Hansard — Tuesday, October 30, 2007 p.m.

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		8933

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		8933
	Influenza vaccination
	L. Mayencourt
	Community safety
	H. Bains
	Film and television industry in B.C.
	R. Lee
	Port Alberni tall ships festival
	S. Fraser
	B.C. wines
	D. MacKay
	Green Energy incentives
	M. Karagianis

Oral Questions		8935
	Coastal forest action plan
	C. James
	Hon. R. Coleman
	S. Fraser
	B. Simpson
	Tree farm licence land removals
	R. Fleming
	Hon. R. Coleman
	Management of Vancouver Convention Centre expansion project
	N. Macdonald
	Hon. S. Hagen
	B. Ralston
	H. Bains
	Health Ministry audit
	A. Dix
	Hon. G. Abbott

Standing Order 35		8940
	M. Farnworth
	Hon. M. de Jong

Petitions		8940
	J. McIntyre
	S. Fraser

Motions without Notice		8940
	Extension of appointment of Conflict-of-Interest Commissioner
	Hon. M. de Jong

Committee of the Whole House		8940
	Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement Act (Bill 40) (continued)
	M. Karagianis
	Hon. M. de Jong
	G. Coons
	H. Lali
	G. Gentner
	S. Fraser
	B. Lekstrom
	S. Simpson
	C. Wyse
	B. Simpson
	R. Austin
	D. MacKay

Standing Order 35 (Speaker's Ruling)		8962

C. James: I'm pleased to welcome two guests in the gallery this afternoon, representing the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employes. Kathleen Higgins is the business agent for IATSE Local 891, and Don Ramsden is the business agent for IATSE Local 669.

Kathleen and Don represent the hundreds of theatre and motion picture technicians who live and work in our province, many of whom have received Oscar, Emmy, Clio and Gemini awards. Would the House please make them very welcome.

Hon. I. Chong: Today I'm also pleased to introduce to the House representatives from UBCM, the Union of B.C. Municipalities. Joining us today is UBCM president, Director Susie Gimse, representing Squamish-Lillooet regional district; first vice-president, Chair Robert Hobson of the regional district of Central Okanagan and city of Kelowna; the UBCM representative for the electoral areas, Director Terry Raymond, also representing the Fraser Valley regional district; and the new UBCM executive director, Mr. Gary MacIsaac. I would ask the House to please make them all very welcome.

I. Black: It is with deep regret that I stand to advise the House that on the government side, I am the last remaining member of the under-40 club.

It would not be my place to identify the birthday of the recently departed member of the under-40 club, but suffice it to say that the member for Langley is wearing, I think, a badge that will identify her without me having to do so. Good thing I didn't do so. Would we all wish her a happy birthday.

Hon. O. Ilich: Today in the members' gallery I would like to acknowledge a special visitor from Mexico. Please join me in welcoming His Excellency Emilio Goicoechea, the newly appointed Ambassador of Mexico to Canada. This is the ambassador's first official visit to British Columbia, and I'm pleased he has travelled to British Columbia to discover the many opportunities our beautiful province presents.

He is accompanied by Mr. Angel Villalobos, the consul general of Mexico at Vancouver. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I know it's difficult…. I don't get to stand very often and introduce people that come from as far north as Peace River North, but it's my pleasure today. They're not in the gallery but are in the buildings.

Viggo Pedersen and his wife Doreen are here visiting from Fort St. John, long-term residents of that community and great community leaders. Would the House please make them welcome.

L. Mayencourt: It's October, and it's actually flu prevention month. With the onset of the flu season, it's time for us to remind ourselves to protect our friends and our family from the influenza virus.

Every year lots of Canadians get sick with the flu. Most recover completely. It's usually just a few days of discomfort, but it can be life-threatening for some individuals, especially for the elderly or those living with chronic medical conditions.

Over the course of the normal flu session, one out of ten of us is going to end up with influenza. Health Canada says that between 4,000 and 8,000 Canadians, mostly seniors, could die from pneumonia related to flu, and many others may die from other serious complications.

As a result, Health Canada recommends that we all go downstairs and get a flu shot from the nurse here in the Legislature. The flu vaccine is an excellent way of preventing the spread of disease through your offices and certainly in day care centres. It's time for us to get a head start on getting ahead of the flu.

Because of the seriousness of the flu virus, the flu shot is publicly funded for people who meet certain requirements, like those under 65 and their caregivers, adults and children over six months with chronic health conditions, and health care workers, just to name a few.

For people with diabetes, the flu can also have much more than just aches and pains. It can mean a longer recovery time from illness, hospitalization and even death. Everyone with diabetes of every age should get this protection.

Vancouver Coastal Health offers tips and details about its vaccination clinics on line, which I encourage everyone to visit. If you have a loved one at risk, please encourage them to get immunized.

Finally, I wasn't really supposed to deliver this statement, but the member who was going to do it — you guessed it — got the flu. So it's time for us all to pay attention, get our shot and get our families vaccinated as well.

H. Bains: "We have had enough. We are selling our home and moving out of this neighbourhood." This is the statement I have heard from families in every neighbourhood where I have open community meetings. In all corners of Surrey-Newton we have hard-working, law-abiding citizens talking about leaving their neighbourhoods because they do not feel safe or comfortable in their own homes.

Loud noises at all hours of the night. On most days of the week, drinking, partying, litter and broken glass thrown all over. Drug deals. Speeding cars. When confronted and asked to leave by the neighbours, there's verbal abuse, foul language and threats.

We have parks in Surrey where seniors gather for their afternoon visits and sit and have card games under covered benches. These benches have been removed because the park board officials feel they are used in the evening for drug deals and criminal activities.

It is a shame that the law-abiding citizens who pay taxes are bullied by people breaking the law. These bullies are destroying our neighbourhood parks and our neighbourhoods.

This is not unique in Surrey. I heard mayors at the UBCM convention who have the same problem in their communities. Local governments need help and the resources it takes to manage this large, out-of-control problem.

People are asking why, at a time when we have record surpluses, we cannot provide them with the protection they need so that they can enjoy an evening stroll on their streets, walk to the neighbourhood parks with their grandchildren and have a good night's sleep without being subject to drug deals and rowdiness in their communities.

I urge this House that we double up efforts by working with local authorities and local governments to find ways to clean up our neighbourhoods and make our law-abiding citizens safe in and around their homes.

R. Lee: Today I would like to talk about an important industry in my community — the film industry. Last Saturday I attended the 2007 Hollywood China Film Festival, which was held in Vancouver before touring Los Angeles. Metro Vancouver has become Hollywood North.

British Columbia is the third-largest film production centre in North America, following Los Angeles and New York. Burnaby is home to two-thirds of the region's total studio space, including some of the oldest and largest studios in the province. Bridge Studios was created with the assistance of the provincial government in the late '80s, and it's the first dedicated studio facility in Metro Vancouver.

Canadian Motion Picture Park in Burnaby has grown to become one of the largest studio campuses in Canada, with nine sound stages completed. Two more stages will be completed next year. An additional plan calls for ten more.

We also have production facilities like First Avenue Studio, which cater to small and medium-sized productions. In 2006 the film and television industry in our province generated $1.2 billion in production expenditures and 230 productions.

Last week was proclaimed Motion Picture Industry Week in B.C. It was announced by the Premier that film tax credits that were set to expire next year are planned to be extended for another five years through to 2013. This extension will hopefully continue to drive growth in the industry in Burnaby and all over the province.

It's my hope that the film industry in Burnaby continues to spread the word across North America and around the world that this is the best place on earth.

S. Fraser: One international event that stood out and shone in this province in 2005 was the tall ships festival held in Port Alberni. Port Alberni put on the best tall ships festival in the province.

I'd like to tell this House how — 480 very enthusiastic volunteers from Port Alberni who stepped up to the plate. That is how. Every captain, international crew member and visitor — and there were some 20,000 attendees — raved that Port Alberni was the best show in the province. Port Alberni provided a warm, personal and intimate event that allowed everyone unprecedented access to these magnificent marvels of history, these international sailing ships.

As of March 11 this year, Port Alberni entered into a contract arranged with the American Sail Training Association out of Rhode Island to host the tall ship festival in the Pacific west tall ship challenge. The Port Alberni tall ships board of directors deserves our support. I can't be political, but we need support from the province. Higher fuel costs for the tall ships and increased costs for visitation of each of the ships have made the event much more challenging. The board of directors has budgeted $350,000. It's a pretty lean budget.

The hope is to bring nine or ten tall ships into Alberni Inlet in 2008. The Port Alberni tall ships festival received no moneys from the federal or provincial government. It is up to us — all of us in this House — to ensure that that doesn't happen again. I extend an invitation to all members of this House and their families to come to Port Alberni between July 10 and July 12, 2008, for the time of their life.

D. MacKay: I'm pleased today to stand up in the absence of the two members for Kelowna-Mission and for Kelowna–Lake Country and talk about the Okanagan Wine Festival, which is now done for another year.

And what a great year it was. Revenue and attendance records were broken for the 2007 Okanagan Wine Festival, which was held from September 28 through October 7. There were 170 events throughout the Okanagan in conjunction, and my, how times have changed.

Let me take you back a few years and talk about my experience with B.C. wines. In my role as an RCMP officer in the province from 1962 until 1989, I had a different slant on B.C. wines.

Who remembers Calona Red? How about Berry Jack wines? You could buy a gallon of Calona Red for about $5. I'm not sure if they still make that product today. Those two wines were very popular for bootleg-

gers who liked the quantity. The quality of the wine did not really come into the equation.

I recall several times when large amounts of Calona Red wine and Berry Jack were seized from those who bought these brands for resale for their own profits. I recall going into the exhibit room, which is where exhibits are locked up, in Alexis Creek when I was the detachment commander there and being astounded by the amount of Calona Red and Berry Jack that had been seized.

That was then; this is now. B.C. wines have taken a dramatic turn from those days. The lights were turned on, the blinds were pulled up, and those involved in the B.C. wine industry were told to go forth and produce quality wines.

Our B.C. VQA wines are world-class. In B.C. we continue to improve on an already great product. It is through the Okanagan Wine Festival that we can all stand up and say that B.C. wines are number one.

M. Karagianis: While the many approaches to climate change like taxes and cap-and-trade schemes continue to develop and be debated, there are more immediate opportunities for action right now. For most of us in B.C., we need and want more effective tools to help address climate change in our own lives. Yes, there's the turn-out-the-lights campaign. But frankly, that's not a paradigm shift. That's been around for probably 30 years when we started conserving energy back in the '70s.

However, there are two immediate green ideas I'd like to talk about, which are quite amazing and effective. One is solar energy for our homes, and the other is heat pumps. Both work on sound scientific principles that reuse natural energy effectively. Installing solar panels on your home roof, which preheat your hot water, can deliver real results. You can use less energy from the grid, and you save money. That's a pretty attractive idea. The cost is not prohibitive, or at least it doesn't need to be.

There was a federal incentive program that helped offset some of the costs to install solar panel energies into your home, but it has recently expired. It was a great program, so I'm advocating that we in B.C. initiate a similar provincial program that offers incentives through B.C. Hydro for solar power installation.

Similarly, heat pumps create a home-heating system out of both warm air and cold air — an amazing system and another great climate change option. It's also one that I believe is deserving of some kind of incentive.

Let's think seriously about creating an incentive program for both solar power for your home and for heat pumps. If we are going to truly go green, we can make it possible for everyone in B.C. to embrace ideas like this that can do something real in their lives to help address climate change. As part of a real climate change plan, I think we can make it happen.

C. James: Up and down B.C.'s coast thousands have been put out of work, mills have been shut down, raw logs are leaving our province, and communities are in jeopardy. After two years of waiting, those communities got nothing from the Minister of Forests. For two years he promised a plan for the coast, and all he delivered was a seven-page document done by the embattled special adviser to the Premier.

To the Minister of Forests: he promised action and delivered absolutely nothing. When is he going to come forward with a real action plan for the communities? When is he going to support communities that the Liberals have left behind?

Hon. R. Coleman: I would have been shocked if the opposition had even taken the time to look at the background to the plan itself or even been shocked by the fact that they'd agree with what we might want to try and do on the coast. Quite frankly, they have no intention of trying to find solutions.

The reality is this. There's no one action that can restore markets and competitiveness on the coast or in forestry in British Columbia, but there are steps that can be made to set fundamental steps, to set a future.

The opposition may not like the fact that we're going to shift to enhancing second growth versus old growth. They may not like the fact that we're going to encourage a harvest of hardwoods or use science and technology to develop markets, strategies and efficiencies within the marketplace, with relationships with the federal government, ourselves and other industries. They may not like the fact we're going to promote the value-added sector.

Hon. R. Coleman: You don't have any solutions, hon. Member. We put the foundation in place, and we'll build on that foundation for the future of coastal communities.

C. James: Well, there's one thing clear in this report. The one thing that's clear is that Ken Dobell and the Liberal government aren't interested in finding any solutions for coastal communities — none whatsoever.

The minister sat on this report for months and months. The report was supposed to bring forward action, but the only substantive part of this entire report is a plan for another plan. That's the only piece that's in there. There's no help for communities like Port Alberni.

Will the Minister of Forests stand up today in this House and admit that he and Ken Dobell delivered simply an announcement for another study, another plan, and no help for those communities and their families?

Hon. R. Coleman: Action — shift to second-growth harvest from old growth. Is that an action? It's an action. Action — use science and technology to develop markets for hemlock and balsam. Is that an action? Invest in promoting the value-added sector, which we've already started to do. Is that an action? Streamline timber marking systems. Is that an action? And do something that they never had the temerity to do — put a tax on log exports off Crown lands. Is that an action?

C. James: It took months and months and months for the minister to bring forward the report. I hate to say it, but communities are going to have to wait months and months and months for that action to actually come into anything that will support communities. The minister has done nothing.

There are more words on paper without a time line, without any concrete action to be able to give communities hope that perhaps this government recognizes that their action in forestry has damaged communities in British Columbia.

This minister promised action, and in fact he has failed. This report is another failure. Raw log exports, under this report, will continue. Companies will continue to log old-growth forests. There are no new resources to help communities like Port Alberni. It's the same old story from the minister who continues with the status quo, when everyone knows the status quo isn't working.

What communities actually need is a Forests Minister willing to do more than pay the Premier's friends for a seven-page report. Will the Minister of Forests admit that the last thing the coast needs is one more study?

Hon. R. Coleman: I just want to remind the Leader of the Opposition of a little quote. "There are times that you want to look at some raw log exports. That's why I'm saying that we need to reduce. I don't think it's possible to look at a complete ban, but we do need to look at a reduction in that area."

A tax helps accomplish that, Leader of the Opposition. That was by you on Voice of B.C. on March 30, 2005.

S. Fraser: The minister should get out of the office more often and maybe visit a coastal forest community, but I guess that would be living up to a promise he made here. That might be difficult.

Seven pages of fluff. It's recycled from 2003. I want the minister, today in this House, to tell this House exactly what his so-called action plan will do for the community of Port Alberni. Specifically, will this announcement reduce raw log exports from Port Alberni, from the Alberni Valley? Will it?

Hon. R. Coleman: There is a coast action plan; it has some actions in it. I know you don't like the fact that somebody is taking action. It's interesting how you always…. Well, it's not unusual, actually, how you always just don't want to look at the facts.

To the member opposite: your party was part of a government that added a billion dollars in costs to the forest sector, the old Forest Practices Code. Your own minister said: "We added a billion dollars of costs; we got zero jobs from it." You announced the big jobs and timber accord in Prince George — 21,000 new jobs. How many jobs? Zero new jobs.

The fact of the matter is that this industry is facing challenges. It needs to have some fundamental shifts. We've worked with them to build those. Those shifts are there. These are the actions, and they will actually build a foundation for forestry in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: I want to remind members on both sides to listen to the question and listen to the answer.

S. Fraser: I take it that the answer is no. While we were waiting for the minister to come up with seven pages over two years, he released more private lands from tree farm licences on Vancouver Island. He didn't learn anything from what the previous minister did to Port Alberni in 2004, when he removed 70,000 hectares against his own staff's advice.

To the minister: is he working on some other secret plan that he's hiding from us here, some other deal to deal with the disaster caused by the private managed forest lands?

Hon. R. Coleman: We actually did do a study on Port Alberni and the Alberni Valley. The member's aware of that. If he would actually do his homework, he would also find out this. We gave that report to the organizations like the regional district, the city of Port Alberni, the Save Our Valley Alliance to respond to the report. To date they haven't responded to the report. They haven't given us any submissions. So on that side of it, we're trying to work with the valley, and we will. We've met with your mayor and council, and I've actually been to Port Alberni, but that's okay.

The bottom line is this. You have to make fundamental shifts in order to have a future for forestry on the coast of British Columbia. These are the fundamental shifts to start that process. We are already in the process of doing this internally. I know you don't like the fact that it's only six or seven pages. I could have given you 300. It would have made no difference. It gives you the actions, and the backup is the work that's coming along behind those actions, hon. Member.

B. Simpson: Mr. Speaker, the reason the minister didn't answer the last two questions is because under this government, under two consecutive Forests ministers, most of southern Vancouver Island is now under private management, not public management. Log exports, under private management — which amount to the largest amount of log exports going out of this province, which this government has increased — will not be touched under this seven-page piece of fluff — not touched at all.

The minister also, in his own press release, says that they are going to — what? — extend the existing orders-in-council, reduce the tax on log exports in the northern zone and when lumber prices come up, the existing tax…. And again, this minister thinks he can say whatever he wants. There was already a tax on log exports. This minister is reducing them.

B. Simpson: …reduce log exports by 50 percent. How will reducing the tax on log exports and extending the orders-in-council allowing log exports reduce log exports off of public lands?

Hon. R. Coleman: There's a tax on logs that are going to be exported. There isn't a tax today. There's going to be one on February 1. I suspect that will actually reduce log exports. What do you guys think?

Let's go back to the philosophy across the way: no log exports whatsoever. And let's go back to the messaging this time of the critic for Forests in the opposition. "If you say no to log exports, you kill their jobs." They correctly argue that. A statement by the member for Cariboo North in the Terrace Standard on February 14, 2007.

So what you want to do is you want to kill the jobs in the forest — have no fundamentals for the future of forestry — and then you want to go away and whine about the fact that you have no new ideas to help forestry in B.C.

B. Simpson: No new ideas is an eight-page piece of fluff that recycles promises made in 2003 that this government never fulfilled then and that have exacerbated the situation on the coast since then. That's no new ideas.

Again, the minister keeps saying there was no tax on log exports, and yet I'm reading the backgrounder on log export policy changes that says, "Existing rate: 15 percent on Douglas fir, 5 to 10 percent on hemlock" — existing rate. Again, the minister is so ignorant of how….

B. Simpson: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the word "ignorant," and I will substitute it with "uneducated."

R. Fleming: Yesterday the Minister of Forests stated in question period: "The Auditor General is an independent officer of the Legislature, and nobody in this Legislature tells the Auditor General what to audit."

It was a rather bizarre statement because in the very same question period yesterday, the Minister of Tourism defended his government's incompetence on the convention centre by stating: "We were the ones who asked the Auditor General to do a comprehensive review." In fact, the Auditor General Act specifically states the Auditor General must — must — conduct an audit if it is requested by the Legislature.

To the minister: will he commit today to ask the Auditor General to conduct an audit into all private land releases on Vancouver Island?

Hon. R. Coleman: A little bit of explanation of language for the member opposite. It said "if the Legislature asks," not "if a minister asks," not "if the government asks," but "if the Legislature asks," hon. Member. So get that through to your head.

I have no intention of changing what I've done on the private forest land exemption. I've done my job;

I've done it with due diligence. I've done it on advice of staff, and that's not going to change.

R. Fleming: Well, Mr. Speaker, I know this side of the Legislature would look forward to the minister putting that motion in front of this very House, supporting that to happen. I know….

If we want to continue with question period, we need some civility in this chamber.

R. Fleming: I know the Auditor General hasn't heard from the minister, and I know the minister can ensure a review is done and not entangled in funding issues in that office. So I don't understand his reluctance to give the Legislature and the people of B.C. an independent review of his actions in this matter.

If the minister is so convinced that he protected the public interest in the matter of Western Forest Products getting out of their social contract, why won't he request the Auditor General to give us an independent assurance today? Put the motion on the order paper, and we'll debate it in this Legislature and approve it.

Hon. R. Coleman: Because it's not necessary. The decision was made in January 2007. The decision was made based on the advice of staff. After consultation with first nations, there was an opportunity to debate the Minister of Forests budget during the estimates debate, which is a forum they can choose to have that discussion. If they didn't pursue that opportunity in any detail they wanted to, then that is their fault and not mine.

N. Macdonald: Yesterday the Minister of Tourism said that the people responsible for the convention centre boondoggle have been held accountable. But the minister also said that he didn't believe that Ken Dobell was hiding information that hundreds of millions of dollars in cost overruns had taken place.

That simply does not make sense. It doesn't add up. Did the minister fire Ken Dobell because he did not tell him the truth about these cost overruns, or did he fire him because he did tell him the truth? Which is it?

Hon. S. Hagen: Unlike the opposition, I'm not going to take part in any finger-pointing. As I said yesterday, the responsibility stops with me and with the government. Mr. Dobell stepped down of his own accord, and he did so for reasons that are purely his own.

N. Macdonald: None of this makes sense. Everything that has gone on here, everything the minister said outside was about finger-pointing. He was asked to take responsibility. Now he says that people have been held accountable. How? What is the B.C. Liberal way of holding somebody accountable?

What the minister is saying here today is this. Somebody resigns or leaves or their contract just ends. It is done so discreetly you could say it was done secretly, and that's it. That is the minister holding somebody accountable? There has to be a better explanation than that.

What the minister knows and what the province of B.C. knows is that he should be responsible, and if not him, it should be the Premier, because more than anything else, this is the Premier's mess.

Does the minister agree that the Premier is ultimately responsible for this? You're good at pointing fingers. You might as well point down there. That's where the rest of the province is pointing.

Hon. S. Hagen: As I said yesterday and I've said today, and I will repeat, the responsibility stops with me and with the government. I take full responsibility.

B. Ralston: The Auditor General's report shows that the government knew as early as May 2003….

B. Ralston: The government knew as early as May 2003 that the convention centre was going way over budget. Isn't the truth about Mr. Dobell here that he was fired because he refused to keep on hiding the financial truth from the minister and from the public?

Hon. S. Hagen: I think what the opposition overlooks sometimes is that, in fact, we are building a world-class facility here. We have a board of directors in place. We have a chairman of the board in place. We have 77 conventions lined up.

I would ask the question: which one of these conventions is the opposition against holding? We have the CUPE, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, convention coming. We have the Public Service Alliance of Canada coming. We have the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers coming. We have 42,000 delegate-days for the Million Dollar Round Table. We have 12,000 delegate-days for the World Tunnel Congress. We have 35,000 delegate-days for the Pediatric Academic Societies.

B. Ralston: Clearly the minister must have pressed the on button for the fog machine.

B. Ralston: Isn't the sad and tawdry truth here that this minister is prepared to say anything or blame anyone else other than accept responsibility himself as part of his duty to run interference for the Premier on this file?

H. Bains: It's clear the minister is having a great deal of difficulty answering some of the very good questions here. But let me put a very easy and simple question….

H. Bains: Yesterday the minister said that the people responsible for the convention centre boondoggle have been held accountable. Simple question: name them.

Hon. S. Hagen: I have said consistently that I take responsibility for the decisions that were made. But let's go back to….

Hon. S. Hagen: Let's go back to the member from Burke Mountain. The Opposition House Leader said back in June of '98: "The trade and convention centre is on track. You'll start to see those jobs on construction sites in a large way in the spring of 1998."

Guess what. The NDP blew $73 million without getting a piling in the ground and blew billions more of lost economic activity.

H. Bains: Here's an example. A question is being asked. He diverts, he ducks, and he makes all kinds of excuses. He said yesterday that those people who were responsible for this boondoggle have been held accountable. The question was: who were they? And if you haven't held anyone accountable yet, why won't you hold yourself accountable? The buck stops at your doorstep. Why don't you resign, then?

Hon. S. Hagen: You know, I think it's so interesting to listen to the NDP. They're against something, and then they want to think they're for it. I heard the other day in the House, as a matter of fact, support for the Olympics, support for 2010. Now, they didn't used to be supportive of 2010. Now they're supportive of 2010.

I'll bet you, Mr. Speaker…. When this facility opens in March of '09, I will bet you that every one of the opposition members will want an invitation to the grand opening of this place.

A. Dix: My question's to the Minister of Health. The Minister of Health confirmed today that the internal investigation into e-health contracts in his ministry involves not just the allegations of inappropriate payments to decision-makers. It also involves, in fact, the entire $300 million program. There have been concerns about unexplained delays, potential conflict of interest, inappropriate supplier payments and bizarre decision-making.

Given the scope of this investigation of the minister and his ministry, will the minister put on hold the preliminary award of contracts of electronic medical records?

Hon. G. Abbott: This is a very serious issue involving a 35-year career public servant. In July the Ministry of Health received allegations in respect of that public servant. The deputy minister, entirely appropriately, immediately asked the comptroller general, through the internal audit division, to conduct an investigation or review into those allegations that had been tendered.

That investigation continues. That investigation involves the allegations that were tendered to the Ministry of Health. That investigation continues, and I think it is entirely inappropriate…. Until that investigation reports back, until the internal audit division reports back, it is entirely inappropriate and entirely irresponsible for the member to be speculating on what the outcome of that review will be or what the consequences of it should be.

A. Dix: I guess it's the new dodge. Now the Minister of Health won't answer questions about one of the few areas of responsibility in his ministry that he actually gets to make decisions about because there's an investigation by another ministry of government.

The questions are very simple, and I just want to ask the minister because we're talking about $300 million in contracts. I want to ask him a very specific question.

What did he do? What did his ministry do to ensure that no one directly involved in the design, the evaluation and the outcome of the RFP for electronic medical records had any conflict of interest?

Hon. G. Abbott: It appears that this member has some difficulty understanding the concept of an independent review of these allegations. I think it is entirely unfortunate that he doesn't demonstrate respect for the comptroller general and for the internal audit division that is undertaking this work. I think that's unfortunate.

In terms of the specific contract which the member inquires about, there has been a review with respect to the construction of the EMR contract. The construction of that contract was undertaken by 25 clinicians, primarily physicians, in this province. Mr. Danderfer, according to that review, had nothing to do with the construction, nor was he a part of the evaluation of that request for proposal.

Hon. O. Ilich: I wanted to recognize His Excellency. I introduced him earlier, and he has arrived in the chamber. So I would like the House to welcome His Excellency and the consul from Vancouver to the chamber.

M. Farnworth: I rise under Standing Order 35 to move adjournment of the House to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance — namely, for the Auditor General to conduct an audit into all private land releases on Vancouver Island.

Hon. M. de Jong: As the member knows, there is a strict test for when a matter qualifies for the kind of debate contemplated by Standing Order 35. I have heard nothing, actually, from the hon. member, the Opposition House Leader, to suggest why this particular matter would be captured by the provisions of Standing Order 35. In my view, they do not, based on the well-defined test that exists.

In the absence of submissions from the hon. member to the contrary, I would suggest that the Chair make the appropriate finding, which is that it does not qualify pursuant to the test that has been enunciated in the past in this chamber.

M. Farnworth: I would submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that there are a number of reasons I would like you to take into account.

First, this is the first opportunity since the report was tabled to actually deal with this issue.

Second, the issue is around by mutual consent on both sides of the House. That has been done before on issues in this chamber, the new relationship being one.

Third, the importance of the forest industry to the economy of British Columbia, and particularly the sensitivity and the importance around private forest lands, we think makes a worthy opportunity for the time-limited, one-hour debate to deal with the motion.

Mr. Speaker: No other comments? I will take the matter under advisement and return later.

N. Macdonald: I'd like to introduce my wife. She's joined us here today. Karen is here, and she's just up there.

J. McIntyre: I have a petition here with 37 names from the Royal Canadian Legion in Squamish, wishing to keep the smoking area open.

S. Fraser: I present a petition from 721 people supporting a letter from Reid Robinson to the south Island forest district manager regarding protection of karst resource values. That's caves and cave protection.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 40; H. Bloy in the chair.

M. Karagianis: I would like to continue with just a couple more questions pertaining to section 57. The minister was answering questions that I was asking

with regard to the Deltaport Way corridor. I do note in section 7 that there is considerable reference to Crown corridors. Can the minister perhaps clarify for me: is this Deltaport Way corridor considered a Crown corridor?

Hon. M. de Jong: I thought the member referred to section 7. She is indicating that she is referring to chapter 7. I'm going to check on that but also point out that I am advised that the Crown corridor is also a defined term under the final agreement, and it does include the corridor we are referring to. But I am going to now verify the information around the link between chapter 7 and section 57 of chapter 4.

I am advised and can relay to the member that the Crown corridor we are referring to with respect to Deltaport is also captured by the provisions of chapter 7.

M. Karagianis: As chapter 7 certainly has much more breadth, I will save my remaining questions about the Deltaport Way corridor until chapter 7 is being discussed. I'll hand the floor to my colleague.

G. Coons: I just have a few questions from chapter 4 dealing with the Highway 17 corridor and perhaps into the Deltaport Way corridor and dealing with water lots — all dealing with chapter 4.

As was mentioned, there's a real disconnect from what we read in here between the Highway 17 corridor and the Deltaport Way corridor. Perhaps we can get into that later in chapter 7. I'm not too sure.

If we look at Highway 17 and that corridor, it leads to one of the largest ferry terminals — one of them — in North America. It's key, I think, to what's happening in the region. If we look at the Coastal Ferry Act with its push towards alternate service providers and privatization, perhaps, of certain routes, I'm wondering whether or not…. Does the government distinguish between a public ferry route and a private one as far as Highway 17 is concerned in the treaty?

Hon. M. de Jong: The answer is no. The reference in the treaty is exclusively to the highway corridor.

G. Coons: In other words, if somewhere along the line a private ferry operator came into the terminal and the government deemed that it no longer required a portion of Highway 17 as a public highway, would that portion of the highway be issued to the Tsawwassen First Nation?

Hon. M. de Jong: Two things. First of all, we did canvass this in some detail this morning. I am only cautious because I know the member is seeking to consider possible eventualities.

But the triggering mechanism here — which seems entirely unlikely, based on our vantage point today — is that were a determination to be made by the government of the day and the Ministry of Transportation of the day that the highway corridor was no longer required, that would trigger certain obligations vis-à-vis the Tsawwassen First Nation. That is really as a result of some of the history that I think the member knows around how the highway was constructed in the first place.

I'm reluctant to be drawn into discussions about hypothetical scenarios. Suffice to say that the language in the document is very clear. If a determination, for any reason, were made that the highway corridor is no longer required, then that would trigger a certain sequence of events and a certain entitlement by the Tsawwassen First Nation.

G. Coons: Thank you for that clarification. We'll keep note of that. As I mentioned before, there seemed to be a real disconnect between the strict conditions under sections 52 to 56, I believe, for the Highway 17 corridor versus just the one section — section 57 — for Deltaport Way corridor. I'm just wondering, as far as how the two were handled differently….

Again, we haven't got to section 7. I'm just wondering if the memorandum of agreement signed between the Tsawwassen First Nation and the Vancouver Port Authority had any part in this agreement. The minister knows that the agreement was signed in 2004, and I'm just wondering if it had any impact on this particular treaty.

Hon. M. de Jong: The answer is no. I am reminded and advised and will convey to the member that the third-party memorandum to which he refers was not relevant or discussed at the negotiating table.

As far as water lots, sections 26 to 29, and dealing with the map on appendix F-1…. As we know, the water lots issued to the first nations are fairly significant in the area. One of them is southeast — it looks like the Deltaport Way — and one just below the ferry terminal. You've got the map there.

They're fairly significant as far as Highway 17 and Deltaport Way. Perhaps the minister can clarify the setbacks from the jetty, where one of them…. The one below Highway 17 looks like it's about 300 metres, and above Highway 17 it's about 300 metres, I'm guessing. But the other one below the Deltaport Way is about 1,000 metres. I'm just wondering at the discrepancy between setbacks as far as the water lots are concerned.

Hon. M. de Jong: I think, if I understand the member's question correctly, he is referring, with respect to the water lots, to the setbacks from the two causeways. He's indicating that is so.

I am advised that part of that was to a great extent influenced by the fact that there were existing water lots surrounding the two causeways in question. So these new water lots that are the subject to this agreement were fit in there, and that setback was influenced by the pre-existing water lots that travel the distance of the causeways.

I think the member is referring to the map, so hopefully, some of what I have said has made sense to him.

G. Coons: Who currently owns or has the water lot access to each side of the Deltaport Way?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm advised that to the best of our knowledge, the water licence is held by the Crown in right of Canada via their agent, the Vancouver Port Authority.

G. Coons: In the MOU between the Port Authority and Tsawwassen, I believe — and help me if I'm incorrect — the Vancouver Port Authority transferred that to the TFN. Is that correct? Do you know that?

Hon. M. de Jong: I don't believe that is so. But I must confess, given the third-party nature of the agreement, I am not in a position to state so categorically.

G. Coons: The reference I'm using is a map from the MOU, just for the minister's information.

I just have perhaps one last question about water. I want to go to page 16, section 27 of the MOU between the Tsawwassen First Nation and the Vancouver Port Authority, where it says that they agree that development of a container handling facility shall be a priority project for joint investment. Should such a project proceed, the parties will work jointly to ensure that the TFN settlement lands that are required for the project are expeditiously transferred to the TFN and removed from the application of the agricultural land reserve designation.

If it doesn't happen within two years, Vancouver Port Authority and TFN will request the province to transfer the amount of land needed for the container handling facility to the TFN from the proposed settlement lands.

I'm just wondering if, as far as water lots, the MOU between the Tsawwassen First Nation and Vancouver Port Authority had any impact on the water lots that are in this agreement.

Hon. M. de Jong: The answer, I believe, is no. I can advise the member that I am advised that the request from the Tsawwassen First Nation to discuss water lots and their interest in that question predated by some time the documents and the discussion that I think he was referring to insofar as that document is concerned.

H. Lali: I have some questions under chapter 4 on the agricultural land reserve section — not actually on the ALR part of it, but some of the aspects that are here. I'll also be having some questions on the Highway 17 corridor. Actually, I'll ask those first on the Highway 17 corridor.

I've been listening to the debate among the minister and both of my colleagues who preceded me. I'll try not to ask any of the same questions, but they are related.

I know we're talking in the future, hypothetical situations here, and not necessarily a reality or any kind of plan by the government or any entity. But in terms of the corridor, suppose, for instance, the corridor is not needed on Highway 17 because the B.C. Ferry terminal, for whatever reason, has gone out of operation, is going to move to another site or whatever happens.

My question to the minister is…. Obviously, the Highway 17 corridor would transfer to the Tsawwassen First Nation if it is not needed by the province in any way. So does that include the Tsawwassen ferry terminal site itself?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm advised that the terms of the agreement made clear that the stretch of Highway 17 that is captured by those provisions is exclusively that portion which traverses the reserve — what is today the reserve. Actually, the causeway or the stretch that goes out into the water and the terminal itself are not captured by those provisions under the terms of the agreement.

H. Lali: Well, that begs another question. If the causeway itself and the ferry terminal are not captured by that because they are not contiguous to Tsawwassen First Nation lands, does the minister have some idea how much of the Highway 17 corridor, in terms of kilometres or a portion thereof, is actually contiguous to Tsawwassen treaty lands or all lands that would become Tsawwassen lands?

Hon. M. de Jong: I can refer the member to appendix Q-1, which actually is a map that shows the actual portion of the highway that is captured by the provisions.

H. Lali: I appreciate that. That doesn't provide me with an actual answer in terms of what the distance might be. So I can only guess it's probably within the range of a kilometre or two, if not less.

Suppose, for argument's sake, it's about one kilometre. Does that mean that if for some reason the province decides to divest itself of the ferry terminal or the ferry terminal is not going to be in operation anymore, that roughly about a kilometre of Highway 17 corridor transfers to the Tsawwassen First Nation?

Then what happens in terms of people trying to get access to what is presently the Tsawwassen ferry terminal if that kilometre or stretch is transferred to the Tsawwassen First Nation? Would they still be able to get across or would they not?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the basic flaw in the member's question is that the kind of change, which I emphasize is not contemplated today and I have no reason to believe will be contemplated in the future, although we are discussing possibilities…. That kind of change with respect to the ferry terminal would not trigger the provisions in this agreement that we are dealing with today.

The triggering mechanism is a decision by the Crown, most likely via the highways ministry, that the highway is no longer required. So they are two separate issues, and the triggering event is not the one that the member prefaced his question with.

H. Lali: I know the minister has, on a couple of occasions, stated that that is not being contemplated. Okay, I agree with the minister; it's not being contemplated. But that's not really my preface either.

If it's not being contemplated and it'll continue as is, then what was the reason to put that in there in this instance? This is not there when one looks at the Deltaport Way corridor. There's nothing there that is specific. That's just a one-liner. Actually, it's two lines — one sentence, section 57, as opposed to sections 52 to 56 with numerous lines when it comes down to the Highway 17 corridor.

The minister is saying that putting that terminal out of business is not contemplated. I understand that; it's not being contemplated. Yet the language is in here that, for whatever reasons, the provincial government is not going to be needing or using the Highway 17 corridor. It reverts back to the Tsawwassen First Nation because it's part of their traditional territory. It would actually go, without any costs attached to it, to the Tsawwassen. It will be transferred to the Tsawwassen First Nation.

Suppose, for instance, that if the B.C. Ferries terminal were going to be moved somewhere else and the province decides that that causeway and the ferry terminal land are going to be sold to some private developer for whatever reasons…. People would still need to get across from the mainland and Delta and other areas to whatever that private development might be, or whatever development it might be.

How do they get across if that land is going to transfer over to the Tsawwassen First Nation?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the member answered the question, in part, himself. Again, the type of change of ownership of the causeway or terminal — which is not being contemplated, but were it to occur at some point in the future — would not be sufficient in and of itself to trigger these provisions.

In answer to the essence of the question, which is: why are these provisions here…? Really, at the insistence of the Tsawwassen…. It emanates from the unique history around how this road came to be — which is literally a bulldozer coming down the middle of a reserve and the destruction of a longhouse with very little, if any, notice to the first nation — and a desire on the part of the Tsawwassen to have committed in this document a commitment and an understanding that if for any reason, at any time in the future, a decision was made that that road was no longer required for all of the logical reasons, then the land as set out in appendix Q-1 would revert to them. It is very much rooted in the unique history of how that road came to traverse the reserve all those years ago.

H. Lali: I appreciate the historical explanation. I would just add that there are numerous first nations across the province where the same scenario has taken place, in terms of provincial or federal authorities pulling up bulldozers and just putting a road through.

That leads me to my next question. Although I know many statements have been made…. This is the first urban treaty. It would not provide a cookie-cutter approach. Every first nation would negotiate their own treaties based on whatever their personal circumstances or their situations are.

It begs the question…. Other first nations across the province could be in a similar position as this one, where roads were forcibly put through the reserve. If the province has no need for that road, then there would be the issue of access on those roads by the travelling public to get across from one end to the other — whether on the other side were provincial interests or some private development or whatever it is.

Was that taken into account by the negotiators on the provincial side when these clauses were put into this agreement?

Hon. M. de Jong: It's not idle speculation. We know there are hundreds of specific claims, and we're hopeful that some of those will be resolved through this new process that the federal government has unveiled to try and expedite the settlement of some of those claims. That is so.

In other circumstances where discussions between the province, Canada and a first nation mature into, or may already be within, the treaty process at various stages, there may be discussions of a similar sort. I'm reluctant to go too far down this path because we've got a big job ahead of us with this treaty, but I acknowledge what the member has said. The proof of that is the literally hundreds of specific claims that exist right across the province.

H. Lali: I've got a couple of quick questions on the corridor, and then I'll move on to the other issue at hand. If in the future the corridor reverts back to the Tsawwassen First Nation and they wanted to keep it as a road, could they put a toll on there for folks to actually get across?

Hon. M. de Jong: The direct answer is yes. In the scenario we've described, the land would revert to the Tsawwassen, and they would make decisions around its use. It might become a field.

That is why it is difficult to imagine a circumstance in which the Crown in the right of the province of British Columbia would come to the conclusion that the road isn't required, because as soon as that is triggered and the land would revert to the Tsawwassen, jurisdiction around how that land is used — whether it's used for a road at all — would also transfer to the Tsawwassen. It is for that reason hard to imagine a situation in which a decision would be made that the road is no longer required.

H. Lali: So just to recap, the answer of the minister was that, hypothetically speaking, if the corridor

reverted back to the Tsawwassen First Nation, they could put on a toll if they wanted to use it as a road.

The federal government has a policy in terms of the national highway system that there would have to be a toll-free alternative where provinces would want to put a toll on a particular highway. I know for years this province had followed the same policy.

Would there be any expectation by the federal and provincial governments that if there were to be a toll put on, that would be one of the criteria that would be required — that there would have to be a toll-free alternative for folks to get from one side to the other?

Hon. M. de Jong: The scenario is a bit implausible to this extent. As long as the road is required, I can't imagine any government coming to the conclusion that it's not required. I think I understand the point that the member is trying to get across, but I can't imagine any government in the future being confronted by the issue. As long as the road is required, you wouldn't make the decision necessary that would trigger the transferring….

There's nothing in the agreement that compels the provincial Crown to make the decision that would lead to the transferring back of the road. The provision is there purely to take account of something that no one really envisages now but that the Tsawwassen wanted to make clear.

If something completely unforeseen were to occur and a decision were to be made that the road is no longer required — and that decision has to be made by the provincial government — then in those circumstances the land would revert. Who knows what it would be used for? It wouldn't, in all likelihood, be used as a road, because the decision would have been made that we don't need the road. That's the scenario, and that, again, is why it's there.

H. Lali: I understand that. At the same time, the minister would need to be cognizant of the fact that if there was no contemplation, if there was no envisaging that in the future something like that would happen, then there was no need to put these sections in here. I understand that he has explained it was at the request of the Tsawwassen First Nation that they are in there, but the fact they're in there leads to these questions and the hypothetical situations that may arise in the future. One leads into the other; they're not mutually exclusive.

I understand there was no answer in terms of what the distance is from one end of the reserve to the other where the road passes through. Perhaps the minister could enlighten me as to what the width of that road is. I don't think it's 66 feet; I think it's more than that. In places it is four lanes, so it would be more than 66 feet. Has anybody done a mechanical calculation of the entire road, within it passing through the new boundaries of the Tsawwassen First Nation? What is the total in terms of hectares of that land that would be transferred?

H. Lali: Has any estimate been done in terms of the value? Was that also figured out? Obviously, somebody took a calculator and figured out how much the land was.

Hon. M. de Jong: It's Highway 17. I have told the member it's 11.37. For the people who use it to get back and forth to the ferry terminal, I'm sure it has an immense value. It certainly does for me when I try to get home.

H. Lali: I think the minister knows that financial value is what I'm talking about. I appreciate his lightheartedness on that, but it's financial value. Obviously, there's always a cost attached to a specific piece of land.

Aside from the whole issue of self-government, the respect that is long overdue for the Tsawwassen First Nation and a myriad of issues that are dealt with in the treaty, at the end of the day there is a base value that is attached in terms of the value of the treaty and the lands that are being transferred back to aboriginal people, etc.

My question on the 11.37 hectares is: was there a financial cost or a value attached to that piece of land of what it would be actually worth in terms of the transfer?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think in fairness to the member, he's asking to what extent I assign value to this as part of the overall settlement package. The answer is: virtually none.

The prospects of a transfer of the sort that we are contemplating is so remote that it would be unfair of me to suggest that the presence of this provision results in the Tsawwassen First Nation receiving any immediate value. The potential future value is so speculative and, in my view, so unlikely, that to suggest that it represents anything approaching an actual value….

Land has value. There's no doubt about that. What would the value of that land, that 11.3 hectares, be if at some undetermined date well into the future and, in my view, the prospects being very, very remote…? I don't know. I wouldn't even begin to want to guess.

I have to say that that is my view. It would be unfair to suggest that somehow this section results in the Tsawwassen receiving any real additional value.

H. Lali: I take that to mean that no valuation was done or contemplated. I suppose — and I've made this statement before — that if these sections weren't there, you wouldn't get the questions from members opposite here. Because they form a part of the treaty, it's our job to ask these questions, even though they may be hypothetical situations.

As a matter of fact, a lot of the treaties — as it was with the Nisga'a and this treaty and others that will be negotiated — are negotiated with negotiators on both sides looking to the future as to what the effects may be. How it would affect neighbouring communities, future settlements, the prices of lands — all of those variables are taken into consideration.

I will move off that. I want the minister to turn his attention now to pages 42 and 43 of Bill 40. I will go to

page 43, which is actually number 78 that is in here. I'll just give it a few seconds until the minister has found the appropriate section.

Under chapter 4, under the section "Federal expropriation," section 78 reads, "Canada and British Columbia will consent to replacement land, transferred by a Federal Expropriating Authority to Tsawwassen First Nation as part of the compensation in accordance with clause 69, being added to Tsawwassen Lands if," and then there are a, b, c and d, which I won't read into the record because there's no issue there.

Having read that into the record, my question to the minister is: under 69.a could that Crown land be Crown agricultural land?

Hon. M. de Jong: The answer is yes, if lands were identified, but they would be identified subject to the ALR designation.

H. Lali: The minister says that the land that is replaced could be Crown agricultural land. I just want to be clear. Would that land that is then transferred as a part of the replacement to the Tsawwassen continue to be under protection of the ALR as agricultural land, or will it be preapproved in terms of being taken out of the ALR — as are the 207 hectares that are part of this treaty that were preapproved by cabinet?

Hon. M. de Jong: We are dealing now with an extraordinary situation in which expropriation has occurred on a portion of treaty settlement land. I'm going to say on the record, because I think it's important for the purpose of this discussion, that whilst the expropriating power has been preserved to the Crown in this agreement, there is an understanding that it would only be exercised in extraordinary circumstances. In the case of the federal government, one might imagine a national defence situation or emergency. But there is an appreciation of the fact that there is an extreme reluctance to consider exercising that power.

Having said that, the member's question is if it is and it triggers the provisions of the agreement that require the identification of replacement lands and if lands were identified that included the ALR designation, there is nothing in this agreement that would lead to the conclusion or the requirement that those ALR designations and limitations on use be removed.

H. Lali: I'm sorry. Is the minister saying that if it happens to be Crown land that is now being replaced — that the transfer that's taking place or that is being traded now, for instance; let's call it a trade — and it's agricultural Crown land, then there is actually no preapproval of that land being actually taken out of the ALR? In other words, Crown agricultural land that is now given to Tsawwassen First Nation as a part of the expropriation would remain under the ALR and the Tsawwassen First Nation would have to then, in order to get it out of the ALR, apply before the Agricultural Land Commission.

Hon. M. de Jong: In a situation where the replacement land provisions sections of this agreement are triggered by virtue of an expropriation having taken place, there is nothing in the agreement that guarantees to the Tsawwassen First Nation that they would receive replacement lands unencumbered by existing ALR designations.

H. Lali: So in other words, it will not be removed from the ALR by the replacement. Rather the Tsawwassen First Nation would have to go through the process that every other British Columbian would in terms of trying to get that land out of the ALR, which is to appear before the commission.

Is that what the minister is saying — that that Crown agricultural land would not be preapproved for removal, as are the 207 hectares?

Hon. M. de Jong: In the scenario I've just described, if replacement lands were contained within the ALR and they were the subject of the replacement provisions, and if the Tsawwassen First Nation wanted to have those lands removed following the transfer, they'd have to make application like everyone else, in the scenario that we've been talking about.

H. Lali: Okay. The minister says they would have to make application just like everybody else. That's what the minister says. What happens if it is ALR lands that are being expropriated by the federal government for national defence reasons or national security or whatever the extraordinary circumstances are that the minister says? Does that mean that the land that would be given as replacement to the Tsawwassen First Nation necessarily has to be agricultural Crown land?

Hon. M. de Jong: The member is describing hypothetical scenarios. I am trying to, on the one hand, interpret what is in the agreement. I'm trying to be very precise with my language so that the member can rely on what I say.

The member asks open-ended questions about any time between now and the next 100 years. I cannot answer for the decisions that a government 20 years from now might make. That is why I keep coming back to the agreement.

The member asks me a question: "So this will never happen?" I can't answer a question like that. If I tried to, I wouldn't be honest. The member works hard every day in his capacity as an opposition MLA to create a circumstance in which he will come back to this side of the House. See how he suddenly smiles? See how the debate takes on a radically different demeanour when I say something like that?

I can't answer authoritatively for what a future government might do. What I can say to the member is what the provisions of this agreement require and interpret them as they appear. I'm trying to do that, and I'm trying to be as precise and straightforward as I can about that.

H. Lali: When governments pass laws and introduce bills, or sign treaties or consummate treaties with folks, whether it's aboriginal first nations or with another government, there's always the issue of hypothetical situations.

A lot of our laws are passed — not just in this country and in this province but around the world — with a view to what hypothetically could happen in the future. I can't buy the line from the minister repeatedly that I'm talking about a hypothetical situation.

First nations treaties, Nisga'a and this one…. A lot of it, in terms of the to-and-from across the table between negotiators, is based on hypothetical situations — or situations that may be envisaged or contemplated or whatever the word may be, but something that may happen in the future — because those are supposed to protect us.

The laws, the regulations, the bills, the treaties that we pass today are designed to cover as much as possible to protect entities that are signing those agreements on both sides in terms of what may or may not happen in the future. I understand that. We can't foresee a lot of what may happen in the future, because it hasn't happened yet. But there are circumstances and issues that people sitting here today can actually envisage may happen in terms of trends that take place.

Here, in terms of this expropriation, I'd like the minister to show me or provide comfort to British Columbians that the land that is being transferred to the Tsawwassen First Nation as replacement land — it happens to be Crown agricultural land — is not going to come preapproved in terms of removal from the agricultural land reserve. I'd like the minister to provide me that comfort.

If he says it's not going to come preapproved, then I'd like the minister to show me somewhere in this treaty where the section is that says that's not going to happen.

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the question kind of goes like this. If "A" happens, and if "A" involves "B," and if "A" involves "B", "C" happens, then will the minister provide some assurances around "E" and "F"?

Now, I can try to answer that, but I actually take seriously the point the member is making. I can refer him to section 69.a of the chapter that we're in, which talks about equivalent and comparable value, but I can't stand here and definitively point to language in a treaty that contemplates every possible scenario in the manner that the member is inviting me to do. If I tried to do that, I wouldn't be honest with the member or the committee.

We are talking now about a situation, and we should acknowledge this. The extraordinary event that would occur….

Hon. M. de Jong: The member may not think that expropriation is extraordinary. I do.

In the case of treaty settlement lands, particularly given the history of this country, doubly extraordinary events and circumstances would have to exist for the Crown in the right of either the province of British Columbia or of Canada to step in and say to a first nation that has signed a treaty involving about 700 hectares of land that we're now taking some of it.

It is appropriate, in my view, for the treaty to include provisions that (a) preserve the right for the Crown to do that in extraordinary circumstances and (b) impose upon the Crown — either the provincial or federal government, if they choose to exercise that right in extraordinary circumstances — the obligation to find land of comparable value to replace that with. That is what the provisions say, and that is what the provisions are intended to do.

H. Lali: I think the minister and I are both in agreement that not everything can be contemplated in terms of what circumstances may arise in the future — ten, 20, 30, 40, 50 years down the road. We're in agreement on that. There's no question about that, and I'm not talking about some minor issue involved in this treaty.

Land is a major, major aspect of this treaty. Obviously, all of the brain trust — not only the ministry but the folks that were doing the negotiating — would have to put their thinking caps on in terms of what may or may not occur in the future in terms of trends, or what has happened under extraordinary circumstances for expropriation for whatever interests.

The fact still remains that here is an important section where we have an important issue such as the agricultural land reserve and the independence of the ALR commission. At the same time, there are Crown agricultural lands that have been transferred to the Tsawwassen First Nation as a part of the treaty and a certain portion of them, 207 hectares, that have come preapproved in terms of being taken out of the ALR already.

It's very legitimate to be asking these questions, and it's very legitimate to ask the government, which is signing this treaty on behalf of British Columbia, whether that was contemplated in terms of expropriation — whether 207 hectares is it in terms of the preapproval for an exemption from the ALR.

Or is it going to add on in the future on top of that, when these extraordinary circumstances occur and a federal expropriation authority expropriates a certain portion of Tsawwassen lands for extraordinary circumstances? Then lands of equivalent or greater size and comparable value would be replaced. They could be agricultural lands, could be Crown agricultural lands.

The question still is…. Somebody in that fairly substantial public service with the ministry, the negotiating teams, must have contemplated that this situation would arise, that the lands would not come preapproved for exemption from the ALR.

Hon. M. de Jong: Nothing in this chapter, nothing in this section, nothing in this treaty contemplates the pre-exemption of the replacement lands that fall into the category that we are discussing.

In terms of the Tsawwassen First Nation treaty, 207 hectares is it. No more lands would come preapproved for exemption from the ALR. I just want the minister to acknowledge that that's what he has said.

Hon. M. de Jong: I'll say it again. Nothing in this chapter, in this section, in this final agreement contemplates the pre-exemption of the lands that we are discussing here as part of this exercise.

I'll move off that particular line of questioning to ask a couple of other questions related to this. In terms of the comparable value aspect of it, who determines the assessed value of the land that is actually being replaced?

In terms of the federal expropriating authority expropriating land: would the replacement land, if it is Crown land that would become replacement lands, exclusively be B.C. Crown, or could that also involve federal Crown lands?

Hon. M. de Jong: In a situation that triggers expropriation, triggers the replacement land provisions of this treaty, there are three possible sources. The scenario the member laid out was one in which the expropriation had occurred via the federal government. I think that's what he said. In that scenario the federal Crown would have the option of looking in the area, in the territory, for federal Crown land.

They could look at provincial Crown land, but then they'd have to come to the provincial government and work out a deal to purchase it to satisfy their obligation to the Tsawwassen. Or they could go to a private landholder on a willing buyer, willing seller basis. Those are the three options that the federal Crown would have in that scenario.

H. Lali: Depending on the answer, I think this will be my final question on this one.

In other words, if the federal government is expropriating land for federal reasons, then basically it will be the federal government that would pick up the tab, whatever the value of that might be. We would never see an instance where the federal government expropriates Tsawwassen First Nation land for federal purposes, but B.C. would end up picking up the tab.

G. Gentner: An area we haven't covered yet in chapter 4 is the other Tsawwassen lands. Specifically, I'd like to ask, regarding Canoe Pass…. These are lands on the foreshore of the Fraser River.

Delta has the potential of losing its tax base here again. Can the minister confirm whether a decision has been made, if I have it correct, for the TFN to remove the Fraser River parcels from Delta's tax base and jurisdiction. If so, under what process and timing will this occur?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm just going to seek some clarification from the member. Could he alert me to the specific sections of chapter 4 we are now dealing with?

G. Gentner: My understanding, under chapter 4, in the section "Other Tsawwassen lands," other Tsawwassen lands are identified, if I have it correct — places like the Beach Grove lands and Canoe Pass lands on the Fraser River, the parcels…. I suppose it is part of the whole specified lands, but these, I understand, come under the other Tsawwassen lands. Am I not…?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm not meaning to be troublesome about this, but the chapter deals with a variety of different lands, and they are referred to specifically in various sections. I know the member has a good sense geographically of where the lands are, undoubtedly a better sense than I. That's why I need to know that I'm answering accurately by referring to the specific sections that reference the land.

G. Gentner: Under "Other Tsawwassen lands," section 18: "Other Tsawwassen Lands consist of…the Boundary Bay Parcels and the Fraser River Parcels, both as set out in Appendix E-2…."

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks. That's helpful. We're dealing with lands referred to in section 18 of chapter 4. Forgive me; I have lost track of what the original question was.

G. Gentner: I'm wondering how this is all going to roll out, particularly with the Fraser River parcels that,

if I have it correct, will be removed from Delta's tax base and its jurisdiction. I'm interested to know the process, in particular the timing, in which this is going to occur. Is there a strategy in place?

Hon. M. de Jong: Again, not to be troublesome, does the member's question relate…? I'll answer both, but do they relate to the Boundary Bay parcels or the Fraser River parcels? If the question relates to both, does he have a preference for which one I answer first? I don't think I'm going to answer them together, because there are different circumstances at play for both.

G. Gentner: Let's start with the high-ticket item — the frontage on the Fraser River.

Hon. M. de Jong: I apologize to members for the delay. The Fraser River lands, which I'm reminded comprise 1.36 hectares, at effective date would remain part of the district of Delta — municipality of Delta — and subject to the taxing authority of that jurisdiction.

The Tsawwassen First Nation thereafter can ask for them to be added to their treaty settlement lands, and they have options to do that. They can do it no more frequently, though, than every five years under the provisions of the agreement for the first 50 years. They have the option to trigger that without the requirement of seeking the consents that they would be required to achieve following the expiration of the 50-year period.

G. Gentner: That helps a lot, because it means that there's questionable uncertainty as to whether those lands will ever be improved or how it's all going to come together, I suppose.

My question now would be on the waterfront leases or licences — however they're defined. I know that in Canoe Pass there's quite a development happening — the municipality has been putting brakes on it — and that is the development of houseboats.

Can the minister tell us how that's going to play out? Will they be under the jurisdiction…? For example, sewage treatment along the river — will it follow provincial standards? I don't think there are many. Will it harmonize with Delta standards? And will the TFN develop its own standards?

I know this is hypothetical, but it's an important aspect of where we're going in the province relative to treaty settlement.

Hon. M. de Jong: Again, apologies for the delay, but these are precise questions, and I want to try and offer precise answers. In the situation that we're talking about, until such time — or immediately at effective date — prior to any sort of transfer of the lands or inclusion within the treaty settlement lands, the existing regulatory provisions would, of course, apply. They are fee simple lands.

The question that I think the member is driving at is: what occurs in the event that the option is acted upon and the lots in question, the land in question, become part of the Tsawwassen treaty settlement lands?

In that case, the other provisions of the agreement as it relates to environmental management and environmental regulations would trigger. As I think the member knows, the agreement is designed in a way to ensure that there are no holes or cracks in that regulatory rubric, such that there are protections, whether it is based on the Tsawwassen jurisdiction or existing provincial regulations — and, by the way, whatever federal regulations might be applicable in a navigable channel.

G. Gentner: Hon. Chair, just a heads-up to the member way down on the end. I think I'm done on lands. There should be a drum roll as we leave chapter 4.

S. Fraser: With that, I believe we are finished our questioning on chapter 4, unless there are others in the House that I'm not aware of. We could move on to chapter 5.

S. Fraser: Chapter 5: "Land title." Three sections: "Registration of Tsawwassen lands and other Tsawwassen lands," "Cancellation of indefeasible title" and, of course, "Amendment to the Land Title Act."

I'm going to make an assumption here, just to do this very quickly, that this is pretty much boilerplate consistent with the changes necessary under the Land Title Act. Can I get a confirmation from the minister, to be expedient, that this is indeed the intent of this. The purpose of this is consistent with Nisga'a, with Maa-nulth — that this is just a necessary part of this treaty in addressing the land title issue.

Hon. M. de Jong: I think I can accede to the member's desire not to complicate this, but I will just say this by way of summary for the chapter. It's designed to ensure that on effective date, all of the Tsawwassen lands and all of the other Tsawwassen lands will be registered in the provincial land title office. This captures the mechanism by which that happens. We were concerned and are concerned, and this chapter addresses the concern of ensuring the ongoing integrity of the provincial land title office system.

The other thing that will be of note is the fact that operating within that land title system there will be a notation on the lands, so the casual observer or the interested party that visits the land title office or does a search will know that these lands are part of the treaty settlement lands or other lands and that there may be specific and unique conditions attached to them.

I think the short answer is yes. This is designed to facilitate the incorporation of these lands into the provincial land title system, and that's at the heart of the provisions that are here.

S. Fraser: Thanks for the clarification. I'm assuming that this is a process that would be used presumably in

future treaties. It's very similar. The adoption of this section would just be a necessary part of dealing with the land titles issue on any treaty that comes before this House.

If that's a safe assumption, I'm going to…. Well, I'll wait and see to make sure it is a safe assumption. Then I would be prepared to move on to the next chapter.

Hon. M. de Jong: Generally speaking, that's true. First nations have a choice, though. For first nations that decide — and negotiate with the parties — that they wish to avail themselves of the land titles system, this would be the mechanism, or a reasonable facsimile thereof, by which they would do that.

But first nations can negotiate around the option of creating a self-administered land title system, too, for all or a portion of their lands. But where they have opted as the Tsawwassen have done, this would be essentially the model one would follow for doing it.

S. Fraser: I shall try to be as brief as I was with chapter 5. The only question that comes to mind here, when I went through this chapter, starting with section 13, "Provincial initiatives and land use processes," and following through to the end — section 16.a and 16.b….

I'm wondering…. There are existing initiatives out that are available to municipal governments throughout the province. There are a number of bills, for instance. I think they were Bills 6, 7 and 8. Last year, they were dealing with trusts that were set up — $50 million trusts available to municipal governments, for instance.

Would anything in sections 13 through 16 allow for an inclusion, post-treaty, of first nations governments into the advisory committees of those trusts?

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for the question. He has effectively zeroed in on an issue that was of prime importance to the Tsawwassen First Nation, and that was the comfort — more than the comfort; the specified guarantee — they sought to ensure that they would not be prejudiced moving forward by virtue of the fact they had signed this agreement.

These paragraphs, these sections within chapter 6, speak to the Tsawwassen First Nation's ongoing ability to participate in and benefit from relations or programs involving Canada, B.C. or a third party. For example, specifically, the Tsawwassen First Nation didn't want to be precluded from participating in programming associated with the new relationship here in B.C. or from other programs of general application that might be sponsored by the province or Canada.

This goes to the heart of that concern and also goes to emphasize that what this agreement is doing, in part, is to create, in and of itself, a new relationship between the Tsawwassen First Nation and government — a relationship that's ongoing in the same way that virtually every other community in the province and the country has an ongoing relationship with the other levels of government. That will be equally true of the Tsawwassen.

The member has correctly, as I say, pointed to the sections of the agreement that were very important to them and important to us.

S. Fraser: That's a positive step, I think. I know in this House we did debate, I think it was, Bills 6, 7 and 8 at the time. They were the three different trust models totalling $150 million. We did note, from this side of the House, that when they were set up, first nations did not have representation on the advisory committees of those trusts, which we thought was an oversight. Actually, we did provide friendly amendments for these, and I think we even called division on that. Those amendments failed.

To this day there's no requirement for first nations participation in those advisory committees of the trust. If this in any way cracks that door open, I think that might be a step in the right direction. Maybe that would be perceived as a gratuitous comment on my part, but so be it. With that, I have no further questions on chapter 6.

B. Lekstrom: Just one question to the minister. Under chapter 6, "Land management," section 1 states: "Tsawwassen Government may make laws in respect of…." I would like to ask the minister about section 1.g. It says they may make laws in regards to "expropriation for public purposes or public works by Tsawwassen First Nation of estates or interests in Tsawwassen Lands, if Tsawwassen First Nation provides fair compensation to the owner" or other estate or interest.

Would that include fee simple land held by non-members, or is that a possibility?

Hon. M. de Jong: The power of expropriation that he has identified in the section would extend to all treaty settlement lands irrespective of how they might subsequently be apportioned or assigned or sold. All treaty settlement lands would be subject to that power of expropriation.

I read further in section 2 that talks about how, despite subclause 1.g, they may not expropriate, and we talk about the interests of Canada or British Columbia. I believe it goes on in a, b and c.

Further down, though, in section 5 — I'm just looking for clarification here — it says: "A Tsawwassen Law made under clause 1 prevails to the extent of a Conflict with a Federal or Provincial Law." Does section 5 supersede section 2?

S. Simpson: I just have a couple of questions, and then I know my colleagues have questions. In regard to

clauses 23 and 24, "Dikes and flood protection," page 55, I read by this that the Tsawwassen First Nation will be the diking authority here.

Could the minister confirm as to whether the provincial government will, as it does with other regional districts or municipal governments, be making financial contributions to those improvements around dikes and flood protection?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm talking now post–effective date. The Tsawwassen First Nation would be entitled to apply to both the federal and provincial governments as other communities do.

I'm not making a funding commitment here as part of this discussion. But certainly there's nothing in this agreement that would serve as an impediment to them making application as other communities do.

S. Simpson: So they would make applications in the same manner that another municipality might or a regional district might do improvements. We know that the demand is always greater than the supply of resources around these questions, around dikes and flood protection. I know the government has recently put in some additional resources towards this, but I think we know that probably won't be enough. The amount of money that's been put up, the additional resources, won't cover the demands.

Will the criteria for decisions about their applications basically be the same criteria and the same measurement as for any other community, or are there other considerations around this based on this treaty?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think it would. It would be a case of a community making application, and my expectation is that it would be dealt with as other applications are.

The member is correct. Notwithstanding the significant uplift in resources that have been made available, this past spring we all had a scare. There is a desire to address this element of infrastructure, and it's going to take cooperation at the local, provincial and federal level to do it properly, looking into the future.

S. Simpson: Just one last question on this. In most of those cases, I just think about ones where I've read about applications. The local communities come up. They put together a budget and a plan as the authority in their given area, see how much money they need to put on the table as a local government, and then come looking to the province and the federal government for resources to match that in some way.

So that would be the same process. The TFN would be expected to put whatever dollars is the local share on the table and then come looking for matching dollars. I believe that's kind of the formula.

Hon. M. de Jong: That was certainly how the scenario played out this past spring, where everyone contributed. I think the desire, actually, is to try and get ahead of this and examine some other ways of coordinating the effort.

But the member is right. It will take a contribution from communities, from the province and from the federal government to ensure that we've got the flood protection infrastructure that is appropriate and that we need.

M. Karagianis: I would actually like to go back to the beginning of this chapter, if I may. I know we're jumping around a bit, but I wanted to ask some questions around the first number of sections here.

I note that in the general introduction of this chapter, it talks about local boundary roads to the centre line — Tsawwassen roads. Local roads are part of the Tsawwassen lands and owned by the Tsawwassen First Nation. It goes on to talk about the powers that the Tsawwassen government has over those and the expectation of their road maintenance.

Can the minister tell me what condition any of the roads were in, which were awarded in this treaty, and whether there were negotiations on upgrades to any of those roads to ensure what their condition was prior to the treaty allowing the Tsawwassen community to take over those responsibilities?

Hon. M. de Jong: I can't speak authoritatively to the actual condition of the boundary roads. What I can say is that as part and parcel of the discussion, the negotiation, there have been no additional assurances given regarding — I think the member used the term — road upgrades. There are no arrangements of that sort in advance of effective date.

M. Karagianis: In section 9 it deals specifically with public access to rights-of-way, local roads, local boundary roads, and says that the public will have the same access rights as they have on comparable roads in the adjoining municipality. But I do note that in section 7, it talks about "Tsawwassen First Nation may permanently close a Tsawwassen road."

Can the minister perhaps address that discrepancy here about an assurance that the public will continue to have access but that the Tsawwassen community does have the right to close down a road if they choose?

Hon. M. de Jong: The ability that the member refers to as enumerated in section 7 of this chapter 7, as the member has pointed out, extends only to a Tsawwassen road, which is a defined term — which means it does not extend, obviously, to a boundary road. It does not extend to a local road.

I am advised that a Tsawwassen road is best thought of, firstly, as a road that is completely internal — therefore not a boundary road and essentially a road that exists now on the present Tsawwassen First Nation reserve.

I hope I've been somewhat helpful in defining the limitation around which this right set out in section 7 may be utilized.

M. Karagianis: As the minister and I have discussed earlier in the committee stage here, this agreement is, of course, in perpetuity, and certainly this language will be interpreted in the future around any new creation of local roads.

Perhaps the minister could give me more clarity on what would be the difference between a local road as it exists now and a local road as it would exist in the future when the Tsawwassen First Nation chooses to utilize their lands in a different way or to a different capacity. Where would the definition of roads be changed then?

Hon. M. de Jong: Going forward, I think much would turn on the definition that is applied. I think the member is properly referring to the roads that we don't know about yet or roads that might be constructed. First thing, I think much would turn on the definition that was applied to that road.

In general, however, it might be safe to proceed on the proposition that if the Tsawwassen First Nation were to construct a road wholly contained within their treaty settlement lands, they would probably preserve the option under section 7 of this chapter to close that road at some point if they chose to.

M. Karagianis: As I read through this chapter, later on it does refer, with respect to local roads, that before Tsawwassen First Nation seeks to close all or part of a local road to all or some types of traffic, they must do the following things. I do think, with respect, that clause 9 here, where it says that the public will have the same access…. In fact, I think that is not true.

I think, in fact, the sections preceding and following that negate that particular statement guaranteeing public access comparable to adjoining municipalities. We can see that a local road could be determined by Tsawwassen First Nation to be, for whatever reason, earmarked for closure and that then the public access is not guaranteed.

Perhaps the minister could give us some assurances from the perspective of the government on how we are going to ensure access comparable to adjoining municipalities while at the same time allowing the other clauses both preceding and following that to be true.

Hon. M. de Jong: I may have misunderstood the member, but in certain circumstances — it's not exercised particularly widely or frequently — local communities have the right to make decisions around the opening or closure of a road. I don't think it's accurate to say that in an adjoining community, decisions aren't made.

The right set out in section 7 is very limited. I want to say again on the record that "Tsawwassen road" is a defined term. "Local road" is another defined term, and "Boundary road" is another defined term. The explanation I was giving a few moments ago related exclusively to those very few roads that would fall under the category of a Tsawwassen road.

M. Karagianis: In section 10 it lays out some terms with respect to the local boundary roads: "unless Tsawwassen Government and the council of the adjoining municipality agree otherwise, the Local Boundary Road will be kept open, maintained, kept in repair and improved by both parties."

I would ask the minister: is there written agreement on this? Has the government ensured that there is a clear written agreement on how that will be provided by both parties? As anyone who deals with any kind of law knows, it's not entering the agreement that is generally problematic. It's always in enforcing an agreement or determining your way out of an agreement that often causes the most consternation.

Can the minister give us some assurance of what is written here to guarantee that equality?

Hon. M. de Jong: Not unlike the discussions that take place from time to time between adjoining municipalities, that discussion is occurring now as part of the comprehensive master agreement that is being negotiated between the Tsawwassen First Nation and the Corporation of Delta. I'm not able to advise today whether that specific issue has been resolved, but it certainly forms part of the discussion that they are having, as one might expect with adjoining communities.

M. Karagianis: I would hope that may in fact be an addendum to the legislation, because it certainly, as referred to here, would seem to me to have to be a piece of the appendix or other documents that go with this bill.

We move down into the discussion on Crown corridors, and of course, I left this discussion earlier in chapter 4 because of the ability to discuss this here. Crown corridors in this case would, I believe, only apply to one corridor through Tsawwassen First Nation. Or am I mistaken? Is there more than one Crown corridor in this agreement?

Hon. M. de Jong: I may get more information for the member in a moment, but I can alert her to the fact that Crown corridor is a defined term under the final agreement. It does mean "a road, highway or right of way, including the Road Allowance, that is on Crown land and is used for transportation or public utility purposes, including Highway #17 and Deltaport Way."

That is the defined portion of the term, and I'll ascertain whether or not I can relate any other corridors that fall within that definition.

I'm not aware of any additional corridors. I know there are some utility corridors, but my best information is that they follow the two transportation corridors that we've mentioned. I'll continue to check, and if I receive information contrary to that, I'll alert the committee.

M. Karagianis: I would remind the minister that you were also going to get some clarification on exactly the width of those corridors. Obviously, that would now include utility roads, as we discussed earlier in the day — exactly what the scope of both of those corridors is.

It says here: "On the request of Tsawwassen First Nation, British Columbia will consult with Tsawwassen First Nation in respect of the regulation of traffic and transportation on a Crown Corridor that is adjacent to Tsawwassen Lands."

Certainly in the case of the Deltaport Way corridor, this being, I would say, the most compelling Crown corridor, and its future through this community…. Can the minister tell us what obligations the Crown has beyond consultation? What obligations do they have with regard to the nature of transportation, traffic and other use of the Crown corridor?

Hon. M. de Jong: Hon. Chair, I apologize. I think the member was asking in what circumstances might the obligation to consult be triggered, but I might be mistaken. My answer on the point is to ask her again.

M. Karagianis: In fact, no. My question lies around the fact that the Crown corridor through Tsawwassen First Nation lands at this point…. The most compelling corridor, of course, is the Deltaport Way corridor. Any future expansion of that port, any development of that port will have a significant bearing on the traffic and transportation use of that corridor.

The language here says: "On the request of Tsawwassen First Nation…." So at their request, the province will consult about the future traffic and transportation in that corridor. I am just asking what obligation the Crown has or the province has to the Tsawwassen First Nation once that consultation has taken place.

Certainly, we know that you can consult and have all kinds of public discussion on things, but if there's no actual obligation to actions or lack of actions, shall we say…. For instance, if we move forward to a time when the treaty is in place and the province determines that they want to do a really dramatic increase in the scope of the Deltaport — there's a huge expansion planned — what obligation does the Crown have to the Tsawwassen First Nation around restricting traffic or transportation use on that?

A huge expansion will change that corridor considerably from what it is today, and that is going to have huge bearing on the Tsawwassen community. Other than consultation, what are the obligations that the province has within that?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the member has correctly identified the first part of this, which is that the consultations referred to in section 12 of chapter 7 are triggered merely by a request — a request by the Tsawwassen or, conversely, a request by British Columbia. I'll speak in a moment about the scenarios that might give rise to a request from either party, because the section, I'm advised, exists…. It addresses slightly different concerns by both parties.

Now, the second part of the member's question is: what does that mean? If someone makes the request, what does that trigger?

Consultation or consulting is actually a defined term within the agreement as well. It's probably as good a time as any, because we use the term a lot in these discussions and debates and it's become part of the vocabulary that goes into these debates.

In the agreement itself, consulting means provision to a party of the following things: "a. notice of a matter to be decided; b. sufficient information in respect of the matter to permit the party to prepare its views on the matter; c. a reasonable period of time to permit the party to prepare its views on the matter; d. an opportunity for the party to present its views on the matter; and e. a full and fair consideration of any views on the matter so presented by the party."

That is, in language that exists within the final agreement, the defined obligation that is triggered by section 12.

I said a moment ago that I would describe a couple of the scenarios or how this might operate differently. In the case of the Tsawwassen First Nation, I think this can be triggered well in advance, or we might see their interest in this be triggered well in advance of the major type of project that the member described. They might have an interest in how the corridor is being utilized around the transportation of dangerous goods. That in and of itself would be sufficient for a request to come from the Tsawwassen First Nation that says: "Look, we want to talk about this. We want to invoke the provisions of this section."

Similarly, the province might have an interest in decisions that the Tsawwassen First Nation would be making — perhaps land use decisions — around what, if any, impact that would have on the flow of traffic along that corridor or the operation of the corridor. There again, section 12 of the chapter says there can be a request made to have discussions, invoke the consultation provisions.

That's largely why it's here and how it's designed to operate, and it relates back, on the consultation side, to the formal definition. In some cases — in most cases, one hopes — it won't always be necessary to formalize it to that extent. But the agreement does say that when you agree to consult, you are agreeing, minimally, to the following.

M. Karagianis: Further in that vein, if we look at section 13 where it says, "Tsawwassen First Nation will Consult with British Columbia in respect of land use decisions of Tsawwassen First Nation relating to the development of Tsawwassen Lands adjacent to Crown Corridors," have there been any restrictions put on that? Have there been any discussions around any kind of restrictive action on the part of the Tsawwassen First Nation in developing the land next to Crown corridors?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'll just say to the member that I'm reviewing section 15, so my answer is going to relate to section 15, if she wants to do the same.

M. Karagianis: While the minister is taking it here, I would say that all of these sections actually work in unison, so perhaps I'll put some further questions to it while we work our way through those.

We have, first of all, the Tsawwassen First Nation triggering some kind of consultation process with their concerns around traffic and transportation on the corridor. We have the issue of consultation around development along that corridor by Tsawwassen and what, if any, restrictions the Crown would put on it. Then item 14: "British Columbia will Consult with Tsawwassen First Nation in respect of the development of any new Crown Corridor adjacent to Tsawwassen Lands."

Specifically, because we are speaking primarily about…. Admittedly, from the minister, there are only two corridors here to consider. Highway 17 had many very specific criteria laid out for it under chapter 4.

Really, in essence, the most important discussion here is the Crown corridor running right through the Tsawwassen land, which is to the port. The minister rightly has talked about section 15, where there are discussions around regulating signs and signals and the height and location of structures, so all of those work in unison. I don't think it's any secret that this provincial government has for some time really looked and talked and hoped to expand the Deltaport considerably.

All of these have huge implications on the corridor — on the Tsawwassen First Nation's ability to consult, to do business, to restrict what goes on there and, conversely, on the province's interest in what happens along that corridor on either side of it.

Then I would like the minister to talk about exactly the obligations and restrictions — in the entire package here on both sides — that are implied, inherent or unspoken in this document. I don't see any restrictions. I don't see any obligations outlined here, and I think it's a huge concern. For those people who have been waiting to see exactly what implications the Deltaport expansion will have on the treaty and, in fact, what implications the treaty will have on the Deltaport expansion, I think these are really important questions.

Hon. M. de Jong: I apologize for the delay. I'm not trying to be troublesome. I'm having a little bit of difficulty developing an answer that is respectful of the question. I think it relates to the fact…. I understand the member's interest in questions around the management of port development. I don't think I can answer those questions effectively with reference to these sections, which are designed to manage for access and, essentially, safety.

I get the link that the member makes between port development and access to the port, but I can't, in fairness, suggest to the member in this discussion that these are the mechanisms that ultimately influence or impact upon that.

M. Karagianis: Perhaps then, the minister could tell me: is there somewhere in this treaty where we could have that discussion that is not possible in this section?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, insofar as these development issues always invoke environmental questions, I think there's a discussion to be had around that and the regulatory regimes that apply.

To the extent that…. Environmental regulation. We'll certainly have an opportunity to talk about it then.

There has been speculation, though, about port development as it relates to treaty settlement lands and the possibility of a connection between the two. The member's probably not going to hear much of a different answer from me. I will continuously come back to this notion that, at the end of the day, the Tsawwassen First Nation will make decisions about the use of Tsawwassen settlement lands.

That may invoke some other issues around environmental management, but around land use decisions involving these Tsawwassen lands, treaty settlement lands, the agreement in its entirety is designed to vest, to the greatest extent possible — subject to the caveats I've made about environmental management and such things — decision-making authority for that with the Tsawwassen themselves.

M. Karagianis: Well, I have to say that it's very disappointing to know that in the only section I could find in the treaty and in this bill that actually pertains to the Crown corridor — which is, I think, pretty fundamental to both the current Deltaport and any future expansion — that the minister is unable to answer any questions about Deltaport expansion and the only thing that applies to it.

I'll go back to my original question here, which is any obligations or restrictions, either on the part of the province during the consultation process…. Tsawwassen First Nation will consult with us — with the Crown, with British Columbia — with respect to land use decisions. It would seem to me that all of the building blocks are here for discussion on potential expansion in the future of the Deltaport.

I don't see anything here that allows restrictions for either party on land use, on expansion, on the future of this corridor. What the minister is saying is that the Crown corridor, which is the one piece of transportation infrastructure that is untouchable…. In fact, in the earlier discussion we had a lengthy discussion on the fact that Highway 17 could potentially be divested, could be devolved. There was all kinds of legislative language around that.

Yet here we have a Crown corridor that's untouchable. This will not be devolved. This in no way had any

kind of protected language around how that might occur. The province has been very, very clear that there will never be devolution of this within the life of this treaty.

I would have to say to the minister that it's just unsatisfactory that the province itself would not have seen fit to put some restrictions, some safeguards for the future. As we've discussed over and over again, this is in perpetuity. The language here will be the basis for all future activities on that corridor.

It's no secret that expansion is on the province's mind. This has been long debated and public knowledge for some time. I'm not of any illusion whatsoever that we are not going to see Deltaport expansion occur sooner or later within the boundaries of the Tsawwassen lands here.

If the government cannot show us that there are any obligations or restrictions around the one piece of untouchable corridor here, then I would have to ask why. Something that was as carefully thought out and as carefully negotiated as this…. I can't for one minute believe that the province didn't take into consideration the long-term implications along this corridor and for the port expansion.

Perhaps the minister could reassure us that there's at least been some concern given to some kind of restrictions on the part of both parties involved in this corridor and to the long-term implications it will have when this expansion takes place, because I have no doubt that it will. If there is absolutely no protection for either party in this, I'd be astounded by that.

So no obligations, no restrictions listed here, and the minister seemingly can't talk about it in relationship to port expansion. I don't accept that. I'd like to know what restrictions, if any, are going to be expected on the part of either party.

Hon. M. de Jong: I accept unconditionally that the concerns the member is articulating are heartfelt and genuine, but I do not share her interpretation of these provisions of the agreement. Therefore, I'm hard-pressed to respond. I've done so to the best of my ability, but I simply don't share her interpretation of these provisions.

C. Wyse: To begin with, it's indeed my pleasure for the first time to get up at committee stage with regards to this bill and its significance. I'm anticipating that my questions will be relatively brief. They will cover sections 1 through 11, and depending upon the answer that I receive to that item, most of my questions are going to be centred around chapter 17 and local government.

However, returning to chapter 7 with sections 1 through 11, not being a lawyer, I'm looking for the explanation of the intentions of sections 1 through 11. My question, then, to the minister is: will he assure me that sections 1 through 11 give no differences to the Tsawwassen First Nation government than what local government would have around the local roads as defined through these 11 sections?

Hon. M. de Jong: We can start here. They are generally designed to provide for the Tsawwassen First Nation and Tsawwassen First Nation government a level of authority comparable to a community in British Columbia around the creation and maintenance of roads. We had a discussion earlier, for example, about boundary roads where the Tsawwassen will come together with Delta and develop a protocol for the maintenance of those roads. So they are, in general, designed to bestow a similar authority and create a similar circumstance and ability.

C. Wyse: I thank the minister for his response. Possibly a follow-up question will assist here also. There are certain rights and responsibilities that are extended through such things as access through roads to whoever those individuals may be.

Likewise, included underneath dedication of roads, is ensuring guarantees through the province that these accesses are not removed without going through a process that is set down by provincial law. What I'm looking for in using that example is: are there any different authorities granted to the Tsawwassen First Nation government, for example, that would allow them to shut down a road or remove a dedicated road or a dedicated road right-of-way that is listed without approval, as would be required by a local government here in British Columbia?

Hon. M. de Jong: Again, I apologize for the delay. I'll try to give as accurate information as possible.

Again, the intention in the provisions we're dealing with was to provide a comparable level of authority to the Tsawwassen First Nation in dealing with Crown corridors and highways and roadways. I have sought an indication of anything that would stand out as a glaring difference from the kinds of authorities that are provided for in the Community Charter. The best advice I have and can relay to the member is that the intention here was to create a comparable level of authority to other communities in the province.

C. Wyse: I don't wish to belabour the item, but when I look at sections 2 and 3 and then look at section 11.b, that's where the question comes from. It's the combination of sections 2 and 3 and then when I look at section 11.b. Is it the interpretation of those sections that the provincial law will supersede what transpires underneath section 11?

Hon. M. de Jong: I hope I'm not being too general in my reply. The upshot and the effect — the intention, I should say — of sections 9 through 11 of this chapter are to ensure that the Tsawwassen First Nation will provide the same kind of access to local roads, and that's a defined term under the agreement, and local boundary roads, again a defined term under the agreement, as the public has in an adjoining municipality.

The provisions that we are dealing with here at the moment are designed to provide for a similar process for harmonization and transparency to that required

for local government. The analogy or the proposition that the member began with about comparability between this and a local government is, I think, again valid and emphasized here.

C. Wyse: I'd like to thank the minister for his time on this item. This being an urban treaty, there are questions that will be somewhat similar to this, and there will be more of them along that line when we get into the section on local government.

At this moment I would then turn it over to my colleague, who will have other questions.

G. Gentner: We're still on "Access," chapter 7. Before I go in to follow up some questions on dikes and flooding, perhaps the minister can guide me through. I'm still looking for access relative to water and sewage or septic. Is there somewhere in the treaty where that's referred to?

Hon. M. de Jong: When we get to the chapter dealing with local government, we'll have an opportunity to canvass those issues.

Hon. Chair, just for the record, we have to understand that there's an integrated and complex diking and flood protection infrastructure in the land that Delta currently holds. It's going to be turned over to the TFN.

There is a pump station at Brandrith. Pump station L-306 is located on north of Tsawwassen Drive and Eagle Way. The main ditches and canals of Brandrith catchment, which are tributary to L-306, are located along 48th Street and along 16th Avenue east and south of Highway 17.

There's also what's known as the Delta pump station, L-0304, located on the north side of Deltaport Way. The main ditches and canals are tributaries that feed into, of course, the Roberts Bank.

My understanding is that the Corporation of Delta operates the pump stations and discharge capacities, as well, on these two major pump stations. They serve as significant tributary ditches and canals not only for the farmers for irrigation but for habitat functions. At some locations these are hand-operated control gates, and during the growing seasons, the gates are manipulated to impound a supply of water for crop irrigation.

The question is clearly this: when these lands are transferred over, who's going to operate these gates and provide irrigation for the farming infrastructure in South Delta?

Hon. M. de Jong: The information I can relay to the member is…. I'm advised that under the terms of the agreement it is understood that the Corporation of Delta — I hope we're talking about the same pumping station — will continue to operate the pumping station and gate. That access is provided for in a couple of ways. One, in the appendices, is a specific access provision or right-of-way. The second is by virtue of the general provisions contained in section 26 in this chapter 7.

G. Gentner: Will Delta be compensated for the loss of this infrastructure once it's moved into the purview of the TFN?

Hon. M. de Jong: My information is that Delta will continue to own the actual infrastructure, the improvements.

The Chair: The Chair is going to call a five-minute health break. We will reconvene at five after five.

G. Gentner: It's great to start again. I'm really looking forward to moving quickly so that we get to chapter 9 and hear the wonderful stories about fisheries and witness across the other side the re-emergence of the Reform Party when they discuss fisheries in this province.

There'll be a greater wedge on the other side, hon. Chair. This is the beginning of the third-party option for British Columbia.

G. Gentner: Under flood and storm protection, I want to talk briefly about what's being proposed here on displacement of water. My understanding is that the elevation of Highway 17 is considerably lower than the elevation of three metres below sea level.

I'm reading a report from Fletcher and Co., which did a community planning study for the first nation in 2003. They are suggesting that if there's any new development on the said lands — we're not even talking about the new territory — a comprehensive floodproofing project is therefore needed to involve considerable diking additional to what is there today.

My question is: when or if — and we went through the development part in a previous chapter — there is

some development and increased capacity on the diking system, who will be held responsible now that the TFN has taken over this land that has quite a complicated system of diking and ditches? Who will be held liable here if there is any flooding? Will it be the province, the TFN or Delta?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the short answer is that the provisions of sections 23 and 24 of chapter 7 will operate and provide the answer to that question.

G. Gentner: I just have one or two more questions. I know we have an anxious Forests critic who wants to parley.

What's interesting, too, is recently in Delta there's been the emergence of concern of the high-voltage transmission lines, which come under the Crown corridors, so to speak. I'm just wondering, with what I've read in the provisions of the treaty, will this allow the B.C. Transmission Corporation to use that corridor in any way it wants — although there would be some consultation with TFN — to make improvements to existing transmission lines along Highway 17?

The provisions do allow for the maintenance of the corridor. It allows for improvements to be made to the corridor. It is not unfettered or unlimited, so it would not be accurate to say: "They can do anything they want." It does allow for maintenance and improvements, but changes trigger certain obligations, particularly with respect to consultation.

G. Gentner: I take from that answer that there could be improvements undergone along Highway 17 for a transmission line over and above 325 kV, which is the standard that's now being applied to the other suggested corridor along the southern portion of Tsawwassen. Does this also apply to the Crown corridor on Deltaport Way? My understanding is there is a transmission line there as well.

Hon. M. de Jong: Just to check with the member…. I think his question related specifically to the Deltaport corridor? He's indicating that that is so.

Therefore, the answer I can provide to him is that, subject only to the provisions that we have dealt with in this debate, which relate to the triggering of consultation obligations with respect to changes or alterations along the corridor, the treaty is largely silent with respect to the type of improvements — if that is the word that the member used — that I think he's referring to.

B. Simpson: Chapter 8 is the chapter on "Forest resources." The general statement states that the "Tsawwassen First Nation owns all Forest Resources on Tsawwassen Lands and Other Tsawwassen Lands set out in Appendix E-2."

My question to the minister is: how many hectares of productive forest land will the Tsawwassen First Nation now own as a result of this agreement?

Hon. M. de Jong: The information that I have and can relay to the member is that there are presently no economically viable forests for harvest on Tsawwassen lands.

B. Simpson: Just as a general question then: is this chapter simply a boilerplate chapter for future first nations who may sign off on a treaty and who do have substantive forest lands or forest resources?

Hon. M. de Jong: It might be more accurate to say that the provisions are here largely for two reasons. One is to anticipate the possibility that the Tsawwassen may seek to acquire viable commercial forest lands. If not that, then the reference to the forestry fund, which I think the member notes is included in the chapter, is also there. That's probably more unique to this final agreement than perhaps any other.

B. Simpson: If I understand correctly, then…. If, post-treaty, the Tsawwassen First Nation acquire forest lands or purchase a tree farm licence, for example, somewhere on the coast…. I think there might be one up for sale in the Kootenays shortly. TFL 23 is going to come up for sale by Pope and Talbot shortly.

If the Tsawwassen buy tree farm licence 23 in the Kootenays, is the minister suggesting that that would now be covered under this treaty?

Hon. M. de Jong: Two restrictions on the proposition advanced by the member. First of all, the lands would have to ultimately be included within the treaty settlement lands, and the only lands that would qualify for that are lands that might be located within the statement-of-intent area that the Tsawwassen originally filed.

The type of scenario that the member advanced regarding a purchase elsewhere in the province doesn't really come into play in this chapter.

Within the statement of intent, is there the possibility of acquiring substantial forest lands?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think I want to test the proposition a little bit. From whose perspective?

Within the statement-of-intent area there is certainly forest land, so is the member asking me to comment on the interests or the wherewithal that the Tsawwassen have? I'll be hard-pressed to do that.

I think within the original statement-of-intent area there is probably some commercially viable forest out there. I'm not certain, though, what the interest of the Tsawwassen might be. Maybe the member could tell me a little bit more.

B. Simpson: What I'm curious about is: is there sufficient timberland to warrant the inclusion of a chapter on forest resources in a treaty that the minister has admitted, as it stands just now, this chapter does not apply to?

Hon. M. de Jong: Here is a possible scenario that the section would be applicable for. After the expiration of 50 years — which is a different provision elsewhere that governs the adhesion of newly acquired lands to the treaty settlement lands — if the Tsawwassen were to identify, for example, somewhere in their statement-of-intent area, which I can remind the member goes…. There's a map at appendix A in the schedule.

Perhaps they identified a woodlot. If in those circumstances they sought to — or any other private forested land…. The member is correct. There's not a lot in the statement-of-intent area. They would then have the option of making application. If Canada, the province and the host municipality — if the land is situated within a municipality — agreed, then in those circumstances that private forest land could be added to the Tsawwassen settlement lands, and then these provisions would kick in.

B. Simpson: I just want to refer back, because I have difficulty either way. Either they have forested lands and the potential forested lands within the intent area to warrant having laws in this section that are not simply there as a boilerplate for the Maa-nulth or other treaties, or they can add lands that come in and then come under these stipulations in the treaty.

I'm reading chapter 4, "Addition to or removal from Tsawwassen lands." Clause 36 says: "Tsawwassen First Nation may add lands that it owns in fee simple to Tsawwassen Lands, in accordance with clauses 37 through 49…."

I can't find anything in 37 through 49 that precludes the Tsawwassen from buying TFL 23 in the Kootenays. If they buy the private lands from there or whatever, they hold them in fee simple. Where does it say in chapter 4 "an exclusion on fee simple lands anywhere else in the province"?

Hon. M. de Jong: The restriction that I think the member is looking for is contained at section 45 of chapter 4. It is the restriction that relates to the addition of lands to the treaty settlement lands. That is the restriction that operates in the way I described.

B. Simpson: Section 45 reads: "After the 50-year period referred to in clause 42…." That's what the minister was referring to? Again, my question remains. "…British Columbia will consider a request by Tsawwassen First Nation to add land, including any parcel of the Specified Lands, to Tsawwassen Lands if: Tsawwassen First Nation owns the land in fee simple…."

If I understand the minister correctly, that only applies to the specified lands and not to any fee simple lands held by the Tsawwassen First Nation at that time.

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm going to refer the member again to section 45, but to section 45.b, which speaks specifically to land that is within the Tsawwassen territory, which is itself defined.

B. Simpson: Because of time constraints, I'll move on. But it's my understanding that what the minister is saying just now is that as it stands now, this section on forest resources, at least through 5, doesn't apply because there aren't substantive forested lands at this juncture.

Hon. M. de Jong: There is a second scenario that may have been more relevant to the discussion on the inclusion, and that is the possibility that the Tsawwassen may take a portion of their lands and choose to grow trees commercially. In that case, you would also see the possibility of these provisions being invoked.

B. Simpson: The minister saved us from quipping that maybe that's what the Tsawwassen might have to do.

With respect to section 5, however, I want clarification that whatever the circumstances may be when the Tsawwassen do acquire lands that fit the constraints, when chapter 8 comes into play…. Section 5 talks about the fact that provincial and federal laws would apply as if they were private lands and that the export constraints will apply as if these were granted before March 12, 1906.

For the record, would the minister clarify the nature of the log export constraints on private lands granted before March 12, 1906? What are those explicit restrictions?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm going to provide in general terms what I believe the answer to be. In these circumstances, on pre-1906, the conventional restrictions that have applied on log exports would not apply. That's a general statement, and if there are exceptions to that, then I may want to provide additional information. But in general, that is the significance of the 1906 date.

B. Simpson: The minister should be aware of that, because that's what he relegated all the lands in Port Alberni to when he released the private lands from TFLs 39 and 44 when he was Forests Minister. He should know that it means completely unrestricted log exports from those lands.

My question to the minister again is: is this a boilerplate for future treaties, in which future first nations with substantive forest lands will also have completely unconstrained log exports from those lands, as this clause gives the TFN?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm always reluctant, in the context of treaty negotiations, to use terms like "template" and "boilerplate." The member will be able, hopefully in a few short weeks, to revisit the issue in a scenario where there are forest lands involved.

As I think we've both established through this conversation, it's not overly relevant insofar as the Tsawwassen situation is concerned, but he may want

to revisit it in terms of the Maa-nulth final agreements that we hope will be before this House in a few weeks.

Again, the minister is well aware of this because he was involved in these. Forest and range agreements used a per-head calculation of about $500 to give cash upfront to first nations to sign these agreements. There's now much dispute as to how effective they are.

In the case of the Tsawwassen First Nation, clause 6 in chapter 8 states that there's a fund to be established with an approximate value of $106,000. What was the calculation, or where is the number that's used here derived from? On what basis was it formulated?

Hon. M. de Jong: It was very much a product of the negotiation. I can advise the member that there was no attempt in the course of those negotiations to relate it to a forest and range opportunity agreement. It was designed to provide some modest means by which the Tsawwassen First Nation could explore opportunities in forestry, limited as they are in this area of the province.

S. Fraser: To the minister and to the House: I think we have completed this chapter, and we are ready to move on to chapter 9, "Fisheries."

R. Austin: I'd like to ask a few questions, and I'd like to start with a general question on fisheries. It pertains to the fact that the Tsawwassen First Nation, of course, sits at the mouth of the Fraser River, a large river system that has multiple first nations who have interests in fisheries right up the river. I'd like to know what level of consultation has taken place with other first nations who live further up the Fraser River.

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm going to try and answer this in two parts, and I'm sure we'll get into it in more detail. First of all, with respect to the constitutional entitlement that the Tsawwassen First Nation has, I think the member knows that is fairly self-evident and is dealt with in the treaty.

Beyond that, I think the member is referring to some of the allocations that have been set out in the subsequent harvest agreement that was tabled in the House. I think it's fair to say or appropriate to point out that those are not exclusive entitlements. They remain as part of an overall fishery managed by the federal officials. So that distinction is important. As we move through the sections in entitlement, it will help me — and I see the member nodding, so I appreciate that — if he will differentiate between the two. That might assist us in terms of our discussion.

First of all, dealing with section 4 under chapter 9, where it talks about the right for the Tsawwassen people to trade and barter fish and aquatic plants…." I wonder if I might be informed as to what Supreme Court of Canada decisions were used in giving in on that particular chapter, where they have the right to trade and barter in fish, given the Supreme Court of Canada's two decisions that said they did not have the right to trade and barter in fish.

Was there a Supreme Court of Canada decision that overruled that? There are two decisions — one is the Van der Peet decision, and one is the Smokehouse decision — that said the natives do not have the right to trade and barter in fish. I wonder what we looked at when we permitted that to come into the treaty.

Hon. M. de Jong: The Crown, the government, receives a wide range of advice on matters such as this — much of it legal advice, much of it constitutional interpretation. But I'm not in a position in this chamber, in this committee, to provide this member or the committee with the details of that wide-ranging legal advice that we receive.

D. MacKay: The Supreme Court of Canada decisions. Obviously, those two decisions — the Smokehouse and Van der Peet decisions — were not considered at all during….

They must have been considered. I was curious as to what other Supreme Court of Canada decisions would have come down, given that it's the highest court in the land, so I will hopefully get an answer to that later.

My final question under chapter 9 deals with section 23, Tsawwassen allocations, and I've got the appendix J2 that talks about the…. I'm going to be specific to the sockeye salmon.

D. MacKay: Section 23 in chapter 7 deals with the Tsawwassen allocations. Tsawwassen allocations for fish and aquatic plants are set out in appendix J2. J2 talks about the allocation for different fish and aquatic plants for the Tsawwassen band.

I'm curious as to what was used in the determination of the amount of sockeye salmon that would be allocated to the Tsawwassen band. Is it the number of people who live on the reserve now? What considerations were taken into account when the allocation of so many sockeye…? If the sockeye salmon is 500,000 or less, 1 percent of the Canadian total allowable catch would be allocated to the Tsawwassen band.

I wonder if you could explain to me what process was used in coming up with those allocation tables.

Hon. M. de Jong: I'll preface my remarks with the observation that in terms of a negotiation, as the member will probably appreciate, the lead agency for this would have been the federal negotiators and the federal Department of Fisheries.

The best information I can give to the member is to confirm that in advancing and settling upon the numbers that relate to the ceremonial food-fish component

included within the treaty, the negotiators examined historic overall harvest levels. They would have factored in historic ceremonial food-fish harvest levels by the Tsawwassen First Nation itself and tried to take somewhat into account the possibility for future growth of the band. But that potential for growth is also capped at a certain level.

Those would have been, broadly speaking, the factors that would have been at play in settling upon the numbers, and there are corresponding numbers that go with the percentages, based on historical averages for both the overall harvest and the Tsawwassen ceremonial food-fish component of that harvest.

D. MacKay: Does this include or exclude the commercial fishing component? I'm assuming some of the Tsawwassen people probably have commercial licences. I realize it's a federal issue, but I would assume that the province was at the table at the same time these negotiations were underway.

The 1 percent if the return is 500,000 or less — do they take into consideration the commercial aspect of this fishery?

Hon. M. de Jong: This is exclusive of that. This is purely the ceremonial and food-fish component.

R. Austin: Staying on the topic of a ceremonial food fishery, which I believe is a historic right of the TFN to partake in, could the minister tell me: on an annual basis over the last ten years, what has been the historic Tsawwassen harvest for food for social and ceremonial purposes — specific to the relation of the species of salmon, crab and bivalves — as a number, as a quantity?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm concerned about providing authoritative numbers when I may not be in a position to do so. I can endeavour to obtain that information for the member. I think he's looking for specific numbers, and I would be dealing in a little more generality than I think would be helpful for him.

Could I ask the minister, then…. I take it the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans will take care of this aspect of it. But how will they ensure that the fish shipped out underneath the food, social and ceremonial purposes is used within the allowances for trade and barter and is not sold or exchanged for commercially marketable products?

Hon. M. de Jong: To the member: I can advise him that as at July 16, 2007, the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans announced that it was moving ahead with developing protocols with the commercial fishery, British Columbia and other agencies and stakeholders to develop a specific approach and to implement what they term a traceability program for caught fish.

I'm not sure how much more I can help the member in terms of the details on what that traceability program would look like, but it does seem to have been something that the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans was specifically turning its mind to as at July of this year.

R. Austin: Having been at the tripart negotiations on this agreement, will the province be there to ensure that the federal government fulfils that mandate? We have serious problems, not just on the Fraser River but all over the province, with regards to the federal government not putting in place the necessary people on the ground to do the kind of enforcement that they say they're going to do.

Is there any assurance from the provincial government that that kind of enforcement will be there?

Hon. M. de Jong: The member is right. We all have an interest in effective management of the fishery, and that engages officials at all levels and requires cooperation. As I'm sure the member would agree, it will be another aspect of the relationship that is formed with the Tsawwassen First Nation because of their new status and the role they will play. So it'll very much, ultimately, be a tripartite exercise.

R. Austin: I realize that it will still be a tripartite exercise, but am I right in saying that DFO will still be the primary enforcement agency for everything that's in chapter 9? Is that correct?

R. Austin: It recognizes in chapter 9 that the location of the Tsawwassen First Nation, being on the mouth of the Fraser River, is not necessarily a good place for them to have an intertidal bivalve fishery.

Looking at the map that is here, map J1, I'd just like to ask why it is that Galiano, Mayne and Saturna islands are indicated as appropriate places for the Tsawwassen First Nation to engage in a shellfish fishery, but not Saltspring Island or North Pender Island. I'm just wondering why that is, because those two islands are also in their traditional territory.

Hon. M. de Jong: To the member: I don't think he used this term, so I will, just to clarify and emphasize it in my answer. He is referring to negotiated rights but non-exclusive rights, so that the opportunity to gather and harvest the bivalves — the clams — is not granted exclusively to the Tsawwassen First Nation. The member didn't suggest that they were, but I wanted to emphasize that fact.

It was ultimately a product of a negotiation, and the parties eventually came to an agreement that having an ability to share in the harvest in these areas would meet the needs of the Tsawwassen First Nation. Canada and British Columbia were prepared and did sign off on that, as well, as being acceptable.

R. Austin: So let me get this straight. For the three islands of Galiano, Mayne and Saturna — those islands, then, are exclusively for the rights of the Tsawwassen First Nation in terms of shellfish? No? Okay. Could you please expand? I didn't quite understand that.

Hon. M. de Jong: Sorry. The fault is undoubtedly mine because apparently I conveyed precisely the opposite of what I intended to convey. It is a non-exclusive entitlement on those islands.

R. Austin: What's the difference then between Galiano, Mayne and Saturna as opposed to Saltspring and North Pender?

Hon. M. de Jong: The Tsawwassen First Nation will not have the same rights on those islands that they have on the previous three that the member mentioned.

R. Austin: Seeing as those two islands are still in their overall territory, was that negotiated because of conflict with other first nations on Vancouver Island?

H. Lali: Visiting us here in the visiting galleries up top is Chief Byron Spinks of the Lytton First Nation. This is his 14th year as Chief of the Lytton First Nation. He's here to listen to the debate on the Tsawwassen First Nation treaty that was signed. More specifically, he wanted to actually hear the debate on the fisheries, and it so happened he arrived at just the right time to be able to hear that.

Hon. M. de Jong: What's more, he's arrived as we are discussing bivalves, which must have him on the edge of his seat as well.

Two things that I can advise the member of insofar as the determination of the areas. One, I think I already said — essentially a product of a negotiation. I'm told that the opportunity to harvest clams, bivalves, doesn't exist in the traditional fishing area because of contaminants. So the question then in part became: where else within the statement-of-intent traditional area might we enshrine that entitlement in the treaty? It ultimately seemed logical to all three parties, perhaps for reasons of access, to look at the three islands that face Georgia Strait.

But I want to go back to my first point. There was ultimately a conversation and discussion around what the entitlement would entail, what the requirements would be and how many people historically within the Tsawwassen First Nation have been involved. That ultimately led to the decision that is captured by the provisions contained within the treaty and the schedule around the three islands.

R. Austin: If applications are made for shellfish aquaculture on these three islands, does the Tsawwassen First Nation have to go through the same process as any other group in our society who choose to make an application for shellfish aquaculture?

Hon. M. de Jong: I've just quickly reviewed paragraphs 108 through 110 of this chapter 9, which speak fairly specifically to the issue the member has raised — the opportunity to make application for that kind of tenure and the process that would follow in terms of processing the application for that type of tenure.

R. Austin: There's quite a large section with regards to shellfish or bivalve aquaculture, but very little on finfish aquaculture. Can I ask the minister: was there any discussion in the negotiations with regards to finfish aquaculture? And in the future, would the Tsawwassen First Nation be able to set up finfish sites within their traditional territory?

Hon. M. de Jong: There are no entitlements contained within the provisions of this agreement. Any application that the Tsawwassen First Nation would choose to bring would follow the usual course of such applications.

R. Austin: Did the Tsawwassen First Nation show any interest in opening up finfish sites in their traditional territory?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm going to say this. My information is that it didn't come up, but I am really reluctant to begin to speculate on what may or may not have been in the minds of another negotiating party. In this case, I'll say that my best information is that it didn't come up. But I don't want to begin to speculate about what a party may or may not have been interested in or may have compromised on or may have pursued or not pursued.

R. Austin: With regards to the allocation for the commercial aspect of the Tsawwassen First Nation treaty…. I realize that the price of fish varies from year to year, but can you give me a range as to what this percentage of the commercial fishery would be worth to the Tsawwassen First Nation?

Hon. M. de Jong: At the time the final agreement was initialled, I recall that we had released what I thought was that part of the package of material which contained some information about what would happen in an average year.

As it turns out, I'm reminded that that related to the ceremonial food-fish component. The challenge with the harvest agreement in part, as the member knows, is

that it's built around a percentage entitlement, and it fluctuates so wildly. In a given year where a fishery is closed…. And that, sadly, has been not all that uncommon.

I can check, but I don't know that I've got at my disposal any prognostications on even what the volumes would be, let alone what that might translate into value-wise. I'll check, but I don't think I have it, and I certainly don't have it here at the moment. But I'll undertake to check and, if I can come up with something, relay it on to the member.

R. Austin: The money that's being set aside to purchase the quota of the commercial fishery that's being allocated to the Tsawwassen First Nations — is that sum sufficient to pay for it entirely? If it isn't, where does the extra money come from in order to be able to purchase that quota from the Fraser commercial fishery?

Hon. M. de Jong: Generally speaking, I think the answer is yes. It may be helpful — again, for reasons of precision — if the member is able to point to the particular part of the harvest agreement or the particular section. There are a couple of different scenarios laid out.

I'm told and advised and can advise the member that by virtue of what has taken place in terms of some licences that have already been acquired, people are proceeding on the basis that, in general, it is sufficient to meet that objective. But I'm cautious about being any more precise than that unless we narrow the scope with respect to either the harvest agreement or the section in the chapter.

R. Austin: If this agreement is to be used as an example for future agreements with other first nations further up the river, and this allocation or this harvest agreement has been based on the population of the Tsawwassen First Nation community, does the minister envisage difficulty and challenges in fulfilling the ability of the government to bring other first nations into treaty and to settle treaties, recognizing that there are many first nations further up the river who will look at this treaty and say: "Okay, if there are 300 members, and this is the kind of allocation they got towards the commercial fishery, maybe then when we're going to negotiate at the table, because we are two or three times the population, we can get a much larger portion of the commercial fishery"?

Does the minister have any comments to make with regards to how this treaty will affect future treaty negotiations further up the river? I bring this up only because if you look at the only other treaty that has come into play in modern times, you see the Nisga'a treaty, where the Nass River fishery….

There was a very extensive harvest agreement, but in the case of the Nass River, of course, the Nisga'a had harvested that river for centuries. The river only went into Gitxsan territory for a little bit, and then the headwaters of the Nass are up in Tahltan country.

There were very few first nations who historically and traditionally had taken fish from the Nass River, whereas in the Fraser River system, we have a case here of a nation settling at the mouth of the river, with multiple nations further up who also have an interest in the fisheries part. I'm just interested as to how that would affect other treaty negotiations.

Hon. M. de Jong: I agree with the member that we are talking about a different circumstance in terms of the number of parties, the number of first nations involved. I will also tell him candidly that at the end of the day, we are relying, in establishing….

I think what the member is really talking about is: are we satisfied that this represents a sustainable model, given that others are watching? Others do look at this and say: "Okay, what does this mean for us in terms of our negotiation?"

From the agency of government and federal officials charged constitutionally with administering this, the advice we have received is that it is. There have been some reports commissioned that tend to validate that advice, and at the end of the day, we are relying upon that and are prepared to signal our support and endorsation on that basis.

It is quite proper for the member to point out in these discussions that we are dealing with a very different situation on the Fraser River than we were in other parts of British Columbia.

H. Lali: I understand there was a question from my colleague from Bulkley Valley–Stikine earlier, in terms of consultation with other first nations upriver. I just wanted to ask a follow-up on that to the minister.

Has any kind of a tally or estimate or calculation been done by ministry staff or negotiators in terms of the treaties, in terms of what kind of an estimate you might get with upriver bands on the Fraser River as to how much fish — either as a percentage or in total — they may require or need or want as we consummate other treaties flowing upriver?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm not certain how different my answer is going to be from the one I offered a few moments ago to the member's colleague. We are relying on advice that we have received that this represents a sustainable model.

I did not, and I will now point out that I derive some additional comfort from the fact that we are talking in the harvest agreement about a floating percentage allocation. The dilemma in recent years, of course, has been the fact that in many instances the fishery has been closed completely. The fact that the commercial component of this is represented by the harvest agreement and is managed as part of the overall fishery gives me some comfort, but it won't deliver on any of the hopes and aspirations of people in situations where the overall fishery is closed, because there is no priority given.

Those are some of the challenges that we're going to face, and that everyone is going to face, going forward. I think, again, the member has correctly pointed out that there are other first nations and other organizations that are watching this closely and looking to determine to what extent the impacts of this are going to be.

We are in negotiations with some other first nations in the Fraser Canyon now. I can't and won't speculate on what the outcome of those negotiations would be, but it undoubtedly will place additional pressure on a resource that has already been under a great deal of pressure. We have a lot of work to do as a country and as a province to ensure that it is sustainable going forward.

H. Lali: The minister correctly realizes that obviously, some of what I'm going to say is going to be about pressures upriver in terms of first nations. I appreciate the fact that the minister said there have been years where the fishery has been closed. Obviously, that talks to pressures or the availability or non-availability of fish.

I have in my constituency 29 first nations bands, and 27 of them are on the Fraser River system. They're in the Fraser River basin. Whether we're talking about Hope, Boston Bar or Yale, through Lytton, Lillooet, Nicola Valley, etc., all of these bands are located on the Fraser River system, so there are expectations of an allocation of fish.

In this instance, as per the agreement…. In the Tsawwassen First Nation, I think there are between 300 and 400 members in the band, and 1 percent of the first 500,000 salmon…. I'm going to use just the sockeye salmon here as an example. If the total catch is between 500,000 and three million, then you're looking at the first 5,000 — which is the 1 percent — plus an additional 0.40904 percent. If the catch is over three million, then there is a total of 15,226 fish.

Almost every aboriginal chief that I talk to in my constituency is concerned that there may not be enough fish left for them as the treaties get settled, starting in the Tsawwassen, by the time they get up to those bands in my constituency. I know there are an additional 12 on the Fraser River between the Cariboo North and Cariboo South ridings as well.

With a band like Lytton First Nation, which has, I believe, 1,868 members…. I could be corrected by a few either way. It is actually one of the largest bands in the province. Are they to expect that perhaps, if this is the way, and to use this as an example, they'd be entitled to something like 5½ percent of the total allowable catch of the sockeye salmon in the Fraser and increasing depending on the catch, whether it meets the benchmark of 500,000 or three million?

I'd like the minister to explain to me — that's why I asked that question earlier — if somebody was actually sitting there on the negotiating side, on the British Columbia side, doing some sort of projections based on the number of people per band that live on the Fraser River system and what their aspirations would be in terms of the catch that they would get.

Hon. M. de Jong: I appreciate the member putting on the record the interest that first nations…. I think in the case of the riding he represents, it is in the neighbourhood of 27 first nations. Maybe I can cloak the assurance I want to give to the member and through him to some of those bands who may be following these debates. We are intensely interested as a government in moving ahead with the process of reconciliation and the establishment of a new relationship. Treaties are one mechanism by which we do that. There are others.

Our ability to do that, I think, is in many ways going to be determined by the extent to which first nations who have historically had an interest and participated in the harvest of fish along the Fraser River are able to continue to do so and ceremonial food-fish allocations are there to meet those expectations. That is true of people right along the river.

Our interest is in ensuring and working with our partners, the federal government, and impressing upon the federal government just how important a matter this is for 27 and more first nations, obviously not just the ones in the member's riding. As we move forward with negotiations aimed at effecting that reconciliation and establishing and entrenching that new relationship, I think a lot is going to hinge on the extent to which we can provide those assurances to our partners, the first nations.

The member is probably saying that that's a pretty general answer, but what I'm trying to do is convey to the member a sense of the importance we attach as a government and impress upon the federal government that, moving forward, this is a big issue. It was a big issue in the discussions that took place in the Nass Valley, a big issue with the Tsawwassen, and it's going to be a big issue with the other first nations with whom we are in discussions in various forums throughout the province, and certainly in the Fraser River.

I hope that provides some measure of comfort to the member and to the first nations that he is representative of as a member of this assembly. But there is no doubt there are going to be some challenges going forward with a resource that has been struggling and that has been, to a certain extent, under siege in the past number of years.

Noting the hour, Madam Chair, I move that the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, earlier today the official opposition House Leader rose under Standing Order 35 to adjourn the House for the purpose of

discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance — namely, the Auditor General to conduct an audit into all private land releases on Vancouver Island.

The Government House Leader stated that in his opinion, the submission by the official opposition House Leader did not meet the well-defined test governing the application under Standing Order 35.

The Speaker's role in considering such an application is to determine whether the test of urgency to debate has been met so as to set aside the normal business of the House. The Speaker must also consider whether or not there's an opportunity to raise the matter at another time under routine proceedings or orders of the day. The House has a daily question period, and motions on notice are debated on Mondays during private members' time.

There have been occasions on which debate has proceeded under Standing Order 35 with unanimous consent of the House, but in absence of unanimity, the Chair must decide whether the matter raised overcomes the somewhat stringent restrictions applicable to motions under Standing Order 35.

What the framers of Standing Order 35 had in mind was the sudden emergence of a matter which clearly falls within the jurisdictions of the province, which required, as a matter of urgency, debate in this House where no other opportunity was available to touch on the matter.

For the reasons stated, it is the opinion of the Chair that this matter raised by the official opposition House Leader fails to meet the stringent requirements of Standing Order 35, and so I rule.

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