Hansard -- Wednesday, May 5, 2004 p.m. -- Vol. 25, No. 3 (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		10861

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		10861
	Securities Act (Bill 38)
	Hon. J. Les

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		10861
	B.C. Community Achievement Awards
	G. Trumper
	Multiple sclerosis
	W. Cobb
	Chinese heritage day
	P. Wong

Oral Questions		10862
	Costs of B.C.Rail–CN Rail agreement and payment of property transfer tax
	J. Kwan
	Hon. K. Falcon
	J. MacPhail
	Wage reductions for Hospital Employees Union members
	R. Nijjar
	Hon. G. Bruce
	B.C. Rail–CN Rail agreement
	P. Nettleton
	Hon. K. Falcon
	Call for public inquiry into case of Frank Paul
	J. Kwan
	Hon. R. Coleman
	Site for Olympic speed-skating oval
	H. Bloy
	Hon. J. Les

Petitions		10865
	W. McMahon

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

Report and Third Reading of Bills		10868
	College and Institute Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 26)

Committee of the Whole House		10868
	Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 27)
	G. Halsey-Brandt
	Hon. G. Abbott
	V. Roddick
	J. MacPhail
	W. Cobb
	D. MacKay
	B. Lekstrom
	J. Wilson

Report and Third Reading of Bills		10884
	Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 27)

Committee of the Whole House		10884
	Passenger Transportation Act (Bill 30)
	B. Belsey
	Hon. K. Falcon

Report and Third Reading of Bills		10884
	Passenger Transportation Act (Bill 30)

Committee of Supply		10885
	Estimates: Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management (continued)
	J. MacPhail
	Hon. G. Abbott
	R. Sultan

D. MacKay: Today in the gallery, joining us from Smithers, are my two constituency assistants, Sharon Eastabrook and Judy VanderMeulen. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

Hon. G. Campbell: We could all set a new record for time for introductions if we introduce all the constituency assistants, so let me just say this, Mr. Speaker. We're all very pleased that the constituency assistants are here today. They've come from all over the province, and each of them spends countless hours serving the public of British Columbia and providing each MLA with substantial, significant personal and professional support.

I want to say thank you to them for their commitment to public life, for their commitment to the people of British Columbia and for providing them with the best possible service. I hope the House will make all of the constituency assistants from all parties recognize how much we appreciate the work they do for us.

Hon. L. Reid: I am very pleased to welcome to the gallery today individuals representing the Salvation Army. They do amazing work in each of our communities across British Columbia. I am pleased to tell you that the federal government relations director Dani Shaw has joined us. She's accompanied by Colonel Copple and Capt. John Murray, who continue to know that building relationships across British Columbia is the essence of success in communities. I'd ask the House to please make them very welcome.

G. Trumper: In the House today from my constituency we have Mayor Dianne St. Jacques from Ucluelet; Mayor Ken McRae from Port Alberni; the chair of the Alberni-Clayoquot regional district, Hira Chopra; and our economic development officer, Jane Schlackl, who are here to talk to the Minister of Fisheries about hake. Would the House please make them welcome.

W. Cobb: With us in the House today we have representatives from the Multiple Sclerosis Society. We have Chris Fortune, the president of the capital region chapter; Bonnie Pasek, who is the client service coordinator; Clem Lagimodier, who is a member; and Kathy Grouch, who is a volunteer. I ask the House to please make them welcome.

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

Hon. J. Les presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Securities Act.

Hon. J. Les: I am pleased to introduce Bill 38. The government is introducing a new Securities Act to better protect B.C. investors and improve the B.C. investment climate. The new act, together with rules and regulations that the act enables, will better protect investors through results-based regulation that focuses companies and securities firms on what is best for investors — improved, plain-language disclosure; increased enforcement powers; sanctions and penalties; and broader remedies for investors to sue for damages.

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

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 38 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

G. Trumper: Yesterday was a special day for 36 British Columbians who were each awarded the British Columbia Community Achievement Awards at Government House. This was an award under the leadership of the Premier of the province. These are excep-

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

In the community I live in, Vera Seydel and Robert Dennis were recipients. For the past 20 years Vera has run the Bread of Life, a non-profit service that provides hot meals to those in need in the Alberni Valley. Starting with serving meals, the Bread of Life has opened a thrift shop, and a hostel was opened on the premises last weekend. She has given selflessly to the community.

Robert Dennis of the Huu-ay-aht band in Bamfield has steered his community to an agreement-in-principle. He has worked for a community forest for his area and has worked hard to make sure that the village of Bamfield has been included in all their projects and in building community capacity.

Also, although he was not a recipient of the award…. This week the west coast of Vancouver Island celebrated Forestry Week, and this year Don McMillan of Interfor was awarded the Forest Stewardship Recognition Program award. This is a national award for leadership to demonstrate innovative leadership in forestry and biodiversity conservation.

These three people are passionate about their communities and are committed to making a difference.

W. Cobb: May is Multiple Sclerosis Month, and that's why we have guests with us here from the local chapter today. I thank all for acknowledging and wearing their carnations today. We have more available for those who didn't quite make it earlier. The carnation campaign is a major fundraiser for MS, and I thank those who donated. The funds are used for research and support for people with this debilitating disease.

MS affects about 8,000 B.C. residents and over 50,000 Canadians. This number is expected to rise due to the growing recognition that very young people are now being diagnosed with MS. The symptoms are as diverse as the individuals who contract the disease. MS is episodic, often invisible and progressive. Symptoms and challenges can include extreme weakness, lack of coordination, numbness and paralysis. Blurred vision, incontinence, pain and cognitive difficulties are also some of the symptoms.

This disease affects every aspect of one's family, work and community life. It affects approximately twice as many women as men and is more prevalent between the ages of 20 and 40. There are no known causes of this disease, and therefore it is almost impossible to find a cure.

As some of you know, my wife suffers from MS. One of the challenges she faces, as others with a secondary progressive diagnosis, is not knowing from one day to the next what stage it will progress to, and it impacts if she can even get out of bed. At times it moves more quickly than others, and I must say my wife, Lynnette, meets that challenge with the stamina and determination I could not even begin to meet. I also admit that one of the biggest challenges my wife meets on a day-to-day basis is being married to me, and I thank for her that.

P. Wong: It is again time to celebrate the Chinese heritage day. I am delighted to rise in the House to invite, through you, Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleagues and all the staff and friends working in the Legislature — and of course, our reporter friends included — to join the festivities today.

At 4 p.m. on the front steps of the legislative buildings, cultural ceremonies will begin. At 4:45 members and their guests will be invited inside, and at 5:15 an Asian buffet will commence. Today's event is proudly hosted by the members for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, Burnaby North and myself.

Mr. Speaker, multiculturalism is the foundation of this country and this province. By celebrating diversity and participating in events and activities that further our knowledge of each other, we grow even stronger.

The Chinese Canadian population has a long history in British Columbia. Chinese immigrants helped build this province in its early days and continue to contribute to its social and economic fabric in a myriad of ways. Vancouver and Victoria both boast wonderful and historic Chinatowns — popular tourist destinations and a hit with locals.

Today's events include cultural performances, calligraphy and a buffet of traditional Chinese food. It will be a wonderful time and a chance to share in the delights that the Chinese culture has to offer.

J. Kwan: We learned last week that it is costing taxpayers $900,000 to cancel the Roberts Bank spur. Now we learn it's costing taxpayers $14 million and counting for the government to sell B.C. Rail and break its new-era commitment. To the Minister of Transportation: how much of that additional $14 million to sell B.C. Rail was spent on communications and spin?

Hon. K. Falcon: The member should know; we canvassed this pretty extensively at estimates. The member should also know that that $14 million is well below commercial norms for a transaction of that size.

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

J. Kwan: According to the government, $1 million has been spent to date on communications and spin for the B.C. Rail broken promise — $1 million to tell British

Columbians that the deal is not a broken promise, $1 million to sell a deal that nobody wants, $1 million that could have gone to more important priorities like keeping the promise to reduce wait-lists.

Again to the Minister of Transportation. The government spent $1 million on spin. Can the minister tell this House how much they spent on lawyers to finance this 990-year lease-sale of B.C. Rail?

Hon. K. Falcon: Mr. Speaker, all I can tell you is that we certainly spent enough to make sure we didn't get into the kind of crazy, stupid deals that that government got us involved with.

You know, $14 million…. Let's understand this, because clearly the member probably doesn't grasp this. If you look at any transaction of that size, this is well below commercial norms. I will say this to the member. Actually it's important, when putting together a deal like this, that you make sure you have the best available advice to ensure that you do protect the public interest. That's why we've done that, and that's why there are the kinds of benefits in this deal that actually see folks throughout the province recognizing the value right across British Columbia with the B.C. Rail–CN partnership.

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

J. Kwan: Mr. Speaker, $900 million wasted because of police raids, $1 million on communications and spin. Now we have $5 million that was spent on lawyers to break a new-era promise. I know the minister is proud that this government broke the promise, but I can tell this minister that British Columbians who have seen wait-lists go up by 25 percent can think of better ways to spend that money.

The Property Transfer Tax Act says that any lease over 30 years is a taxable transaction. As we know, the B.C. Rail deal lasts at least until 2064 and potentially until 2994 — in either case, well over 30 years. To the minister again: how much money in property transfer tax is owed on this sale, and who's picking up the tab — CN Rail or the taxpayer?

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

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

J. MacPhail: I note that the minister didn't answer the question. According to internal sources, CN was let off the hook on the $24 million property transfer tax. That's a $24 million taxpayer subsidy to CN — a $24 million taxpayer subsidy to the new owner of B.C. Rail. That's $24 million that could have gone to save programs for autistic children that have now been closed, $24 million that could have gone to reduce wait-lists. Every day we learn more about the true costs of this broken promise. The Property Transfer Tax Act is very clear. A lease that exceeds 30 years requires the payment of property transfer tax.

Will the minister immediately release a full accounting of how much it cost to sell B.C. Rail and how much the taxpayer is subsidizing CN to help the B.C. Liberals break their election promise?

Hon. K. Falcon: It's day in and day out — this member constantly criticizing, constantly misunderstanding the nature of this deal, calling sales when they're not sales, misunderstanding the difference between a lease term and an option to renew. On and on it goes. But I will tell the member this, because she should know this. The $38 million last year that we paid in interest costs on the half a billion dollars in debt that B.C. Rail carries will no longer have to be paid. That's $30 million that taxpayers can now invest in health care, in education and in other options that British Columbians have recognized as a priority here in this province.

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

Every time the government hides the truth from the public, it's another nail in the coffin of this deal. The process has been so botched that no one believes a word this minister or this government says anymore. He won't answer the question. He continues to hide behind spin that has nothing to do with this botched deal.

Will the minister come clean and admit that they gave a $24 million subsidy to CN when they didn't make them pay the property transfer tax?

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm happy to get that member all the information regarding the tax treatment. In fact, we canvassed some of this in estimates. I said to the member then — and I'll say it today — that all of the tax treatment associated with this has been gone over and been reviewed by the comptroller general, by the auditor general, by some of the top tax lawyers in the province. I'd be happy to get that information to the member.

R. Nijjar: My question is to the Minister of Skills Development and Labour. In my community I have many HEU members, as all of us do throughout British Columbia. One of the issues that has come up that needs clarification — it has come up in the media — is about the 15 percent savings. There's a perception out there that the 15 percent savings means that the paycheques will be reduced by 15 percent. Can the Minister of Skills Development and Labour clarify what exactly the 15 percent means, what options are available, and how it relates to wages and benefits?

Hon. G. Bruce: This is a very important point. What's required is for the union to ask of me to appoint an arbitrator so that the actual devolving, if you like, or adjusting between wages and benefits can happen. I've yet to hear from the union. I'm hoping that I will.

Given that they would go down that process, it's with all likelihood that the actual reduction to the paycheque could be somewhere in the neighbourhood of 3 to 4 percent, not the 14 percent against the paycheque. They can mitigate that against the rest of the benefits as was done with a different agreement recently with community health, where it was a 13 percent rollback. They had negotiated that, and 4 percent actually went against the wages and 9 percent against the benefits.

P. Nettleton: This government taking extreme and unyielding positions leads me to a what-if question on B.C. Rail with respect to all impacted parties, including first nations. To the Minister of Transportation…. He was not the Minister of Transportation at the time information was leaked to CN. From the perspective of the briefing the minister received to enable him to take up this position and comparing that with the benefit of hindsight, is there anything he would have done differently from his predecessor regarding the B.C. Rail deal, or would he have done it in exactly the same way?

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm glad to actually go on the record about this, because, I'll tell you, this is a great deal for British Columbia. I have never been more convinced that this is the right thing to do for British Columbia. I've never been more convinced that it always makes more sense when we can bring in a private sector partner to operate the railway as efficiently and effectively as the private rail partner will do.

I reminded the Leader of the Opposition in estimates that CN actually used to be a government-run railway. She may not remember that or chooses to forget that, because when it was losing billions of tax dollars, they conveniently forget that. Now it's one of North America's most successful railways. It will be a great partner in British Columbia, and it will open up the north. It will revitalize northern communities, and it will ensure that shippers get their goods to market more effectively and more efficiently. I'm proud to stand behind that partnership.

J. Kwan: The Solicitor General has rejected requests from the independent police complaint commissioner and others to hold a public inquiry into the death of Frank Paul. Why? Because he was worried it might bring up charges of racial discrimination. As the Solicitor General knows, Vancouver's police chief now admits that the Vancouver police department did not take the necessary steps to safeguard the life of Frank Paul.

Given this new information, will the Solicitor General stop stonewalling this case and finally act to call a full public inquiry so that something can be learned from this tragic death of Mr. Paul?

Hon. R. Coleman: What the chief of Vancouver wrote to Vancouver city council is not new information. There was discipline dealt with at the time of this incident. There was a coroner's inquiry at the time of the incident. There were recommendations that have been implemented as a result of that. We have had this aired in a number of venues.

I have met with the First Nations Summit with regards to it and to how we can find a process going forward where we can find a way to deal with this type of situation in the future, relative to the duty of care, with the Ministry of Health Services, the police, ourselves and the first nations. We've agreed to do that.

H. Bloy: My question is to the Minister of Small Business and Economic Development. Due to what are being described as geotechnical issues, the Vancouver-

Whistler 2010 Olympic committee is considering moving the speed skating oval to a venue other than Simon Fraser University.

Simon Fraser University officials recognize the tremendous long-term benefits that are available as a result of this being home to the Olympic site. It's an Olympic site, but the real legacy is the research and classroom space that will be developed. The real legacy is the sports centre for excellence that will be developed. Also, Simon Fraser University has committed to raising the necessary funds to cover any unanticipated costs. The SFU dollar commitment will come from new sources.

My question, Mr. Minister: can you assure my constituents and the residents of the northeast sector that SFU is still considered as a venue for the Olympic speed-skating oval and accompanying centre for sports excellence?

Hon. J. Les: I thank the member for the question. First of all, I want to underline again the excitement that is shared by all British Columbians that in 2010, we will have the opportunity to host the Olympic Games here in British Columbia.

At a business summit we hosted just the day before yesterday with 750 business and community leaders from around the province, the excitement in the room was almost palpable. Dick Ebersol from NBC predicted we would host the most successful Olympic Games ever in the history of the sport.

With respect to the member's specific question, I think he knows that exactly where the facilities are to go is not government's call to make. But I am encouraged that SFU has clearly signalled that it is open to a creative dialogue in terms of bringing that facility to the SFU campus. I am sure they will be engaged with VANOC as it carries on that due diligence. I am encouraged that VANOC is doing the due diligence to ensure that at the end of the day, the taxpayers of British Columbia receive value for their hard-earned taxpayer dollars.

L. Mayencourt: During question period we were joined by two very good friends of mine, Lt.-Col. Don Copple from the Salvation Army and Capt. John Murray, also from the Salvation Army. I hope the House will join me in welcoming them here.

W. McMahon: I rise in the House today to present a petition signed by 899 of my constituents from Golden and area requesting that Casey Phillips receive care in his home community.

D. MacKay: Joining us late in the gallery today are 23 adult students and one child student from the Ted Williams Memorial Learning Centre at Burns Lake, along with two chaperons, Tianne Paulsen and Louise Lacerte. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

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

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 26; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

L. Mayencourt: I'm not sure how relevant this is to this section, but perhaps the minister can let the House know why these changes are being made and what the intended effects of these legislative amendments are.

Hon. S. Bond: Well, first of all, one of the things that we certainly believe in and think is important as a government as a whole is looking at the issue of streamlining and trying to make sure that our legislation is both efficient and effective. One of the jobs that we did in our ministry, as other ministries did, is look through our legislation and try to determine if there were places where there was overlap. Were there areas we could look at combining? In effect, what you're finding today is the fact that we're taking two acts and going to create a new one under Bill 26.

The Institute of Technology Act actually gives BCIT statutory authority to operate as an institution. It had its own separate act. In fact, we found that the College and Institute Act also provided many of the same provisions for colleges, universities and institutes. So in essence, we had two acts for a group of institutions, and we just felt that from our perspective, we needed to try to begin to eliminate overlap. There were also ambiguities in language between the two acts.

In fact, what we're doing is that we're going to repeal the Institute of Technology Act, and we want to put BCIT under the College and Institute Act so that

we can eliminate duplication and streamline the legislation. From our perspective, it was one of the commitments we also made as a government — to look at integrating our mandates and to clarify those roles across the system. So we're taking two acts, we're putting them together, and we're sorting out some of the challenges that we found and some of the duplication and overlap in terms of mandate.

L. Mayencourt: How does BCIT feel about this? I mean, before they had their own act, and now they're coming under this one. Have you had conversations with them? What are their feelings about this change?

Hon. S. Bond: That's a great question, because you're right. Often people do want their own act, and they think that's an important thing. We've had a number of discussions with the B.C. Institute of Technology. In addition to the streamlining and the important reduction of overlap of regulations, the other thing that we're able to do here, in legislation, is bring a formalization to something that BCIT has been doing for a long time — that is, to give it recognition as a polytechnic in British Columbia.

They are actually, I think, pleased. We've worked closely with them. We wanted to make sure that the legislation didn't impede any of the work they're currently doing but also allowed BCIT to be recognized for some very substantial work they're doing and give them the recognition as a polytechnic in British Columbia.

L. Mayencourt: Can you expand on what the benefit is of the word "polytechnic" to BCIT?

Hon. S. Bond: What this legislation will do is formalize recognition of BCIT, as I mentioned earlier, as a polytechnic institution. I'm actually going to give you the dictionary definition of polytechnic, so people understand what it is. It's harder to pronounce than it is to understand what it does. The dictionary says that it's "an institution of higher education offering courses in many, especially vocational, subjects at degree level or below" — in essence, very much a focus on vocational course offerings.

Having said that, there are a number of polytechnics across the country. In fact, there's an association of schools that are called polytechnics. Really, it's an excellent marketing tool for BCIT, and from our perspective it is a definition that does reflect the work they have done. There are also, obviously, numerous institutions around the world that are quite renowned and using that as part of their name. We feel it's appropriate for BCIT to be recognized in this way.

Really, it gives us an opportunity, with the combining of the two acts, to do two things, as I mentioned: to reduce the overlap and the duplication and also to recognize and formalize, in essence, what BCIT has come to be known for and what it does so well in British Columbia.

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

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

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, there's just more good news for BCIT, although not directly related to the title of polytechnic. With the piece of legislation that we passed called the Degree Authorization Act, one of the things that it did was allow BCIT and Emily Carr to actually offer applied master's degrees, and that has not happened before. To date, BCIT is, as far as we know, the only polytechnic in Canada that will be able to offer applied master's degrees. In Europe and other parts of the world, they have already been able to do that, but in Canada it's the first time. That came as a result of the Degree Authorization Act and not as a result of this designation.

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

L. Mayencourt: That question on the degree-granting status, I see, most probably belongs under section 2. I notice here that they also have the ability to…. I'm not angling for one, but I understand they have honorary degree–granting status as well. Is that something new?

Hon. S. Bond: The majority of institutions — let's put it that way, because we're not certain about one or two — actually have the authority to grant honorary degrees, the member will be delighted to know — as will my colleagues behind me, who are all angling for one. For some reason they all want to be called "Dr." something.

In fact, the majority of institutions are able — they have the authority — to offer honorary degrees, and whether or not all of them do, we don't know at this point in time. Certainly, BCIT has the authority to be able to grant honorary degrees.

L. Mayencourt: My colleagues over here have told me to be not quite so shy. I guess the good news is that I have five institutes of higher learning in my riding, so maybe things will work out.

L. Mayencourt: This section seems to deal with the powers of the board of governors. Can the minister please give this House a summary of those and, if there are changes, what those changes are intended to accomplish?

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

In terms of benefits, we think that what this actually does is allow us to reflect much better the current roles and responsibilities that boards already have. Let me give you an example. Under the College and Institute Act, board meetings must be held at intervals of not more than three months apart. This legislation allows that boards will still be required to meet four times a year, but they can actually have some flexibility in scheduling their meetings. For example, a gap of three months and two days doesn't mean you've suddenly violated the act. Of course, there are obviously additional meetings when things are necessary.

In fact, we're simply saying that we want to level the playing field in terms of the powers of boards, and we want to give them more flexibility. When you look at something as simple as scheduling meetings, there were prescribed amounts of time within which a board would have to meet. We're simply bringing the powers of the boards in line across the non-university sector.

L. Mayencourt: Also on section 4, referring to section 19 as amended, subsection (a)(1)(b): "Manage, administer and control the property, revenue, expenditures, business and affairs of the institution." It seems to me that in other discussions we've had around colleges and institutions, there have been some pretty clear guidelines as to budgeting and such that are done in consultation with the minister. We're not conceding any of that through this, are we?

Hon. S. Bond: No, and that's a great question, because we are not interested in sort of claiming back those kinds of roles for the ministry. You're absolutely correct. We deal with institutions in a block funding mechanism because we want to give them as much flexibility and autonomy in making those decisions. Really, the purpose of this particular section is to make sure that boards are the ones who have the power and authority to be able to delegate things where they think that's appropriate. We get quite specific about that in part of the bill.

In essence, what we're saying is that we want boards to concentrate on governance. We believe in that principle. We want to encourage autonomy and flexibility. In answer to the member's question, the ministry isn't interested in taking back those principles at all. We're simply saying the board should be put in the position of being able to delegate those things that it feels it can delegate to other people, such as the president or other staff members. So not at all. The ministry wants to encourage autonomy and flexibility, of course, built in a framework of accountability.

L. Mayencourt: Just a little further down there in…. I'm sorry. I'm having a little trouble. We're still within section 4, but I'm looking at (6): "Information requested under subsection (5) (a) may include personal information about a student." In subsection (7) personal information obtained under this may not be used to make a decision respecting an individual student. I'm just confused about what the meaning is there. Can you give me an example of why that kind of wording is in there?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, this is a status quo item in legislation. We're not changing anything here. In order to clarify, this is actually about the protection of privacy for students. We collect information and issue them a personal education number. This is very much about protecting the privacy of student information. It is not new to the act; it is a status quo practice.

L. Mayencourt: Okay. Thank you. Going down just a little bit further on that page…. Sorry. I guess what I'm after right now is actually section 5.

L. Mayencourt: Section 5 seems to deal with the powers of the institutional president. The minister just mentioned that. Can the minister give the House a summary of what these changes are and what they're intended to accomplish?

Hon. S. Bond: This was one of the sections where we discovered ambiguity. Again, it comes back to the ability of the board to be able to delegate its authority. The act was not clear, and there was ambiguity in the language about what boards could delegate and what they had to do themselves.

I'll try to just summarize what we've done now. College and institute boards will now have uniform power to delegate certain authority to their presidents. Typically, they would be able to say: "We would like the president to be able to do these things." When authorized by their boards…. That's an important thing to note. When a president is given authority by the board or it's delegated to them, they will actually now be able to ap-

point, promote and remove staff directly — that's, of course, within the context of collective agreements; we want to make sure we say that clearly — rather than merely recommend them. Legislatively, they would be able to recommend appointments, promotions and removals to the board. That's implied by our current legislation. What the proposed changes allow us to do and allow boards to do is to actually say the president can hire, promote and remove someone from their position.

I think the added benefit that the changes to legislation bring is the fact that the board can then also serve as an appeal board. They obviously couldn't do that if they were in the position of making those decisions themselves.

What this does is clear up language that was confusing and, in some cases, contradictory to practice, to be candid. This actually brings the legislation in line to what is often current practice. The board would choose to give the authority to their president to make those specific decisions.

L. Mayencourt: Section 6 says that section 39 is repealed. Under the old act, that dealt with the issue of the requirement of the board to appoint a bursar. I noted a little earlier that the board can in fact establish and administer trust funds for scholarships and bursaries and so on. Can you tell me the reason for that and the effect that is intended?

Hon. S. Bond: Again, this is one of those cases where across a variety of legislation and across the sector, we had cases where you shall have one or you may have a bursar. If we look across the sector, most institutions have either a bursar or someone who works in that financial capacity, such as the chief financial officer. So we're simply creating consistency across the sector, including the university sector, that institutions may have a bursar, but we're certainly not requiring them to have one.

L. Mayencourt: Section 7 refers back to section 40, which is amended "by adding the following subsection: (5) Subsections (2), (3) and (4) do not apply to BCIT."

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

Hon. S. Bond: The sections that are referred to are actually related to the public service, in effect. There are a number of them, as was noted by the member. The easiest way to explain this is to look at what we're attempting to do here. There are currently personnel relationships in place at BCIT and in the college and institute sector. What we wanted to do was keep the status quo in effect. It's working very well in both parts of the system. This is one of the places where we're actually taking the status quo from the BCIT act — I just want to make sure that's correct — and amalgamating it and making sure that the college and institutes are not affected by this in any way either.

In summary, there are no changes to labour relations in any of the non–university sector institutions. We thought that was important, so existing personnel relations provisions in the College and Institute Act will continue to be applied to public colleges, university colleges and other institutes, while the personnel provisions for BCIT under the Institute of Technology Act will simply be added to the College and Institute Act but will only apply to BCIT. The best way to describe this is that it's status quo in those institutions, and we're simply bringing both of those pieces together in this one bill.

Hon. S. Bond: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 26, College and Institute Amendment Act, 2004, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 27; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

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

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

My first question under the definitions, to sort of set the scene in terms of the agricultural land reserve: does that affect first nations reserves at the present time? Does it have effect on those reserves?

Hon. G. Abbott: The short answer is no. Because they are federal lands, the designation would not apply.

G. Halsey-Brandt: They would apply at the present time to proposed treaty settlement lands. Under the definition, when a treaty is then ratified, my understanding is that a reserve turns into treaty settlement lands along with additional treaty settlement lands to become a larger piece of treaty settlement lands. Will the ALR then apply to the entire treaty settlement lands?

Hon. G. Abbott: The short answer is no. The reserves would become treaty settlement lands, but again, the act would not have application to those lands.

G. Halsey-Brandt: If under the legislation, there was an application, let's say, to exclude some land under the proposed treaty settlement lands, there would not then be an ability to compensate, for example, some exclusion under the proposed treaty settlement lands by an inclusion under the existing reserve lands.

Hon. G. Abbott: While it's difficult to contemplate every potential eventuality, the first nation would — at least conceptually or in principle — have the opportunity to do that, if they wished to put a proposal forward. The legislation certainly doesn't inhibit them from doing that.

G. Halsey-Brandt: On the definition of first nation government. Later on, that definition plays out in different sections of the act, and I assume that it contemplates two governments. One is the existing government that's authorized as part of the treaty negotiation process to negotiate on behalf of the band.

Once a treaty is negotiated, as I understand it, there would be a new election — or whatever type of format is used — to create a new first nations government, which will then have to take whatever exclusion or whatever was done with the ALR to the members of that first nation group for ratification. We're sort of dealing with two governments at two different stages. Is that correct?

Hon. G. Abbott: The member's suggestion is correct. A band council would bring a proposal to the Agricultural Land Commission, or they would make the application. They would make that application prior to a final treaty ratification. In short, they can bring it during the AIP, or agreement-in-principle, stage to the commission.

What then occurs, we hope, of course, is that the AIP becomes a treaty. The treaty will have within it transitional provisions for new governance, which may or may not look like the old council or may look like something different, depending on what's negotiated within the bounds of the treaty. That new government would have the responsibility of taking any tentative approval by the commission for the proposal to their band, and they would have to ratify it through band processes.

G. Halsey-Brandt: The definition of owner. I think it becomes a little more complicated when we're dealing with this legislation. I guess my first question is: if it's Crown land, can the Crown apply to the Land Commission at the AIP stage?

Hon. G. Abbott: The answer to the question is that this bill does not embrace the opportunity for the Crown to go directly to the commission. An application by the Crown, regardless of the purpose of it, would mean that they would have to go through the existing processes — i.e., first, a reference to the local government in the area before going on to the commission.

G. Halsey-Brandt: I just wondered if you could clarify that. The Crown could apply — I'm not quite sure who that would be — to the local government that now has jurisdiction over the proposed treaty settlement land, and then the local government would send the application through to the Land Commission. Is that…?

Hon. G. Abbott: The Crown would have to take the application through the local government. For example, I understand that in fact there was an application of this nature recently in Prince George. The Crown makes application to the regional district or the local government. Local government debates it and brings their recommendation to the commission.

G. Halsey-Brandt: I guess I'm perhaps a little concerned. My question revolves around the commission members of the agricultural land reserve. I'll split the difference now between the AIP stage and the final stage. Let's say you've been negotiating seven or eight years with a particular band. Now they're at the AIP stage, and they apply for exclusion of some property. Do you not think that would place tremendous pressure on the land commissioners who have got to make a decision?

Let's say they refuse the exclusion. They may send the whole treaty negotiation process back to square one, and they could lose years and years of negotiations. Yet their responsibility is the preservation of quality agricultural land, which really has perhaps nothing to do with fish and money and land and all the other things on the negotiating table.

Would you not be concerned that you're putting some commissioners, which the government appoints, in a position where they're trying to make a decision around agricultural land, but it's in the context of a much broader and larger treaty negotiation table?

If I could just add to that. Would it not be better to do that when you have a treaty? Then the local government can take that to the Land Commission, like any other local government or individual could, at the conclusion.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'll try to address the point as thoughtfully as I can. The purpose of this legislation is to ensure that both parties to a treaty between a first nation and the province have some certainty with respect to the lands which are included within the treaty area — the treaty lands. The purpose of allowing a first nation to go at the AIP stage is so that, again, they have some knowledge of what's going to be available to them, should they move to embrace a final treaty with the province and with the federal government. It is a matter of clarifying and providing certainty to the parties to the agreement.

Of course, there is the additional safeguard that there is not final approval of that until after the treaty is finalized, and there is additional ratification of the proposal by the new first nations government. In terms of whether that provides a more difficult decision format for the Land Commission panel than it would, for example, when a local government — whether it is a municipality or regional district — brings a broad-brush proposal to the panel, I suppose in both cases those are difficult. Local governments represent a lot of people as well, and they bring compelling reasons why, from their local government perspective, a particular change ought to be made to the boundaries of the agricultural land reserve.

We had in estimates yesterday an interesting discussion of that particular issue. In either case, whether it is a first nations government or a local government, the commission is going to be responsible for trying to achieve a balanced response. They'll look at a whole range of issues, including the quantity and quality of land, the adjacent agricultural land uses and a host of other factors that invariably come into play in these things.

I think the methodology here is sound. I think that while the member is right, it's not easy being in a decision-making role in any event. Certainly, these won't be easy decisions for the commission, but I suspect the easy ones are few and far between.

G. Halsey-Brandt: The minister may want to defer to the Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiations. It does impact this point that we're at in our discussion. As I understand it, in the negotiation process when the Crown — either the federal government or the provincial government — puts something on the table, whether it be a cash amount or some land or some forest reserves or some fish, it is not acceptable, then, to take those items off the table. That's my understanding of the process — somewhat limited. We may get advice from another ministry.

Let's say you're at this stage in agreement-in-principle, and the land is in the agricultural land reserve. It's for farmland now, and everything's on the table — which it is at the agreement-in-principle stage. The Land Commission appreciates the position of the first nations and, let's say, excludes all or some of the land and puts it into housing or industrial or commercial or whatever, which gives it a very significant increase in value. What would that do to the negotiation process? Do other things come off the table as a result of that? Is that why we're trying to remove the uncertainty at this stage of the game?

Hon. G. Abbott: The member, in his question, anticipated at least a portion of my answer. I'm not going to go too far into the parameters of the AIP and treaty process, but I will say this, which I think really answers the member's substantive question. That is that treaty-making is a dynamic process. The elements involved in it do shift and change. They're not a constantly building set of plateaus. It's a dynamic process, and things are put on the table on a without-prejudice basis.

I think, again, this goes back to the answer to the earlier question from the member. That is that the object of the exercise is to provide certainty. By achieving that certainty at the AIP stage, the parties can then move with confidence towards a final resolution of this without having one element of it unresolved.

G. Halsey-Brandt: When a local government applies or an individual applies, it's in the context of an official community plan, an official regional plan or settlement plan so that not only the regional district but the rest of the community and the neighbouring municipalities understand in terms of how that land use fits within their own community and within the neighbourhood. So not only the Land Commission can make a judgment, but at the public hearing individuals and adjoining municipalities can make a judgment.

I struggled in here, and I couldn't find anything, certainly in the definitions and earlier sections, where it said that similar provisions were in place on reserves when a first nation wished to apply at the agreement-in-principle stage or, in fact, even at the final stage. Are you saying that they are obligated on reserve lands and treaty settlement lands to lay out a community plan and show us and have public hearings and meetings in terms of how that land use is affected?

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

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

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

G. Halsey-Brandt: My final comment and question really relate to a letter — I should have given you a copy of this, but I just got it before we came in — from the mayor of the city of Richmond, which my constituency is in. I'll just read it briefly.

"Specifically, Richmond is concerned that proposed Bill 27 will enable first nations who have land in the ALR due to treaty agreements-in-principle and final treaties to apply directly to the Agricultural Land Commission to exclude land from the agricultural land reserve without having to first consult with adjacent municipalities.

"Richmond is concerned, as its livability, land use servicing, urban design, sustainability and environmental objectives will be jeopardized. More consultation between first nations and municipalities during ALR exclusions is requested to ensure cooperative and coordinated social, economic and environmental development."

I think really what they're talking about is relating servicing, parks, social services — all those sorts of things that neighbours are going to share. Their concern, and my question, is: if you don't do that at the exclusion stage, when do you do it? Once it's excluded, you're really behind the eight ball in terms of trying to resolve those sorts of questions. I think they should be resolved at the application-for-exclusion stage.

Hon. G. Abbott: First of all, neither I nor my staff have received the correspondence that the member read from. I think I caught the general gist of it. We'll try to respond, but if the member could make a copy and send it over to me at some point, that would be useful. Perhaps we can provide an even more full response to the issues raised in the letter than I can at this point in time.

There are a number of things that I think need to be noted here. First of all, when a first nation moves forward or is contemplating moving forward with an application to the commission, among their obligations will be the obligation to post the property, just as a private land owner would or just as, I suppose, a municipality or local government would if they were planning to bring a formal request to the commission as well.

As well as the public notification, there will be an obligation for a public hearing, which of course the public would have an opportunity to attend. The application…. Once it's gone forward to the commission, the commission would take account of the submissions made at the public hearing, just as they would at any other public hearing on issues like this. If, for example, the land in question is on the edge of a municipality, the municipality in question would certainly have an opportunity to raise any concerns they had through the referral process. That will be a part of this as well.

If they had concerns around types of land uses, the need for buffering or any of those things, they certainly could raise them through the referral process. Again, those issues would form part of the volume of information and evidence which the commission would consider in determining the success or failure of the first nations application.

A final point here, at least until we have a look at the letter and see if there are additional issues from it which we ought to address. If a first nation wants to undertake a development which requires servicing with water or sewer and they hope to secure those services from the adjacent municipality, they would have to negotiate with the municipality for those services, just as any other property owner would have to negotiate with them or just as an adjacent local government or an organized territory would have to negotiate with the local government for those services. Ultimately, those are things that are consensual, and certainly the provincial government can't oblige them, nor could the Agricultural Land Commission.

V. Roddick: Obviously, there is much concern over this bill in my riding of Delta South, which is home to 22,000 acres of top-grade agricultural land, because a large portion of the land up for treaty negotiations has been expropriated — therefore now Crown land — and is in the ALR.

Really, could you try to explain to an average citizen like myself: under the definition section, what does this act do that is different at all from the original act, which deals with the municipality? Does it read — technically, word for word — what direction it gives to the municipality, like the municipality of Delta? When you add this amendment, does it just give the Tsawwassen first nation, for example — which is now an AIP, so it can apply to the Land Commission — absolutely exactly the same rules, regulations and procedures as the municipality of Delta has to adhere to?

Hon. G. Abbott: The answer to the question is yes. What this bill will do is put a first nation in precisely the same position as a local government is in relation to the commission, whether they be a municipality or a regional district.

V. Roddick: Then one that I hope will clarify it for a lot of us…. Just two other quick things. One thing I am a little confused on, and I'm hoping you can clarify…. You say that the agreement-in-principle, therefore, the TFN….

Roberts Bank backup land is essentially Crown land. If the province wanted to develop that Crown land, does it have to go to the municipality first? That land that's up there…. I know that my colleague sort of asked the same question, but not quite. Is the Delta municipality first, and not the TFN? This is confusing. The way I read it, it sounds as though if it's Crown land, the province has to take it to the municipality to ask for permission to develop it. If it's Crown land and it's in the agreement-in-principle, they don't have to take it to the municipality. Please clarify this.

Hon. G. Abbott: These are important questions. I'll do my best to answer carefully, because the answers might be as important as the questions.

The issue canvassed briefly by the member for Richmond Centre was in terms of the process the Crown would follow. If it was purely a Crown application for their own Crown land, the normal process would engage in that case. The Crown or its agency — in all probability, Land and Water B.C. — would go to the local government through the normal application process. That application would be considered by the municipality or local government. They would make their recommendation, and it would go to the commission.

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

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

Hon. G. Abbott: Yes. On those occasions when the Crown exercised that remarkable generosity that's occasionally contained in free Crown grants, the responsibility for that would shift to the local government, and they might bring application to the Land Commission for some use of the property other than agricultural or for exclusion of the property.

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

Hon. G. Abbott: I will take a little bit of time here just to make sure we all have a clear understanding. First of all, as we have discussed previously but I think is worth noting again, there is no final change in terms of the designation of the land until after the treaty is finalized and until after whatever the new governance structure of the first nation is secures the support of that government to the proposal. It doesn't immediately change.

Now, at that AIP stage, presumably…. Obviously, they can take lands to the commission after, if they wish to. That would be their choice. What's really at stake here is around the pre-treaty area. When they take a piece of land to the commission, they may, for example, apply for exclusion of that land from the agricultural land reserve. Let's say, hypothetically, it's 100 hectares that they make an exclusion application for. The commission has a number of alternatives that it could look at in terms of what the outcome will be. They may say: "Fine, we support your application for exclusion." The 100 hectares is removed from the land reserve and is subject again to final ratification, and those final processes that have to be undertaken by the first nations government will be excluded. That's one potential.

However, it's possible, again at the AIP stage, that the first nations government might apply, rather than for exclusion, for some permitted use within the agricultural land reserve. The commission might support that. Or it is possible, again on our 100 hectare parcel, that they might say: "We are prepared to exclude 50 acres for the following reasons. But for another set of reasons, we are retaining 50 acres within the bounds of the agricultural land reserve." In that case, again, that would remain, even post-treaty, as a part of the agricultural land reserve. Hopefully, that clarifies the point and answers the member's question.

V. Roddick: Maybe I didn't make myself abundantly clear — federal. Does this agricultural land thing…? Right now we as a province have an agricultural land reserve in this province, but the federal government doesn't have to recognize it. Is it going to recognize this once we have gone through the AIP into the treaty? Or can it come in and say: "Nix it"?

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

Island. They don't have to apply to anybody to do anything with it. It is federal government. Our land use issues do not apply.

Hon. G. Abbott: I know there is a dictum somewhere about not answering hypothetical questions because it gets you into all manner of difficulties that you shouldn't plunge into, but I will try here anyway.

I think the member outlined a hypothetical situation where the federal government — for the purposes, presumably, of securing a treaty — purchased some quantum of land. Again, let's say 100 hectares. What is clear to us is this. Post-treaty, if those 100 hectares were outside the agricultural land reserve, they would remain outside the agricultural land reserve. But again, post-treaty, if they were in the agricultural land reserve, they would be in the agricultural land reserve. In short, the lands post-treaty would become section 92 lands and would be subject to provincial law.

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

I was just wondering. I have heard that the Union of B.C. Municipalities' executive is scheduled to review this legislation with the government this coming Friday. Has the minister or his staff or the Agricultural Land Commission met and communicated with the Union of B.C. Municipalities on these matters? Of course, this legislation, I assume, will be passed, and then they will get their briefing. So that might be backwards.

Hon. G. Abbott: There has been full discussion of this matter between the Agricultural Land Commission and the executive director of UBCM. I'm trying to recall whether in my quarterly meetings with them this has been an issue. I don't believe it has, but I certainly look forward to meeting with UBCM.

J. MacPhail: Did those discussions raise any matters? Is the UBCM comfortable with this legislation, the application of the legislation pursuant to the discussions that occurred?

Hon. G. Abbott: We understand them to be comfortable. They had a good deal of interest with respect to the posting and notification and public hearing provisions that would be the subject of this bill. Again, I think they generally find comfort in that the provisions or obligations which a first nation will have with respect to Agricultural Land Commission application processes will very much mimic those which local governments in British Columbia have to observe as well.

J. MacPhail: Has the minister or the ALC staff or ministry staff met with the lower mainland treaty advisory committee on this issue?

J. MacPhail: I want to quote what the Attorney General said directly on this point yesterday in his estimates here in this Legislature. I'm not going to ask the minister to comment on it, but I'll ask a follow-up question. Here's what the Attorney General said yesterday:

That's the end of the quote. So as I read his comments, the Attorney General is saying that both the AIPs, Tsawwassen and Lheidli T'enneh — and my apologies for the pronunciation on the latter — have a process in them and that this bill would simply allow the Agricultural Land Commission to make a determination. Yet the inclusion of land or exclusion of land would not take place until after the final treaty was signed. So why is this legislation necessary? I don't see why this legislation is necessary.

Hon. G. Abbott: I hope I can answer the member's question. In the case of the first nations lands near Prince George, I think the pronunciation is klekletennie.

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

The current legislation under which we work in the province in relation to the intersection between first nations and the commission is that the first nation must secure the authorization of a local government before taking that application to the Agricultural Land Commission. That's the current….

What we are saying as a matter of principle is that first nations should have the opportunity to go directly, without securing the permission of a local government in order to do that. Just as — again, to be hypothetical about this — I'm sure the corporation of the city of Delta would not want to have to secure the permission of the city of Richmond before going to the Agricultural Land Commission, similarly, we believe that first nations governments ought to be on the same legal basis as local governments.

W. Cobb: We are, in fact, not actually defining government or what government would look like. As I

understand it, in a number of agreements-in-principle, the governance model or the form of government has not been defined, and in some cases it's deferred to a later negotiation or a treaty negotiation. What do we do in that case? If there isn't an actual authority, then what do we do?

Hon. G. Abbott: The precise nature of the governance model that is embraced by the first nation through the final treaty is one of the important components of that treaty. What is clear — and that's, I think, all we need to know for the purposes of this bill — is that there would not be any final changes in respect of Agricultural Land Commission lands until a final treaty. Of course, a final treaty is not possible without a finalization of issues around a model of governance.

W. Cobb: A band, as it sits today, if they're not in the treaty negotiation, would not have the authority to do this. Am I correct?

Hon. G. Abbott: The first nations government would have to be at least at the AIP stage in order to do this.

W. Cobb: We're acknowledging first nations as an organization, if they're in the process, or their local government. We're suggesting that they be qualified to be appointed to the commission, and yet as I understand it, local government is not appointed to the commission, the ALR.

Hon. G. Abbott: In answer to the member's question, we have just added one additional element to the list, which is knowledge of first nations.

W. Cobb: Sorry, I don't understand that then. You add knowledge of first nations government as a qualification for appointment to the commission. Are we talking about the Agricultural Land Commission, then? I guess that's my question. Local government, whether it be the regional district or the municipality, is not appointed to the ALR, so why would this other form of government be allowed to sit on the commission?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm sorry about the confusion, but we're still on the definitions section, as I understand it. We're not quite sure. Is the member going to section 5?

D. MacKay: I have a couple of questions having to do with the proposed treaty settlement lands. I'm really confused about a part of this. It says: "…land described in an agreement in principle as the land that will become, in whole or in part…."

Is this the land mass we're talking about that they can apply to have excluded from the agricultural land reserve — the part that may become treaty settlement land after the treaty is signed off?

D. MacKay: I understand what you've said, but I'm confused and a little bit concerned about a couple of treaties. The Nisga'a treaty is a good example where we see powers afforded the Nisga'a government, powers that usurp the provincial and the federal power-making authority. They can actually create laws that override provincial and federal legislation. I'm concerned.

When you look at the definition of treaty settlement lands, it says: "…land, other than land located within a reserve as defined in the Indian Act…that is subject to the legislative authority of a first nation…." If in fact a treaty is now signed off getting the native band a treaty and a piece of land that has been excluded from the agricultural land reserve, subject to the Agricultural Land Commission approving that, what happens if the treaty authorizes or gives authority to the band that usurps the provincial authority? Are they required to still go back to the Agricultural Land Commission to make application to remove the land if we've given them the authority to legislate — make laws for the governance of the use of land within that treaty?

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

However, here's the important point. Again, as I noted in an earlier question, the commission might say: "Well, we know the application is for exclusion, but we are only going to provide for that on 50 of the 100 hectares that are under application here. Fifty will remain within the bounds of the agricultural land reserve." Or they may say: "No, we won't accept the exclusion application, but we will provide for some conditional use within the ALR of that land or any other combination of things. It would be the commission that will determine the success or failure or the outcome of the application.

Again, there was no ALR land in the Nisga'a treaty sense, but there is nothing here — or nothing that I'm aware of, and I'd defer to the experts from the TNO here — that suggests that there is any less diminution of ALR oversight or responsibility for agricultural land reserve lands within that treaty lands area.

D. MacKay: If the land that has been excluded from the ALR subject to the signing-off of the final treaty…. I suspect those lands are now going to be set aside, be-

cause they form part of the treaty. It's the extra land that has been given to the native band as part of the final treaty package. Are you saying that they will not have the authority to override provincial jurisdiction on the removal of that land from the agricultural land reserve?

Hon. G. Abbott: That is precisely what I'm saying. The first nation laws would not override provincial law, including the Agricultural Land Commission laws. They would have to make application, just like any other local government, for something other than existed.

B. Lekstrom: In dealing with this bill — it's quite in depth, and when you look at it, it has significant impact…. A simple question: could land be excluded by a first nation prior to the signing of a final agreement?

Hon. G. Abbott: No, and they would need to enact a law after that in order to achieve it.

B. Lekstrom: I guess that leads to my next question. Why the need to allow for an application for exclusion at the AIP process, then? I'm missing something there. If you can apply — and, as I read, agreement-in-principle means a non-binding agreement negotiated among a first nation government — then why the need to apply or give permission to apply at AIP?

Hon. G. Abbott: It is to provide the first nation and all band members within their jurisdiction with certainty with respect to what the package is that they are considering as part of the treaty-making process.

B. Lekstrom: Thank you. That does bring up the idea that it can significantly change the potential financial impact of a treaty — I mean, land that's in the ALR versus land that's out of the ALR. What I understand is that we reach an agreement-in-principle based on a number of things. We then allow for the first nation to apply for exclusion to the commission, and that land can or cannot be decided by the commission at that point.

I'll use an example. An application goes through as an AIP has been reached. The commission makes a decision that yes, we're going to exclude it. What happens if that AIP falls apart? Where's that land? Is it then not excluded? Or — the next applicant — should that land not be first nations and that AIP falls apart, it's obviously automatic that that land would come out, because we've approved it once.

Hon. G. Abbott: Nothing changes until after treaty. Presumably the block of land becomes the object of an application to the Agricultural Land Commission. They give their approval for the application. Subsequently, the agreement-in-principle does not move forward to final treaty ratification. In that case, the original ALC designation remains on the land.

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

At that point the local government, as per their control of zoning, is going to determine what the land use designation is going to be on that land unless, of course, it's already been determined as part of a negotiation process around the free Crown grant. Again, what I'm trying to say here is that this model is very much built around fairness, and I think it stands the test well.

B. Lekstrom: Yes, maybe just for clarification…. I guess my concern still lies with a couple of things. Under 1(b), agreement-in-principle means a non-binding agreement, although we're giving AIP the ability as owner of the land when you read this piece of legislation…. We're giving them those powers under the application process. Those two don't seem to meld, in my mind.

I want to go back. Definitely, we touched on this earlier. You mentioned that it could allow the first nation to know what they're negotiating with. You reach an AIP before you can actually apply, so the only thing that can change in favour would be the value to the first nation, should the commission make a decision to exclude this land. It's my understanding that negotiations could be affected in that once an AIP is reached, an application to the commission is put forward. It's excluded. The value goes up significantly. The Crown can come back. You're seeing where I'm heading with this question…? Okay.

Hon. G. Abbott: I think if we work on it long enough, you'll come to completely agree with me on this point.

The exclusion does not occur until after the final treaty. There is no exclusion at AIP stage. That provisional approval does not become an exclusion until after the treaty is ratified and until after the new first nations government goes through whatever ratification processes are necessary in their government. There's no exclusion until then.

If we take that hypothetical 100 hectares that we've been using here and it doesn't get excluded, it legally remains with whatever portion of the Agricultural Land Commission purview over it was there before AIP ever began.

I wasn't clear on the first part of the member's question. I wonder if he might reframe it, and we'll try to address that one as well.

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

of me — either I'm thick, and like you say, we may take some time and we may come to the same agreement here…. Why would we give the ability to apply at AIP if nothing is final until final agreement? Why wouldn't we say that once we reach final agreement, apply for exclusion?

Hon. G. Abbott: The short answer is because it can become a very important component as the first nation looks at the land quantum associated with a potential treaty. That can be a very important issue for them. Obviously, there are other dimensions of the AIP as well. They may involve money or resources or any number of other things. The land quantum is going to be very much a product of those discussions and other related discussions. This step will give them a good deal more certainty and, hopefully, produce the positive outcome that our government looks forward to.

B. Lekstrom: I guess I'm just going to continue on this track, and hopefully we will reach agreement at one point.

I still, for the life of me, cannot figure why…. We're negotiating and we're reaching an agreement-in-principle. The land is there; the product is there in the negotiation, and so on. We could significantly alter the value of the property we're talking about through exclusion.

Does that mean, then, we can go back to the table and say, "My goodness. That piece came out. Instead of being worth X, it's now worth 5X," and use that as a bargaining issue to draw something off the table?

Hon. G. Abbott: As I understand the member's question, his concern revolves around what implications this process might have on the market value of a given piece of land. Again, it's important to recall the principle that the government is not going to expropriate any fee simple lands in order to make a treaty work.

In all likelihood, the land that might be subject to the consideration we've been talking about is going to be acquired by the Crown for these purposes, or it may be a fee simple holding that the owner in question agrees to delegate to the first nation for its consideration. I presume those would be the two most likely scenarios. In either case, the market value of that land I don't think is going to be markedly changed — certainly not until after post-treaty, because there is no change in respect of the application of the Agricultural Land Commission on that land until at least after the final ratification.

I've gone through a number of hypothetical scenarios where it could be exclusion, but it might be partially exclusion, or it might be conditional use, or it might all be retained by decision within the land reserve but contemplating some additional purposes for the land. There's a range. In any eventuality, nothing changes until the treaty is ratified, and then at that point it becomes part of the treaty lands package.

I think everybody is going into these negotiations with their eyes open. They're thinking about the quantum of land and the value of land. They're thinking about the quantum of resources and the value of those resources. They are thinking about the quantum of money, in all likelihood, in some instances — perhaps every instance. I'm getting into the Attorney General's field here.

If the member's point is around market value, hopefully my answer addresses that.

J. MacPhail: In the gallery with us right now watching this debate, which I think is a very good debate amongst all of us, is Van Tech Secondary School — 13 grade 11 students. They're accompanied by their student teacher, Ms. Lindsay May, and their sponsor teacher, Ms. Shelfontiuk. Would the House please make them welcome.

B. Lekstrom: I want to thank the minister for his answers. We're still trying to get to the end resolve here, with an understanding. The financial is just part of my questioning.

I'm still, on the issue, understanding very clearly that the land…. A decision could be made by the commission. A first nation who has reached an AIP can act as owner and apply to have that land excluded. The commission can say, "Yes, it's excluded," and nothing happens to that land unless a final agreement is reached. If I'm understanding this correctly, if the AIP falls apart, nothing happens. That land then is not excluded anymore, although the commission has already said it is.

B. Lekstrom: Pardon me. Then I guess the question would be…. I do have a slight misunderstanding. AIP is reached. First nations apply to have an exclusion. The commission gets that application, and they make a decision on that application. That's my understanding. I'm going to say, hypothetically, that they make a decision to exclude it. What happens at that point?

Hon. G. Abbott: Hon. Chair, thank you for reminding me not to attempt to answer the question so quickly across the floor of the House, because that would be out of sequence with the debating that has been going on here.

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

tions, as we've been talking about, are at least final ratification and proper adoption by the new aboriginal government, in that case.

Again, it's a conditional approval at AIP — conditional upon things — and if the conditions are not met, then the approval is no longer there. There is no exclusion unless the conditions are followed.

B. Lekstrom: You tweaked my interest, minister, when you talked about conditional approval. I want to use an example again: a piece of property held by a city. It's in the reserve. They have an interested party that wants to purchase it but won't purchase it unless it's out of the ALR. Can they apply, get conditional release of that from the ALR, finalize the sale, and then it comes out?

Hon. G. Abbott: The member should take note of my answer here because I may have misunderstood his question. We want to be sure that we understood the question and, hopefully, that the answer is understood.

I spent a long time in local government before coming here, so I think I have a pretty good sense of the issues. Again, let's take an example of where a municipality might want to go to the commission and get a piece of land excluded from the Agricultural Land Commission. I think that's central to the member's question. For the sake of argument, let's take, for example, a piece of land, and it's in the agricultural land reserve. Let's say it's 100 hectares, and the municipality has come into possession of that 100 hectares. Perhaps it was fee simple land. Perhaps it was Crown land that was vacant, and they acquired it through some means or another.

The municipality, being the landowner, goes directly to the commission, presumably after they've resolved as a council that that's what they want to do. Of course they'll want to do that. They resolve as a council that they are going to attempt to secure an exclusion for this property from the Agricultural Land Commission because they want to create an industrial park there. So they go to the commission directly with their application. As is contemplated in this and in current provisions around this, the municipality might have a public hearing and notification and posting and all of that stuff. They go to the commission. They advance their arguments and their evidence for exclusion. The commission says: "Yeah, we're persuaded — application approved." There is no conditional step in that. They will approve it, or they will reject it.

There is nothing that is tantamount to the movement from an AIP to a final treaty in local government. Local government effectively makes that decision when council determines as a group that they think that the application is appropriate. There isn't a second stage. The only change that a local government might contemplate is if some of the members of council got some pressure from the public and decided that it was the wrong thing to do. They could raise it at council again, but there's nothing like the AIP-to-treaty change.

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

My issue is one where I don't think it's needed to authorize, once an AIP is reached, to give them the status of owner of that property — to apply and be given status for a conditional approval. I am much more comfortable that upon final agreement of a treaty…. That's the process I would be much more comfortable with.

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, the member is certainly knowledgable on the issues here now. But just again so we're clear, the Crown, should it choose, can acquire a piece of fee simple land, or they can take a piece of their own Crown land. Because the Crown needs to go through the local municipality, they could do that. They could go to the local municipality or the local regional district and say: "We're making an application as the Crown for exclusion of this to the Land Commission." They could do that. The local government would make their recommendation, and it would go on to the commission. The commission might say yes or no. If the Crown chose to take that route in terms of finding appropriate land for that land quantum within a treaty, that's perfectly within their ambit.

In fact, this opens up more flexibility for the Crown in terms of how the land quantum will be determined. It puts first nations governments on precisely — and I think we've tested this very well in a long series of questions — the same basis as local governments in terms of moving forward with these kinds of applications. The issue of how the Crown does it, how the Crown lines up and balances off that quantum — that's up to the Crown. The Crown determines that through the treaty negotiations office as they move forward. I hope that answered that final point the member had.

B. Lekstrom: It did answer it. Apparently, we will see the issue somewhat differently. Again, I'll just close by thanking the minister for his answers. We will, I guess, see this one issue — we're dealing with section 1 right now — somewhat differently, but again I thank you.

D. MacKay: Just looking at the existing Agricultural Land Commission Act's section 17, when I read

the inclusion applications, it says: "…on an application by a local government." There's no mention in there about an individual applying for an exclusion of land under the agricultural land reserve. But I notice that under Bill 27, we have the term "person" appearing now for the first time in the definition section. I don't see the definition section in the existing ALC act. I see no mention there about the word "person," but I see it's now in the new proposed amendment. I'm wondering why it is necessary to have: "'person' includes a first nation government." Why was that necessary?

Hon. G. Abbott: I hope you're forgiving us, hon. Chair, for moving off the definition section before we actually vote on it. That's fine. We're good to bounce around.

If the member could reference section 20 and section 21, not of this Bill 27 but of the Agricultural Land Commission Act…. I think he was quoting from another section of it earlier. Section 20(1) of the Agricultural Land Commission Act says that a person must not use agricultural land for non-farm use unless permitted by the act, etc.

As another example, if one looks at section 21(1), a person must not subdivide agricultural land unless permitted by this act, etc.

It is essential, therefore, for first nations to be included in the definition of "persons" so that they would be able to do those things, which are contemplated in sections 20 and 21 of the existing Agricultural Land Commission Act.

D. MacKay: Final question to the minister. When I look at section 17, it talks about local governments who have the legislative power provided to them from the province through the British North America Act. They have legislative authority from the province. Are we now, with Bill 27, acknowledging the third order of government — that is, the third order of government by the natives?

Hon. G. Abbott: The legislation that's before us has no bearing around the debate with respect to a third order of government. This simply clarifies the position of first nations in relation to their opportunity to take applications directly to the Agricultural Land Commission.

D. MacKay: It's my understanding, then, from the Agricultural Land Commission that to apply to remove land from the agricultural land reserve, you have to get either the regional district or the municipal government to process the application. Those are both elected powers — elected by the people to that position. So we seem to be making an exception here for the natives to apply for the exclusion of that land that could be part of the treaty process — treaty lands after the treaty is signed off. Perhaps I'm reading it wrong. It sounds to me as if we are acknowledging a level of government in Bill 27. Is that a correct assumption?

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, I think the parallels between a local government's relationship with the Agricultural Land Commission and a first nations government's relationship with the Agricultural Land Commission are very similar or the same, if you like. Again, if the district of Sicamous, which is my hometown, decides that it wants to see a piece of land that it owns excluded from the Agricultural Land Commission, they would have to resolve as a council that they wanted to do that and then make application directly to the commission in order to do that.

For a first nations government to carry forward an application to the Agricultural Land Commission, their band council would have to vote first at the AIP stage to take that application forward to the commission. Further, after the treaty has been finalized, if indeed it is, we would again demand…. Before there is any change made in the status of that land in relation to the Agricultural Land Commission, there would have to be a resolution adopted by that new first nations government to confirm that, indeed, that was what they wanted to do.

D. MacKay: Based on the answer that the minister just gave me, it would not be up to the treaty negotiators to apply to have that land excluded. It would have to come from a band council meeting. In order for a band council meeting to be approved…. I do believe it's got to go back to Ottawa to be approved by Indian Affairs before it can be accepted as a band bylaw that has been approved by the council. So there's a step involved there.

Does the treaty negotiator actually have the authority to make application or suggest that that land should be applied for, for exclusion? That's a bit confusing to me. I wonder if the minister can clarify that.

Hon. G. Abbott: An interesting question posed by the member. Again, I think the important elements are these. The band council will make a decision with respect to whether to proceed with an application. This is at the AIP stage. The band does not need to get any sign-off from Ottawa with respect to that. There is no approval process from Ottawa. They make the decision, and the proposal goes forward to the commission. There is no sign-off by Ottawa on it.

D. MacKay: I thank the minister for his patience as we wade through a rather contentious part of Bill 27.

In some cases we have several bands that are involved in treaty negotiations under an umbrella. I don't know of any in the lower mainland, but I do know of some in the northern part of this province where there are actually several bands. Would just one of the bands have to apply to have that exclusion made to remove the land from the agricultural land reserve? I'm confused about that, where we have several bands that are in different communities. I can give you an example of Burns Lake, where we've got the Burns Lake band. Part of their band lives in Burns Lake, and part of their band lives at Fort Babine, which is east of Smithers. They

don't always get along with one another. They have different opinions. I wonder how that would work if we have several bands split up. Do they all have their own governance structure?

Hon. G. Abbott: The member asks interesting, perplexing questions. They do stretch one's thought processes to the maximum, but it's a very good thing on a Wednesday afternoon to have that occur.

Here is the answer to the question. The member is asking about an AIP that embraced more than one band, as we understand it. We haven't actually seen that situation yet, but likely we will see at some point a situation where an AIP does embrace more than one band.

If all the bands — and let's say, hypothetically, there are six, as I think the member's question posed…. If all six bands are signatories to the agreement-in-principle — and again, recognizing that the agreement-in-principle is going to lay out a lot of these issues — any one of those bands or any multiple up to six, presumably, could make application to the commission.

However, at the next stage that we've been talking about, which is the final treaty and ratification processes, all would have to ratify that change before it occurred.

D. MacKay: I just want to thank the minister and his staff for the patience and the responses to the questions that were put to them as it relates to the definition section of Bill 27. Thank you very much.

J. Wilson: I've listened with some interest as we've gone through the details on this bill — rather a lot of detail. Things became probably a little less clear as we proceeded. I'm having trouble seeing the forest for the trees now.

If the minister could…. I'll try and do a short summary as to what I get out of this, having listened to this debate. Hopefully, the minister can tell me whether I have it right or wrong. My understanding is that under the treaty lands that go forward in an agreement or a treaty, the use on those lands will have the same designation as the existing treaty lands that are there. We will simply have an expansion. Is that…?

Hon. G. Abbott: If I can assist in achieving some clarification here for the member. Again, the first distinction we need to make is between the lands which might be subject of an application within the ambit of Bill 27 versus Indian reserve lands, which are not subject to the purview of the Agricultural Land Commission or the agricultural land reserve. Indian reserve lands are not a part of the domain of the Agricultural Land Commission.

The second point I think is just as important in terms of a clear understanding here. Whatever the existing designation of the land is — and presumably it is entirely encompassed within the ALR — if the land is in the ALR, it is going to remain in the ALR at least until after the treaty is ratified and any final law created by the new first nations government has ratified the change as well.

Further — and we talked about this earlier in the discussion — it is also important to note that the application, whether it is for exclusion or other, is not necessarily going to be simply approved or not approved by the commission. For example, as is commonplace with an individual application or with an application from a municipality, the commission — on hearing the argument and evidence of the first nations government — may decide that, conditionally, it would be 50 acres in and 50 acres out. Or they may decide that, conditionally, there might be some permitted use within that area, but it would not be excluded from the ALR. So there is, in fact, no change in the legal designation of those lands until after the treaty is ratified and the related measures are also completed.

J. Wilson: I thank the minister for his answer. My understanding is that when these treaties are ratified by the federal government, we do not know exactly how they will come out. My understanding is that there can be a variation in the authority the band has or the jurisdiction they have over the land they've been given. It's not a cookie-cutter model. Each one can vary. My understanding is there is the possibility that a treaty agreement that was reached could give the first nation legislative authority that might usurp the Land Commission's authority.

Hon. G. Abbott: There are at least three important issues that are raised by the member's question. Let's be clear and definitive on the first. There is nothing in the creation of the treaty which in any measure lessens the authority, whatever it may be, of the Agricultural Land Commission over those lands. If the land in question is within the agricultural land reserve prior to treaty, if all or some portion of it remains in the land reserve post-treaty, the authority of the Land Commission remains. There is nothing the federal government can or will do to change that. I guess the final point is that the treaty itself will define the shape of first nations government authority through that final treaty detail.

J. Wilson: That helps considerably. I thank the minister for his answer. It gives me a sense of security here.

We know that these things may arise when we do add treaty lands into a settlement. Should there be a breach of contract or a breach of the use of that land, who is going to take the necessary enforcement actions? Is it going to be the Crown, or will it be the first nations, who in most cases are responsible for their own policing?

Hon. G. Abbott: If the land remains in the ALR, the enforcement responsibility would rest with the commission, just as it does today.

J. Wilson: Under the definitions, the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine talked about "persons." The

minister alluded that persons meant, in this case, first nations. When I read the definition, it says: "…includes a first nation government…."

Could the minister list the other components of "includes"? Includes is more than one.

Hon. G. Abbott: While it's not specified in this act, nor in the Agricultural Land Commission Act, "person" is defined in the Interpretation Act — not surprisingly, under "person." It includes "a corporation, partnership or party, and the personal or other legal representatives of a person to whom the context can apply according to law."

If an individual first nation member went to the ALC, this would allow that individual to approach them directly. They would not have to go through the regular channels that someone else may have to.

Hon. G. Abbott: For the purposes of this bill, a first nations individual could not proceed under the terms of this to the commission with an application. I guess the approach here and the definition here of "person," defined as a first nations government, would limit that opportunity — in fact, prevent that opportunity.

More importantly, this whole bill is built around the process that first an AIP has to be in place. Then a band council would have to mandate the application. The application would then go to the commission. It's very clear that a first nations individual could not use this process to — in, I guess, crude terms — short-circuit the existing processes.

J. Wilson: To the minister. I'm a little confused on this. If the first nations individual wanted to do something with regard to land use under a designation, if they went to their band council or whoever is running things and said, "I want to do this. Can I go and approach the commission?" and they said, "Sure, go ahead," then you would be dealing with an individual, I believe.

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for his interesting question. But again, I think the answer here is very clear. Prior to a final treaty, an individual first nation owner of a piece of property, whether it is located adjacent to an agricultural land reserve or whether it is a fee simple land in a municipality or regional district…. If they want to change the designation of their property — and obviously you're not going there unless it's in the agricultural land reserve — they would have to make application through their local government. It wouldn't be their band council. It would be through their local government, whether it be a regional district or municipality. For the approval it would go to the local government, and then it would go on to the commission, just as it would for any other citizen in British Columbia.

Post-treaty, when there has been a final determination around the treaty and all the details have been resolved with respect to the shape of the entity…. After that, if there is within that first nation an individual who was through whatever means an owner of land, they would then — again, completely consistent with what any other citizen would do in the province — take that to their first nations government. The first nations government would give their support or whatever, and the issue would go on to the commission for determination.

W. Cobb: I had a question earlier that wasn't answered. In regard to the local government, it says: "…adds knowledge of first nation government as a qualification for appointment to the commission." Because it was out of that section, the local government is not appointed to the commission. So are we now appointing first nations government to the commission?

Hon. G. Abbott: I apologize to the member. I do recollect him asking this question now, and I know I didn't get him a proper answer. I do apologize for that.

The answer would be clearest if the member had a copy of section 5(1) of the Agricultural Land Commission Act in front of him, but I will try to convey the change here as neatly as I can. The current section 5(1) reads: "The commission consists of at least 7 individuals appointed under this section who are knowledgeable in matters relating to agriculture, land use planning or local government." That's the end of 5(1).

Section 2 of Bill 27 would amend 5(1) by striking out "or local government" and substituting "local government or first nation government." The amended 5(1) will now read: "The commission consists of at least 7 individuals appointed under this section who are knowledgeable in matters relating to agriculture, land use planning, local government or first nation government."

W. Cobb: On this section it is the manner, and after giving the notice required to the regulation…. Will the first nations, when applying here, whether it is under AIP or whatever government they have — and it also ties in with section 2 — have to give notice for a public hearing to the properties adjacent to it? If I happen to own property next to a reserve or a treaty land, will they then have to give me notice prior to them having a piece of property taken out of the ALR? It's probably under section 2, as categories of persons. Are they defined?

Hon. G. Abbott: They would have to give notice, just as is required under the current procedures.

W. Cobb: The question here is how we will monitor this when in fact we as a province — I don't know; maybe it is different when it becomes a treaty — don't have any authority over native lands or treaty lands. How are we going to have any authority to make sure that this is actually monitored or that they adhere to an application after it is treaty land?

Hon. G. Abbott: The distinction noted earlier between Indian reserve lands and provincial lands is important here. The commission does not have now, nor will it have after, any jurisdiction with respect to Indian reserve lands. The lands in question, which we've been discussing, might be the subject of a proposal at the AIP stage should they change designation subject to a final treaty ratification. But should they change, those would become provincial lands, and the jurisdiction of the Agricultural Land Commission over those lands will be there to the extent that the lands are within the agricultural land reserve.

I have run through scenarios previously which said there may be some instances where it's partially in, partially out. The jurisdiction of the commission will remain to the extent that it is in the agricultural land reserve.

W. Cobb: I think I missed something there. I don't know quite how to put it. I think I heard you say the treaty land, in fact, will be under the jurisdiction of the province then, and that is not the way I understand treaties. Once they're in the treaty, they belong to that government, and we as a province then have no more jurisdiction over it. In fact, the ALR will have no jurisdiction over it.

Hon. G. Abbott: Post-treaty, those lands upon which Agricultural Land Commission jurisdiction continues will become section 92 lands. They will be lands under provincial jurisdiction. To the extent there is an agricultural land reserve on those lands, the authority of the commission will be over those lands.

Again, if we march backwards for a moment…. I've used this hypothetical example of a 100 hectare parcel that becomes the subject of an application by a first nations government. After an AIP is concluded, the commission may determine, after hearing argument and evidence, that all of the land should be excluded. They may determine that only a portion of it should be excluded, or they may determine that some mix of permitted uses is possible on the land, but it all remains in the agricultural land reserve.

There is any number of possibilities that might flow. To the extent that the commission's authority remains post-treaty, the jurisdiction of the commission also remains.

W. Cobb: Then I think I have to go back to the question that was asked earlier. Why would they bother having a piece of land or an application under an AIP or a treaty, when in fact it could be part of the treaty to negotiate it out of the ALR anyway? I guess the question that comes back is: what do we need this legislation for? They could in fact negotiate it away under a treaty anyway.

Hon. G. Abbott: There is a simple answer to that question. I'm advised by the treaty negotiations office representative here that the Crown simply cannot negotiate an ALR jurisdiction out through a treaty. It cannot be done. That's the short answer to the question.

Hon. G. Abbott: The federal government has no jurisdiction to do that either.

J. Wilson: Earlier the member for Peace River South raised the issue that if we go through this process and we establish a value on these lands, if a piece of this land that's going to be treaty land can be taken out of the ALR, that gives it a much higher value — commercial value. If we're going to put a value on land — I want to take the other approach here — you are going to put the lowest value you can on the land when you're dealing in a negotiation because you want to get….You know, land is an asset, and it's worth money.

We want to amass as much land as we can at the lowest common denominator, which is land in the agricultural land reserve. We all know that. Post-treaty, we now have an option of opening the door, going directly to the ALC and saying, "Hey, we need this land out. Let's talk about it," and the process begins. You end up with more land in settlement lands — maybe five times, ten times — because it has a lower common denominator as agricultural land, knowing down the road you are going to maybe hit the 6/49 here. When the time comes, you can bet that's what will happen.

The Agricultural Land Commission is then sitting with the responsibility of saying: "Well, yes, we can let 500 hectares out, we let a thousand out, or we can let it all out or none." When that happens, if they say, "Well, here's part of it," will the door be open six months later to come back for another chunk and another chunk and another chunk? Or is there anything to cap it?

Hon. G. Abbott: The member's point about the value of land in the ALR versus out of the ALR is probably true, generally speaking, although one would probably find considerable variations regionally, and so on, around that point.

Here's the important point. Whether it's John's ranch, George's farm, the city of Delta or a first nation, post-treaty, if we want to have our property excluded from the agricultural land reserve, we all have to go to the commission and argue the merits of our case. A first nation under this act is no different than a local

Post-treaty, if they want to argue that they should get a piece of their fee simple or other land out of the agricultural land reserve, they're going to have to go to the commission and argue the merits of it, just as John, George, Sicamous or the Columbia-Shuswap regional district would. The issue remains the same.

What we are establishing here is a fair process in order to do that. There's no argument about…. Well, I guess there might be an argument, but there's no argument from me. All things being equal, it's apt to produce higher values if it's outside the land reserve. As a society, we have formed some conclusions embodied in the Agricultural Land Commission Act that say we want to protect viable agricultural lands for agricultural purposes. What we do here is set out a framework whereby we can have fair, orderly, reasonable and well-informed processes that lead to conclusions about what lands should or should not be within the ALR and what kinds of uses should be on them. I think, again, the issue of values is the same regardless of whether one is discussing a post-treaty application or John's application.

W. Cobb: I guess, a little more clarification on this…. What I'm asking here is: who would have the authority to delegate powers? Again, we're back to the question of what would happen if that delegated power, whether it be federal government or not, was contrary to the ALR. I think you answered it, but I just want a further clarification on that.

Hon. G. Abbott: We actually had a little chat about this in estimates the other day, so I'm pretty familiar with it. The commission has been moving towards delegation agreements with local governments for purposes such as administering subdivision within the ALR. We have a delegation agreement in place with the Fraser–Fort George regional district. What this section would do is contemplate the future possibility of a delegation agreement with a first nations government, just as we would with other local governments in British Columbia.

D. MacKay: Dealing with section 22, which actually refers to section 58 under the old act. More specifically, I'd like to refer to section 58(2)(g) of the old act. I'll just read it where it says: "…respecting the manner of holding hearings and meetings and prescribing notice requirements for applications, hearings and other matters." We're repealing that and substituting it with: "…respecting the manner of holding hearings and meetings, obtaining public comment and prescribing notice requirements for applications, hearing and other matters, which regulations may be different for different categories of persons." I wonder if the minister could explain the intent of that new subsection.

Hon. G. Abbott: It's put in there for flexibility to ensure that it covers all manner of applications.

Hon. G. Abbott: The object of the amendment is to provide additional flexibility within the act — for example, for the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council or cabinet to have the opportunity to change the requirements if a different set of circumstances should arise that required a change in what's prescribed.

D. MacKay: Well, we're dealing with an application process to take land out of the agricultural land reserve, and it's got to be done through a government — either the municipal government or a regional district. I'm confused as to why we would use the word "persons," because persons does refer to a first nations government. I believe that is the definition of persons. Yes, it does say that "persons" includes a first nations government. Why, under that new amendment, do we not just say governments? Why do we use the term "persons" in there? That's confusing to me because regulations may be different for different categories of governments. I'm assuming that for municipal government, regional district or in this case now, a person means a first nations government. Why are we using the word "persons" there?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm going to give the member a longer answer. The simple answer is that we're aiming to add additional flexibility in terms of cabinet's ability to manage, or the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council's ability to manage, these regulations.

I'll reference section 58(2)(g) at this point. Right now it reads through this section: "58 (1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations referred to in section 41 of the Interpretation Act." Then: "(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations as follows." It starts with (a) but then goes down to (g).

Section 58(2)(g) currently reads: "(g) respecting the manner of holding hearings and meetings and prescribing notice requirements for applications, hearings and other matters." The proposal that's before us is to amend that section by replacing it with the (g) as noted in the new section 22. I'll quote: "(g) respecting the manner of holding hearings and meetings, obtaining public comment and prescribing notice requirements for applications, hearing and other matters, which regulations may be different for different categories of persons."

The aim here is, I think, to ensure that we have, from cabinet's perspective or the Lieutenant-Governor-

in-Council's perspective, the ability to manage any new situations that may present themselves in terms of how things like hearing requirements, meeting requirements or notice requirements are managed in respect of jurisdictions. It adds certainty and adds flexibility to the opportunity for the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to manage that.

D. MacKay: It did make some sense — what the minister said in his response. But the question I have to ask is: are there any differences now in the existing legislation?

Hon. G. Abbott: Generally speaking, there are no differences, but when it gets down to specific instances, there may be differences between those requirements in respect of a local government and in respect of an individual making an application.

D. MacKay: Just to follow up on that, if there are no differences generated right now, what I'm reading in that new section — new subsection (g) under section 22 — is that the order-in-council, through regulation, could perhaps make an exception if the band council decided not to hold any public hearings.

If they decided as a council they wanted to go ahead with the process, and perhaps…. Under the old section, they talk about holding hearings and meetings. If the band council decides not to have that, if they just make a decision as a council to proceed, this would allow the Lieutenant-Governor, through order-in-council, to change the regulation to accommodate the native culture, if that's what we're looking at.

Hon. G. Abbott: That, I guess, would be theoretically possible, as it would be theoretically possible for the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to vary it for a local government or, indeed, for an individual if they chose. The answer, though, is that cabinet could, if they chose, make a range of decisions around this legislation. Certainly, the ability of cabinet to change or vary is not limited to the regulations around public hearing notice. They would have to consciously do that. Whether they would or not is a good question, but they could do it for anyone. They could do it for a local government just as quickly as they could for a first nations government.

D. MacKay: I think I'm getting down to my final question, Mr. Minister. When I read my old sub-subsection (g), it appears to me that the Lieutenant-Governor, through order-in-council, has the authority there already. I don't really understand why it was necessary to remove the old sub-subsection (g) and insert the new one.

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, the difference between what is there now and what is proposed to be substituted in the new (g) are the additional words "…which regulations may be different for different categories of persons…." Again, we get into some of the vagaries of legal draftsmanship, which is always fascinating, I'm sure, to the member, as it is for me. I understand that the addition of those words provides a greater certainty about cabinet's flexibility or Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council's flexibility in looking at different ways of managing the requirements for applications, hearings and other matters.

Again, I think this is sort of the down-to-earth answer. We don't know exactly, as we're moving forward, all of the changes and permutations we might see in the future as this area of public policy unfolds. The drafters felt it was useful and appropriate to have that additional certainty that's provided by those additional words.

J. Wilson: On this particular subject I have a little bit of concern. If you go back to section 9, it refers to three: the commission or a municipal government or a first nation. There are three categories when it comes to public hearings. If something is going to take place, people need to know about it.

If we change the rules or if we allow different rules for different groups of people under the notification process for public hearings, we could be looking at some issues down the road post-treaty that may cause us some problems. For instance, if a designation is applied for change in a municipality, the people within the municipality are the ones that usually are notified about this public hearing process.

When you get into treaty settlement lands, the people that live on those lands would be the only ones that would necessarily have to be notified of a public meeting, if it's occurring in that jurisdiction. A municipality which may surround it or one next door would not be required to be part of that public hearing process. If this thing is worked the right way, that could happen. That possibility, I believe, is there.

Down the road, when a change in designation for a piece of land occurs and you have a public hearing, if the public hearing is done but excludes other peoples in the community — not necessarily in that jurisdiction but within the overall community…. We could run into some real problems if there is a land use designation change made without everyone being involved in it. That's my concern.

Hon. G. Abbott: Certainly, that is a valid concern the member expresses. Indeed, I expect that those kinds of persuasive arguments would be precisely the kind of thing that would be debated at Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council were they to consider such a change. Again, it could happen now, but it will only happen if the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council is persuaded that it is useful and appropriate to do so.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 27, Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, 2004, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on division.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 30; L. Stephens in the chair.

B. Belsey: I have a question for the minister, and I appreciate this opportunity. It's regarding the board that will be set up, the establishment of the board. Can the minister tell me how funding of that board will take place?

Hon. K. Falcon: The old Motor Carrier Commission, which will be replaced by the new Passenger Transportation Board, was funded out of my ministry budget. We will continue to allocate funds to the new Passenger Transportation Board.

B. Belsey: Under "Members of the Board," section 8(6): "The decision of a majority of the members of a panel of the board is a decision of the panel and, in the case of a tie, the decision of the chair of the panel governs." I'm a little confused. Can you give me an example of where something like that would be applicable? Under what situation would this tie happen?

Hon. K. Falcon: Essentially what happens is that depending on the size of the panel…. If it is a panel of three, for example, and there is a decision that requires the chair to break that tie vote, then the chair would do so. If it is a panel of two, one of them is the chair of that panel. If there are two of them and there is a tie decision, then the individual that is acting as chair will be able to have the deciding vote for making a decision.

B. Belsey: I hope I have the right section to ask this question. If someone were to start up a charter business — I'm thinking specifically of, say, one point in my riding — from Stewart, and they wanted to go to Terrace and meet the flight coming in there on a regular basis with a small bus or a passenger van, would they be allowed? What kind of an application do they have to make? What kind of licence do they have to apply for, and would that be acceptable under the new act?

Hon. K. Falcon: In the situation you are describing, which sounds like a specific charter service, all that would be required is that he demonstrates that he has his national safety certificate and that he has insurance. Subject to that, he can operate.

B. Belsey: We have this bus that leaves Stewart, goes to the Terrace airport, picks up passengers and heads back to Stewart. If some of those passengers want to get dropped off at one or two points along the way, is that acceptable under these new regulations and the licence that I assume he would apply for?

Hon. K. Falcon: Under the scenario you're describing — that is, when you have scheduled stops — you are now becoming an inner-city bus, so that would be a different scenario. An application would then have to be made under the economic regulation category of inner-city buses, which are essentially scheduled buses.

Hon. K. Falcon: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 30, Passenger Transportation Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. J. Les: I call the estimates debate for the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management in Committee of Supply.

J. MacPhail: We're going to do aquaculture, then Lannan forest, then Land and Water B.C. For me, those are the questions I have.

I want to carry on under aquaculture, examining the Service Agreement on Coordination of Compliance and Enforcement Programs. That's a service agreement between the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries; Water, Land and Air Protection; Sustainable Resource Management; and Land and Water B.C.

I spent quite a bit of time on this service agreement with the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, and on several occasions the minister referred my questions to the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management. Here is what that service agreement on coordination amongst those ministries states as their agreed-upon vision: "A sustainable aquaculture industry that meets high standards for environmental protection and has a high level of public confidence in the compliance and enforcement role of government."

Considering that vision in the service agreement, how do the refund by Land and Water B.C. and the forgiving of fines meet the test of ensuring a high level of enforcement and compliance? What has happened in the last two years to enforcement and compliance?

Again, I want to review the situation that confronted Land and Water B.C. — or its predecessor, BCAL — in 2001. There had been a long period of disputes between government and industry with respect to the management of that resource. There were unresolved tenure issues. There were unresolved issues around appropriate siting, around where anchors should be, whether anchors should be things that paid full rent or partial rent. There were a host of issues which were unresolved from the government's perspective and LWBC's perspective as of 2001. I think the agency moved, and I think very appropriately, to try to correct a number of those ongoing disputes and issues that confronted them.

As we discussed at some length in estimates, I guess it was yesterday or the day before, about how the situation evolved…. There was a notice of penalty sent out indicating that would be two times normal. Again, on subsequent review by senior staff at LWBC, they felt that from a perspective of administrative fairness, the two times penalty was inappropriate. Further, it was very clear to them on review that the notice of penalty had gone out without sufficient statutory validation.

Therefore, they made a decision that rather than go through a protracted dispute that in their estimation they were certain to lose — because the notice provisions of the Land Act were not observed — they made what I think is a responsible and appropriate decision to move ahead on that, and they were advised of a reduction in penalties.

I think when one, again, puts it into the context of what the corporation was attempting to achieve, it in fact has worked out very well. We've got a lot of the backlog issues resolved through the hard work of the very capable and dedicated staff at Land and Water B.C. I think they've done a good job of that. A lot of those unresolved issues I mentioned around anchors and rents and all of that have been resolved.

The upshot of it is this. Today revenues for permits in this area from the industry have grown from $532,671 in fiscal '01-02 to $923,451 in '03-04. We expect that government will enjoy further permit revenue increases in the future as well. That's one of the things that is a benefit of effective management. One can't leave things hanging for years and expect effective management.

I'm happy, obviously, to answer further questions in this area. There are very legitimate questions to answer. Actually, LWBC is still working with the office of the comptroller general to identify ways in which we can do things better. We always want to learn from our experiences, and that continues to be the case. But I think, on balance, the corporation has done just an excellent job of bringing people into compliance, getting the universe in order and moving forward to make aquaculture a healthy, viable industry that employs thousands of people on the coast of British Columbia.

J. MacPhail: I asked the minister upon conclusion of estimates yesterday for the legal opinion that switched the bureaucrats' view from one that said that the government had served proper notice pursuant to the Land Act to one that miraculously said: "No, no, no. Sorry, the test, the Land Act notice, had not been met at all." Where is the legal opinion, and could I have a copy of it, please?

Hon. G. Abbott: There is no legal opinion. The public servants who reviewed this situation didn't feel that it was necessary to have one. They looked carefully at the issue. They looked at the provision of the Land Act and the notification provisions contained therein. They didn't need lawyers to tell them that an error had been made. They have always, frankly, acknowledged that an error has been made, and they moved….

Hon. G. Abbott: The member, hon. Chair, seems to want to debate out of turn here. That's fine if she wants to do that, but I'm sure you'd rather we didn't.

The public servants who reviewed this clearly saw that an error had been made. They reviewed the situation, and upon review…. And it was a careful review; it wasn't one made overnight. They reviewed it over a period of weeks, and they made a conscious decision that they could not sustain the penalty notices that had gone out. Further, as they moved forward with that, among the people that they engaged as to whether that would be an appropriate step was the office of the auditor general. There were extensive discussions between LWBC and the auditor general with respect to this matter.

Frankly, we often say that we overuse the legal profession in terms of getting legal opinions on things that are manifestly obvious. I know the former government that the member represented was famous for that. They were always good news for the legal profession. Frankly, I have nothing but respect for public servants when they are in fact determined to come to grips with an issue that faces them, and they don't use legal opinions as a ruse to try to get something that is manifestly obvious that they should do.

J. MacPhail: I guess this government, this minister, thinks that the fact that on May 28, 2001, the bureaucrats were saying that there was no issue of lack of proper notice…. They clearly addressed that issue — that proper notice was given. On August 23, 2001 — same thing. Background letters had been sent — proper notice. Anchoring layouts had been noted — same bureaucrats. Then in November, after almost two years of saying proper notice had been given, all of a sudden it's: "Oh no, no legal advice — nothing whatsoever." All of a sudden there's a change, and $1.5 million is written off. Well, I guess maybe British Columbians might have wanted a legal opinion justifying that complete 180.

This minister stands up and says: "Oh, we don't use legal advice." That's true. They don't use legal advice when it doesn't satisfy their political agenda. That's absolutely true. There is $1.5 million miraculously written off by the very same people who had been pursuing the back rent and the fines for two years. That's exactly what happened.

I'd actually moved on, and the minister didn't answer my question. I know he's exhausted from this afternoon, the unintended consequences of this afternoon, but my question was forward-looking. The last report on compliance and enforcement does not have a good record of compliance and enforcement — the last one. So I'm asking the minister…. All these questions were referred to him by his brother-in-arms — his brother over there, the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. I'm asking: what is the regimen for compliance and enforcement now, and what penalties, if any, have been collected for people who are in non-compliance? The record of non-compliance is still substantial.

Hon. G. Abbott: The program, as requested by the member and as she noted in her question, is a coordinated program between the agencies which she had listed earlier. I won't do that now.

There is a memorandum of understanding in place between all of the agencies listed to guide the enforcement and compliance activities. There has been a high level of cooperation between all the agencies in respect of enforcement and compliance. The focus has been on gaining voluntary compliance where that is possible. Indeed, it has worked very well, and staff is confident that today there is virtually 100 percent compliance with the regulatory regime which exists in the province.

J. MacPhail: What changed? Could the minister actually read into the record the statistics around compliance and enforcement? Just a couple of months ago, in the debate in the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, there was a substantial level of non-compliance as of the last report. I checked the website, and I didn't see anything. Could the minister kind of update me on the compliance and enforcement where he now says it's 100 percent compliant? I couldn't find anything to say there had been a reversal. Could we have the exact numbers?

Hon. G. Abbott: I want to go back to an earlier question just for a moment — not to be provocative but merely to be informational, if I may. The amount of the invoices that were reversed in the process that we have been talking about previously in estimates here was $425,000, not $1.5 million as referenced by the member. I wanted that to be clear for the record.

Neither I nor my staff got to enjoy the informative estimates debates between the member and the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. We're glad to

get staff to pull together figures with respect to percentages on enforcement and compliance, but as we understand it, the problems that were referenced in the estimates debates were probably…. The problem was probably related to a delay in reporting. That's our best guess. What we will do is try to get the stats on compliance and enforcement for the hon. member as quickly as we can this evening, and then perhaps she can come back to it.

J. MacPhail: Is there not a website? This is all on a website that shows a substantial amount of non-compliance.

It's a little bit difficult to accept this, because I was referred here for this discussion by the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. Now the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management says: "Oh no, I don't have that information." Well, how did the minister stand up and say there was 100 percent compliance then, if he doesn't have the information?

By the way, there is $425,000 in fines that were paid back and another $1 million and a bit in back rents that the ministry stopped collecting, for a total of $1.5 million give-back to the industry. The minister had better just stop the discussion now on that matter.

Hon. G. Abbott: I am advised by staff that there is virtually 100 percent compliance; that's how I get up and say it. The member, I know, is always churning around for issues. I'm sure that's a totally appropriate thing to do as the Leader of the Opposition, but there's no attempt here to try to re-create reality. I'm working with the best information that's provided by my officials, and we're trying to quickly generate as good information on compliance and enforcement as we can for the member, so we'll do that.

J. MacPhail: Then maybe the minister could just say 100 percent compliance of what. Sitings, anchoring, location — 100 percent compliance of what?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm glad to provide this additional information to the member. There are at this point in time, according to staff, 13 outstanding files. The process here is, first of all, to run those files through the Clayoquot resource board. Then, I guess there are some recommendations that flow from that, and hopefully the issues are resolved at that stage.

In terms of MAFF — Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries — in the last two years Agriculture has forwarded only one investigation report to LWBC regarding non-compliance with a management plan for finfish aquaculture. The non-compliance issue related to a net pen configuration, not a tenure boundary discrepancy. LWBC contacted the client and has received a revised management plan, and it has been referred to the appropriate agencies. We're looking forward to the resolution of that one file.

Further, on the 13 outstanding files I'm advised that the great majority, if not all of those, relate to anchors.

J. MacPhail: What about sitings? Are there any outstanding issues around sitings?

Hon. G. Abbott: The webpage — I presume it's the Land and Water B.C. webpage — does provide information with respect to farms which have been relocated or which are new farms. For a complete list of all the farms, we would have to generate that for the member. If she would like the information, we would be glad to do it for her.

J. MacPhail: Yes, thank you. I will take the minister up on that offer, because I went to the website just before I came up here. I couldn't find any report on compliance and non-compliance or enforcement, so either a website URL or if not, then I would appreciate a printed report.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm advised that from the LWBC website, one should go to "Aquaculture" and then to "Finfish."

J. MacPhail: Is that where the compliance and enforcement update is? Sorry; that's what I was asking for.

Hon. G. Abbott: I may have misunderstood the member's question. I apologize if I did.

That is location information. The compliance information is not posted on the website.

J. MacPhail: Okay, fine. Then I will ask for a report on compliance and enforcement statistics over whatever period the minister can give me. The last statistics I had were for the calendar year '02. That was what I debated with…. I assume the most recent figures are for '03 — but whatever the minister has, showing the change.

Hon. G. Abbott: I appreciate that. I'm glad to move to Lannan forest. We'll have to have a quick change of staff here, if that's all right.

J. MacPhail: Lannan forest has been much in the news. It's a 40-acre parcel of second-growth forest on the Comox peninsula. It is currently in the process of being sold by Land and Water B.C., so that's the basis upon which I will be asking my questions.

It's not old-growth forest, but it is, nevertheless, considered by not only government biologists but oth-

ers to be a rare and valuable ecosystem. Most of the land in the region is controlled by large forestry corporations that resulted from the E&N Railway grants.

This has been part of an ecosystem. Lannan forest is the smaller part of the ecosystem, but it is the only part that's Crown land. It is representative of the very dry maritime coastal western hemlock subzone. Of course, less than 2 percent of that maritime coastal western hemlock subzone has been protected, because of these land grants that have been logged by the forestry corporations.

The sale of Lannan forest is causing a substantial amount of controversy in the community. I was there in Lannan forest, again, about six weeks ago. It is a very interesting forest. While wild, it's placed between two communities around Comox, with easy access, and the community maintains the trails. There's a very huge community of activists who protect the parcel's endangered plants, giant native crabapple trees and the wildlife.

It's my understanding that the Pacific crabapple, which flourishes there, is listed on the registry with the B.C. conservation data centre for the big-tree registry, and that big-tree registry is the one that is tasked with providing information on rare organisms and ecosystems. Am I correct on that?

Hon. G. Abbott: The member raises a number of important issues with respect to the Lannan Road property in her initial question. I want to start, I think, with the latter portion of the question that she posed, which was around the natural attributes of the site. There are some interesting features, as she notes. The conservation data centre has had a very close look at that for us. Their assessment is that there are about 4.5 hectares of second-growth Douglas fir, which is interesting. About 1.7 hectares of the site, which the member referenced, is crabapple and aspen wetland. That is probably the more distinguishing portion of the Lannan Road property.

The other thing I want to note at the start — and I've had a number of discussions on the Lannan Road file with the residents up there and with officials of the Comox-Strathcona regional district and so on…. There is a good deal of history around this site, and I think there are legitimate differences of opinion. Occasionally some groups even have differences of opinion with themselves about what the future should hold for this site.

Our record of this as an issue from a Crown Lands perspective goes back to December of 1989 when the Silverado Corp. first indicated an interest in acquiring Lannan Road. We had a repeat letter — the Crown did — in June of 1990.

In March of 1995 there was a letter from then Minister Moe Sihota to Ruth Masters stating that B.C. Lands had not accepted an application from the Comox-Strathcona regional district to acquire the land for a sports centre; in March '95 a letter from the Ministry of Forests stating support for deletion from the provincial forest if the land was used for a sports centre; October '95 a letter from RDCS to B.C. Lands indicating intent to apply for Lannan as a nature park and urban fringe buffer to protect visual value; in February of '96 a letter to RDCS stating that B.C. Lands does not provide Crown land for urban fringe buffers or preservation of visual values; in February of 2001 a request from the Minister of Forests for a statement of BCAL's interest in the Crown land as part of the review of RDCS's application to manage recreation trails on site under an agreement with MOF — and so on.

It goes on at some considerable pace through to the current time. There's been lots of toing and froing with respect to this site, and at this point it appears to be moving to the sale.

J. MacPhail: I'm sorry. We were just converting acres to hectares back here, and I thank my colleagues for their great assistance on that. So the site is about 16.6 hectares. Could the minister repeat the hectare figures and what the attributes are, please?

Hon. G. Abbott: For I think what is the more distinguishing portion of the property, 1.7 hectares. That is the crabapple and aspen wetland portion. If you take 1.7 and multiply by 2.47, you'll have it in the acres of our youth.

J. MacPhail: So the whole site is 16.6 hectares, and we do have — what's that? — 6.2 hectares out of 16.6. That's one-third of it that has special attributes.

Let me just go through the recent history of the Lannan forest, and I want to talk about this special site from a biodiversity point of view. I would just remind the audience that it is this minister, the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management, who is responsible for the UN convention on biological diversity. He is also responsible for ensuring that the national accord for the protection of species at risk is enforced. So this minister is the one that has the responsibility for protecting biodiversity.

Let's just talk about what the recent history on this has been. One year ago I examined this issue in estimates with the former Minister of Sustainable Resource Management. There were initial efforts to sell Lannan through secret negotiations. The negotiations were never made public — all done behind closed doors. Those secret negotiations were thwarted, but it looks like Land and Water B.C. is still getting its way.

There was strong local opposition to the privatization of Lannan — the sale of it. Therefore, the secret negotiation deal, which the former minister acknowledged had happened, collapsed. But then Land and Water B.C. put the parcel up for auction. Even with a vigorous — very vigorous — fundraising campaign and

financial support from the Comox-Strathcona regional district, the citizens of Comox Valley were unable to match the over $1 million bid by Crown Isle Resort and Golf. Therefore, Land and Water B.C. is in the process of completing the sale to Crown Isle Resort and Golf because they put up a million bucks.

Land and Water B.C. argues that the public sale was a fair competitive process, but they're arguing that out of context of the original secret sale process that was thwarted. In that secret sale process that occurred 12 to 18 months ago, Crown Isle Resort and Golf was the only one in the negotiations. No one else was in those negotiations. So when that sale was thwarted and Land and Water B.C. put it out to auction, Crown Isle clearly had an obvious advantage because they knew the amount of their previous successful bid.

The minister said the sale is going ahead. Well, there is still a huge controversy around this sale — the fact that the first sale was secret and had to be stopped. The second sale, though, was done in a very tight time frame, and — oh, interesting — the same person, the same company, who bid on it the first time got it the second time. Is the minister heeding any public pressure and reviewing Land and Water B.C.'s decision to award the Lannan forest to Crown Isle Resort and Golf?

Hon. G. Abbott: I want to address a number of the points that the member made. The first point I think is an important one in terms of getting perspective around this, notwithstanding an obvious local interest in respect of this Lannan Road property. I do want to again point out, as I did earlier, that the former government, which she was a part of, explicitly rejected proposals from the Comox-Strathcona regional district on two occasions to provide that area as park. The minister of the day, Moe Sihota….

Hon. G. Abbott: They were planning to do precisely what they're planning on doing with it today — either park or urban buffer, those sorts of things.

Hon. G. Abbott: The member says: "Our government wasn't planning on doing anything."

Hon. G. Abbott: The member says: "Our government wasn't planning on doing anything with it." Well, they should have either sold or given the property when they had the opportunity. They explicitly passed up on the bountiful opportunities from the Comox-Strathcona regional district to give them the property. I'm trying to put this into context.

I don't know, because I'm no expert on the thinking that went on in the government of the day or what former Minister Sihota was specifically thinking about in rejecting the overtures of the regional district with respect to the Lannan Road property. But I suspect that it probably had to do with the fact that there are, at this point in time, some 24 park properties within the Comox-Strathcona regional district with a total of — it's been happily converted to acres here — 2,124 acres. I suspect that in looking at it, the former government — rather like our own — was looking at the number of other park settings, and so on, that were available in the Comox-Strathcona regional district.

I've been in politics long enough, and the hon. member has as well. I know that there is no end of proponents to convert Crown lands to parks in every corner of the province. We can't do them all. At some point we need to find an appropriate balance between park and protected areas and those areas of the province that can be used for other purposes. Again, sometimes the judgment is difficult to make in respect of that.

I'm not attempting in any way to diminish the arguments of the proponents of Lannan Road. It is by all accounts a very beautiful property, and I'm sure that the local people would welcome the twenty-fifth park property in the regional district empire. That having been said, we also have to look at alternative uses, as well, as a responsible government and LWBC as a responsible corporation.

The member referenced on a couple of occasions a secret sale process, which is again fascinating from a conspiratorial perspective but grossly inaccurate in terms of the actual processes that are engaged by Land and Water B.C. There are literally, as the member knows, thousands of Crown properties in this province, which could potentially be sold. At any time it is probably more like hundreds on the market, but there are literally thousands. On a daily basis Land and Water B.C. receives inquiries from potential interested parties with respect to those. Some of those are local governments or non-profits that are interested in free Crown grants, but often they are private sector interests that are interested in some form of development on those properties. They contacted the corporation, and I'm sure I can get more detail about how they open the files and what the process is from there on in.

I do take exception to the notion that somehow there was a secret sale process here. This was a commercial transaction and not terribly different, apart from its history, from any other sales transaction that might occur in this province.

J. MacPhail: Working backward then, why did Land and Water B.C. cancel the secret purchase? That's because public pressure was put on Land and Water B.C. to make the sale of Lannan forest public.

Madam Chair, this minister in particular serves his own government poorly in the public mind, although

that status is up for competition now amongst many in government — how many people are upset with this government. He constantly likes to blame the previous government.

In fact, the previous government had no intention of changing the status of Lannan forest, and then the minister somehow tries to say that we're complicit in this. I think probably the minister has to look at how many people are upset with his government on this issue for the very first time. He has to look at how many people, for the very first time, are rejecting his government as a representative of any good local representation at all. I think he'd probably find out that the citizens of the Comox Valley have trouble with his government and his government alone.

Here's what happened with Land and Water B.C. They made a secret deal with Crown Isle golf resort. There's no other way of describing it. In fact, I hope the minister goes back and actually looks at the debate with the former Minister of Sustainable Resource Management around this. Crown Isle had reached an agreement, and it was with the former Minister of Sustainable Resource Management, who was also the Liberal member representing Comox Valley. Land and Water B.C. has still not made that original sale price public — interesting. If it was such a routine practice, why won't they tell people who ask what the original sale price was? Why won't they just tell them?

The new Lannan forest deal closed on March 26. The government hasn't released any transaction details to date. Can the minister tell us how much money Crown Isle originally offered for Lannan in this "routine process," as he says, and how much that compares to the current sale?

Hon. G. Abbott: First of all, again, the notion that this was in some way a secret is completely at odds with the facts, which I'm happy to lay out here for the member.

It is important to note, first of all, in respect of this that because of the extensive history around this…. I know the member is uncomfortable that I would reference that her former government rejected a request on a couple of occasions from the regional district to transfer the Lannan Road property to them, but that is part of the history and part of the reason why…. We're trying to get a precise date here, but we think it was somewhere late in 2001 or early 2002. LWBC got an independent assessment done of the property to look at where, from the Crown's perspective, the maximum value would be, because that is, of course, an item of some importance.

The recommendation was that the best thing would be to proceed with golf course development. Further to that, three appraisals were sought to ensure that in fact we had a very precise understanding of values. The local government in every case here — the city of Courtenay, as opposed to the regional district — was fully informed of the processes as they proceeded.

The reason why the original sale did not proceed is that, appropriately, Land and Water B.C. made one of the conditions of sale that the land would be included within the boundaries of the city of Courtenay, because in LWBC's view, it was important that the property be embraced by the protections of local zoning. The city of Courtenay — apparently in response to a petition received, but I guess they could say why more precisely than I — elected not to bring the golf course into their boundaries, so the sale did not proceed at that point.

In terms of the respective prices, values and so on, this is a piece of information which I would love to provide to the hon. member and certainly will provide to the hon. member, but at this point I'm advised that we continue to be enjoined in a legal action by the Comox Valley Land Trust. We are strongly advised by our legal advisers that we cannot release that material until the legal action is released or dismissed.

J. MacPhail: All of a sudden the government is taking legal advice. Wasn't it just 15 minutes ago that this same minister was saying: "Oh, legal advice? We don't need legal advice." Interesting. Sure, he uses legal advice as a sword but never as a shield against serving his own interests.

Here's exactly what the previous Minister of Sustainable Resource Management stated: "There's a big file on this with lots of information" — regarding the first Lannan sale — "but the contents of that…will not be released until after the sale has closed." Well, the sale has closed. Is the minister saying the sale has not closed? I'd be happy to hear that the government is not proceeding with the sale. Perhaps he could say what the legal action, the status of the sale and the future are.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm always grateful for the bountiful experience that the member has in respect of legal advice, so I do appreciate her thoughts on that.

I guess the short answer to the criticism she articulated is that we get legal advice when we need it. For example, if I'm getting up in the morning and considering putting on my shoes, chances are I won't get legal advice on whether I should proceed with that. On the other hand, if I was served with a legal injunction, I may perhaps step out and get legal advice at that point. When someone tenders an injunction and we feel we have to respond might be one of the areas in which we'd get legal advice. That does go beyond the sort of normal scope of what one would expect from public servants — to defend legal injunctions — so we did secure legal advice in that case and, I think, entirely appropriately so.

In terms of the status of the sale, it closed on March 31, 2004. However, as I noted, we are enjoined in a legal action at this point and continue to be. We can't, until that action is concluded, definitively say what the outcome will be.

J. MacPhail: The minister doesn't like to get legal advice when he's giving back 1.5 million bucks to his

political contributors. No, no. We wouldn't get legal advice on whether that should be done or not. No. Wouldn't go to the auditor general or the comptroller general to see whether that was right or not. No, that might interfere with the return of the 1.5 million bucks to their friends.

What does it mean? The sale closed. How is it, then, that the minister can't deliver on the previous minister's promise that the contents of that file will be released after the sale has closed? What's the legal impediment?

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, I think the member needs to…. I want to correct one thing. She said we did not go to the auditor general. In fact, we did. LWBC worked very closely with the auditor general's staff with respect….

Hon. G. Abbott: Yes. Yes, they did. The member says it's not true. She obviously just doesn't know the facts here. The auditor general was the auditor of record with respect to LWBC's activities that year. The staff….

Hon. G. Abbott: Thank you, hon. Chair. I know the member wants to be efficient in the dispatch of these estimates, but we can't really carry on two conversations at once, or people won't have an opportunity to hear the questions and answers.

I'm just trying to tell her what is very clear from all the information materials provided by my staff, which is that the staff at LWCB worked very closely with the auditor general's staff in securing their advice on an ongoing basis during this period. The member may not like that answer, but it's true.

In terms of where we sit…. The member says: "Well, why can't you release it all?" We can't release it all until the legal action by the Comox Valley Land Trust has been concluded or released. The legal advice we have in the strongest terms is that that information cannot be released until those legal actions are concluded.

J. MacPhail: Actually, that minister continuing to invoke the name of the auditor general as somehow having approved the return of the fines and the rents is exactly wrong, and he knows it. The auditor general was asked that question directly at a Public Accounts meeting in relationship to the very issue that the minister just raised, and he said being the auditor of record had nothing…. Signing off on the books gave no approval whatsoever — whatsoever — to that action. He was asked that question directly and said that no, signing off the books as the auditor of record did not indicate in any way approval of that decision. I'd be happy to get the Hansard record on it — happy. It's ridiculous. He knows better than to do that, and his staff know better than to do that.

J. MacPhail: Madam Chair, he says I know better. I actually had the foresight to ask the auditor general that question directly.

J. MacPhail: After this minister used that as an excuse in the House during question period to somehow say the auditor general approved that policy to return the money — that decision — I asked him that very question at a Public Accounts meeting, and I'll get the record. He said no, the auditor of record signing the books does not in any way approve, condone or not condone that action. His staff know that.

What is the legal advice? Perhaps we could actually have the legal advice that says they were allowed to close the sale but not release the information. What's the exact legal advice?

Hon. G. Abbott: Perhaps the member would do me the great service of sending along that information. I certainly would welcome that. I don't know whether the auditor general's comments came prior to his second review of this after the request from Sierra Legal. It may well be that you asked the auditor general the question at a time when it was not on his radar screen — I don't know — around the timing. What I do know is that I have complete trust and faith in the dedicated, lifelong public servants who serve this government and who served this member's government very, very well for decades. When they tell me that they worked closely with the auditor general's staff towards resolution of this, I believe them.

J. MacPhail: I would be happy to send the Hansard record of that exact question. The minister invokes that the auditor general somehow signing the books legitimized that decision. The auditor general's letter of March 22 says that the fines should have and could have been collected, so somehow the auditor general is saying that the minister's staff is wrong. But oh no, that's defence.

What is the exact legal advice precluding release of the information on the Lannan forest?

Hon. G. Abbott: The precise legal advice is to not release any information related to the original sale until the conclusion of the legal action.

J. MacPhail: Is that in writing, and by whom? Is that the Attorney General's advice? Is that in writing? I'm not asking for the decision, the advice. I'm just asking: who gave it, and is it in writing?

Hon. G. Abbott: The legal advice is furnished by a lawyer who is under contract with the Attorney General ministry.

J. MacPhail: My second question was: is it in writing? I'm not asking for the decision if it is in writing. I'm just asking: is it in writing?

Now, the Land and Water B.C. service plan shows that revenue from Crown land sales is going to be $73.5 million in '04-05 through to '06-07. Is that cumulative or in each year?

J. MacPhail: An annual average. Can the minister outline how many direct sales occurred in '03-04 and the value of the direct sales, and then what the projections are for direct sales in '04-05?

Hon. G. Abbott: The figure for fiscal '03-04 is $61,491,897. For fiscal '04-05, again, our best estimate at this point will be $73.5 million, as per the service plan.

J. MacPhail: Yes. How many are direct sales of that in each of those years, anticipated and actually occurred?

Hon. G. Abbott: Could the member clarify, for the benefit of my staff, what she means by direct sales?

J. MacPhail: Well, I was using that as a description that the minister talked about earlier, where there aren't auctions — that it's common practice to do direct sales. Someone asks. It gets sold.

Hon. G. Abbott: We don't have that information at our fingertips, but we'll get our staff to bring it in as quickly as we can. I'll report it back to the member as quickly as I can get it.

J. MacPhail: Does the minister have a limit to the number of hectares or square kilometres that can be sold in each year?

Hon. G. Abbott: In a formal sense, there is no overall limit in terms of number of hectares that could be sold in a single year. There is, under the Land Act, a 520-hectare limit for a one-time, one-person sale at any given time.

J. MacPhail: I note that Land and Water B.C. is saying it's eliminated the backlog of applications and that they processed 90 percent of applications within 140 days. What I'm trying to figure out from the statistics — maybe this is the basis upon which the minister can provide me the information — is what the effects of that speed are. I make no judgment on the effects of the speed.

I would like to know the direct sales, as I've already asked, and what percentage are direct sales. Well, I've already asked that.

I would also like to know who are the largest purchasers of Crown land. Is there somewhere I can go to determine who has bought land and what size of a parcel of land has been purchased? If not, then I'd like that information.

Hon. G. Abbott: In terms of accessing the information the member requests, the best advice I can provide at this point in time is to go to the Land and Water B.C. website. There is an area of the site devoted to land sales. I think at least some of the information she's seeking could be found there.

We're not sure of the precise reference point for it, but there's a related site which also has information with respect to conversion of rental tenures to sale and that sort of information as well.

In terms of the member's question about the turnaround on tenure applications, the turnaround time is a maximum of 140 days. In most circumstances that is achieved. Occasionally there are complexities, but in most circumstances that is achieved. Again, there is information on that posted on the LWBC website — under land tenures, we think.

J. MacPhail: Yes. Where do I get the information about who's actually purchasing Crown land? Will I have to get that through the minister?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm trying to be useful here in terms of the information requested. The information on who bought a property is not a part of the website. On the website the property would be shown MLS-style. If the property had been sold, that information would be recorded on the website, but who the purchaser was would not be on the website.

Just to put it in perspective, about 85 percent of the sales of Crown land are through MLS, Multiple Listing Service. Most of those are smaller properties and tend to be rural properties although often in expansion areas

for municipalities. In fiscal '02-03 there were 187 individual sales of that character; in '03-04, 132 sales.

The sales are public knowledge, and we'd be happy to put together a list of the purchasers for the member. If she had some additional analytical work she would like done around that, we'd be happy to provide that for her, as well, if she's looking for that greater level of detail.

J. MacPhail: Yeah. I'm fine with what the minister has just offered. What I'm trying to distinguish between is direct sales and anything but direct sales. I assume MLS aren't direct sales — or are they? Anyway, whatever.

I actually want to get estimates done tonight, Madam Chair. The minister has the range of information that I want. I actually would like the information around purchasers.

I want to go to an example now. There are two examples of Land and Water B.C. issues that have the same level of local interest, controversy and concern as does the Lannan forest, and I want to examine both of them. The first one is Egmont. Let me give my version of Egmont onto the record — Egmont direct sale. I'll just go through this quickly. Pacific North Woods Resources, PNR, is a corporation that's owned by several men. Let's see. They are Geoff Courtnall, who was a hockey player, Dale Malloch and Paul Reddam. They bought 6,200 acres of forested land across from Egmont, which is a small community in the Sechelt Inlet, and they bought that from TimberWest in 2002.

Pacific North Woods Resources originally announced that it was going to build a high-end resort. However, since 2002, PNR has logged large-scale clearcuts on their land, which has destroyed the view from Skookumchuck, a local park that draws thousands of tourists from around the world. There are approximately 40,000 tourists a year to Skookumchuck. There was intense local opposition to the shift in plans from resort development to logging. That's what their plan was — to develop it as a resort — and then they moved it to logging. PNR has refused to meet with community members, and the community members are alleging unsustainable logging activities that will have a direct negative economic impact on the community.

PNR has applied for a direct sale of the nearby Crown lands on Egmont Point. Apparently, PNR plans to build its previously promised resort on this Egmont Point, which is Crown land. The community is very upset that they may get this direct sale after having misrepresented what they were going to do with the original purchase from TimberWest. The community is watching this very carefully — what they think is a direct sale of the Crown lands on Egmont Point. When is the decision going to be made on whether this direct sale will be granted?

Hon. G. Abbott: In response to the member's question, we do have some familiarity with the concerns of the property owners in the area. Certainly, we have heard from them. We have also had a contact made from the proponents who were identified by the member. They have come to LWBC with a small-e expression of interest in the property.

The proponents have been advised that if anything were to proceed in the way of a sale, there would be a competitive process, and there would be numerous conditions associated with any sale. Among those, some may well reference some of the private land concerns that have been articulated by the residents. I am further advised by staff, though, that they are not close to proceeding with anything. There is nothing immediate or horizoned on this. If something does come together, the first thing that will happen is advertising and a competitive process, so it will be very transparent.

J. MacPhail: Okay, just to be clear, that's different than a direct sale. This is not going to be done by direct sale. This will be an open competitive process with bids from whoever can bid.

If I could just add, while the minister is consulting with his staff, will an appraisal be done for current market value? Is it through the competitive bidding process that the public can be involved in having their say?

Hon. G. Abbott: Yes, to the member's first question. There certainly will be at least one appraisal of the property. Given the size and complexity of it, there may be more, but certainly there will be at least one. There will be public and first nations consultation. Staff advise me that there has already been consultation to the extent that numerous ideas and concerns have been expressed around that point.

Again, in terms of the discussion about what's a direct sale and what's not, I want to get this clear. I may not get it clear in my first answer, but I'll take a stab at it based on what I understand from staff. This doesn't necessarily refer to the Egmont property; this is generally the approach. When we have an expression of interest in a property and particularly in a case like this, where it's large and there are substantial interests around it, there would be a competitive process. There would be advertising about the proposal that had come forward, an opportunity for competing bids to come on the scene, depending on whether there was other interest. There is a possibility, ultimately, that it might — if there was no other interest, for example — be resolved through a direct sale. If there were a myriad of interested parties, one would more likely go to a sealed bid kind of arrangement, as I understand it.

J. MacPhail: When the minister said that they'll make sure they will do first nations consultation, I assume that will mean they will consult with the Sechelt Indian band, who say that they still use Egmont Point as part of their traditional territory.

Hon. G. Abbott: Sechelt is the band that has asserted an interest to this point in the property. Yes, they are the first nation that we have been consulting

J. MacPhail: Yes, I understand that; I just wanted to make sure. It's the Sechelt Indian band who has contacted us, so that's good.

Madam Chair, let me put this on the record. Lindros Project Development prepared an assessment report for Land and Water B.C. regarding the proposed sale of Crown lands to PNR. I actually have that report. It's dated September 2003. It's got Pacific North Woods's symbol on it, it's got Land and Water B.C. on it, and it's got Lindros Project Development's symbol on it. That report has been prepared, and according to that plan, the future resort and residential homes would be moved from the present PNR property to the Crown land property.

The Lindros report states: "Land and Water B.C. would only consider direct sale to Pacific North Woods if deemed to be in the best public interest." What is this report, and how will the minister ensure that any change is in the best public interest?

Hon. G. Abbott: After the expression of interest with respect to the property, Land and Water B.C. responded by hiring as consultants Lindros consulting, I think it is. I could be wrong, but Lindros is the name, in any event. It's good that they referenced that LWBC will go to direct sale only if that's in the best public interest, because that's precisely the approach that is appropriate in this case. To go back to some of the points that were made earlier, LWBC is looking at this, but they will only look at it in terms of a competitive process with conditions attached to it — which certainly resolves some of the public land concerns and possibly private land concerns as well — that there will be at least one appraisal, that there will be advertising, that there will be consultation.

If there is a competing interest in the site, it would not be in the public interest to proceed to direct sale. It would only be in the public interest to proceed to direct sale if there was only one proponent interested in the property. In that case, one might best secure public interest by direct sale.

J. MacPhail: I honestly don't know the answer to this, Madam Chair. Is this kind of commissioning of assessments through private contractors the practice of Land and Water B.C.?

J. MacPhail: The Lindros report only evaluates a sale. Who ensures that the maintenance of the land as Crown land is also considered?

Hon. G. Abbott: The member's question is a very good one. Public values might be identified in a number of ways. For example, internally within the corporation some of those might be identified. We're also likely to receive that kind of advice from, for example, local governments, from the public through consultation processes and, similarly, from first nations through consultation processes.

J. MacPhail: All right. Well, that's fair enough. That's up to the community, then, to ensure that that's on the agenda, and I urge them to do so.

Pacific North Woods applied for a managed forest licence on July 28, 2003. What's the status of that application?

Hon. G. Abbott: We think that perhaps the member may be referencing an application to the Ministry of Forests. We don't deal with woodlot or any other forest tenures. Presumably, if they made an application — which we're unaware of one way or another — it would have gone to the Ministry of Forests.

J. MacPhail: Okay. So the management of private land…. There's no responsibility for SRM. Should I be asking questions about that application to the Minister of Forests? I thought Land and Water B.C. decided applications for managed forest status. Sorry.

Hon. G. Abbott: This may be helpful. The confusion may be around the issue of private managed forest, which is an issue for the Private Forest Landowners Association, which is now enjoying some new life as an entity and has sort of become legally established.

Perhaps the member's question reflects an application by the corporation as a managed forest to be included in the PFLA. I don't know that; I'm just surmising that. We'd be glad to deal with that question, but it will have to be a different set of staff than we have here. That's more an Agricultural Land Commission question than an LWBC question.

J. MacPhail: Fine, yes. I'll just put my questions on the record, and then the minister can answer them later in writing.

Yes, it is a managed forest application, so I would like to know, if I may, the status of that application. If indeed the application has been granted for the managed forest licence, what is the tax rate paid by PNR with their new status as managed forests versus what they would have paid before?

Let me ask a series of questions on the Private Managed Forest Land Act that the minister can then answer through writing, because he is correct.

Hon. G. Abbott: These are all excellent questions. If the member wishes, Kirk Miller, who is the chair and CEO at the Agricultural Land Commission, is going to be with us tomorrow morning. He is the resident expert around PFLA and all of these arrangements. You can pose them directly to me then, and we can get you answers directly then as well, if you wish.

J. MacPhail: So the minister will be proceeding with his estimates with members other than me tomorrow. Is that what he is saying? Because I'm finished in a few minutes.

I want to get my questions on the record. I'll put them on the record, and I'll tell you what, Madam Chair. If estimates continue tomorrow with members of the House other than me, then I will come and receive the answers tomorrow — okay?

J. MacPhail: Okay. That's fine. I will come back tomorrow and ask my questions directly.

My last area, then, is another example, another issue surrounding a piece of Crown land — Qualicum Bay and Bowser. I'll just go through the situation as I understand it. On March 3 of this year, Land and Water B.C. filed an application with the regional district of Nanaimo to amend the official community plan of area H and the regional district of Nanaimo's regional growth strategy. Land and Water B.C. wants Nanaimo, the regional district, to redesignate the land, which is currently resource land, in order to pave the way for a $400 million development that would see four golf courses and 2,500 residential and commercial spaces built in what is now the largely rural and village-oriented area of Qualicum Bay and Bowser. This is the information I have received through the local media and the local people.

Local residents are concerned with this proposal — quite concerned — and are beginning to mobilize now. One of the reasons the community members are concerned is what they view as a lack of transparency. They want to ensure transparency on this. Can the minister reveal if any specific corporations have expressed interest in this development proposal? How is Land and Water B.C. going to ensure transparency and public input on this matter?

Hon. G. Abbott: In answer to the member's question, the land in question is about 1,900 hectares of Crown land. It's an area which Land and Water B.C. has identified for potential economic development. There is significant interest in this particular area for properties that might be suitable for economic development, including things like golf resorts and so on. LWBC advises that they are in fact in the very early stages of consideration of those possibilities. Among the things that would need to occur for that to happen is that the compatibility of the official community plan with any identified uses would have to be reconciled. Similarly, the regional growth strategy would need to be reconciled with a development proposal.

The issue is one, again, where LWBC is just in the very early stages of evaluating whether something like that could proceed. There may be some value in the project in that a major development could support some needed water and sewer infrastructure in that area, which is currently lacking for a variety of reasons.

J. MacPhail: The minister says "the very early stages," but Land and Water B.C. did submit a summary report, an economic impact assessment and a preliminary environmental assessment. I have actually looked at them. From a layperson's point of view, they look fairly detailed. The summary report looks very detailed, so the community is suspicious that this has been under consideration for a while.

How is the minister reassuring the community that this isn't a done deal or way far down the road before they've had input? Is there a time line for consideration here?

Hon. G. Abbott: I hope this goes some distance to responding to the member's questions. There have been public information meetings with respect to these ideas or proposals. One of the reasons why there has been significant work to date is that the regional district requires significant information. Indeed, the regional district has even a good deal more additional information which it is seeking and which LWBC is attempting to secure for them.

If anything proceeds — and it's certainly not clear until all of the regional district concerns are satisfied — it would be part of the regional district's processes as obviously the local government, in this case the regional district, has jurisdiction in terms of local planning. These processes of putting in new economic development opportunities certainly entail working very closely with the regional district, ensuring that they are comfortable with the envisaged land uses, that it fits comfortably either within the context of their current regional plan or within the context of an amended official community plan. These are all quite time-consuming and extensive processes.

That's why — and I didn't mean to mislead the member that someone had just drawn a line on a map and said this could be a possibility — considerable work has been done, but there is considerable work to be done as well. Even on a phased basis, when you get into potential developments that might in the end total 1,900 hectares, it's obviously a huge undertaking. So it will in all probability, should it proceed with the regional district's blessing, be a phased project. It will certainly involve extensive public consultation and extensive competitive processes.

I will conclude with this. We don't have a time line around how this will proceed. This is a long-term kind of project. There has been no revenue expectation booked around this. It'll unfold as it unfolds, and it's apt to take some considerable time and may evolve very significantly as the public, the regional district, first nations, and so on, all have an opportunity to express their views about how it should look.

J. MacPhail: My last question on this is: did the minister say public information or public consultation has already taken place on that? And could he say when?

Hon. G. Abbott: We don't have the detail about what form that took. Staff thinks it may have been in the context of a meeting with the regional district. I'm not sure whether it was open-house format or open public information format or what it was, but we will get that information for the member.

J. MacPhail: That concludes my questions, separate and apart from tomorrow on the Private Managed Forest Land Act. I will turn the floor over to my colleagues and thank the minister and his staff for the information.

R. Sultan: This matter, as the minister knows, is an issue of some concern to my constituents, and it is only by coincidence that I happen to be here this evening and see the Leader of the Opposition raising some rather interesting questions. I think the issues raised by the Leader of the Opposition are perhaps more important to this House than this particular piece of real estate up at Egmont Point in that it seems to me, listening to the exchange between the minister and the Leader of the Opposition, that it certainly clarifies some important public policy issues in my mind as to the future conduct when we are disposing of Crown land.

Certainly, in this one instance, the manner in which this potential real estate deal seems to have unfolded has — as my constituents at least have reported to me — aroused maximum concern, if not paranoia, and rather deep and abiding suspicion as to integrity of process. I really have no information on those sorts of feelings. However, emotions have to some degree been running quite high, and all sorts of rumours have flown around the Egmont community.

My question to the minister is the following. I gather from the testimony given that considerable ministry resources have already been expended in evaluating this piece of Crown land. Can he give us some estimate of how much money has been spent — just ballpark — on studies to date on this potential real estate development?

Hon. G. Abbott: It's difficult to provide even a ballpark figure. The staff that's available here wouldn't have been the particular line staff that dealt with the issues. But we will try to get you that figure if we can either tomorrow morning or subsequently at your office.

Hon. G. Abbott: It's a public document in the sense that we would be glad to provide you with a copy of it. It's not a public document in the sense that we produce it for public distribution, but if any member of the public wished to see the report, we would be glad to provide them with a copy. We'll certainly provide you with a copy, and to that extent it's public. Once the Leader of the Opposition has a copy of it, I often feel that it's gone quite public.

R. Sultan: I think the concerns of both the Leader of the Opposition and myself, and by inference the contiguous property owners up there, are perhaps apparent. I would just be curious to know as we go down this path…. I think we must in a deliberate, very responsible fashion begin to convert some of this huge — perhaps 95 percent — land base in public ownership in the province, in areas as large as some European countries. As we look down the road a century or two, I can't believe that it will continue to be entirely Crown land.

As we make this conversion — a very delicate issue economically, politically and process-wise — I'd be interested in whether this is a model of how this marketing, if I could use that term, might proceed in the future and what lessons we might learn.

Hon. G. Abbott: The member raises the interesting question around the very unique nature of the province and the fact that it is composed at this point of approximately 95 percent Crown lands. That does hold both challenges and opportunities for the government of British Columbia as it looks forward to developing a range of economic development opportunities as well as parks and protected areas and all those good things on the land base across the province.

One interesting statistic. I know the member's fascination with this area of public policy, so I'm sure he will be using it constantly in his public speeches from here on in. At the present rate of sales of Crown land in the province, it would take another 100 years to sell an additional 1 percent of the Crown land base in this province. So that gives you an idea. Now, a fair bit of it is rock and ice, so sales may be slow on that for some time to come, I'm guessing, notwithstanding climate change. Nevertheless, it does, I think, offer some very substantial opportunities and challenges for the future.

In terms of whether the particular case referenced by the member is typical or indicative of the way things are done, on a percentage basis, it is more unusual than usual. The great majority of the Crown land sales — and they tend to be smaller parcels; they tend to be immediately adjacent to places like Fort Nelson and so on — would be done through MLS. We talked about it earlier. I think it was 85 percent are done now through MLS.

The larger and sort of unusual parcels like Egmont Point, where someone who owns an adjacent block of private land sees it as an opportunity to add

a component to their private development…. That is atypical. You know, there is always a little bit of difference in process, because invariably there are differences from one piece of property to another.

The guiding principles, though, in terms of the operation of Land and Water B.C., are that regardless of whether there is a broad competitive process followed by closed bids and a more elaborate sales process or whether after evaluation the model is more a direct sales model…. In either case the driving motive of Land and Water B.C. is to ensure that the public interest is protected and to ensure that if the property in question is sold, the people of British Columbia exact the best, most appropriate price for that land so that it can assist us in all the good things we do as a government from health to education to social services — to parks, on occasion.

I'm not sure this is typical in that sense. In some ways it's unusual, but just like every other process, we look at ensuring there is a competitive process, including advertising and appraisals, the consultation and the application of conditions as appropriate both to the

I hope that answers the member's question, and I hope he has more questions like that in the morning. But noting the hour, 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.

Deputy Speaker: The House stands adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.

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