1998/99 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 36th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 27, 1999

Afternoon

Volume 13, Number 14

[ Page 11305 ]

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Prayers.

G. Robertson: With us today we have two special guests from the North Island, from my constituency. Christine Hunt is a Kwakiutl from the Kwakiutl first nation and a native adviser to the Minister of Fisheries. With Christine is her sister Corrine. Corinne is a famous -- and I mean that quite sincerely -- Kwakiutl carver from the North Island who does absolutely beautiful work. Her elegant and intricate jewellery is distributed throughout the world, and we're really pleased to have her. I'd ask the members to please welcome these North Island women.

I. Chong: Joining us today are three bright, intelligent young gentlemen who attend the University of Victoria in my riding. They are Mr. Aaron Gairdner, past president of the UVic B.C. Young Liberals, Mr. Herman Cheung and Mr. Dale Flood. Would the House please make them very welcome.

Hon. J. Kwan: Visiting us today is Robert Hobson, who is chair of the Central Okanagan regional district. He's also a councillor in Kelowna, and I'll be meeting with him later on this afternoon on an issue relating to his community. Would the House please make him welcome.

W. Hartley: On behalf of the Clerks-at-the-Table, I'd like to introduce one of their colleagues, the Deputy Clerk in the Manitoba Legislature, Bev Boziac, who's in the gallery. Would members please make her welcome.

S. Hawkins: I'd also like to welcome Mr. Robert Hobson, a very hard-working, conscientious councillor with the city of Kelowna and chairman of the regional district. This side would like to make him welcome as well.

J. Cashore: In the House today we have Prof. Richard Price, who is retired and finding lots of work-related things to do in Victoria. He's a leading Canadian authority on aboriginal treaty-making. Would the House please make him welcome.

Ministerial Statement

TAYLOR GAS PLANT EXPLOSION

Hon. D. Miller: I rise to make a brief ministerial statement. The information has now come out, and I think it's public, that there was a serious incident in Taylor, British Columbia. It's a small community of about 1,200 people located on Highway 97 between Dawson Creek and Fort St. John. I have discussed this with the member for Peace River North, as well as with the president of Solex, the owner and operator of the gas liquids stripping plant.

Shortly after noon today there was a series of explosions at the Solex gas liquids extraction plant, which produces methane gas. At this time there are no reported deaths. Fires continue, but they are not contained, and serious threat remains. Due to the proximity of large pressurized gas containers in the area that could result in further explosions, the mayor of Taylor has declared a local state of emergency.

I want to express my government's concern for the Solex workers, their families and the emergency and firefighting crews on the scene and to offer our full support to the town of Taylor. We want you to know that we are doing everything possible to deal with the situation.

Here, hon. Speaker, is what we know so far about the situation. There are no fatalities, although at least 12 injuries have been reported. All workers are accounted for. RCMP and local officials, as a precautionary measure, have evacuated the town of Taylor. Evacuation is now complete. A local state of emergency has been declared, and the provincial emergency program, along with local emergency authorities, are on site. A reception centre has been set up for residents in Fort St. John for evacuated residents. They are expected to spend the night away from their community.

We will continue to work with the community and local officials to ensure the safety of the residents, and I will keep the House informed as the situation develops.

R. Neufeld: These are situations that happen from time to time. We wish they wouldn't, but in the industry that these men and women work in, it's highly dangerous. It's highly flammable liquids that they work with on a constant basis, and unfortunately, we have what none of us likes to see: a serious explosion in the community of Taylor, which I represent. I was first notified just after it happened, and I spoke to a PEP coordinator in the community of Taylor just prior to that person being evacuated.

There are a number of injured. No one knows how seriously, and we hope not seriously. I've sent my regards to the mayor. I've been trying to get in touch with but have not yet been able to reach Mayor Fred Jarvis. Obviously he's a busy person at this present time, and I think he's probably got enough to do on the ground. I've left messages at the command centre in Fort St. John, at the fire department, that anything that we can do or that the ministry can do . . . . We're certainly there to provide those services.

On behalf of all members, I'd like to extend best wishes to all the families involved -- of those that are injured and also of those that are not able to go back home today -- and to congratulate all those men and women in the PEP program and all other programs that have worked so diligently to quickly remove all the school children from that community and to do the things that are necessary in the north. We must remember that it is a different climate than what we experience here.

It's probably running about minus 15 -- 15 below zero -- right now, so it's a little tougher than trying to work in Vancouver or Victoria, where the weather is a little bit different. So we wish them all the best, and we'll be in touch with them.

Oral Questions

FAST FERRY PROGRAM COST OVERRUNS

G. Campbell: For years the Premier has been denying that his fast ferry project was massively over budget, despite being three years behind schedule. Now we've found out that it's $200 million over budget. The minister that the Premier appointed has been an absolute failure. My question to the Premier is: after ten days of ducking and dithering and denial, will you fire the minister responsible for B.C. Ferries?

[2:15]

[ Page 11306 ]

Hon. G. Clark: It's obvious that members of the opposition want this project to fail. They have been saying repeatedly, and the Leader of the Opposition said before . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order.

Hon. G. Clark: After we announced the project, the Leader of the Opposition said it would sink. They have no faith in the workers in British Columbia or even in the idea that we can build a world-class vessel in this province.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order.

Hon. G. Clark: The minister responsible is taking immediate action; he has put people in place. The information will be completely available to everybody. I still have confidence not only in the minister but in the fast ferry project. I know that is not acceptable to the opposition, because they are opposed to every single constructive thing that the government is trying to do to create jobs in this province.

The Speaker: Leader of the Official Opposition, first supplementary.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, this Premier's and this government's incompetence and negligence and abuse of the taxpayer are what we are opposed to. Let's look at the facts. Here's a minister who doesn't ask questions, who signs annual reports and whose lame excuse is: "I don't understand them." He won't even return the phone call of the president of the Crown corporation when he has information for him. Here's a minister who has misled the people of British Columbia for some time -- the Deputy Premier.

The Speaker: And your question?

G. Campbell: Could it be that the Premier is afraid to hold this minister accountable, afraid to fire this minister, because the Premier knows that this fiasco has been his fault from day one?

Hon. G. Clark: The members know . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members will come to order.

Hon. G. Clark: All members know that the Deputy Premier has reported to the House, on numerous occasions, factual information that he obtained from the Ferry Corporation with respect to this project. They now know and we know that some of that information has been incorrect. We are taking steps to get to the bottom of it. The members of the opposition have had years to canvass this subject -- have canvassed it. The information . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members.

Hon. G. Clark: . . . that I received and the information that the minister received, which we reported to the House . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members . . . .

Hon. G. Clark: . . . was the best information -- which we believed to be accurate -- from the corporation itself.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members of the opposition will have an opportunity to ask a question very soon. Take it easy.

Hon. G. Clark: We know -- everybody knows -- that the opposition wants to play politics with this issue. They know that; that's obvious. They want to play politics with every issue, with the economy, with people's jobs.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members.

Hon. G. Clark: The members opposite have been in question period -- not just in question period . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members will come to order. The Premier will finish his remarks.

Hon. G. Clark: Members opposite, through estimates debate, have thoroughly canvassed this question. By the way, they were even at the launch of the fast ferry. Liberal members -- the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale -- were there praising the work, praising the project. They've been following this. We made public the information that we had available at that time; some of that information is erroneous. We are now putting teams in place. All of the information will be available as soon as it's available.

The Speaker: Leader of the Official Opposition, second supplementary.

G. Campbell: Well, it's not too hard to see why this minister's a disgrace: this Premier is a disgrace. What message does it send to the public service when the Premier and the minister responsible slough off all their responsibility and try to blame it on one single bureaucrat -- all of their responsibility? What message does it send to the taxpayer when the Premier says: "It's fine with me if the minister responsible for B.C. Ferries stands by as the cost for a project doubles and the taxpayers are sent $200 million in additional costs"? What message does that send?

The Speaker: And your question?

[ Page 11307 ]

G. Campbell: How can the Premier justify being in his job when he won't hold the minister accountable for a $200 million override? If you don't have the guts to fire him, you should resign.

The Speaker: Members will remember to address their remarks through the Chair.

Hon. G. Clark: The members of the opposition wish to rush to judgment on this and every project that we face in British Columbia. Let's remind the people of B.C. that they were opposed to commuter rail. They said it would be over budget; they said it wouldn't work.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order.

Hon. G. Clark: They said it wouldn't work. They were opposed to it. They campaigned against it.

On this subject, they have been against it consistently, even though they had the temerity to come to the opening with 600 workers and say what a wonderful vessel it was, even though they were there and drank the refreshments and were at the celebration of the launch of the cat. They were there.

Now they want to rush the judgment on the numbers, on whether it will work or not. We have put in place a process to get to the bottom of this issue. All of it will be available to the public. I still have confidence in the workers of British Columbia and in this project.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

M. de Jong: Well, I have news for the Premier: they don't have confidence in him.

If the Premier wants to stand in the House and list every project that he has overseen that has gone millions of dollars over budget, then we'd better lengthen question period by at least half an hour.

We want this Premier to tell the truth. We want this Premier to explain how he can have confidence in a minister who wouldn't respond, for over a month, to the calls of a head of a Crown corporation overseeing a multimillion-dollar project. We want this Premier to explain to the people of B.C. how he has squandered millions and millions of their tax dollars.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, inappropriate language . . . . Remember the parliamentary rules about language, everybody.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The minister is not going to reply until we have silence in the chamber.

Hon. D. Miller: For a little better than a week now, the opposition has been essentially asking the same questions, and they've been responded to . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members . . . .

Hon. D. Miller: . . . with frankness. We have clearly set out a process to try to get to the bottom of this. The information that was supplied to us was inaccurate.

I should say, as I said yesterday, that we have not rushed to judgment. We have not, if you like, tried to draw unnecessary conclusions or draw conclusions too hastily on this question. I think that when the report on this issue is made public, there will be lots of information, and I think it will be quite revealing. In the meantime, I think it's important that we stick to the position that we outlined. We've answered questions honestly; we've put a process in place that will get to the bottom of this. And, as we've said . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members . . . .

Hon. D. Miller: . . . repeatedly over the last week, when we get that information, we will make it public and make it available to the opposition.

The Speaker: I recognize the member for Matsqui, first supplementary.

M. de Jong: If this minister had been doing his job, if this Premier had been doing his job, we would have had that information months -- if not years -- ago, and we wouldn't be in the position we're in today.

Let the Premier tell the people of British Columbia, whose money he has blown, how many times he asked the relevant questions. In the face of the information that was brought to this House by members of the opposition, how many phone calls did he make to the head of the Crown corporation to inquire as to why the project was three years late, to inquire how many more millions of dollars it was going to take to put one -- let alone three -- of these ferries in the water?

The Premier thinks he can lateral his baby off to the minister sitting next to him. The time has come for him to stand up and take responsibility for a pet project that is going to cost British Columbians hundreds of millions of dollars. It's his fault. Let him acknowledge that once and for all.

Hon. D. Miller: I suppose it's fair to say that if the Leader of the Opposition had been doing his job, he'd be the Premier now instead of still sitting as the Leader of the Opposition. I'm sure . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members.

Hon. D. Miller: . . . that the thought probably crossed the minds of some members of his caucus that perhaps there ought to be a change -- but there hasn't been.

[ Page 11308 ]

G. Farrell-Collins: If members on this side of the House lied as often as the government did, we'd be over there.

The Speaker: Hon. member, order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Both of you sit down. Come on; sit down.

Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Speaker, there are rules in this House. They ought to be followed if we are going to have civility in debate in this House. I would ask that member to unequivocally withdraw that statement.

The Speaker: Thank you. Minister, take your seat.

One of the rules of this House is that we will use parliamentary language. I will ask the member who made the comment earlier to withdraw the comment.

We also know that the point of order should happen later in the agenda. I will make that point later. But in the meantime, hon. member . . . .

G. Farrell-Collins: In no way would I ever intend to offend the hon. minister, so I withdraw. The public knows the truth, hon. Speaker.

The Speaker: But the member withdraws.

G. Farrell-Collins: My question is for the minister responsible for B.C. Ferries.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member, you're being asked to withdraw the comment.

G. Farrell-Collins: I did withdraw it, hon. Speaker. I withdraw it.

The Speaker: All right, you've said you withdraw the words. Thank you.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, we are now . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members . . . .

G. Farrell-Collins: If the minister wants to raise a point of order, he can do it after question period, like the rules say.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, take your seats. All members please take their seats.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. Would the minister please take his seat. All right, now let's just slow down here.

I would like to ask the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain to please withdraw his comments unconditionally.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, for the third time, I withdraw my comments.

The Speaker: Unconditionally.

G. Farrell-Collins: Unconditionally -- what does it matter?

The Speaker: Thank you. You may proceed.

G. Farrell-Collins: My question is to the minister who is supposed to be responsible for B.C. Ferries. We are now being told that KPMG phoned the board of directors of the B.C. Ferry Corporation on December 10 to tell them that their project -- the Premier's project and the minister's project -- was massively over budget. For a month, the CEO of B.C. Ferries tried to get the minister on the phone. Can the minister confirm that the reason he didn't want to respond to the CEO of B.C. Ferries was that December 10 happened to be four days before the Parksville-Qualicum by-election and the NDP couldn't afford yet one more scandal?

Hon. D. Miller: I think a few facts are worth repeating . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, a question was asked. The minister was asked a question; he is entitled to give an answer. Members will pay attention.

[2:30]

Hon. D. Miller: The fact that I was going to repeat is this. I'd be happy to send a transcript of the press conference that we held a week ago Monday, at which time Mr. Munro, the chair of CFI, said -- and I'm paraphrasing -- that the board was advised verbally in November that the cost had gone "over $90 million." He then said -- and he was supported by Mr. Eaton, the chair of the B.C. Ferries board -- that they, then, on the basis of that, demanded that a full report be presented to the board.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members.

Hon. D. Miller: That report that they requested -- a synopsis -- was delivered initially on the 14th, with the full report to the board on the 15th.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members . . . .

Hon. D. Miller: The record is absolutely clear.

Finally . . . .

Interjections.

[ Page 11309 ]

The Speaker: The bell has . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: I'm sorry. The member . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. All members will take their seats.

Now, we've run into a bit of a snag here. The bell went. We thought the minister had finished his remarks, and the minister had not finished his remarks. I'm prepared to let the minister finish his remarks. I'm sure he will be brief -- to finish the sentence.

Hon. D. Miller: I can only urge some element of caution to the opposition. I can't tell them what to do, but if they insist on drawing from information that they see on television or read in the newspaper -- or from what some person says -- and determining at this point that they are facts, I would ask them to think about that. In hindsight, somewhere down the road they may have difficulty with the position they're taking right now.

The Speaker: All right. The bell calls an end to question period.

I recognize the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain on a point of order.

G. Farrell-Collins: As the Speaker and the member opposite know, points of order are to be raised after question period. Given the considerable amount of time -- and effort, I might add -- taken by the minister responsible to obstruct and delay the amount of time available in question period, and his deliberate attempt, when he saw the little light go off, to sit down before question period was finished, the opposition should be allowed a supplemental question.

The Speaker: I will hear one comment in response, from the Minister of Energy and Mines.

Hon. D. Miller: If the member wants to complain about the rules, perhaps he should set an example by following the rules.

The Speaker: Hon. members, the Chair has two choices. I think I'm going to opt for allowing . . . . Because we got into the issue of a point of order in the middle of question period, which isn't normal and normally wouldn't have happened, I am going to allow a brief supplementary.

Interjections.

The Speaker: But -- wait a minute -- I also want a brief response. So it'll just be very short, please.

G. Farrell-Collins: I have a very simple question for the minister. How many times in the month between December 10 and January 7 did Tom Ward try to get hold of you and you refused to take his calls?

The Speaker: Through the Chair, member.

Hon. D. Miller: I never refused to take any calls. As to what attempts Mr. Ward made or didn't make, I'm unaware of any of that.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, come to order. We'll move on to the business of day.

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of the Whole to debate Bill 51.

NIS G A'A FINAL AGREEMENT ACT

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 51; W. Hartley in the chair.

On the schedule,

chapter 3 (continued).

Hon. D. Lovick: Mr. Chairman, in the course of our discussion -- more than a few days ago now, but on more than one occasion -- we have been grappling with the question of land valuation and, more particularly, the cost-sharing memorandum of understanding. Accordingly, the Premier and I and, I believe, the Attorney General, too, have all said that we would share with members opposite certain information -- indeed, that we would table some documents. Therefore I want to do that today, with a few brief words of explanation, if I might.

The first is the timber cruise. Timber cruises, I would point out, are conducted when and where harvesting is planned. The licensees conduct the timber cruises and submit the information to the Ministry of Forests. A timber cruise provides an estimate of timber volumes and grades for a specific cutting area. The information is used in determining the stumpage price of timber. The 1992 stumpage prices along with the province's forest inventory information were part of the calculation, along with other factors outlined to determine the number and the value of the representative hectares, which I discussed some days ago.

The second document I want to table in the House today is called the Klaasen report. The Klaasen report is a joint federal and provincial land valuation study that was prepared in 1993. At the time it was prepared, the report's goal was to offer advice to federal and provincial treaty negotiators on the value of the provincial Crown lands and to help ensure that any cost-sharing agreement between Canada and British Columbia would give provincial Crown land appropriate consideration.

The Klaasen report, it should be noted, predates the memorandum of understanding between Canada and British Columbia on cost-sharing. The report was one of many elements taken into consideration in negotiating the MOU.

The third document is the cost-sharing memorandum of understanding. With respect to cost-sharing, B.C. and Canada needed to establish a mechanism to fairly share the costs of settling treaties with first nations. That's history; we know that. The mechanism that was agreed to is contained in the 1993 memorandum of understanding.

A critical issue that the MOU solved was how to value between the parties the components which Canada and B.C.

[ Page 11310 ]

had brought to the table, which was primarily cash in the case of Canada and land in the case of British Columbia. For some land, there are market transactions to establish market value -- such as land in urban areas. Under the MOU, these types of lands are, and would be, appraised. However -- and here's the point, Mr. Chairman -- for a significant part of the province, there are no observable market values. Market value appraisals of these lands are impractical, because the lands are not surveyed. Therefore the appraisals are expensive -- hugely expensive -- to conduct and, of course, of questionable accuracy.

For these rural lands, Canada and B.C. developed, as an alternative to appraisals, the concept of representative hectares, which I talked about before. That provides a relative measure of value between different types of land in the province. The idea is that a representative hectare would be an average mix of land type and resources in the province. The memorandum of understanding converts actual hectares of land to representative hectares and then derives an average value for cost-sharing purposes.

The use of representative hectares was developed to reflect average values, to be practical and to be consistently applied across the province and thereby avoid fights about land values. Given the concepts on which it is based, the representative hectare system does not necessarily reflect the value for a specific parcel of land. B.C. and Canada agreed, however, that over all treaties in British Columbia -- and remember, the MOU was for all treaties that might follow -- the representative hectare system would provide a good basis for sharing the cost of concluding treaties in B.C.

[2:45]

The $106 million value of the Nis g a'a land that we have put on the table, which we have said is British Columbia's land contribution -- and the value attached to that -- was then extrapolated from the cost-sharing memorandum of understanding. Understanding in detail how this was derived, I am advised, requires a pretty thorough technical understanding of the MOU and how that was then applied to the Nis g a'a settlement.

Therefore I am suggesting to members opposite that my staff, or our staff -- from other ministries as well -- will be available to provide technical briefings to the members opposite if they have questions about how the MOU operates and how the extrapolation occurred. I hope that information is helpful, however. As I say, I am tabling those documents today, if I may.

I'm sorry. Pardon me, Mr. Chairman. I understand that they can't be tabled except when the Speaker is in the House. Is that correct?

The Chair: Oh, no. You're fine, minister. You've spoken from documents that you've tabled.

M. de Jong: To the extent that the minister is tabling new documents, we'll have a look at those new documents. If questions arise, I think there are sufficient provisions left in the

schedule to the bill that would allow us to revisit those issues at the appropriate time.

For the benefit of members and the minister, might I just offer this as an indication of where I think this debate will follow over the course of the next couple of hours? There are some questions on site remediation remaining that relate to

section 44. Then there are all of those sections that relate to expropriation rights between category A and category B lands, which we will be canvassing today; the respective rights of the two levels of government, federal and provincial; and the survey provisions and commercial recreation tenure. That order equates with how they appear in the document. That, for the benefit of the minister and his staff, is where I think we will travel over the next couple of hours.

My colleague has some questions with respect to

section 44.

G. Abbott: I was fascinated by the discussion of this particular

section late yesterday afternoon. I have a few questions that result from it. For example, I know that four of the five sites which continue to be of some concern to the ministry are logging operations of some sort. So four of the 19 are logging sites of some sort, and two of them involve special use permits. Could the Minister of Environment, in this case -- or the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs -- advise whether those special use permits will fall under the provisions of

section 25, of the forest resources chapter? Will the special use permits be among those agreements, obligations and so on that the provincial government must terminate on the effective date of the agreement?

Hon. C. McGregor: Could the member please repeat his question?

G. Abbott: I'd be pleased to. Four of the 19 sites which are listed in

schedule B of the lands chapter, the list of sites . . . . Four of them are logging operations; two of them are logging operations which are a product of special use permits. My question is: will those special use permits be the responsibility of the provincial government under

section 25 of the forest resources chapter, which obliges British Columbia to ensure that agreements, etc., are terminated on the effective date of the agreement?

Hon. C. McGregor: They do fall under the

section that the member makes reference to. They are terminated by the province, but they are reissued by the Nis g a'a.

G. Abbott: We had considerable discussion yesterday about potential liability flowing into the future. I just want to be clear that when the minister says that they will be renewed by the Nis g a'a government, these are things that will fall under the joint committee that's created. Or is it going to be a decision by the Nis g a'a only to renew or not renew them?

Hon. C. McGregor: Because they are listed in the schedule, it's quite clear that they will be reissued. The Nis g a'a have no choice. They will be reissued, as listed in appendix C-1 on page 73.

G. Abbott: Could the minister briefly advise what elements or characteristics or things are involved in these five sites which distinguish them from the other 14 that are listed in this schedule? What is it that calls attention to these particular five?

Hon. C. McGregor: As we've indicated in previous discussions on this point, they are still being considered -- whether they are potentially contaminated or not. But they have been identified as these sites. There are two sites that are currently used as logging camps, and the contamination is

[ Page 11311 ]

thought to be from petroleum-hydrocarbon products, and that's from the storage of oil and other fuels. The other two sites are non-permitted landfill sites, and one of them is a log sort.

G. Abbott: The one question that comes to mind, then, given that there is some external evidence which leads the provincial government and the Nis g a'a, as well, to conclude that these are of concern . . . . As a consequence of that, is there any concern with respect to the renewal of those special use permits? Does it in any way reflect on future liability considerations that they are intended to be renewed?

Hon. C. McGregor: As I indicated to the member before, the permits that are listed in the appendix will be renewed. Clearly, the Nis g a'a would have concerns about the potential of contamination at those sites. That's why they were identified; that's why we're going through a process of investigation. It will lead to a requirement to clean up, if there is determined to be any site contamination.

G. Abbott: This is a point that was canvassed somewhat yesterday. A final concern that I have is with respect to the list of sites as it's currently structured -- containing ones that have been effectively cleared of ongoing concern, from an environmental perspective. Does the minister have any concern that those 14 sites that are no longer the object of concern continue to be listed here, given that in some respects, their continued presence on this list constitutes a kind of ultimate covenant on title against those businesses?

Hon. C. McGregor: I want to assure the member that I have no concerns. The documents and the appendices reflect the processes we've gone through with the Nis g a'a. They identified to us legitimately those sites that they believed were in need of inspection. We followed the processes under the Waste Management Act, as constituted under the "Contaminated Site Regulation," in the same way that we would on any property that was identified to us.

M. de Jong: Moving on, then, from

section 44, there is a series of sections in the draft treaty that refer to the various rights of expropriation that exist and how they are different insofar as category A lands and category B lands are concerned. There is a further differentiation in the rights as they exist, between the provincial government and the federal government.

As a sign of what it is in terms of the actual title that Nis g a'a are achieving with respect to these various categories of land, many people have focused on and referred to the rights of expropriation that remain or are left to the various levels of government. I think it is worth taking a moment during this debate to have the minister -- I'm not sure which minister to direct it to, the AG or the Lands minister -- explain the rights of expropriation. I'm not going to do this

section by

section -- at least, I don't intend to. But explain the differences that exist with respect to the right of expropriation as it pertains to category A lands and category B lands, and the differences as they exist between the federal and provincial governments with respect to those two lands.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Let me just give a general overview without being technical about the issues yet. In terms of the federal right, the federal government has the right to expropriate Nis g a'a lands and categories A and B lands as well.

The provincial government has a mechanism whereby it can acquire up to 2,800 hectares, I believe, which is almost three times what we currently have on Nis g a'a lands, for roads and the like. But the process of acquiring that is not through the Expropriation Act; it's through mediation and arbitration. At the end of it, if we are not satisfied with the arbitration decision, we can walk away and say we don't want that particular piece that we were looking at.

With respect to categories A and B, the provincial Expropriation Act applies, the difference being that on all three categories -- the Nis g a'a lands and categories A and B -- we have to provide the replacement value rather than the market value. The implication is that it's just for the improvements -- and that's the truth, that's the fact. With respect to category A, however, as part of the replacement value -- we are obliged to consider cultural values for any improvements that might exist in determining what replacement value it would amount to. With respect to category B, that's not the case. That's not the case with respect to Nis g a'a lands, either.

Another distinction is that with respect to the mineral rights and the like, with category A we are obliged to expropriate both the fee simple and the mineral rights so that we keep it whole, because mineral rights go with category A lands,

whereas with respect to category B we're not obliged to do that; we simply expropriate fee simple. With respect to Nis g a'a, we can't expropriate; we have the mediation and the arbitration model that we deal with.

[3:00]

M. de Jong: Let's just deal with the Nis g a'a lands, then, and explore briefly the policy considerations that came into play in determining that general expropriation provisions wouldn't apply, but that the provisions for arbitration that are contained elsewhere . . . . We don't have to go through that now, but it's probably worth setting down on the record why it was thought that those provisions lent themselves better to working out any matters of expropriation that applied to Nis g a'a lands.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I believe the basic distinction is that we felt that since we were dealing with a large tract of land with that particular first nation, it was appropriate not to get into the cumbersome procedures of the Expropriation Act. You simply go through mediation and arbitration, and at the end of it, you have the option to say no if you don't like the cost that's included. The federal government, of course, wanted that particular right, and they were the ones who actually insisted on the replacement value aspect of it. We were happy with the fair market value, but that's a federal position.

The Nis g a'a, of course, didn't want two different positions on that particular aspect of it.

M. de Jong: Let's again restrict our discussion for the moment to the largest parcel of land, which is the Nis g a'a lands. The various provisions, when taken together in the context that the Attorney has described here today, lead one to contemplate expropriations that in a general sense would take place for public works -- for matters of public interest. Again, I think it's useful to quickly articulate on the record what the provincial government has in mind insofar as what that captures. Roads are one of the issues that the Attorney referred to.

[ Page 11312 ]

In the provisions dealing with the federal powers, it is not prescriptive; it simply talks about public purposes. I think it's worth exploring and getting on the record what, in the Attorney's mind, that includes.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Paragraph 2 of

chapter 7 talks about rights-of-way. Then it goes on to define: " . . . or to a public utility, rights of way on Nis g a'a Lands for public purposes, including provincial secondary roads or public utilities, in order to provide access or service to Nis g a'a Lands or other lands . . . . " Then there are some conditions that all of that is subject to. So it's a fairly broad provision. But it only speaks to rights-of-way, because that was the only thing that the province was concerned about.

M. de Jong: That's helpful. So when we talk about provincial rights of expropriation, is it fair to assume that the province contemplates only exercising the rights that are granted under this agreement in instances where we are talking about rights of access or public roadways? Is that a fair statement, or are there other circumstances?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: With respect to the Nis g a'a lands, that's a fair description.

M. de Jong: My colleague reminds me simply to verify . . . . When we discuss access ways, we are talking about, for example, access to transmission lines -- but also transmission lines themselves, be they overhead or underground.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

M. de Jong: Then since we've verified that, let's take that same question and apply it to category A and category B lands and ask whether the province contemplates a similarly restrictive set of circumstances around which it can exercise expropriation rights.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: With respect to category A lands, it is for a provincial public purpose -- "justifiable and necessary for a provincial public purpose." Those are the words directly from the treaty. For category B lands, of course, that's the provincial Expropriation Act. Obviously, all of the purposes for which we can expropriate under that would apply to B lands.

M. de Jong: When I see the term "provincial public purpose" -- and in the federal

section it is a "federal public purpose" -- recognizing the conversation we've just had, that suggests a broader range of circumstances under which expropriation could occur. Is that the Attorney's understanding as well?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes. Powers under the Expropriation Act and otherwise for lands in category A, are, of course, much, much broader than what's available for the Nis g a'a lands.

M. de Jong: I think I know the answer to this, but I suppose it is worth asking. Are there circumstances that the provincial government is aware of now that would lead it to anticipate utilizing any of the powers of expropriation that would be available to it under the treaty?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: At this time, no.

M. de Jong: If we take the application of the provincial Expropriation Act provisions and how they provide for the valuation of lands and compensation and the mechanism by which that plays out in a standard expropriation proceeding, insofar as the arbitration provisions are concerned, does the Attorney contemplate a similar process being followed -- albeit outside of the strict legislative requirements of the Expropriation Act?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: If the hon. member is restricting his question to categories A and B, the answer is yes.

M. de Jong: Let me ask this question. My recollection of how the Expropriation Act operates is that there are provisions, for example, to compensate a party who is subject to expropriation for reasonable costs associated with that process. Under the application of the arbitration provisions for expropriation, does the province recognize the possibility that it may assume a similar responsibility relative to the costs associated with that expropriation exercise?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I may, again, have misunderstood the question. If it's category A and B lands,

section 45 of the Expropriation Act would apply, with any changes that might be contemplated within the treaty. I don't know many that would vary from the framework of the act itself.

M. de Jong: I don't think I asked the question very clearly. There are two procedures by which expropriation can occur. One is the traditional application of the Expropriation Act, and the other is on Nis g a'a lands, where a different process -- although probably similar in spirit, but technically a different process . . . . Under the Expropriation Act provisions, the province, as I recall -- and I am relying upon my memory of how these things play out . . . . The expropriating authority can be liable for reasonable costs associated with seeing that process through.

Is it the province's position that under the arbitration provisions that would apply to Nis g a'a lands, it may be assuming a similar responsibility for costs?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Under the dispute resolution mechanism, the arbitrator may award those costs, but there is no pre-established formula on which those would be determined.

M. de Jong: I don't want to belabour this, but would the Attorney General be of the view that the test that would be applicable to the determination of whether those costs should be awarded would be similar to the one applicable under the Expropriation Act provisions?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: We are now in the realm of pure speculation. An arbitrator might look at the practice under the provincial Expropriation Act and say: "If the circumstances are similar and similar inconvenience has flowed from a particular desire on the part of the government to take a certain portion of the land for rights-of-way or otherwise . . . . " The arbitrator may feel that that regime should apply, in terms of the costs to be awarded. But that's pure speculation on my part. Under arbitration, the arbitrators have much wider latitude to determine these cases.

At the end of the day, I want to reassure the hon. member and the public that the government has the right to walk away if the government of the day believes that the award of the arbitrator is unacceptable. At the end of the day, there is nothing binding in this process.

[ Page 11313 ]

[3:15]

M. de Jong: The reason I pursued the issue in the first place is . . . . I am speculating, to this extent: I rather suspect that the first time this becomes an issue, it is going to be acrimonious. I think we have all heard about the nature of the attachment that the Nis g a'a feel for the lands that will become theirs under this -- whether they be Nis g a'a lands or category A or category B lands -- so the first time it becomes necessary to exercise these provisions, it will signal a battle of sorts.

There will be costs associated with seeing that battle through, and the purpose in exploring the issue in the first place is to ascertain to what extent the provincial government believes it's assuming a liability for some of the costs that may flow from that. I think my colleague from Saanich North and the Islands has some questions relative to this.

M. Coell: The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs tabled some documents in the House today that outlined how values of land were established for the Nis g a'a treaty. What I'm looking for is an explanation of why that method was used,

whereas at the same time, when we're looking at expropriation of the different categories of land, we're looking at actual value. So you're looking at a value for the amount of land that is seen as public dollars being spent on the land -- or transferred to treaty -- valued one way; and then the potential . . . for expropriation is actual value. Why are we using actual value in one case and perceived value in the other?

Hon. D. Lovick: The short answer to the question is ultimately a matter of practicality and scale. The scale is essentially the explanation. When we're talking about a particular piece of property, obviously it's a small chunk, as opposed to that whole area that we were talking about in describing the land value of 190,000 hectares. That is one answer. The second answer, I think, is simply because those small parcels will almost of necessity be surveyed and thereby appraisable, as opposed to that huge mass of Crown land, which isn't surveyed.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I may have caused some confusion by my answers earlier. Let me just correct that error, if I have made that. When I talk about the replacement value under the provincial scheme that's in the treaty, it applies only to the improvements on the land. The land itself, obviously, would go at market value.

M. Coell: The reason I bring this forward is that the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs has said how the land was valued, and that wasn't using fair market value or appraised value. I think there is a possibility of an error in the value that the people of British Columbia are seeing for the land. If there is a necessity to expropriate for a pipeline or a transit line of some sort, you're going to be paying on a totally different scale. I think that differentiation needs to be drawn.

G. Plant: That's inspired a chorus of silent but affirmative nods, I think, with respect to understanding, if maybe not agreeing with, the point.

I want to apologize. I missed the first part of the discussion about expropriation, so if the question or two that I'm about to ask have already been canvassed, I'm sure the minister will let me know. When we look at the expropriation provisions, and we're thinking about the province, those provisions relate to category A and category B lands. Am I correct that the province would have no expropriation authority in respect of Nis g a'a lands?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: As I said, the answer to the hon. member's question is yes. We don't have the ability to expropriate Nis g a'a lands. We have the ability to expropriate categories A and B, with certain conditions.

With respect to any acquisition of rights-of-way and the like on Nis g a'a lands, we would follow the mediation and arbitration mechanism. At the end of the day, if it's not acceptable to us in terms of the costs that we may have to pay, we can walk away. Those are not binding decisions on the government. They have agreed in principle to give us up to 2,800 hectares. The current roads, rights-of-way and the like are about 800 hectares that the province has on Nis g a'a lands. They have agreed to give 2,800 hectares additional to that -- if I'm wrong, we'll correct it ourselves, in terms of the hectares.

Obviously they understand that it is in their interest for the province to be able to do these things, so that they can have some development in those areas. Otherwise, they wouldn't have agreed in principle to do this in the first place. So I feel quite confident that this is an appropriate mechanism to deal with those issues.

G. Plant: What I think the Attorney is saying in

part is that with respect to Nis g a'a lands -- and in this case, I mean lands other than category A and B lands -- there is no general power of expropriation. There are the rights that are described, I think, elsewhere in the agreement in respect of roads, rights-of-way for utilities and so on, and there's a process that is in place in the agreement for dealing with those. But those constitute, if you will, exceptions to the general principle that the province has no power to expropriate Nis g a'a lands. Is that a fair characterization?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

It looks to me, at the sort of level of high abstraction or generality, that the federal government has in fact reserved a greater power of expropriation unto itself in this agreement than has the province. If I'm wrong in that characterization, I'd invite the Attorney General to correct me. If I'm right, I look forward to his explanation of why it is that there are essentially differential rights of expropriation between the province and the federal government.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member's comments are correct if applied to Nis g a'a lands, not with respect to categories A and B. With respect to Nis g a'a lands, one must bear in mind the thrust with respect to the distinction -- that is, the federal process of expropriation that's described here is quite cumbersome, much more cumbersome than the process that's been reserved for the province and Nis g a'a with respect to Nis g a'a lands. As I said earlier -- and I'll correct myself in

[ Page 11314 ]

terms of the number of hectares -- we would have the right to receive another 2,000 hectares in addition to the 800 we already have, through a process of mediation and arbitration, without those decisions being binding on us in terms of the cost. We could walk away.

I think that the process of expropriation, even at the best of times . . . . The hon. member, being a lawyer, must know that, if he's dealt with expropriation at all. Even at the best of times, the process of expropriation is very confrontational, adversarial and lengthy and, at the end of the day, unsatisfactory to both sides.

I think that what's embodied in this treaty is essentially the consent of the Nis g a'a that they would be happy to give to us up to 2,000 hectares more, if we follow that process and if we like the price. Even in the provincial Expropriation Act, the price and compensation are determined by a panel. We didn't see much distinction between that and the arbitration model that we have, and we don't require the consent of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to do this, as they do with respect to the Governor-in-Council federally. And there are other conditions that they have to follow.

G. Plant: I think that the Attorney General is saying that . . . . You see, the federal government has a broader power to expropriate. The government argues that the mechanics of exercising that power are cumbersome -- they require, among other things, the consent of the Governor-in-Council -- and that may be so. On the other side of the ledger is the provincial power, which, leaving category A and B lands to one side, is much more limited.

But I think the government's explanation is: "Well, we've got it where it's important to us, and we've got it on terms which are less cumbersome and will get us directly to the heart of the issue of public policy in a way that will adequately serve provincial interests."

Some will say: "Why is it that the federal government has reserved unto itself a general power and the province has not?" History may or may not smile on the explanation that the government is giving. I just want to make sure that I've understood that explanation correctly.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: That's true.

M. Coell: I have a question for the Attorney General. The act of expropriation which you described . . . . I very much agree with the tenor of your comments. If in the future, Nis g a'a land is to be expropriated for a period of time and then it is deemed to be unnecessary for provincial interest, is there a mechanism within this treaty or within the Expropriation Act -- and I'm not aware of it, if there is -- to return the land, and how would that be done?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The provincial Crown doesn't have an obligation to return to Nis g a'a, for categories A and B, any land expropriated that may not be of use to the Crown any longer. The federal government does, however.

M. Coell: I'm not suggesting you add anything to the treaty, because I know you're not wishing to amend it at this time, but it does strike me that there will be the occasion, with the use of different power in the future, where you've made a transmission line in one generation, and in the next generation that would not be of use to the province -- where the province would have expropriated a piece of property in Nis g a'a land and have no use for it. It strikes me that there should be a way of turning that back to the Nis g a'a, rather than putting it up for sale and selling it to the highest bidder.

[3:30]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: That could always be done by mutual agreement, if they are at that time prepared to compensate the Crown appropriately for the return of that land.

G. Plant: I always find it difficult to express the level of interest that I have in expropriation issues, but whatever that level is, we've now exhausted it. Before we move past expropriation, I want to know if any of my colleagues have a continuing interest.

Seeing none, I want to ask about initial surveys. There are three clauses in

chapter 3 that talk about conducting what is described as an initial survey. Paragraph 88 says: "British Columbia and Canada will, as agreed between them, pay the full cost of the Initial Surveys." What is that cost likely to be, and what is the province's share of that cost?

Hon. D. Lovick: The agreement does indeed provide cost-sharing of surveys, based on the following criteria. Let me simply read them into the record. The federal government pays for all surveys to redefine or to modify boundaries of existing reserves. The estimated total for that is some $300,000. The provincial government pays for new surveys that define all of the new boundaries, including the Nis g a'a lands, category B lands and additions to category A lands. The estimated cost of that is apparently $1.2 million, I believe.

G. Plant: Are those costs included in the itemization of costs that we began this debate with? Are they additional costs? Has the minister received further information that he wishes to share with us?

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm glad the member asked the question. I was just handed a note saying that the costs I read into the record were for the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. In addition, there are costs for Highways of $360,000; Ministry of Forests, $788,000. So the total cost, then, is about $2.3 million. That's for line ministries. In addition, apparently, there's B.C. Hydro, $400,000. The total is $2.7 million.

G. Plant: I don't have in front of me the government's itemization of the costs associated with the treaty.

Actually, I now do. That's the document that I think we were looking at in the very beginning of this debate, when we identified total cash costs of something like $311.54 million and then costs related to the ascribed land value, the upgrade of the highway and compensation to third parties. Is this figure of $2.3 million included somewhere in that itemization, or is it a cost of the treaty over and above the costs that we've already identified?

Hon. D. Lovick: Those costs are apparently captured in the implementation

section of the agreement. In addition, part of that total implementation budget is not entirely captured by the items I've read. There's something called the forest transition program for $610,000 and a forest training program for $750,000. The $2.7 million plus those two sums I just quoted are the ones captured in the implementation section.

G. Plant: Would they be included in . . . ? I'm trying to figure out where they are on the one-page sheet entitled

[ Page 11315 ]

"Nis g a'a Final Agreement: Costs and Attributed Values." There is a line that says: "Payments to Nis g a'a: Fiscal Financing Agreement." It has one-time implementation costs of $4.24 million under British Columbia. Is that where those costs are?

Hon. D. Lovick: The member is correct.

G. Plant: What is the progress in this survey work? Has it been done? Has some of it been done? Is all of it in the future?

Hon. D. Lovick: The answer is: in the future.

G. Plant: That reminds me of a question I wanted to ask, and it's as good a time as any to ask it. The treaty -- the final agreement and the appendices -- contains a large collection of maps. Maps don't come cheap. I know, because I used to be a lawyer for the province of British Columbia, and maps used to come at considerable cost -- at least, of effort. Who made the maps that are in the final agreement and the appendices? What are the cost responsibilities in respect of that? And how much -- what's the bill?

Hon. D. Lovick: The staff from the surveyor general's office apparently are responsible for it. They were assigned to our teams. I gather that the costs in terms of staffing were just the regular ones of the line ministries that might have been involved.

G. Plant: In a sense, we had existing staff dedicating part of their time to this task. In that respect, I suppose the minister's position is that the cost is buried in the overall budget of government and is not something that can be pulled out and separately identified.

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm not sure that I like the word "buried," but how about "subsumed in" -- all right?

G. Plant: Yes.

Hon. D. Lovick: Yes, he's right.

G. Plant: I have to say that, based on my knowledge of the state of the province's capacity to undertake a mapping project like this as of about ten years ago, there's been a significant move forward, and it's interesting to see that. I suspect that this move forward has not come without some considerable cost.

But I expect that the province may be of the view that some of what has been learned here is in fact going to be applicable not just to treaty-making generally but across the province, in terms of the ongoing business of administering lands and other resources. I mean, if we got a buildup of intellectual capital here . . . . I won't say that it's like Tang in the space program, but there's some similarity, I guess, in the analogy. Is that right?

Hon. D. Lovick: I think the analogy to intellectual capital is absolutely correct.

G. Plant: I'm pretty sure that my colleague the member for Saanich North and the Islands has a question or two about commercial recreation tenure.

M. Coell: In looking at the commercial recreation tenure sections, 90 through 94, I just wonder: does the province have an estimated value of the commercial recreation tenure accorded to Nis g a'a through the treaty?

Hon. D. Lovick: The point to make is that the Nis g a'a will be paying fees like any other operator. Therefore there is no attendant cost. In fact, the cost then is neutral; there isn't a new cost to be borne.

M. Coell: I wonder if the minister could enlighten me as to what the cost of this tenure will be to the Nis g a'a, then.

Hon. D. Lovick: I understand that by cost, the member is referring to the preparation of those sites in order to make them usable for commercial purposes and site prep and so forth. Those are costs that would be borne by the Nis g a'a, and we don't have any particular information on what it might cost them or what it has cost so far. I'm sorry, I should clarify: I understand that they have already done some of that site preparation work on the category A and B . . . .

Interjection.

Hon. D. Lovick: Not yet, or they're in the process.

M. Coell: Possibly this may explain, or the minister can explain . . . . I just wonder how the Nis g a'a's commercial recreation tenure differs from the commercial back-country policy that was recently released by the province. I just want to see how those two fit together, or if they do.

Hon. D. Lovick: The activities and terms of operation are the same as those governing other commercial recreation tenures. The only difference, I gather, is that there is a seven-year period . . . . Normally, it's a 20-year period; in this case, it's a 27-year period. That additional seven years at the front end of the tenure is given simply for that transition -- to phase in and to learn how to do it, I guess.

M. Coell: The 27 years -- is there a . . . ? It seems a little different, in that this is on Nis g a'a land. Nis g a'a will be running the tenure. Why a 27-year period? Is there a rollover? Significantly, they would be in control of that tenure for hundreds of years.

Hon. D. Lovick: To clarify, this isn't on Nis g a'a land, strictly speaking. The area we're talking about is not exclusive use.

M. Coell: I guess what I'm getting at is that where there is . . . . I gather there's overlap -- the minister can correct me if I'm wrong -- and Nis g a'a lands will be involved in some cases, either now or in the future. I just want to be clear on why there's a year set up without some acknowledgment that it will roll over in the future. If I can just add to that, in any other commercial tenure, it might come up for re-tender, and someone else may get the tender. In the Nis g a'a's case, I don't think that will be true.

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm advised that the important point is that tenure applies to Crown land only. What we're talking about here is use of their own land, not the other lands -- if that's the member's concern -- so therefore it doesn't matter, effectively.

[ Page 11316 ]

M. Coell: I thank the minister for that information; that's helpful.

R. Neufeld: I have just a little bit more on the commercial recreation tenure. My experience since I came to this House was that we were going to have before us many years ago some form of back-country tenure, so that individuals can begin that kind of business. Will the terms of the agreements that you have on the Crown land for the Nis g a'a be similar to or exactly the same as what other individuals will face when they go the Crown to try to obtain a commercial tenure?

Hon. D. Lovick: They will be the same, except for that seven-year period we talked about. Also, in the agreement we are allowing the Nis g a'a to assign that obligation, that duty, to a corporation created by them. That doesn't normally happen in the beginning, but in this case it happens at the start of the agreement. As soon as the agreement is in place, that can happen.

[3:45]

R. Neufeld: Then I understand that everyone's on the same ground in British Columbia when we're talking about Crown land. I'm not familiar with the program that's just been rolled out, but are they all 20-year terms? Is that common? I gather that's where you got the 27 years. You're giving them seven years to do their other thing. But is 20 years a common tenure term?

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm advised that 20 years is the period when there is major investment.

G. Plant: You talk about this thing called the commercial recreation tenure. Really, we're talking about a bunch of different parcels of land spread out across the Nass area. I suppose the idea is that there may be different sorts of activities that will take place there.

Hon. D. Lovick: One pays an application fee to cover the administrative costs.

G. Plant: What are those fees now?

Hon. D. Lovick: I can't give the member precise information, but I understand that they are somewhere between $200 and $300.

G. Plant: That's helpful. I suppose the question of whether the Nis g a'a will have to pay that fee would need to be examined in that context.

Are commercial recreation tenures generally assignable? With particular reference to paragraph 94, will the Nis g a'a nation -- or the Nis g a'a corporation, in due course -- be able to assign their interest to anybody?

Hon. D. Lovick: They may do so with the consent of the province. I would emphasize that throughout the province, the provincial minister retains that responsibility.

G. Plant: One can imagine that just as there is a price attached to the transfer of guide-outfitting concessions in some cases -- maybe not in British Columbia, but I know that in the Yukon people are prepared to pay between $500,000 and $1 million for a guide-outfitting concession -- there is conceivably, perhaps after some investment by the Nis g a'a of their own capital, an investment being made here that will have some significant value. The Nis g a'a could, in the fullness of time, sell that to the highest bidder if they want.

Hon. D. Lovick: We would dearly hope so, but at the moment it's too early in the game to draw that conclusion. Rather, what is happening is that the Nis g a'a are obviously making an investment with a view to gaining a return on that investment, and we all hope it's successful.

G. Plant: But in terms of issues like assignability or the right to sell in due course, do the Nis g a'a stand in the same shoes as other British Columbians, generally speaking, who would acquire a commercial recreation tenure?

Hon. D. Lovick: That's correct. But I want to make it very clear that we're not talking about selling the land; rather, we're talking about a business interest. As long as that's clear, yes.

G. Plant: I suspect that the word "tenure" in this context is a word that ought to be regarded carefully, because it often connotes an interest in land. I suspect this is a long way from most people's idea of an interest in land. Whatever it is -- the permit, the licence, the right to carry on -- as the holder of a commercial recreation tenure, the Nis g a'a will stand in the same shoes as other British Columbians would who hold such interests. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Lovick: That is correct.

G. Plant: Is the Nis g a'a commercial recreation tenure management plan a document that's available to the public, or is that a document that is not?

Hon. D. Lovick: The document is indeed available to the public -- or would be.

M. Coell: Paragraph 93(

b) says: "British Columbia will not issue another commercial recreation tenure within the areas set aside in Appendix E that conflicts with the Nis g a'a Commercial Recreation Tenure Management Plan." Obviously there was some discussion around that issue with the Nis g a'a, and I just wondered if the minister could give some examples of what would be in conflict.

Hon. D. Lovick: The intent is to protect against another operator coming into exactly the same site and conducting exactly the same activity. That agreement, however, obtains only for the first seven years. After that time, competition for that particular activity is open.

M. Coell: If we can move on, then, to heritage sites and the key geographic features. On the effective date, there are some sites turned over as provincial heritage sites. I wonder whether the province has done an estimate of the cost of doing this on the date -- or whether it will be done by that date -- that the agreement is signed.

Hon. D. Lovick: They are not turned over to anybody. Rather, it's just that they are protected under this particular apparatus. So, accordingly, I don't think there is a cost.

[ Page 11317 ]

M. Coell: There would appear to be a cost that . . . . The province is going to be changing names and historical data. I would think a number of government agencies would be involved. If that cost is seen to be insignificant, I would be interested in hearing the minister comment on that. It is also on an ongoing basis, where, I guess, changes are requested by the Nis g a'a. How long does this process -- I'm sorry to be going on -- go on before it's seen as complete?

Hon. D. Lovick: I understand that the process that is described here is indeed the standard process for all heritage sites across the province, or potential ones, whereby any individual can in fact say that they perceive this particular site to have special historical or cultural significance, and therefore try to invoke the process. The same thing applies here. Therefore it is more properly regarded, I think, as simply an ongoing operational cost but not a budget item specifically.

M. de Jong: For me this

section evokes memories of another somewhat similar exercise in terminology changes and renaming. When I was involved in the practice of law, I remember the day the volume came to Crown counsel around the province, dealing with the question of gender equality and the need to address changes in all of the legislation. I heard similar explanations to what the minister is offering today about the potential costs or minimizing of costs.

I don't want to engage in an exercise about whether that was a worthwhile exercise or process or not -- the government of the day decided to do it -- but there were costs involved, and it required amending a lot of documents. It required, in the government's mind, changing a lot of material, and I think the question that the member for Saanich North and the Islands is driving at is that we've heard this explanation before -- that an attempt to effect wholesale changes can somehow happen magically, at no cost.

I rely upon the example that I've just alluded to as evidence of the fact that indeed it does result in cost.

Hon. D. Lovick: I think I can give the member opposite some comfort by simply saying that the policy of government is not to amend documents but rather, when documents are reprinted or something, the changes would then be made. It isn't a matter of going back to an existing corpus of material and saying that we have to bring it into line with the changes.

G. Plant: I'm looking at appendix F-1, "Sites of cultural and historic significance to the Nis g a'a Nation to be designated as provincial heritage sites." I take it that insofar as there are lands involved here -- a hectare or so here and there -- these are all lands that are now currently provincial Crown lands.

Hon. D. Lovick: That's correct.

G. Plant: I think my colleague looked at the issue of names. I've tried to understand the difference between the first half of paragraph 96 and the second half. The first half speaks of recording names; the second half speaks about naming or renaming. My sense is that the first half -- that is, the recording half -- says that in addition to the information that's already in the B.C. geographic names database, some Nis g a'a names are going to be added to that database;

whereas the second half -- the naming or renaming -- actually says that from some point going forward, the places identified in appendix F-3 will have their names changed to the new names identified in appendix F-3. Have I captured the distinction correctly?

Hon. D. Lovick: The first category is just additional information. Again, I understand that this is quite common. There will be a given historic site, and somebody will come and say: "Ah! Here's a part of the history you didn't know." The concept to deal with that is called layering. What we do is simply add another strata or layer of information.

The second category, the member quite rightly points out, is different, and that is to represent a change to existing names. That has to be done carefully, for obvious reasons. Where there is controversy, for example, when somebody else says, "Wait a minute; we have a different spelling or different name, and we see that as land that we also may have an interest in," then those changes won't be made.

There are 21 names that apparently will officially change on the effective date of the treaty, under 96(b), and these are ones that represent features wholly within Nis g a'a settlement lands.

G. Plant: What that means in practical terms is that at some point down the line, someone goes off to a government agent's store and says, "I'd like map sheet 103P," and instead of seeing Canyon City, they'll see Gitwinksihlkw identifying the place which is currently described as Canyon City. That's the process, isn't it?

Hon. D. Lovick: That's correct.

G. Plant: And there are no names changed outside capital-N Nis g a'a and capital-L Lands. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Lovick: That is also correct.

[4:00]

G. Plant: I believe there are still concerns in the context of overlaps with respect to some of these names. I'm not going to ask the minister to give me an inventory, but assuming that I'm right, can the minister indicate what processes exist to accommodate those debates or disputes and whether, for example, they might conceivably result in a further change of name at some point in the future?

Hon. D. Lovick: If the parties can agree, then there will be changes to the names, but if there isn't agreement, then the changes won't be made.

G. Plant: Let me just ask this question, then. If it's unfairly technical, I'm sure the minister will tell me. But I can't help noticing that the person beside the minister is the person that I would phone up with this question if I ever had it.

Within the Tsimshian language, there are things that we call languages sometimes, conventionally -- like Nis g a'a, Gitxsan and Tsimshian. Oftentimes the differences between them are -- speaking only for myself -- more subtle than I would be able to follow, but they can result in changes in the way words are spelled -- in other words, changes that are . . . . I wouldn't say they're insignificant, by any means; but it's not quite the same, perhaps, as saying that something that in here is the Nis g a'a term for a long river is now going to be replaced

[ Page 11318 ]

with an Athapaskan term that would bear no resemblance to it whatsoever. In terms of whatever the government knows about challenges to names, are we talking about relatively subtle distinctions within the Tsimshian language family, or are we talking about significant debates and disputes?

Hon. D. Lovick: Where there are competing claims in terms of the name, even if it's only a matter of spelling, changes are not made.

G. Plant: That is to say that the government has committed to the Nis g a'a that these are the names and these are the spellings. I think that's what the minister is saying. Let me just go the one step that I thought I was going before. Where there is, out there, a difference arising from the overlap issue in respect of the names in appendix F-3, are we talking about tremendously different conceptions of what the names should be, or somewhat less significant ones?

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm advised that the range can be from something almost imperceptible, as a small spelling change, to a whole different word or a whole different name.

G. Plant: Let me just pause here to make an observation. It's a more general application, but this is as good a time as any to make it. Paragraph 97 says: "After the effective date, the Nis g a'a Nation may propose that British Columbia name or rename other geographic features with Nis g a'a names, and British Columbia will consider those proposals in accordance with applicable provincial laws." Well, I would hope that British Columbia would have done that in any event. That is, either yesterday, today or tomorrow, under whatever regime, the Nis g a'a nation or anybody else could come along and say: "What you should really do is rename this place."

When I look at that obligation, I ask myself: why is it in the treaty? That's the general question. I look at, for instance, the issue we were discussing a few moments ago, a commercial recreation tenure, where the answer that the minister gives in answer to our questions is in part to say: "Well, you know, this document, this tenure that will be issued, will be in almost every respect the same as a tenure that might be available to any private citizen and, in fact, once issued, will be subject to provincial laws, just as similar tenure would be." In fact, this is a tenure that may expire.

It may come to an end, yet because the promises to implement it are in a treaty, they have a different significance in the law. I think it's a distinction with a difference.

The same argument, I think, can be made about heritage sites and key geographic features -- that is, why is this in a treaty? Why are these promises to acquire

section 35 protection? There is, as the minister will appreciate, the possibility of a different character of argument. On the one hand, there is the argument where the Nis g a'a nation says: "You haven't done your ordinary job. We have the right to make application for name changes, and you haven't been respectful of our wishes." That's one category of argument.

[E. Gillespie in the chair.]

But because this paragraph 97 is in a treaty, there will be a different kind of argument. I think we don't even know yet what the full dimensions of that argument may be. It may be that the differences aren't significant, but I suspect that the Nis g a'a are going to say: "You, the province, don't just have an ordinary obligation to consider our request; you've got an obligation that's sitting out there enshrined in the constitution."

Let me be fair to the other side of this argument for just a minute. I suspect that from the Nis g a'a perspective, the Nis g a'a could identify a long list of promises that the province and federal government have made to them and have broken over the years. That may be why, for them, they need to have this in the treaty. But as I said when I began, this is a recurring theme, and I don't intend to repeat these remarks every time the issue arises. This is as good a time as any to make that point, and if the minister has a response, I would be interested in it.

Hon. D. Lovick: The member asks an interesting question, and I'm going to resist the temptation to give a hugely long answer -- though it's tempting, because I think it's a fascinating question and a fascinating issue. The guts of it, the shortest explanation, is to say: "Because the Nis g a'a want it. They want this in the treaty." The reason why that is the case, I think, is probably to be found -- and the member alluded to it -- in that very long history of first nations interactions with the rest of us and the legacy, quite frankly, of distress and concern. I think that is quintessentially what's it's about. In a word, history has made them cautious.

I think that's probably the main explanation. In more practical and pragmatic terms, I don't think they want bureaucrats to be able to say: "No, we're not doing it, because you've got a treaty, and it already deals with that stuff, so don't come looking for a change." Rather, they want a clear assurance that changes will still be possible and that government -- whatever government it might be -- has to respond in all sincerity and seriousness to their request.

Just to touch on the other dimension, I think this maybe takes us to that comment that we sometimes forget about. In Nis g a'a culture, at least, if not in all first nations culture, the nature of a treaty is a kind of solemn ritual, almost a spiritual kind of utterance. I think the member would agree with me that that was certainly the language that Chief Gosnell was talking in.

Again, for a complex of reasons, I think that's the explanation why this

section is in and, as the member correctly points out, will appear in various other parts as well.

G. Plant: I think the minister's answer is interesting. Let me respond to it with two further comments. The first is that the minister ended his answer by speaking about the solemnity of treaties. That is certainly so if one looks at the treaty process through the lens, if you will, of aboriginal expectations and hopes.

But I think, in terms of how the law responds to treaties, that is also the way the law looks at treaties in terms of the government's obligations. I suggest that it is in fact for that very reason that we ought not to put everything into a treaty. We ought to be careful about those things that we're prepared to invest with that degree of solemnity. In part, that's just simply recognizing that governments are not perfect.

Sometimes it's better to keep the list of promises shorter, in the recognition that there is more likelihood that all of them would be kept, frankly, rather than to make the list longer and maximize the possibility for future disputes -- disputes in which, sooner or later, mistrust may arise on any side. That's my first response.

[ Page 11319 ]

The second comment I want to make responds to the first thing the minister said, when he said, in a piece of shorthand that I don't think was intended to be legal or precise but rather sort of insightful for a moment: "The short answer is that essentially it's there because the Nis g a'a wanted it there." I want the minister to understand what I see as the implications for that. I could put it this way: it is that

section 35 therefore will have, eventually, whatever content the parties to treaties choose to give it, because if the Nis g a'a want something in a treaty, and the province's response is along the lines that the minister has given, it will be in the treaty. It will then have

section 35 protection.

Now let me just say this: in the context of the two issues that we're talking about, the point I've just made is not as strong as it could be in other contexts, for this reason. First of all, commercial recreation, depending on the nature of the activity, may be getting out into the remoter parts of the traditional territory of the Nis g a'a for reasons that are very similar spiritually, if you will, to the things that the Nis g a'a have traditionally done. There may be, therefore, a connection between this tenure and the principles that I think the framers of

section 35 had in mind when they put it there -- similarly with names. Clearly, in any culture, what you call something is important to that culture's sense of identify. But I do know that in other parts of the agreement, the same connection is a little more tenuous.

We're not going to resolve this debate. It's not really a debate so much, I suppose, as it is -- just for a minute -- a discussion. But I think it's a discussion that is important, because when parties go off to courts and argue in the attempt to define and put circles around rights, and they do that in the context of

section 35, the courts have said: "Well, you really need to look at the traditions and the customs in the lodge. You need to get close to the heart of the cultural identity of these particular people."

[4:15]

But on the other hand, when it comes to treaty-making, the minister's first response -- and I don't mean to be unfair, but I will admit to being glib -- is something like: "Well, if you want it, and we're prepared to give it to you, we'll put it in the treaty." I think, in the long run, that is not helpful to our understanding as a society of what

section 35 of the constitution is supposed to be about. That is also part of my reason for raising the issue.

Section 35 says that the aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal people of Canada are recognized and affirmed. The courts have made it pretty clear that not every right of aboriginal people is an aboriginal right. When there is a risk in blurring the line here with the way this treaty works, we'll eventually lose sight of what

section 35 was about.

As I said, I'm not going to raise the issue again. But I think it's an important one, and this seemed to be as good a time as any to put it on the table.

Hon. D. Lovick: I would simply thank the member for putting his comments on the record. I think that's a valuable contribution to the discussion. As he said, it's less a debate than it is a discussion.

M. Coell: If we could move on to parks and ecological reserves -- that's 98 through 121 -- I have a number of questions, as do others.

Does the province envision the joint park management committee as a paid committee to oversee this park?

Hon. D. Lovick: The committee itself is not a salaried committee.

M. Coell: My understanding is that there are six members on the committee for decision-making and management. A six-member committee is a bit unusual, because if you have a tie vote, I wonder who -- whether it's government or Nis g a'a . . . . That would render that vote either a success or a failure.

Hon. D. Lovick: I believe that it's spelled out that the numbers are up to six, not necessarily six. As well, the committee makes recommendations. Moreover, it says clearly that the committee will function largely on the basis of a consensus model rather than vote on everything that happens.

M. Coell: So the committee is not going to function much like this House, is what the minister is saying.

Under

section 113, there's a vague reference to provincial funding, and I wonder whether the minister could elaborate on what funding arrangements that means?

Hon. D. Lovick: Right now, as I think the member is well aware, the Nis g a'a Memorial Lava Bed Park is a B.C. provincial park. It will continue to be a class A provincial park. We have that obligation for it at the moment; we will continue that obligation to fund it.

M. Coell: Under the current provincial funding arrangements, what is the yearly budget for the Nis g a'a Memorial Lava Bed Park?

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm sorry; I don't have that information at the moment, but I'd certainly be happy to dig it out as quickly as we can. Indeed, there are probably people watching this who can do that for us.

M. Coell: I look forward to getting that, because I have some other questions with regard to other areas and the ongoing costs of management and whether they'll be changed because of this treaty.

Can the minister . . . ?

Interjection.

M. Coell: Please.

Hon. D. Lovick: I just picked up on the member's comment. I can answer that. The short answer is no, they will not be changed. The financial arrangements will not be changed as a result of the treaty.

M. Coell: I have been to this park, and I know the minister has as well. There are no fees; there are no amenities that could be charged for. I'm not aware of the depth of the management plan developed for this park and whether it's seen as becoming more in the future than it is now, or if it will stay as it is. I'm looking at campsites, trailer sites . . . . I have a number of questions with regard to that as well.

Hon. D. Lovick: I would draw the member's attention to paragraph 113, which makes it very clear that this will not be

[ Page 11320 ]

given any kind of priority status or anything like that. Rather, Memorial Lava Bed Park will be funded in precisely the same way that other class A provincial parks are.

To the specifics, I understand there has been a little bit of improvement work. Apparently there's an

interpretation centre that's gone in, probably since the member and I were there. Also, I understand they're probably doing some work on trails and so forth, but there are no huge new initiatives underway or anything like that.

M. Coell: The boundaries of the park are set in this treaty. Is there a method by which expansion of this park could be considered in the future?

Hon. D. Lovick: I gather there is a provision in here that talks about what the boundaries are, and that's all the agreement says. However, with the agreement of the parties, I suppose one could modify those boundaries -- more likely to make it smaller, if anything, it would seem to me.

M. Coell: In paragraph 107, the joint park management committee can make recommendations periodically, with the revision of a master plan. That's what I'm getting at. That committee -- that's also made up of both Nis g a'a and government -- may well make recommendations as to the size. That's why I was concerned about the number of six. If you had three from government and three from Nis g a'a and there was a disagreement on the size of the park, how would that be mediated? I just wonder if the minister could comment on that.

Hon. D. Lovick: The discretionary authority to do anything with the park ultimately rests with the provincial government and the minister responsible for parks. In terms of . . . . Well, I think that's the answer.

M. Coell: Maybe I'll expand on what I'm getting at. This is a very different situation for a class A park in the province. I'm not aware of another park in the same circumstances. It may be beneficial and in the interest of the Nis g a'a to have commercial development in the park. If that is a recommendation, I'm wondering about mediation to come to a conclusion -- whether the government says: "Yes, that's great, a hotel or motel or whatever is fine," or "No, we do not wish to have that . . . . " For the record, how much discretion and discussion will the government have with the Nis g a'a on what goes into the master plan? And who has the final say?

Hon. D. Lovick: If I might, I will simply draw the member's attention to paragraph 101: "Unless the Nis g a'a nation and British Columbia otherwise agree, British Columbia will not permit commercial resource extraction or other commercial activity within the Park or the Ecological Reserve." I think that's probably the comfort that the member is asking for.

M. Coell: I'm glad to have that on the record, because I suspect that discussion will come up in the future. That may well be a discussion that the government may want to enter into.

Will Bear Glacier Park be managed on the same basis as Memorial Lava Bed Park?

Hon. D. Lovick: The short answer is no.

M. Coell: I think this is one area of the treaty that is very positive for both British Columbia and the Nis g a'a people. I think that the management of this park is crucial to a relationship that will develop between the Nis g a'a and the rest of British Columbia. I also see it as having the potential for much greater use than it presently has. There are a number of roads to be paved in this area as part of the treaty, which will enhance the use of the park. Is it the government's view that the management committee will have the authority to restrict access to the park and/or to charge fees to enter the park?

Hon. D. Lovick: I simply want to make it very clear -- and if I haven't done so yet, I apologize -- that the management authority, the ultimate decision-making authority, still remains with the minister. The committee's job is, essentially, to make recommendations. That's, I think, the key point.

M. Coell: I appreciate that, and I think it's important for us to keep in mind that the province has the final authority. I don't have any illusion that there won't be discussions with the committee and discussions in the future with Nis g a'a government on the use of the park, and that's why I bring it up. I think that there are potentials, and greater potentials than the park that's in use now. But I would say that from this side of the House, we wish the government well with this park. It is indeed a treasure to the Nis g a'a and also to the people of British Columbia.

I don't have any further questions on the parks area. If anyone else does, I'll leave the floor . . . .

M. de Jong: Just with respect to the joint management committee, it's unclear to me whether the provincial government at least contemplates these positions to be paid positions.

Interjection.

M. de Jong: Did you ask that?

Interjection.

M. de Jong: I understand that while I was otherwise detained, that matter was canvassed.

Section 121, which is a specific

section dealing with parks and the establishment of a marine park at the request of one of the parties . . . . Has anyone made that request at this point?

Hon. D. Lovick: I gather there has been no official request.

M. de Jong: If and when a request is made, that triggers the negotiations referred to in the first line of that provision?

Hon. D. Lovick: The member is correct.

M. de Jong: Last question. Does the provincial government, for its part, contemplate initiating that negotiation by making such a request?

Hon. D. Lovick: I think the matter has been discussed in the past, but whether it's part of any action plan or long-term planning process or program, I'm not aware.

[ Page 11321 ]

M. de Jong: Without delving into the secrets of negotiation, I'm just curious as to at whose insistence the provision was included. I guess the question is: who's vying for the establishment of this park?

[4:30]

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm advised that there was a discussion about what the province's future interests might be, as well as the Nis g a'as' future interests. I gather what the Nis g a'a wanted to have acknowledged was simply that in the event that something exciting, like a water park, should come to be in that particular part of the province, they would like to be involved in it. I think that's the basis.

M. de Jong: We're now at the

section in

chapter 3 of the agreement that contemplates water rights and water reservations. I think the member for North Vancouver-Seymour has some questions relative to that.

D. Jarvis: I want to ask some questions on 122 up to 144, I believe. I'll try to keep it in some semblance of order -- in my mind, anyways. But there are some sections there that I feel do sort of jump to another section. I'm not purposely trying to jump from one

section to the other -- it's the questioner that is jumping.

In the Nass River . . . . Under

section 122, I see that they've asked to establish a water reservation of 300,000 cubic decametres, which isn't very much. I've been on the Nass, and it is quite slow-moving. Depending on what you want to relate it to, I think that's about 9-1/2 or 10 cubic metres per second. I think that under the Patullo Bridge, it's going 3,000. It's quite a difference.

I know that the Premier did explain to us the other day how you valued the monetary aspect of the agreement, but I wonder: was there any value put on the hydroelectric potentiality and/or the water rentals and permits and everything on the Nass itself and its tributaries?

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: I want to just establish what value was considered for the water for, say, either hydroelectric or rental, whatever it may be -- and fees -- in establishing the monetary value of the treaty itself.

The Chair: While we have a reprieve, the member for Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows rises on what matter?

W. Hartley: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

W. Hartley: In the precincts we have a group visiting us today from Explorations High School in Bellingham, Washington. There's a group of some 14 to 17 young, gifted students, five adults and their teacher Miss. S. Palmiter. I hope that members will make them welcome.

Hon. C. McGregor: The value of the water that's being attributed to the Nis g a'a through this agreement is rather difficult to calculate. In fact, under the existing Indian Act, aboriginal people have access to water currently without any cost to themselves. There's no charge provided for the use of water. So this agreement really replaces that provision, but it also sets aside a reserve. In order to calculate what that reserve might be, what value might be attributed to that reserve, we did an estimate based on some domestic and some industrial use, on the basis of utilization in other parts of the province.

Again, it doesn't apply, of course, in this region, because there aren't significant water users currently. If we were to take that formula at the very top end, including significant industrial use, it would be a maximum value of $200,000.

D. Jarvis: I hate to ask if that's per day or per year. I assume it's per year -- is it?

All right, then. Thank you.

I would like to go on to

section 123. There's a

section here talking about water licences issued before March 22. Is that anything we should be concerned about? What other licences were on the Nass and its tributaries prior to that date?

Hon. C. McGregor: The reference in

section 123 is to make sure that any water licences that have been in place will be respected; that's why that provision is dated. The date is the day of the signing of the AIP; that's why it is included here. But all water licences that were issued and in place prior to that date continue to be in full force and effect, including those that may have only applied up to that date that hadn't been yet approved. If the member is interested in receiving a list of the existing water licences, we can provide that, but we don't have that here with us today.

M. de Jong: First thing, I think my colleague from North Vancouver-Seymour is interested in receiving that list.

Maybe in general terms, the minister can simply indicate the numbers of licences and licence applications that are captured by these provisions and, generally again, the amount of water that is captured by these provisions set out in 123.

Hon. C. McGregor: We do have information here that there are 18 licences in total which existed prior to the date of March 22, 1996. I'm afraid I don't have a list of how many applications might be outstanding; there may be none. But again, we can get that information for the member.

Those 18 licences are limited to domestic water supplies. Ten licences are in the amount of 500 to 1,000 gallons a day. There are some ten licences for small irrigation purposes, of one acre-foot a year up to a maximum of 52.2 acre-feet a year. There is a single non-consumptive right on the Nass River for river improvement purposes, held by Skeena Cellulose.

M. de Jong: Does the minister have information that would indicate -- for example, the Skeena Cellulose reservation or permit -- if there is a value that is applicable to that particular licence?

Hon. C. McGregor: Well, they do pay a fee on the basis of their use, but we don't have that information here today. We can get it -- that's not an issue -- if the member would like it.

M. de Jong: I think I hear the minister saying that the ministry can provide a listing of both the 18 licensees and the revenues that the ministry derives from those licensees. Is that correct?

[ Page 11322 ]

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes, that is correct.

M. de Jong: I take it the minister is prepared to do just that.

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes, I am.

M. de Jong: I just want to go back to

section 122. My colleague and the minister were discussing the significance of the 300,000 cubic decametres. I don't know how much water that is, Madam Chair; I don't even know if that's how you pronounce the word, and I understand that there is other terminology that is applicable with respect to measuring water. Acre-feet is another unit of measurement, and I don't know what an acre-foot of water is, either.

I am told, however, that 300,000 cubic decametres is sufficient, for domestic and other uses, for a city the size of -- ironically -- Kamloops, which is a city that the minister is eminently familiar with. Can she confirm, at least in terms of conceptualizing how much water we're talking about with 300,000 cubic decametres, that that is a relatively accurate assessment of the volumes we're discussing?

Hon. C. McGregor: While I'm a resident of Kamloops, I must claim ignorance on the point of how much water it is that Kamloops consumes on an annual or daily basis; I'm afraid I'm not familiar with that. But if I could give the member some comfort . . . . When you read the number 300,000 cubic decametres of water per year, it does sound like a large volume; but let me assure the member that it is less than 2 percent of the available water flows within Nis g a'a lands. It is a very small amount of the total flows available on the Nass, and there's lots of water, obviously, still available for other uses.

M. de Jong: I wasn't intending to argue that point, and quite frankly, we will be in a better position to pursue that, if it's necessary, once we have information relating to the other licensees. I don't think any of us can speculate about the amount of water available, absent that information.

I'm not trying to trick the minister here. I don't know how much water Kamloops uses either. I don't know how much water the city of Abbotsford uses, or the city of Vancouver. I'm trying, though, to ascertain, in terms that the average person can understand -- i.e., me -- how much water we are talking about. I don't know, maybe 300,000 cubic decametres isn't a lot of water, but if there is some way to . . . .

The question I'm ultimately going to get to is: how did we get to this amount? Why this amount? In fairness to the minister, before I ask that question, I'm trying to ascertain just how much this amount is.

[4:45]

Hon. C. McGregor: Well, just to give the member some information about the annual flow of the Nass, I do have some figures that he might find of interest. The total annual flow in the Nass is estimated to be 24.3 million cubic decametres. Then there's a calculation that has been applied for fish conservation, because that's of concern to the province -- to be able to maintain necessary flows for fish.

That is calculated at about 64 percent of the annual flow -- about 15 million cubic decametres is set aside for that purpose -- leaving an available flow for water withdrawal of more than eight million cubic decametres on an annual basis. That's where the figure . . . . In actual fact, 1.2 percent -- well below 2 percent -- of the annual flow is available for use by the Nis g a'a in this water reservation.

That speaks to the principle that the province used in terms of doing an overall calculation of the general availability of water. The amount, 1.2 percent, is actually very small in terms of the total amount of water available. But it does provide the Nis g a'a with the assurances and certainty that under this agreement they will have adequate flows of water available to them in the eventuality, over the years, of continued growth within the area.

M. de Jong: I don't want the minister to be under some sort of misapprehension here. I'm not in a position to challenge whether or not the allotment of water rights is in some way going to impact negatively on the river or on the ecosystem. I'm not in a position to make that assertion, so I'm not going to. When one hears the percentage of flow that this comprises, a layperson like myself is inclined to say: "That sounds good."

But I am questioning this from the other perspective. There was something the minister said about reserving unto the Nis g a'a an allocation of water sufficient for their needs. Nothing that's been said here today indicates that that is in fact the case.

Let me put it another way: the reservation of 300,000 cubic decametres of water suggests that someone has turned their mind to the notion of community growth. The question is: what level of growth are we anticipating by virtue of this assignment of water rights? What size of community are we planning for, in determining that 300,000 cubic decametres of water is sufficient?

Hon. C. McGregor: I'll check out my crystal ball when I get a chance, hon. member, but I honestly could not say how much development there might be in the Nass some hundred years from now, when this treaty will still be in full force and effect. But I will say this -- and I would hope that the member agrees: development in the northern part of British Columbia, in the Nass, would be a good thing not only for the economy of the province generally but for the people who live in the Nass.

M. de Jong: Well, of course it would be. Let's not get sidetracked. What I'm trying to ascertain is how we came up with the figure of 300,000. The minister has provided evidence that it won't impact negatively environmentally on the flow rates. So someone said that we need to reserve a certain amount of water. It is, I rather suspect, much more water than the Nis g a'a need today. The minister has been there, and I've been there. I don't know how much 300,000 cubic decametres is, but it sounds like more than a community of 2,000 or 2,500 people would need today. What is it sufficient for?

What size of community places these kinds of demands? At what point does 300,000 become insufficient to meet a community's needs? In fairness to the minister, I think . . . . Well, in fairness to me, then, let me say, I think it is a fair question to ascertain how we settled upon this figure. I'm satisfied, based on what the information has said, that environmental concerns have been addressed. What I'm not satisfied with at this point is how we settled on 300,000 as the appropriate figure for water reservation.

[ Page 11323 ]

Hon. C. McGregor: Well, I don't want to suggest in any way that it isn't a fair question, but I think that the answer is equally complex, in terms of how we give it. I agree with the member that, you know, the existing use of water within the Nass is nowhere near the 300,000 cubic decametres. We did discuss that there was clearly a lot of water available within the Nass. As I indicated on the record, there are more than 24 million cubic decametres available on an annual basis, and the amount represents 1.2 percent.

However, as the member points out, there should have been some calculation other than just a percentage of the flow available. We should have looked at some of the other indicators -- and that was indeed done, including domestic and industrial. I do have one example here of an industrial use, which I'll share with the member: an existing pulp mill in Nanaimo, in fact, which uses almost half of 300,000 cubic decametres annually for water. One pulp mill could potentially use about 150,000 cubic decametres of water. That gives the member some idea of the volume of water that some industrial uses require.

The 300,000 cubic decametres, in the sense of considering future industrial development, certainly shows that the amount is not excessive.

M. de Jong: Put in that context, it might show just the opposite. I don't know what the usage is under the Skeena Cellulose licence, but if the figures that the minister is preparing are accurate, and if we all acknowledge the desirability of promoting economic development in the area . . . . In fairness, I have heard no plans that there is going to be a pulp mill in the Nass Valley. In fact, everything that's happening in this province indicates that there may not be one operating anywhere, but let's leave that for another day. Maybe this isn't enough.

If the minister can that quickly think of an example that would utilize half of this allocated amount, then I'm still curious as to the basis upon which the negotiators settled on this amount.

I don't mean to go on ad nauseam with this, but we've heard everything but an explanation for the rationale behind the reservation of a specific amount. That's why I began this series of questioning with: is there a city or a town that would use this amount of water? I think that would answer all of the questions that I've been clumsily presenting to the minister over the last five or ten minutes.

Hon. C. McGregor: Well, it was a matter of negotiation, hon. member. I've explained as best I can the calculation of the total water flows and the work that was done to ascribe how much is available for use by Nis g a'a and non-Nis g a'a. I've indicated to the member that industrial use can require large quantities of water. If he would like to know more details about what industries and how much water they use, we'd certainly be happy to provide that to the member. But it was a matter of negotiation.

On the member's point, if the Nis g a'a don't have enough water, there are provisions in the agreement --

section 129 -- which make it clear that the Nis g a'a can apply for available flows outside of their water reservation if, at some future time, all of the 300,000 cubic decametres have been attributed to other uses.

M. de Jong: The last question for me on this point, then . . . . If I can just confirm that the minister is going to . . . . Let me back up. We are still curious about determining to what extent a value can be assigned to a reservation of this magnitude. If the minister is going to provide those documents and that material which will assist us in that respect, I'd just like the record to show that I for one would reserve the right to come back to the minister and pursue that line of questioning, on the basis of the information those subsequent documents reveal. I think she's agreeable to that.

Hon. C. McGregor: I would confirm that I made a commitment to provide to the member a list of existing water licences and the fees that they pay.

D. Jarvis: In that same vein, did you tell us at all on those other licences how many decametres they were utilizing -- of that total 24.3 million?

Hon. C. McGregor: As long as that information is available to us -- absolutely, yes.

D. Jarvis: I understand, though, that in most cases where there's . . . . We'll come to that later on in the discussion about damming of the rivers, but I was . . . .

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: Yes, yes. It will drive your environmentalists crazy -- this

section -- if they really get into it. The member for Burnaby-Willingdon will probably want to cross the floor.

It appears that under 124, the Nis g a'a will not have to conform to federal requirements and that there is a restriction -- and that's in

section 125 . . . . This is what I was referring to. I feel as though we're jumping back and forth. It's not that I'm doing it on purpose, but it's the way I'm interpreting this

section of the book. There's a restriction that 50 percent of the water of all the streams in the valley can be used. So if they're now getting 300,000 cubic decametres, and there's 24.3 million, that will leave them with approximately 1.2 percent -- give or take a few drops of water. So they can now go up to, say, 48 percent. They can increase their volume . . . . Does that mean that they can increase their volumes, re

section 125(b) . . . ? Can they go up another 48 percent?

[5:00]

Hon. C. McGregor: The upper limit is defined as 300,000 cubic decametres, and 125(

a) sets out the percentages of flow that are available under each of the schedules, and (

b) makes it clear that 50 percent . . . on those streams that are not included -- but it does not imply that every stream would be taken to the 50 percent.

D. Jarvis: It says 300,000 cubic decametres is presently their allotment of the Nass and other streams that are in or are partially in the Nis g a'a lands. They've only been allotted 300,000. If I understand you to say that the total cubic decametres in there is 24,300,000, (

a) I don't know if that includes all the tributaries and all the streams, and (

b) that would mean, under

section 125, that if they can go up to 50 percent of the allotment, they could go up another 48 percent of allotment. Am I correct in that?

Hon. C. McGregor: No, the member is incorrect. The total flow that I gave was for the Nass, not for the other streams wholly or partially within Nis g a'a lands. But the

[ Page 11324 ]

300,000 cubic decametres is the upper limit, so regardless of whatever the percentages are that are taken out of . . . . If they decide to take all of the flow from the Nass, the maximum they could take -- if they don't hit the 50 percent -- is 300,000 cubic decametres.

D. Jarvis: Under

section 124, then, I would like to discuss the aspect that it appears, as I said, that they do not have to conform to federal laws or requirements. When I say that, and in conjunction with

section 129 . . . . If the Nis g a'a want a licence for water which is in excess of the global limit -- so they can ask for more water -- the provisions of

section 129 would apply. They would not have to apply in the same manner as everyone else. Their application would have to conform to provincial regulation requirements, it says there, not federal. In

section 129 (d)(ii), the words "flow to ensure conservation" may mean that an application would have to comply with the full regulatory procedures. That is the purpose -- for protecting watercourses, etc.

Do you understand what I'm trying to get at now? They can get more than 50 percent, because in there you say that you are going to allow them, if they wish to apply for more. Am I not correct there?

Hon. C. McGregor: I draw the member's attention to both 124 and 129, in which it talks about applications to the province of British Columbia. That is because water has jurisdiction in the province. It rests in the province of British Columbia, not with federal government.

Section 124 makes it clear that you must apply to the province.

Section 129 makes it clear that the Nis g a'a have the same rights as any other British Columbian to apply for a water licence outside of their water reservation. But they would be expected to go through the same application process, in every way, as any other British Columbian, and they would have to pay for their water rights in the same way as any other British Columbian.

D. Jarvis: There are federal requirements that they have to comply with, and those have to do with fishing. If you go back into what we were talking about there, "provincial regulatory requirements" is used in

section 129; but if you turn the page and go up to

section 138, the term "federal and provincial laws" is used, so they do have to comply with federal requirements. However, back earlier, you said that they don't have to comply; they only have to comply with provincial requirements.

Hon. C. McGregor: I understand that the member is concerned -- I think he's concerned -- about protection of values for fish. I'd point out again to him

section 129, where it talks about the conditions under which they would have to conform with provincial regulatory requirements -- provided that the stream contained a sufficient flow of unrecorded water and that the flow for conservation of fish and stream habitat was all continued, as well as navigability issues. So this is the process that would be gone through prior to any application for an additional water licence being approved.

In terms of

section 138, that makes direct reference to selling water in accordance with statutes that exist provincially and federally. Currently, for instance, in British Columbia the export of water is banned. To my knowledge there are not currently any federal regulations. But if there were to become federal regulations in the future, then any sale of water would have to be consistent with that.

D. Jarvis: There doesn't seem to be anything to prevent the Nis g a'a from building small dams on the Nass or on any watercourse in the . . . . Dams, according to your member for Burnaby-Willingdon, would be just terrible things to put on there, because they would kill any fish habitat. But there's nothing in there to preclude them from building a dam now or in the future.

Hon. C. McGregor: As I've indicated before, provincial law applies. In the case of the Fish Protection Act, which was passed in this House a little while ago -- I can't remember the exact . . . . I think it might have been 18 months ago. There is a prohibition against any dams on the Nass. That would apply in this situation as well.

As the member notes, however, there are some hydro power opportunities that the Nis g a'a can investigate over the course of the agreement. The provisions that determine that are listed in paragraphs 140-144.

D. Jarvis: Seeing that I jumped up to

section 129, I want to know . . . . The provincial Water Act governs the Nass River and all its tributaries. I'm assuming that I'm correct in saying that the government of British Columbia will control and regulate anything that's on that waterway. This has not been turned over to the Nis g a'a or their government per se. Do you agree that the Nis g a'a government will have to ask the provincial government for permission with regards to anything they want to do with regards to all those tributaries, small streams and the Nass River itself? Is that right?

Hon. C. McGregor: That is correct.

D. Jarvis: Water licences can be issued to the Nis g a'a in accordance with sections 129 and 143. I note that they are silent in relation to the payment of rentals, fees and charges and all that. But you say that there's an unwritten rule that aboriginals do not have to pay any licences or fees for any use of water. Is that correct?

Hon. C. McGregor: On Indian reserves, that is correct, member.

D. Jarvis: I guess I'm being facetious when I say "when it's not a reserve." Will that follow true in perpetuity for the Nis g a'a nation -- that they will not have to pay any fees for water rental?

Hon. C. McGregor: I'm not sure which type of licence the member is making reference to.

Section 128 makes clear that applications under 126 will not be subject to rental fees or other charges by British Columbia, but applications under sections 129 and 143 would.

D. Jarvis: My

interpretation is that they might be able to avoid paying any rentals or fees or charges whatsoever because of the . . . . You know, I'm not going to question your drafting, but under

section 129, it states: " . . . British Columbia will approve the application and issue the water licence." If, among other things, when you go up to 129, as I said, with regard to the dams, it appears that . . . . I think it should be

[ Page 11325 ]

changed so that a water licence issued under

section 126 will be subject to rentals. It should be. And 126 should be written as "will not be subject to any rentals,"

whereas sections 129 and 143 should say "will be subject to rentals."

Hon. C. McGregor: I draw the member's attention back to the "General Provisions" chapter, sections 13 and 14, which make clear the applicability . . . .

Interjections.

Hon. C. McGregor: No, let's not go back there.

But just to give the member comfort if he feels that it's not specifically worded, 128 makes it clear that fees and rentals will not charged for applications under paragraph 126. I am giving the member the information that when it says that it must conform with provincial legislation, rules and regulations, that means that fees must be paid under provisions 129 and 143. However, if the member is looking for further comfort, he can re-examine sections 13 and 14 under "General Provisions," where it makes clear that provincial laws and regulations will apply, including fees and licences.

D. Jarvis: I sometimes wish I'd never started.

Again, in

section 129 I found it sort of impossible to determine the effect of the words "in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement." It could conceivably be argued that one of the purposes of this agreement is saving the Nis g a'a culture through economic initiatives, etc., and therefore that would include the Nass River itself. That is, if at any time it should be acceptable, through your economic initiatives, for the Nis g a'a to build a major hydroelectric project on the Nass, what would that do?

The purpose of this is to try to make them economically sustainable, so a hydroelectric project on the Nass would certainly help them in that situation as they grow. What would happen to the fish aspect of their basic, traditional culture? Although those

interpretations do change over time, I think there is a question there.