Peter Leitch of Lions Gate studios assured me, would surely realize those dreams. Others would simply transfer that winning attitude to endeavours outside the film industry. Thus an accidental by-product is entrepreneurial development in all sectors.

I learned that our movie industry supports a $200 million payroll just on the North Shore. It's a $1 billion industry in all of British Columbia, but not without problems. Due to a shifting product mix, the Canadian dollar and aggressive tax-cutting in competing venues from Iceland to Australia, B.C. film volumes will be down about 20 percent this year. That's one small but significant example. Due to Ontario's better sales tax treatment, their cost of production gives them about a 1 percent cost advantage over B.C., and that hurts.

High-paying, skilled-craft jobs need to be encouraged. Let's give these talented risk-takers a hand when they need it. Film is the type of twenty-first-century industry around which we can build the new and prosperous British Columbia.

V. Roddick: Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, Ernest Hemingway, Virginia Wolfe, Oprah Winfrey, Leo Tolstoy, Marilyn Monroe, Kurt Cobain, Beethoven, Vincent Van Gogh, Michelangelo, Vivien Leigh, Isaac Newton, Tennessee Williams, John Keats, Sylvia Plath — people with mental illness make important and great contributions to our society. That's why our Premier is leading the way to breaking the stereotypes of people with mental illness by having appointed the first-ever minister responsible for mental health.

In the past three years our government has brought focus to mental health, but there's still much more to do in public awareness and education. May 3 to 9 is Mental Health Week. The Delta branch of the Canadian Mental Health Association held its gala jewel of an evening fundraiser at the Beach Grove Golf Club last night, raising more than $20,000. The Minister of State for Mental Health and Addiction Services and myself will be in attendance this Thursday at the Delta Town and Country Inn, when the branch conducts a community mental health forum. It's opportunities like these that allow our communities to look at ways to support, advance and strengthen mental wellness and mental health services.

I would encourage everyone to take part in the many mental health week activities taking place across the province this week, but also take some time to focus on our own mental well-being and remind ourselves that mental health is just as important as physical health.

B. Suffredine: Today I'd like to interest you and others in an emerging tourism opportunity in the Kootenays. The Nakusp Roots Music Society is having its first Nakusp music fest July 17 and 18, 2004. They've signed Randy Bachman, Dr. Hook, Wide Mouth Mason and Trooper as headliners, with ten more groups to be announced. If you want tickets, you have to act fast. There are only 2,000 seats to be made available.

What a great opportunity for a musical holiday in southern B.C. this year. As a first stop, you could potentially get on your motorcycle, Mr. Speaker, and ride to the Merritt Mountain Music Festival, which starts July 13; next stop, Nelson for Streetfest July 16; on to Nakusp for July 17 and 18; then take a short break perhaps to golf at some of the dozens of great golf courses, fish or explore the back country or maybe visit the Ainsworth, Halcyon or Nakusp hot springs.

Still got music on your mind? The Kaslo Jazz Festival is then July 31 and August 1. I haven't touched many communities or the month of August, Mr. Speaker. There's a motorcycle ride between Kaslo and New Denver where you and the member for Peace River South would just love to let the wind blow through your hair.

Summer in the Kootenays is a great time of year. It's a great time to see festivals like this one. Starting to showcase B.C. is how we will get the benefit of the 2010 Olympics, and it won't be long before this is an event of Olympic proportion. Good luck to the Nakusp Roots Music Society.

J. Kwan: The Premier, the Labour minister and the Health minister have spent the last 24 hours telling everyone that they're blameless for their botched effort at labour relations with hospital workers. The Minister of Health's personal intervention in crafting the back-to-work legislation contributed to the mess for patients that his government has created. Will the Minister of Health stand up and offer patients and their families an apology for deliberately inflaming the crisis by insisting that the back-to-work legislation contained no caps on the privatization and contracting-out?

Hon. G. Bruce: I think we all know that to be able to get a negotiated settlement, you have to be at the table. Had all of the parties stayed at the table and negotiated, as was the case in virtually 37 other public sector agreements, what transpired last week need never have happened. To be able to get resolution, the parties have to be at the table to work with one another. We've seen that's been the case in this government by the other agreements that have been put in place, and we can see at the end of the day that when reasonable people get together, you can reach a solution.

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

J. Kwan: It is incredible that even now, this Minister of Health Services refuses to take responsibility for the harm he has caused to patients by imposing the most extreme piece of back-to-work legislation in living memory. It shows how arrogant, how out of touch and extreme this government is when it comes to forcing its health care privatization agenda on British Columbians.

The minister professes to be concerned about patients. Last week he stood in this House to answer a rehearsed softball question and cried crocodile tears over the impact that job action was having on autistic children in British Columbia, but it is his own government's policies that are hurting kids.

To the Minister of Health Services: how can he have the audacity to say he's on the side of patients when wait-lists have gone through the roof, hospitals have been closed, seniors have been split up and programs to treat autism have closed down?

Hon. G. Bruce: I think it's important to remember that just a little bit less than a year ago, the government along with the HEU, particularly officials from the Ministry of Labour, tried to work out an agreement which then would have made the situation considerably different at this point. They actually reached an agreement, which included a cap, which included all sorts of things that were good for everybody. They took that to the membership of the union, and the membership defeated it. Had that been approved, some of the impacts that the members of the HEU right now are feeling wouldn't have occurred, but more importantly, not one patient in the province of British Columbia would have been impacted.

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

J. Kwan: It just goes to show you, Mr. Speaker, that this government refuses to listen at any time. The minister did not even answer my question. The question was clear with respect to closure of services impacting patients and patient care.

Let's take just one example of how this government treats patients. David and Monica Marriot are the parents of a four-year-old child with autism, and they contacted our office. Their son was scheduled to see a team of specialists at the Surrey Memorial Hospital child evaluation clinic for a pre-kindergarten readiness assessment program. Good news, thought the parents. The Marriots received a letter last week telling them that the child evaluation clinic has been closed down by the government.

Again, to the Minister of Health Services: can he explain to David and Monica Marriot why they should believe he is concerned about their welfare when his government is denying their child proper care?

Hon. C. Hansen: If you go back to three years ago when the NDP was still in power in this province, the wait-list for autism assessment was 18 months. We have now successfully brought the wait time for autism assessment down to about three months. Thanks to the work…

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Let us have order in the chamber, and let us hear the question.

Hon. C. Hansen: …that's been done by the Minister of State for Early Childhood Development, there has been a significant improvement in the wait time for diagnosis and significant improvement in the treatment and programs that are available to parents of children with autism.

J. MacPhail: The government changed the criteria of who's eligible for services. That will reduce the wait-list. Here's what the Premier said. The Premier promised not to rip up health care contracts. He promised more support for children with autism and special needs. Let me quote him: "I think that we have to be providing people with the opportunity to make sure their children with autism get the kind of support they need." The New Era document — a promise to "increase emphasis on early childhood intervention programs for families with special needs children."

David and Monica Marriot got another letter, besides the one they showed us today. They got another one. Let's quote from that letter. This letter was sent to parents last week, including Dave and Monica Marriot, from the Delta school readiness program for children.

To the Premier: why is he breaking his promise to children with special needs and breaking his promise to David and Monica Marriot? They're listening to the answer.

Hon. L. Reid: I am pleased to rise today and tell you that more dollars have gone towards the services for children with autism in British Columbia than ever before. The Premier's expectation was that we would increase parental choice around the services for children with autism, and we have done that in spades. We have delivered on individualized funding in this province, we have delivered on centre-based programming for children with autism in this province, and we will continue to do that.

The member opposite made a suggestion that, indeed, the criteria had somehow been diminished around diagnosis. Absolutely untrue. Those criteria have been expanded. More children than ever before are receiving a diagnosis of autism in this province and are doing so in less than three months.

J. MacPhail: Well, the parents of children with autism are listening to this government, and I expect they'll be saying that what this government is saying is simply wrong and is simply misleading. Whether it's breaking promises to working people or breaking promises to children with special needs, the B.C. Liberals have lost the trust of British Columbians. They're taking parents with autistic children all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada to deny them services. The extreme agenda is responsible for the climate of fear, distrust and anger that's overtaken this province. Just this week….

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, order, please, on both sides of the House. Let us hear the question.

J. MacPhail: The Attorney General refuses to take responsibility for the actions his government is taking all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please! Let us conduct question period in a proper manner on both sides of the House. It's time for the question now, hon. member.

J. MacPhail: Just this week StatsCan reported that under this government, for the first time ever…

To the Premier: when can we expect that you actually reveal the report of services to people with special needs — community living services? When are you going to release the report — Mr. Speaker, through you — through the relative of the Premier, a friend of the Premier? When is the report on Doug Walls going to be released to the public to show just what happened to all that money for children with special needs — not the version that the spin doctors out of the Premier's office are going to release but the whole report, unedited? When is it coming out?

Hon. G. Collins: I am trying to discern the stream of consciousness that went into that question, but if I can try and….

Mr. Speaker: Would the Leader of the Opposition please try to get control of herself.

Hon. G. Collins: I'll try and deal with the somewhat rambling points that the member made. If I can try and do that in order, to the best of my….

With regard to the issue of autism, this government is putting more money — not less money — into au-

tism, as was highlighted by the Minister of State for Early Childhood Development.

Hon. G. Collins: …General said, it was the parents of autism who sued that government when the NDP were in government.

Hon. G. Collins: With regard to one of the other disjointed comments she made in what was a very rambling question, the fact of the matter is that in after-tax take-home pay, British Columbia continues to be third in Canada. Actually, we're number two in Canada, and we hope to be number one.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. May we please have some order in the chamber. Otherwise I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to absent herself for the remainder of question period.

Hon. G. Collins: She might do that as soon as her questions are finished, I think.

The last item dealt with the Walls report. We've answered that question a number of times. As we've stated publicly, the process will be followed.

B. Suffredine: This is National Forest Week, and British Columbia is the world's largest exporter of forest softwood products. We have $14 billion in exports each year. The current U.S. lumber tariffs have meant large costs, a financial imposition on mills in my riding and around the province. There was a NAFTA panel ruling that came out last Friday, which appears to be good news for all of those mills, but it doesn't appear to be over yet. Can the Minister of Forests tell us what the latest NAFTA ruling means for producers in my region and other parts of British Columbia?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, amidst other goings-on in the province, the NAFTA trade tribunal did issue a very important ruling last week. It reconfirmed for the second time that the U.S. International Trade Commission's earlier finding that U.S. lumber interests were either injured or threatened by injury by Canadian lumber imports is simply not supported by the evidence. That's a very significant ruling for all of us in British Columbia. That decision, subject only to a final three-week remand period, really knocks out the foundation upon which the U.S. industry coalition has built its case.

I would make this final comment. When that final ruling is announced, I think it's time that the instructions be given that those tariffs cease being collected at the border and the money that has been collected be returned to Canada.

P. Sahota: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. The avian flu has devastated the poultry industry in the lower mainland, but once again our communities have come together in time of crisis to minimize the impact as much as possible. It is important that this government remain steadfast in efforts to ensure that the cull and cleanup be as fast and efficient as possible so families may once again depend on a thriving chicken industry for a good living.

Is there any progress in getting dollars into the hands of the people that rely on the poultry industry to support their families?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I can report to the House that the planned depopulation of the poultry in the Fraser Valley is going well, and there are compensation payments being made to producers under the Health of Animals Act by the federal government. We also have a team of people, including various agencies, working on the broader range of compensation issues. They have hired a consulting firm with experience in the poultry industry to assess the economic damage. We continue to do everything possible, working with our partners, to mitigate the damage not only to producers but also to processors and workers in the industry.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, if you'll indulge me just for a moment, I do wish to read from the standing

I'll just read a bit of it because I think we're losing sight of question period and its intent: "There shall be a 15-minute oral question period at the opening of each afternoon sitting." Subsection (b) says: "questions and answers shall be brief and precise and stated without argument or opinion." This is for all members on both sides of the House. "Supplementary questions may be permitted at the discretion of the Speaker. There shall be no supplementary question to a question taken on notice." Subsection (d): "debate shall not be permitted."

I recommend it. It's recommended reading for everyone, if you can find your book. It's there somewhere. Thank you very much.

Hon. G. Collins: I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we'll be discussing the estimates of the Ministry of Attorney General and treaty negotiations office.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ATTORNEY GENERAL AND MINISTRY
RESPONSIBLE FOR TREATY NEGOTIATIONS
(continued)

J. Kwan: Prior to the lunch break, I asked the Attorney General whether or not the Attorney General was consulted and agreed with the process followed in informing and advising first nations of details of the partnership arrangement. The Attorney General responded by saying he was involved insofar as cabinet was involved and that he was part of the executive council.

Given that answer and given that he wouldn't confirm whether or not the statement made by the Minister of Transportation was true or not, I can only assume that the statement made by the Minister of Transportation is in fact true, and it will be up to the Attorney General to dispute it otherwise. According to the Minister of Transportation on April 27, here's a list of the summary of events that he said was done by the government with respect to first nations consultation.

The Minister of Transportation on April 27, 2003, said that on April 10, 2003, the Premier and the former Minister of Transportation — and he actually names the former minister — provided a letter to all first nations along B.C. Rail's right-of-way to advise them of the government's decision to seek an operating partner for B.C. Rail's freight railway. The process to engage an operating partner involves a request for proposals to be issued in mid-May 2003.

The letter advised that B.C. Rail officials would be contacting first nations chiefs and councils to arrange meetings that would outline the process and inform first nations of the steps being undertaken by the province. Then on April 15, 2003, the B.C. Rail Company commences and advises an informed strategy with first nations along the railway line with whom they have had a business relationship.

On June 9, 2003, all 25 first nations have been contacted and provided with the following information: full information regarding the process components, time line, the technical rationale behind the decision to seek a partner, an explanation of the province's objectives in seeking a partner and a full accounting of the financial situation of the B.C. Rail Company, including the province's interests in the Crown.

On July 15, 2003, the B.C. Rail Company prepares an extensive package of questions and answers for first nations as a result of their first round of meetings. From July to October 2003, the B.C. Rail Company continues to meet with first nations to discuss and clarify issues and questions raised.

Can the Attorney General tell us what part of the sequence of events I've put out that he was involved in?

Hon. G. Plant: I wasn't following all of the quotation that the member was offering. The quotation, I assume, was from references and statements made by the Minister of Transportation during the course of his estimates debate.

For the most part, I actually don't think that the estimates debate is an episode from Perry Mason. But let me say this. The first occasion on which I made a public statement about any aspect of the obligations that might or might not be triggered to consult and accommodate as a result of constitutional issues in relation to the B.C. Rail investment partnership was when I made a presentation at an open cabinet meeting in early December of 2003, at which time I made it clear that there was, so far as I was aware, no formal consultation with first nations undertaken by the B.C. government, having in mind section 35 obligations with respect to the B.C. Rail–CN partnership agreement. It was our view that the partnership agreement does not trigger consultation obligations.

The member referred to some actions in which the Minister of Transportation and his predecessor and others are said to have engaged in the spring, I think, and summer of 2003. I was not personally involved in participating in any of those activities.

J. Kwan: Well, isn't that interesting? The minister says that he was not personally involved in any of the processes that have been outlined, yet you have the Minister of Transportation saying that the Attorney

General was consulted and agreed with the process followed in informing and advising first nations of details of the partnership agreement.

Then you hear the Attorney General say that the B.C. Rail deal doesn't actually trigger first nations obligations. Isn't that interesting? The aboriginal communities disagree with that particular statement from the Attorney General. In fact, legal advice has been sought by the first nations community with respect to the B.C. Rail deal. Let me just put some of that on the record. There have been a couple of legal opinions sought by the first nations on this issue. Let me quote, regarding the proposed merger of B.C. Rail with CN Rail, items that have been identified to be of concern for the first nations community and therefore of concern for the government, which is engaged in treaty negotiations.

From the aboriginal community's point of view with respect to the B.C. Rail deal…. I have several other documents that I could put on the record, and I may well do that.

I want to go back, though, to the minister's comment that the B.C. Rail deal doesn't trigger first nations obligations, from the government's point of view. How can the minister make that statement when we have identified from the former Minister of Transportation that some 44 bands actually have territory located along the rail line?

By their own admission, 25 bands actually have territory along the B.C. Rail line, which the government is using in relation to the trust fund. How could it be that the B.C. Rail deal does not trigger first nations obligations, from the government's point of view?

Hon. G. Plant: Not every transaction involving assets, goods, land or materials triggers constitutional obligations to consult. The question whether those obligations arise is determined on a case-by-case basis by reference to the specific facts of the situation.

In this particular case, the partnership agreement is a lease of the assets of B.C. Rail and not of the land that B.C. Rail holds, so the transaction does not effect any change in land ownership. As a result, it is our view that consultation with first nations as a constitutional matter is not triggered.

As the member herself knows, there are provisions in the agreement that she has spent some time studying which contemplate that at some point in the future, there may be dealings with respect to land. If and when those events take place down the road, then different issues may arise with respect to the obligations, but they do not arise now. In our view, they will only arise if and when those transactions are triggered.

J. Kwan: Well, let me just put on record, then, the legal opinion on this matter. Let me just take this document out and put this on record. In the document, it actually does cite: "It is the province's view that the RFP and the resulting transaction" — this is relating to the B.C. Rail deal — "will not have any material impact on aboriginal rights and title, reserve interests or treaty rights." That's basically what the Attorney General just said.

The document goes on to say: "It is important to note that the Attorney General does not unequivocally say that the B.C. Rail–CN transaction agreement does not infringe or affect aboriginal title and rights or reserve interests. Rather, in this and other places the province takes the position that because there's no transfer of title in land, there is no engagement of title and rights."

Let me now move on to court decisions that have been made relating to the legal obligation of government to consult. "The law of aboriginal title and rights as developed in the more recent cases — including Delgamuukw, Skeena Cellulose, Haida nation and Taku River — provides strong support for an argument that a change in control of B.C. Rail Ltd. and of that rail's operator in your territory could trigger the duties of consultation and accommodation."

The legal document highlights, in fact, an issue of consultation and the obligation to consult by the government side. I'd like the minister to respond to this comment made by Mandell Pinder, which is the law firm that has been hired to provide this legal opinion to the first nations community.

Hon. G. Plant: The member is quoting selectively from a document that appears to be much more extensive than her readings would suggest. I have not had the advantage of an opportunity to read the document in full and, therefore, decline to intervene to express an opinion on any of the passages that she may be reading from it.

J. Kwan: The minister is saying: "Oh well, I can't comment on it, because I don't have the full legal opin-

ion on this issue." I've put on record a passage from the lawyers' perspective in terms of the legal obligation, responsibility, of government to consult. I do believe that the government has a legal obligation to consult with respect to the B.C. Rail deal.

The minister says: "I haven't seen the full document, so I can't comment on it." Let me tell you, Mr. Chair, the first nations community has been trying to get the government to respond to this matter. They have expressed their displeasure with the government's action on the B.C. Rail transaction, from all sorts of places. They've expressed their concerns to the government to no avail. You know what? If the government continues to take this attitude, all that is going to result is further confrontation, more challenges in the courts, more uncertainty with respect to land claims and treaty negotiations and settlements in British Columbia. That does nobody any good.

If the minister says that the government's B.C. Rail deal does not trigger first nations obligations, does the Attorney General then agree with the terms of the actual deal being negotiated relating to the B.C. Rail deal? This is pertinent, as I do believe that it has a relationship to the negotiation processes involving first nations, having identified that 44 bands have territory along the B.C. Rail corridor.

Hon. G. Plant: As I heard the member, she was asking me whether or not I supported the B.C. Rail investment partnership, and the answer is: without hesitation or reservation, I believe it to be a wonderful opportunity for the people of British Columbia.

J. Kwan: Does the minister think that to date, based on what the government has engaged in and based on the fact that the Attorney General is part of the executive council, he is satisfied with the consultation that has taken place with the first nations community relating to the B.C. Rail deal?

Hon. G. Plant: There are two aspects to that question, because the term "consultation" has the potential for being used in a number of different ways. I've already answered the question with respect to any obligations that might arise as a result of section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982 and any allegations of potential infringement of aboriginal rights or title. I've answered that question.

The other aspect of the transaction in which the word "consultation" could, I suppose, be used is the extensive discussions we have had, led by officials in my ministry, with the first nations who are the potential beneficiaries of the B.C. Rail benefits trust. I've already spent a fair bit of time in the course of these estimates explaining why I think that's a $15 million opportunity for 25 first nations to get dollars into their communities to help them with economic development, cultural renewal or educational advancement. We've certainly spent a fair bit of time in this ministry trying to help the first nations who are the potential beneficiaries of that opportunity to understand what it means, including understanding that the first nations benefits trust is not intended to have, and will have, no impact on whatever constitutional obligations government may have.

Although perhaps it's not consultation in the same way that the member contemplates, there has certainly been a significant amount of public discussion — including some discussion, I think, that has taken place directly with first nations, but I stand to be corrected on that — about the benefits that the B.C. Rail investment partnership will bring to communities not just up and down the rail line but all across the heartlands of the province.

The northern development initiative represents a significant opportunity to provide benefits to communities in regions that need that benefit. Anytime you're looking at providing economic opportunities by building a head office, committing to construct more railcars, improving container port facilities or building roads, those are all potential economic opportunities — either in the form of direct jobs for first nations members in communities up and down the province and/or, in addition, opportunities to share in the economic development that I think will be produced in those regions of the province as we take advantage of the fact that we have the private sector investor committing to put something like $5 billion into British Columbia to support and improve transportation infrastructure.

I think it's a great deal for all British Columbians, and when I refer to and speak about all British Columbians, I am including first nations, particularly first nations who live in communities that have borne the brunt of some of the economic challenges that we've faced as a province over the last decade and who stand to benefit from this investment in a very real and tangible way.

Notwithstanding that, the minister actually didn't answer my question. I suppose this must be rampant amongst cabinet members. They must have lessons or something where someone sits them down and says: "Okay, here's what you do with opposition members. When they ask a question of you, if you don't know the answer or don't want to answer the question, proceed to not answer the question and then say that you've answered the question. Then say again that you have answered the question for the last time, and then proceed to not answer the question again."

Alternatively, engage in what the Attorney General is now doing. Make up a question that you want to answer, go on at length about it and then proceed to not answer the question that was put to you. I think there must be some sort of lesson that cabinet members are required to attend — mandatory attendance — on the way in which they deal with questions put to them because to date, three years' worth of estimates now, that's what we see.

The Chair: Member, would you please take your seat for a second. Let's keep our questions relative to this ministry. You're just rambling on. What you're talking about, what cabinet is doing, is absolutely irrelevant to this debate. Keep your questions relative to the Attorney General's ministry, please. Carry on.

J. Kwan: I must say it would be most helpful, as well, if the Attorney General just actually answered my question. Then I wouldn't have to draw comparisons of what this cabinet is doing. I put a question to the minister with respect to the consultation process and whether or not the Attorney General agreed with the terms of the actual deal being negotiated and whether or not he feels that consultation process has been sufficient with the first nations community. I didn't hear an answer from the minister.

The government is now having to deal with the fallout of a leaked document, the revitalization agreement, which states that once this five-year period expires, the tenant can send notice of discontinuance. It states in section 35(a):

This means that lands once under control of the Crown can be transferred to a private company for a dollar. This can happen by sole discretion of the tenant, which is CN, or after a lease expires. This is Crown land that could have been used for treaty negotiation. As we all know, the referendum principles that this government and this Attorney General decided to go through with, subjecting minority rights to the vote of the majority — this ill-fated referendum…. Referendum principles approved in the year 2000 do not allow private properties to be used for settlement resolution.

When the deal was being negotiated, were first nations groups made aware that the deal could potentially last 990 years?

Hon. G. Plant: Allow me for a moment to respond directly to the member's question in two respects. The member said that the referendum principles, which she claimed to have some familiarity with — and she said this very clearly and categorically — "do not allow private property to be used for settlement resolution." Those were the member's words, Mr. Chair, and I thought what I would do is respond directly to the member's reference to those words. I'm going to do so by examining the treaty negotiation principles that were the principles endorsed by the 800,000 British Columbians who responded to the referendum.

There is in fact no such principle in the referendum. The member's suggestion that such a principle was contained in the referendum is categorically false and inaccurate. I will read the closest thing that comes to a relevant referendum principle in my continuing attempt to respond directly to the member's question and the words used in her question.

The first referendum principle read — and it continues to guide government, Mr. Chair — as follows: "Private property should not be expropriated for treaty settlements." At the time the referendum was commenced, I was very clear on the floor of this Legislature — and for several weeks was consistently clear in travels around the province, in meetings with editorial boards, in debate on the floor of this House — that the first referendum principle was exactly what it was intended to do — that is, to ensure that government avoided the expropriation of private property and that the referendum principle at no time was intended to preclude the possibility that private land could be acquired on a willing seller, willing buyer basis in order to ensure that we could do the work we need to do as government to collect and assemble the lands that might be necessary to achieve treaty settlements. Indeed, there have been some acquisitions of potential treaty settlement lands on a willing seller, willing buyer basis during the last year or so as we have tried to reach the point where we have final agreement negotiations.

I have listened with interest as the member has attempted to make the point that she just made about that clause in the revitalization agreement, and I am afraid to say that it is completely without substance or foundation. It is, first of all, a misreading of the clause. Secondly, with respect, her attempt to find the principle in the referendum along the lines that she has identified fails because there is no such principle.

The member then asked me a question about the activities undertaken during the run-up to putting this deal together. As the Minister of Transportation made clear in his recitation of the sequence of events when he discussed the matter in his estimates, those activities were undertaken by officials of B.C. Rail. They were not undertaken by officials in the treaty negotiations office or by Ministry of Attorney General officials. I have also, in a previous question, made it clear that I had no personal involvement in any of those activities.

J. Kwan: That's comforting. The minister is now on record to refute what the Minister of Transportation had said, and that is that the Attorney General was

involved in the process on the B.C. Rail deal with the first nations community. We now know that is not true, according to the Attorney General, who said he had no involvement whatsoever in that process. Well, I'll have some questions with respect to that.

Let me just turn for a moment to some of the comments made by the Attorney General. The referendum dealt with issues around private lands. It's true there are issues around expropriation, but what we're talking about here with the B.C. Rail deal is this. Through the leaked document, it has now been discovered that the government through this deal could actually see a situation where public land can be reverted to private land for a dollar.

As we know, public land that we're dealing with along the B.C. Rail line…. There are, according to the former Minister of Transportation, 44 bands who have territories along the B.C. Rail B.C. line — 44 bands who may raise issues of title with their traditional territory along the rail lines. Given that the land that was once controlled under the Crown can be transferred to a private company for $1 at the sole discretion of CN or after this lease expires, it has full ramifications for treaty negotiations and for those 44 bands in terms of their land title claims — full ramifications.

Given that government actually has a provincial policy for consultation with first nations, which this minister is responsible for, you would have thought that he would bother himself to be involved in the process around the CN deal with first nations. One might have thought that. But the Attorney General just confirmed on record that he has nothing to do with that process. Isn't that interesting? Then presumably first nations groups were not made aware of the deal that could see public lands turned over to private interests in as little as five years. One can only assume that is the case. Will the minister confirm that?

Hon. G. Plant: First of all, Mr. Chair, let me be clear about one thing. When the member attempts to characterize what I've said, I'll stand by what I said and not by her attempt to characterize it. Secondly, I appreciate the fact that she has abandoned the attempt to connect the treaty referendum principles to this debate. Thirdly, I want to be clear about some aspects of this transaction that have become part of the public debate lately, as we wait for the moment when government is going to be in a position to publicly disclose the terms of the agreement for this B.C. Rail investment partnership.

The member quotes from a passage or a term of the agreement that makes it clear that there is the possibility that at some point down the road, there may be some transactions affecting land. That, to me, is worth pausing on for a moment. That is, these potential dispositions of land do not take place at the time of the agreement. They are potential dispositions that could take place later — five years down the road, 25 years, 50 years or whenever. If those dispositions take place — it's a big "if" — then at that time, the parties to those transactions will have to examine the state of the law around the obligation to consult and accommodate the details of the potential transaction, and they'll have to determine what their obligations are. But those obligations don't exist now just because there is an agreement that provides for something to happen down the road.

The Forest Act contains clauses in it that contemplate the possibility that cutting permits may be issued under timber licences or tree farm licences. It's really when those cutting permits or perhaps other documents related to them come into play, when the potential for actual infringement comes into play, that the question of whether obligations exist comes into play. That is another example of a situation where there is, in the law or in an agreement, a provision that provides for the possibility of something happening down the road. When it happens down the road, then whatever obligations the parties have at that point, as a matter of general law or specific to the agreement, will have to be dealt with at that time.

K. Johnston: Joining us in the House today are 30 grade 5 students, dressed very sharply in their red sweaters, from Corpus Christi Elementary School in the riding of Vancouver-Fraserview. They're accompanied by teachers, Ms. Olympia Monteiro and Mr. Riccardi. Also with them are parents Cedric Vaze, Lolita Lore, Kelly Locante, Tess Bie, Angela Sison and Sonja Cristante. Would the House please make them welcome.

J. Kwan: Let me just be clear on the record. I did not abandon the argument around the referendum principles on treaty rights. With the issue around aboriginal lands, as the minister well knows, the first principle is that private properties should not be expropriated for treaty settlements. As the minister well knows, through the CN deal, public lands could be reverted into private lands, in which case there is a real issue with respect to treaty negotiations and the land title claims that aboriginal communities could have when that happens. Those two things are intrinsically linked, and the minister knows that very well.

In fact, the aboriginal community takes issue with what this government has done, and they take issue with what has been now leaked to the community on this 990-year deal and with the possibility that public Crown lands could be reverted to private lands for only a dollar. The Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs has written, as I mentioned earlier, to the competition bureau calling for a halt of the B.C. Rail sale. The Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs lists six reasons why the deal should not go through. I put that on the record earlier.

The minister is insisting that the first nations rights and title are not affected by this deal. The government stated in its open cabinet document from December 8, 2003: "As the B.C. Rail rights-of-way, railbed and track will continue to be owned by British Columbia Railway Company, a provincial Crown corporation, issues of rights and title will not be addressed as part of this investment partnership. The essential operating business will continue under CN, subject to an exclusive 60-year operating lease of the track, which is renewable for another 30 years."

What we now know is that the statement I just put forward is simply not true. The revitalization agreement clearly shows that the lease can be extended to 990 years by the sole option of the tenant, CN. Fifteen 60-year terms can be extended by the tenant.

The agreement also explicitly states that rights and title — title to discontinued lands — can be transferred to CN for a dollar. No first nations consultation or accommodation is built into this deal. By the minister's own admission that the deal does not trigger first nations obligations — he said, Mr. Chair — this deal flies in the face of the legal obligations to consult and accommodate, as well as common-law precedents. The Title and Rights Alliance is opposed to the deal, based on the utter lack of consultation and accommodation with first nations in this deal. They were opposed to the deal before the real details of the sale were released.

The Seton Lake band also has reservations about this deal. Let me just put on the record part of their press release. In the formal notice to government written on May 10, the chiefs of the Lillooet tribe declare: "We are the rightful owners of our tribal territory and everything pertaining thereto." This historic document also addresses the trespasses of the railway through the territory. It stated: "We also wish to protest the seizing of our lands…against the building of railway depots and sidings."

Chief Garry John adds: "We have been trying for 93 years to settle long-outstanding issues with the province and B.C. Rail. These issues have developed since our lands were taken for the very railbed that is now being proposed for lease to CN for a 60-year period." Of course, as we now know, that lease can extend to 990 years, and at the sole discretion of the tenant, they could actually sell. The government could sell this public land for just a dollar, reverting it into private lands and therefore impacting the treaty principles undertaken by the referendum.

Let's be clear in terms of the ramifications of the government's action with the B.C. Rail deal. There could be huge ramifications in the future — court challenges — if the government does not do the right thing, the legally obligated thing, and that is to consult with first nations. By the minister's own admission, no consultation has been done. The government doesn't even see that the legal obligation is required under this deal at this time, and that will result only in uncertainty for treaty negotiations and settlements and for economic activities for British Columbia.

During debate over Bill 89 from last year, the former Minister of Transportation and the member for Prince George–Omineca talked about the B.C. Rail land holdings outside of the B.C. Rail corridor. The former minister said a process was being put into place by which properties extending outside the rail corridor would be subdivided and distributed. She said the properties could go to communities, current tenants of the lands or first nations. This was supposed to occur before the B.C. Rail deal was implemented.

Hon. G. Plant: I have listened to the member refer expressly to a Hansard extract of a debate with the Minister of Transportation about a piece of legislation passed last year. I suggest, with respect, that if she wishes to know what it is that government is doing in relation to that matter, she should pursue the issue with the Minister of Transportation.

J. Kwan: Presumably, this minister would know what this government is doing pertaining to issues that relate to first nations and treaty negotiations. The minister knows full well that first nations are being impacted by the B.C. Rail deal.

How many of the parcels of land have been subdivided and given to first nations?

Hon. G. Plant: I assume from the previous question that the subdivision she is referring to would be some action by B.C. Rail, and that would be an issue that I think she should pursue with the Minister of Transportation, who is the minister responsible for B.C. Rail.

J. Kwan: Unbelievable. You have the Attorney General, who is responsible for treaty negotiations. You have the Attorney General, who is responsible to ensure that across government this provincial policy for consultation with first nations is actually being implemented, and the Attorney General doesn't even know what's going on with this deal. He has not been involved in the process, by his own admission. By his own admission, he feels that the first nations obligations have not been triggered with the B.C. Rail deal. He doesn't know whether or not land has been subdivided, and he doesn't know whether or not the first nations are involved in that. Isn't that interesting?

Well, you know, Mr. Chair, the Premier's estimates are coming up after the AG's. The opposition will be putting these questions to the Premier, and I will put the Premier on notice now. I expect answers from the Premier. He is the head of the executive council. Where his members of cabinet do not know the answers or could not answer questions, I certainly expect the Premier to be able to answer these questions or direct his executive council to answer them. We the opposition will be putting these questions, then, to the Premier.

Hon. G. Plant: The trust fund does not yet exist, so it is not being administered.

J. Kwan: Who does the government intend the trust fund to be administered by?

J. Kwan: I want to confirm how the trust fund works. It is a fund for one-time grants, and it is not a $50 million base fund in which interest will be paid out like the First Citizens Fund. Is that correct?

Hon. G. Plant: The fund does not yet exist, but the intention is that it will be a one-time grant. As I have explained, I think, in earlier discussions in the estimates, it is different from a fund like the First Citizens Fund, which is an accounting entry in the books of the province from which grants are made that are essentially grants funded by the interest earned on the fund on a year-by-year basis. This is a one-time-only grant.

J. Kwan: Given that this fund doesn't exist, have moneys been allocated to the fund? And where does it exist — the money that's been allocated to it?

Hon. G. Plant: The intention is that the money will come from the sale proceeds of the investment partnership, and that transaction has not concluded yet, so the money has not yet been paid.

J. Kwan: When is it expected, and under what ministry would the legislation — presumably there would be legislation that deals with the trust fund — be introduced?

Hon. G. Plant: That's a matter of future legislation, and we'll probably deal with it when the legislation comes in. It may be my ministry; it may be the Ministry of Transportation. Those things are not completely and finely determined as of this moment.

J. Kwan: The Minister of Transportation said earlier that only 16 of the 25 bands along the rail line had signed up for the fund. Then in mid-April that number rose to 23. When was the deadline for the bands to sign up?

Hon. G. Plant: We had originally contemplated a deadline, but at present we are thinking about either not having a deadline or extending the deadline in order to provide more time for the first nations to consider whether or not they want to participate in the trust fund.

J. Kwan: Originally the government contemplated April 16 as the deadline, and the aboriginal community had been told that is the deadline. Is the minister now saying that April 16 is no longer the deadline and that it is indeterminate in terms of when the deadline is?

Hon. G. Plant: If you start back at the beginning of the public discussion about this, I think there was some hope that the transaction would have completed for now. That may have had something to do with that April 16 deadline.

But the April 16 deadline does not exist now. We are certainly looking at the option of either not imposing a deadline or stretching things out to make sure that there is the right balance struck between the need to get some closure on this at some point and, at the same time, the corresponding need to be fair and to give first nations the opportunity to decide whether or not they want to participate. We haven't, obviously, tabled legislation yet, and there is a possibility that we could put the date in the legislation when we get to that point.

Hon. G. Plant: I'm advised that as of today, we have formal commitments of participation from 17 first nations. The work continues of trying to figure out what the problems are and addressing them to the satisfaction of the other first nations so that they feel confident that this is an initiative they can participate in without worrying about any impact on their rights or title. I'm hopeful that we will be able to find a way to encourage other first nations to participate or that they will independently decide that they want to participate.

Hon. G. Plant: I don't have that information in front of me, but I can arrange to see if we can do the work that would provide the member with a list.

J. Kwan: If the minister can't provide the answer, I certainly would accept a statement or a list from the minister after the estimates so that we know which 17 out of the 25 bands have actually signed on to this agreement.

How many bands have actually backed out of the fund since the details of the deal were released in April of 2004?

Hon. G. Plant: My information is that four have withdrawn. Four never signed on. If you add that to the 17, that gives a total of 25.

The member's interest in this line of questioning, though, allows me to pursue an issue that certainly is responsive to the questions and is something that has been out there in the public debate about this in a way that I think is unfortunate. There has been some public discussion about whether or not, as a condition of participating in the trust, we require that first nations publicly acknowledge that they were participating in the trust.

Really, at that time what we were looking at was drafting a bill that would identify the participant first

nations specifically, because we wanted to be sure we could put in place a trust that met the legal requirement of certainty by identifying the potential trustees and also the potential beneficiaries. This idea that we wanted people to be willing to acknowledge that they were participants was really only ever from the perspective of being able to make sure we could actually get the names of these first nations into the official documents so that we could create something that was clear and certain. Now we're looking at other ways of doing that, and I'm not certain what the legislation will look like when it's finally introduced.

There was never any intention here to try to sign up a bunch of potential cheerleaders for the investment partnership. I really regret that that kind of accusation or allegation has been made out there, but I know that this is politics, and sometimes people find it absolutely impossible to believe that something could be, in fact, as well intentioned and fairly straightforward as the benefits trust is.

J. Kwan: Unfortunately, the Minister of Transportation started this. The Minister of Transportation gave misinformation about the participation of first nations in the trust fund, and that escalated. That was further compounded by the leak of the revitalization agreement — all to do with the government's approach in dealing with the CN deal. The issue the government is now faced with is caused by this government and no one else.

Is it any wonder, given the secrecy and the hiddenness — to borrow a term from the Premier — that the first nations communities are suspicious of the intent of the government and feel they've been led down the garden path around this trust fund? In fact, Chief Ed John said exactly that — that they felt like they'd been led down the garden path by the government on this trust fund. It was the Minister of Transportation's comment about the participation of first nations in this trust fund that caused the issue to begin with.

What correspondence took place between the ministry and the bands that actually brought the number of bands to sign on to the trust fund to date — the 17 bands? What correspondence has transpired between the ministry and the bands?

Hon. G. Plant: There are a number of letters that have been sent to first nations going back to, I think, December 8 or 9. I actually referred to some of those letters yesterday during the course of debate on a motion that was before the House tabled by the Leader of the Opposition. In addition to the letter of December 8, there were letters…. I've got one in front of me here, February 17. Actually, it may have been December 9, not December 8. I think there was another letter sent in mid-January. There was a letter sent in mid-February, February 17. I know there was a letter sent to at least one of the chiefs on March 26.

There was a meeting in Prince George on February 12, 2004, regarding the B.C. Rail first nations benefits trust. Most of the 25 first nations — not all, but most — were able to attend that meeting, and there were some questions raised. The letter of February 17 contained our attempt to answer those questions, and in the context of the subject that continues to be of interest to the member, I think it's important to read a little bit of that.

One of the questions that was asked was: "Are there any conditions regarding rights and title attached to first nations participation in the trust?" The answer was as follows: "The B.C. Rail partnership agreement with CN Rail does not transfer any title to lands, and the creation of the $15 million trust does not involve aboriginal rights and title and related consultation and accommodation. Participation in the $15 million trust will not have any conditions related to assertions of rights and title."

That last sentence, I suggest, is about as clear as you can make it. I think we have been pretty consistently clear about those issues, even though I understand those questions continue to be raised.

J. Kwan: The correspondence with respect to the participation of first nations in the trust does not indicate their support for the B.C. Rail deal. In terms of that piece of correspondence relating to that statement, when was that correspondence issued from the ministry?

Hon. G. Plant: I've got a letter of March 26, 2004. There may be other letters, but it's a letter of March 26 from the deputy minister of the treaty negotiations office addressed to Chief Norman Leech of the T'it'q'et band in Lillooet. It refers to first nations having expressed a number of concerns, and they include the sorts of concerns that have been part of the member's questioning. We responded to them in this letter.

They include the contention that some first nations have made that participating in the trust would represent support by first nations of the B.C. Rail partnership with CN Rail, that participating in the trust would represent agreement by first nations to give up or set aside claims they may be pursuing or have intended to pursue with B.C. Rail, that participating in the trust would prevent first nations from pursuing railway-related taxation initiatives, and that participating in the trust would indicate first nations were endorsing the list of first nations that would be included as beneficiaries in the trust.

He goes on to address the concerns again and to do what he can to put those concerns completely to rest, because they are without substance or foundation.

J. Kwan: In spite of what the minister deems to be reassurances to the aboriginal community, since that time they still raise concerns about the trust fund, and of course, they raise concerns about the sale of B.C. Rail.

The Title and Rights Alliance issued a press release on April 19, 2004, in which they say: "B.C. first nations oppose the sale of B.C. Rail. First nations throughout B.C. object to the proposed sale of B.C. Rail. Comments by the Transportation minister" — and that is the current Transportation minister — "in today's Prince George Citizen newspaper are completely false." The Transportation minister states and is quoted in this press release: "Frankly, I believe all of them — first nations — view this as positive."

The press release goes on to say, from Justa Monk, a steering committee member of the Title and Rights Alliance:

Then you have the Mount Currie band council about the trust fund. Let me just put on record what they wrote to the minister on April 29, 2004.

The letter goes on to highlight the 990-year deal, the discontinued land issue, the sale, the potential sale of Crown land for a dollar for it to become private land.

Based on the information that the aboriginal communities have received today, is it any wonder that they don't trust the government? Let's see if we can help settle some of these issues. Is the minister aware of the revitalization agreement, particularly with respect to the clause on discontinued land?

Hon. G. Plant: I answered the questions about the clause on discontinued land very clearly earlier and explained my understanding of its legal significance. Just to remind the member, among the things I said was that if in the future there was any action undertaken in relation to the powers and rights that arise under that clause, then at that time the parties to that action will have to determine whether there are any additional obligations owed at law, including obligations that might arise because of constitutional requirements to consult and accommodate in certain circumstances involving the infringement of aboriginal rights and title.

I want to be clear about a couple of things that I probably should have put on the record before. My staff, the treaty negotiations staff, did have several meetings with the potential participants in the B.C. Rail benefits trust. Those meetings were never for the purpose of explaining or talking about the B.C. Rail investment partnership. They were only for the purpose of talking about the trust. As I have already made clear, when you examine the record in Hansard of what it is the Minister of Transportation said about discussions that included first nations in the spring of 2003, those were discussions undertaken by officials of B.C. Rail. They were not discussions undertaken by officials from either the treaty negotiations office or the Ministry of Attorney General.

I get that there are people who apparently still have questions and concerns about whether or not they want to participate in this trust. Participation in this trust is not mandatory. It is voluntary. In practical terms, I think it's probably worth pointing out that every time someone doesn't choose to participate, there will be more money available for those who do choose to participate. It's not, I suppose, ultimately a question that is going to concern me all that much, because the trust, I hope, will come into existence and the $15 million will be provided to those communities who do want it. They will be able to use the money for any project that fits within the scope of the three general principles that I've referred to on several occasions.

I think the B.C. Rail benefits trust is another example of why the B.C. Rail investment partnership is good news for British Columbians and is particularly good news for aboriginal British Columbians. It's a $5 billion opportunity to grow the economy for the benefit of all. I know there are people who would rather not see that happen, and I wish they could join with us in the adventure and the excitement of creating a new economy for British Columbia in the twenty-first century, but they may not want to do that.

In the meantime, however, Mr. Chair, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. G. Collins: I call Committee of the Whole for consideration of Bill 35.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 35; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

R. Sultan: I have some general questions concerning Bill 35, the Partnership Amendment Act, 2004, because it is a very intriguing new structure that is being offered to the business community and the professional community in British Columbia. But I'm sure there are many questions arising from this section and perhaps others.

Hon. G. Collins: The legislation will come into force by regulation. It is government's intention to do that fairly quickly. As to whether or not certain professions can use the legislation, we provide that by amending their governing act. They would be required to put in place the rules that would govern that. These are generally self-governing bodies, and they would set that up on their own. As soon as they're able to and it works with their members, they're able to take advantage of the legislation.

R. Sultan: I take it, then, that the minister is advising us…. I suppose there is something called the Chartered Accountants Act perhaps or an act governing the conduct of the legal profession. Each of those acts, as I would understand it from the response, would now have to be amended.

Hon. G. Collins: Yes. It is not a large bill, so I don't have a problem with addressing it all at once. I believe it is section 8 that actually puts in place a series of amendments. In this case, the member mentioned the Chartered Accountants Act. There is provision in this legislation before us, in consequential amendments, that we put in place a structure. Then we go and amend the governing legislation for the various professional bodies, which allows them to take advantage of this. Then they go and put in place whatever procedures or processes or rules they need within their process to make sure that it works for them.

R. Sultan: I recall that the minister informed the House that while the initial targets, if I can use that word, for this legislation were chartered accountants and lawyers, perhaps there would be further amendments to the act bringing general accountants and management accountants within the purview of this new structure.

Hon. G. Collins: The intent of government has been to provide a vehicle and then, I guess, determine — either now or an ongoing basis — who gets to be in that vehicle.

This legislation creates the structure for limited liability partnerships. It names three different professions, I believe, in the act — the lawyers, the notaries and the chartered accountants. Those were the ones we heard from. Government's intention was and continues to be that it will canvass the other various professional bodies with governing legislation that may choose to take advantage of this type of a structure, consult with them and advance those professions in further amendments at a later date.

Subsequent to this legislation being introduced in the House, we heard from the CGAs as well as the CMAs, who were also interested — there is always a healthy competition amongst the various branches of the accounting family — and wish to be part of it as well. We have drafted amendments that would do that for the CGAs and the CMAs. I will be proposing those amendments when we come to the appropriate places in the legislation today.

R. Sultan: Do I take it, then, from the minister's response that theoretically, at least, virtually any self-governing professional body could conceivably come under the purview of this act?

Hon. G. Collins: This bill does two things. It creates the structure, and then it names three — and if we pass the amendments, it will name five — self-governing professions that will use this vehicle. In the future, though, any other self-governing body that has legislation — like the CAs or the notaries or the lawyers, etc. — certainly could come and ask government. We will be canvassing them, as well, to determine whether or not this is a vehicle that will be useful for them in their profession. If we can come to terms — it should not be difficult; it could be done relatively quickly — then government and the Legislature could choose to amend the governing legislation of those various professions to allow them to set up the rules that would allow them to take advantage of this vehicle.

R. Sultan: I presume it's quite possible that the Association of Professional Engineers of British Columbia could conceivably come forward and request consideration under this act.

Hon. G. Collins: Yes, the engineers could if they agreed amongst themselves as to how they might do that and whether or not they were comfortable doing it. Other professions could as well. I believe architects and similar professions could choose to pursue this

vehicle as well, and government would certainly be willing to discuss that with them.

That legislation is generally handled by the Minister of Advanced Education as part of her purview of legislation that she's responsible for, so those consultations should probably take place between those professions — the representatives, obviously, of those professions — and the Minister of Advanced Education where that's appropriate.

R. Sultan: When the minister introduced this legislation, I seemed to hear some words which almost imply that this new organizational form might be made available to organizations which went beyond the traditional professional organizations. Could the minister clarify that situation?

Hon. G. Collins: I'm happy to do that. In fact, around the world there are a number of jurisdictions — many, in fact — that have this limited liability partnership corporate structure in place. It's not just for professions, but it's also another means of structuring a business. We felt it was appropriate to pursue a similar agenda here to put us in a position that made British Columbia competitive internationally. We don't want to just be number one in Canada. We would like to be a place that's attractive for investments from around the world and, in so doing, create opportunities, jobs, a tax base to pay for the various services people look for.

So yes, this legislation, as I mentioned, provides a vehicle. It's a fairly large vehicle. Lots of people could, if it worked for them, choose to take advantage of this vehicle and make a choice as opposed to incorporation or a standard partnership. That's really the choice of the people in the business and how they choose to structure themselves, but this provides one more vehicle for them to do that. It's something that is done in numerous places around the world and puts British Columbia back on track with those jurisdictions.

R. Sultan: I suppose that since those other possible groupings of interests that might want to adopt a limited liability partnership form may not typically be organized in a professional body governed by an act, that particular step would not be part of the process of gaining approval. Is that correct? What are the mechanics and the nuts and bolts? To whom would one apply?

Hon. G. Collins: It's actually fairly straightforward. Yes, in response to the member's comments, any business venture could choose to organize in this structure. If they do, the mechanics of it are that they would register with the registries as a limited liability partnership. There are some things they are required to do. They are required to make their customers and their creditors aware of that. They are also required to put it in the name of their company, so you'll see — I don't know — Joe's Wax LLP, I suppose. I'm trying to think of a company that might do it. The LLP would be attached to the name of the company. That way, people doing business with them would be aware of the structure. Creditors would be aware of the structure. Then they can operate as a limited liability partnership.

R. Sultan: Back to the situation where it is a professional organization which chooses the LLP form. Being a member of a professional body myself — namely, the professional engineers…. I suppose the theory of not allowing limited liability to lawyers, accountants — or engineers, for that matter — was, in the case of engineers, that if they design a bridge that falls down, the persons injured should have full recourse to not only their office desk and computer but maybe their home, car and all of the assets that they were holding for future generations. By limiting this liability, we are removing a form of accountability from lawyers, accountants and possibly engineers in the future, and this isn't necessarily in the best consumer interest.

Since someone may raise such a rather flamboyant accusation, if they do, how would the minister respond?

Hon. G. Collins: I don't know if that member has ever designed any bridges that he's worried about. If he were to be, I can't give him any assurance with regard to this legislation. This legislation, while it does put a liability shield in place…. That liability shield falls away in the event of negligence. Provided somebody is just operating in a normal business method or business practice, the shield is similar to that which exists in an incorporated company. Personal assets of the individual are shielded from creditors, etc.

In the event that the individual is negligent for some reason — in the case of an engineer, the example that member used, or in other ways, in other professions — then that shield falls away, and the person would be liable for the actions that they had taken or the negligence they had exhibited.

R. Sultan: If I may be allowed the liberty to read a communication I received this afternoon from an interested lawyer with whom I have had a long association…. He commented as follows on this particular issue, referring again to the possibility of engineers falling within the purview of this act:

Are you able to provide any information about how the act intends to deal with issues such as these?

Hon. G. Collins: I believe the issue the writer of that letter is raising is that of statutes of limitations for liability. There is a civil liability review that's under-

way by the Attorney General and his ministry, looking into those types of liability issues. That is something that's under the purview of his office. This does not limit the time lines for liability. It merely limits the nature of the liability and describes that.

R. Sultan: Just to conclude my questions on this act, I think it would be in order for me to compliment the minister and his staff for bringing forth a form of organization that many in the business community have asked for to make British Columbia even more competitive with jurisdictions elsewhere. I think the initial response I've already received in the short period of time since this bill has been introduced is extremely favourable and is further evidence of the drastic improvement the business climate is incurring under this minister.

Hon. G. Collins: I do want to say just a word on that. There has been a great deal of work done in the ministry over the last three years in particular, but I know that work was started, in many cases, almost decades prior. It really just took the energy to bring it to fruition and move it through the process.

I want to thank the member opposite for his assistance on a number of issues over the last three years. I also want to, on behalf of the people of British Columbia, thank the gentleman who is sitting to my left, Leon de Wet, who has led that part of the ministry for a number of years, since before we came to government, and has really done an incredible job over the years on some extremely complicated legislation, some extremely complicated issues — whether it be the Business Corporations Act, the Partnership Act, the Financial Institutions Act or the Real Estate Act. I could list all the legislation that the ministry has revised and updated in the last number of years to really bring us up to speed with the rest of the world — legislation that had suffered from either neglect or wanton disregard over the years in that some of it had not been amended for 50 years, some of it for 20 years or 30 years. So we've been able to achieve a great deal. I also want to say that he was involved heavily in the new securities legislation, which the government hopes to move forward on very shortly.

All of those were big rewrites, and it's allowed British Columbia to take a leadership position, I think, in Canada — if not in North America, if not around the world — with regard to the type of legislation that guides the financial institutions and the financial and business arrangements of people in this province.

I wanted to thank Leon, because he is abandoning British Columbia just when we're getting it going. He and his wife and family will be moving to Australia shortly to take up residence and become entrepreneurs. I just want to thank him for his years of service and wish him the best of luck in his new endeavours. I think that people have been well served by his efforts.

B. Kerr: This is a red-letter day for me. Yesterday I spoke in the House about the five things I wanted to get done before the end of my first term. I was speaking about a number of the things in my riding. I wasn't speaking about issues such as this, which was also on my list — to bring out the limited liability partnerships and avoid what we could call the liability chill to professionals.

The liability chill had quite an effect on the type of work that you would take on as an engagement and made it difficult sometimes for people to take on riskier engagements when people needed to get financing. It also increased the fees to clients overall, let's say, in the accounting profession. So much work was done just to protect yourself from liability because you knew that a partner — in those days a general partner — in an accounting firm or a professional firm would be liable for anybody's actions across the entire country. So I thank the minister for bringing this out. This is great news. Maybe I should explain that I am a chartered accountant, so I've had to live within this type of liability for some time.

I've got a couple of technical questions that I want to ask in this report. Pardon my ignorance, because I'm not a lawyer. Maybe these things are just legal things that could be answered very quickly.

We have a situation where we're calling, in the definitions under section 7 of the amendment and section 94 of the old act, if I can use it that way…. We've got: "'Professional partnership' means a partnership through which one or more persons carry on the practice of a profession…." I don't know. A lot of people carry on through a corporation, and I wonder if "persons" would, also, in corporations that are partners.

B. Kerr: We have two types of partnerships in here. We have what is called limited partnership, and we have a limited liability partnership. I understand that in a limited partnership, people who sign on aren't allowed to have any hands-on operations with the partnership they're involved in. It's usually controlled by what's called a general partner, and that general partner takes on all the liability. The limited partners are hands-off, and it's primarily to get income through investment income, quite often in real estate projects of that type or nature.

Now we're allowing the limited partnership to move into what's called a limited liability partnership. I wonder what kind of additional onus that would put on the limited partners.

Hon. G. Collins: In the scenario the member spoke of, the limited partner under the current process has limited liability, but they also have limited control and

limited say in how the business would be run. If they chose to convert themselves to a limited liability partnership, then they would have the shield that they had previously but would also have the ability to have a greater say in the way the venture was managed. All they have to do is register through the normal process like everyone else, with the registries, and behave in the manner required, as I mentioned earlier, and they would be able to operate in that fashion. So there's an advantage there for those partners who wish to be involved but do not want to carry all the liability of the larger or the more senior partner, I guess, in this case — but still have some say in the managing of the company.

B. Kerr: I would imagine, then, the limited partners now in the larger projects can go on to the audit committees or boards or management advisory committees — that type of thing.

B. Kerr: I think that adds a lot of flexibility, and I think that's good. Under the registration now, to become a limited liability partnership, you have to file a registration. There are two instances when you can. One of the instances is where a person has received approval of all the partners, and another one is if the partnership agreement authorizes the filing of a registration statement. I'm just wondering whether, for a grandfathering situation, we should have it where everybody must agree first, so that we can't just slip something in there within a partnership agreement that might be 40 or 50 pages long — on a limited partnership agreement — which would authorize a person to do this, and suddenly they become a limited liability partnership without them knowing it.

Hon. G. Collins: First of all, government doesn't, in great detail and great minutiae, manage the internal workings of a partnership. In the scenario the member raised, let me give two examples. Let's say we had a small partnership of three people. It's pretty easy to tell whether they're all in or not, whether you've got consensus. If you've got a much larger partnership — let's say a law firm that could have 300, 1,000 or 1,500 lawyers; they seem to get bigger all the time — it would be very difficult to have all those file and to gauge whether or not you had that. If you had a partnership agreement that said they were going to become a limited liability partnership, that would suffice as assessing whether or not the consensus existed.

However, the issue the member raises of an example where there might be some pre-existing mechanism in a partnership agreement that would allow this to happen without one of the partners knowing…. You know, we can't regulate every little tiny bit of how the partners structure themselves. I would say that might be a partnership agreement that the partners might want to be a little nervous about, if it gave them that much flexibility. I don't know about the particulars. Either way, once that partnership — large or small — registered as a limited liability partner, it would start appearing on the letterhead. It would appear on the business cards. It would appear on the name of the company. It would have to be out there. One of the partners who all of a sudden shows up for work one day and notices there are a couple of extra letters at the end of the partnership might want to take note of that.

There are some practical things that happen here. Really, it's based on a system of disclosure, so everybody knows. We really can't get into each partnership agreement and say: "You can't do this and you can't do that, based on your partnership agreement." That's really something that members of partnerships need to be responsible for themselves.

B. Kerr: I wasn't referring to that type of partnership, which is a partnership where everybody is sort of part and parcel of the management. I was thinking more of limited partnerships, like limited film partnerships, where they're selling limited partnerships through all of Canada, particularly in British Columbia. When you sign on to those things, they're usually done through a securities commission and through a brokerage house, so you don't really know all the terms and conditions, because they're huge, long documents.

Hon. G. Collins: The scenario, I think, is worthwhile asking about, but my perception of the example the member gave would be that if you went from a limited partner, which has that protection, to a limited liability partner, you would still have the protection. You would just have the opportunity to have a greater say. In fact, that would be an improvement, I would say, on the position of that limited partner, not a deterioration in their position — unless the member has an example where it might be. I'd be interested to hear it, if he does.

B. Kerr: I guess my concern is that although you have the protection of the corporate shield, you don't really, if you're a limited partner…. If you're a limited partner, the most you can lose is your investment in the limited partnership. But as a limited liability partner, you suddenly take on the obligation for any, let's say, environmental damage. You could be jointly and severally liable for any damage that happens that would pierce the corporate veil, if you want to say.

Hon. G. Collins: The only way that shield would be perforated would be in the event that you went from a limited partner to a limited liability partner. The example the member used was…. Let's say an environmental degradation had happened by the lead partner or the senior partner in this. You are no more liable in a limited liability partnership than you would be in a limited partnership unless you yourself were negligent or knew that this was happening and didn't respond to it, and in that form were, I guess, negligent. It would have to be something that you as a partner

did. If it was something that happened from the other partner and you were not aware, weren't part of it, then the same protection that was there prior would exist in this case as well.

B. Kerr: I hope that's the case. I'd like to move down into that now when we're talking about the liability. Under section 2, it says that it does not relieve a partner in a limited liability partnership from personal liability for the partner's own negligence — which I certainly agree with — or for the negligence or the wrongful act or omission of another partner or an employee of the partnership of the partner seeking relief.

My concern is: why would a partner, if he's not liable, have to seek relief? What would trigger something for him to have to seek relief? Does the onus go on the partner? Then he has to try to get off the hook? Shouldn't he be off the hook automatically and something trigger him to put him on the hook?

Hon. G. Collins: This section is reading as though something's happened and the partnership is being sued. Normally, the person suing would just name all the partners. What this says is that you have that protection, provided you didn't know, and if you did know, that you did something about it. Maybe I said that backwards. But if you were culpable in any way, according to…. You've got to read the whole subsection. It's (2)(a)(b)(i) and (ii). If you knew of the act or omission, and you did not take the actions that a reasonable person would take to prevent it, then you're out of luck. You don't get relief. You are, in fact, going to be part of the action.

However, if those don't apply, then you have a case and say that I had no knowledge of this, and therefore I can't be personally liable. The other individual would be liable. That's as it would exist previously.

B. Kerr: I'm getting into "partners subject to same obligations as the corporate directors." Again, I guess we're also now looking at partners as if they're shareholders. I'm not sure where this particular question fits in. There is an annual report that a limited liability partnership would have to prepare.

I'm just wondering now whether the difference is going to be a reporting limited liability partnership and a non-reporting limited liability partnership and whether obligations will be different depending on the size.

Hon. G. Collins: This annual report is not like a financial report, an annual report that you would issue. These are partnerships. The report that's being talked about here is just their report to the registries, which names their partners, locations, etc. — just the data that they're required to keep on file at the corporate registry.

B. Kerr: Essentially, we're still talking about that the onus is on the partner. When he enters into an agreement, he still has to ensure everything that's in the partnership agreement and be aware of it. That's fine. I think that's good. We were just getting into the thing.

There's a sort of reciprocal thing here between…. You call a foreign partnership a partnership that's not registered in British Columbia, and that seems odd to me. It might be outside British Columbia, but it wouldn't necessarily be foreign if it was in Alberta. I'm just wondering why that terminology was used.

Hon. G. Collins: It's probably small-f foreign, in that it's foreign to the registry of this district — British Columbia. It's not sort of the national or international. It's more outside of the jurisdiction of this registry.

B. Kerr: I guess Alberta would be small f. When we get as far back as Ontario, then maybe we're getting to big-f foreign. I'm thinking now of the larger professional firms, the law firms and accounting firms.

Going into section 115, they "may apply to register the foreign partnership as an extraprovincial limited liability partnership if the foreign partnership has the status of, or a status equivalent to that of, a limited liability partnership…." So what happens with the firms that are registered extraprovincially? I don't know whether there's such a thing as limited liability partnerships across the rest of Canada. Would a firm like PWC want to do something like this?

Hon. G. Collins: Certainly, if a company — for example, a major accounting firm or law firm — wished, they could choose British Columbia to be their base and register here as a partnership in British Columbia. If they are a limited liability partnership in other jurisdictions outside of British Columbia, that's fine. They can be registered there, but they're also required to make their registration here in British Columbia so that we're aware of them as well.

B. Kerr: But does this type of legislation exist in any other parts of Canada, or are we leading the way?

Hon. G. Collins: Yes, most jurisdictions have limited liability partnership in place. Not all of them include the broader ability for a variety of businesses to use this vehicle. They may be limited to certain professions. So yes, this type of legislation is in place. Ours is perhaps a little broader than what you'll find in other parts of Canada.

B. Kerr: Those are all the questions I have for the minister. Thank you very much. I think this is great, and I'm very pleased that it has happened. I'm glad that it happened in my first term also. I think that's terrific, and I think people are going to…. Maybe we'll get some accounting fees reduced, because the liability chill won't be so high.

Hon. G. Collins: I'm glad I could bring a successful end to the member's first term. I'm sure he'll have many.

Hon. G. Collins: As I stated earlier, we intend to amend the bill before us to include certified general accountants as well as certified management accountants. I would add a section 7.1, which is in the hands of the Table.

Hon. G. Collins: I move an amendment in the hands of the Table to add sections 11.1, 11.2 and 11.3.

Hon. G. Collins: I thank the members for their questions, and I thank the officials for their work on this legislation.

Hon. G. Collins: I call Committee of the Whole House for consideration of Bill 33.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 33; L. Stephens in the chair.

Hon. L. Reid: In the gallery today we have Dorothy Hamilton. Many of you will know that she's been near and dear to me for many, many years. She's joined by her granddaughter, Hannah Hatlen, who is soon to be three years of age on June 5, and her mother, who happens to be my constituency assistant, Kathie Hatlen. I'd ask the House to please make them welcome.

R. Visser: Section 21 gets us into something that I think has captured the imagination of certainly a number of my communities on the north end of Vancouver Island and a couple that I can think of specifically.

My first question on this section is: what do you mean by a probationary community forest agreement as opposed to a real, final community forest agreement?

Hon. M. de Jong: I wonder if I might take a moment just to review the evolution that has occurred with respect to community tenures. It's partly a question around the development of substantive public policy. But it's also been a bit of a personal journey, because I must confess that my attitude toward the notion of these community tenures has changed over time. Forgive me if I go on a bit at length in that respect.

It was actually some time ago when the notion developed that a tenure would be created which vested not in an individual and not in a corporation but in a community. There are a small number of those types of tenures in existence. The Forest Act was amended at the time to allow for and contemplate those kinds of community tenures, and a particular regulatory regime was developed.

A portion of that related to the mechanism by which the tenure became available and was awarded. As the member correctly points out, in the regulatory regime that presently exists in the Forest Act, it speaks to community forest pilot agreements. I suppose it is a reflection of the experimental nature of the tenure as it was first developed. It also reflects the notion that as the tenure was developed and awarded, it was done on the basis of government saying: "Well, we've received your business plan, we've received your application, and now we want to study your success over a period of time, initially a five-year period of time. Are you achieving the objectives as set out in your business plan?"

This is not a criticism of anyone in particular. It has led to a feeling of uncertainty on the part of those agencies that hold these community tenures. There is a notion of temporariness about the tenure. Part of that, I should say, is reflected in the fact that there is a review process, and whether or not that community tenure will continue forward beyond the period contemplated by the pilot agreement…. And it creates additional workload requirements on the part of the Crown.

What we are trying to do here is, first and foremost, convey that the community forest tenure is going to become a more permanent part of the licensing landscape in British Columbia. There is legal language that may or may not, to the average layperson, convey that, but that is something I want to convey as part of this debate.

In fact, I'll go further than that, Mr. Chair. What we have said and what we have built into the overall forestry revitalization plan that this legislation refers to in large measure is an overall objective to double the size of what are called small tenures — community tenures, woodlots. That is also very much part and parcel of the initiative that exists here as part of Bill 33.

In order to clarify the methodology and the rules around which this expanded program — although I hesitate to call it a program, because that suggests a temporary nature…. Programs tend to come and go. Community forests, I say, are going to become a permanent feature of the landscape in British Columbia. What we are trying to do is streamline the mechanism by which a community forest is awarded, reviewed and made a permanent feature of a community's life. That's why that terminology is changed, and as we get into the discussion that I hope and think we are going to have, I'll talk some more about the process by which we contemplate this expanded volume and the expanded number of community forests being created, the mechanism by which that will happen and how this legislation helps to clarify the mechanism by which that will happen.

B. Kerr: This is the one section, I guess, that I'm concerned about, because I have this situation occur-

ring in the western reaches of my riding right now. Some people up there are very concerned about it because they figured the community forest is the one thing that's going to really help them to develop that area and bring back some jobs to the area so the school children that are there, the few school children left, won't have to be bused two hours every day. For this particular community, it's pretty important.

There are also some other communities that are looking for a community forest up in the eastern part of my riding around Shawnigan Lake. I'm not entirely sure how they can get into the community forest. I'm noticing that in the section here, it says that on request or on his or her own initiative, the minister may entertain — or through advertising for a community forest…. My first question is: what do the words "on request" mean? Who is the request from?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, happily, the member has zeroed in on one of the key issues that is tied up in the whole question of the expansion of the community forest tenure program. It relates to the very mechanism by which it happens. Some of this is in this section, and some of it's in other sections, but let's deal with that issue in its entirety if we can.

There are two mechanisms by which this can happen. Both, I will say to the member, involve the community coming together and finding an agency by which it may hold this licence and an agency that enjoys broad community-level support.

In the one instance, the minister — who I believe, by virtue of the act, is the statutory authority or person authorized by the minister or a designate — will invite applications from a community and say, by way of advertisement, that the Crown and the right of the province of British Columbia in the Forest Service are interested in establishing a community forest tenure. In such-and-such area we are inviting submissions from interested groups or parties to hold that community licence — not altogether dissimilar from some of the processes that have been followed in the past with the slightly more than half-dozen community forest tenures that exist today.

The bill, however, contemplates a second process, and the member has zeroed in on it as well. It is a more direct process. It is a process whereby the minister and/or his or her designate would say to a particular group: "We are prepared to directly award a community tenure to you absent a broader competition for that tenure." It is, in effect, a direct-award mechanism that would allow the minister and the government to direct-award and expedite that award process.

Now, I will say to this member, in the hopes and confidence that he will pass this along to those in his constituency who have, as he correctly points out, a tremendous interest in this. As a single minister, I would exercise the authority that this section speaks to insofar as direct award with extreme caution. There would need to be demonstrable evidence that the group or the proposal coming forward enjoys broad community support.

The best way I can say that is…. Someone asked me. We were at a meeting a couple of weeks ago with the association for community tenures in Revelstoke. Revelstoke has had a community forest that arose in a slightly different way for 11 years now. The question was: well, how do you know when there is broad community-based support? I'm not sure I can describe when you know you've got it. I know when you know you don't have it.

Those are the two paths that can lead to the establishment of a community forest tenure. I am suggesting to the member that in the majority of cases, one would see those tenures established via the presentation of an opportunity and an invitation from the Crown for proposals from interested parties and, in rarer instances, a direct award.

D. Jarvis: I want to introduce 138 grades 9 and 10 students that are in the precincts from Windsor high school in North Vancouver. They're over here on a singing tour, I guess, at three Victoria schools under the auspices of their music teacher, Doug Irwin. Would everyone please make them welcome. They would be in the House, but they're too noisy.

B. Kerr: This is important. I should mention the area is Port Renfrew, just to get that on the record so you know the area we're talking about and are familiar with what I'm talking about. I can understand what he's saying, but would it be similar to, let's say, a zoning application, where you put it out that this request has come to us, and would anybody have any objection to this or to giving out a probationary community forest licence?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think it's safe to say that whether it is a direct-award mechanism or the presentation of competing submissions or applications, in all instances, one of the key ingredients here will be the applicant's ability to demonstrate community support. To use the example, an application from an area that was met with a motion from a local council opposing the necessary rezoning, if that is even applicable — opposing the concept — would certainly signal a level of local discomfort that would at least be relevant to the consideration. The work that a proponent of this, which is generally a group and generally a community-based group, would need to undertake is not to be taken lightly.

That is one of the features that lies at the heart of what a community tenure is supposed to be about. It does, I would suggest, provide some unique opportunities.

This relates to some of the existing community tenures that are out there. We have learned of situations in which areas that heretofore have been controversial in terms of commercial forestry activity…. By virtue of the fact that they fall within the ambit of a locally controlled tenure, a community-based group, some of that controversy has melted away — not always in its entirety, but areas that heretofore were inaccessible have become accessible. I think as one moves forward on this, we would be wise to encourage local groups to explore that and capitalize on that credibility that a local group can bring to the establishment and operation of a tenure.

I should say I don't want to go on at length, but at some point I feel compelled, also, to exchange with the member my realistic assessment of the volumes that are involved here on a pan-provincial basis. At this point I think I am concerned that expectations exist in the world of community forest tenures that it will, at this time, be difficult to match, just in terms of the volumes that will be available.

B. Kerr: Well, that was going to lead into another question I had down the road on that.

Essentially, to move on, if somebody is going to make a request, they better make sure they've got total community support — first nations buy-in, chamber's buy-in, council buy-in. All those types of things should be there with their application — and maybe even a petition, if it's a small community, saying, "This is what we want," or put everybody in the small community as part of the association.

Under the act — I don't know whether to call it the old act — there are time frames involved for how long you would be given that tenure. I notice that in here there isn't. A probationary community forest — there's no time frame at all. Is it meant to be that way, so the rug can be pulled out at any time if they're not complying? Or is there going to be some certainty given, so when they do invest some money and put in a mill or do what they have to do, they know they've got a certain amount of tenure?

Hon. M. de Jong: To the member: he may not have this before him, but the provisions of the Forest Act under division 7, specifically section 43.3, will remain in force as they relate to the terms. The member may see that directly above that, in 43.2, nothing was ever proclaimed or put in effect. So by default, all of these community forest tenures operated pursuant to 43.5, which was the forest pilot agreement. We are, however, changing that by, in effect, activating 43.2 under the terms and provisions contained in this bill and incorporating the types of time lines that the member referred to as contained in 43.3, which he will see speaks to a five-year term if it's probationary and not less than 25 years or more than 99 years for a long-term community forest tenure. Does that answer the member's question?

Moving on to the topic you brought up earlier on, what can we realistically look at as far as metres are concerned? How is that going to be divided up through the province? Or what sizes do you expect these community forests to be?

Hon. M. de Jong: I will take advantage of the opportunity the member provides to repeat something that we spoke about in Revelstoke at the meeting of the Community Forest Association, which — not a commercial for them — is a relatively new organization administered by a largely volunteer group, who I should say is doing a tremendous job trying to bring together the communities (a) that have experience in this and (b) that want to gain experience in this. There is a group in the East Kootenay–Slocan region who is working hard with others. I just want to say on the record that it is helpful as we embark on a fairly ambitious expansion of this program to know that there is a group out there who is working to facilitate the exchange of information and experiences.

The Minister of State for Forestry Operations and I met with them a couple of weeks ago in Revelstoke. Then I had a subsequent meeting with the Union of B.C. Municipalities, their natural resources subcommittee, and I want to thank Corinne Lonsdale for helping to facilitate that meeting. Here's what we told them. As a result of the tenure reallocation that we are in the midst of now, we believe that we will identify something in the neighbourhood of 300,000 cubic metres. I will relay to the member what I relayed to those groups. I have had requests from single communities for a community forest of 300,000 cubic metres. Well, can we do that? Yeah, I suppose we can. That means we will have one extra community forest in the province.

There's a range of sizes that the existing tenures represent — everything from 16,000 to 18,000 cubic metres on up from there. Some of them have been created through different mechanisms. My prediction, or thoughts as expressed to those groups, is that we are talking about something in the neighbourhood of ten to 30 additional community tenures, and that depends largely on the size of them. Larger community tenures obviously will deplete the number of additional ones, so we are looking for communities where it's logical and possible to come together to find some efficiencies there.

I should say this as well. Someone pointed out during the course of our discussions that at 300,000 — and this discussion also took place around woodlots…. The objective is to double the size of those programs. We end up somewhat shy of that objective based purely on the volumes that we acquire from the reallocation process. We think we can address that in a number of ways. In the case of community forests, some commu-

nities hold other types of tenures. This legislation provides a mechanism, as well, for converting certain tenures held by communities into a community tenure, so that's another mechanism by which the overall volume can be increased.

I don't want to kid anyone. We're talking about, from the reallocation volumes, 300,000. For the groups that were there, they understood that. I don't want to mislead them about what's out there. We think there are ways that we can increase that number, but at the same time we're talking at this point about 300,000 cubic metres as opposed to three million cubic metres.

B. Kerr: Thank you for that. I'll be able to take that back to my community and let them know what their expectations should be.

Just a couple of minor questions. One to confirm: does every community forest start off now as a probationary forest? There are no more pilot community forests, so will they all start off as probationary community forests?

B. Kerr: This should give me the answers I need. I'll just make one minor comment here with regards to the amendment act. In section 43.2(3)(c)(iv), we include a partnership. We passed an act just before you came in for limited liability partnership, so I'd like to confirm whether a limited liability partnership would be included in this definition of a partnership.

Hon. M. de Jong: He's correct when he identifies the vehicles that have been identified here. What I am afraid I don't have an answer to is whether or not, under the provisions of this bill and the one previously passed and as yet unproclaimed, a partnership as referred to here would capture a limited liability partnership of the sort contemplated by the previous act. I would have to check on how those two pieces of legislation and other pieces of legislation work in tandem with the legislation just passed.

Thank you very much, minister. I appreciate your comments, and I will be able to take a lot of this information back to my communities.

Hon. M. de Jong: Just further to the earlier question, referring back to Bill 35, in the definitions section…. I'm obliged to those who have provided me with rather instantaneous research on this matter. Limited liability partnership means a partnership registered as a limited liability partnership, so one would seem to include the other in that respect.

B. Belsey: Your comments earlier and my colleague's here about the importance of community forests have certainly piqued the interest of many communities around my riding. The North Coast is abundant with forest. A number of the communities — certainly the smaller communities — would like to be able to get access to the forests and create some jobs and opportunities, so I appreciate the opportunity to speak and ask some questions about the community forests.

My first question is on the section we're looking at right now. There's a list of what organizations can make application — whether it's first nations, municipalities, regional districts, societies, corporations, partnerships or whatever. Is there a priority as to…? I mean, if you get two applications coming in — one, say, from first nations and another one from a corporation…. You alluded to the fact that there is only so much forest out there. Have you considered how we'll deal with one, two, ten or 20 applications that may come in?

Hon. M. de Jong: The member, too, identifies what is likely to be one of the challenges associated with embarking upon this program. I of course, in a very self-serving sort of way, like to talk about the positive sides associated with expanding, in a dramatic way, the community and woodlot tenure sector. There will be a competition for involvement in that exercise, whether or not it is a formalized competition, and in most cases I think it will be. The Crown will identify the available tenure that can be devoted to the establishment of, in this case, a community forest licence. In most instances, we'll say to people within the region or the area: "Bring us your submissions."

The member is correct. It will be a non-profit agency but reflected as a first nation, as a regional district, as a separate society established for those purposes. At the end of the day, the Crown will be left in a position of having to try and evaluate the merits of the submission that is presented to it. In a case where there are very strong competing submissions, I don't envy anyone involved in the process of the evaluation of the workplans and the benefits that will accrue to the community.

I can't think, however, of a way…. Actually, I guess I can think of it, and it's reflected in this legislation to a certain extent — that is, in the mechanism by which to expedite the process there is a direct award. One of the shortcomings in utilizing that tool is that I think you lose out on provoking the innovation that comes with saying to people: "Give us your ideas. Here is an available volume of tenure. Give us your ideas about how that volume can be put to work by your community, for your community." I don't know that that's a particularly complete or specific answer, except to say that I think there will be competition in some areas between those who believe a community tenure can be used in a variety of ways.

I should say this, because this is also something I haven't been shy about relaying at the various meetings that have taken place around the province. I do contemplate this as community forest for the purpose

of commercial activity — working forest, if you will. In my discussions with some individuals who have been involved in this so far, whether it's Burns Lake or Revelstoke or other areas, they have at times relayed to me some of the frustration they feel when they work with people who believe a community forest is a pseudonym for a park.

Now, there's nothing wrong with parks, but if we're going to create a park, then let's call it a park. This contemplates the establishment of a licence built around the notion of industrialized activity, if you will, though the nature of that industrialized activity, subject to the provisions of the Forest Act and the Forest and Range Practices Act, will be left to the local organization or agency to determine.

B. Belsey: What does the applicant have to submit? Does he submit a business plan? Does he just fill out a form? Has that been determined yet?

Hon. M. de Jong: Whether it is by direct invitation or as part of a general invitation, there will be an expectation on the part of the Forest Service and Crown that the applicant will present a package including a business plan and that there will be certain specific areas addressed. I should say this. The legislation does contemplate the creation of a regulation that will formalize the requirements of what must be included in a particular application, so there will be guidance for those.

I should say this. Much of that work has been done in concert with both the Community Forest Association and the Community Forest Advisory Committee, which has been in existence for some time. It's less a question of creating that criteria and rather a question of formalizing it in a regulation that people can rely upon and say: "In developing our proposal, these are the criteria that we need to address in presenting it to government."

B. Suffredine: When community forest licences have been issued up until now…. There are a few of them out there, and most of them are pretty basic operations that are simply logging and shipping logs to mills in the region. I know that woodlot licences are not permitted where the owner of the woodlot has his own mill. I've never really understood that in terms of what the philosophy is that drives the ministry to say they don't want the operator to own a mill.

Can the minister describe what limits are likely to be on community forest licences? Are they going to be encouraged to have things like mills or not have things like mills? What types of conditions will attach to them that will be the picture we'll see in community forest licences? I don't know how to flesh that out a bit, but similar to the woodlot question, are they also going to be discouraged from having mills, to make them simply be a wood supply for larger mill operators?

Hon. M. de Jong: To the member: he correctly identifies a situation that was particularly relevant with respect to woodlot licences — if we can deal with them in tandem with the community tenures — where there were restrictions that did not exist on other tenure holders around the creation of a processing facility. The specific question is: do such restrictions around the establishment of a processing facility apply to community tenures contemplated by this legislation? The answer to that is no.

In developing a proposal for submission for consideration in the establishment of a community forest tenure, the agency making the application can include that and say: "Our harvest plan for this volume is as follows, and our business plan for the use or marketing of that fibre is as follows, and that includes an agreement" — well, it may not be a processing agreement if that agency owns the processing facility — "that we will process some of it here and market some of the fibre there."

Those historic limitations, although I'm not sure they ever existed around community forest tenures…. I'm advised that they did not. They did with respect to woodlot licences, though they exist no longer. There is virtual flexibility available to woodlot owners, which has probably always been significant — perhaps more significant insofar as the provisions of this legislation that provide for the expansion of not just the woodlot sector but the individual size of woodlots.

B. Suffredine: Perhaps the minister could flesh that out a little bit in terms of whether or not…. I know there are many communities considering applying for community forest licences. Are those licences any more or less likely to be accepted if they include a component where they're doing value-added or providing a processing facility or any other improvements that would be more than just providing the cutting?

Hon. M. de Jong: We were just reviewing the statement I made previously around the woodlots and cross-checking that with the statute. Let me repeat this, in case I said this incorrectly, and I may have. Previously there was, essentially, a blanket prohibition on the part of woodlot licensees from operating processing facilities. That prohibition has been eliminated, and the mechanism now exists for woodlot licensees to make application for the establishment of a processing facility on the woodlot. I think my previous answer neglected to mention the application process involved in that, so I should clarify that.

I think the question the member asks relates to, almost, the question of weighting in a situation where there are competing applications for the community tenure and the notion of a value-added facility. I'm always a bit reluctant to try to predict the outcome of hypothetical competitions. Yet if one of the measurements we are using relates to the benefits — including employment benefits — that accrue to a community, it would seem to follow that an application that spoke to the use of fibre in a value-added related endeavour, maximizing the value and employing people in the

process, would at that level seem to fall within the broad category of benefits to communities.

You then get into the quandary of having to quantify one benefit versus another, and that's part and parcel of the difficulty associated with any kind of a subjective analysis process. I think I understand the essence of the member's question, which is that a proposal that benefits communities both economically and also from an employment and job creation basis…. There should be recognition for that fact.

I will say this to the member. Anyone I have talked to who is expressing an interest in the expansion of the community tenure sector agrees wholeheartedly and is actually seeking involvement in this for that very reason and believes it is in that way that benefits can accrue to their community in a very real way.

R. Visser: I just want to ask the minister: where is the volume coming from? What needs to happen in the short term to have that volume available to the ministry to distribute to a woodlot community forest program?

Hon. M. de Jong: That is actually a point worth emphasizing, because, of course, there is a reservoir of enthusiasm and excitement about getting on with it, and I share it. I think the minister of state and the government members in their communities are anxious to see these community tenures up and operating as quickly as possible.

But it is worth emphasizing, and again I'll repeat what I have said at a number of these meetings. I'm not the first Forests minister to talk about this. This is not the first government to talk about doing this. I think that every Forests minister and every government that has gone before, which has talked about expanding this, were motivated by a genuine desire to do some good things.

The obstacle that stood in the path of actually achieving the objective was the unavailability of the tenure, of the trees, of the annual allowable cut, and that obstacle is being removed by virtue of the tenure reallocation exercise. Now, that is dealing with some other issues as well, including the involvement of first nations in the forest sector and a changed timber-pricing system, but our ability to realize the aspirations of these communities and the volunteers that are working within these communities to create these tenures is dependent entirely on us working through the reallocation exercise.

That is a process that is now unfolding, and over the course of the next six to 18 months, those volumes will become available. In the short term — and I'm a bit hesitant…. Well, actually, I'm not hesitant to say this. What I don't want us to feel obliged to do is wait until that process is complete to begin the exercise of planning these community forest tenures, because all of that work — or the majority of it, at least — can take place contemporaneous to the reallocation exercise.

Again, it gets to this part, and we've had the discussion in this House. The success of the reallocation exercise is largely dependent, in my view, on the degree to which we can have a seamless flow of that AAC from one form of licence to another. That's so the people who earn their living off the harvesting and the processing of that timber, though they may be working for a different licensee, are nonetheless working, and that volume is finding its way into productive processes.

R. Visser: In my estimation of this, there is some low-hanging fruit out there. Those are geographically based, are necessarily isolated and have some local political realities that lend themselves to the community forest model. My first example in North Island would be Cortes and the type of activity that could take place there.

Is it going to be correct — and I know the minister has made this comment before — that for folks like Port Alice, where there is an allocation problem and where the forests in the neighbouring areas are fully allocated already to longstanding licence holders, we can work sooner rather than later to make access to the community forests a reality for the three port communities up there — Port Alice, Port McNeill and Port Hardy?

Hon. M. de Jong: Yes, that is, in the case of a community like Port Alice, a fundamentally important piece of the puzzle. The member was there with the Premier, and he and I have had meetings with Mayor Pepper and some of the other mayors in the area. There is a strong desire and, I should say, a healthy leadership being displayed in recognizing that this presents an opportunity that to this point hasn't existed to actually seize genuine local control of the situation. It's not going to be easy, it's not going to solve all the problems overnight, and it's not the silver bullet or the panacea or whatever word we want to use. But it can form the basis for a comprehensive agreement.

What I think people like Mayor Pepper understand and articulate very well is the desire of people in that community to play a more direct role in the management of this resource that surrounds them and to use that direct management of the resource in a way that diversifies what is taking place in their community without in any way diminishing the importance and the history of the linkage between a community like Port Alice and the pulp mill but to also recognize that there are advantages associated with perhaps taking a small portion of fibre and redirecting it to other uses. It's a complex discussion.

The member points out not just the unique circumstances but, I would say — and I know he agrees — the urgency associated with focusing some resources. Happily, the minister of state, who is dedicating his efforts to this and a couple of other projects, has identified those unique circumstances as a priority.

I should say this as well — that is, when we have been meeting with the communities in a group, we have been at pains to point out…. Everyone agrees you've got to set some priorities. If you don't, nothing's

going to get done. Whether it's the low-hanging fruit or the urgent, almost overripe fruit, you've got to get to this and set some priorities. The flip side of the priority coin is that not everyone is a priority. There is grudging acknowledgment of the truism that when you do set priorities for where you will try to negotiate these advances first, that means there will be communities who will have to wait, and that is destined to create some disappointment. But we'll do the best we can, and we will, as the member points out, try to look at priority areas where, for a variety of reasons, it makes sense to move first and quickly.

R. Visser: Section 25 realigns or corrects or changes some fundamental parameters around the woodlot program. I was wondering if the minister could take just a minute and outline what he feels are (a) the fundamental shifts that have occurred and (b) what the woodlot federation of British Columbia thinks of these fundamental shifts in the application process.

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, this is an initiative that I must say I am pleased with to a certain extent, even proud of. I am happy to report to the House that the collaborative efforts that have taken place between the woodlot federation and the Forest Service have been stellar, and that is a tribute both to the federation and to the officials within the ministry, who have worked very well together. That's not to say that there have not been and are not issues that require additional work and that there have not been disagreements along the way. But we began this exercise from the following premise. It was in the interests of all concerned — British Columbians; communities; woodlot owners past, present and future — for this sector to expand. From that basic premise emerged a whole host of issues.

It is one thing to say, as I did, "Let us double the woodlot sector," but what does that mean? Does that mean larger woodlots, or does it mean more woodlots, or does it mean a combination of the two? In fact, that's what it means to me. And there is a reflection of that, I think, in the legislation by virtue of the provisions that contemplate larger-size maximums. I should take advantage of this opportunity to emphasize this. That doesn't mean every woodlot is going to expand in size to the maximum. It means woodlots have the option of growing and making application for additional volumes.

Part of the rationale there is that there are people within the woodlot sector who argue — with some validity — that with a slightly larger amount of volume contained within their woodlot, there would be scales of efficiency from a management, harvesting and administrative point of view and, as well, that they are better equipped to earn something akin to a full-time living if they are dealing with a larger volume. That's one aspect of this.

Another issue that emerges, contentious as ever when you are dealing with the distribution of a finite resource, is how to allocate. If there are going to be additional volumes available, on what basis are those volumes going to be allocated? There has been a pretty healthy discussion, because for my part and the government's part, we are drawn to the notion of a competitive process. That is reflected now through virtually every component of the Forest Act — that there would be a competitive element to the acquisition, by private interests in particular, of forest tenure.

At the same time the woodlot federation, on behalf of the woodlot owners around British Columbia, has brought a certain passion to the discussion around a number of features. One is the fact that woodlots in the majority of instances contain a private land component and that that signals a level of commitment. It signals in the minds of woodlot owners a lot of things about their commitment to the land, to the management of the timber — and that some account must be given or some credit or regard must be given to those who pledge the involvement of a privately held asset. There is some wisdom, when we are dealing with woodlot licences, to an argument like that.

Similarly, there is an argument that has been advanced by the federation around the notion of residency and the notion that woodlots are a tenure that is largely held by local individuals and that however we approach this, we need to provide some recognition of that fact. It's tricky, easier said than done, but I'm happy to report to the House that we think we are at a point where we have settled virtually all of the issues. There are a few remaining issues.

There will be regulations that set out the mechanism by which the expansion can occur. They are the product of an extensive consultative exercise — and I do mean extensive — that is taking place and will continue to take place. I should say that for me it has been a very positive exercise and one that I think has led to the creation of a better legislative instrument than we would have had, had we not involved the woodlot federation.

B. Bennett: I just have a need for a clarification. This should just take a second, I think. It is section 30(b) that repeals subsection (2) and replaces it with a new subsection. There are three sections to it, so it's section 30(b)(2)(c) that I'm interested in. Section (2)(a) indicates a volume of timber not exceeding 2,000 square metres. Subsection (2)(b) talks about a volume of timber not exceeding 500 square metres. The subsection that I need a clarification on is subsection (2)(c): "if authorized to do so under another provision of this Act or under the regulations." I'm just curious as to under

Hon. M. de Jong: The short answer to the question around section 30(b)(2)(c) goes as follows. The first portion of the provision — "if authorized to do so under another provision of this Act" — relates specifically to pulpwood agreements. The second part of the provision — which refers to "…or under the regulations" — creates a mechanism by which, in the future, if there were cause to create another means by which a licence to cut may be required, it can be created through regulation as opposed to amending the act, although there is nothing specific contemplated at this point.

B. Bennett: If I could just get one additional clarification on this. Right now, as I understand it, the minister…. It has to go to cabinet, I think, for an OIC to make a direct award. Would it be possible to create a regulation creating, essentially, a situation where the regional manager could enter into a forestry licence to cut on the basis of some other reason, such as removal of trees in NDT4 territory under the Kootenay-Boundary land use plan — in other words, to get rid of some trees, essentially, to create the conditions that are supposed to exist under the land use plan?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the question goes like this…. Well, first of all, let me say this. It is within the ambit of the purposes contemplated now available to the regional or district manager to issue that licence to cut directly, without an OIC. I think the member understands that. In the example that I think has been cited — the issuance of a licence to cut for the purpose of re-establishing rangeland — that would be possible, although on my quick read it would seem to me that we would need to create a regulation that contemplates that so that the need for subordinate legislative intervention via an OIC would not be required in those circumstances, assuming the creation of the appropriate regulation.

J. MacPhail: This whole piece of legislation, which is — what? — the eighth in a series of pieces of legislation to deal with the rate change in forest policy and practice in this province, is to deal basically with the compensation to the participants in the forest industry for the transition to the new system.

Section 38 deals with orders made in terms of some of those changes. It changes section 60 of the current Forest Act in a couple of areas. It says in section 60 — I'm paraphrasing section 38 just so that people can understand it out there — that the minister may not make an order under section 60, 60.01 or any section of 60.2 to 60.4 unless the minister serves at least one year advanced notice of the proposed order on the holder of the agreement or licence that is subject…. Blah, blah, blah. That means, I think, that nothing can change for a licence holder without one year advance notice except if the Crown land to be deleted is to be used for exploration or development activities associated with oil and gas purposes. The minister may make the order if the minister serves at least 60 days' advance notice.

Hon. M. de Jong: That is a marked departure. It is, pure and simple, to expedite the process. I am advised of the exploratory process, and we're now talking about limited access to parcels of land around the process of exploration where the one-year period was deemed unnecessary and presented an impediment to more rapid exploratory activities.

I should say this. I don't recall if the member referred to this, but that amendment as it relates to oil and gas development — that 60-day amendment — relates to tree farm licences, community forests and woodlots. It has become an issue, I'm told, over the last couple of years in the northeast of the province, which I suppose shouldn't surprise any of us, given where the exploration activity is concerned. That is the rationale.

J. MacPhail: Yes, so the process is expedited when a community forest agreement or woodlot licence is turned into, or wants to be used for, oil and gas exploration. Is that not the case?

Hon. M. de Jong: What we are not talking about is the wholesale deletion of a woodlot or a community forest licence or even a TFL. What we are talking about are rights-of-way for access to a drill site — all of which has happened and continues to happen. But in some cases the length of time involved has operated to essentially, I'm told, send the exploration dollar elsewhere. If we can imagine off a main service road where there may be a need to access a particular drill or exploration site, in the past the deletion would take place for that purpose, and it would take a year. Or the notice requirement was a year. In some cases I think there were negotiations that sped that up. In this case, those involved are, in effect, being put on legislative notice that the mechanism exists by which the deletion can occur more quickly than that.

J. MacPhail: Can the expedited process listed under section 38 be used for any reason other than oil and gas purposes?

Hon. M. de Jong: I am relying on the specific words, which I will read into the record, for the proposition that the use of the provision is limited to oil and gas exploration where, the section says, it is to be used for exploration or development activities associated with oil and gas purposes. The record should show, in this debate, my expectation that that precludes the use of the provision to those specific purposes.

J. MacPhail: Section 76 redefines what an official is. It's clear on the face of it, but where in the act does it say what officials are permitted to do? I just couldn't find it.

Hon. M. de Jong: The first thing I should say is that I don't believe I can point the member to a single section in the act or amended act or bill that stipulates who all of the officials are and what all of their duties are in a single section. I can say that the act is built around — and this does differ from the old Forest Practices Code — the proposition that statutory authority is vested in the minister and may be designated — the Minister of Forests in general terms. Then authority can be designated by the minister to officials as he or she decides.

There are within part 6, starting at section 59 of the act…. The broadest exception to that relates to the compliance and enforcement section where statutory authority is actually vested in particular individuals, so in that case statutory authority is not vested in the minister but in the officials referred to in that compliance and enforcement section of the act.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 33, Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 2004, 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.