Hansard — Monday, November 5, 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		9055

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		9055
	Agricultural Land Reserve Protection Act, 2007 (Bill M224)
	G. Gentner

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		9056
	Proposed Austin Heights Business Improvement Association
	D. Thorne
	Cranbrook amateur athletes meet B.C. Lions
	B. Bennett
	2008 North American Indigenous Games in Cowichan
	D. Routley
	Fraser Valley Wine Tasting Festival
	M. Polak
	Historic Japanese garden in Esquimalt
	M. Karagianis
	National Technology Week
	R. Lee

Oral Questions		9058
	Vancouver Convention Centre expansion costs
	C. James
	Hon. G. Campbell
	N. Macdonald
	H. Bains
	B. Ralston
	R. Fleming
	J. Kwan
	D. Chudnovsky
	M. Farnworth

Committee of the Whole House		9062
	Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement Act (Bill 40) (continued)
	S. Fraser
	G. Gentner
	Hon. M. de Jong
	C. Wyse
	B. Lekstrom
	H. Lali
	M. Sather

Reporting of Bills		9084
	Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement Act (Bill 40)

Committee of the Whole House		9084
	Final Agreement Consequential Amendments Act, 2007 (Bill 41)
	Hon. M. de Jong

Reporting of Bills		9085
	Final Agreement Consequential Amendments Act, 2007 (Bill 41)

Third Reading of Bills		9086
	Final Agreement Consequential Amendments Act, 2007 (Bill 41)

Committee of the Whole House		9086
	Treaty First Nation Taxation Act (Bill 42)
	Hon. M. de Jong

Reporting of Bills		9086
	Treaty First Nation Taxation Act (Bill 42)

Third Reading of Bills		9086
	Treaty First Nation Taxation Act (Bill 42)

Second Reading of Bills		9086
	Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 43) (continued)
	C. Trevena
	L. Krog

Hon. G. Campbell: I am pleased to say that in the precinct today we have 75 students visiting us from West Point Grey Academy, from my constituency in Vancouver–Point Grey. They are grade 11 students and are travelling with their teacher Ms. Boland and some of their parents. They are here to experience the Legislature and to find out some of the history of British Columbia as we prepare for our 150th anniversary celebration next year. I hope the Legislature will make them feel welcome.

M. Sather: Joining us in the gallery today is one of my constituency assistants, Sheryl Seale. Sheryl is giving me a hand here in Victoria. I know members have talked about what great CAs they have and how they have the best, but if Sheryl is not the best, I tell you she's got to be among the top 1 percent. So would everybody please welcome Sheryl.

Hon. S. Hagen: We're honoured to have in the galleries today the hon. Phil Goff from the government of New Zealand. He is the Minister of Trade, the Minister of Defence, the Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control, and the Associate Minister of Finance. Would the House please join me in welcoming Minister Goff.

J. McIntyre: I'd like to introduce three very special guests who are in the gallery visiting the Legislature today to see us in action. I would start with Jane Baynham, who I'm proud to say is a very close personal friend who's a dedicated teacher in the North Van school district. We were born three weeks apart and lived blocks away many years ago, and it took a move to the west coast for us to finally meet, much to my pleasure.

With her is her daughter Kelsey, who after an exchange in Australia is now back at UVic studying political science, and also her niece Jennifer Day, who is a compassionate neonatal nurse at Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto. I'd like to ask the House to make them feel very welcome.

R. Cantelon: In the gallery joining us today is George Hanson. George is the executive director of the Downtown Nanaimo Partnership. His job is to make the various community groups, the city centre association, the old city quarter association and city council work together. It's been characterized as like herding cats, but George has done a wonderful job. There are over 115 new businesses downtown and over 1,100 new jobs in downtown Nanaimo. If you haven't seen it, it's bustling and hustling. So please give the executive director and leader of this group, George Hanson, warm applause.

Hon. B. Penner: A moment ago my colleague the Minister of Tourism, Sport and the Arts introduced Minister Phil Goff from New Zealand. As we heard, he wears a number of very important hats in that particular government.

In addition, I had a chance to not only meet with him but also Her Excellency Kate Lackey, High Commissioner of New Zealand to Canada — my second chance to meet with her. She was joined by a number of other people: Her Excellency Penny Reedie, High Commissioner of Canada to New Zealand; Mr. Jeremy Spanjaard, adviser to Minister Goff; Mr. Richard Trow, press secretary; Mr. Peter Bull, regional director for the Americas for New Zealand's Department of Trade and Enterprise; and Ms. Elizabeth Dixon, second secretary. I ask that the House make all of those individuals most welcome.

Hon. I. Chong: I know they're in the precinct but perhaps not yet in the gallery, but I would still like to introduce and have the House welcome a class of grade 5 students — 41 of them — from Glenlyon Norfolk School along with their teachers Benjamin Brooks, Ms. Tanya de Hoog and Ms. Clare Tanner. I hope we could make them welcome and be officially acknowledged in Hansard.

G. Gentner presented a bill intituled Agricultural Land Reserve Protection Act, 2007.

G. Gentner: It is a little disconcerting to have to introduce the Agricultural Land Reserve Protection Act, 2007, because we've taken for granted that the ALR was protected. But we shouldn't take anything for granted with this government.

This bill amends the Agricultural Land Commission Act with the provision that any future land removed from the agricultural land reserve for the purposes of treaty-making must meet the requirements for exclusion through application to the Agricultural Land Commission.

There is a better way of resolving treaties. The future of our food supply is at stake. Climate change is directly impacted by the loss of local farmland. It is time to act now to keep arable land in the agricultural land reserve and not allow B.C.'s very best agricultural land to be bartered away without due process, as set out in the Agricultural Land Commission Act.

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

Bill M224, Agricultural Land Reserve Protection Act, 2007, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

D. Thorne: In my constituency of Coquitlam-Maillardville there are several small business organizations. I'm a member of the Austin Heights group that is working hard to start a BIA. Work on establishing the Austin Heights Business Improvement Association began almost two years ago, mainly through the efforts of Diana McLaren, owner of a hairdressing salon.

She and a few other business owners and nearby residents recognized the need to update the image of the area and to deal with safety, traffic and marketing issues. A community cleanup was organized as well as an RCMP forum to discuss crime prevention strategies. These successful efforts confirmed support for the confirmation of a BIA.

As a small business owner myself, I appreciate the effort and time it takes to make a small business successful. Owning and operating three Big O Tire stores for almost 40 years convinced me of the importance of self-help business groups such as BIAs, which are designed to assist local business people and property owners to upgrade and promote both their own businesses and their shopping district in order to increase the prosperity and sense of community of the whole area.

Within the Austin Heights area, where my constituency office is located, there are 51 property owners and approximately 230 business owners. The annual property taxes collected last year from our area totalled almost $2 million. A request has now gone to the city of Coquitlam to officially designate the Austin Heights BIA, a designation that will secure long-term funding and enable our group to expand our activities. As one of the original members of this group, I continue to monitor the progress and support the goals of the Austin Heights BIA.

B. Bennett: The ActNow mantra is: "Every move is a good move." This past weekend there was a group of young football players from Cranbrook that came all the way down from Cranbrook to Vancouver to go to the B.C. Lions' last regular season game. It's a 13-hour bus ride, I should say, from Cranbrook down to Vancouver.

This team located in Cranbrook is a group of 16-to-19-year-old young men. They have no league to play in. They have essentially no budget — just whatever they can pick up in the community and from their parents. They wore borrowed uniforms until very recently. They've got new uniforms and just a lot of spirit and a lot of commitment from them, their parents and their community.

They play in Alberta, in our region in B.C. and also in the U.S. When they go to the U.S. to play football, they play U.S. rules. When the U.S. teams come to the east Kootenay to play, they play Canadian rules. It's kind of a fun league, but they take it very seriously. They get a lot of exercise and like to compete.

This trip to Vancouver was a trip of a lifetime for these young guys. I didn't realize many of them had never been to Vancouver before. They'd been to Calgary. If you come from where I come from, Calgary is a little bit closer, but Calgary is obviously no Vancouver. So they were pretty excited to be there.

Going inside the airlock of B.C. Place, they were quite rowdy. They were tossing the football around, and they were pretty excited, making lots of noise and so forth. The B.C. Lions had arranged for us to go in, go on to the field, stand on the sidelines and watch the two teams prepare for the game. We did that.

We met Lui Passaglia. Lui took his Grey Cup ring off, and they passed it around amongst the young men. Then Paris Jackson came over and said hello because one of the players — our quarterback, in fact — was wearing Paris's number.

The distinguished Minister for ActNow had arranged for us to go on the field between the third and fourth quarter to sing the Grey Cup theme song, which we did, and we were very happy to do it. We then had a push-up contest between five of the players.

We just had a lot of fun. I want to thank the minister, I want to thank the players, and I want to thank the team for coming down.

D. Routley: I rise in the House today to welcome all the people in this House and all the people of British Columbia to Cowichan, the warm land, for the 2008 North American Indigenous Games, August 3 to 10. Cowichan Valley does translate as "warm land" in Coast Salish. We invite you to enjoy the beauty and hospitality of Cowichan.

There you'll witness a true effort in bridge-building between cultures. Started as a dream in 1975 at the National Indian Athletic Association meeting, the NAIG became a reality in 1990 in Edmonton, where 60 percent of the participants were under 18 years of age.

The North American Indigenous Games employ the healing power of sports and culture to make a tremendous impact on the healthy, active lifestyles of aboriginal youth — 7,000 athletes will participate in 16 sports.

For thousands of years before contact with outsiders, indigenous peoples held games throughout this continent. The games obviously led to many of our modern sports, and that's well understood by many people in British Columbia. But it's not well understood, perhaps, that the games also were a curriculum for a culture, a way that this society passed down its treasured qualities of honesty, courage, respect, personal excellence, and gratitude for the guidance of parents, elders and communities. They prepared children for their lives ahead.

It is important for all of our peoples, indigenous and otherwise, that we recapture those values wherever possible. The elders speak of snuw uy'ulh, the code of honour, conduct and respect, and they hope that these games will bring a reconnect to that great spirit.

I invite all of you for one week of bridge-building, true reconciliation and great sport in the spirit of nuts'a'maat shquwaluwun — the spirit of working together as one.

M. Polak: When one thinks of wine regions, one thinks of the south of France, the Napa Valley in California and the Okanagan Valley in British Columbia. I am pleased today to tell members about an exciting and emerging wine region, the Fraser Valley.

On Saturday evening Willowbrook mall in Langley opened its doors after hours for the 18th annual Fraser Valley Wine Tasting Festival. Presentation tables from more than 30 wineries lined the mall walkways, offering an amazing variety of wine samples from the traditional to the exotic. It was a fantastic opportunity to sample the best of the best of winemaking in the region and to enjoy good company and tasty hors d'oeuvres, all while raising money for charity.

The wine festival was presented by Rotary Club of Langley Central. This year funds raised will be donated to Big Brothers Big Sisters and other Langley community charities.

The dedicated Rotary Club volunteers are joined by their title sponsor, Envision Credit Union, along with Earl's, Milestone's, the Keg, Barnes Wheaton, Britco, Moxie's, ContainerWorld, Kidd and Company, Nufloors, Langley Toyotatown, Cruise Ship Centres, Procom, Preston Chevrolet, BDO Dunwoody, the Langley Advance, Lindsay Kenney, Langley Super 8, Clover Towing, B.C. Liquor Stores and Willowbrook mall.

I'm sure there are many members of this chamber who, on occasion, enjoy a glass of wine. The next time they do, I want to encourage them to consider a Langley wine, perhaps a Wild West Blackberry Port from the Fort winery, or a gamay noir from Glenugie Winery, or a Canoe Cove cabernet merlot from Domaine de Chaberton. Better yet, next year join us in Langley for the Fraser Valley Wine Tasting Festival.

M. Karagianis: I stand in the House today to talk about the Esquimalt Japanese garden. Created by Yushijuro "Joe" Kishida, his father Isaburo and Hayato "Harry" Takata, Esquimalt's Japanese garden opened along the Gorge waterway on July 11, 1907. Now, to mark the 100th anniversary of the garden, the township of Esquimalt is hoping to bring it back to its former glory.

The garden was situated in the B.C. Electric Gorge Park, opened in 1905 and named after the trolleys that ran from the park into downtown Victoria. It was the place to go in those days and featured an amusement park, an outdoor theatre and floating sampan tea house.

The garden thrived until the 1920s, but a fire in 1925 caused considerable damage. The final blow came in 1942 when, following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the Takata and Kishida families were shipped off to camps.

Everything that could be moved in the tea house and the garden was auctioned off. The tea house was vandalized and fell into disrepair. In the 1950s the municipality took over the park, but little was done until the last few years.

In 1986 the Takata Japanese Garden Society began working on the dream to re-establish the Japanese garden with a theme of renewal. A management plan for the park was created in 2002 to guide its development, and in July of last year the Esquimalt Gorge Park creek was finally reopened.

As part of the rejuvenation, the township of Esquimalt has applied for assistance through the Spirit Squares grants from the province and are hoping to hear back soon on that. Precisely 100 years after it began as a hopeful place of harmony and nature, the Japanese garden may again flourish. It would be a fitting tribute to the pioneering Japanese Canadians who made it so.

R. Lee: I am honoured to stand in the House today to share with everyone here that November 5 to 9 is now proclaimed as National Technology Week. This is a testimony that we all recognize the applied science and technology sectors within our provincial economy.

I am pleased to see this happen, as technology has been a large part of my career. Before being elected I was a programmer analyst. I worked in the fields of physics, computer science and applied mathematics at TRIUMF, Canada's national laboratory for particle and nuclear physics.

The technology sector is a large part of our economy. I am pleased with the recent announcement that Metro Vancouver will soon be home to Microsoft's first software development centre in Canada. This facility will have about 200 employees, and it will draw on software developers from around the world. This is an exciting announcement for us. Burnaby is already home to IBM Centres for Solution Innovation, with a cross-functional team of more than 240 engineers, web designers and architects.

Our province has an innovative and skilled workforce. As the gateway location between North America and Asia, we provide the foundation for almost unlimited economic opportunities.

B.C.'s economy is doing very well. Between 2001 and 2004, companies from outside Canada spent over $17 billion for business expansion, modernization and new facilities within British Columbia. Over 1,500 non-Canadian firms have recently expanded their British Columbia operations and invested in our province. The

high-tech sector is a growing part of British Columbia's diverse economy, offering prospects of strong economic growth in the years to come.

C. James: The Vancouver Trade and Convention Centre is already $400 million over budget. The Auditor General was clear. The leadership of this project, from the Premier on down, has been a failure. From his decision to link the project to the Olympics to the inexperienced and incompetent board that he chose, the Premier has mismanaged this project from the start.

My question is to the Premier. He promised, "On time and on budget," and failed at both of those. So when he made that promise, did he mislead the public or was he misled?

Hon. G. Campbell: I am pleased to be able to respond to the Leader of the Opposition's question.

First, let's look at what has taken place with the convention centre. We have an opportunity to generate economic activity, public sector and private sector investment — literally millions and millions. In fact, it was the previous government who suggested that if we didn't have a convention centre expansion, we were looking at a $100 million-a-year loss in terms of economic activities. This government decided to proceed with that. We have.

I looked through the Auditor General's report. Not one time does the Auditor General use the word "waste." Not one time does the Auditor General use the word "mismanagement." In fact, what the Auditor General says is that all major capital projects, whether private or public sector, have a number of inherent risks.

The Convention Centre expansion project is no exception. In addition to standard construction risks, this project has been managed during a period of high inflation in the construction market. I think it's important to note this is a project that should be done, it's going to be done, it's going to benefit British Columbians, and it's going to benefit in the long term. It's a great project for B.C.

C. James: It's pretty clear that the Premier doesn't want to pay attention to the Auditor General's report. So let's use his own words. The Premier's own words said: "Count on it. This will be built on time and on budget." That was the Premier. Those were the Premier's words.

This has been his project from the start. He had his top official sitting on that board. The Premier knew about the mismanagement, and he hid it from the public. The Premier knew in 2003 that the project would be at least $637 million; the government's own internal report said that. Did the Premier come clean and tell the public then? No. The information was kept hidden.

So again to the Premier: why did he go public with a misleading budget and betray the trust of British Columbians?

Hon. G. Campbell: You know, the goal that you set when you set a budget and you set a project is…. You say to the people who come and say they'd like more: "Go back, and find scope savings." Unfortunately, that was not able to happen because of cost escalations that were taking place. There were savings in scope.

There were also additional benefits. The new green roof is an additional benefit. We could have said that the convention centre will not be a display case for British Columbia building products. We could have said: "Strip out the wood." We're not going to do that on this side of the House, because we're proud of British Columbia building products on this side of the House.

When the opposition was in government, they wasted $73 million — not one benefit for any British Columbian. The fact of the matter is that this is a project that is going to generate literally hundreds of millions of dollars of economic activity, thousands of direct and indirect jobs. Am I happy about the cost escalations? No, I'm not.

Am I happy that the cost of concrete has gone up, that the cost of steel has gone up? I wish that I'd had a crystal ball, that I could've looked at that muck underneath the water and known what to do.

But I know this. When that convention centre opens, British Columbians are going to be proud of it. It's going to generate economic activity. It's going to generate jobs. It's going to generate a better future for British Columbians.

C. James: The Premier talked about all the things he could have done. He could have come clean with the public. He could have made sure this information went public, and he could have saved the taxpayers $400 million. That's what he could have done.

C. James: …make all the excuses that he wants. The facts are very clear. His top official sat on this board. There is a direct pipeline to his office. The Premier drove the costs up and then kept that hidden from the public. The Premier promised: "On time and on budget." His ministers promised: "On time and on budget." On all of those they failed, and now the Premier is trying to run away from a project that has ballooned in costs.

When will the Premier come clean with British Columbians, admit this project has been mismanaged from the Premier's office from the beginning, and when is he going to hold someone accountable?

Hon. G. Campbell: You know, this government, in fact, did get the economy going. I plead guilty to that. This government….

As we continue, I just want to welcome the class of young people that are up above.

Hon. G. Campbell: I'd like to welcome the class of young people who are above and remind them that this was the government that actually took a province that was a have-not province and made it one of the most successful economies in the country. It's an economy where every one of those young people can look for a job in British Columbia.

Hon. G. Campbell: …I've got to admit I did not anticipate that construction inflation would have grown by not 4 percent, as we anticipated in 2002, but by 11 percent — a 47-percent increase in cost escalation.

Hon. G. Campbell: I understand, and I think everyone would rather that those cost escalations did not take place. But already we know this. We have 77 conventions that are already booked into the new facility. It will generate $1.6 billion of economic activity.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that when that convention centre opens, every single member on the other side of the House will want to be there, because British Columbians will be celebrating.

N. Macdonald: Can the Premier tell us when Ken Dobell told him that the convention centre expansion project was going wildly over budget, and who made the decision to keep that fact hidden from the people of British Columbia?

Hon. G. Campbell: The facts with regard to the convention centre were put out on a regular basis. In fact, I believe there were quarterly audits done by the Auditor General. It's important to note that one of the things we think is important is that we built a partnership here. Because of the work of Mr. Dobell and the convention centre board, we were able to secure $312.5 million as a contribution.

Just so the member opposite knows, in fact, it's his side of the House that said they were not going to proceed with the convention centre because they couldn't find a federal partner and they couldn't find a private sector partner. We found both, and that's why we're going to have a convention centre that will drive jobs and economic opportunity well into the future of British Columbia.

N. Macdonald: The Premier evaded a very clear question. The question is this. I'll reword it for him so that he understands the context. The cost that the Premier used again and again was $495 million, but he knew that the real cost was $637 million.

The question is: who made the decision to use a fictional figure to give the cost of the convention centre? Was it the Premier, or was it Ken Dobell? Who made that decision?

Hon. G. Campbell: This government made the decision to regularly report on the status of the convention centre. This government made the decision to ensure that as we reported, we were upfront about both the cost escalations and the opportunities that were developed.

I think the member opposite should actually be cheering the partnership that was built by Mr. Dobell and the board. It's a partnership that he's directly benefited from. It's a partnership between British Columbia and Ottawa that generated $222.5 million towards this centre. It's a partnership that's allowed us to create, for the first time in a long time, an improvement to the Kicking Horse Canyon. It's a partnership that that member should be cheering.

H. Bains: Between July 2005 and February 2007, the budget for this boondoggle ballooned from $615 million to over $800 million. The Minister of Finance

My question to the Premier is: when was it that the Minister of Finance advised the Premier that this budget was going into cost overrun?

Hon. G. Campbell: You know, hon. Speaker, only the NDP would say that something that was going to generate…

Hon. G. Campbell: …$1.6 billion in economic activity to date was, as he called it, a boondoggle.

Do you want to see a boondoggle, Member? Go down to Burrard Inlet. Look across the inlet, and you'll see three fast ferries that are shrink-wrapped — $463 million down the tube. That's a boondoggle.

H. Bains: Hon. Speaker, you know, this Premier can duck; he can hide; he can run. All the footprints of this boondoggle are leading up to his office.

We know through the Auditor General's report that it was the Premier who was behind the decision to rush construction without even having the design finalized, to meet the Olympic deadlines.

My question is again to the Premier, which he hasn't answered so far: who made the decision to hide the true cost of this boondoggle?

Hon. G. Campbell: First, as I have said, the reporting on this project has been ongoing. We have pointed out the cost escalations throughout the project. I think what's important to note is that the Auditor General, in fact, audited the books and commented on the books. All of those things have been public.

To be candid, I'm not enthusiastic about these cost escalations, but the fact of the matter is that they're there. They're there because concrete costs are up, steel costs are up and labour costs are up. Every single dollar is going to add value to the convention centre and, I think, the convention centre expansion.

What I think is critically important here…. Were we anxious to get on with building the convention centre expansion? You bet your life we were anxious to get on with building the convention centre expansion. Did we want to capture that estimated $100 million a year of additional benefits, Mr. Speaker? You bet your life, because this is what's happened. In the time that we've been building, we've watched as by 2012 there will be $650 million in annual benefits from this investment.

Hon. G. Campbell: I know the NDP wanted to expand the convention centre in '95 — couldn't do it. I know they looked for partners — couldn't do it. I know they had an economic opportunity in front of them — couldn't grab it.

This government is a government that's going to take advantage of economic opportunity, is going to drive investment, is going to drive jobs and improve the economy of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: I'll just remind members to listen to the question and listen to the answer.

B. Ralston: The Premier has acknowledged that there was regular reporting on the costs of this project, but the point here is: why didn't he tell the public? Why did the Premier decide to keep the knowledge of those cost overruns secret for 18 months?

Hon. G. Campbell: As I've said, we reported out on the costs of the convention centre. We reported out on the cost escalations. No one is happy about the cost escalations, but I can tell you this. We on this side of the House are all happy about the fact we're going to complete a convention centre that's ready to go in 2009.

B. Ralston: The convention centre budget went to the Treasury Board on six separate occasions. Will the Premier commit here today to table all those Treasury Board submissions?

Hon. G. Campbell: I appreciate the question from the member. I can tell you this. The public reporting — both the Auditor General's report, which we called for, and the ongoing reporting on this convention centre expansion — will be public. It will be there available for people to see. And I'll tell you this. The public will be able to judge whether this was a smart investment or not as we move through the years.

R. Fleming: In assessing the largest cost overrun in B.C. history, $400 million and counting, the Auditor General said the board lacked experience and ability to manage a construction project of this size. Who made the decision to appoint Ken Dobell and other members, like the former B.C. Liberal Party president Andrew Wilkinson, to the board?

Hon. G. Campbell: Obviously, the government made that decision. I don't think that comes as a surprise.

You know, I believe the opposition often talks about public servants in a derogatory manner. I can tell you this. Mr. Dobell has experience. Mr. Taylor had experience. Mr. Wilkinson had experience. Mr. Dobell has 30 years of public sector experience of building projects on time and on budget.

The fact of the matter is, as the Auditor General says in his report, that in addition to standard construc-

tion risk, the project has been managed during a period of high inflation. Not even Mr. Dobell, not even Paul Taylor, who was a deputy minister of Finance in this government and who turned an economy that was going downhill into one of the best economies in the country…. Not even they could anticipate a 4-percent inflation rate, which would grow to 11 percent — a 47-percent increase in construction costs. They couldn't anticipate that.

I'll tell you what they did anticipate. They anticipated the benefits. They found scope savings. They looked for ways that we could find additional revenues. The fact of the matter is that because of their work and because of the work of that team, we're going to have today $1.6 billion of economic activity and benefits.

Mr. Speaker: I again remind the members to listen to the question and listen to the answer.

R. Fleming: The Premier keeps going to this idea that he's held blameless because the discussion in the report does talk about rising construction costs. But it puts that at a 47-percent unanticipated cost. So at best, the Premier's defence is that his government is only 53 percent incompetent.

The Premier's special adviser chaired the board for four years. He presided over $400 million of overspending. He chaired the audit committee as well. Who made the decision to retain him as chair for those four years of cost overruns repeatedly?

Hon. G. Campbell: I understand that the opposition is opposed to this project. We are obviously for this project. We are for this project because it's going to add substantially both to the economy and to the well-being of the tourism industry in this province.

Having said that, there is no question — and we have identified this — that there were scope changes. We decided to go with the green roof. We think that's a smart thing to do. We decided that we were going to actually improve the project by making sure that B.C. building materials were included in that project. We assured that it was working in concert with the city of Vancouver, which added some additional scope costs.

At the end of the day there is no question that there were cost escalations. There is also no question that there are huge economic benefits. We're going to be proud of that. British Columbians are going to be proud of that, and the opposition is welcome to come to the opening.

J. Kwan: The government's own internal documents don't lie. The documents said that the trade and convention centre would cost at least $637 million, yet the public figure that was given to British Columbians was $495 million.

My question to the Premier is this. When did he know that there was a cost overrun to the trade and convention centre, and why didn't he come clean and tell British Columbians the truth?

Hon. G. Campbell: Throughout the process we've been letting the public know about what the costs of the convention centre expansion are going to be. We've tried to inform them about why those costs are in place.

As I've said, I wish that I'd had a crystal ball. I wish I could have said what was available underneath the ocean. I wish I could have said what the costs of the pilings were going to be, but I'm not in a position where I can honestly say that to the public.

Hon. G. Campbell: I can say to the public that in fact we have in place a budget that we believe will provide for long-term economic growth in the province. That economic growth has also continued to rise.

The fact of the matter is that when you look at the convention centre expansion, we are going to see a project that the world will look at, the world will embrace and British Columbians will embrace. It will generate economic activity, it will generate jobs, and it will generate a positive future for the entire province.

J. Kwan: The Premier doesn't need a crystal ball. What the Premier needs to do is do his homework. Had he actually done the work in figuring out the design component of the trade and convention centre, he might have come closer to a budget that reflected the actual cost. Had the Premier actually read his own internal reports, he would have put out honest information to British Columbians. He refused to do all of that.

The questions have not changed for the Premier. When did he know that there was a cost overrun, and by how much, and why didn't he come clean and tell British Columbians the truth? Honesty and accountability.

Hon. G. Campbell: When we knew what the budgets were going to be, we made sure that the public knew. As the opposition knows….

Hon. G. Campbell: As the opposition knows, we have been reporting out on the convention centre expansion for some time. We have watched as cost escalations have been there. We've stood up, and we have accepted responsibility for those. We have said that it's important for us. We've said that it's important to look at what the future of the tourism and convention centre industry is in British Columbia.

You know, the question for the opposition is: would they have stopped that project from going ahead? We did not want to stop it. We wanted to go ahead because it generates jobs, investment and economic activity. Frankly, it's great news for British Columbia.

D. Chudnovsky: The budget for the project was $495 million. The overrun was to $637 million, and this government knew that.

Will the Premier stand in this House and tell the people of British Columbia who, sitting on that side of the aisle, is accountable for that difference and for the fact that the people of the province weren't told?

Hon. G. Campbell: There's no question of who is responsible for the convention centre expansion. This government is responsible for the convention centre expansion. This government said we were going to do it. This government is going to deliver on it, to generate the economic activity and to generate the jobs.

M. Farnworth: My question is to the Premier. The convention centre has been his pet project — on time, on budget. It was the Premier who appointed four different ministers, all of whom have mismanaged this file. It was the Premier who appointed two of his best and closest friends to provide him with information and to oversee the project. Either they failed, or he chose not to listen. Either way, the Premier failed British Columbians.

Will the Premier stand up in this House today, take full responsibility for a $400 million overrun and hold himself accountable to the people of British Columbia?

Hon. G. Campbell: I'm pleased to stand here and be very clear. This government, this Premier, will be held accountable by the people of British Columbia for every decision that we've made, including these decisions.

Mr. Speaker, let me tell you this. This government will be held accountable for the fact that we have returned British Columbia to a triple-A credit rating. This government will be held accountable for the fact that we have been able to generate additional and significant surpluses so we can invest in hospitals, universities and transportation infrastructure in British Columbia.

Hon. G. Campbell: …let me say this. This government will be held accountable for the number of new conventions that we will bring in. Already there are 37 conventions that never would have come, had we not had this on the books. By 2012, $650 million of additional annual benefits — we'll be accountable for that. By 2012, 7,000 direct and indirect jobs — we'll be accountable for that.

This is a government that will be accountable for taking this economy from last to best. This is a government that will go to the convention centre opening and will be proud of what's taken place, proud of the B.C. products and B.C. workers and proud of the future of British Columbia.

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

S. Fraser: On Thursday we were just coming to a close on questioning on chapter 17. I did note — and I'm going to say this with some dismay — that the last question was not answered. A substantive amount of time was used up by the minister, I thought, when he could have been answering the question.

I know I'm mindful of the time and that we are trying to get through this, with all respect for the Tsawwassen and the importance of the treaty. I believe that it is the right of a member here from any side of the House to ask a question and that the minister should attempt to answer the question. He has the resources that we do not have on this side of the House and, I believe, that members from the government side don't have either. With that, I'm going to leave the…. I believe there's a question coming forward that was placed to the minister towards the end of the last session.

G. Gentner: The last question that we ended with was relative to the provision of water. "Before the Effective Date, British Columbia will ensure that the Greater Vancouver Water District will supply water on reasonable terms to Tsawwassen First Nation as a member of the Greater Vancouver Regional District, and a member of the Greater Vancouver Water District."

The question, of course, was: how will Delta and the GVRD be compensated for the many trunk lines and infrastructure that will provide water today and that have been built for many, many years?

Hon. M. de Jong: There are no direct compensatory mechanisms spelled out in the agreement, but as the

member knows, there are and have been ongoing discussions between the Tsawwassen First Nation and its neighbouring jurisdictions around the supply of water. That is something that could instruct those discussions, either the ones that have taken place or the ones going forward.

G. Gentner: What type of procedure or insurance, if you will…? Did the province assure the GVRD and Delta that there will be some type of procedure in place whereby the parties will receive compensation?

Hon. M. de Jong: There are no specific provisions in this agreement that speak to or guarantee compensation, which is why I referenced the ongoing discussions around the water supply agreements as a forum where that issue could be pursued.

G. Gentner: Section 27, under "Provision of water," states: "The Minister has absolute power and authority to settle the terms and conditions upon which Tsawwassen First Nation is added to the Greater Vancouver Water District."

Will the minister assure this House that through this power and authority, he will fulfil an obligation to local government and the regional governments that are impacted by this needed capacity of water and further infrastructure moneys that were paid out by other local governments?

G. Gentner: Under section 27: "The Minister has absolute power and authority to settle the terms and conditions upon which Tsawwassen First Nation is added to the Greater Vancouver Water District."

That power and authority, I would hope, would include some reasonable compensation to the local government and to the region, which spent a lot of money over the years providing these trunk lines and which, of course, will be impacted by increased capacity and upgrades. Through his authority, will he assure the House that the local government and regional governments will be compensated accordingly?

Hon. M. de Jong: To answer the question directly, I don't anticipate the minister exercising the discretionary authority provided for in the section referenced by the member in the manner he suggests.

G. Gentner: I gather from the answer that no, the minister will not provide any compensation at any time, even though he has that authority and power. Does he think that by ignoring the situation and not coming up to the plate, there will be peace in the valley between the various local governments trying to find the funding to maintain that infrastructure?

Hon. M. de Jong: I believe that the parties, the neighbouring jurisdictions, have already demonstrated a remarkable ability to sit down and develop the kinds of sharing agreements — multi-jurisdictional agreements — that we hope and expect would develop between neighbouring jurisdictions.

Happily, we don't have to rely on merely my views on that matter. Recent history confirms that fact. There are policing agreements in place. There are negotiations dealing with water taking place at this moment.

I am not going to impose myself or this debate on those negotiations where the parties have already demonstrated a positive ability to sit down and work out the kinds of sharing agreements that we hope will arise between adjoining jurisdictions.

G. Gentner: Well, I have to remind the minister that there was a pending court case by the corporation of Delta and very much concern over this type of issue, because it's a question of how we get along.

It's all very well for the province to put in place this treaty, but we know there was a complete lack of consultation with local government, particularly the corporation of Delta. Because of it, there's been a lot of infighting going on as to what jurisdictions are going to help pay for a very large portion of infrastructure. As the minister knows, money in local government is not what you see; it's what's in the ground with infrastructure.

I think this is a major issue, frankly. This is how the bar has been set, and we're going to continue along this way with urban treaties. We have to address capacity of water, because in the event that the TFN have a plan — and yet we've seen a plan in 2003 from city consultants on behalf of the TFN — we know that the present trunk lines aren't going to facilitate the needed water for that area.

Again, does the minister believe that the government has any commitment to the provision of this type of infrastructure?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think that in the member's last question, he spoke to the issue of developing future infrastructure or expanded infrastructure. I think those matters are dealt with, in particular, in sections 24 and, to a lesser extent, 25.

C. Wyse: Hon. Chair, there are some very distinct differences between this section on the provision of water and other sections that the minister has referred to. Previous sections contained in the bill dealing with local government use the word "may," and it's very clear.

However, when the provision gets into here for the provision of water, it changes drastically. I would expect that it's because this particular commodity is so important and so significant. That's why the words change, and change significantly.

I would suspect, though the minister seems not to be acknowledging the importance of section 27 where the authority for resolving this issue of provision of water is left directly with a court — the minister — where there is no appeal…. That's how important an item of this nature is.

Now, when you go back to local governments such as Delta or the GVRD, they have built into their system an expansion capacity in their infrastructure. That expansion capacity will be used up by providing for a need, albeit important, that the province has said should be matched.

So my question comes back around to the minister. Why does the province feel that local government must swallow the cost for the provision of their expansion through their infrastructure?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, I've been careful to try and understand the essence of the member's question. I'll try this as a means of explaining the rationale for the provisions of the agreement in their entirety.

They are built around the proposition that the Tsawwassen First Nation is entitled to a secure and adequate supply of water — safe drinking water — and that the mechanism for doing that would be for them to be added to the Greater Vancouver water district on terms and circumstances that equate with how any other community would be added. These provisions reflect that.

I will say and acknowledge to the member that I am supportive of that proposition. I think it makes sense that this new community, this new government representative of this community, should have that right. It is provided for here. It is a community situate in the heart of the lower mainland, the regional district.

Whilst some people here can say that this is a decision the provincial government is making to foist some obligations on people, I think this makes eminent sense — that this community, having acquired the status that this agreement provides to them, would be added in the same way as any other community.

Now, if the member or some of the members opposite disagree and think that the Tsawwassen should be put to some extraordinarily different onus or test in order to secure a reliable and safe supply of drinking water, then I'm interested to know that. But that is not my position. That has not been the position of the provincial government, and that is why the provisions exist in the manner that they do.

C. Wyse: At no time in the discussion, as I would have heard it, was it implied that there was any difficulty in ensuring that any party would be entitled to the provision of water. The discussion has been about the province not having taken into apparently adequate consideration of where the new groups — the new "local governments" — in these type of discussions, the TFN and their surrounding neighbours, in resolving their issues from here on in, once the treaty is signed….

I appreciate the answer that the minister has given me. In sharing with the House, in finishing, it seems to me that as we move forward and develop more treaties of an urban nature, we have clearly demonstrated through our discussions here today that there is a responsibility for ensuring that the working relationships for the new bodies that now must work together are not left in such a situation — in which one side is left to pick up the cost where, in my judgment, the province should have been considering where those things go.

With that, I thank the minister for the time that he's shared with me, and I hope through this discussion that we have learned something here for future negotiations on these treaties.

G. Gentner: Hon. Chair, when I had discussion earlier with the minister, we discussed the notion of sewage. Frankly, I don't recall. I squiggled it in chapter 17, under "Services and authorities." Perhaps it came out of "Governance," but I truly couldn't find it.

My question to the minister is: with the provision of sewage, does that fall under federal jurisdiction or provincial?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm struggling with the first part of the question. I heard the member say: "Sewage — is that federal or provincial?" I'm not certain I understand what the member…. Both seem capable of generating a fair amount of it, but I'm not sure specifically what he meant by that.

G. Gentner: Let's put it this way. The regulatory authority regarding sewage within the TFN — is that regulated through the province or through the federal government?

Hon. M. de Jong: Presently, as a reserve, the regulatory regime would be exclusively federal. Under the provisions of this final agreement, my expectation is that the regulation of sewage then acquires the involvement of the provincial regulatory structure, as opposed to whatever federal regulations might apply to a reserve.

G. Gentner: Therefore, what is committed by the province on the provision of sewage trunk lines and all the other stuff that's going to be needed, since the TFN has taken land out of the ALR possibly to develop?

Hon. M. de Jong: I am advised that the Tsawwassen First Nation presently has tertiary treatment capacity, which is at present deemed to meet provincial requirements. They'll have a decision to make about whether or not to enter into negotiations in the future to tie into the regional district's sewage treatment facilities.

I can advise the member that sections 14 through 18 describe the process by which the Tsawwassen First Nation and the regional authorities can enter into those negotiations, if they decide they want to pursue a partnership with respect to the treatment of sewage.

There are a number of septic fields in the TFN, groundwater leeching, etc. Which jurisdiction will be responsible?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm advised that the answer to that question is found back in chapter 15, sections 1 and 2, where the authority to make laws is created and exists for the Tsawwassen First Nation with respect to Tsawwassen First Nation settlement lands. But in the event of a conflict between those laws and provincial law, it is provincial law that would prevail.

I have no questions on the capital transfer. On the negotiation loan repayment, just firstly, sections 3 and 4. This loan repayment is for negotiations of treaty, and that's an exclusively federal repayment. There are no requirements for repayment of anything from the provincial end of things. Is that correct?

Hon. M. de Jong: I believe the member is correct. That is an exclusively federal issue as set out in the section.

S. Fraser: Is it possible for the minister or his staff to give us the amount of that federal loan to be repaid, which was incurred through this lengthy process?

Hon. M. de Jong: The amount that the member will see referred to in schedule 2…. Actually, the amount $5.6 million and the repayment schedule are specifically laid out in schedule 2 of the agreement. It lists the various anniversary dates of payments.

Thanks to the minister for that answer. I know the schedule. I just wanted to clarify that that was the total amount and that it was all federal. That's fine.

On the prepayment calculations at section 6, I note that the "n" anniversary is determined in accordance with the following formula. You've got: "Future Value = Prepayment * (1+C)^K * (1+C*H/365)."

I know that's simple on the surface, but is there anything unforeseen that we should know about with that calculation?

I'm being somewhat facetious here. Is that just some standard formula that if we were all accountants we'd understand? If so, I'm happy with that. It is particularly confusing.

Hon. M. de Jong: The member is correct. It is a rather remarkable piece of arithmetic, breathtaking in its simplicity.

However, in all seriousness, it is the methodology that the parties have agreed upon. I take it that it is designed to ensure that there's an agreement upon the interest rate and agreement upon the means by which the parties take into account the moneys that have already been prepaid. It is also, I am told and advised, consistent with the same formula that was to have been applied in the Lheidli T'enneh treaty, and that we will see later this month in the Maa-nulth treaty.

B. Lekstrom: A couple of questions under the taxation chapter. When I read section 1.a, "Direct taxation of Tsawwassen Members within…." Well, I should clarify. It states: "Tsawwassen Government may make laws in respect of: a. Direct taxation of Tsawwassen Members within Tsawwassen Lands in order to raise revenue for Tsawwassen First Nation purposes."

I do want to then move down. My correlating question is with section 4.a, which talks about the ability of the Tsawwassen government to tax non-members under subsection 1.a. Just a question to the minister. Can you give me some example of where this would come into play? I can't get my head around that.

Hon. M. de Jong: The example that immediately comes to mind, and the only example at this point that I could think of, would be property taxes.

B. Lekstrom: I thank the minister for that. I do want to move on to a question under chapter 20, section 16, "Indian Act tax exemption and transitional exemption." I'll make my question general in nature.

It's my understanding that, certainly after the eight-year period, the transition taxes will then begin to be paid by Tsawwassen members. Following the 12th year all other taxes, which would be income tax, property, I believe…. Is there anywhere in this agreement…?

I'm led to believe, in my looking into this and the other agreements, that once the Tsawwassen First Nation member pays that tax, they are not reimbursed anything following the eight years or 12 years respectively, but that a portion of what they pay will be remitted back to the Tsawwassen government. I'm led to believe that 50 percent of all PST paid by a Tsawwassen member is remitted back to the Tsawwassen First Nation government as well as 100 percent of the GST and income tax.

Hon. M. de Jong: Hopefully, I'll capture all of the relevant details in my answer. The agreement, section 4 of this chapter, certainly contemplates the negotiation of agreements. Such an agreement is one we just referred to, relating to the remittance of property taxes back to the Tsawwassen First Nation or the collection by the Tsawwassen First Nation, as it were. There have been some exploratory discussions around the notion of sales tax provisions. Nothing has been concluded,

but it is certainly conceptually something that the government has indicated a willingness to discuss with the Tsawwassen First Nation.

B. Lekstrom: Just looking to wrap up my questions on this issue. I thank the minister for his response, but I know that certainly myself and, I think, British Columbians are looking for finality in a treaty. What I've just heard the minister say is that we still have a great deal of work to do here if we haven't reached agreement on the issue of a rebate or remittance of either PST, GST or income tax.

Is there a time limit set on these negotiations, and if so, could the minister comment on that? Are we talking in the next 30 days, 60 days? I'm up asking this question for not only myself but the people I represent. It does not make sense to me that upon expiration of the eight-year or 12-year period, when we all become equal Canadians, we would remit PST, GST or income tax back to a level of government that no other level of government enjoys.

Hon. M. de Jong: I think I understand the point that the member wants to make. It's an important point, and it's one that, over the course of the last decade, I have actually come to regard somewhat differently.

The short answer is that there is not a deadline or a cutoff, per se, in the same way that there is between communities and the province, or the province and the federal government, or communities and the federal government. The notion of negotiating fiscal sharing agreements is something that is ongoing just as, for example, this government a few years ago decided to transfer the proceeds of motor vehicle fines to communities. That is the notion that there would be ongoing discussions between the government and first nations. That's going to become a reality and is a feature of these agreements.

It will have to be captured, however, in formal agreements that flow from negotiations, so to that extent there will be a degree of formality to it.

The chapter creates the means by which, government to government, these negotiations can take place and these agreements are arrived at. That will provide the parties with that ability. One such agreement has been negotiated. There is a willingness to discuss a second one relating to some of the taxes that the member mentioned, and the government has had some things to say about its willingness to embark upon those discussions.

What will it all look like 15, 30 or 50 years from now? Just as the arrangements the provincial government has with the municipalities of Dawson Creek or Abbotsford or Chilliwack or Langley, it's hard to say. It does mean, however, that the means to negotiate those kinds of agreements will exist and become a feature of the government-to-government relationship.

B. Lekstrom: The reason I've asked this question is…. I've had the opportunity to read the Tsawwassen First Nation survival guide to the Tsawwassen First Nation final agreement. In there it states that the payment of sales taxes will be phased out over eight years, and the phasing out of income and property taxes will be over a 12-year period following the implementation of the treaty.

That's what I read, as well, and I interpreted it that way. However, their survival guide goes on to say: "No one likes to pay taxes. However, it helps when you know that your taxes will be coming back to the community to pay for such things as…." That's the concern I have. It's led me to believe that maybe we already have an agreement of some sort, and that's what I'm trying to flush out here.

As I said, the minister and I see the treaty differently, as many of my colleagues and I do, but having had the opportunity to ask questions, this is one that's jumped out at me. Although I appreciate the minister's responses, that concludes the questions I have on this treaty — not without certain concerns. I thank the minister for his responses.

S. Fraser: Just a clarification on this chapter, "Eligibility and Enrolment," if I could. I know this is a tripartite agreement. I'm curious. The issues of eligibility and enrolment are largely bipartite; they're federal and Tsawwassen government. It involves the Indian Act, the constitution even.

Can the minister clarify: did the province play a role here, or was it a passive role? Was this arrived at largely between the federal government and the Tsawwassen government?

Hon. M. de Jong: Yeah, it's a good question. Maybe the best way I can answer it is to say that historically these questions of enrolment have tended to engage the first nation and the federal government. In the context of this tripartite discussion, however, the province certainly had and has an interest in ensuring that enrolment takes place in a way that doesn't disenfranchise someone with links and rights related to the Tsawwassen First Nation.

Yes, some of the specific negotiations around language may have engaged interests on the federal part but, at the end of the day, the province is equally interested in ensuring that the definitions and the enrolment mechanisms here are fair to all and that no one is left in a position after the fact where they're saying they were disenfranchised from being able to vote in the ratification process.

S. Fraser: I thank the minister. In the interests of expediency, I have no further questions on chapter 21 through to "Implementation," chapter 25.

H. Lali: I was going through the notes from the debates when the member for Nelson-Creston and the minister were debating the agricultural land reserve and the impact the treaties are having on the ALR. I'm trying not to ask some of the same questions, but there are some gaping holes in terms of the information that this side of the House is looking for, specifically this member standing up.

I want to go back…. I don't know if the minister's answer was really satisfactory or if he didn't have the information at the time, but I know my colleague from Nelson-Creston asked how the 207 hectares of land was arrived at, and also, why they didn't have to go through the Agricultural Land Commission application aspect of it. So a lot of my questions will be centred around that.

I'd like to ask the hon. minister: what was the yardstick that was used by the provincial negotiators in actually coming to 207 hectares of Crown ALR being transferred to Tsawwassen First Nation as a part of this treaty?

Hon. M. de Jong: The quantum, specifically, was purely a function of the negotiation.

H. Lali: I take it from the minister's answer that that was the figure that the Tsawwassen First Nation had put forward. Let me rephrase that. So that was the figure of 207 hectares that was agreed upon by the parties, but what was the figure that was originally put forward by the Tsawwassen First Nation?

Hon. M. de Jong: It won't surprise the member…. I'm not going to start delving into what the Tsawwassen may have brought or didn't bring to the table as an opening position.

I can tell the member this. They started by filing a statement of intent with the Treaty Commission process that the member, when he was in government, helped set up. So that's a pretty good indication of the position they took at the opening of negotiations.

H. Lali: Perhaps that wasn't a very fair question after all. But what does the 207 hectares represent? What was the value that was attached to it? I know my hon. colleague from Nelson-Creston asked that question, and the minister's response at the time was, basically — and I'm paraphrasing — that no valuation was done.

Again, I just want to point out to the minister, in negotiating treaties…. If you compare the Nisga'a treaty, for instance…. Obviously, it's a rural treaty. It's way up on the north coast. There are a lot fewer people up there. In the lower mainland there are a lot more people. There's more land available, more resource-based land, wilderness areas, etc., in rural B.C. than there is in urban B.C. That's the standard. We know that. We understand that.

In terms of Crown land, whether it's ALR or non-ALR Crown land that the province owns, there's lesser availability of that because so much of the lower mainland is already developed and built up.

Having said that, there are other treaties with overlapping claims, and we have a situation with 207 hectares that were assigned here. So following up on the debate between the minister and the member for Nelson-Creston, I want to repeat the question. Is the minister then saying that no entity in government actually put a value to that land or put any valuation to that land in terms of what it was worth in 2007 dollars?

Hon. M. de Jong: The member fairly points out that we canvassed some of this earlier, but I want to be as clear and fair and unambiguous as I can. The negotiators for the province received a mandate from the government, from people like me and the cabinet, that said: "We are prepared and, in fact, accept the proposition that as part of a settlement lands package the Tsawwassen First Nation should have the right to make some decisions around land use that extend beyond the narrow provisions, as laudable as they are, of the agricultural land reserve and the Agricultural Land Commission."

That principle is one that the government embraced. I think I understand that the member does not. It is a question that some of his colleagues are exceedingly troubled by. They have articulated it here in the committee in this chamber.

What follows from having made that decision is a question around what the quantum is. How much? I am prepared and the government is prepared to recommend to this chamber a treaty that says: "Here is a settlement package, including over 700 hectares of land. A portion of that was in the ALR and today is in the ALR. We are suggesting and recommending that we should remove a portion of those lands and transfer the land use planning jurisdiction to the Tsawwassen."

I understand that the member disagrees with that. He has heard my rationale for why I believe it is justifiable and also, procedurally, why I believe it is the best way to proceed and to ensure the ongoing integrity of the Agricultural Land Commission.

That, roughly speaking, is a summary of the rationale that was employed, and that I continue to employ, in explaining why I believe this is a responsible way of proceeding and why I think it will serve all parties well, including the broader interests of British Columbia.

H. Lali: From my perspective, the debate is not around whether aboriginal people should or should not be allowed to do zoning on Tsawwassen First Nation land. That's not really the question here.

The question is really in terms of value. I know there's a sum of money that is attached as a result of the consummation of this treaty. There's a certain amount of land that has been transferred. There are 207 hectares which have been taken out of the ALR. There is an additional sum — I don't have the exact figure in front of me here — that is also transferred from ALR Crown land but is not pre-removed from the agricultural land reserve.

Obviously, there is a value attached to this. My question, which I'm going to ask the minister, is not different from the questions that the opposition asked during the whole Nisga'a treaty debate. In terms of 2007 dollars, what is the total value of this treaty that has been signed with the Tsawwassen First Nation, including not only the monetary transfer but also the value of the land, including the 207 hectares that have been removed from the ALR and the other number of hectares that are also transferred from Crown land?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think I understand what the member is driving at with respect to these lands. The difficulty I'm having, of course, is that ultimately, for the 207 hectares the member is particularly interested in, this will be strongly influenced by the decisions that are made around its ultimate land use and what decisions are made around land usages.

It is conceivable that the Tsawwassen might impose conditions over a certain portion of those lands even more restrictive than those which are included or which exist for ALR lands. That would impact its value. Conversely, if a decision were made…. I suspect the Tsawwassen will want to use a portion of these lands for some manner of development, whether it's residential, commercial or industrial, and that will influence the value.

That is why I am reluctant. I know the member is quick and astute enough that if I offer a figure based on one set of assumptions, he will jump to his feet and say, "Ah, but I can substitute for those assumptions an entirely different set," and we would come to a different figure. That's why I'm reluctant.

The member knows, I suppose, what the market indications for 207 hectares of agricultural land in the area are. It's likely that following the effective date, the Tsawwassen First Nation government will make some decisions about those 207 hectares, and that will impact on their ultimate value.

H. Lali: There's a value on the land as it is. I don't think the minister actually answered my question. I know he didn't answer my question. There is a value that is attached to the land as agricultural land as it exists today. I'm not asking the minister: "What if the land were going to be zoned by the Tsawwassen First Nation as commercial, residential, industrial or whatever it is?" That's not the question I'm asking.

The question I'm asking the minister is: what is the value of the land as it exists in 2007 dollars today, based on its zoning as agricultural, both for that land taken out of the ALR and for those lands not taken out of the ALR? And add that to the monetary transfer that has also taken place.

I know the minister knows what my question is, and I'd like the minister to actually answer that question. I think I've been fairly detailed here. Let me recap it. I'd like the minister to tell me the monetary value of the land. Add that on to the Crown ALR land that has been transferred and other lands that have been transferred to the Tsawwassen First Nation as well as the 207 hectares that have been taken out of the ALR already.

Hon. M. de Jong: I wasn't meaning to avoid the member's question. In fact, I think, as I understand it, he's looking for an estimate on the per-hectare, per-acre value of agricultural land or land within the ALR. I'm endeavouring to get the figure that's available. If the member wants to continue, I'm sure that within a few minutes we'll have that information for him.

H. Lali: Yes, absolutely. I'll come back to the value of the land question in a little while.

I'll just move on to another line of questioning here. I would like the minister to tell me, or he could refresh my memory: in terms of other first nations across the province coming to the table, is Crown agricultural land on the table for negotiations as part of the transfer of land as part of treaties?

Hon. M. de Jong: I am going to try and remain closely aligned with section 9 of the treaty. I'll do this once, because I think I answered it earlier.

The policy is, in every case, to avoid incursions or intrusions into lands that are ALR lands or to avoid disruption of ALR lands. That is the approach we take. It's the approach, actually, that was taken in these negotiations as well.

The reality, of course, is that because of the unique locale of the Tsawwassen First Nation and the fact that all of the Crown land in the area was contained within the ALR, we weren't able to conclude an agreement that didn't have some impact on the ALR.

H. Lali: I take it the answer is yes. Would the minister then explain to me if Crown leases by ranchers are also on the negotiating table in treaties in future?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think it's an important discussion for us to have, and I'm sure we'll have it at some point. To my knowledge, there are no ranchers or ranch-related leases involved in the Tsawwassen lands or those lands which are the subject of section 9.

Given that we are dealing with a specific final agreement, I'm going to suggest that we do that — without suggesting that it isn't an important area for the member and I to canvass at some point. I'm just having trouble relating it to the provisions of section 9.

H. Lali: Well, in the spirit of the debate and the negotiation of treaties, what happens here in the case of the Tsawwassen will have an effect on future treaty-making.

The minister has already answered that, yes, Crown agricultural land would be on the negotiating table. My question is now more specific, as it relates to leases, which are also Crown agricultural land, open range.

My constituents — especially in the Merritt and Nicola valley areas, in the Similkameen valley, in the

Princeton-Keremeos area as well as from Lytton to Lillooet, all across my constituency, even up from Merritt towards Logan Lake — are heavily into agriculture. Cattle ranching is very big, as the minister knows.

The Douglas Lake Ranch was at one time the largest ranch in the entire world at 600,000 acres. It has now only been superseded because of the purchase by some billionaire, I think in Texas, of three or four ranches combined, but it is still the largest single-holding ranch in the entire world. That's just one example.

There are dozens and dozens and dozens of ranches and ranchers spread all throughout the constituency of Yale-Lillooet, and they are concerned. My constituents are concerned, and they have a right to know what the intention of this government is.

I think it is totally appropriate to ask this question here. In terms of the Tsawwassen First Nation treaty and the statement that the minister has already made, how do Crown leases fit into this particular area? I repeat my question to the minister. Are Crown leases that ranchers throughout my constituency hold — some of them on a ten-, 20-, 30-, 40- or 50-year basis and in between — also on the negotiating table for treaties?

Hon. M. de Jong: Hon. Chair, I want to make sure I understand. The member is referring to Crown grazing leases?

Hon. M. de Jong: The lands referred to in section 9 do not include any Crown grazing leases.

H. Lali: Could the minister repeat that? I was in a bit of a side discussion here. Sorry.

Hon. M. de Jong: The lands that are referred to in section 9 include no Crown grazing leases.

H. Lali: I was wondering if the value of that land has been arrived at or if the information been made available.

Hon. M. de Jong: In 2000, as negotiations were at that point, the agricultural land in the area was being valued at $60,000 per hectare. I suspect it has gone up. We have heard from some members who assure us of that fact — that it has gone up, just as land right across the lower mainland has gone up in the intervening seven years.

H. Lali: Is the minister saying that that's the last figure available to his ministry, this 2000 figure, in terms of the value of the land in question?

Hon. M. de Jong: That represents the last formal appraisal. As I said earlier, I suspect it has gone up.

H. Lali: Well, obviously it has gone up. My question to the minister is: as part of his negotiations, is the minister now saying there was nobody on our side — and by our side, I mean the provincial government — who was actually sitting there with a calculator and trying to calculate the present value of that land in question? Was there nobody on his entire team who was actually sitting there calculating what the value was, nobody who went to some real estate office or appraiser's office to find out what the actual value was today in 2007 dollars, in this year?

Is that what the minister is saying? Nobody on his team actually sat there and had any discussions or even thought of putting some value to that land?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the member is experienced enough to know that in a negotiation as complex as this, one of the defining moments is when the parties sit down to begin the question of land selection. That is made all the more challenging in an area where there is precious little land, complicated further by virtue of the fact that the Crown land available here almost exclusively was…. Usages were constrained by the ALC/ALR legislation.

At a certain point, the parties say: "All right, let's have a negotiation. Let's decide what we think is reasonable." The Tsawwassen First Nation says: "We have expectations built around establishing a sufficient land base to generate economic activity, to form an economic foundation going forward that will allow us to meet our housing needs, some of our commercial needs, industrial needs and training needs." At a certain point, the parties come to a meeting of the minds around what that is going to be.

I don't think you can then, as a party to those discussions, return to the table at a certain point and say: "Oh my goodness, land values are appreciating, and we need to revisit that quantum." There might be an element of that, but you'd have to be careful about exposing yourself to an argument of bad-faith negotiations, once you have agreed in principle to the fact that a certain quantum of land is appropriate. I think the member knows all that and appreciates all that.

There were initial appraisals done. You'd have to be living on the moon not to realize that, with the way the economy has taken off in British Columbia, these lands have appreciated in value. At the same time, we have accepted the notion that the Tsawwassen deserve the opportunity to secure a sufficient land base in the area to achieve certain objectives. As a function of the negotiation, we settled on an overall quantum in excess of 700 hectares and within this a quantum of land that today is in the ALR but that post–effective date would be removed from the specific provisions of the ALR.

H. Lali: It was really a non-answer. The minister said that it's inappropriate to go back once that quantum of land has been decided. That is what the minister has said.

My question is not to go back once a quantum of land has been decided. My question actually precedes that. Before a quantum of land was decided, on what basis would that have been decided, if it wasn't to actually sit there and work out some sort of value in terms of protecting the interests of the province and of

those who may be affected by future treaties, in terms of protecting their interests as you flow upriver or go upcountry?

I mean, that's the question here. The minister said that these are very complex negotiations. At some point you've got to just get beyond that. Those weren't his words, but that's what it sort of relates to or means. Anytime individuals go to a store and want to buy something or they're trying to get a contract for building a house, purchasing a car or whatever it is, they're negotiating a price. Somebody is sitting there with a calculator on both sides.

Anytime a union and management are up for renewal of a collective agreement, a contract, you've got the bean-counters on both sides sitting there punching out numbers on a calculator to decide what the price is and what's going to bring them to agreement. Anytime governments negotiate with each other, whether it's with a municipality or with private developers who want to develop a certain portion of Crown land or want an access to a highway system because they've got a development going up, there are people sitting there on both sides crunching numbers with a calculator.

Here we have a treaty and the transfer of land, and the moneys that are going to be transferred are not just in the millions. They're in the tens of millions and the hundreds of millions. The minister wants us to sit here and believe that nobody on the negotiating team on the provincial side actually sat there with a calculator or went to talk to somebody in the real estate industry to find out what the prices were, and that the last available prices were in the year 2000, in the era of another government. Nobody on that side, nobody on the government side on the negotiating team, actually sat there to try to put a value, because that's what the minister is saying. That's exactly what the minister is saying.

I have a tough time believing that there was nobody on the provincial side who was sitting there with a calculator or talking to somebody in the real estate industry trying to find out what the value was of that agricultural land that was under the domain of the Crown. I find that hard to believe, so I again ask the minister: was there nobody on the provincial side that was actually working out the value of the land? Was there nobody who actually thought about putting a value to that land?

Is the minister also telling me that if somebody were to put in an FOI in terms of what kind of stuff went on, we would not be able to find a single piece of paper or a conversation that took place or an e-mail stating that there was anything going on in terms of actually putting a value to that piece of land?

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for the statement/question. I can assure the member that the provincial negotiators took very seriously the task of ensuring that what was arrived at was a fair and equitable arrangement. When we talk about values, we're talking about a collection of interests, of which land represents one portion.

At the end of the day, this agreement must withstand scrutiny in its entirety. There will be people — I believe, the majority of people in the province — who believe that it represents a fair and reasonable settlement of this long-unresolved question.

I know that at a certain point negotiators would have had to take account of the fact that through to the last part of the 1990s, land values were falling — a rather remarkable situation in British Columbia — and that as we moved through the early part of the 2000s and through these latter years, the values of people's homes and properties in British Columbia are appreciating significantly. I happen to think that's a good thing.

At the end of the day, this agreement needs to be assessed in its entirety as a fair settlement of these issues. I think the majority of members in the House have expressed their views on that. They did so at second reading. I can't recall if the member did so or not. I don't think he did.

This agreement will have to withstand that level of scrutiny, that level of assessment. I and the government commend it to the committee and the chamber as a fair and reasonable settlement.

I think, Madam Chair, I have a colleague who seeks leave to make an introduction.

Hon. O. Ilich: I just want to make an introduction of a group of students who are here visiting today. I think the Premier already introduced them earlier in the day. They're a group of students who go to school in his riding. They're from West Point Grey Academy.

I'm here doing this again because I want to embarrass my nephew, who is amongst that group. Tanner Ilich is here.

I'd like everybody to say welcome to the group visiting us from West Point Grey.

H. Lali: Earlier in a debate with the member for Nelson-Creston…. The process of the agricultural land reserve, with the applications going to the commission, was actually kiboshed. Cabinet decided to take out these 207 hectares without going through the process.

In terms of the question that the hon. member had asked on that — why this wasn't included as a part of the ALC process — the minister's response, referring to the Tsawwassen First Nation, was: "That was not their first choice."

Basically, what I'd like to state is that somewhere along the line it was decided that it was going to be 207 hectares. Somewhere it was decided that it was going to be taken out of the ALR without having to go through the process. Obviously, the authorities want to build and expand the Delta port.

It just seems a little bit too coincidental that this would all happen at approximately the same time and that nobody on the government side actually put any sort of value on that land. That's absolutely unbelievable.

I think there isn't a single person in British Columbia who believes that the government did not have their folks who were negotiating, sitting there with calculators and actually trying to figure out what the value of that land was going to be. It's absolutely unbelievable. Nobody out there in British Columbia actually believes that either. It really seems a little too coincidental.

In all of this process — if the Delta port was to be built and they wanted to use the Tsawwassen First Nation treaty as an excuse to try to get around the Agricultural Land Commission — was there ever any thought given, or have the minister and the government given a thought, that this would be the last treaty where land would be automatically taken out of the ALR without going to the commission — that it's not going to be red-circled? Is this the final treaty where it's going to be red-circled, and other treaties are not going to go through that same process?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'll say this one more time for the member. I wish we were dealing with circumstances that were different and that there was available Crown land that doesn't fall within the ALR. This is a unique set of circumstances.

Part of what the member has said…. If he said it, fine, and I'll say it even more clearly. These settlement lands, the vast majority of them, were covered by the provisions of the ALC/ALR. The Tsawwassen, as you might expect, wanted more options around the use of that land than the ALR would have provided for.

There were different approaches that we could take. Someone has mentioned in this chamber that we could have or should have negotiated a conditional deal whereby the Tsawwassen would have gone to the ALC. I don't, quite frankly, know how you technically do that. I know the prospects of negotiating it with the Tsawwassen First Nation were virtually nil.

I'll say this for the last time. The decision to facilitate this agreement by removing this land from the ALR is a decision the government has made. I think that is far more appropriate — so that members like the member for Yale-Lillooet can stand up and criticize the government for that — in my view than to come to an agreement and then place what to my mind would be an entirely unfair set of circumstances on the Agricultural Land Commission and say: "Now, this deal will live or die based on your decision."

They have a specific mandate. Their mandate is contained within that legislation. This is a government-to-government-to-government negotiation aimed at resolving a longstanding dispute and a longstanding uncertainty, and this is the mechanism that we have chosen in as forthright and transparent a way as possible. That's why the member can stand up and make his criticisms and express why he is opposed and the problem this causes.

That's the rationale. I've said it earlier in these debates, and I've repeated it. As I say, I don't begrudge the member standing here and articulating why he is opposed or hesitant. That's fine. That's what this chamber is for.

H. Lali: This will be my last question, but I will read some quotes into the record before I sit down. Basically, the question here is not for myself and others, whether it was the right thing to do or not in terms of the transfer of land. The question is about the integrity of the Land Commission.

Now the minister admits that they actually wanted to keep the commission from having to decide whether the treaty fails or not. Really, that's why the 207 hectares came preapproved in terms of being taken out of the ALR without having to go through the application process that everybody else would have to go through in British Columbia. The minister admits that it was done out of political expediency as opposed to actually doing the right thing.

According to a document called ALR Erosion, BIV 786, by Gordon Price: "The ALR also became the basis of the 'green zone' that currently constrains sprawl in the lower mainland, one of the four pillars that make up the livable region strategic plan…of the GVRD." Basically, agricultural land really constrains the urban sprawl.

In 2004 the David Suzuki Foundation released a report criticizing the B.C. Liberals and wanted them to actually protect farmland from other types of development. They suggested that in the north of B.C. there was some land of lesser productive value that was brought in, but land of higher productive value in fertile areas such as the lower mainland was actually taken out.

In 2006 the Minister of Agriculture and Lands' own report entitled B.C.'s Food Self-Reliance says:

I also want to now read into the record. On December 8, 1998, referring to treaties in this House, here is what the Premier — the then opposition leader — said during question period. He's talking to the Minister of Agriculture and Lands in an NDP government.

My final question, before I sit down, to the minister is…. You have the livable region strategic plan of the GVRD from the mid-1990s. You have the warnings from the David Suzuki Foundation given to this government in 2004. You have the ministry's own report that says land that is the most fertile is at the edges of where the urban sprawl is taking place. It's also the land that needs irrigation, has the highest productivity and needs to be protected, and 92,000 additional hectares have to be brought in. And there's the Premier's statement that he made in this House in 1998.

How does this treaty, with the pre-approved 207 hectares that have come out of the ALR — taken out by cabinet — actually help to achieve the goals of the livable region strategic plan, given the warnings of Dr. Suzuki, the Minister of Agriculture and Lands' own report and sanctioned by this government and the statements that the Premier made?

Hon. M. de Jong: I heard the reference to a debate in this chamber in 1998, and I couldn't help but cast my mind back and wonder if that was roughly the same time the member was standing on this side of the House defending his government's removal of hundreds of hectares for the Six Mile Ranch project.

Let me say this, and I'll say it as succinctly and briefly as I can. I believe and the government believes that confronted by some difficult choices, ensuring that the Tsawwassen First Nation has a fair opportunity to develop as a community — to develop an economy, to develop infrastructure, to develop and train their individuals — they deserve the same opportunities every other community in the province has.

The removal of 207 hectares from the ALR — as troubling as that might be for the member and as much as people would have liked to avoid that necessity — is at the end of the day a reasonable exchange, a reasonable price to pay to ensure that they have that opportunity.

I take it the member disagrees, and insofar as he has gone to great pains to point out his disagreement, I presume he will take advantage of the opportunity to register that disagreement at the appropriate time in these debates.

M. Sather: Continuing with the debate on section 9 with regard to the agricultural land reserve. The parcels of land that the member for Yale-Lillooet is talking about are shown, if viewers want to look at it sometime, in appendix G-1 of the agreement. They're nicely coloured in orange, those being the lands that are exempted from the authority of the ALC — Agricultural Land Commission — and those in brown being those that remain within the jurisdiction of Agricultural Land Commission. The former are around some 500 acres, and it looks to me by looking at the map that the latter is a little bit smaller.

The minister has said that the Tsawwassen First Nation did not want to be bound by the constraints of the Agricultural Land Commission in their ability to develop their lands. My first question to the minister is…. I really don't know the answer to this. I really have been curious about it for a while. Why were only some of those agricultural lands removed from the jurisdiction of the Agricultural Land Commission? If the Tsawwassen wanted more flexibility, why weren't all of them removed from the jurisdiction of the ALC?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think it's an excellent question, because it demonstrates and speaks to the importance that the government, through its negotiators, actually places on agricultural land and preserving to the maximum extent possible the integrity of the ALR.

If you are someone involved in a negotiation — I don't think this comes as a shock to the member — and you are poised to receive certain benefits that result from that negotiation, you would like to receive those benefits free to the greatest extent possible of any constraints that might inhibit your future use of those benefits — in this case, land. So that was very much a function of the negotiation.

I can't say this with specific numbers in mind, but the settlement lands here…. If I were negotiating on behalf of the Tsawwassen, I would want the greatest flexibility possible going forward. Our negotiators were fully aware of the importance that the government attaches to agricultural lands. That is why, ultimately, the final figure was the product of a negotiation, and that's what is reflected here.

The government simply wasn't prepared to take the view or agree to a position that said all of the provincial Crown settlement lands were going to be removed from the ALR. That was not a position that our negotiators were authorized to take.

M. Sather: Just to clarify then. The Tsawwassen First Nation did want all of those lands removed from the jurisdiction of the ALC, but the province said no. Is that correct?

Hon. M. de Jong: Actually, what I said is that in a negotiation like this, it should not surprise the member that a party in the position of the Tsawwassen would seek to acquire these benefits and assets free to the greatest extent possible from constraining regulation.

M. Sather: Well, following, I think, logically from what the minister said…. He said that the Tsawwassen would want the most amount of freedom possible around the use of those lands. He said that the government values agricultural lands, however. Therefore, the fact that they weren't all removed from the jurisdiction of the Agricultural Land Commission speaks to that commitment of the government.

So it seems to follow for me — and I wouldn't be surprised at it — that the Tsawwassen wanted all of those lands out of the jurisdiction of the Agricultural Land Commission, and the province said no. Isn't that, in effect, what the minister is saying?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, the member can pursue with Chief Baird and the Tsawwassen what their posi-

tion was and how it may have evolved. I've already said once this afternoon that it is not my purpose nor am I qualified to stand here and try to interpret authoritatively what may have motivated the negotiating positions of the Tsawwassen First Nation. I'm not going to do that.

M. Sather: For some reason, and I don't know why, the minister won't answer my question directly.

I want to make reference to what the minister just did say, though, because he's said a number of times that he's not going to venture into the territory of speculating on what the Tsawwassen First Nation may have had in mind, etc. But the problem is that this whole treaty, I guess like any other treaty, was negotiated behind closed doors. The lower mainland treaty advisory committee did have access to some of those negotiations. The negotiators were sworn to secrecy. They couldn't tell other local governments about what they were discussing.

So I think it's really fair and reasonable that in this venue, the government should be most forthcoming about what the discussions were around the treaty. This is the only way that the public are going to get any sort of clear understanding of what happened during those negotiations.

Referring back to the lands again, those that are qualified as DL 108, 107 and 183 are some of the ones that were removed from the jurisdiction of the ALC and are closest to Deltaport Way. Why were those particular lands removed from the jurisdiction of the ALC?

Hon. M. de Jong: If I have misunderstood his question, I'm sure he will correct me in short order. But I took the question to be, in effect: how do you, Minister, account for a negotiation wherein all the lands that are being recommended for removal from the ALR are those lands closest to the port or the port causeway? If that was the assertion or the premise of the question, my response is: well, that's just not so.

I know some of the members opposite have convinced themselves that this is all done to achieve some nefarious purpose or hidden agenda and that the Tsawwassen First Nation is some pawn in a greater play. I won't assign those exact words to the member himself, but I think it is unfortunate that people would have so little regard for the abilities and the right of the Tsawwassen First Nation to make some decisions around the use of these lands.

We are saying here that there will be 207 hectares of settlement lands that the Tsawwassen will have the right to make some decisions around. They're going to need some housing. They're going to want to develop some housing.

There are lands that are part of the schedule we're talking about, which fall along the Highway 17 corridor. I don't know if that's where the Tsawwassen will choose to explore a housing opportunity or some kind of commercial venture instead. I don't know that. I do know that to my mind and the mind of the government, it is appropriate for them to have that option in the same way that other communities have those options.

I rather suspect that nothing I say here to this committee or to the member is going to convince him otherwise, but as long as he keeps trying, I guess I'll keep trying.

What I'm trying to figure out — and I'm hopeful that the minister will help me with this — is: how did the parcels…? As we started with, there are some that are still in the jurisdiction of the ALC and some that aren't. I know there must have been lengthy discussions about this. The negotiators wouldn't have just taken a dart and thrown it at the wall.

In a more general sense, then — because I realize there are two parcels in orange — how did the negotiations come about that these particular lands, let's say, were taken from the jurisdiction of the ALC, but not the others? There must have been some reason for that.

Hon. M. de Jong: In very general terms, I can advise the member that there were at least two things that were on the minds of people as they went through this exercise. He will notice from the schedule he is correctly referring to that the lands that are the subject of this section have one thing in common, and that is they both rest along transportation corridors — in the one case, the port corridor; in the other case, the Highway 17 transportation corridor.

The other thing that a portion of the lands have, which is significant, is their proximity to the existing residential core. That might be a more elaborate phrase than is appropriate, but it's where most of the houses are now on the Tsawwassen reserve. The Tsawwassen negotiators were concerned that they have some means in the future to provide enhanced housing alternatives in a way that was consistent with the existing residential development.

M. Sather: Well, thanks to the minister. I think we're getting somewhere now. The minister said that those two parcels were along transportation routes, and that was a considerable reason why they were chosen. That's what I believe to be the case as well.

I wanted, though, also to challenge the minister on…. He said repeatedly last week in this House that no one should make any presumptions about how the Tsawwassen First Nation are going to use their land. I would say uncategorically that that's demonstrably not the case, at least for some of those lands.

We have to go back again, of course, to look at the court case that the Tsawwassen First Nation launched in 2002 against the port authority and others. That was settled in 2004 out of court. There were provisions that were made in that settlement agreement and the memorandum of agreement that the two parties settled on.

For example, and most specifically, section 27 of the memorandum of agreement, which was part of a $10 million joint venture investment fund paid for by the port…. The $10 million was paid and was to be jointly developed by the two parties: the port and the Tsaw-

wassen First Nation. It says, in part, "The VPA and TFN agree that development of a container handling facility shall be a priority project for a joint investment of the JVIF" — the investment fund.

They're talking about the importance of a container handling facility, which must be and would be on dry land. It says further: "…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."

Now, we know, in retrospect, that that's in fact what has happened. Lands are being moved from the ALC. This agreement talks very clearly about a container handling facility for the port. It also says, "In any case, the land will be leased to the project or the entity managing the project," and that's the project of the joint venture investment fund.

So this is an agreement that was an out-of-court settlement. It has teeth in it. It's subject to arbitration if the parties break this agreement or don't agree to it. If the arbitration doesn't work, it's subject to the Supreme Court of Canada. So clearly, the TFN is bound by this agreement, and this agreement says that they will work with the government to obtain the land out of the Agricultural Land Commission, out of the ALR, by having it removed from the jurisdiction of the ALC for the development of a container handling facility. It's quite specific.

So I want to ask the minister: did the port and/or the Tsawwassen First Nation discuss with the province during these negotiations getting land out of the ALR for a container handling facility for port development?

Hon. M. de Jong: I am advised that the negotiators were not involved in that nature of discussion.

M. Sather: Whether the negotiators were involved in that discussion…. Quite frankly, I find it unbelievable that the province, at least, was not aware of this agreement that was signed between the two parties, of their intent and of how they needed the agreement of the province to consummate the arrangement.

I mean, it was a big deal. The TFN called it a $47 million deal when they came up with the memorandum of agreement. It's very clear what their intentions were, and it's very clear where we ended up. It's very difficult to assume that there's no relationship between the deal that was made between the TFN and the port, and the province.

I want to go back a minute. Back in December of 2006, Chief Baird of the Tsawwassen First Nation said that they would be making an application to the Agricultural Land Commission to get land out for development. That was back in December of 2006. When was the decision made, then, to circumvent the necessity to make an application from the ALC? When was the decision made, in other words, to remove the jurisdiction of the ALC from this process?

Hon. M. de Jong: The information the member has conveyed here today serves to emphasize the importance that the Tsawwassen First Nation and their leadership placed in acquiring lands that were suitable for development, be it residential, commercial or industrial.

At that point the resolution of these negotiations was far from certain, but again, I have never been shy about acknowledging the interests that the Tsawwassen First Nation have and had in acquiring the ability to develop lands to the benefit of their community. So I don't see the disconnect, and I don't see any inconsistency whatsoever. In fact, this agreement is a reflection of that interest and a negotiated resolution of that interest.

M. Sather: Is it the case that the decision to remove the ALC's jurisdiction was, in fact, made within days — or perhaps a week, or thereabout — of the signing of the final agreement? Wasn't it an eleventh-hour decision? Is that not the case?

M. Sather: Specifically, then, when was the Tsawwassen First Nation aware that the jurisdiction of the Agricultural Land Commission would be removed?

Hon. M. de Jong: Prior to the initialling of the final agreement, because it was an important component of the final agreement for the Tsawwassen.

M. Sather: I realize it would be prior to the signing of the final agreement, but how much prior?

Hon. M. de Jong: Actually, I chose my words carefully. The final agreement has not been signed yet. It was initialled by the negotiators. It was certainly prior to that initialling, in the last stages of the discussion. It was one of the key features of the negotiation that was taking place at the time.

M. Sather: Well, the minister is being quite evasive here. Let's put another time frame on it. Was the Tsawwassen First Nation made aware more than two weeks prior to the initialling that the ALC's jurisdiction would be removed? Was it more than two weeks or was it less than two weeks from the initialling?

Hon. M. de Jong: The reason I'm choosing my words carefully is that I don't want the member to come back later and suggest that somehow I was trying to mislead him or members of this committee.

There's no doubt that throughout the negotiation, as the topic of land transfer was discussed, the Tsawwassen and the negotiators would have been talking about the fact and been aware of the fact that most of these lands, if not all of them, are covered by the ALR. At a point prior to finalizing the text, the government would have conveyed to negotiators the authority to advise the Tsawwassen that the government was

prepared, as part of a settlement package, to facilitate legislatively the removal of these lands from the ALR.

That information would have been shared by the negotiators, obviously, prior to the initialling of the final agreements — in what I think was December of 2006. Conveying that information and agreeing to that provision was instrumental, in fact, in helping to facilitate the final agreement.

M. Sather: As evasive as the minister is being, I think it's clear that the government was intimately involved in the commercial transaction — they don't want to admit it — of port development. That's not to say, you know, that that was…. I think it was a bad thing, to alienate agricultural land. But the Tsawwassen First Nation, perhaps, doesn't think it's a bad thing to do it in that way.

The point is that there was a deal done. I submit that the Tsawwassen First Nation wasn't fully informed of all the details of this negotiation until the eleventh hour, which speaks to the fact that the government had a very heavy hand in this. The port, I am sure, was very much informed of the status of the negotiations.

I would submit further that this deal would never have happened without the arrangements for the container handling facility. It wouldn't have gotten done. It got done because it was being pushed very hard by the port and with full support of this government to make that happen. I think that the Tsawwassen First Nation were hanging on and doing their best to get the best deal that they could out of what was essentially a commercial deal.

My final question. The minister mentioned, in his answer to the member for Yale-Lillooet, an appraisal being done or an appraiser being used. Can the minister just tell us what appraising firm the government used and hired in that case?

G. Gentner: I, too, would like to pick up some of the exploratory discussion or debate between the member for Nelson-Creston and the minister last Wednesday. I know the minister had suggested that he preferred a discussion regarding the broad issues of the land use in section 9, so here we are.

The minister had said: "There were discussions around where the overall land would come from, given the restrictions that existed from the availability of Crown land." I just want to understand this. Who was he referring to with regards to these discussions?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm sorry. I'm not sure I understand what the member is referring to. Is he referring to section 9, which we're discussing here?

G. Gentner: Yeah, I believe we're in section 9, Minister. I think it's section 9.

I just asked a question relative to Hansard. You suggested to the member for Nelson-Creston, regarding discussions of the availability of Crown lands, that the discussions were where the overall land would come from, given the restrictions that existed around the availability of Crown land.

I'm just asking you who conducted those discussions. Was it simply the TFN, the province of British Columbia and the government of Canada, or were there other parties?

Hon. M. de Jong: The discussions that I believe I was referring to in that exchange with the member for Nelson-Creston related to the parties to this negotiation.

G. Gentner: The discussions were strictly the government of Canada, the province, and the TFN, if I have that correct? Yes? No other parties?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, the member will forgive me for being exceedingly cautious, but I am alive to the fact that on one occasion where I misspoke myself, the member rushed off and quickly began drawing conclusions.

We've had a very expansive, very important exchange. The member has asked some good questions. But I am trying to be as precise as I can, because if the member is referring to one thing and I answer referring to something else, I have no doubt that this member will rush outside and use that as an indication that somehow I'm trying to evade his question or provide inaccurate information.

I think the member is asking me about a comment I made earlier in this debate referring to discussions between parties. I believe, not having had the benefit of reviewing the entire exchange, that I was referring to discussions between the parties to this negotiation — the governments of Canada, British Columbia and the Tsawwassen First Nation.

G. Gentner: I want to pick up the discussion from the previous speaker, the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows. I just want to pick up on this. I didn't quite understand it. The question was similar, and I'm paraphrasing. Why didn't the TFN insist upon more land out of the ALR that was closer to Highway 17?

The Chair: Member, I think that question has been canvassed, if not once, several times, and I wonder if we could move on with section 9, please.

G. Gentner: If the land that was closer to Highway 17 wasn't being used, was it because the land would not assist the Vancouver Port Authority's desire for container storage?

Hon. M. de Jong: I can advise the member that the parties explored a range of options and further advise that there are lands captured by the provisions we are dealing with in section 9 that run along the Highway 17 corridor as opposed to being directly adjacent to the port corridor.

G. Gentner: Last week the minister went on to say that it was the TFN that "had certain objectives they

were seeking to satisfy around residential, commercial and other uses of the land."

According to the TFN plan created in 2003, it was clear that the emphasis was on commercial, residential and other uses that were not necessarily industrial. But then comes the VPA-TFN agreement, and we have the northern end of the settlement lands earmarked for industrial development.

This, Minister, was not part of the TFN's original plan. So what was the provincial interest in pushing these northern parcels out of the ALR?

Hon. M. de Jong: Sorry, I heard the preamble but not the question. What was the provincial interest in what?

G. Gentner: Pushing the northern parcels — I think they're 108, 107 and 183 — out of the ALR.

Hon. M. de Jong: The premise is somewhat flawed. The province wasn't pushing any component of the removal of ALR lands. It was, again, a function of a negotiation, and ultimately the province arrived at a place with the other negotiating parties where we thought we could accept the land selection and the land designation and move ahead with settlement legislation on the basis of what members see here.

G. Gentner: Okay. We'll take it that the government wasn't pushing these parcels. But what provincial interests did the province have in ALR removal of these lands?

Hon. M. de Jong: I actually think that is a very fair question, and an appropriate one, because it goes to the heart of something I have tried to advance throughout these discussions. A comprehensive settlement with the Tsawwassen First Nation, as set out in this final agreement, that provides the Tsawwassen First Nation with the essential ingredients that any community requires to be able to provide a sound economic future for their people and community is in the provincial best interest.

I'm actually very happy that the member put it in those terms, because that, in a sense, is the choice. That was part of the decision. That was part of what went into deciding whether or not to do something.

I've been at this a while. I'm not blind to the fact that decisions of this sort attract a fair degree of criticism, but you try to weigh the benefits, try to weigh the various principles at play here. The provincial interest — in my mind, the mind of the government and of the parties to this agreement — is ultimately best served by ensuring that the Tsawwassen are provided with the means and economic base, a land base, that they can pursue in the way that communities right across British Columbia, certainly in the lower mainland, have.

As I said to the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, I don't suspect I'm going to convince either him or the member for Delta North. But that lies at the heart of the tough decision that one has to make — the provincial interest, and how it is advanced by agreeing to a settlement we believe will begin a process of reconciliation and provide those benefits and that opportunity that most of us take for granted in our communities but that to this point have been denied the Tsawwassen First Nation via the federal Indian Act.

G. Gentner: The minister is on record saying the interest was relative to the fact that these lands came out based on their location to transportation corridors. The province did have a direct interest in these parcels. Were they part of a plan to grant rights-of-way during the pending sale of B.C. Rail?

G. Gentner: But B.C. Rail was an interested party within the VPA-TFN agreement on the settlement. B.C. Rail was party — were they not?–– to the VPA-TFN agreement, a party which is a Crown corporation?

Hon. M. de Jong: The province was not a party to those third-party discussions.

G. Gentner: Well, I have a document that shows that the province, along with the Transportation Financing Authority, signed off on it, and BCR signed off on it. Obviously, the government was party to that agreement. Am I missing something here?

G. Gentner: B.C. Transportation Financing Authority signed off on the settlement. Also, B.C. Rail signed off. I think the date was November 5, 2004.

Hon. M. de Jong: The member in his earlier question or in this question is referring to some document or piece of paper. If he wants to send me the piece of paper, I'll try to deal with it and respond to it, but I'm not going to respond in the abstract.

G. Gentner: Let's get it straight. The minister is on record saying that BCR was not party to any agreement between the VPA and the TFN. Is that not correct? Is that what you said?

G. Gentner: You did say that, or you didn't say that? I didn't quite hear that.

G. Gentner: Okay. If I have it correct, the government, through B.C. Rail, did have a vested interest in the VPA-TFN agreement. Correct?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'll say this again. The member insists on alleging or charging or stating that at the end of the day, this final agreement is the product of a contrived negotiation designed to obtain a particular outcome as it relates to port development. That is not the case. I have said it before. I will say it again.

The fact that parties sat down, insofar as a particular set of litigations is concerned, and had a negotiation is one thing. To suggest, however, that that was the determining issue or the basis upon which this final agreement was settled is simply not true.

G. Gentner: I guess what I was referring to was the settlement agreement of November 5, 2004, where certainly there are signatures from B.C. Rail and the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority along with the Vancouver Port Authority and other parties.

The minister is saying, if I have it correct, that the province's main objective in this was not driven by port development. But the province was building the South Fraser perimeter road. It's been around for a while. It knew the need for the further exclusion of land outside of the ALR. I think that now we're seeing 225 acres being proposed for the South Fraser perimeter road outside the TFN settlement lands, which have to come out.

This happened well before the TFN AIP agreement. Again, the province knew of this northern parcel adjacent to Deltaport causeway and that B.C. Rail expansion was to occur. It was in the provincial interest to take this land out of the ALR. Would it not be?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm going to try and bring the conversation back to section 9, which is actually the specific provision of the bill that we are dealing with.

I'm puzzled, however, by the assertion that the government had some specific objective in mind. I'm curious to know why, if that were so — and it wasn't — the government would do the one thing in pursuit of that particular outcome that it could do to transfer away jurisdiction — that is, include it in the provisions of a final agreement with a first nation and invest absolute authority with them over the land use planning process over those lands.

I get the conspiracy theory that the member has been advancing for some months. One of the flaws in the theory, besides the fact that it's not true, is that you wouldn't do it this way. But if we're still talking about section 9, I'm sure I'll hear a great deal more about the grand conspiracy.

G. Gentner: There's no great conspiracy here. The province and the VPA were being sued by the TFN. There was an action launched, and out of that settlement came an agreement whereby there were lands that were to come out of the ALR. That presupposed the whole notion of treaty-making.

Looking at the 2003 TFN land use plan by Fletcher Consulting, what caused the TFN — because they had a different vision there — to change its plans and adopt removal of ALR land for industrial development up in that specific area, the panhandle of parcels 183, 108 and 107?

Hon. M. de Jong: I have no intention of trying to speak for the very able and capable leadership of the Tsawwassen First Nation, who I'm sure pursued these matters in a thoughtful way through the negotiation in a way that they believe best served the interests of the Tsawwassen First Nation.

G. Gentner: Let's go back a little further, so we can get a better idea here. After the government's position in 2001, whereby land transfer….

G. Gentner: Yes, hon. Chair. I'm referring to the lands removed out of the ALR specifically for the TFN agreement.

The treaty process has been going on for some time, Minister, so if we want to talk about ALR removal, we have to look at the whole picture. After the government's position in early 2001 whereby land transferred would remain in the ALR — all of it — and agreed to by Canada, for the so-called counterproposal the TFN commissioned CitySpaces Consulting for its vision in 2001. It was about the same time the Liberal government was being sworn in.

Really, once the Liberals won the 2001 election, ALR removal plans began. The Tsawwassen First Nation hired Fletcher and Co. and put together a different proposal, knowing that the new government of the day was not committed to the preservation of B.C.'s food resources.

The study area for the consultant was all 315 hectares as proposed by the province. The objective of the study was to provide the TFN's vision of community for the proposed treaty settlement lands. Of the 315 hectares, 79 were for housing, 14 for schools and recreation, 79 for cultural and environmental protection, and 65 for protection of watercourses and access for Delta. Only 21 hectares were slotted for economic development. The only area deemed for port use was parcel 183 — which is now, of course, earmarked — but not 108 or 107.

Now, this is by the foreshore and by the causeway. If this is what the TFN wanted, how is it that it received more than double the amount for port-related industrial land use?

Hon. M. de Jong: The hon. member takes great liberties purporting to speak for the TFN or interpret what they wanted or what they were seeking. That's his prerogative. I will not do so. Instead, I suspect I'll wait a few months or years. Maybe the member will contact Oliver Stone, and we'll get the movie version of how this conspiracy unfolded.

G. Gentner: Again, the minister wants to evade questions. We're not talking about a few dollars here. We're talking about a multitude of millions and millions of dollars in land deals.

You know, the minister may want to spout off that he doesn't know what the TFN is going to do with the land, but the government knows. Why else would it be spending over a billion dollars for the South Fraser perimeter road? You're building gateways for expanded port-related truck movements.

I mean, you just have to read the throne speech. Wasn't that part of the throne speech, building gateways to the Asia-Pacific? I mean, are you suddenly against that plan, Minister?

G. Gentner: South Fraser perimeter road and the gateway to the Asia-Pacific is, in part, part of the treaty deal which enables corridors to open up with the movement of goods and services.

If I have this right, parcels 107 and 108 — the additional parcels that have been put aside for potential port development — are not part of a plan to facilitate the government's overall plan for expanded port and ancillary lands it believes are necessary for such an expansion.

Minister, you're saying the province doesn't believe these lands are necessary for port-related activities. Is that correct?

Hon. M. de Jong: I continue to be mildly entertained by the version of the conspiracy being spun by this member, and it seems to be having some therapeutic effect on him as we move through this.

I'll say this again. This treaty transfers land to the Tsawwassen First Nation, which they will have decision-making authority around.

Hon. M. de Jong: Madam Chair, for the life of me, I don't get what part of that — the fact that it won't…. Maybe that's what offends this member — the fact that the authority to make decisions about that land won't actually exist in this chamber. Maybe that's what he's offended about, because that's what is happening. The authority to make those decisions around the use of these lands will vest with the Tsawwassen First Nation government.

I happen to agree with that. I happen to think it's part of a settlement to resolve this long-outstanding dispute and to begin — as the Chief pointed out — that journey of reconciliation, that march towards reconciliation. That is a small price to pay.

The member disagrees. The member purports to concoct theories about some nefarious intent that again he suggests the Tsawwassen First Nation are unwittingly complicit in.

I don't begrudge the member probing these matters. That's actually what members of the opposition, in part, are supposed to do. I think what troubles me a little bit is the underlying notion he has advanced that the Tsawwassen First Nation are unwittingly complicit. You know, in the experience that I've had, the Tsawwassen First Nation are pretty astute. They've got pretty effective leadership, and they make decisions as a community.

If the member is suspicious about the decisions that community might make, then I guess he should say so. Maybe that's what he's saying here. Maybe that is part of his submission to this committee and this chamber — that he is suspicious. He is suspicious about the direction the Tsawwassen First Nation wants to move in.

I don't know with certainty what the decisions are. I know what their objectives are. I know that their objectives are to create an economy where none existed, to create some promise where none existed, to create a community in which families have the same opportunities that existed for families in other communities.

For this member, that apparently translates into some grotesque perversion of self-governance and land use planning. It does not do so for me, but I am content to hear some more, Madam Chair.

G. Gentner: The minister seems to have this penchant to suddenly suggest it's the TFN's fault for all this, for this notion of developing the northern parcels for the port.

There is landfilling currently going on in the northern portions of the existing TFN land reserve now. It's going to be used for port-related facilities. It's happening. Land adjacent to the said new parcels coming out of the ALR, parcels 108 and 107…. Obviously, on these lands, something is going on for a similar activity.

The TFN never earmarked these parcels for industrial development. They wanted it for environment, culture and farming — and farming. So why take these lands out of the ALR?

Even the architect of the Clarksonian period in the late '90s, Doug McArthur, the anti-agricultural zealot himself, concluded that the amount of land needed for manufacturing, transportation and wholesale was no more than a total of 52 hectares. So how did the government come up with over 130 hectares for related port development? Well, the minister is not going to answer that question, but I think he knows.

I'll tell you what happened, hon. Chair. The VPA came up with an out-of-court settlement with the TFN in order to compensate for past environmental degradation to the TFN. The minister can say: "Well, that's the TFN's prerogative." The band had to weigh the consequences of settling with the offer on the table and consequently changing its vision of community to the demands of senior governments and Crown agencies, such as the VPA and B.C. Rail — to get something, or fight to fight on, rather than see a complete failure of negotiations.

So why did the province insist that the TFN settle with the VPA before moving to the next stage toward the AIP?

Hon. M. de Jong: Was the member's question or assertion: why did the provincial government insist on

settlement of the outstanding court case prior to signing the AIP? Was that the specific question?

Hon. M. de Jong: The litigation to which the member has referred was not settled prior to the signing of the AIP.

G. Gentner: In the VPA-Tsawwassen agreement, it states here: "If the effective date of the final agreement is not within two years of the settlement date, VPA and TFN will request the province to transfer the amount of land needed for the container-handling facility to the TFN from the proposed…." Well, it didn't meet the criteria. The time frame expired in two years, if I have that correct.

What role did the province play after the expiry of the agreement between the VPA and the TFN?

Hon. M. de Jong: I am desperately trying to ascertain the relationship between a third-party agreement, which is the subject of the member's question, and the specific provisions of section 9.

G. Gentner: Well, it's very clear, but nevertheless…. The minister is reluctant to discuss it further, I'm sure.

The AIP of March 2004 — I'll back up here — signed by the province that the TFN would consult with the ALC to determine how exclusion would occur….

When, before the final agreement, did the ALC meet with the TFN to discuss this?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm advised that there was a meeting between the Tsawwassen First Nation and the Agricultural Land Commission wherein the commission answered questions from the TFN about the process involved in making application for removal of lands from the agricultural land reserve.

G. Gentner: Did the Agricultural Land Commission not advise the parties — I assume the TFN would be one of them — that it was unlikely that the land would come out of the ALR for treaty settlement under the ALR provisions of the Land Commission?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm not certain what was discussed at that meeting. I wasn't present. My expectation is, however, that there would have been a discussion around process, but I wasn't at the meeting.

G. Gentner: Maybe the minister wasn't there, but obviously, negotiators had some inkling of what was said. I mean, if the land could not come out of the agricultural land reserve and the negotiators knew that, that would change the whole dynamic of negotiation. Of course the ministry knew.

Of course somebody knew what the Agricultural Land Commission told the TFN about what they could and could not do — ergo, the need to remove the process out of the hands of the Agricultural Land Commission. It was a hindrance.

You said last week in the debate with the member for Nelson-Creston that even with the AIP giving ALR land to the TFN, it wasn't the right thing to do. I quote: "That wouldn't be fair to them. It wouldn't be fair to the Agricultural Land Commission, who are charged with a different mandate, and that is to protect farmland."

Let's back up. If taking land out of the ALR was necessary, how is it, then, that section 22…? That's the parcel that's going to stay within the ALR. How is it that they're going to stay? I still don't understand how those lands were determined to stay within the agricultural land reserve.

Hon. M. de Jong: Sorry, hon. Chair. This is a section that deals with the specific amendment to the Agricultural Land Commission Act providing for the exclusion of land from the ALR. If I understand the member's question, he now wants to talk about land that is not the subject of this section and that is remaining within the ALR. That, I would suggest, falls outside of the ambit of this section.

G. Gentner: In order to do a comparative analysis between what goes in and what goes out, I think it is relevant to the discussion under section 9. But we don't have to discuss that if the minister doesn't…. That was reviewed under discussion by the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, and of course, he didn't get the answers, as well, as to why that particular land stayed in.

The question I have, therefore, is: what type of soil analysis and what type of assessment was done on the viability of farming on the lands that were removed and, of course, the lands that remain in?

Hon. M. de Jong: We are satisfied and have proceeded on the basis that this is prime agricultural land within the meaning of the act.

G. Gentner: Again, was there an assessment done from a professional agrologist on the viability of farming on those lands?

Hon. M. de Jong: I suppose that would be relevant if there was some question in our minds about the quality of the farmland in question. That is not the issue. We accept the proposition that this is quality prime farmland.

G. Gentner: Well, correctamundo. It is the most valuable soil-based farmland in the province. That's what you're giving away.

In your discussion with the member for Nelson-Creston, you stated: "A sustainable land base was necessary in order for the TFN to achieve a degree of economic self-sufficiency." This economic self-sufficiency is determined how?

Hon. M. de Jong: I won't belabour this, but the language sometimes is very revealing. I note the member chose to characterize what is taking place in this agreement as "giving away." Actually, I think that's part of the problem that has prevented our society from wrestling with and settling these issues.

I think the notion of resolving this — working with communities, helping them to reconcile past injustices, helping them to feel more a part of British Columbia and Canada — is a good thing. I generally don't refer to it as a giveaway, but I'll let the member choose whatever terminology he would like to apply.

The member had an additional question, the question around self-sufficiency. Yes, I have referred on numerous occasions to the interest we have in working with the Tsawwassen to provide them with opportunities to achieve economic self-sufficiency. I could go on for the next 30 minutes defining, or attempting to define, what that means to me.

I presume, however, that when we talk about communities, employment, opportunities for families and infrastructure, those are concepts that are not foreign to the member. But I am more than happy to do so if they are — and if, in the context of this discussion around section 9, he needs to hear from me at further length about what the objectives are around facilitating economic self-sufficiency, economic development and economic infrastructure.

G. Gentner: To determine why the land came out is dependent on what value it is going to be used for. It's a matter of what will work in the provincial interest. Economic self-sufficiency, in the provincial interpretation of it, means: is there a direct interest to port-related activity?

Hon. M. de Jong: The member makes the invitation, so I'll accept, and I won't belabour this. You'd like to see people having an opportunity to work. You'd like to see some evidence that those historic socioeconomic gaps….

Do I really have to say it to this member? The fact that everything from graduation rates to health indicators to employment rates…. A community like the Tsawwassen lags so abysmally behind a community just a few kilometres away. Is that so difficult a concept for this member? Is he so committed to this notion of the grand conspiracy around a port that he can't see his way clear to understand that actually there might be something larger at play?

I think his questions speak volumes about what is in his mind, in his heart. What do I mean by economic sustainability, economic development? How about an unemployment rate that is at record low levels right across the province but that aboriginal people, first nations like the Tsawwassen First Nation, aren't sharing in?

If that's so foreign, if that is so reprehensible to this member, if that is something he finds so objectionable that there should be a general desire — that, by the way, I think is shared by most members of this House on both sides of the aisle…. Then I'm more content to sit here and listen to some more. I find it very instructive. I find it very helpful.

If the member wants to hear more from me, within the context of section 9, about what the government feels is important in terms of helping the Tsawwassen acquire the means to provide for themselves in the way every other community wants to in this province, then I guess I'll do that. But how sad is that — that the member would need to have that explained to him for about the 15th time?

But I am not interested in taking precious time away from the member, because I'm learning a lot, and I think members of the House are learning a lot, about what actually motivates this member and what he finds important.

G. Gentner: It's an interesting rebuttal from the minister. I just asked a simple question: if he could interpret to me what his vision of economic self-sufficiency was. I get this sort of corporate psychopathic nature of…. I don't really understand what it is. He's obviously offended by the fact that I'm asking questions about what is going to happen to the most valuable farmland in the province.

You know, this is rich. Here we go. I mean, who needs a treaty? In fact, if this was removal, if this is what treaties are all about, I have to quote back to the agreement that should "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."

The minister earlier stated that he had no idea how some land was retained as ALR and other land wasn't. Some was excluded. What lands were required for the project?

Okay, let me tell you. Section 22, which is the part in the middle, the first away from the port along 52nd Street, isn't being removed from the ALR. The parcel closest to the port development — namely, what is needed for container handling — is: DL 183, DL 107 and DL 108. That's just a coincidence, I guess. Maybe it doesn't have anything to do with economic self-sufficiency.

I don't understand why the minister is so reluctant to tell us. The government, through various Crown corporations, was party to an agreement that said we're going to take land out of the ALR for port-related business. It's there. It's there for everybody to see. That's what's driven this agreement, this treaty.

The agreement clearly states the Vancouver Port Authority and the TFN "will request the province of British Columbia to transfer the amount of land needed for the container-handling facility to the TFN from the

proposed TFN settlement lands." So we know now what it needed. It needed the specific lands to be taken out of the agricultural land reserve for port-related development.

Did the VPA and the TFN request…? Did Canada request the parent for the Vancouver Port Authority? Of course it did. The Vancouver agreement states: "For industrial lands associated with port terminal–rail lands."

Minister, your government acts as the bartering agent for the land settlement. When did the B.C. Treaty Commission determine that parcels 107, 108 and 183 were to be associated for port terminal–rail lands?

Hon. M. de Jong: This may be difficult for the member in his Oliver Stone world to appreciate. Maybe Costner will play the role of the member in the inevitable movie. The B.C. Treaty Commission is the facilitator of the treaty process and was not involved in these negotiations.

G. Gentner: Thank you for the answer, hon. Minister. I was just quoting the agreement, so there's no need to get angry. Your government had nothing to do with this outside deal that would influence treaty-making. That's what you're saying.

But the question was different. The settlement agreement between the TFN and the VPA included the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority, the province and B.C. Rail. In fact, as I said earlier, I have a signed copy by the representatives. So in November of 2004 the province agreed to, or more likely instigated, the removal land of the ALR. It sealed the fate of the final agreement.

On November 6, 2006, farmers in Delta received a letter from B.C. Rail requesting purchase of land for a rail yard expansion. We're talking about a few hundred acres here. The offer to purchase included remaining portions of the same land attached, DL 108, and a new piece adjacent to the settlement lands, DL 109.

In the letter, the director of real estate for B.C. Rail said: "B.C. Rail was interested in purchasing the properties because of railcar storage, shunting and numerous tracks built on the option lands. The tracks will be developed up to the property line in order to maximize the number of tracks on the site."

Tell me, Minister: how is it that B.C. Rail is attempting to purchase land adjacent to settlement land for rail yard expansion — land that logically is contiguous for massive rail yard expansion within the settlement land rail corridor? Yet B.C. Rail agreed, through the VPA agreement, that there would be land taken out of the ALR for port-related industry. Isn't this collusion amongst the VPA and the province before a negotiated final agreement?

Hon. M. de Jong: Because I respect very much the exercise we are engaged in and believe it important that members have an opportunity to probe, to critique and ask questions, I have…. The member now chooses to make the kinds of allegations — using words like "collusion" — that I think are, in the context of the discussion we are having, minimally, inappropriate and, worse, reckless and disrespectful of the Tsawwassen First Nation.

We're discussing an agreement here between three parties. If the member chooses to attack that agreement on the basis of manufactured allegations of illegal activity, then I suppose that is his right. It is my right, however, to put the member on notice that I will not engage in that kind of a discussion.

G. Gentner: I think we know what economic self-sufficiency means. I guess we can call it the containerization of social injustices, as perceived by this government.

One statement the minister made last week that I have to refer to is: "Of the land being handed over, the majority will remain in the ALR." I'm assuming he's referring to the specific lands, the Boundary Bay lands and the contiguous lands by the settlement area. Is that correct?

Hon. M. de Jong: I am referring to the lands in section 9, which is the section of this bill we're debating.

G. Gentner: Okay, that's fine. I guess the majority will remain in the ALR, whatever that means. So I'll ask the question…. Well, we'll move off that one.

I took some umbrage with the minister's refusal to acknowledge appraised values of land given to the TFN based on normal assessment practices. Has the ministry, the government, hired an appraisal firm to look at the value of those lands at the highest, best use?

Hon. M. de Jong: No. It would be presumptuous of me — of the government, of anyone — to assume what land use decisions the Tsawwassen First Nation will make about any of their treaty settlement lands, including the lands that are the subject of section 9 of this bill.

G. Gentner: I don't want to call the minister presumptuous, but the minister was involved with a government that was party to an agreement whereby the lands were to be earmarked for industrial development, and the government does know that the price of industrial land is going for anywhere between $800,000 to $1.1 million an acre. When you look at all the appraisals that have been done — of course, there have been studies made by the GVRD and others — it's at a premium.

The minister has stated that there was very little influence regarding the values, and if we are to understand the side deal — often referred to as "the agreement" by the VPA and his government — then he's right, because he and his government have a proclivity to assist the port before mere treaty settlement. And land values, really, are immaterial.

However, the minister did state something interesting: "The preference will always be, as it has been, to conduct an inventory of available Crown land and utilize that asset as a basis for a settlement. It's what brought the province to the table in the first place." An inventory was conducted. The values were ascertained.

I know that this government has been on record with runaway costs and convention centres, etc. But truly, he has some notion of what the real estate values are for industrial lands.

I want to talk about farm production assessment. Agriculture is a critical industry. It contributes to the economy, generating over $2.2 billion a year in farm-gate receipts. Okay, the minister didn't do a property assessment, but what are the farm-gate receipts for the lands coming out of the agricultural land reserve?

G. Gentner: I find that unusual for a government that claims to be businesslike and that does due diligence when it comes down to all finances of the province. Can the minister tell us why there was no assessment done?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'll say this again. The member either doesn't want to or chooses not to hear this. There is recognition on my part and the part of the government that what we are doing here is transferring jurisdiction over productive farmland. That is not in dispute. I have tried to offer the rationale for doing so — the difficult choice that was made and why it was made — but there's no disputing that basic fact.

G. Gentner: Obviously, the government didn't do its homework or doesn't really care about farmland.

We have a member of this House who emphatically reminds us that you have to eat in order to live. Do you know that the net decrease of land in the agricultural reserve since its inception is 35,000 hectares? How many jobs, direct and indirect, are going to be lost on the ALR lands that are going to be excluded?

Have you done that, Minister? No, I think not. We know that from the producer to the consumer, farm to fork, farming produces 267,000 jobs. How many more will be created? How many jobs will be created with this transfer of land to the TFN, Minister?

Hon. M. de Jong: I suppose that will be influenced in part by the decisions the Tsawwassen First Nation makes about the use of the land and to what extent it is used to develop economic activity versus residential. Maybe the member wants to make submissions to the Tsawwassen First Nation.

He dismisses out of hand the possibility that they may want to retain some of these lands for agricultural activity themselves. He has so little regard for the decisions this group of people might make that that notion doesn't even occur to him. That is, as well, incredibly revealing about how this hon. member considers and regards the Tsawwassen First Nation.

G. Gentner: Can he tell us: how long does it take to create Fraser-based fertile soil?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm again not certain how a lesson in geology necessarily relates directly to section 9. I just finished acknowledging for the member's benefit — and I think probably others in this chamber are getting tired of my saying this — that there is no disputing the fact that this is valuable farmland.

If I speak slower for the hon. member, will it be helpful? If I could, I'd send him an e-mail, but all I have is an Etch A Sketch. He may have one of those too.

The land is valuable. We have made a decision. The member disagrees. In advancing that disagreement, he chooses to evoke all kinds of conspiracy theories. He chooses, in my view, to show a profound sense of disrespect for a group of people who are making a bold step. He chooses to do that — not me.

The member can choose to ignore what I've said, and I think he will. He'll undoubtedly leave this place and say whatever it is he wants to say. I'm not sure, though, how his colleagues feel his comments and commentary today have reflected upon them. That, in part, is why I'm fascinated to hear him and hear him continue.

G. Gentner: The minister has repeatedly announced to the House that value had no bearing, and we repeatedly have asked the question.

Hon. Chair, that was the member opposite, regarding the Nisga'a and how he attacked the former government for not coming forward with information relative to land values. Here we are again. How the tides have turned.

We have a minister who is refusing to tell us that he knows this is influencing the agreement, the Vancouver Port Authority–TFN agreement, on how this land is going to be developed. He knows what the values of the lands are.

I'm going to wind down. I have a question on a statement that the member for Nelson-Creston made last week.

The minister stated: "You drive down the street now towards Tsawwassen or towards the ferry, and you drive past prime agricultural land. That's the land you see. But you drive by a McDonald's and a city hall and a gas station, and that's all on prime agricultural land. We don't think about it, because somewhere along the line we decided that was okay."

The TFN sit down to negotiate, and they say: "We want a little bit of an opportunity to develop something where we are. You're offering land, all of it within the ALR. So what do you do?" And the member is saying: "You're creating a different standard or trying to apply a different standard. You want to restrict the TFN to rules made in 1973 for agricultural purposes. I think that isn't fair."

To the minister: what is fair? This building was negotiated for a cash settlement. It wasn't here during contact. Why didn't the government settle on its transfer? The reduction of time spent in these chambers by this government, a refusal to call us…. Who knows? We may have been better off giving it to the first nation.

If there was no port, there would be no settling of land. In fact, I believe that of all the treaties in the hopper, the TFN was expedited simply because of the need for port development.

Now, the minister has repeatedly denied that. He says there's another reason. It's benevolence on his part. We know that the expropriated lands by W.A.C. Bennett occurred because it was a land grab before the feds were going to take it for its potential port development. It was its means to stop the residential growth that you see in Richmond. If those lands had been developed, there would not have been an ALR meltdown, because there would be no land to use.

Why is it so unfair to restrict development on farmland and not on port industrial development? I'm asking that question to the minister. Why is it, Minister?

The Chair: Members, please allow the member who has the floor to ask his question.

G. Gentner: Why is it so unfair to restrict development on farmland and not on port industrial development?

Hon. M. de Jong: At this juncture, I am inclined to celebrate little things. Included amongst them was the generosity of the hon. member in, I believe, quoting me correctly from comments I made last week. I stand by those comments wholeheartedly and enthusiastically.

Hon. M. de Jong: With respect to section 12, the provision that reads "Tax Treatment Agreement," the essence of the amendment relates to the document that is "tabled in the Legislative Assembly on the date this Act receives First Reading." In fact, the document was tabled the following day.

Hon. M. de Jong: So the amendment would read: "…substantially in the form tabled in the Legislative Assembly on or before the date this Act receives Third Reading."

Hon. M. de Jong: And in section 13(1), a similar amendment to read: "on or before the date this Act receives Third Reading."

Hon. M. de Jong: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Bill 40, Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement Act, reported complete with amendments.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 41; H. Bloy in the chair.

Hon. M. de Jong: Just for the information of members of the committee, the tax treatment agreement referred to herein is referred to as having been tabled on the same day as first reading of the bill. That, in fact, is not correct. It was tabled the day after.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move a similar amendment to the previous amendments for section 142(1)(b).

Hon. M. de Jong: The final amendment on this bill similar to the previous amendment, section 163(1)(b).

Hon. M. de Jong: Hon. Chair, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Bill 41, Final Agreement Consequential Amendments Act, 2007, reported complete with amendments.

Bill 41, Final Agreement Consequential Amendments Act, 2007, read a third time and passed.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 42; H. Bloy in the chair.

Hon. M. de Jong: With respect to section 1, again, this refers to a tax treatment agreement, and I move the following amendment:

Hon. M. de Jong: Hon. Chair, I move the committee rise, report the bill complete with amendment.

Bill 42, Treaty First Nation Taxation Act, read a third time and passed on division.

C. Trevena: I rise today to oppose Bill 43, the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Amendment Act.

I'm a strong proponent of an integrated public transportation system for the lower mainland, and if we're serious in trying to deal with climate change, we've got to make sure that we have very effective transit systems. We've got to get people using buses, light rail and other forms of public transit, and leaving their cars at home. If we're serious about public transit, we have to make sure that it works effectively. This bill is going to mean that public transit will not work effectively, because it takes it too many steps away from the people who should be running it.

In his opening remarks about ten days ago, the Minister of Transportation said that at the moment no one really knows who runs transit, who's responsible for the decisions made. I'd like to refresh the minister's mind and tell him that at the moment, TransLink's board of directors consists of 12 members elected to municipal councils and appointed for one-year terms. That is local accountability and local appointment.

Sadly, this bill takes control from the hands of local politicians, from the hands of those people who have an understanding of local needs, and puts it into the hands of appointees. It takes it once again out of the local elected democratic process and puts it into a process of appointment. We're going to see appointed directors doing the planning for TransLink and run-

ning it. The elected voice is a mayors' council, which will meet only four times a year.

I'm the member for North Island. I'm aware of the transit problems in the lower mainland and am very concerned about them. But the reason I'm speaking about this bill is because I am very concerned about taking away the transit authority from local elected officials, from the hands of those who really are involved and informed.

The directors who are being appointed are being appointed for their business expertise, and of course, we need people with business expertise to run a large organization. There is no question of this. But we're talking about transit. Transit serves communities, so communities' needs also need to be met.

They've got to be able to look at planning needs, regional land use plans, how it fits in with climate change decisions and how it fits in with the society we hope will develop and with the communities as we hope they will evolve.

The directors of this new board have been chosen from a very limited area. They've been chosen from the board of trade, their accountants, from the minister's office itself. I think it would have been much healthier, if you're going to take it away from elected control, which I think is a huge mistake, to bring in representatives of the communities, to bring in workers, to bring in transit users as well as these other appointments.

These directors are responsible for drawing up a 30-year plan, a plan that doesn't require consultation. All it expects under this plan is reasonable attempts at consultation. This sounds sadly like the weasel words that the government uses when dealing with first nations, where the requirement to consult is often ignored or couched in such bureaucracy that consultation falls apart. There are so many letters and requests and obfuscation that it gets completely lost in the mix. Bureaucracy takes over, and I fear that this is what's going to be happening with this appointment.

There is, in this bill, a serious lack of accountability, which is symptomatic of this government — appointees yet again taking over from local democratic control and local democratic involvement. I'm extremely worried at this bill's attempt at reining in this local control — yet another cut to our democratic process. We have seen over the years, time and again, this government cutting away at democracy, imposing boards, taking away the voice of elected people. Bit by bit, people's voices are being removed from our systems, removed from our province. These are the people, the elected people, who should be running our communities.

Instead we're seeing a centralization in a bureaucratic form with appointees as directors. We're seeing it in municipalities, we're seeing it in regional districts, we're seeing it with trusts being set up, and we're seeing it with health boards being taken away. Appointed boards are being placed where we used to have a local voice.

Health authorities, I think, are the prime example that we all have seen. There used to be community involvement. There used to be health boards. Now we have business people appointed to a board to decide on public health care for large areas of our communities when we should be having much more local control and local involvement. We see it in Hydro; we see it in B.C. Ferries. The public is being taken out of public service.

I represent a ferry-dependent community. Ferries is another example where the transportation infrastructure has been put into unelected corporate hands to the detriment of the users, to the detriment of the whole of the coastal system — yet another move by this government to take control out of people's hands. The result, hon. Speaker, is a lack of accountability — in fact, a bizarre circle in the instance of Ferries, where you talk to the CEO, and he tells you to talk to the Ferries commissioner, who tells you to talk to the minister, who tells you to talk to the CEO.

I offer a word of caution to TransLink users from a regular B.C. Ferries user. We've had our system taken away from us and put into autocratic hands. We've had our system taken away from us, and the commissioner places an intermediary to placate concerns about accountability. The fares of ferries still go up and have gone up and have gone up, and nobody is carrying the can.

Under this bill, TransLink fares may be raised by the directors alone, if they are necessary and reasonable. I would put a big cautionary flag there for anyone who is using TransLink, because these are very similar words that we see under the Coastal Ferry Act — that ferry fares can go up. The spiralling cost to the users is because a corporate model is imposed on our highway transportation system.

You've got to think outside the box here. We're all facing climate change. We're all facing issues of infrastructure. But we need to be looking at new models, at new ways of evolving, at ensuring that there is local control, at ensuring that there is local voice and democratically elected voice. I've got to ask: why is this government so afraid of local control? Why is it so afraid of hearing a local voice, of a local approach, of people who are elected rather than appointed? I have to ask: why is this government so afraid of the democratic process?

The minister joked — at least, I hope it was a joke — that China has "in many ways the ideal government structure." He went on to say: "China really has the ultimate Kevin Falcon government structure." They "don't have the labour and environmental restrictions we do. It's not like they have to do community consultations." We had laughter about this.

C. Trevena: The minister may say it's a joke, but it's a very sad joke, and it shows his understanding of democracy and world affairs, I fear. We are a democracy — governance 101. We had a democracy. We had a system of local accountability. We had a system of boards — whether it was transit boards, health boards,

local government boards or regional district boards — where there was accountability.

Sadly, if it was governance 101, the minister would fail the understanding of what a democracy is, because he, like his government, doesn't trust the people of B.C. This minister, like his government, simply wants to centralize power and take it out of the democratic sphere, take it away from people who have knowledge and involvement and care about their communities and care about the future of their communities.

This is why I oppose this bill. It is simply another move by a government that has no understanding of what people want, that has no understanding of the needs of the people of B.C. It is another move, I fear, towards authoritarianism in B.C.

L. Krog: I'm delighted to rise in second reading debate on what is entitled the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Amendment Act, 2007. Now, an amendment generally contemplates that you're going to preserve that which exists. In other words, we might modify it. We'll improve it, we'll put a new coat of paint on it, we'll fix it up, we'll trot it out again, we'll modernize the language, and we'll do all kinds of things. But the essence of what you're going to amend will survive.

With great respect, having passed Thanksgiving, it's a bit like saying the turkey who's alive the day before Thanksgiving feels pretty much the same the day after Thanksgiving.

L. Krog: Slightly amended. Only slightly amended. The fact is that this is anything but an amendment. This is indeed a brave new world, and I make that reference quite deliberately. This is the 1984 of amendments. This is a step down the road that no one had contemplated.

Now, I acknowledge that the Minister of Transportation, when he was speaking to the Lower Mainland Municipal Association annual general meeting, was just being funny. We know the minister imagines himself to be quite a wit. He's always delighted to have an audience to pass a few remarks to, and I'm sure that he was being funny when he said: "No one there ever questions the need to build infrastructure like this. Now, granted, China has a bit of a different governance structure, but in many ways, it is the ideal government structure."

I mean, that's very funny. It is. It's quite hilarious, actually. Then he goes on to say, after receiving the appropriate round of applause from a very supportive audience of his friends, "China really has the ultimate Kevin Falcon government structure," and that got even more guffaws from the audience. Now, he did go on to note that: "The Chinese don't have the labour and environmental restrictions we do. It's not like they have to do community consultations. They just say, 'We're building a bridge,' and they move everyone out of there and get going within two weeks. Could you imagine if we could build like that?"

Well, I just want to say to the hon. Minister that it was the famous former Premier of this province, Glen Clark, who said so elegantly once that process was for cheese. I can see that what we have here is perhaps the Glen Clark school of governance.

The minister is proud. He's following in the footsteps of Glen Clark. We don't want to bother with process. We just want to jam this through as best we can. We're not worried about process. Goodness, gracious — democracy? After all, we're only approaching Remembrance Day, you know — honouring a couple of world wars where we fought against fascism and for the right to be free and vote for everyone. No, no, no, we'd rather step into the brave new world the minister contemplates with this amendment act.

You know, if it wasn't so funny, what the minister had to say to the Lower Mainland Municipal Association, then it wouldn't be so striking that we can actually go to this bill…. Now, this is the amazing part.

Let's go to section 170. That's the section that deals with directors. It says that in this part "eligible individual" — now there's a nice, high-sounding phrase — "means an individual who (a) is not an employee, director or officer of the authority or of any of its subsidiaries" — that's reasonable; we'll exclude those folks — "(b) is not, and has never been, a commissioner or a deputy commissioner." Not unreasonable. Subsection (d) provides: "is not an employee of the government or of a municipality, regional district, trust council or greater board." But even better is subsection (c): "does not hold elected public office of any type…."

Look, we don't have to have a lesson on the constitution in this chamber. We all understand there are only two orders of government that are formally recognized by the Canadian constitution. One is the federal government with its restricted powers; the other is the provincial government with its restricted powers.

We all understand that as much as municipalities would like to be recognized formally as a third order of government under the constitution, they're not. They are a creation of provincial statute. Municipal governments, regional districts only exist because this Legislature said that it's a good idea.

The power to create Crown corporations. The power to do all these kinds of important things which have been used to build British Columbia. B.C. Ferries…. Oh, pardon me. We don't have a B.C. Ferries that's a Crown corporation anymore. It's a hybridized thing. B.C. Ferries, B.C. Hydro — those kinds of structures all relate back to the power of the provincial government to legislate.

We have come to recognize and indeed have given to municipal governments significant powers and authority, including the power to tax, which is pretty much the kind of basic power that we give to governments everywhere — to take from the Commonwealth, if you will, the money of all the people and distribute it back in the form of governance, structures, highways, roads, schools or whatever. Pretty basic.

We actually have the right to elect those people, and that's important. This isn't a third order of government that's appointed by the provincial government. It's actually elected. They have to go and face voters.

What does this funny little amendment, this little statute, say? It says that an eligible individual cannot hold elected public office of any type. Yet it is indeed to those municipal governments that we look to, to provide funding for transportation, to provide regulation and to provide the basic planning services that are so important.

Surely, in the lower mainland, of all places, we understand the importance of planning. We understand the importance of municipal and local government. But this bill says that if you are an elected official, if you have gone out and sought the support of your voters in your municipality, if you've received their confidence and their support on election day, you're not eligible. You're not eligible to spend what will amount over time to tens of millions and hundreds of millions of dollars to supervise something that is so crucial to modern communities, and that is transportation.

Transit. It is the fundamental building block of our modern communities. We have built a whole country around the automobile. We are now coming into a time where we understand that our cities, where most of us live — we're not all down on the farm anymore — are absolutely reliant on public transportation.

We're going to get out of our cars. There is no question about that. It is just a question of time, of when and how — how we do it least disruptively to our economy, how we do it with public support and how governments have the courage to implement it. We are going to get out of our automobiles. Transportation, and how that is governed, is absolutely crucial.

So this is no small bill. This may not have attracted a lot of public attention, but this is no small bill. The Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Amendment Act is a very important piece of legislation. I would venture to say that it will be one of the most important bills placed before this whole term of government, from 2005 to 2009. I think the minister knows it.

What this bill says is that the board, under section 171, is to consist of "(a) the GVTA directors, until their term of office expires under section 178 (2), and (b) after that, 9 qualified individuals appointed as directors of the authority in accordance with this Part."

What does this part talk about? It says in section 172 that on or after June 30 of each year "(a) the minister must appoint one eligible individual." So the minister can't avoid it. The minister's got to appoint somebody. It could be a friend. It could be a Liberal insider. But the minister has got to appoint one person.

The mayors council on regional transportation "must appoint one eligible individual." That's democracy at work in this bill. That is democracy at work. The mayors council will get to appoint one eligible individual — one eligible individual only.

Oh, then we have a highly democratic, publicly recognized institution, which we all get to participate in. The council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of British Columbia "must appoint one eligible individual." Who in the heck elected them? Who elected them?

Then we have: "(d) the board of directors of the Vancouver Board of Trade must appoint one eligible individual." Now, there's a democratic organization. Gosh knows, they represent millions of British Columbians — millions of them. The Vancouver Board of Trade has an important role in our society. I'd be the first to acknowledge that. So do the chartered accountants. But they are not democratic institutions.

They, indeed, are further down the food chain in terms of what government structures exist in our province. They're not the federal government. They're not the provincial government. They're not the municipal government. They only exist — the Institute of Chartered Accountants — because a statute created them.

Then we have: "(e) the Greater Vancouver Gateway Society must appoint one eligible individual." Now, who's the Greater Vancouver Gateway Society that they get to appoint another eligible individual?

I love this "eligible individual" discussion. It's fabulous. I thought that by virtue of being an adult citizen in British Columbia, I would have been an eligible individual. I would have thought that all of the great struggle to bring about democratic reform in our society, to take the power away from the King when the barons ran him down at Runnymede in 1215….

All of that structure, all of those things were to enable us to have control over those things which are important in our communities, whether it be defence, redistribution of wealth, taxation or whatever.

We've now arrived at a stage where this government thinks that it is appropriate to have a body with enormous powers which will have enormous impact on planning and development and growth in the major communities of our province, where literally over half of our population lives. This body will be totally and thoroughly undemocratic, except for this one little individual who will be appointed by the mayors council on regional transportation — one eligible individual.

Oh and by the way, that eligible individual, to take you back to the definitions section, can't be elected. So we can't have someone who's ever faced the public in an election. We cannot have anyone who's really been successful in politics, because they will be tainted.

What we're going to have to have is some poor soul prepared to take on this enormous responsibility but who can't be elected. You've got to ask yourself: gosh, if they can't get elected, why would you want them running something that has power over public tax dollars? It just makes no sense to me.

Look at this list of who gets to appoint. Did it occur to the government or did it ever occur to the Minister of Transportation that you might…? If you're going to do this undemocratic process, if you're going to proceed on this basis, did it ever occur to the minister that maybe you appoint, oh gosh, someone who rides a bus?

There's a thought. There's a striking thought. We'll actually appoint someone who rides a bus. Maybe we could appoint someone from a transit union who's actually worked with buses or, shock of shocks, maybe even a representative from the B.C. Federation of Labour, since we've got the business community so widely represented on this undemocratic organization.

Oh heck, even if we'd had the School Trustees Association…. Oh no, they're not eligible either, because they hold elected office.

Hon. Speaker, I have much more to say on this charming little production from the Minister of Transportation. Accordingly, reserving my right to continue and noting the hour, I move adjournment of the debate.

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.


	YEAS — 65

Falcon	Reid	Coell
Ilich	Chong	Christensen
Les	Richmond	Bell
Roddick	Hayer	Lee
Jarvis	Nuraney	Whittred
Cantelon	Thorpe	Hagen
Oppal	de Jong	Taylor
Bond	Hansen	Abbott
Penner	Neufeld	Coleman
Hogg	Sultan	Bennett
Mayencourt	Polak	Brar
Fleming	Farnworth	James
Kwan	Ralston	B. Simpson
Cubberley	Hammell	Coons
Thorne	Simons	Puchmayr
Routley	Fraser	Hawes
Yap	Horgan	Dix
Trevena	Bains	Robertson
Karagianis	Krog	Austin
Chudnovsky	Chouhan	Wyse
Macdonald	Conroy	Black
McIntyre		Rustad

	NAYS — 4

Lekstrom	Gentner	Sather
	MacKay