1996 Legislative Session: 1st 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)

FRIDAY, AUGUST 9, 1996

Morning

Volume 2, Number 18

[ Page 1757 ]

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

G. Brewin: It's with great pleasure that I want to have the House join me in a special acknowledgement of a special person who is behind the scenes of what we do. Luanna Larusson, a longtime sessional employee in the Hansard office, has just earned her BSN and RN against a lot of odds. She has managed to juggle being a full-time university student, a single parent of two teenage daughters and a Hansard employee, whose unholy hours of work we all can identify with. She was also valedictorian at the graduation ceremonies, which took place last night.

Unfortunately, she's not actually in the gallery but she is hearing this, as we speak, so I would like to have the House join me in offering warmest congratulations to her for a job well done.

G. Robertson: Hon. Speaker, with us today is His Worship Mayor Tom McRae from Tahsis and also Councillor Frank White, and we're very pleased to have them down here today. Tahsis is the birthplace of British Columbia, and Tahsis, Gold River and Zeballos have made significant contributions to our province for over 200 years by way of gold, timber and fish. We're very pleased to have them down here today, and I'd like to ask the House to join me in welcoming them.

C. Clark: I'm pleased to introduce today two very good friends of mine who are the parents of one of my old friends from Pembroke, Ontario. They are Carmel and Edmond Chartrand, and with them are their friends Bernadette and Lawrence Scheuneman. I'd ask the House to please make them welcome.

J. Dalton: I'm pleased to welcome to the House today Mr. Ed Cameron. Ed is a political science student from Dublin, Ireland. He was asking me this morning before we convened whether he could compare this Legislature with the Mother of Parliaments he has attended. I assured him that there was no way to compare it. I also said that, regrettably, there wouldn't be a question period today, which, of course, is the real essence of this place. Please join me in welcoming Mr. Cameron to the Legislature.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

SCIENCE AND ECONOMIC GROWTH

L. Reid: I'm pleased today to rise and make a statement regarding science and economic growth. Many of you will know that the Prime Minister, on his last visit to British Columbia, said that the future of Canada is the west. I take this as a key statement of recognition of the economic opportunities we will realize if we think strategically about science and technology.

The most significant plank in a modern economic platform is the development of knowledge-based industry. It's time to analyze the contributions of research to the economy and to society. Knowledge of the linkage between research and development and economic growth has advanced significantly. I believe that if we look at intellectual challenge, the pursuit of excellence and solutions to very complex problems, all of those are before us. The question today is how we proceed.

R and D often involves significant product improvement and technological refinement, and not always the creation of new knowledge or revolutionary new products. We have to be open to all aspects of knowledge-based industry, and all applications. We need to concentrate on fostering some large companies which will spawn numerous smaller companies.

Government does not have a role to play in manipulating or distorting the marketplace. There will be tremendous growth in instrumentation, in aerospace, in telecommunications and chemical and pharmaceutical industries. There are qualitative and quantitative benefits to society from research, and government needs to be very clear about its role.

The province needs a Frank McKenna, a world-class marketer, for science and tech, someone who's intensely proud of what his province can do, someone who lives and breathes science and technology, who understands that the future is knowledge-based industry.

The goal is before us. I believe we need to retain a high technical competence across the broad frontiers of science and technology. But what's missing today is a strong managerial competence. This is the number one recommendation of the November 1995 report entitled High Technology Industries in British Columbia: The Agenda for Growth . The recommendation talks about developing a strategy to help companies attract senior personnel to relocate to this province. We have the finest minds, there's absolutely no question about that. When it comes to commercializing the product, we often have some difficulties.

We have world-class scientists, innovators, entrepreneurs; we need to assist these individuals with world-class managers. We're a young industry; we have a long way to go.

I would like to focus on possible linkages between technology and economic performance in space, health, energy, and things about the environment, about environmental protection. We can teach people the world over how to care for the environment. Effectiveness of cooperative research and development agreements will see British Columbia offering the services of world-class environmental cleanup specialists to the world marketplace.

I'd like to submit today that we need to think of research and development, perhaps, as one-third research and two-thirds development. We will secure highly skilled, highly paid jobs in both sectors.

There are also quality-of-life returns from basic research. I want to spend a moment, if I might, hon. Speaker, on breast cancer and on Alzheimer's. Any of us who have ever been touched by those diseases know that the tremendous impact on families is devastating. It seems to me that if we were truly committed to research and development, we would put some resources into ensuring that we fund research chairs at major universities to ensure that the domino effect of those diseases is somehow curtailed as we learn more about it.

We tend to see disintegration of families around those disorders, around those diseases, and yet we don't tend to put a great deal of research money -- research will -- into discovering answers.

Both of those diseases are found in British Columbians in record numbers, and both impact on families in many, many devastating ways. It's time to commit to funding research, and I would hope today that government -- certainly in British

[ Page 1758 ]

Columbia, where the diseases are found in the highest numbers, but across this country -- will look to fund those two diseases with some passion. Otherwise, we will not find a solution.

I honestly believe that it's the decent way to proceed, and it advances quality-of-life issues, which is what we in this Legislative chamber all say we're about. At the same time, it recognizes the harm to our health care budget if we don't proceed. There are devastating costs with both of those diseases, and I believe we could make a difference if we had some commitment.

I'm convinced that life is a package and that science is a significant player. It's time to make the system work for us. Often you hear politicians talk about science as being somehow mysterious, something that government can't get a handle on. The essence of my discussion today is that it's critical that government does take some responsibility for understanding how the process works and for putting in place some reasonable planks for companies, entrepreneurs and inventors to want to be based in British Columbia. That has a lot to do with buoyant financing, but it has a lot to do with the political will to see British Columbia as a home to scientists.

I look forward to my hon. colleague's response.

J. Doyle: I'd like to thank the member for Richmond East for her words of wisdom.

First of all, the member for West Vancouver-Capilano made an introduction a few minutes ago of a friend of his from Dublin. As someone who was also born over there on the old sod, I'd like to also welcome that person to the Legislature here.

[10:15]

Economic development and science in economic development is, without a doubt, hon. Speaker, very, very important to British Columbia, Canada and the world.

An area that affects me a lot -- living out in Golden and representing Columbia River and Revelstoke -- and from an interior perspective, although it occurs to all of the province, is the forestry industry. We have watched in the last 20 to 30 years as the timber cut in the province has increased. There used to be some thought years ago that there was always another valley to log. Of course, we have found out that you can run out of valleys to log. We as a government have said that we don't want to watch it happen anymore.

We've watched the cut go up and we've watched the jobs go down as automation has more and more taken place in the mills of our province and in the country. Of course, companies have to do that, because they have to compete in this world that's getting smaller every day.

In an area like the Kootenays, where I am from, one of our biggest exports -- because of things like this happening with automation over the years, I'm sad to say -- has been our youth. It's good for them to travel, good for them to go out to the world, but sad when they have to leave beautiful places like the Kootenays and the Columbia Basin area to find jobs elsewhere. That's something that we as government are concerned about.

Forestry is very, very important to the people that work in the forest industry, to their families and to their communities. By and large, they're good-paying jobs. It's also important to places like Vancouver, because many head offices of forest companies in our province are located there. It's important to all of us in this House, representing the various ridings that we do here. Of course, it's important to Victoria right here, because forestry is a very, very important item when the Minister of Finance goes to collect moneys from the province. It's a very, very important item to all of us.

Also, I think, it would be time to recognize forest workers. They work very hard. They work shift work. They spend time away from their families, especially bush-workers. It's very, very dangerous work, and many of those people die at a young age of some accident out in the forest.

Hon. Speaker, in the last four years we've been here as government, we have said that if you want access to our forests, anyone out there, you must get in more to the value-added sector and get more jobs out of the woods. We established Forest Renewal about two years ago, which said that we are going to make moneys available through that publicly owned wood to assist companies and individuals to be trained to get more jobs out of that forestry. The Premier announced that if you want access, as I said, to that wood, you create jobs. Otherwise, somebody else will get the wood.

At the present time, our Premier and this government are standing up so B.C. gets its fair share and continues to have its fair share of wood, when other areas in the country are looking at taking some of that access away.

An all-party value-added committee travelled the province a couple of years ago. In many areas in the province, we found that some of the smaller companies cannot get access to wood, which is why they can't get into value-added and create more jobs in the Kootenays or other areas in the province. It's sad to see that wood leaving those communities as jobs are disappearing in the primary industry as we automate.

What this government has done, hon. Speaker, is set up the UBC department of wood science. I'd just like to quote from a press release of October 3, 1995:

"New Forest Science Centre Announced for UBC, Vancouver. The government has approved funding of $44.5 million through the B.C. 21 initiative for the construction of a forest science advanced wood products processing centre at the University of British Columbia's skills and training centre, the minister announced today."

The Minister of Forests also commented on this:

" 'The centre will train highly skilled workers for B.C.'s value-added sector as part of our government's strategy to get more jobs and value for each tree that's cut. By investing in value-added forestry research and education and developing new wood-manufacturing technologies and products, we are ensuring a strong and sustainable forest economy in British Columbia, now and for future generations.' "

This centre offers a five-year BSc cooperative program in advanced wood sciences.

The Speaker: Member, I must advise you that your time has expired. If you want a sentence to wrap up, you may.

J. Doyle: Okay, hon. Speaker. I feel that as we get more into sciences and look at what we can do with that land base, that's one way we can get more jobs out of our resources to help all of us and to keep our youth employed.

L. Reid: I would like to thank my colleague for Columbia River-Revelstoke for his comments around the forestry industry. I recently had the opportunity to tour the research and development division of MacMillan Bloedel and look at their poplar program, which will see a wood product into the marketplace after only eight years. I think that's just a wonderful achievement. If my colleague hasn't had the opportunity to visit, I would certainly recommend that he do so.

[ Page 1759 ]

In terms of science and technology in the broader framework, we, sitting in the Pacific Northwest, are on the cutting edge of international trade. We have to remember that the purpose of international trade, I believe, is mutual benefit: it should benefit both parties. The goal for us here in British Columbia is to stimulate research and development that is likely to improve productivity for both partners, but we must also keep in mind quality-of-life returns from basic research. We talk generally about the advancement of knowledge. All of those things are good things.

If we think specifically about the task force report, it has said that there are ways we can assist in the marketplace by ensuring that technology companies are represented in the governance of the VSE and on the B.C. Securities Commission. Those are issues that we all need to fold into our thinking and arrive at some conclusion on -- hopefully, fairly soon.

We also need to focus on the development of human resources in the industry, particularly managerial, marketing and sales professionals. In high technology, labour-management cooperation is the norm and requires little regulation. We must also keep that in mind. Doubling the size of the industry by the year 2000 is both desirable and achievable. When I say "industry," I'm talking about knowledge-based industry here in British Columbia.

On a final note, David Hughes, chair of the high-tech task force, in May of 1996 said: "The thrust of the task force is on industry development, recognizing that it must take place within the context of what is good for society at large." That is the essence of science. It can be mutually beneficial to all parties, and I would invite this government to continue its involvement in advancing the needs and desires of scientists here in our province.

PREVENTING TOBACCO USE

F. Randall: Tobacco is the number one source of preventable disease and premature deaths in British Columbia, killing over 5,000 British Columbians each year. Each year, about 10,000 to 15,000 B.C. adolescents start to smoke. Smokers are less healthy their entire lives, and it is not just smokers who are made ill by this product. A recent U.S. study estimates that four million kids are injured by parental smoking each year from things like coughs and congestion to serious conditions such as low birthweights, tonsillectomies and respiratory infections which require hospitalization.

Some infants die from parental smoking. For example, smoking is responsible for two-thirds of the sudden infant deaths for babies of women who smoked during pregnancy. In addition to the human suffering, the health care costs of treating smoking-related disease in B.C. adds up to well over a billion dollars in unnecessary costs that we all pay.

Imperial Tobacco is Canada's largest manufacturer of cigarettes, with brand names such as Player's, duMaurier and Matinée. They do market research on young people. Here is a quote from a Youth Research document in the 1980s:

"They are sorry that they ever started smoking because it is harmful, but they feel somewhat trapped. They are constantly reminded of their lack of willpower. To defend themselves they tend to put on a jaunty air. They do this to save face, because they would really like to quit and not appear to be slaves to their cigarettes."

In the words of the tobacco industry: "Tobacco use is a form of slavery. Addiction uniquely makes tobacco a product that standard fair business practices do not apply to."

Tobacco companies continue to do market research on teens. In 1992, a 16-year-old Burnaby youth disclosed that he had been interviewed about his smoking behaviour in exchange for $10 and coupons for free cigarettes. Burnaby health inspectors recently conducted a compliance check, and 56 percent of 195 Burnaby retailers were found to be willing to sell to a 15-year-old girl. Controlling the tobacco industry's activities that encourage and facilitate smoking is a job for all of us. How easily the industry addicts our young people depends on how well we control its ability to distribute, promote, package and price the product.

In 1891, B.C. was the first province in Canada to ban cigarette smoking for minors. In the 1990s, we again passed a sales-to-minors law. In February 1993, our all-party committee had a presentation from Officer Bruce Talbot of Woodridge, Illinois, where they reduced 13-year-olds' smoking by 70 percent in two years. They licensed their retailers, required four compliance checks per year and outlawed youth possession of tobacco. A licensing system provides the necessary administrative controls to track this problem, as an annual licence is required to determine who is selling tobacco. It is not possible to control the sale of tobacco to minors without some form of licensing.

In 1971, B.C. passed a law to ban tobacco advertising, which gave B.C. a history of 20 years without tobacco billboards. Before this 1971 law, B.C. had the highest rate of female smoking in Canada. This caused B.C. to be the first province where female lung cancer surpassed breast cancer deaths in 1988, seven years before the national average. Our B.C. law and the policies set by political leaders of the era led to female smoking rates declining to the lowest in Canada by the end of the 1970s. Again, our law was repealed because of an ineffective federal law.

We have proven that political will makes a huge difference in this issue. Our 1995 amendment to the Tobacco Sales Act specifically targeted sales to minors under 19 years of age. The new Tobacco Sales Act also bans the sale of packages containing fewer than 20 cigarettes, which are the so-called kiddie packs, as well as the sale of single cigarettes, and it requires vendors to display health warnings and age-limit signs.

[10:30]

However, no single initiative can successfully reduce tobacco use. The Ministry of Health's tobacco reduction strategy uses a number of different directions to combat this problem. These include: support for the Heart and Stroke Foundation's elementary school based prevention program; programming on Knowledge Network's Kids Zone program; an Up in Smoke prevention program for ages eight to 12 years; and funding support for communities to identify and address local concerns regarding tobacco use and children.

In addition, our government held the line on tobacco taxes when other provinces were folding. We recently increased the number of RCMP officers who are dedicated to stopping tobacco smuggling. Our government is committed to protecting our young people from the devastating health effects of smoking, and we will continue to work in partnership with those concerned organizations and individuals to ensure that our vulnerable young people are protected and prevented from making a mistake they will regret the rest of their lives.

A. Sanders: The only funny thing I ever heard about cigarette smoking was said by Mark Twain: "Quitting smoking is the simplest thing. I've done it a thousand times." From my own experience, and from watching young people, this statement is most definitely true.

Most in-depth discussions these days concerning health care include some concept or idea of prevention, and although

[ Page 1760 ]

prevention of illness is always a laudable goal, in practice it's often difficult to implement. There's no better example of this than tobacco addiction.

Despite some well-organized programs to assist people to quit smoking, the success rate for getting people who have already initiated smoking to stop smoking is frustratingly low. One of the criteria that has been linked to getting people off cigarettes has been the cost of the habit or the cost of the treatment they undergo in order to discontinue.

By its very nature, tobacco is a highly addictive substance. Sadly, this addiction will often take place at an early age. In fact, the fastest-growing group of new smokers, as my colleague from Burnaby-Edmonds has pointed out, is our children. Once addicted, they often remain lifelong smokers, a fact that cigarette manufacturers are very well aware of.

Consider this: tobacco is classed by the Canadian and American Cancer Associations as a class A carcinogen. This means that it is in a select group of the most toxic, cancer-causing substances known to man.

Smoking is directly responsible for thousands of new cases of lung cancer every year. Smoking is directly linked -- not by inference, but directly linked -- to emphysema, heart disease, strokes and cancer of the bladder. Smokers suffer more work absenteeism and traffic accidents. Children of smokers suffer more allergies and asthma. Our hospitals are full of patients suffering from illnesses directly caused from cigarette smoking. The cost to our health care system and to society in general is staggering.

In my view, education in the school does not seem at this time to have a significant impact on smoking behaviour. More than one young smoker has told me that if they choose to smoke, they'll smoke, and that their decision won't be based on information handed out at school. Often, it is peer pressure or a sense of social desirability with other children in the peer group. Some schools, in fact, are accommodating it in that they have created designated smoking areas. Is this the direction we want our society to go in? Should we be making it easier for children at school to smoke?

We do know that the rise in the cost of cigarettes causes a decreased likelihood of young people starting smoking. Legislators must bear this in mind when setting tobacco taxes. How many children have become addicted to tobacco as a result of recent federal tobacco tax initiatives? And what about the future of tobacco advertising? In light of a recent court ruling, is there anything to stop tobacco companies from targeting children to initiate smoking?

There can be little doubt that smoking is here to stay, but we can and must do everything we can to minimize its impact. We must be truly committed to illness prevention and wellness promotion. We must start with the number one cause of preventive illness, and that is tobacco use. We must continue to look at effective stop-smoking programs for those who are already addicted and, most importantly, look at innovative ways to help prevent the initiation of smoking in our kids.

The Speaker: Thank you, member. The member for Burnaby-Edmonds concludes.

F. Randall: I would like to thank the doctor representing Okanagan-Vernon. She obviously has a very good understanding of this problem.

I just want to add that our government has led the country with the new, improved Tobacco Sales Act, and Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada acknowledge that B.C. has some of the toughest legislation in the country. As I mentioned previously, when other provinces in Canada lowered taxes on cigarettes, the B.C. government stood firm and refused to lower taxes on cigarettes. Our government held the line on taxes. But most Canadian children live in provinces where taxes are low, such as Ontario, Quebec, P.E.I., New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.

I say to my colleagues in the official opposition that they should be lobbying their federal counterparts to reintroduce a law to ban tobacco advertising. Ten months have passed since the Supreme Court invited the Parliament of Canada to re-enact a ban as strong as the evidence would support, and the federal government must be urged to continue the industry surtax that funds Health Canada's tobacco demand reduction strategy. The B.C. government will continue to urge the federal government to take immediate action to protect our young people and their future health and well-being.

Also, on the comments about school, certainly all the numbers we've looked at show that if people do not start smoking until after they're out of school, the chances of them starting really plunge. It's school that starts the problem, and it's certainly peer pressure. I've certainly got concerns about schools allocating smoking areas for students; I certainly don't agree with that.

Just in closing, I would like to say that there is an awful lot more to do on this particular issue. I know that we will work hard to do what we can. We certainly hope the opposition pursue their counterparts in Ottawa to proceed with the advertising ban.

PAYING THE RENT

R. Coleman: A man once said the rent we pay for the right to occupy space on this earth is community service. That man wasn't -- but could have been -- my father, a role model any son would be glad to have. My dad and mom taught their six children that family comes first, followed by hard work, honesty, integrity and faith.

Across this province there are hundreds of thousands of volunteers that work on behalf of their communities. They are involved in service clubs, fraternal organizations, community support groups, sports organizations, churches and much more. It is critical that we as a society and particularly as elected officials do not restrict these people in their ability to provide support for the less fortunate or for the community as a whole.

For today's discussion I want to provide the House with a cursory view of the impact of one segment of volunteers in community: service clubs. These groups of men and women have a dramatic impact on the lives of British Columbians. The calculations show that only one of these groups easily will have contributed over a billion dollars to B.C. communities in their 75-year history.

I have been fortunate to have travelled British Columbia extensively. I've also been fortunate to have been a member of the Kinsmen and Kinette organization for the last 22 years. In the limited time that I have today, I want to give this House a

[ Page 1761 ]

mosaic of what service groups have done in some communities across the province and their impact on society. I do this so that we can reflect on where society would be if we didn't protect the integrity of service organizations in our communities.

In the Kootenays, there is a ski hill and a rope tow in Sparwood, in Cranbrook a new lighted sports multiplex, a health centre in Trail, a seniors' centre in Nakusp, a park in central Castlegar and an outdoor pool in Grand Forks. In the Okanagan, we have a lakeshore park in Penticton, community centres in Summerland and Kelowna, and a track in Vernon, to name a few. There's additional hospital equipment in the Kamloops hospital, and a park in 100 Mile House.

There's a new community centre in Prince George as well as in Mackenzie, an arena and a curling rink in Dawson Creek across from a linear park -- you guessed it -- also provided by a service club. Smithers, Terrace, Prince Rupert and Kitimat: these communities all have parks, centres and even a kids' camp at their disposal. The Island has numerous award-winning parks, a fairground in Port Alberni and more community centres. These facilities, and even the kickoff funds to build the Memorial Arena in Victoria, came from service organizations.

The lower mainland has the first disabled adventure playground in Newton, a community centre in Aldergrove, a leisure centre in Mission, a curling rink in Chilliwack, the neurological research centre at the UBC Health Sciences Centre hospital and much more because of service organizations. These types of projects show the public side of groups such as Kinsmen, Kinettes, Lions, Rotary, Gyro, Kiwanis and the like.

There's another side of these service clubs, though, the side that sends hampers to families at Christmas, that gets kids off the streets and back into their homes, that quietly supports those in need. I have personally seen the reaction on a single mother's face when she could not afford diapers and milk for her newborn, had no food in her house for her other two children, and out of the blue, a service club arrived at her door with all her needs. The relief and joy of having this burden lifted from her shoulders was remarkable to see.

I've seen two young boys disappointed because their mom couldn't afford to pay for them to play hockey with their friends -- and the joy on their faces when a service club stepped in and solved the problem. I've seen weariness in the face of an elderly lady turn to absolute relief when a crew of men showed up and reroofed her leaking mobile home, no questions asked. I've seen people who need wheelchairs get them. I've seen families, who have had to stay in faraway places waiting for surgery for loved ones, helped out.

Mr. Speaker, the absolute breadth of the impact of service clubs is staggering. The life of a CF child has been extended, and a cure may be imminent because of the 30-year involvement of Kinsmen and Kinettes in cystic fibrosis research. Polio may be eliminated worldwide through Rotary's PolioPlus program. Lions continue to support crippled children through assistance and camp programs. Kiwanis continues to support child development centres, to name only a few. Alzheimer's, hospices, cancer research and a multitude of other causes rely on volunteers and service clubs for support.

It is critical to our future that we allow the human fabric of this province to do what it does best, that being to take care of its own. Governments can never do what a dedicated volunteer can do. They don't have the feel. They don't have the love, the caring and the understanding of the real fabric of the community. Service clubs provide us with a visible example to reflect upon and a not-so-visible example of human commitment. They provide us with stability, friendship and commitment.

Mr. Speaker, human life is a gift. Paying rent to society by giving something back is something we should all do as a matter of course. Governments should set an example: get out of the way, assist where possible -- and, oh, whenever the chance arises, say thank you.

J. Smallwood: I'd like to thank the member for his comments. I have to admit that I listened with considerable interest. Much of what the member said certainly appealed to my ear and my sense of community. I think one of the comments that the member made in his opening statements about giving something back is something that we all listen to. In this House, in particular, many of us give much of our own personal commitment to our communities and much of our families' time and commitment to making not only our neighbourhoods and our constituencies a better place but to making the province a better place as well.

I think it's based -- certainly from our party's philosophy -- on an understanding that what we're talking about is that family that the member referenced, which is much bigger than the nuclear family. It is indeed the human family, recognizing that that's one of the reasons many of us have chosen a political route, a route of serving in government, to ensure that our contribution to political life is based on those values.

[10:45]

While the member celebrates the volunteerism in communities -- and I think we all recognize the contribution that volunteers make -- I think we also recognize the broader need in governance itself in the passing of laws, in the conduct of this House, to continue those values and ensure that we all benefit from the wealth not only of the human spirit but of the wealth and generosity that we share as human beings on this planet; that each and every one of us by a right of citizenship enjoy the right to a decent home, the ability to feed our children and the ability to live in dignity and inclusion in community itself; and that we don't have to rely on the generosity of individuals or on charity.

That's not to demean charity or the generosity of our neighbours.

I want to go back to that philosophy of the human family and the work that we all do in this House in trying to ensure that there are inclusive communities and that each and every one, whether it is a child, a disabled person, a person living in poverty or, indeed, a person who is wealthy but living in isolation and not enjoying the opportunities that communities present. . . .

I want to challenge the member, while celebrating the Rotary, the Kinsmen and the Lions and the work that those service clubs do, in recognizing that we have a role, too, in this House. That role is one of ensuring that people do not have to rely on charity or rely on a service club coming and bringing a hamper. The member talks about that balance in some ways, and I want to reference a couple of stories in particular, just to make the point.

I had an opportunity to meet with a community in northern British Columbia. A group of individuals came to me from a particular council and wanted the government to do something about a family of five children, where the kids were running around the streets and there was no parental supervision. They were pointing fingers at government to apprehend those kids because they weren't getting the kind of parental guidance that that individual thought was necessary.

[ Page 1762 ]

My answer to him was very simple. I asked whether their community had any service clubs or a Boys' and Girls' Club to provide an opportunity for those kids to do something constructive. He looked at me rather blankly and professed that he didn't understand what I was talking about. I said: "Are the kids at risk? Are they in some danger?" "Well, no, they're not in danger, but the government should do something." I said: "Why don't you form a baseball team? Why don't you do something?"

The Speaker: Thank you, member. I'll call on the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove to conclude.

R. Coleman: The discussion of service clubs and volunteers has nothing to do with the philosophical discussion of the impact of government on communities and social services. If I was wanting to discuss that today, I would have outlined those services in addition, but in seven minutes you can only deal with one segment of society. The opportunity was given to me today to recognize that segment of society, and not to try and turn it around to where we would have something different.

When Rick Hansen moves to his tenth-anniversary celebration of his Man in Motion Tour in the spring of 1997, he will be supported by service organizations across this country in his quest to bring something special to the Canadian culture.

Service organizations are based on friendship and fellowship, service to the community and personal development. They understand that society will always need leadership. They will always need people in communities to take one more step, and that's all we're saying about service organizations, fraternal organizations and the like that contribute to a community: that that step should always be there. We shouldn't hinder their ability to be successful. We should get out of their way and just assist them to be successful.

The Speaker: Thank you, member. For our final statement this morning, I call upon the member for Peace River North.

RURAL HEALTH CARE TRAVEL ASSISTANCE

R. Neufeld: My topic today will be rural health care travel assistance. Our federal and provincial governments boast about their commitment to protecting universal health care. All of us like to think we have access to the best medical care if and when we need it. Yet, despite all of the boasting, many parts of this province have never enjoyed equal access to medical services.

When a family member or close friend requires kidney dialysis, eye surgery or chemotherapy, think what's entailed in driving a short distance to a hospital. Now think what it's like for a mom to have to take her child from Fort Nelson to Vancouver for chemotherapy. The mom has to book an airline flight, a hotel, pack her daughter's suitcase, travel by plane or bus for hours, stay in a hotel, eat restaurant meals for a number of days -- all at her own expense.

The so-called guarantee of universality is a bad joke to most rural residents. Treatments for a whole host of ailments, injuries and conditions are often not available in smaller communities. The only option available is for people to travel, often at their own expense, to larger urban areas such as Vancouver or, in my case, from my constituency to Edmonton. In fact, we have many examples of people who have to travel either to Vancouver or Edmonton.

I know personally of a lady who has to travel monthly out of Dawson Creek to Vancouver for her child, all at her own expense, and a Fort St. John family that travels to Vancouver on a regular basis. They both take time off work, three days out of the week, whenever they go. It's very expensive for these individuals. We have examples of people who need kidney dialysis who have to travel to Prince George and stay there for three or four days -- so they can't work, on top of it. There are some real difficulties in the north.

British Columbians living in rural regions who have to travel for specialized medical treatment should be entitled to travel assistance. If we are truly committed to providing equal access to health care services for northern and rural B.C. residents, we can and should look to a few specific measures which would bridge that gap between rural and urban health care services to ensure that all British Columbians have comparable access to health care services.

Number one, frequent flyer points accumulated on airline tickets purchased on behalf of public servants should be pooled and made available to those in distant communities who need medical treatment.

Let's look at an organization which has been doing just what I've been talking about. Mission Air Transportation Network is an Ontario-based non-profit organization dedicated to providing air transportation for financially needy Canadians who need to travel to receive medical attention. With just one year's worth of donated travel points, Mission Air has carried 160 British Columbian patients and 109 of their escorts, at a total savings of approximately $70,000. From October 1994 to September 1995, they carried 1,471 patients and 950 escorts from all provinces, for a total savings of approximately $800,000.

I don't mean to steal their thunder, and I rightly just gave them some free PR, which they greatly deserve, but don't you think that we, too, are capable of creating something right here in B.C. that's just as successful and just as needed? Given the massive amount of public sector travel at all levels of government, we are in a strong position to negotiate the pooling of points from Air Canada and Canadian Airlines. After all, you and I, as private citizens, can donate our travel points on flights we pay for to organizations such as Mission Air, Ronald McDonald House, or the Canadian Children's Wish Foundation.

What I'm saying is that government employees on government business, who are now not legally entitled to collect points, should be able and required to collect and donate points to a made-in-B.C. program designed to help British Columbians. All travel paid for out of the public purse should have the benefits of that travel donated back to those who paid for it in the first place: the taxpayers of British Columbia.

I've dedicated a lot of time and energy to this project, from drafting and introducing a bill in the Legislature three years ago, to raising this issue in estimates, to lobbying the Health ministry and corporations for support. I've done the research; I know what has to be done, and we can do it.

This House must take the initiative to overcome a few hurdles. Under the auspices of the Ministry of Health or an

[ Page 1763 ]

independent society, an office would be established to administer all of the travel points collected. Amend Treasury Board's travel policy to require government employees to collect and donate travel points earned while on government business. Draft legislation requiring all boards and commissions across the province to collect and donate points -- this includes hospital boards, university, college and school boards -- and encourage private donations.

Surely there is a will in this House to support these measures that will equalize costs for citizens who need to travel long distances to receive the health care which those in southern B.C. have ready access to. This program can be implemented without additional costs for taxpayers to bear. It would be capturing a non-utilized value, as economists like to call it.

Although I've mentioned two initiatives to improve health care travel for rural residents, I admit my bias: the immediate focus should be on implementing the travel points program. With just a bit of work -- in fact, I'll nominate myself to chair an all-party committee -- we could move on this issue right now. The need to confront the travel points headache, as someone expressed it to me, is immediate, because with every flight each MLA and government employee takes, we are letting a valuable resource vanish into thin air.

It's time for us to recognize that we have the resources to help those who are having to cope with the sickness of a loved one in addition to the financial pressure of paying for the next flight to send their child to Vancouver for eye surgery. The travel points program is a win-win situation, but it's just one of a number of ideas that would go a long way in helping those who live in rural B.C. and require medical care that they just can't obtain in their own communities.

The Speaker: Responding to the member, I recognize the member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine.

B. Goodacre: Thanks to the member for Peace River North. The characterization he has shared with us of the situation facing people with serious illnesses needing treatment in the southern part of the province is really quite accurate. As much as I share the description that he gave of that situation, I wouldn't be as quick to point fingers at existing governments in this respect. One of the unfortunate facts of living in the north is that we have been faced with this situation year after year, government after government.

I'd much rather deal with the issue of the air points. I got that letter in the mail, like every other MLA, about this air points thing used for medical travel, and I thought it was a pretty interesting thing. I never did much travelling before I got this job. I never even had one of those cards for collecting air points. I realized they were no good to me, and I didn't even bother getting a card. But after listening to this presentation, I'm really quite attracted to this idea. I certainly would be pleased to make myself available to work with the hon. member to pursue this idea a bit further.

I'm not saying that it's unusual to have really progressive ideas come out of that side of the House, but in this particular instance, I'm really pleased to have an idea come forward that not only makes sense but makes eminent sense. It's a wonderful project. Rather than use up the rest of my two minutes, I think I'll just offer my services as another northern MLA who fully recognizes that the problems the member described are exactly the way he described them. I'd be more than happy to contribute to his effort to resolve a portion of this problem.

The Speaker: The member for Peace River North for a concluding statement.

R. Neufeld: Mr. Speaker, I read with interest your note to us relating to what private members' statements are all about. I don't think that I pointed fingers in any way through my presentation, and I take a bit of exception to the comment from the member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine, who just can't keep politics out of something that should be important to his constituents as well as mine.

[11:00]

To say that progressive ideas have never come out of this side of the House is an absolutely idiotic statement. In fact, since I arrived in this House in 1991, I've presented a bill, I've worked with three Ministers of Health. . . . I'm still at the stage where I get letters from ministries telling me it's against the law to collect points. It's even against the law for me to donate my points to Mission Air, because they'll be used in another part of Canada. They're not used in British Columbia. You wouldn't believe the number of excuses I've had why this will not work.

This letter came from Mission Air. I've always talked about Mission Air. We use it in the north. We respect it and use it out of Fort St. John. In fact, I know quite a few residents that have been helped by Mission Air. Mission Air is asking that we donate some points. I'm saying that we start collecting points that we now don't collect, and if we don't want to start a system in British Columbia, then at least let's contribute to one that's already helping us. Let's not throw roadblocks in the way. Let's then send them to Ontario, and continue to call Ontario for help.

I don't think that's what British Columbia should need to do. I think we can do it in our own province. I'd be pleased to have the member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine peruse some of the letters and information that I've been getting for the last five years that haven't been acted on. Then maybe he would have a little bit different response to a private member's statement that certainly, when it started, was not a partisan issue. I thank you very much for my time.

The Speaker: I thank the member and thank all members for their contributions this morning. That concludes private members' statements.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of Supply in the House. For the information of the members, we will be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs. In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the House, we will be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

The House in Committee of Supply B; G. Brewin in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS

(continued)

On vote 9: minister's office, $332,000 (continued).

M. de Jong: When we left off this exciting saga last evening, we were talking in a general way about the Nisga'a agreement-in-principle. We made some observations and the minister countered with his own about some of the areas where the agreement-in-principle is silent as to some specific

[ Page 1764 ]

terminology. I wonder if I could ask the minister -- again, this is by way of more general observations -- to provide the House with an indication of his understanding of the purpose behind these negotiations. I mean that in a fairly narrow way, insofar as I understand that all of us share a desire to break down the obstacles that exist in allowing aboriginal peoples to take their full place in society. We all have that notion of facilitating a better means for aboriginal peoples to reach their full potential. To the extent that these treaties, when they are ultimately resolved, will allow that to happen, that's fine.

I guess I'm speaking in a more -- I'll use the term -- legalistic sense, in that there are differing views, as the minister will know, that have arisen through the course of jurisprudence about what it is treaties do vis-�-vis aboriginal rights. And what a term that is -- and what a body of literature now exists in terms of defining what aboriginal rights are or are not. Maybe I can begin by asking the minister to provide us with the government's position on what it is that these negotiations -- when they ultimately end up with a treaty -- will mean in terms of aboriginal rights.

Hon. J. Cashore: I see a treaty as an exchange of vague and ill-defined aboriginal rights for the clarity of the

definitions you would have of aboriginal rights in a modern treaty.

M. de Jong: That differs from those who would see these negotiations purely as a mechanism for defining. When the minister suggests that from the government's point of view this is an exchange between the uncertainty that now exists and the certainty of clearly defined treaty rights, does that imply a break with the past? Does that imply a notion of surrendering the benefits that can accrue to first nations from the uncertainty that presently exists -- the flexibility that they may have as a result of that uncertainty?

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, I think there's a mutual interest on the part of all three parties to these negotiations that certainty be achieved, and that's no less a desire on the part of first nations peoples. I think that we sometimes get into lengthy discussions about the kinds of terminology used in describing that. I do acknowledge that this is a difficult area, because we are, in many ways -- in order to improve public policy and public decisions made in this tripartite context -- charting new territory, and there is the need to come up with language that's fitting for the future.

M. de Jong: I think the minister and I might agree that it is often frustrating and difficult to employ the terminology and that each of these terms has attracted a whole host of different meanings depending on whether one considers the jurisprudence that surrounds some of them. Yet I think he'll also agree that depending on the view one has of what it is one is trying to accomplish, that will drive a whole host of different things, a whole host of different considerations when one considers the provisions that will exist within the final treaty.

I wonder if the minister could comment on the degree to which he believes the government believes that these negotiations are about the payment -- I'm trying to think of a term that accurately reflects what I'm trying to elicit from the minister -- of compensatory damages. I suppose that's the best term I can think of. The minister has spoken about the need to correct historical wrongs, and I think there is a recognition and understanding amongst many British Columbians that aboriginal peoples -- the Nisga'a, in the case we're discussing right now -- have been done wrong in the past.

There is, I daresay, a not quite so widely held consensus about whether these negotiations should be about compensation or about creating a circumstance in 1996 or 1997 that will allow the Nisga'a, in this case, to move forward. To what extent is the notion of compensatory damages a part of the government's view of these negotiations?

Hon. J. Cashore: In this regard, I think that compensation as a fundamental principle in itself is a damaging concept, because you can't get there from here. In other words, if we were to take a look at an exercise that some first nations have become involved in, where they hire a firm like Price Waterhouse to come in and do a study, say, with regard to all the trees that have been taken out of an area -- where they've drawn a line on a map outlining their position with regard to what they say is their traditional territory -- you head down an unmanageable slippery slope. So in my view that is not the fundamental issue with regard to what we're trying to achieve here.

The word "justice" comes to mind, and I think that's an appropriate word in these discussions. I think that justice means that that starts off as a just position for everybody who comes to the table. So where the province and Canada represent all citizens, including aboriginal and non aboriginal citizens, then what we're trying to do is future-oriented -- trying to find a way to establish a new and honourable relationship that achieves certainty and addresses issues that are historic but addresses them on the basis of an array of needs.

To me, the most fundamental need for all British Columbians is that at the end of treaty settlements everybody is better off than before. You're simply not going to achieve that if you take a basic position, a fundamental assumption, that is going to end up costing the kinds of costs that would make it impossible for your economy to continue to function.

So we have to take today as a given. It's one of the factors that has to be represented in terms of the needs of the citizens of today from all backgrounds. But it's very clear that there are historic issues that have not been resolved, and the best way to resolve them is through negotiation.

M. de Jong: My impression, having listened to the Nisga'a Tribal Council and the negotiating committee, is that notwithstanding what the minister has said -- which I think I fundamentally agree with to the extent that I don't think it's helpful to these proceedings for us to approach this as a compensatory process -- is that it is very much an issue for them and that that has arisen as an obstacle during these negotiations to this point. I wonder if the minister could provide the House with an indication or his impressions about the extent to which his view of this matter and that of the Nisga'a may differ.

Hon. J. Cashore: It differs in the sense that I don't think it was a valuable use of resources to commission a particular study that was taken to examine the value of wood that was taken out of that particular area. I mean, that's up to them if they wish to do that, but from my point of view, that really isn't going to be a defining piece of information in terms of how this gets sorted out.

I'm more inclined to think of practical approaches, such as how do the three parties bring their concept of enlightened self-interest together to that table, establish a climate of respect and seek to come out of that with an honourable settlement. We can't put toothpaste back into the tube. We can't re-create the 1850s or the 1750s. That's just not on. There are too many complexities, and we could get into endless arguments about

[ Page 1765 ]

definitions of compensation and factors that have to be factored in, and all of that. As I said before, you won't get there from here. You have to start off with a fundamental position of achieving a future which is better for all parties than it is now.

[11:15]

M. de Jong: It sounds to me like the minister. . . . This is not a quarrel for the minister and I. I guess the simple question is: is the notion that compensation is due a view that the Nisga'a have abandoned in accordance with what I'm sure was the ministry's recommendation?

Hon. J. Cashore: I think the hon. member knows that I have the deepest respect for the Nisga'a, but I would not seek to interpret for them what their positions are. I do respect, however -- and I've said this before -- that when a first nation presents, for instance, its statement of claim, it draws a line on a map. While in many ways that has caused a lot of confusion about the total amount of the province that's under claim, for instance, I do respect their right to do that. They are trying to present their negotiating position as well as they possibly can, just as any other party to a negotiation would do.

We know that with the various types of labour-management or business negotiations, quite often that is the way things start out. Very extensive or far-reaching positions are often taken which are not even a glimmer of what it's going to end up being.

M. de Jong: We began this part of the discussion with an acknowledgment by the minister that he views these negotiations as an exchange between the present uncertainty for the certainty that we all hope and believe will result from the signing of a treaty. That being the case, it seems to me that if you're going to engage in that sort of a process, there must logically be a nexus or some link between what you're exchanging -- the currency, if you will.

And that demands an asking of the question: to what extent has the government quantified what it believes the cost of the exchange will be to it and, necessarily, to British Columbians? Has the government adopted the view -- and I say this hypothetically -- that we believe this exchange is worth X number of dollars to us, that we believe this is the value of the exchange and we can't or don't believe we want to go beyond that amount? I realize I'm oversimplifying this. Or is the government proceeding through these negotiations on the basis that we're going to try to get the best deal we can?

I think that also has implications for the manner in which these negotiations go forward.

Hon. J. Cashore: With regard to the government having a sense of quantifying the various types of objectives, I think you have to do that in your planning estimates in general terms. In the generic sense, as the hon. member knows, there has been some discussion of that coming out of the KPMG report and other reports that have been part of the dialogue, going back especially over the last year, but that's gone on for quite some time.

Obviously when you're in negotiations, you don't start off by saying: "Okay, at the end of the day this is what it's going to be." You might talk about projections, such as the way we have with the total land quantum, saying it won't be over such-and-such, even including the current Indian reserve lands.

If I understand the question, yes, you have to have a concept of it being manageable so that the fundamental principle that after the treaty everybody is better off is able to be manifested in the way that is done. In order to do that you need the kinds of considerations that would come out of an independent study, such as KPMG, to help you set those parameters.

M. de Jong: Just going back some distance, I'm mindful of a '92 report by Peat Marwick that addressed the issue of lurking expenditures. One of the ones that was identified in that '92 report was the cost of negotiating and resolving aboriginal land claims. They made some recommendations, particularly that ministries identify events and circumstances that would have an impact on their budget. I think it's relevant for the minister to spend a bit of time explaining the exercise his ministry has undertaken in attempting to determine, at this point, what those expenditures are likely to be. He's mentioned the report by Peat's, and would he expand upon that.

Hon. J. Cashore: The report I referred to was privy to the kinds of considerations contributed by line ministries which obviously have very important considerations in these deliberations.

M. de Jong: Could the minister provide us with his impressions, based on the agreement-in-principle as it presently exists, of some of the ballpark figures he is prepared to accept at this point -- as an all-inclusive indication of what the cost will be? I recognize again that the AIP is silent with respect to periods of time over which payment might be made, but I suspect that the government has compiled its best guess at this point. Perhaps the minister could share that with us.

Hon. J. Cashore: In response to an

article that was written by the member and published in the Vancouver Sun on February 24, we sent -- and I believe it was published -- a fairly extensive answer to that question, using the numbers that relate directly to the Nisga'a agreement-in-principle. Would it be agreeable to the member if we sent him a copy of this, so we don't get into a lengthy, rather boring outline of these numbers?

But I will say that if the question implies, "Okay, those are the numbers, but what are the real numbers," then I think that's a discussion that isn't going to accomplish very much.

I think we have to base it on the analysis coming out of the recommendations, done by professionals who are attentive to the Nisga'a agreement-in-principle. It might help proceedings if we could send that along to the hon. member, and if we could have some discussions with him prior to coming back here on Monday afternoon, we could maybe save some time by identifying very specifically the point that I should be responding to.

M. de Jong: I think that's a realistic way to proceed. We have the advantage of knowing that we will be back here next week, hon. Chair.

I wonder if I can go to the agreement itself now. I'll try to go through this in some sort of cohesive order and begin with the

preamble. If I can draw the minister's attention to the first paragraph, which represents an admission of Nisga'a aboriginal title in the Nass area, I think by that definition in the agreement, this means the entire Nass watershed, which necessarily includes areas that other aboriginal bands are claiming title to. That has become an issue. How does his ministry propose to deal with that issue?

[ Page 1766 ]

Hon. J. Cashore: I believe that the hon. member is referring to what is stated in the member for Richmond-Steveston's critique of the agreement-in-principle, which I believe he produced for the law firm that he was working for. He states that the first paragraph in the

preamble amounts to an admission of Nisga'a aboriginal title in the territory defined as the Nass area. I think that any reasonable person reading this document would really disagree with that

interpretation -- if I am, indeed, referring to the clause that he's referring to -- because it says: "whereas the Nisga'a nation has lived in the Nass area since time immemorial."

First, I would point out that I don't think that is an admission of aboriginal title, and I don't think it's a correct legal opinion to say that it indicates that. Second, it's in a "whereas," which has no legal power at any rate. It is a statement of the fact. Let me put it another way. It's in keeping with a term that I believe we use on both sides of the House: that these were first peoples, as far as we know, first nations. I think it's just a benign statement that recognizes that understanding. So I don't think that it has any substantive content. If it can be given that

interpretation, which the member for Richmond-Steveston has given it, I think it is an

interpretation which most people would disagree with.

M. de Jong: That disagreement may continue unresolved. I think the significant point, however, is that there are competing aboriginal interests. My understanding of the ministry's policy is that where there are overlapping claims, the ministry takes a view that that is a matter for the aboriginal peoples themselves to resolve. Is that the case with respect to these Nisga'a negotiations? If so, what processes are in place now? What is being undertaken now to resolve that difficulty that has arisen?

Hon. J. Cashore: I do acknowledge that there are overlapping claims. I think that is universal in land claim negotiations, and it is the responsibility of those first nations who are involved in those overlaps. There is a provision in the Treaty Commission where, at their invitation, the Treaty Commission could get involved in a mediating role. But it comes down to the fact that it's up to them to resolve that, and if they don't resolve it, then in a way they're not acting in their own self-interest, because presumably it's in their interest to get that done.

M. de Jong: I'm not disputing what the minister says about it being in everyone's interest to have this resolved, but I guess the pertinent question is: to what extent could this dispute amongst the aboriginal peoples represent a roadblock or an obstacle to resolving the larger picture?

[11:30]

Hon. J. Cashore: Well, hon. Chair, I think that where the member is going with this question is absolutely right. It could be to a great extent.

M. de Jong: In terms of anticipating where these difficulties may arise and the difficulties they may cause, what strategy, if any, has the ministry developed? I won't presume to anticipate what strategy, if any, has been developed. But has thought been given, for example, to saying to the Nisga'a that our ability to continue with negotiations is contingent upon this matter being resolved? That's a very simplistic approach, obviously, but that is certainly an option that would be available. Has a strategy along those lines been developed?

Hon. J. Cashore: I think the parties involved are aware that if they don't get that matter resolved, we won't be able to finalize it. I don't want to put that in a way that sounds like I'm coming down with some kind of a hammer, but at the same time they are full participants in a process, and they know that they do have this responsibility and that it's in their interest to resolve it. I think they also know that it's in their interest not to have this matter go on forever. So there is a natural pressure to get it resolved.

Again, as we look at overlaps throughout the province, I know you can point out that if one negotiation seems to be moving along more quickly than another one in a neighbouring area, that produces understandable problems, which are some of those cutting-edge things we need to encourage the first nations to find ways to address. I think some really good work is happening on that, actually. There have been some meetings between the Nisga'a and the Tsimshian and between the Nisga'a and the Gitanyow. I know that they have some real issues there they need to get resolved, but I do know that they're working away at it.

M. de Jong: In a strange sort of way, this is a form of third-party interest we don't generally consider in those terms. I can think of nothing more frustrating for British Columbians and the Nisga'a themselves -- for everyone -- than to go down this path and undertake all the work that is necessary to formulate what would be presented as a final treaty and to then have it frustrated by what is, in effect, a third-party claim. In this case, it happens to be by another aboriginal band. Will the minister agree that if there is a moment to exert pressure to have that dispute resolved, now is the best time to do that?

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, I'll agree that that is right as long as it is done in a way that is not heavy-handed. I think we have to maintain a respect and a decorum in this process. I think there's a simple fact of life -- that is, the very fact that circumstances and timing are what they are means there is a pressure, and that pressure, I think, can be very valuable.

M. de Jong: I'll make this statement, and then maybe the minister can respond. My impression, from what the minister has said, is that at this point the ministry is content to take a hands-off approach and let the parties, the aboriginal bands and nations involved, work it out and try to resolve this matter themselves. If that is correct, maybe I can ask the minister at what point he thinks that strategy will need to change.

Hon. J. Cashore: I don't really see any change, given that the task force report anticipates the situation, and the responsibility is clearly outlined. I think I do understand. It is a fact that it's not only in the interest of first nations but in the interest of the province to see these matters concluded in a timely way.

In that sense, I think we should be prepared to look at ways of applying pressure. But again, we have to do that very carefully. We don't want to get into the paternalism of deciding that we have a better idea of how to resolve an issue between two parties that are fully capable of resolving it among themselves.

M. de Jong: Maybe a last question on this point. I understand what the minister has said about not wanting to appear heavy-handed. What is a light-handed method of exerting the pressure that I think we are contemplating here?

Hon. J. Cashore: That's speculative, and I could hide behind future policy and all that kind of stuff. For instance, I

[ Page 1767 ]

don't see any problem with the minister having a conversation with the. . . . The Nisga'a often come and meet with me in my office, and it's quite appropriate -- just to give an example. I'm not saying this is the only way of doing that, but it's to make some very clear statements about such a situation.

M. de Jong: The minister has referred to some of the material prepared by the member for Richmond-Steveston, so he likely knows where some of these discussions are going. I think some of that documentation raises relevant questions with respect to individual provisions.

In paragraph 3 the question has been raised about whether or not the government views that as not just a recognition that no substantive rights have been created, but also that no procedural obligations exist -- that is, the obligation to negotiate further. Although I hope and expect that it is certainly the intention of all parties to carry on with those negotiations, there is the possibility of other factors intervening that might preclude that from happening on a

schedule that one or all of the parties want it to happen.

Is it the government's view that not only are there no substantive rights created in this AIP but that the procedural obligation to negotiate that we often see in contractual agreements-in-principle also does not exist at this point?

Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is yes, at least to the second part of that -- that there is no obligation stated.

M. de Jong: I'm not sure I understood that. Is it the government's view that it remains under no legal obligation to continue with the negotiations?

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes.

M. de Jong: Paragraph 7 in the agreement, in the

preamble, refers to those words "lands reserved for Indians" and the specific constitutional implications of that. There is the possibility that provincial jurisdiction over some of these lands might be in question, depending upon whether or not those are lands reserved for Indians within the meaning of the Constitution Act or whether they are reserve lands within the meaning of the Indian Act. I guess the question for the minister is: what view does the ministry take? Do these parties have jurisdiction through these negotiations to oust those provisions of the constitution or not?

If they don't, that has some serious implications for some of the provisions that purport to incorporate and continue provincial jurisdiction.

Hon. J. Cashore: I just want to read a line from the member for Richmond-Steveston's critique, where he says: "If Nisga'a lands are 'lands reserved for the Indians,' then the application of provincial lands resource and taxation laws to such land, becomes problematic." The fact of the matter is that through this agreement-in-principle they lose that status.

Specifically, I'll just describe what the disposition is with regard to lands or the

definitions. All these lands will be owned by the Nisga'a people with title vested in their government. The Nisga'a people, acting through their government, will have complete authority to sell, mortgage, lease or create other interests in these lands without any requirement for the consent of Canada or B.C. The lands will be incorporated into the provincial land registry system.

To put it into the context of our earlier discussion, this is a good example of one of those situations where, in this case, something from the archaic Indian Act is being exchanged for treaty decisions. In this case, I think these treaty decisions have the magnificent accomplishment of driving yet another nail into the coffin of the Indian Act and getting rid of Indian reserves, by mutual agreement. So

section 91(24) of the Constitution Act no longer applies.

M. de Jong: I think the last statement is one that answers the question that I didn't pose very well: does

section 91(24) continue to operate? The second part of that, of course, is the issue that if it doesn't, then further sections of the agreement which purport to preserve provincial jurisdiction are likely not in jeopardy. Is that the minister's understanding of how those sections collectively operate, given what he has said about

section 91(24)?

Hon. J. Cashore: We clearly intend that provincial jurisdiction will apply.

M. de Jong: The issue has been raised with respect to paragraph 8 about what the intentions on the government's part are with respect to those provisions dealing with the division of powers and the two options that exist: an interpretive approach that would require reading down some of the provisions versus a final legal text that simply would be drawn up in a way so that in every sense it would not tamper with the constitutional division of powers. What does the minister see as the resolution of that? How is the ministry intending to approach that issue?

Hon. J. Cashore: The statement within the AIP about the constitutional division of powers confirms that the final agreement is not intended to, nor should be interpreted to, alter the division of powers. In any event, such alteration could only occur with a constitutional amendment. This final agreement obviously will not be able to bring that about.

[11:45]

M. de Jong: That might be the issue to the extent that this treaty, when it is a treaty, becomes part of a broader body of constitutional law, if you will, by virtue of how our constitution is presently structured. So the potential for it to influence and affect in a secondary way the division of powers exists.

The question that has been raised is that you could point to provisions in this agreement that, on the face of it at least, would purport to alter the division of powers were they not read down in the way that we have been accustomed to. Is that something the ministry anticipates happening as it goes about negotiating and drafting the final legal text?

Hon. J. Cashore: Absolutely not.

M. de Jong: Getting those unequivocal answers is so much easier in these processes. We can move on.

Paragraph 9, dealing with the Charter of Rights. The minister will recall that, during those formative days shortly after the initialing of the agreement-in-principle, we had discussions about this in a couple of forums and television open-line shows that we were on. The difficulty I had then and continue to have is the relationship between paragraph 9 and paragraph 11 in the general

preamble, paragraph 9 saying apparently quite clearly that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms will apply to Nisga'a government and its institutions. That seems quite clear.

[ Page 1768 ]

But paragraph 11 then says that in the event of a conflict between the final agreement and any law, the final agreement shall prevail. I guess I'll begin by asking the minister to reconcile those two seemingly conflicting approaches.

Hon. J. Cashore: Again, we could get into a very lengthy and perhaps not too consequential discussion at this point. The concern expressed in the critique by the member for Richmond-Steveston probably has merit. I would like to give consideration to the recommendation that the hon. member is making here. I know there is some suggested language that has been put forward by the member for Richmond-Steveston.

I wonder if it might suffice for the hon. member to accept my assurance that we would like to engage him and the member in some discussion among our negotiators on this point, because this will help me to understand it better. We do want to come up with the best possible wording, so we do take this point seriously.

M. de Jong: I welcome that invitation. I don't intend or mean that I will be obstructive, but I would like to explore some of the implications for what is presently there. Again I emphasize to the minister that it's not my intention to try to be troublesome about this.

But I guess what has perked my interest is the possibility. . . . I've tried to think of examples that aren't too far-fetched, but I suppose it's conceivable that a Nisga'a central government or village government -- more likely a Nisga'a central government -- might take the approach that they want to preserve their culture and their language and could, conceivably at least, pass some manner of language or sign law. I mean, I hope they don't. They may have no intention of doing that. But that is something one could foresee an entity like the Nisga'a central government considering.

If that were the case, that law -- which presumably would be unconstitutional anywhere else in the province of British Columbia without the invocation of a notwithstanding provision or the application of

section 1 of the Charter. . . . The question then becomes whether Nisga'a central government, under the terms of this agreement, would be subject to those constraints, and I suppose, more importantly, whether the government of British Columbia thinks that they should be subject to those constraints.

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, good question. I welcome the opportunity to clarify it, to make it very clear. I don't think it needs to be clarified, but I think it just needs to be made very clear that the Charter will prevail in instances such as the example we have just heard, and in virtually every other possible instance.

M. de Jong: Rather than speculate about and query areas where the government might believe that those Charter equality provisions shouldn't apply, maybe I could ask the minister: in what areas does he believe it wouldn't be appropriate to limit Nisga'a central government jurisdiction in the way that the Charter limits the discretionary authority of this government? What are those areas?

Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is that there are none.

M. de Jong: I asked the question because the previous answer suggested that the minister could contemplate certain areas where he thought it would be appropriate, and maybe I can. . . .

Hon. J. Cashore: My answer did not intend to contemplate any such circumstances. It was simply a response to a question which was, I felt, asking whether or not the Charter would prevail. The Charter prevails in every instance imaginable.

M. de Jong: If I can look ahead to a discussion we will likely have at some point in the future, if we are developing a framework for government which revolves around common ancestry, that represents a limitation -- perhaps a justifiable limitation -- on one's right to political involvement. I have heard the minister respond to this in the past by saying: "Well, that makes sense.

If you're establishing a Nisga'a self-government, why shouldn't it be restricted to Nisga'a?" But the point is this: a law that purported to restrict your or my ability to participate in government in the locality in which I reside on the basis of ancestry would be contrary to the Charter. It plainly would. If the Charter applies in every circumstance, as the minister is suggesting, then we've got a problem, because the two strike me as being irreconcilable.

Hon. J. Cashore: The provision with regard to the non-Nisga'a government is not contrary, and the legal opinions that we have are not contrary to the Charter.

M. de Jong: My understanding is that participation, voting rights. . . . And I don't want to become bogged down in the self-government provisions of this AIP. But one's right to participate, to the extent that one has the right to vote, is limited, depending on one's ancestry or membership in the Nisga'a nation. Is there another example that the minister can point to where that sort of limitation has been upheld in this country?

Hon. J. Cashore: The Charter guarantees, at the federal level and the provincial level, the right to vote. These guarantees are not applied to the municipal situation. Therefore, within the framework of the Charter, it's possible to draft the type of arrangement that has been drafted in the agreement-in-principle. I daresay that the arrangements have been drafted in other circumstances that don't apply to first nations that are also consistent with the requirements of the Charter.

M. de Jong: Well, I'd like to hear about them. Quite frankly, if there is one fundamental tenet of the Charter with respect to political rights, it is equality. I'm a bit astounded, quite frankly, to hear the minister suggest that those provisions don't apply at the municipal level. In fact, I take issue with that statement and suggest that, on the contrary, they do.

Hon. J. Cashore: With regard to the fundamental question that the Indian Act makes such provisions -- and it exists under current law and the Charter exists -- it is not deemed that the Indian Act in providing those arrangements is violating the Charter and existing law. What would be provided for here would be no different than that.

M. de Jong: Well, I'm intrigued. Before I haul off and start ranting, perhaps the minister could take me further down the path of the Indian Act and explain how he believes the two situations are parallel.

Hon. J. Cashore: Non-Indians on reserves cannot vote for band government under the present circumstances with the Indian Act.

M. de Jong: Is it the minister's position that that provision represents justification and sufficient reasoning to

coun-

[ Page 1769 ]

ter any argument, that the limiting provisions of this treaty would withstand a Charter challenge by non-Nisga'a residents of Nisga'a lands?

Hon. J. Cashore: If the member has a legal opinion on the issue to the contrary, we would like to be aware of it. The question that the member asks. . . . I think, if I understand the question, it is: accepting, then, that what you are doing is consistent with the Charter, do you still feel okay about it? I think that's what the member is asking me. He's frowning a bit, so I'm not sure that that is what he's asking me.

The fact is that I think it's very well known that this is an area that, for instance, in the work of the select standing committee, we're going to hear a lot of discussion about. It's one of the issues that we really do need to be listening on and looking for good ideas of how to make sure that we absolutely maximize the opportunity for all Canadian citizens to participate, while at the same time recognizing that we need to achieve treaties that indeed do fulfil what we are seeking to resolve here.

[12:00]

M. de Jong: I guess the essence of the point is this: we've heard much about the desire on the part of the minister and the government -- and I think, certainly with respect to the minister, that it is a genuinely held view -- and about the need to dismantle that whole Indian Act framework which has operated in such a negative way to limit the abilities of first nations people to reach their full potential. We are necessarily, therefore, striving to achieve a level of equality, and I don't use that term in a simplistic way.

But the dilemma is between that notion of equality on the one hand, and on the other hand, preserving, for whatever reasons, special rights or special status. The minister points to the Indian Act in defence of the proposition that we already have special rights or special protection. . . .

Hon. J. Cashore: . . .that we're not violating the Charter.

M. de Jong: And if that is the objective, are we then in certain cases seeking to perpetuate that special status or that special right? That, I would respectfully submit, is inconsistent with the other notion of equality and eliminating the paternalism that we've talked about in other areas of this debate.

Hon. J. Cashore: I don't think I would agree with the argument about paternalism, but let's say this: I think that the way I characterized what I think the member was getting at earlier was right. There's a line of questioning: "Is this consistent with the Charter?" There's another line of questioning: "Okay, if it is consistent with the Charter, is it still doing the job as well as it possibly can? Is it producing the best possible result?" As I said before, I think we are listening. This is an issue where there is a lot of public controversy. We are listening on this issue.

We're interested in the suggestions of the member and the suggestions we're going to be hearing from the public. We don't have a closed mind on this issue.

[T. Stevenson in the chair.]

M. de Jong: The message I take from what the minister is saying is that his intention is to conclude a treaty that makes it abundantly clear that with respect to Nisga'a lands, Nisga'a central government, Nisga'a self-government, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms for Canada will be paramount.

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, hon. Chair -- and it's nice to see you in the chair, my colleague from an earlier life, which is still part of my life today.

Yes, the answer is yes.

M. de Jong: Well, I'm also happy to see you in the chair, hon. member, but not from an earlier life.

Paragraph 12 addresses the issue of ongoing entitlements under federal and provincial programs. I'm not going to begin this by suggesting there's something insidious about this, but the minister knows, of course, that amongst the public, the idea is that we are devoting a tremendous amount of time, energy and resources to concluding these agreements specifically in order to eliminate that whole Indian Act framework, that whole body of programming, of special entitlements, that presently exists. So this type of a clause is troubling for a lot of people.

This type of a clause suggests that if we're going to embark on this exercise, if we're going to move toward a final treaty, then surely it's our intention to move toward elimination of those programs from the federal and provincial government. So maybe the minister can address that point, and then I'll have a couple of more specific questions about the implications of paragraph 12.

Hon. J. Cashore: The Nisga'a would continue to be citizens, the same as members of municipalities are citizens, and therefore we would expect that they would continue to have the responsibilities and the benefits of citizenship, which include programs.

M. de Jong: I don't know that the minister would have anyone quarrel -- at least I hope he wouldn't have anyone quarrel with him -- that the Nisga'a, as Canadian citizens, as citizens of the province of British Columbia, and to the extent to which they may reside within municipalities, are entitled to all of the services that are available to us all. I think, though, implicit in the

section is a preparedness to continue special programs earmarked specifically for aboriginal people -- in this case, for the Nisga'a people -- and that this represents something of an assurance that they will. That is troubling for a lot of people, because it's inconsistent with the notion that many people have of the direction we are headed in with these negotiations.

Hon. J. Cashore: Under the terms of the Charter, the treaty would not be taking away the aboriginal status of the Nisga'a people. That would remain a matter of status, a matter of definition, and it would also be against the Charter to deny them access to programs.

M. de Jong: I'm undoubtedly not articulating this very clearly. I don't think that anyone is quarrelling with the fact that a Nisga'a person residing in Vancouver is entitled to go to public school and receive an education. It would be immoral, not just illegal, to deny them that right on the basis that they have Nisga'a lands and should be required to move back there if they want to go to school. I don't think that's an issue.

The issue, I think, is whether the Vancouver school board will continue to have an obligation to provide aboriginal programming to that individual student. Because that's what's suggested here, that the federal and provincial governments may have some ongoing obligation to provide that type of programming, separate and apart from what everyone else is receiving.

Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is that the Vancouver school board, in this example, would have no obligation.

[ Page 1770 ]

M. de Jong: Can the minister provide some information with respect to the type of programming he and the provincial government had in mind when they included this provision in the agreement-in-principle?

Hon. J. Cashore: We have a small fund in our ministry that provides grants for aboriginal cultural programs. The fact that they have signed this treaty would not deny them access to that kind of resource.

M. de Jong: I think we're getting to where I wanted to go with this. I understand what the minister has said. By virtue of being part of the treaty that will arise from this, they would be entitled to continue participating, but the hands of the provincial government are not bound if the provincial government chooses to discontinue that programming.

Hon. J. Cashore: That is correct.

M. de Jong: Today, August 1996, what manner of programming specific to the Nisga'a does the minister contemplate continuing post-treaty?

Hon. J. Cashore: It would be essentially the same level of programming prior to or post-treaty.

M. de Jong: I appreciate the clarity of the minister's answer. I'll restate it another way, to make sure I understood it. What I think the minister is saying is that all of the specific programming that is presently available to the Nisga'a people would continue -- or the minister anticipates that programming continuing -- following the sign-off of a treaty. He sees no change in the amount of provincial money devoted to those sorts of cultural and educational programs.

Hon. J. Cashore: The vast majority of the programming is federal. That would continue. We have very little programming, such as the example I gave a moment ago.

M. de Jong: The minister obviously can't answer for his federal counterparts, but I guess what I find troubling about that answer is. . . . Again, I return to the original idea that if we have embarked upon this process as a means of ensuring that the Nisga'a people take charge of their own destiny and become self-sufficient, in every sense of that word, by providing a land base and a resource base. . . .

I hope the minister will forgive me, but my expectation would have been that in response to my question, at a minimum he would have said: "I, as minister, expect that over time there would be a decrease in the amount of money spent by both levels of government on these sorts of programs." That's not the indication I'm getting from the minister.

[12:15]

Hon. J. Cashore: The point is that as the economic benefits of treaty-making are realized, through joint ventures and through the whole emerging effect of self-determination and getting rid of paternalistic processes, that leads to improvements in the ability of a people to have employment and to be able to be in charge of their lives. Then there's a concomitant benefit of having less need for programs such as social services. Healthier communities, for instance, have less of a need for being a drain in health costs and so forth.

So the way in which there might be a disengaging with those programs would not be through those programs being withdrawn as a result of treaty-making but through the emerging change in the way in which there would be draws on those kinds of programs.

M. de Jong: I don't think there's any question that whether you're on Nisga'a lands or in Kelowna, Abbotsford, Vancouver or Victoria, there's always going to be a need for social services for a segment of the population and obviously for health care services.

But I guess I would like to know from the minister that with respect to programming that presently exists to address specific difficulties in the aboriginal community, specific shortcomings that exist in those aboriginal communities, is it his objective as he toils through this process. . .? Does he look ahead to a day where -- because aboriginal people, the Nisga'a, have been provided with a land base, self-government and their own tax base and resource base -- their needs will be the same as any other aspect of society, and that those specific aboriginal programs, if I can use that term, will no longer be necessary?

Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is yes -- over a period of time, yes. That would be my expectation.

M. de Jong: If I can just return to the original question, does he have any concerns that the manner in which paragraph 12 is worded doesn't convey that idea, that notion, to either the Nisga'a or the people of British Columbia?

Hon. J. Cashore: I just read it again, and the answer is no.

M. de Jong: I will make this final submission to the minister on this point. Based on what he has just said, that particular part of this agreement could be changed to reflect the spirit of what the minister has just indicated. It can be done in a way that need not pose or be seen as posing a threat to the Nisga'a people, but at the same time would reassure British Columbians who share the idea that part of the objective of this process is to create an environment in which the Nisga'a can live, prosper and not require special programming, be it from the federal, provincial or local government.

Hon. J. Cashore: I'm open to all suggestions. I feel that the wording does suffice. At the same time, we want to provide assurances where that's necessary, so I hear the suggestion. Again, it's a matter that we need to have more dialogue about, and I don't think we can resolve it right now. But I think I have clarified for the record some of the concerns.

M. de Jong: Paragraph 15 deals with the question of the amendment to the final agreement; I'm just re-reading it. We hear a lot today about the dilemma we face as a country with respect to amendments to the constitution and amending formulas. Does the minister contemplate the final treaty including a detailed amending formula?

Hon. J. Cashore: The basic amending formula will be the consent of all three parties. Where it's in the mutual interest of three parties to bring about a change, then nature will take its course, and that would be the case. It is tripartite. It would, obviously, have to be to the mutual benefit of the three parties.

Again, I won't go into detail about this, but I have used the example, in the past, of the leased lands on the Musqueam reserve, and, obviously, before a certain date came, I think it was in the interests of the Musqueam to see something

[ Page 1771 ]

renegotiated. After that date, it was in the interests of the people who owned those leases to see something renegotiated.

M. de Jong: Well, therein lies the dilemma. I understand what the minister is saying, but I dare say that the Nisga'a are not going to be satisfied at this point with a procedure for proposing amendments that, for example, requires that approval of two-thirds of the three parties involved. When the minister says he believes consent will form the basis for any sort of amendment negotiations, the essence of that is contained within paragraph 15. I suspect that is not the extent to which we will have this issue dealt with in the final treaty -- or maybe it is.

Can the minister advise whether negotiations will be taking place around the issue of developing an amending formula and a process by which proposals for amendments can be brought to the other parties or forced on the table?

Hon. J. Cashore: Again, I can only say, first of all, that as is, I think, clear in

section 15, the Nisga'a have agreed to that. I think the member has suggested that perhaps they might not agree to it. I think they already have, and I don't anticipate any special amending provisions other than the tripartite process.

M. de Jong: The

section speaks of consent pursuant to the amendment provisions of the final agreement, and I guess what I'm trying to elicit from the minister is an idea -- a description -- of what those amendment provisions would look like if he had his way.

Hon. J. Cashore: Well, I can tell you what they do look like, and what they do look like is that the basic amending formula will be the consent of the three parties. That's what they look like.

M. de Jong: This really goes to the issue of certainty that arises time and time again, and I think individuals on both sides. . . . Certainly British Columbians want to know -- when this agreement is concluded, when this treaty is concluded, for all intents and purposes, absent some extraordinary circumstances -- that this is it.

They will be troubled, as I would be, to learn that we could become embroiled in a whole new round of discussions and negotiations because one of the parties -- perhaps the federal government, perhaps the provincial government, perhaps the Nisga'a themselves -- decide that there is an issue that requires revisiting. Now, the minister says there will be no changes without the consent of all the parties, but that doesn't speak to the issue of negotiations, which tend to be more time-consuming and more costly.

Under what circumstances could the provincial government be forced back to the table to engage in negotiations aimed at achieving consent, which the minister has said is a prerequisite for any amendment?

Hon. J. Cashore: We do see it as a full and final settlement. But we have acknowledged -- for example, in the area of wildlife -- that that would be subject to negotiation. Circumstances change, and therefore that area would be subject to negotiation based on the realities that are out there in the environment.

M. de Jong: How does the minister contemplate that table for renegotiation being activated? Is it sufficient for one of the parties to simply say: "We want to renegotiate; we want to amend"? Does it follow automatically that the parties will attend and commence negotiations? Or is there a threshold that needs to be met and that may change depending on the particular clauses involved? Under what circumstances does the machinery of negotiation resume and stoke up to get into that?

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

Hon. J. Cashore: It would be initiated by one party, and obviously it would have to be agreed to by the other two.

M. de Jong: My understanding, therefore, is that one party in and of itself can't force the others back to the table except where that is specifically provided for in the agreement. Is that a correct reading of the AIP?

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, that is correct.

M. de Jong: I'll ask this question because I think the situations are fairly limited -- at least I hope they are. Under what circumstances contemplated by the AIP as it presently exists can one party. . .? I'll back up. My question, of course, is predicated on the basis that we're now at the treaty stage based on this AIP. In what circumstances can one party obligate the other two to engage in amendment negotiations? The minister has mentioned one.

Hon. J. Cashore: You can't force or obligate parties to renegotiate. But there is a designation, as I have outlined, where there has been an agreement that there will be renegotiation. So nobody would be obligating a party in that instance; they've already agreed to it. There will be renegotiations from time to time where it deals with an issue such as wildlife, which is subject to the vagaries of the environment.

M. de Jong: I think the minister correctly summarized it, and I think my question was the incorrect one. In which areas are those renegotiations or amendment negotiations contemplated?

[12:30]

Hon. J. Cashore: Within the treaty, there are two: wildlife and justice.

M. de Jong: We will get to wildlife and to justice. I wonder if the minister could indicate, with respect to some of the taxation provisions, whether there is similar contemplation for renegotiation. Is that a similar area?

Hon. J. Cashore: No.

M. de Jong: I raise this issue because, again, I think it goes to the issue of certainty and the satisfaction people want to derive from the knowledge that when a treaty is ultimately concluded, that will, for all intents and purposes, be the extent of negotiations that need to take place.

The second part of that relates to paragraphs 24 and 25, found in page 8 of the agreement, where there is this expression and this agreement that the objective is to achieve certainty. We went through this briefly earlier in this session in the discussions around the special warrant. I guess the first question I need to ask is whether the ministry. . . . Well, I'll ask the minister to confirm this: no further negotiations have taken place since we last discussed this matter in this House.

[ Page 1772 ]

As I understand it, no discussions have taken place since the AIP was initialled around defining the legal text for this -- what we have called the certainty provisions of the agreement.

Hon. J. Cashore: That is correct. Canada's policy, I might just add, has not been articulated.

M. de Jong: I presume the minister means that the federal government hasn't yet provided him with their position on the question of how this will appear, how this should appear, in terms of the legal text. Has he received an indication from his federal counterpart as to when he might be enlightened and presented with that material?

Hon. J. Cashore: No.

M. de Jong: I'm sure the minister is troubled by that and would like to be in possession of that material so that he can consider it. I suppose if I were standing in Ottawa today and questioning the federal minister, the question I might ask is whether he has been put in possession of his provincial counterpart's position on this matter and whether he has the legal text that the provincial government would like to see enshrined in this document.

Hon. J. Cashore: That's a very good question. I would like to think that in the unthinkable event that I was on the opposition benches again, I would ask such a good question. But in the treaty negotiation there are certain areas of deliberation where different parties have the lead. This is very clearly a federal lead area, so very clearly the ball is in their court, and they have the responsibility to facilitate further deliberations by making that document available.

M. de Jong: The sense I'm getting is that the federal minister and the federal ministry have left this government in something of a vacuum in terms of its ability to continue with negotiations around one of the really fundamental points. I guess my question to the minister is: how long is he prepared to show patience, and at what point does he say to his federal counterpart: "Look, lay it on the line for us. What's your position? What is the text that you would employ? If you don't give us one, we're going to create our own"? I'm sure that the minister has his own idea of what these provisions of the final treaty should look like. How long is he prepared to wait?

Hon. J. Cashore: I'm not going to divulge all the many approaches that I use in trying to move this agenda forward. Suffice it to say that this is an active file with me and with regard to my relationship with the federal minister.

I would say that I do agree with the member that it is a matter of importance and some urgency. I will continue to seek to get action out of the federal government, and without delving into the methods that might be used by this member, I will encourage this member to make use of his lines of contact with federal Liberals to also seek to. . . . In the interests of the depoliticized way in which we all want to achieve a good result here, I will not ask him to divulge how he will do that, but I will call on him to nevertheless do so.

M. de Jong: I will remind the minister that I live in Abbotsford. My lines of communications with federal Liberals are fairly limited, and have been for a number of years.

The third player, of course, is the Nisga'a, and I presume that they have provided the minister and his federal counterpart with their version of what this part of the agreement should look like. I suspect that they have chosen not to wait for the two levels of government to get their act together, and I wonder if the minister can confirm that a draft Nisga'a version exists. What has his response to it been?

Hon. J. Cashore: I do not know if it exists. If it does, I have not seen it. The people responsible for these negotiations have not seen it. I do know, however, from discussions with the Nisga'a, that they are anxious to see the federal government come forward and resolve this issue.

M. de Jong: What was the logic in leaving this matter, as the minister has put it, to the federal government to drive this issue?

Hon. J. Cashore: Because there are national implications, and given that the federal government has responsibility in virtually every region of Canada, that reality puts them in the lead of the issue. They have to be able to manage it in such a way that it does not send them off, say, on a tangent in British Columbia that creates problems for them elsewhere.

M. de Jong: I think that description could be applied to just about any number of the provisions of this agreement-in-principle. The minister knows better than any of us, I think, that the stakes here in British Columbia are highest of all in terms of the implications, both cost- and society-wise, of these negotiations. So I'm not sure I'm sympathetic to the logic that the federal government has obligations elsewhere. The provincial government has those same obligations -- at the present time, 47 different tables.

Be that as it may, can the minister indicate whether he will be releasing the text of the federal government position to the public upon his receipt of it?

Hon. J. Cashore: We will take any proposed language that we, as a province, will be negotiating to the groups that we consult with and seek their advice. The answer is: yes, we will make public any words that we have responsibility for.

M. de Jong: I know we've spent some time on this. I'm going to suggest to the minister that one of the reasons we do, and one of the reasons that there are these expressions of interest, is that this really goes to the crux of the negotiating process and the treaty itself. It surely isn't the only important provision -- far from it. But because we justify to our constituents and our taxpayers the expense and the devotion of resources, both human and economic, to this negotiating process. . . .

We do so on the basis that we're going to solve this problem and create that certainty that will lead to economic prosperity for all. It is very much a linchpin by which the success or failure of this agreement will be measured.

Has the minister instructed his negotiating team to make this issue a priority, in terms of the negotiations, to the extent that we could negotiate everything else and reach a settlement, but if there is not a meeting of the minds between the three parties on this point. . .? It strikes me that this is a provision, an issue, on which these negotiations could fail.

Hon. J. Cashore: I don't believe that the negotiations will fail, but, yes, I have instructed our negotiators to make this an issue of the highest priority.

[ Page 1773 ]

M. de Jong: Is it the minister's expectation that when the openness protocol has been reached and negotiations begin in earnest -- I think the minister said yesterday that he expects that to happen next month at some point -- this will be an issue first and foremost on the table?

Hon. J. Cashore: I said: "In the fall." Yes, this issue is first and foremost.

M. de Jong: Returning to some of the specific proposals, paragraphs 18 through 20 speak of the indemnity provisions. The minister will know that one of the questions that's been posed is whether or not assets belonging to the Nisga'a government are actually exigible, to the extent that the indemnity that's offered will have any value. The point being that if the provincial government doesn't have the right or the option of execution or seizure, that indemnity may be a hollow one.

Hon. J. Cashore: I need ten minutes to consult with the Minister of Finance -- who is, in another life, a law professor -- to explain to me the meaning of "exigible." No, I think I have an idea.

[12:45]

Interjection.

Hon. J. Cashore: Now the Finance critic is getting into the act as well. I think this means a number of things. [Laughter.] Hon. Chair, let it be noted for the record that this is not as hysterical as yesterday at question period, but it does indicate, I think, that the weekend cometh.

Anyway, I think the hon. member is aware that the indemnities are intended to protect the B.C. government and the federal government against financial loss arising from any Nisga'a person who asserts aboriginal rights after the final agreement.

M. de Jong: I'm not sure that I heard the answer, or maybe I did and I didn't understand it. Are assets of the Nisga'a government available for seizure? Can they be executed against through the usual court processes in support of a claim for indemnification?

Hon. J. Cashore: If what the member is getting at here is. . . . Say there is a Nisga'a person who doesn't agree with the outcome of the Nisga'a agreement-in-principle that then becomes eventually ratified as a treaty. Could we be sued by that individual, or could that individual seek to exercise a requirement on us, based on some kind of right? The answer is no. They would have to seek indemnity from their own Nisga'a government.

M. de Jong: That is, in part, the scenario that is contemplated, I think, by paragraph 19. But I think paragraph 19 also contemplates a situation where such a claimant has successfully made a claim against either Canada or the province of British Columbia after the effective date, and that

section 19 is there to provide a mechanism by which, let us say, the province of British Columbia could go to the Nisga'a government and say: "Look, we have been successfully actioned, it has cost us X number of dollars, and pursuant to your indemnification, you're now on the hook to reimburse us." I guess the question is that if that happens, is there a mechanism by which the provincial government -- or the federal government, for that matter -- can enforce that claim?

Hon. J. Cashore: Basically, the example that the member cites is not on. That won't occur. We may find ourselves advising third parties that their beef is with the Nisga'a government.

M. de Jong: What is paragraph 19 there for, then?

Hon. J. Cashore: Paragraph 19 sets out the approach to dealing with the eventuality of government being sued and how that would be dealt with.

M. de Jong: Sued by whom?

Hon. J. Cashore: By a Nisga'a person. I was tempted to use the term "third party" -- but in a sense I think that's accurate, too.

M. de Jong: I agree with the minister. In those circumstances the Nisga'a person would sue the government and would obtain judgment. The government would say: "Pursuant to the treaty, we have the right to claim reimbursement from the Nisga'a central government." Does the minister agree with me that far?

Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is no.

M. de Jong: What part of what I said is incorrect? What part of what I've said does the minister disagree with?

Hon. J. Cashore: The hypothetical example would not be fulfilled. It would not get to that point. It would not get to the point of that action resulting on the province.

Hon. J. Cashore: I think we have to yoke paragraph 19 with paragraph 20 in order to be able to deal with the question the member is asking. Paragraph 20 states: "Canada or British Columbia will vigorously defend any claim or action referred to in paragraph 19 and will not compromise or settle any such claim or action without the consent of the Nisga'a government."

In the example we're discussing, the government is defending on behalf of the Nisga'a; but in the event that they are unsuccessful and are obligated to pay out, it seems to me that these provisions are designed to facilitate the government going to the Nisga'a central government and saying: "We gave it our best shot, ladies and gentlemen, but we were unsuccessful and now we are entitled to reimbursement from you." Does the minister agree with me to that point, that that is the raison d'�tre for these sections?

[ Page 1774 ]

Hon. J. Cashore: That's a very complex hypothetical scenario. Depending on the circumstances, it may be yes, it may be no. I think that we're getting into a very complicated area here that is exactly the type of issue, exactly the type of question, that I think the committee will be discussing. The member is on that committee. I don't think we're going to resolve it right now, but I think that those clauses do serve their purpose.

M. de Jong: The only thing more certain than that answer is the fact that the weekend is fast approaching. I move that the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

Committee of Supply A, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. J. MacPhail: It is indeed the end of a long week, and I wish everybody a safe and productive weekend. I move that the House do now adjourn.

Hon. J. MacPhail moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:57 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN

THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The House in Committee of Supply A; W. Hartley in the chair.

The committee met at 11:06 a.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS AND HOUSING

(continued)

On vote 45: minister's office, $339,135 (continued).

G. Abbott: Where we were, in terms of Municipal Affairs estimates, at the time our particular discussion broke up in order to allow my participation in Bill 19, was a discussion of Bill 55, and I have a number of questions still to go with respect to that.

When we departed, I believe the last question revolved around the issue of utilities other than railways being affected by the provisions of Bill 55, and I believe I cited, in particular, the example of the city of Richmond, where they anticipated losing approximately $253,000 in overall taxation as a result of Bill 55. Only $31,000 of that would be in the railway portion. The remainder, about $222,000, would be the product of utilities such as B.C. Tel, B.C. Gas, B.C. Hydro, and so on, falling into the same category as railways.

I appreciate that this is a technical issue, but given that we're dealing with very substantial sources of revenue to the municipalities here, it does produce a number of questions. Let me begin by first asking, to clarify the point: was the application of Bill 55 to other utilities inadvertent or deliberate? Was there a sense in the ministry that utilities were being overtaxed as well as railways?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, I do understand the question, and I indicated yesterday that I didn't have an answer to that, and I still don't, but it's a question that will be answered, believe me.

I think the answer to your final question is yes. It was, of necessity, with respect to the utility class; but until I get more information on any potential negative consequences of a loss of revenue on other utilities, I'm not really in a position to give any more explanation as to what we might do in the event that that does happen as a result of this bill. I'll try to get that. If it's possible to get some more explicit information before we finish, I'll certainly pass it on. But it's a very legitimate question, and we should be able to provide an answer to that.

G. Abbott: I think this question should be answerable, because it goes, I guess, to the heart of the concept of Bill 55.

Bill 55 is based on producing tax savings to the railways of approximately $7.5 million on the municipal and regional district side. In an integral part of Bill 55 are what might be termed "remedial measures," which will ensure that no regional district or municipality loses more than 6 percent -- I think that was the figure cited by the ministry yesterday. The example used in some earlier discussions, I believe, was a 5.5 percent reduction in the amount of taxation produced to municipalities by the railways. Do the remedial measures apply to the utilities as well as to the railways?

Hon. D. Miller: I apologize to the member. I was discussing some of these issues. Perhaps he could pose that again.

G. Abbott: That's no problem. I appreciate that this is a complex issue, and I don't mind at all posing the question again. Essentially, it is this. Do the remedial measures which are contained in Bill 55 to ensure that no community or regional district suffers more than a 5 percent or 6 percent decline in the level of tax revenue from railways also apply to utilities?

Hon. D. Miller: The answer is no.

G. Abbott: If there are no remedial measures associated with the utilities side that have been brought in, then I guess that in the absence of some other action on the part of the government or of the ministry, we could see municipalities -- again, I'll take the example of Richmond -- losing a whole whack of money on the utilities side as a product of trying to reduce the taxation level to the railways on the other side.

Hon. D. Miller: The intent of the legislation was to deal with the issue of railway taxation, not other taxation from other utilities, and the rate cap was the vehicle used. I may not be explaining this very well, but it's not our intention that as a result of the change, municipalities would suffer significant loss from other utilities. It's really a question of which device you use to implement the primary thrust of this, which was the reduction of assessment values for railways.

[11:15]

[ Page 1775 ]

G. Abbott: Right from the first discussions on this issue last year, I've always had the sense that it wasn't the government's intent to penalize regional districts and municipalities on the utilities side. The intent was to offer some tax relief to railways. My concern here is that -- inadvertently, accidentally, coincidentally -- the municipalities and regional districts are going to be penalized on the utilities side when that wasn't at all the objective of the bill. I guess that goes to the next question.

Can the railways, through whatever mechanism is necessary, be separated out from the other utilities so that we don't have the intent of one bill producing an effect which was not anticipated?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, I gather that the decision really was not to create. . . . I mean, one approach would have been nice, presumably to create a separate railway class, but there was a decision not to do that explicitly. In terms of how the assessment system works, the more classes you have, the more potential there is for discriminatory taxation.

As we move forward to implement Bill 55, which is really aimed at railways, the fundamental issue is how we ensure that the municipalities don't suffer a significant loss on the utility side. There are ways of doing that, and I guess we can't give absolute comfort that everything in the status quo would remain with the other utility classes. There may,