1990 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 34th 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)

TUESDAY, JULY 10, 1990

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

10829 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Natural Gas Price Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 63). Hon. Mr. Davis

Introduction and first reading –– 10829

Oral Questions

Beer and wine store locations. Mr. Sihota –– 10829

Fraser Valley raspberries. Mr. Peterson –– 10830

Nurses' strike. Mr. Perry –– 10830

Truck brake inspection. Mr. Miller –– 10831

Spinal cord unit at University Hospital. Mr. Mowat –– 10831

Building of super-ferries. Mr. Sihota –– 10832

Accountants (Certified General) Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 42).

Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Strachan) –– 10832

Ms. A. Hagen

Third reading

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Native Affairs estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Weisgerber)

On vote 50: minister's office –– 10834

Mr. G. Hanson

Hon. Mr. Davis

Mr. Harcourt

Mr. Guno

Mr. Zirnhelt

Mr. Miller

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

HON. MR. DIRKS :

It's my pleasure today to introduce Mr. Major Singh Malik,

consul-general of India in Vancouver. Over the past 20 years he served

as his country's representative in Morocco, Kuwait, the Philippines,

Iran, Portugal and, most recently, Ghana. He was appointed

consul-general of India in Vancouver on April 21 of this year. Will the

House please wish him a warm welcome to our great province and to this

House this afternoon.

MR. SIHOTA : I'd like to join

the Provincial Secretary in welcoming the new consul-general, who has

been in British Columbia for approximately two months. Being the only

Indo-Canadian member of this Legislature, I want to extend my personal

greetings to him and at the same time thank him for the work he has

been doing over the past while. I know he has considerable challenges

in dealing with the Indo-Canadian community, but the community has come

a long way in British Columbia over the past four and a half years, and

some of that progress certainly can be attributed to the good work done

by his office. Would all members please join me also in giving a warm

welcome to the consul-general.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

Mr. Speaker, later this afternoon, in committee and then third reading,

we're going to be dealing with amendments to the Accountants (Certified

General) Act, and here to watch the proceedings today is the executive

director of the CGA Association. Would the House please welcome Mr.

Bill Caulfield.

MR. RABBITT : Mr. Speaker, on behalf

of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier), I am very pleased to

introduce a delegation from the B.C. Central Credit Union. We have in

the precincts today Tod Manrell, John Charlesworth, Ross Parkin, J.

Philip Moore, Steve Waddell, Wayne Nygren, Richard Thomas and Peter

Carter. I would ask the House to give them all a very warm welcome.

MR. PERRY :

It's my pleasure to introduce to the Legislature today some very

congenial constituents who enjoyed themselves so much yesterday that

I'm told they are here again today, even if I can't spot them: Miss

Alayne Keough; David, Amber, Elizabeth and Stephen Hopgood; and Kai

Davis. I'd like to let the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) know that

they particularly enjoyed his speech yesterday. I'd ask the House to

make them welcome.

HON. MRS. GRAN : I have a lengthy but very important introduction to

make today. The members of the Task Force on Daycare Expansion are having their

first meeting today and are in the House. I would like to introduce them: Nicole

Parton, former journalist from Vancouver [applause]— I hope you will accord them

all a similar welcome; Penny Coates of the Canadian Day Care Advocacy Association

and a director of day care at Simon Fraser University; Peter Ashmore from Westcoast

Child Care Resources, an informal chairperson of an early childhood network

from Vancouver; Myrna Popove, chair of the college board of Douglas College

in Coquitlam; Gary Johncox, vice-president of human resources for MacMillan

Bloedel; Doris Born, a group day care operator and teacher of a family day care

course at the College of New Caledonia in Prince George; Judy van der Meulen,

representative of the B.C. Farm Women's Network; Charles Lasser, the mayor

of Chetwynd; Paula McCrae, a school trustee in Kamloops; Kathleen Higgins, a

member of Western Women for Family Life; Sandra Griffin, the president of Early

Childhood Educators of B.C.; Linda Elliot, a director of the Kelowna family

day care support program; Joan Poweska, the director of nurses at the Kimberly

and District Hospital and alderman in Cranbrook city; Gayle Martin, president

of the Langley Chamber of Commerce; and Charlene Belleau, the former executive

director of the Cariboo Tribal Council, chair of the Nenqayni Treatment Centre

Society in Williams Lake and former chief at Alkali Lake. Would the House please

make them welcome.

MS. A. HAGEN :

A constituent from New Westminster, Don Hauka, has decided to spend his

birthday in the House today. I would like to ask all of you to join me

in welcoming him and wishing him a very happy birthday.

Introduction of Bills

NATURAL GAS PRICE

AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

Hon. Mr. Davis presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Natural Gas Price Amendment Act, 1990.

HON. MR. DAVIS :

Essentially, this allows the sale or devolution of the marketing end of

the B.C. Petroleum Corporation to producers in the Peace River area. It

establishes pricing for all comparative purposes as the price of raw

natural gas at the wellhead. There are provisions in this bill to

protect the Crown royalty and to improve the government's gathering,

audit and publishing powers so that monthly we will be able to publish

the going fuel price. Finally, it introduces penalties for

non-compliance with information and/or audit requests.

Bill

63 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

BEER AND WINE STORE LOCATIONS

MR. SIHOTA : I have a question to the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services. Circular 498, which I

[ Page 10830 ]

brought

to the minister's attention yesterday, requires beer and wine stores to

be attached to pubs. The John B Pub was relocated from one Coquitlam

location to another Coquitlam location. It held its official opening at

the new site and continued operations at the old site. At the same

time, it maintained a beer and wine operation at the new site to take

advantage of the Christmas rush at the shopping centre it's located in.

Could the minister explain why, given circular 498, the beer and wine

store was allowed to remain open at a site different than the principal

pub?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN : I can't provide the answer

to that question at this moment; I think it's rather technical. I don't

know just when this particular issue happened. I'm not aware of its

having happened recently, so I suspect it might have been some time ago.

The

member is obviously very interested in this type of question. I took

one on notice yesterday; maybe I'll do the same with this one.

MR. SIHOTA :

A new question to the minister — you may want to take this one on

notice as well. The beer and wine store I'm referring to is across the

parking-lot — I think it's about 300 feet away — from the government

liquor store. Does the minister not agree...?

SOME HON. MEMBERS : Order!

MR. SPEAKER :

Order, please. Perhaps it would be useful for members to allow the

Chair to determine whether or not the question is in order. The

question may very well be out of order, but there's a requirement for

the Chair to listen, to determine whether it is in order. I'll make up

my mind after I've heard the question. Will the member continue.

MR. SIHOTA :

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The beer and wine store is approximately 300

feet away from a government liquor store located at the same mall. Does

the minister not agree that this site across the parking-lot violates

the guidelines stated in policy 515?

MR. SPEAKER : I believe that question was taken on notice.

FRASER VALLEY RASPBERRIES

MR. PETERSON :

I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Fraser Valley

raspberry producers are extremely concerned about false claims and

threats from the Washington Red Raspberry Commission to ban B.C.

raspberries from their market because of possible contamination by the

herbicide Dinoseb. These threats are clearly aimed at sabotaging B.C.

producers.

MR. SPEAKER : Could we have a question, please.

MR. PETERSON :

What action is the minister taking to repudiate these charges and to

safeguard vital export markets for local raspberry producers?

[2:15]

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

You well know — it's been clearly stated in your

preamble — the problem

British Columbia raspberry producers are having with exporting

raspberries to the U.S., particularly due to the notice by the Red

Raspberry Commission in Washington State that any product with Dinoseb

used on it would be banned.

Let me categorically assure you

that neither the Red Raspberry Commission nor the Senate Committee on

Agriculture in the U.S. has the authority to ban it. I have

investigated this as of last Friday. It took extensive hours of work to

deal with the issue relative to....

Interjection.

HON. MR. SAVAGE : Good minister!

spent a lot of time dealing with the U.S. Red Raspberry Commission and

also with the issue of whether Dinoseb had been used by our raspberry

producers. Dinoseb is used on raspberries only when they come up to

about four inches in height, in order to destroy the shoots, as a way

of pruning. I can also tell you that extensive tests have been done in

the last three years, and no evidence whatsoever of Dinoseb has been

found.

Furthermore....

MR. SPEAKER : Thank you. That's enough.

NURSES' STRIKE

MR. PERRY :

I wish I had known the minister was such an expert, because I would

have asked him for help in pruning my raspberries. Perhaps he will

oblige me next year.

I have a question for the Minister of

Health. The government's dispute with the psychiatric nurses presents

the potential for serious and irreparable harm in the near future. The

difficulty in providing adequate care for acutely ill psychotic

patients has created backlogs into the jails and acute-care hospitals,

and it puts both patients and the public at risk. Has the Minister of

Health informed the Premier and the Minister of Finance of the urgency

of resolving this labour dispute?

HON. J. JANSEN : If

the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey would spend more time in the

House and researching medical matters than in his raspberry patch, he

would know that indeed this is a serious matter.

Mr.

Speaker, this matter is serious, and we are concerned about it. In

fact, last Friday I met with the representatives of both unions and

talked to them about their concerns. We share the member's concerns

regarding the provision of service to patients,

[ Page

10831 ]

and we are treating it with the urgency with which he thinks it should be treated.

MR. PERRY . A supplementary to the Premier. My question was based on

an inspection of Riverview yesterday morning. My question to the Premier is

the following. The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) recently displayed

his ignorance by making uninformed and very inflammatory statements about the

value of psychiatric and community care nurses. To be specific, he said: "That

tells me a nurse isn't a nurse isn't a nurse." Has the Premier

informed his Minister of Finance of the need for some sensitivity in this situation,

so that the minister might refrain from such harmful conduct in the future?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Mr. Speaker, I don't know what the question.... But it seems obvious, I

think, to everyone here that the member who asked the question pretends

to be an expert on all things. When anyone else expresses their views,

they're obviously wrong or ill-informed. That seems to me to be an

attitude which is very arrogant. I think not only that member but the

NDP should certainly keep in mind that that arrogance won't go

unnoticed by the people we represent.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER :

Members, members, it's question period. We had a statement and another

statement. I would now like to ask for a question from the second

member for Vancouver-Point Grey.

MR. PERRY : Supplementary to the Premier, who may not be aware that the

number of senior nurses resigning from Riverview has doubled since the strike

began: will the Premier state for the record whether or not his Minister of

Finance's comments regarding the nurses represent government policy?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

I think the member would like to read again the comments, which I'm

sure must be similar to those I read, because I find that oftentimes

their research is whatever the daily newspaper happens to report on a

particular day. So I can only assume that we're reading or talking

about the same article, where I believe the Minister of Finance was

expressing his concern about the situation and was stating some of the

facts. If the member opposite is not aware of the facts, I would like

to restate them. We're obviously having a difficult time negotiating —

that is, those responsible for negotiating and the members representing

the nurses — in that there appears to be a gap between the 20 percent

offered by the negotiators representing government, the people, and the

request that has come from the Nurses’ Union.

I still believe and will continue to believe that we as a province, we as a

people, are best served when we leave negotiating to those charged with negotiating,

and when we don't see it as we so often hear it from the opposition. At

every opportunity, whenever there's a dispute, on the very first day they

want to become involved in attempting to resolve that dispute. That, I believe,

is probably not out of line with socialist philosophy, but this is a free enterprise

province and we don't believe in that sort of thing.

TRUCK BRAKE INSPECTION

MR. MILLER :

Yesterday's very tragic accident at the Horseshoe Bay terminal was the

fifth vehicle that has crashed through the barriers. Any one of those

previous accidents could have resulted in a similar tragedy.

Recommendation 9 of the May 24 coroner's inquest resulting from the

Kamloops accident recommended that brake inspection pits be installed

and that this be facilitated by the Minister of Transportation and

Highways. Has there been a request from the Solicitor-General (Hon. Mr.

Fraser) to establish these brake inspection pits?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : There are ongoing discussions between staff in both ministries with regard to those testing-spots.

MR. MILLER :

It has been reported that the Ferry Corporation is seriously

considering a runaway or run-out lane at the Horseshoe Bay terminal.

Would the minister not agree that rather than that kind of action being

taken, the implementation of the coroner's recommendations that flowed

from the Kamloops accident would go far further in terms of proper

enforcement, proper inspection and proper driver training and would be

far more valuable in terms of preventing these kinds of very tragic

accidents on our highways?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : The

ministry is very concerned about the tragedy, and all arms of the

ministry are cooperating fully with the West Vancouver police

department in their investigation.

SPINAL CORD UNIT AT

UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL

MR. MOWAT : My question is urgent, and it's to the Hon. John Jansen, the Minister of Health. It's regarding the....

MR. SPEAKER :

Order, please. Even if the member is reading the question, the member

should not be making a reference to the member's name. The member has

been here a long time. I would ask the member to rephrase the question.

MR. MOWAT :

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's to the Minister of Health regarding the

University Hospital and the acute spinal cord injury unit at the

Shaughnessy site. I have information from the medical director of the

unit that effective today the unit will no longer be able to take on

high-lesion respiratory quadriplegics. With four high-lesion

respiratory patients there now, they are full. Does the minister have

any word of this, and could he look into it?

[ Page 10832 ]

HON. J. JANSEN :

This is my first knowledge of the situation. It's obviously of great

concern. I'll take the question on notice and deal with the matter

appropriately.

BUILDING OF SUPER-FERRIES

MR. SIHOTA :

I have a question to the Premier. The government has advocated a policy

of building in B.C. with respect to the ferry fleet. Can the Premier

give this House an unconditional assurance that the super-ferries will

be built by the B.C. Ferry Corporation in British Columbia?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

I will certainly defer the question to the minister responsible.

Perhaps the member should be aware that all transportation comes under

the Ministry of Transportation and Highways.

MR. SIHOTA :

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to put that question then to the minister, who I

thought would rise once the Premier deferred it to her. Can the

minister give an unconditional assurance to this House that the next

super-ferry to be built by the B.C. Ferry Corporation will be built

here in British Columbia?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : I find

the question quite interesting. It seems to me that this is at least

the second time it has been put to me. I'm sure that the member for

Esquimalt–Port Renfrew is quite aware of the fact that tenders on the

two super-ferries close at the end of the month. At that time, a

decision will be made. But he has also been told that we place a great

deal of importance on jobs for British Columbians and jobs in British

Columbia. But it would be inappropriate for anybody to give that type

of assurance at this time.

I think we should look back to — I believe it was 1974 — when the NDP were in power, and the Queen of Surrey

was purchased by the government of the day. It was purchased offshore,

and it seems to me it was a very wise investment at the time.

Orders of the Day

ACCOUNTANTS (CERTIFIED GENERAL)

AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

The House in committee on Bill 42; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

section 1.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : I don't want to filibuster my own bill, but I think we should say a few things.

Essentially

what we have here is an amendment to the Accountants (Certified

General) Act that strengthens the capacity of this practice and puts

the language of this act in tune with the language of the Accountants

(Chartered) Act. This bill, as we go through it, does that, and I

thought I'd say that in discussion on

section

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

MS. A. HAGEN :

Mr. Chairman, I want to comment briefly on this piece of legislation as

well. We are aware that this legislation has been developed with

extensive consultation with the certified general accountants who are

here and, I think, quite grateful to have it going through its final

passage at this time. We will be supporting the legislation.

[2:30]

just have a couple of questions to ask, because this is in the vein of

much of the legislation we deal with at various times in the House — it

provides the rules and guidelines by which professional organizations

in our province function.

I note that in this

section and

in other sections there are references to students in certified general

accountancy. I just want to ask the minister if this is consistent with

other pieces of legislation or if it is in any way unique to this

legislation. I think it's a very good observation and reflection both

that students are protected and that their standards are a part of the

standards of the CGAs. I look for some comment from the minister on

that.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Good question. Yes, both

the certified general accountants and the chartered accountants have

students for the purpose of training people to the practice standards

they want. Normally the CAs are university graduates, and the CGAs are

mostly students who have enrolled in the program, who are in a practice

as a student and who are taking courses provided by either of the

associations.

The member is right: we do mention students

here. I can also tell you that in

section 3 of the Accountants

(Chartered) Act students are mentioned again. So it is consistent with

other accounting practice that the students are mentioned in these

acts. The students are a definite entity in both terms of practice.

MS. A. HAGEN :

Section 3, in the language I think I have seen used, "elongates" the

bylaws. I have never known of bylaws being elongated before, but that

obviously says that there are some additions here. I wonder if the

minister would like to briefly comment on the main import of those

additions to the bylaws.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : As you

will see in the notes, it amends

section 11(3), which, if you went back

to the original bill, has items (

a) to (

f) in terms of bylaws. This

streamlines those bylaws and allows for the fixing of dues and for

investigation; then, further, for a whole process of appeals. That is

how the bylaws of

section 11 in the act itself are amended.

Sections 2 to 4 inclusive approved.

[ Page

10833 ]

section 5.

MS. A. HAGEN : This is a new

section: "Investigation and Practice Review." I note that we are

looking at procedures whereby people who are members of the profession

may investigate the conduct of current or former members, or students,

for grounds for disciplinary action.

In terms of public

protection and public access to questioning standards of behaviour, is

that encompassed in this particular section? Or are there any aspects

of this legislation that deal with the protection of the consumer of

the services of CGAs? Perhaps the minister could give us some

information on that.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Good

question. First of all, the Accountants (Certified General) Act now

ends at

section 19. So when we see

section 5 in the amendments saying

"20," that's a whole new process. Madam Member, I can tell you that

from 20 to 25, that's right out of the CAs' act. It's cribbed; it's

almost identical language, as I look at the Accountants (Chartered) Act.

I said at the outset, this makes the two acts equivalent to each other

— which everybody wanted, because the Accountants (Chartered) Act has

served us well in that profession. And the CGAs feel the same way. They

can certainly live with that language and would like to have that

consistency.

In terms of consumer protection, I think both

of these acts — as a matter of fact, most legislation that governs the

practice of professionals — are designed for consumer protection in one

way or another, whether you are dealing with a lawyer, an engineer, an

architect or one of the accounting disciplines. These professional

bodies want to ensure that their members are of the highest calibre in

the way they have been trained and in the way they handle themselves.

They want to ensure that they are honestly representing themselves to

the public and that the public has every reason to believe that anyone

who carries the designation of PEng, lawyer, CA or CGA is in fact a

professional person and acting in the best interests of the client.

do that, they have us as legislators pass their legislation in the

House, giving them the right to discipline, to investigate and to say

to the public in general: "We are a professional body. As a

professional body, we are going to protect you, the consumer. Whenever

a client comes to any of our members and seeks our services, that

client, that member of the public, will receive the best possible

service from our member. And we have legislation to back that up."

I think on balance the member is correct. This is consumer protection legislation, as is most professional-body legislation.

MS. A. HAGEN : One final question on this matter of consumer protection.

Perhaps the minister can advise the House, from his consultations with this

body, whether they advertise the process by which a consumer may access these

protections.

recognize that the language in the statute we are debating clearly

notes the concern and the processes by which the organization will

itself police and ensure the calibre of work of its members. Very often

the knowledge of a concern comes from someone who is aggrieved. In this

province we don't always have the best of consumer protection, and

people don't always know. I'm just wondering if the minister can advise

what processes, knowledge or information are available to the general

public, which uses this profession a great deal, I know, because it is

very accessible. They are around our communities, their fees are

reasonable, and they are a group of people that business and private

individuals make very considerable use of in the conduct of their

affairs.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : It's a good question.

They do currently have a very effective advertising campaign in place

just setting out the job they do and, essentially in laymen's language,

the extent of their practice.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

You

might have seen them in magazines. They normally take the bottom two

pages of a magazine, and they'll have a clarinet with two ends on it,

or a fountain pen with two.... Have you seen those ads? They're quite

clever. That is the type of advertising they are doing.

terms of telling the public generally what they have in their

legislation for consumer protection, I don't know if that's in the ads.

I think generally it's known by the public — certainly by anyone who is

going to be using the services of particularly the certified general

accountants — that they do have an association, a code of practice

and a method for discipline. If you feel aggrieved, there certainly is

a body you can take it to.

I'm sure all MLAs know of this

legislation, and I'm sure most of the general public does. I don't know

how one would want to further advertise the protection that is offered

to the consumer. It's a good thought but I think that's something the

association has to do itself. It's our job as legislators to ensure

that they have appropriate legislation in place, and it's up to the

practice itself to ensure that the general public feels good and feels

comforted by the type of professional treatment they're going to

receive from a member of this association.

MS. A. HAGEN : One last question on

section 5. This is in respect to

section 23 — one of the new clauses that is being added with this bill.

want to ask the minister what guidelines exist as to the financial

penalty that may be imposed. This particular clause deals with

disciplinary action and what options are available to the CGAs in terms

of discipline. In subsection (e), it notes that there may be a fine of

not more than $10,000 against a current or former member, or $2,000

against a student.

[ Page 10834 ]

We've

been dealing with this a little bit in other legislation as well, in

terms of the upper level of fines that may be imposed. I want to know

just what guidelines there are for those kinds of penalties, to put

them in some perspective in our review during committee stage.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

As you see in the discipline section, the committee or panel has the

right — when they are satisfied that someone is incompetent — to do the

following. One of them, as the member has pointed out, is to impose a

fine against a current or former member of $10,000 or, if the

incompetent action was taken by a student, a fine of $2,000 against the

student. So really the decision is made by the people doing the inquiry.

I'll

tell the member one more thing. This is identical wording to

section 20

of the chartered accountants act. It was taken directly — lifted right

out — and put in here. Again, it's the consistency argument that the

CGAs were interested in.

Sections 5 and 6 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Bill 42, Accountants (Certified General) Amendment Act, 1990, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Mr. Chairman, I call Committee of Supply.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. De Jong in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

NATIVE AFFAIRS

On vote 50: minister's office, $281,782 (continued).

MR. G. HANSON :

Following from this morning, we would like to have a little

conversation with the minister regarding his position on the framework

agreement between the Nisga'a people and the federal government and on

their overture to the province to join them in resolving this

130-year-old grievance.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

would like to ask the minister what it is.... I think he owes this

House some kind of a report — he didn't like the term "report" — or

some kind of an accountability on the province sitting as an observer

at these negotiations for 12 years. Could he please advise the House

what his observations have been; what the accomplishments have been;

what the obstacles are. Why will his government not take its place at

those negotiations to do what Canada and the Nisga'a people...? Canada

signed by a former minister for the Department of Indian Affairs, now

Minister of Justice, Kim Campbell — she signed the document asking for

the province to participate. Why don't you tell us a little bit more

about your observations?

[2:45]

HON. MR. WEISGERBER :

Yes, I intended to pick up on some of the comments the member made this

morning and then respond as well to his question this afternoon.

This

morning in his last speech to the House, the member accused me of not

even reading our policy document and indicated that had I done so, I

would have understood that the NDP are committed to third-party

interests in negotiating treaties. The member quoted a line which says:

"In negotiating treaties, a provincial government will ensure that

third-party interests are accommodated, including those of

municipalities and others."

This is a quotation from a

rather broad and substantial document, and it's interesting that the

only reference to third-party interests is to "municipalities and

others." I am sure the members across the way must recognize that there

are various interests in land subject to land claims. There is fee

simple land, and there has always — at least until recently — been the

premise that private fee simple lands are not subject to land claims.

However, injunctions that have been obtained on Deer Island and

Scheidam Flats would call into question that premise. But this very

thorough document doesn't touch on that issue.

There are

other interests. There are forestry tenures on lands subject to land

claims, mining interests, grazing interests and a whole host of

interests.

In this rather comprehensive document that

received some five minutes of debate at the party convention, it's

interesting that all it refers to is "municipalities and others," and I

would question the commitment of the NDP to "others." If I were an

"other," I would be concerned about this particular position.

However,

moving on to the Nisga'a land claims, it's true that in 1989 a

framework agreement was signed and that part of that framework calls on

Canada and the Nisga'a people to encourage the province to become a

participant in the land claim negotiations.

It's

interesting that several years ago our Speaker, who was then minister

responsible, put the question to Bill McKnight, who was then the

minister responsible for DIA. He asked him to let us know three things:

what claims the federal government had accepted for negotiation; what

they thought the cost of settling those claims would be; and what part

of the cost of those settlements they thought it reasonable for the

province to accept — how big the pie is,

[ Page

10835 ]

how much of the pie should be provincial responsibility and how much should be federal responsibility.

later asked that same question, because we've never had a response from

Ottawa. I have since asked that question of Pierre Cadieux, of Kim

Campbell, and most lately of Tom Siddon. I think it reasonable, before

a province were to make a decision to start a process, to have some

idea of what you were starting to negotiate. How many claims are there?

How big are they? How much does Canada expect to pay or, conversely,

how much do they expect the province to pay? We're still waiting for

that. I think it would be irresponsible to start a process before you

got that kind of response. That's basic information that any prudent

businesslike individual or government would want to have before

starting negotiations. Whether you're starting negotiations on land

claims or whether you're starting negotiations to buy a piece of

property, you have to have some idea of the size and scope of what

you're getting into. There's no sense in starting to talk about buying

a building if you don't know whether it's a one-bedroom bungalow or a

multi-suite apartment house, because surely your pocket will dictate

whether it's even reasonable for you to sit down and start talking

about those kinds of things.

That is where I see us

in this Nisga'a process. We're there because fisheries issues are being

discussed at present. We both understand, Mr. Chairman, that those

fisheries issues are federal responsibility; that they don't require

the province to be there to settle. However, the province is interested

in being there, in order for us to understand what kinds of settlements

are being contemplated and what the impact of those settlements on

other users might be. Certainly commercial and sport fishermen are

going to be interested in these agreements, although the saltwater

fishery, be it native, commercial or sport, is still federal

responsibility.

There's nothing stopping that process from going

ahead, and in the meantime we're awaiting a response from Ottawa. I

think it reasonable that we should continue to insist on that kind of

information before considering whether or not it's proper for us to get

involved in the process.

MR. G. HANSON : Mr.

Chairman, in addressing some of the remarks that the minister made, I

would direct his attention to the agreement in the Yukon, which is a

New Democrat administration — a result of 17 years of negotiations. The

third-party interests were attended to.

Interjection.

MR. G. HANSON : Yes, federal land, federal jurisdiction. I understand

that. But third-party interests were attended to. You know, Mr. Chairman, that

the resource-based industries of the Yukon, particularly mining, are used to

this type of negotiation worldwide. They perform their activities globally,

and they're used to entering into agreements to allow for their enterprise

to proceed.

When

the minister uses costs to preclude the start of discussions and

negotiations, I would ask him to contemplate the cost to British

Columbia of not discussing and negotiating a mutually agreeable

solution to this predicament. The costs are not all on one side — the

costs in loss of investment and loss of stability and certainty for

international and local investment. The minister has got to have two

sides to the equation. We argue that there are many pluses to

settlement: an influx of federal dollars in compensation, stability and

a reinvestment of that money locally. That money would tend to stay and

strengthen regional economies. It would tend not to go to Zurich or New

York, outside of the country.

The N.W.T. settlement

indicates, through their corporate entities, reinvestment in Canada and

in the region. That has been stated over and over: we see the federal

compensation dollars conming in and being reinvested in local and

regional economies that are presently encountering difficulties.

says, how do you know how big the bread-box is? You've got to know what

the size and cost and numbers are beforehand. You enter into framework

discussions, where categories are listed. This is the bare bones, the

skeleton, the Nisga'a framework agreement. It indicates categories, and

sometimes they're simply the denoting of a category, with nothing

beyond; it's subject to talk and good-faith negotiations.

think it would be useful just to list some of the categories agreed to

by the federal government that would be subject to negotiations;

they're on the table. The minister mentions the fact that the province

is there because the federal government is discussing fisheries. The

federal government cannot resolve the land claims issue for the Nisga'a

claim with fish alone. There aren't enough fish, or using the fish to

be extrapolated to other parts of the province is an unrealistic

settlement. So for there not to be other variables or possibilities is

absurd. You can't vacate the field to the federal government, expecting

that they are going to resolve the matter on fisheries, because you

have jurisdiction in other areas.

What are some of the

topics for negotiations between the Nisga'a Tribal Council and Canada?

Fisheries harvesting and management. The fisheries agreement has been

the subject of negotiations since 1982. 1 know your staff are aware of

it and the implications. You can't resolve it with fish. It's simply

untenable. Recently there have been some shifts, a movement away from

that, in the magnitude of an attempt to resolve using fish.

Non-renewable

resources: resource-revenue sharing and participation in environmental

management under Canada's jurisdiction. The federal government is

willing to entertain an aboriginal voice, on the ground level where the

non-renewable resources are known best, sharing in the responsibility

to manage things effectively for the future.

Compensation:

eligibility criteria and initial enrolment procedures, water, taxation,

the relationship of existing Nisga'a reserve lands to any interests of

the Nisga'a lands described in this agreement.

[ Page 10836 ]

Earlier

the minister asked me if I would define aboriginal title. I would

direct him to the Yukon agreement and the principle which states that

aboriginal title is not extinguished on settlement lands. By

implication, there is a reference to aboriginal title. Surely to

goodness he can confer with his federal colleagues and find out

precisely that it was agreed at the bargaining table that aboriginal

title in the Yukon is not extinguished on settlement lands.

Another

aspect of our topic is environmental protection. Because of their

reliance on fish resources, game resources and wild stocks, aboriginal

people are very close in the food chain to dealing with contamination

through pesticides, herbicides and chemical toxins which are rapidly

invading the food chain. They want to talk about environmental

protection. They want to talk about the monitoring of toxins in fish,

of antibiotics entering the wild stocks through fish-farming and

aquaculture and being brought through to the higher levels of the food

chain by carnivores that are eating wild fish or fish released from

fish-farms by accident or whatever. These fish are getting into bears,

cougars and other animals and contaminating their flesh with various

antibiotics and other chemicals.

Mr. Chairman, this

province and all citizens would be well served by greater involvement

in the management of our resources and environmental management by

aboriginal people.

Forestry. Everyone knows that our

forests have been mismanaged. It takes different descriptions: falldown

effect, overcutting. Those are just fancy forestry terms for

mismanagement of one of B.C.'s most precious natural resources. That's

a topic for discussion.

[3:00]

What

share? The minister wanted to know what our bottom line is. I'd like to

ask him: to what extent does he feel that aboriginal people are

entitled to a share of the forest resources of the Nass Valley? Should

they have employment? Should they have value-added? Should they have a

share of royalties? Should they have a share of the wealth and a share

of the management through committees? They are citizens. They are local

residents. I'd be interested to hear the minister's views on how he

sees the people of the Nass. I'm using the Nisga'a as an example,

because it is the only area where a federally signed framework

agreement is in place and a set of comprehensive negotiations has been

going on for over 12 years, and where the province has been an

observer, not a participant.

Geothermal energy in that area. Yes, I read releases that there will be a park

created to contain the lava beds. There will be some kind of recognition and

protection for the lava beds south of the Nass Valley, up the Kitsumkalum and

so on. There are geothermal springs there and the potential for heat, power,

horticulture, greenhouse agriculture. That's a subject; that's a topic.

They would like to talk about it. They would like to have fresh vegetables in

the Nass. They would rather not have the green, hard golf balls — by the time

they get to the Nass from California or Mexico — that they call tomatoes. They

would like to have fresh food that is not contaminated with pesticides and herbicides,

etc. Geothermal is a possibility for greenhouse agriculture in the north. They

would like to talk about it.

Cultural

artifacts — their sites, their burial grounds, their sacred places, the

places that are of importance to them. This is a subagreement that was

initialed by the negotiators in 1984.

Nisga'a government. I read the letter the Premier received from the president of the Nisga'a Tribal Council, where he said:

"We understand there's a federal government. We understand

there's a provincial government. But we also know that there are municipal

governments, and they have a relationship to these senior governments. Can we

discuss how we could have more self-determination and more self-reliance, and

how we would relate to the municipalities, to the province and to the federal

government?"

That's not that complicated. Surely it could be discussed.

section 5.12.1: "The Nisga'a government subagreement will deal with

matters including the jurisdictions and powers of the institutions and

structures of Nisga'a government, while issues concerning Nisga'a

authority over land and resources, such as fisheries management, shall

be dealt with as part of each subagreement." I mentioned earlier that

in that letter to the Premier they said: "And when the province takes

its rightful place, this framework agreement will be reopened, the

advent of the province at the table will be recognized and the

jurisdiction of the province will be recognized."

General

clauses; approval; dispute resolution process; amendment procedures;

certainty for the use, disposition and ownership of lands, fisheries

and other resource-related rights; finality of claims; scheduling and

timing; communication; third-party interests.... In this framework

agreement Canada will deal with third parties whose interests are

affected by the land claims agreement. Do we want to leave that all up

to Prime Minister Mulroney? Why would we want to leave third-party

responsibilities and interests entirely to the Mulroney Tory

government? Why shouldn't the province of B.C. be at the table to

protect the people of British Columbia and to make sure that it's fair

for everyone?

We are serious about third-party interests.

We believe that there has to be a public education process and an

involvement process — a consultative process— so that third parties,

whether they be forestry, mining, fisheries, municipalities or other

interested groups, can be heard; and that there should be hearings to

register their concerns so that the negotiation process recognizes,

accommodates and understands the interests of third parties as well as

of the principles at the table.

Section 9 — the big vacuum.

B.C.'s participation in the land claims agreement — nowhere; not there.

It's abrogating its responsibility. Why should the federal government

be allowed to proceed without B.C.'s voice being heard at the table?

Then you want to know the size of the box of rights. But if it's not

[ Page

10837 ]

acceptable to either party, why would they sign it?

If the Nisga'a comprehensive land claim settlement was not acceptable

to the people of British Columbia, through this Legislature, or to the

Parliament of Canada, or conversely to the Nisga'a people, why would

anyone sign it? You have to sign an agreement for it to be law. It's

not a pig in a poke. It's the result of comprehensive, detailed

restructuring of relationships with aboriginal people, the province and

the federal government. If it's not acceptable, the province wouldn't

sign it and the people wouldn't tolerate it.

What further safeguards do you need? You'd ratify something in principle.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Under standing orders, the member's time has expired.

MR. HARCOURT :

I think the first member for Victoria is carrying on a splendid

discussion on the minister of aboriginal affairs' estimates, Mr.

Chairman. I'd like to hear more.

MR. G. HANSON : As I

remarked this morning, I know that the leader of our party — the leader

of the official opposition — very clearly understands the importance of

this issue. This is a fundamental issue which needs to be addressed.

We're saying that the mode of denial that all provincial governments

have had to date has taken us down a dead-end road, and it's time to

change that course, to deal in good faith in a whole restructuring of

the relationship. I don't think we should be afraid of it. We shouldn't

be afraid of being taken to the cleaners, because, as I said, if it's

not acceptable, no one's going to sign it What other trade union or

corporation in the industrial sector would carry out negotiations for

16 years, since 1976, and have such fruitless talks?

The first page of the Nisga'a framework agreement says:

"Whereas

there has never been a treaty or a land claims agreement between the

Nisga'a nation and the British Crown, Her Majesty the Queen in right of

Canada or Her Majesty the Queen in right of British Columbia;

"And

whereas since the first arrival of European settlers

the Nisga'a have always asserted their aboriginal title to their traditional

homeland and have always sought an agreement on sharing" — sharing, Mr.

Minister — "the land and resources;"

Only the non-native mentality would extrapolate into their mind that they deny other people access. They talk about sharing.

"And

whereas in 1955 the Nisga'a Tribal Council was given the mandate by the

Nisga'a nation to negotiate a just and equitable resolution of the land

question;

"And

whereas in 1973, following the

decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Calder case, along with

comprehensive land claim policy, which was revised in 1981 and again in

1986;

"And

whereas in 1976 the Nisga'a Tribal Council and

Canada undertook to negotiate a land claims agreement;

"And

whereas in 1976 British Columbia agreed to participate...as an observer;

"And

whereas between 1976 and 1978 the Nisga'a Tribal Council, Canada and B.C. exchanged position papers;

"And

whereas in August 1987, the Nisga'a Tribal Council tabled its position

paper on these negotiations, which was entitled 'Proposed Framework for

Negotiating a Nisga'a Land Claims Agreement';

"And

whereas in February 1988, Canada responded..."

Mr. Chairman, this particular "whereas" is the most important for the purposes of the discussion today.

"And

whereas the Nisga'a Tribal Council and Canada agree

that in order to deal with topics such as land and resources, it is desirable

that British Columbia be a party to the land claims agreement;

"And

whereas Canada has further undertaken to endeavour to bring British Columbia into these negotiations as a full participant;

"And

whereas Canada and the Nisga'a Tribal Council were actively negotiating

at the time of the December 1986 federal policy on comprehensive land

claims which introduced a new step, the framework agreement...."

simple question to the minister, after that introduction, is why will

the province not take its place at the table and represent all the

people of British Columbia — aboriginal interests, third-party

interests — and take our place to make sure that B.C. gets a fair share

and this settlement benefits both aboriginal and non-aboriginal people

in this province? It's long overdue. Why does he continue to refuse to

take the position and instruct his senior staff to participate?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER :

First of all, let's understand that this government and all members in

this government recognize the benefits of a resolution to the whole

land claim question. There is no one here who would not want to see a

resolution to the land question in British Columbia. It would seem to

me that that should have been an accepted item when we started our

discussions.

Certainly during the past year the Premier's

advisory council has been an indication of our interest and concern

with the whole question. Statements by the Premier, primarily, and

others have indicated that the province is reassessing its position on

the land question but that we want to understand some of the questions,

some of the differences.

The Nisga'a people are ones I very

much enjoy meeting and dealing with. They're very reasonable people.

They lay out their arguments very reasonably, very cogently, very

understandably. They put out a package. They acknowledge the need to

negotiate, to co-exist, to do all of those kinds of things. That's

something that I think is obvious. For anyone who has been watching

over the last year or two the actions of the provincial government, you

would understand that we are reassessing; we're understanding more

about land claims.

[3:15]

But

also, not all land claims are put forward in the same tone as the

Nisga'a claim. This morning we talked about the Gitksan claim, and I

want to now

[ Page 10838 ]

acknowledge

that the comments I attributed to Chief Delgam Uukw were in fact the

words of Chief Alfred Joseph, who also made final arguments in the

Gitksan case. Let me read those comments. These are the words of Chief

Alfred Joseph at the Supreme Court of British Columbia:

"We

realize that the true financial value of this compensation for

restoration would bankrupt both the federal and provincial governments.

Compensation must remain an ongoing obligation of the federal and

provincial governments 'until our hearts are satisfied'."

"We

do not want financial compensation without the recognition of our

authority over our territories. I will identify those areas where the

powers of the province and the federal government need to be restrained

in order for us to exercise our responsibilities under aboriginal

title."

He goes on to say: "We must have the power to

manage all human activity that brings change to the land, air or water

on all of our territories." Now that's a pretty significant statement.

"The chiefs must have control over the local economy by managing

natural resource allocations within their territories." I remind you,

Mr. Chairman, that the territories we're talking about are an area

larger in size than New Brunswick. "This would include licensing,

leasing and permitting. As well, royalties and taxation payments from

resource use on our territories must be paid to us."

So,

Mr. Chairman, my point is that one of the things we have learned as we

travel around the province with the Premier's advisory council and meet

with tribal councils around the province is that perceptions about land

claims vary a great deal from tribal council to tribal council and from

nation to nation.

So to say, "Here is the Nisga'a claim; it

is a reasonable one, therefore we should negotiate land claims, " or to

look at the Sechelt claim and say, "This is a reasonable claim,

therefore we will negotiate claims, " I think underestimates the

complexity of the problem.

The member noted that the Yukon

government took 17 years to negotiate a settlement which, to the best

of my understanding, still has not been ratified by the Indian people

in the Yukon. Here is a situation where there are relatively few people

in a territory, and a large percentage of those people are Indian

people. There are relatively few tenures on the lands, and the member

alludes to the fact that resource interests were looked after in the

Yukon.

Mr. Chairman, I travelled to the Yukon soon after I

was appointed to this ministry in order to speak with the people who

were negotiating that land claim and to understand the similarities and

the differences between the land claim process in British Columbia and

the land claim process in the Yukon Territory.

In fact,

government paid, to the best of my knowledge, nothing toward the

settlement — or offered to pay nothing — and had no tenure to land. So

in fact it had nothing to contribute to the settlement. Canada owned

the resources; Canada has the money; Canada will pay — perhaps a model

that we both agree as being the proper one. But let's be cautious about

comparing the Yukon settlement with what happened in British Columbia.

Further, in the Yukon there was one negotiating group that represented

all of the Indian people in the Yukon. We have 27 distinct nations in

British Columbia, each of whom has indicated the desire to negotiate

their own land claim.

When we talk about 197 bands in

British Columbia and the fact that the federal government will

negotiate with only one group at a time — be it a band or a tribal

council — I think that it's going to take far longer than you or I hope

to go through this process. So let's not all of a sudden hold the

federal government up as the model for everybody to follow. I think

their process is designed to frustrate rather than to facilitate.

Furthermore, if they really wanted the province to be at the bargaining

table, they would have provided at least part of the information that

our present Speaker asked Mr. McKnight for and that I asked Cadieux,

Campbell and Siddon for. Some of that information was readily

available. If they really wanted to facilitate the settlement of land

claims, they would have provided that to us. That has to be looked at

realistically.

The member said we could go and negotiate a

deal, and that it would have to be ratified in this House and in

Ottawa. If it wasn't ratified, then it wouldn't be a deal. I'm sure the

member is not suggesting that we go out and start negotiations or start

to raise expectations. If the province decides to negotiate and meet

with the federal government and Indian people to negotiate a claim,

it's got to be with the expectation of a settlement. It can't be some

kind of a shell game where you negotiate for years and years and then

bring it back to the Legislature to get it trounced. I wouldn't want to

be part of that process. I would want to go with the expectation that

you could negotiate a deal that would be suitable to this House.

that end, I believe we need the kind of comfort from Ottawa that I've

suggested. Members on the other side stand up and say: "We know the

federal government will pay all of the costs." That's nonsense; that's

poppycock. You don't know anything of the sort. We've asked them how

much — not whether or not they will pay at all. We've asked it of them

minister to minister and year after year. They won't tell us. I'm

reasonably certain they haven't — by some unofficial means — advised

you that they would gladly accept all of the costs of settlement. I

know that isn't right, and I'm sure you know it's not right.

We're

moving; we're talking, and we understand more now. We have a better

understanding of claims and the differential in claims from the Sechelt

which requires no land but calls for cash, a share of resource

royalties and an opportunity to share in fisheries — to the Nisga'a

claim which you've outlined, to the Gitksan claim which I've outlined.

You go through the spectrum there that's radically different from one community to the next. One of the

[ Page

10839 ]

things we've found when we met with tribal councils

is that there are no two identical visions. Some are similar; some are

radically different. I think it's a worthwhile process to go through as

a government to better understand that before you get involved in a

process that you don't understand, and you don't know who is going to

pay the costs of and all of those kinds of things.

I will

wrap up by saying that I believe we are continuing to reassess. We're

looking carefully and prudently at the options we have with the

expectation that we can find a resolution that's suitable for all

British Columbians.

HON. MR. DAVIS : Mr. Chairman,

I'll be brief. I'm looking forward to hearing the comments of the

Leader of the Opposition. He said just now that he endorsed everything

the first member for Victoria said.

I'd like him to reflect

on some things the hon. member from Victoria has said. Several weeks

ago the first member for Victoria was in Vancouver, and he addressed

the Musqueam band. He said emphatically that when the NDP become

government, they would go back to square one to review the Pacific

Spirit Park lands and take into account the Musqueam band claims. The

inference was that some part, at least, of the Pacific Spirit Park

would be turned over to the Musqueam band.

My question

really is this, if I was phrasing one to the Leader of the Opposition:

how many of the settlements which have been negotiated or otherwise

dealt with in the past are also open to review? Under his direction — I

believe from a resolution passed by the NDP — they are going to review

all native land claims. Does that include, for instance, going back to

square one on the Pacific Spirit Park? Does it go back to review the

Sechelt arrangement or negotiated settlements in recent years whereby

the Indian cutoff lands and some part of them have been returned to the

bands? Will they go back and review those with a view to expanding the

lands which are turned over to those bands in their particular areas?

don't know where the NDP stands. I certainly don't know now where they

stand on matters like the Pacific Spirit Park. I hope they don't intend

to open that one, enticing the Musqueam to think that they are going to

get virtually all of those lands turned over to that band. But were

they ever to form government, God forbid, they are going to have to

face those words which — if not engraved in stone — certainly are well

memorized by members of the Musqueam band.

MR. HARCOURT :

I wish to be clear on where I and the New Democrats are coming from on

the issues that the ministers of aboriginal affairs and Energy, Mines

and Petroleum Resources have raised. I think it's important that I lay

out the New Democrat policy on the aboriginal land question.

Our policy is based on five principles. The first is recognizing aboriginal

title and the right of aboriginal people to self-government. The second is a

commitment to reaching the just and honourable settlements through negotiations.

They would involve aboriginal people and the federal and provincial governments.

The third is to represent the interests of all British Columbians in the negotiation

and settlement processes and the third parties that have been talked about here,

which are involved in fisheries, forestry, mining and many other areas that

interested British Columbians are involved in.

The

fourth is that those negotiations be based on the concept of

sustainability and sustainable economic development throughout this

province. Fifth, we are committed, as New Democrats, to renewing the

constitutional process so that the aboriginal right to self-government

can be firmly entrenched in the constitution of Canada.

Those

are the principles on which is based our policy of recognition that

aboriginal title exists, that it hasn't been extinguished and that we

want to negotiate, not litigate and lead the province into the

bitterness and uncertainty we now face — with the billions of dollars

of investment flowing around this province because of that uncertainty—

bitterness and the stalemate that this government's non-policy has

brought to British Columbia.

Our position is very clear. I

was interested to read the minister of aboriginal affairs' comments

this morning that the NDP policy, which took less than five minutes

debate at our convention in March.... I want the minister to know,

because he may not have been aware, that I chaired our aboriginal

affairs committee which worked for two and a half years to put that

policy together.

I have met with 28 tribal councils. We had

seven regional conferences around this province and have met with

thousands of British Columbians in developing this position paper,

which was received by delegates at our convention who had participated

in that ongoing dialogue between New Democrats and British Columbians

about this very important question.

[3:30]

I'm

sure the minister would agree that it is essential to having this

province move forward that we resolve it in a prudent and just

way. I want the minister to be aware of the fact that it wasn't a

five-minute discussion. It was a paper that had been developed over two

and a half years of dialogue with those delegates, who were at that

convention with British Columbians throughout the province.

The

other matter that I want to comment on is the role of the federal

government. I would agree with the minister that the role of the

federal government has been to hide behind the inaction of the

provincial government, and that their policy is a major roadblock to

satisfactory negotiations. First of all, of only seven claims being

negotiated at any one time....

MR. G. HANSON : Six.

MR. HARCOURT :

Six — and they have claims that are sort of sitting in the hopper.

That's for Canada. That is the 150-to-200-year negotiating strategy,

and I

[ Page 10840 ]

don't

think that satisfies the minister. It doesn't satisfy me, British

Columbians or the aboriginal people. Once the impediment is removed of

the provincial government refusing to come to the table and recognizing

that there is such a concept of aboriginal title — that it hasn't been

extinguished, and that we have to negotiate — with a New Democrat

government being willing to come to the table, the major obstacle is

going to be the federal government, with its present position of only

negotiating six at any one time and, as the minister says, refusing to

sit down to detailed negotiations with the provincial government of

what the obligations would be in the vast majority with the federal

government and with the provincial government as a minority negotiating

partner in this process.

I agree with the minister that we

have a problem with the federal government. It would be a very real

and very serious problem.

The minister and some of his

colleagues this morning were making comments about bottom line and what

is meant by aboriginal title. I have read through the transcripts. I

didn't hear all the comments of some members of the government's side,

but I found it really quite disgraceful the way the member for Atlin

(Mr. Guno) was treated this morning by members on that side.

The

minister didn't participate and was quite fair and respectful in his

approach to the member for Atlin, but I found some of his colleagues

being very unfortunate, at the best

interpretation and, at the worst,

displaying ignorance and prejudice in this matter. I hope that doesn't

happen again during this very important discussion.

Having

said that, I think the important challenge is how we define the

aboriginal land question, how we get more specific, how we start to

surround the monetary...and the access and the sharing of the natural

resources and lands of this great, rich province of ours.

Whether

or not a witness at a trial makes a statement that I don't agree with

and we use that out of context is not the issue. That was a witness at

a trial making a statement that may or may not be accepted, and my

guess is that it will not be accepted by the court. It certainly isn't

accepted by me and it certainly isn't accepted by the New Democrats

that bankruptcy of Canada and British Columbia is going to flow from

the settlement. I think just the opposite This province will have more

security, more certainty, a sharing of the prosperity of this province

that will be totally beneficial to British Columbians, when the federal

government sits down with the province and the aboriginal people to

negotiate the settlement over a number of years.

If the

minister and his colleagues would like some guidance as to the

framework for that discussion or negotiations and would like to know

where to start, I would suggest that we go back and have a look at the

most recent court decision, the Sparrow decision by the Supreme Court

of Canada, and read what the justices unanimously described as the

background for their

interpretation of

section 35(1), which, as the

minister knows, deals with aboriginal rights. There are sources to

start to get a glimmer of what we mean by the aboriginal land question,

by aboriginal title, by aboriginal rights. I think the justices,

unanimously in this decision, started to give us that direction.

I'll quote what the justices of the Supreme Court of Canada said in the Sparrow decision:

"In

response to these submissions and in finding the appropriate

interpretive framework for

section 35(l), we start by looking at the

background of

section 35(1).

"It is worth

recalling that while British policy towards the native population was

based on respect for their right to occupy their traditional lands, a

proposition to which the Royal Proclamation of 1763 bears witness,

there was from the outset never any doubt that sovereignty and

legislative power, and indeed the underlying title to such lands,

vested in the Crown."

It's very clear what the justices of

the Supreme Court of Canada stated. What they then go on to say is the

point that I'm trying to make:

"And there can be no doubt that over the years the rights of the Indians were often honoured in the breach."

They

went on to say, quoting Mr. Justice Macdonald in the case of Pasco v.

Canadian National Railway Company in the 1986 reports of the B.C.

Supreme Court: "We cannot recount with much pride the treatment

accorded to the native people of this country."

As we start

to try and understand these important concepts, which are fundamentally

important to this province, we have two concepts of ownership. It does

a real disservice when people say that the aboriginal people want 125

percent ownership of this province. You're talking two totally

different concepts of ownership. We use the British common law, the

Torrens system, terms such as "fee simple" and "leases." The aboriginal

people talk about use and occupation of traditional territories for

their sustenance. We have our concept of ownership, being the

non-aboriginal population, and the aboriginal concept of use and

occupation. We also have our concept of fee simple, based on the common

law which came through to the Torrens system, which came out of

Australia and has been applied in British Columbia for many decades;

the concept of private property ownership, of long-term leases, of that

form of documentation of legal and property rights. The aboriginal

concept is quite different.

So we in the non-aboriginal

population have our understanding of ownership: you have ownership and

it's staked out, defined and registered under the Torrens system in our

land registry offices. You can get a map that shows what you own. The

Crown reserves certain rights to that ownership, so it's not exclusive.

Then, over that title that the people of British Columbia hold over 90

percent of this province, through the Crown ownership, as I just

described in the Supreme Court decision, you have aboriginal title,

which is more — if I can use an expression that's close in our legal

system — a lis pendens . You have a cloud over the title that the

[ Page

10841 ]

Crown has — that the people of British Columbia have.

That's

really the question that has to be resolved, and it's going to take

some courage and some goodwill for us to sit down and start that

process. That's what we're urging this minister and this government to

do — and to have done it 15 years ago when the Calder decision became

very clear.

When our party was in government, it started to

come to grips with that, with the Nisga'a School Board, with the Burns

Lake timber project, with the start of the cutoff lands negotiations,

when we were all trying to come to grips with what that meant, which

really.... The Calder decision was the watershed, to finally get us to

stop the decades of the non-aboriginal community's terrible negligence

toward the aboriginal community.

The definition has to take

place, but it takes place through negotiation. It takes place through

our genuinely wanting to negotiate, to fundamentally come to grips with

this cloud, with this lis pendens

on the title of the land in British Columbia. I would hope that through

the next few hours and days and months we could start to move in that

direction, so that we can sit at the negotiating table with the federal

government and the aboriginal people as soon as possible.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

The

other point I picked up from the debate this morning is that the

minister was concerned about our position on third-party rights. We've

made it clear that we are going to be representing those third-party

rights. If the New Democrats became government and were at the table

negotiating, we have said that we are prepared to protect those

third-party rights, whether it be fisheries, forestry, mining, oil,

gas, energy or people with leases on Crown lands. Those are going to be

a very important part of the negotiations.

Furthermore, Mr.

Chairman, I think that we should be absolutely clear that the

aboriginal people.... New Democrats have never said anything other than

that fee simple, the private property that people have, where their

homes and businesses are located, is not involved in these

negotiations. We're talking about a sharing of the great resources of

this province of ours.

Surely, Mr. Chairman, for 100,000

aboriginal people, a significant number of whom are living in abject

poverty in this bountiful province of ours the size of West Germany and

France — 360,000 square miles — with some of the most bountiful,

God-given resources that can be found anywhere in this world, in terms

of forestry, fisheries, agriculture, mining, oil and gas resources, the

talented people we have, surely we can come up with the resources to

settle this question, with the federal government having the

responsibility for treaties, having the fiduciary relationship with the

aboriginal people and having the vast majority of the responsibility

for the settlements.

Mr. Chairman, I wanted to make those points very clearly. We as New

Democrats are prepared to carry this important issue forward

courageously and prudently, in the best interests not just of the

non-aboriginal people of British Columbia but of the aboriginal people.

It's my prediction that when we do conclude these negotiations, it's

going to be not just morally right to conclude them; it's going to be

of monetary benefit to British Columbians, particularly those living in

the resource areas of the province, and to the businesses whom the

minister has met with, the business leaders who have said businesses

are being harmed by this uncertainty, this lack of predictability for

investments — that we're going to end up with a lawsuit or an

injunction.

MR. CHAIRMAN : I'm sorry, hon. member, your time has expired.

MR. G. HANSON :

I think it's very important that this House hear the views from the

Leader of the Opposition on this matter. He has been working in this

field for a number of years and is very well informed. I think the

House would be well served by his comments.

MR. HARCOURT :

I put forward these comments because I think it is important that

British Columbians do address courageously and realistically these

outstanding issues and questions. I don't think fearmongering — "Oh,

we're going to be bankrupt, " and "Oh, the aboriginal people want to

own 125 or 150 percent of this province" — is helpful, and I hope we

stop that. I hope we all go out and genuinely try and have British

Columbians understand what is involved and what isn't. I put that

forward, Mr. Chairman, as an urgent request. We on this side of the

House are prepared to be realistic and to work with British Columbians

to understand this very important issue.

[3:45]

It's

the key, in my opinion, to unlocking the prosperity and the well-being

of British Columbians, and mostly in the areas where unemployment is

high, where young people are leaving. I think that if we can take that

approach, rather than saying the aboriginal people want to own 125

percent of this province and make us into tenants, and have the

non-aboriginal people come on their knees to beg for whatever.... I

wish we'd stop that. And I wish that members of the government side

would stop the harassing of our member for Atlin, who I think deserves

far better treatment than he received this morning. I would hope that

during this debate we would carry on that way.

I may say,

in my last comment, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr.

Davis) wanted to know about the Pacific Spirit Park and our respect for

property rights, and were we going to reopen this whole issue. I want

to make it very clear that we do respect the right of people to own

private property. We do respect and encourage people to own their own

homes in this democracy of ours. So that statement is just false. For

the minister then to ask if we are going to reopen the park and if the

park is in jeopardy.... No, it's not in jeopardy.

[ Page 10842 ]

found that Pacific Spirit Park offensive because the Attorney-General

was using some legal trickery, with the park as a facade, to weaken the

Musqueam's claims for their aboriginal rights. That's what we found

offensive, and that's what I want the Minister of Energy to be clear

on. We will change that offensive part of the act without affecting the

park one iota, because we respect the Musqueam people — unlike the

Attorney-General, who showed a complete lack of respect for them by

using the Pacific Spirit Park act as a way of harming and trying to

remove the rights of the Musqueam people by transferring the Crown's

rights over that land to a third party, which I am sure the minister

understands the significance of. It severely weakens the aboriginal

claims when those claims are being dealt with through a party that

isn't the Crown. That's what we objected to, and I want the Minister of

Energy to understand why we objected to that bill last year.

Those

are some of the comments I wanted to make on this very important issue.

I may say that I have found the minister's tone and approach this

afternoon to be helpful, and I hope we can continue that as we all try

to come to grips with the aboriginal land question, with what is meant

by aboriginal title and aboriginal rights. What did the court mean in

the Sparrow case when it said that those rights have to be treated by

federal and provincial governments in a broad and liberal way, in a

fiduciary way, in a contemporary way, not of the past? The court has

made very clear the direction we have to go.

I conclude by

saying that I will be leaving shortly, because I have to fly to the

Charlottes to meet with the aboriginal congress where I will be

carrying on just the kind of dialogue that I have been trying to carry

on here today, because this issue will not go away. We really have a

choice of a far meaner, more divisive, more bitter and less prosperous

British Columbia by continuing the present government's policy of

refusing to recognize that aboriginal title exists and hasn't been

extinguished. We should negotiate and not litigate this issue or hide

our head in the sand. We have that choice or the choice the New

Democrats have put forward, which is that we recognize that aboriginal

title exists — as the Supreme Court of Canada is leading us in that

direction and has said, as I have just outlined, that it has not been

extinguished — and that we want to negotiate a just and honourable

settlement which will be of benefit to both aboriginal and

non-aboriginal people.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER : I found

the opposition leader's comments interesting. He displays a

Pollyanna-like naivety toward the whole issue when he indicates that

all we have to do is start negotiating claims, and by some magic,

everybody will be better off, there will be no more conflicts, and

everyone will get along. If only it were so, I think we would all leap

at the opportunity. But we know it isn't so. He indicates that faith

also in our federal government: that we will go ahead and negotiate the

deal, certain in our hearts that Canada will come along and pick up the

tab at the end of the day. Again, if only it were so.

think that the position taken by our provincial government — this

government — in trying to get some reasonable assurances from Ottawa

before we start is a more prudent way to do it. It is more likely to

result in a successful conclusion than having somebody go off and

negotiate in the blind hope that at the end of the day Ottawa is going

to pick up the tab, the province will be better off, millions will pour

in, and everyone will be fine. I just don't think it's quite that

simple. As a matter of fact, having spent a good part of my time over a

couple of years on the issue, I really don't believe it's that simple.

The

Leader of the Opposition says that their policy document received two

and a half years of consultation with the tribal councils and thousands

of other British Columbians who had input into it. I wish he were here

so that I could get a little more information about who those thousands

were, because it is surprising to me that none of those thousands — and

we are led to believe that they were from all walks of life and all

political stripes and all the rest — in their long and careful

deliberations on the issue ever questioned the definition of aboriginal

title. There were only four points to discuss. One was the recognition

of aboriginal title. I've raised the question today: what does it mean?

Surely one of those thousands along the way must have also asked the

question. It certainly would have been useful had there been a little

definition included in this document considered by so many for so long.

The

opposition leader refers to a witness making some casual and

irresponsible statements that he didn't agree with — and I'm referring

to Chief Alfred Joseph. The issue is quite simply that, as I stated

this morning, Chief Joseph is not a casual witness at a trial. He's a

chief of the Gitksan-Wet'suwet'en people. He was one of five or six

people selected to make closing arguments in a Supreme Court of British

Columbia trial that lasted three and a half years. This is one of the

most, if not the most, lengthy and comprehensive trials ever conducted

on aboriginal title — if not, second only to the Calder case — so to

think that one of the five or six chiefs getting up to make his closing

arguments made some spurious comments that were a little fit of temper

and frustration is nonsense. If you read the closing arguments, they

were well thought out and well constructed. They represent a position

that has been the basis of long argument. In fact, much of the

information, I'm told, was a joint statement.

We now also

have, as I Indicated this morning.... It's interesting in these

debates, as we talk back and forth, because sometimes I wonder whether

people hear or just continue to talk. I guess you have to then wonder

whether you're guilty of the same thing that the members opposite

appear to be guilty of. But we seem to keep talking about the same

subjects over and over again. In any event, the opposition leader, who

is a lawyer, gave us yet another unsolicited opinion on Sparrow. We've

had a number of them. We've had a number that we've solicited as well. I

[ Page

10843 ]

suppose that if you have enough opinions from

enough people, you start to develop some kind of consensus. I question

a little bit some of the implications that the Leader of the Opposition

read into the Sparrow decision. I think many of us, with that

particular decision, are guilty of interpreting it to mean what we

thought was the case all along and feel some comfort in reading that

decision and then quoting from it.

Finally, the member

talks again about fee simple land and says that fee simple land is not

in question. This morning I raised the question of the injunction at

Deer Island and the injunction at Scheidam Flats. I know the opposition

leader had an opportunity to read the Blues today, so he was aware that

those questions had been asked. He chose to ignore those questions,

came in and made his brave statement about protecting fee simple land,

and then scatted out of the House immediately after making his

comments. Fair enough. But I think it should go on the record as well

that there have been at least two cases where injunctions have been

sought against fee simple land and granted. I can only assume that

those injunctions were granted because they were part of a land claim.

I would be interested, then, to know whether opposition members reject

the validity of the injunctions gained at Deer Island and by the

Kamloops band on Scheidam Flats. You can't have it both ways; either

you do or you don't. I would be interested if any of the members across

the way were to give us a clear position on that particular issue.

MR. G. HANSON :

I think the minister, when he referred to the Scheidam Flats case,

which is going to court sometime this fall, is misrepresenting that to

this House — unless he provides us with the historical facts relating

to the case, that lands were once apportioned.... They were never

legally or through the processes of the day registered in such a

way.... What occurred in Kamloops — and the courts will ultimately

decide — is that a piece of private land, which I think some elder

described as "the hole in the middle of the table," which a private

rancher acquired, is subject to a dispute. So the question is that it

was originally allocated as land for the Kamloops band, and it was to

extend east from the confluence of the South and North Thompson Rivers

for a certain distance and up the North Thompson for a certain

distance. The understanding was that that was their reserve. Sometime

subsequent to that a rancher acquired a piece of that land. That is the

subject of dispute, and the Kamloops band has attempted to purchase it.

They have attempted to enter into a relationship with the owner and the

lessee — or whatever the relationship — but that is being contested in

the courts.

[4:00]

It is very much an aberration in the position taken by aboriginal people in

the province that individuals' private homes, ranches and fee simple property

are not at question. The Scheidam Flats area.... If the minister knows that

area — as I'm sure he probably does — if he has driven that road up towards

Paul Lake and up on a bluff, parked his four-wheel drive and looked back down

a valley which on every side is Kamloops band land.... In the middle — the hole

in the middle of the table — is the Harper ranch. It's going to court this

fall.

The

point I want to make to the minister is that that particular case has

unique historical features, because that land was understood to be part

of their reserve very early on. It subsequently was allocated to

someone else, and they have never relinquished their claim to it.

It's

not a matter of heading off down the highway, finding a ranch and

saying: "Hey, this is within comprehensive territory; I think we'll

claim this ranch." That is not the point of this matter, and the courts

will indicate that it is an aberrant matter which occurred within their

territory and within lands that they honestly believed were allocated

to them. I'll do more research on that. But as I understand that case,

it cannot be used as a fundamental argument to cast all aboriginal

claims as though they do not recognize or pay attention to fee simple

alienation — third-party alienation — that has transpired in this

province.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER : Certainly the

description the member gives of the Scheidam Flats is an accurate one.

However, my understanding of the facts surrounding it are somewhat

different than his. I am led to believe that numerous areas in British

Columbia were laid out as possible reserve sites and were later

surveyed. Some were included in the reserves, and some were not.

I'm

told that in the Kamloops area alone there are 500 square miles of fee

simple land that, while not located in the centre of the reserve, are

part of the same lands that were set aside before the reserve

boundaries were surveyed. So what would apply in Scheidam Flats would

apply to some 500 square miles of other land around the reserve that's

very similar. There are very similar situations in many other

communities and in areas adjacent to many other reserves. So let's

understand that this is not one isolated piece of land that's an

anomaly in British Columbia. I think it's unique inasmuch as it's in

the centre of the reserve. Nobody would argue with that.

But

if you again read the comments made in the closing arguments of the

Gitksan case, it refers to all lands in the territories. It doesn't say

"all Crown lands." It doesn't say "all lands other than those owned fee

simple." It in fact says "all lands." The question still exists with

regard to Deer Island, which is not in the centre of a reserve

somewhere. To the best of my knowledge, it's an island on the coast

that's owned fee simple on which logging has been blocked by

injunction, I assume because it's part of a land claim.

MR. GUNO :

Mr. Chairman, I just want to make a few comments on some of the things

the minister has just said. He described the Leader of the Opposition's

comments as somewhat Pollyanna-ish, but I'm interested to know really

what the role of the minister is, and whether he sees his role as that

of an advocate

[ Page 10844 ]

for the aboriginal people in B.C., or is he an apologist for this government's policy of non-recognition and non-negotiation?

It's

really a gross oversimplification to try and say that it's either

negotiation or litigation. Those are two alternatives that are clearly

set out. Just recently, a market trend polling company conducted a poll

in British Columbia, and in fact across Canada. It was interesting to

see the tremendous number of people who indicated they want this

government to abandon its litigious route and start looking at the

alternative of negotiation.

A major study undertaken by the

Coolican commission pointed out many useful ways of dealing with this

other than going to court. I can't understand what the purpose of this

ministry is. Why was it set up? I've read your report. It's probably

one of the thinnest reports of all the government publications. It

talks about your organization, your mandate, your philosophy and what

you do.

This morning, for instance, you said that you want

to go on record as having said and continuing to say that you want to

address the land question in a careful, thoughtful and prudent way

which is fair for all British Columbians. I don't think they're going

to get any arguments from us on this side. I think our leader has

pointed out that we're basically taking the same approach. But how long

do you take? How long do the aboriginal people have to wait for this

government to take this careful, prudent, rational way — another 130

years?

There have been enough studies and enough

discussions. I think the issues are clear. The way to resolve it has

been indicated by many groups, and certainly public opinion supports

the concept of negotiation.

I want the minister to describe

more fully what he sees his role to be. Is it one of advocate or

apologist? I think it's more the latter. So far today I have heard him

defend the fact that this government hasn't moved on this issue, in

spite of the fact there are many court pronouncements.

It's

interesting to reflect on what happened two weeks ago when Elijah

Harper took the stand that he did in the Manitoba Legislature. It's a

matter of a moment of supreme irony that we had an aboriginal person

seize the day and the opportunity to demonstrate that we do have the

legal tools, that we're not completely without these resources and that

when the opportunity arises it will be taken. You will see that happen

if we continue this policy of confrontation. I don't think there's any

other way you can describe the policy of this government than that it

is continuing to ferment fear and discourage any kind of initiatives in

partnership.

If you examine our history and what really

happened in the early days of first contact between the Europeans and

the aboriginal people here in British Columbia, I think you will see it

was more of a partnership. There was an effort to try to coexist and to

share. It was only later in British Columbia's history, when the

increasing number of settlers moved in and coveted the lands that were

set aside for the native people, that the problems began. The reserves

were created to put us out of sight and out of mind, and, hopefully,

some of the diseases that decimated the native population would do the

job.

I have to agree with our leader's assertion that this

issue is not going to go away. No matter what the outcome of the

Gitksan case, we will still have to deal with this. The cost will be

even greater then. We have an opportunity today to examine some of the

possibilities. The Nisga'a have indicated a way out of this whole

problem. So far, the minister says: "They are reasonable. They have

cogently set out their proposal for a way to negotiate this matter."

But then he points to the Gitksan case and says, "What about them?" and

doggedly persists in citing what Chief Joseph had to say at a court

case. I think that we have to put all that in historical context.

The

Gitksan-Wet'suwet'en took this course because they just saw that they

couldn't wait for another 13 years. The Nisga'a negotiations were

dragging on and nothing was happening, so they took the only

alternative they thought they had, which was to take this to court. But

I don't think that that precludes coming to some kind of resolution

through negotiations.

One of the things happening in my

riding is the access road through to the Iskut River. I want to ask the

minister if he's aware of it. What is the participation of the Tahltan

people? Is legitimate aboriginal interest being considered in this

whole development? I want some very specific answers on that issue.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER :

First of all, I should report that I think the deputy is feeling a bit

wounded today. Members referred to him as a crow sitting on the fence

of the Nisga'a negotiations. He's a very capable and resilient fellow,

so I'm sure he'll recover from that grievous wound, but to attack the

thickness of his annual report is rather a double blow for him today.

The

member criticizes what we've not done over the past years. I can only

speak for the three and a half years that I've been here. I believe

that this government has done more in the area of improving

relationships with Indian people and accomplishing goals than both

parties have in any government, including your government in the

1972-75 years.

[4:15]

We've looked

at and resolved cut-off claims. Look at the economic development

activities that have gone on around the province, significant,

substantial economic development projects, job creation, issues in

forestry and a range of business issues, loan guarantees — and I'm not

talking about nickels and dimes; I'm talking about substantial loan

guarantees in excess of $1 million in a number of areas. We've also

made some significant progress in the area of social services, if you

like. I believe the work that this government has done in the area of

access to justice, in education — both K to 12 and post-secondary — in

child welfare and in health has been significant, and it deserves to be

recognized, because we have worked hard. We've gone out and talked to

tribal councils

[ Page

10845 ]

and asked them what issues are important. They have

responded not only with talk about land claims but with talk about a

whole range of economic and social issues, some of which we've been

able to address, some of which we haven't, and some of which we will be

able to address.

The member asks about the Iskut road. I'm

sure that he's aware that the Tahltan nation are the people involved.

Probably he is also aware of the very satisfactory agreement that was

reached earlier on the Golden Bear road, where access was negotiated

with the Tahltan people, where the route was negotiated to have the

least possible....

Interjection.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER : If you come from where I live. If you've got nothing more than that to contribute, Mr. Member, go have a coffee.

suspect that the experience we had at Golden Bear was one of the most

satisfactory arrangements that we've been able to reach on any mining

access road, and it also resulted in substantial job creation. Perhaps

more importantly, it was the launch for the Tahltan Development Corp.,

which is now, I believe, the largest employer in the Dease Lake area,

one that generates substantial revenue for the Tahltan band and creates

a significant number of high-paying jobs in the construction industry,

which appears to be the industry of choice for many of the Tahltan

people.

With regard specifically to the Iskut road, the

Tahltans agreed to sit again with the province and the mining companies

on an advisory committee to ensure that environmental and engineering

issues related to the road are resolved in a way that addresses their

concerns, their desire to protect the environment, their desire to be

involved in the road building and maintenance portion of that project,

and their desire to have access to resources that they have the desire

to be involved with — the extraction of resources and the creation of

wealth for the Tahltan people and for their development corporation.

am led to believe — I speak to the president of the Tahltan Development

Corp. and to the chief of the tribal council on a reasonably regular

basis.... We've had some difficulties along the way, as you do with

almost any group of people when you're trying to negotiate a deal; but

I think this one's moving ahead satisfactorily, particularly for the

Tahltan people.

MR. GUNO : First of all, I want to

extend my apologies if I cast a low blow to the deputy minister. I do

know that the Nisga'a people.... Certainly he has every respect in his

dealings with the Nisga'a Tribal Council, and I think they enjoy his

frequent forays into Nisga'a territory.

I don't think I'm going to apologize about the thinness of the report.

But on that remark that my friend made about the crow sitting on the fence,

I don't think you should take too much offence. The crow actually enjoys

a very respected

part in our culture.

just wanted to say that what happened in the Golden Bear access.... I

think the member failed to say that the arrangement to have a number of

Tahltans given first preference in some of the jobs there came about

only after the Tahltans staged that blockage to protest, firstly, an

access road that went through a very environmentally sensitive part of

their territory. I took

part in that; I sent a telegram from the

Tahltan Tribal Council office to your committee, more or less outlining

the concerns of the Tahltan people.

The problem with some

of these things — I think this has to go on the record — is that there

have been some jobs provided, but you talk about their role in

environmental concerns as being largely an advisory one. Again, that's

nothing new. We're always being put in this kind of advisory situation,

not in one of co-management.

Secondly, the jobs are largely

of the labour type. I think we can go further than that and negotiate a

deal that would involve managerial jobs — jobs that involve real

decision-making. You certainly can't characterize the jobs that have

been offered in this deal as that type. I just wanted to make that

clear.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER : First of all, I take the

member's comments under advisement. I am certain the deputy will feel

much better now, being reminded of the high esteem of the crow.

MR. ZIRNHELT :

I have a question for the minister about the effectiveness of the

involvement of the native people in some resource management planning

problems.

I think it's well known that the courts recognize

that there are certain rights that bands have which are somewhat

different than rights of the ordinary citizens. I am thinking in

particular of subsistence hunting rights, for example. Your government

— and in particular the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) — has stopped

prosecuting violations with respect to subsistence hunting, so clearly

there is a recognition of some kind of right or jurisdiction. Yet it

seems that your government is slow on the uptake with respect to what

you might call "co-management." "Co-" means "between equals, " where

there are equal but maybe different rights involved.

I want

to know what your government's policy is and why you have gone rather

slowly on this when you have had a number of innovative proposals put

to you from my area. I think the Canoe Creek–Dog Creek band in

particular have proposed a number of co-management plans to work with

resource users and the provincial government.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER . The member suggests that we're moving slowly

in the area of joint-use boards and that sort of thing. I think it's fair

to say, having looked at the Sparrow decision, which is a month old or thereabouts,

that there's enough in that decision to cause us to reassess where we're

going in terms of aboriginal hunting, trapping and freshwater fishery rights

and those kinds of things. I understand

[ Page 10846 ]

that

the issue has been around for a long time. However, up until very

recently I don't believe there was any basis for the kind of review

that we're considering or the kind of review that we're now doing of

that whole issue.

Your point is well taken. However, I can't tell you today what the results of that are going to be.

MR. ZIRNHELT : I was satisfied that prior to Sparrow we had enough minor court decisions that pointed to the need to make progress.

different aspect of this. Would you not then consider it appropriate

that bands with rights that don't seem to be challenged by the

provincial government would have a role, or at least the status of a

referral agency, which wouldn't even require legislative change but

simply a change in regulation and policy? The major resource decisions

that affect some of these other uses they have, whatever the legal

status of those uses, could be affected by giving them the status of a

referral agency. They've asked for a long time to be plugged in. The

only way they are officially referred forest-cutting plans is if the

band happens to own a trapping licence or a guiding territory. It seems

to me a very simple process that would plug them into the information

and planning process.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER : There are

a number of models that are being looked at. Certainly it's not fair to

suggest that nothing has been done in this area. If you look at the

various community resource boards that have been established around the

province that include representatives from bands.... The Clayoquot

Sound one has three members of a reasonably small commission who are

appointed by the Indian people. There has been some work done on the

Fraser River, with various Indian bands and leaders, to deal with the

steelhead fishery. We're working along that way.

But there

are a lot of users of those resources. We want to make sure that we're

not only plugging in the local Indian band. It's important that

everyone in the community understand that we're looking at a limited

resource for the most part, whether it be hunting, trapping or fishing

opportunities. The population grows, and the resource certainly doesn't

seem to grow with it. In fact, the opposite may well be the case with

population pressure.

We're not insensitive to what you're suggesting.

MR. ZIRNHELT :

In the case of the Cariboo advisory board that your colleague the

Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Richmond) has established, he suggested

that the tribal councils be represented. I was talking to the

individual who was setting up this board, and he didn't appear to be

aware of the fact that.... He assumed that because there were three

tribal councils and they had among them some 15 members, the 15 members

would have to be represented on the board

I'm wondering if

your ministry had a role in briefing and preparing the Ministry of

Forests for this. You are well aware of the political problems of

having tribal councils represent the interests of bands. What we have

developed here is an advisory process which is a little too global, a

little too regional and too large-scale to effectively involve the

local bands. Each family has territorial interests as well, which we

have become very aware of recently in listening to the evidence

presented in the Gitksan case. The level of representation has to go

right down to the grass roots.

It was inconceivable for me

to discover that somebody appointed as a mediator, as a facilitator,

wasn't briefed on the point that he's going to run into arguments about

representation and that he'd have to consider some other kind of

substructure or whatever. Does your ministry have a role to routinely

brief your own government people about the structures, the political

process and what works and what doesn't work?

[4:30]

HON. MR. WEISGERBER : That's one of the functions that the ministry performs regularly for various line ministries.

Again,

I appreciate the point you raised. However, let me tell you about a

parallel concern that we had to deal with recently. In order to strike

a native advisory committee to the culture, language and heritage

committee, we asked 27 tribal councils and a couple of other

provincewide organizations to send a representative. We got letters

from several bands saying that they were uncomfortable with that

arrangement because, although they were members of a tribal council,

the council didn't represent them in areas of culture. They depended on

the tribal council only for specific functions.

Then you

are faced with the difficulty of having a council of 197 members. The

logistics of it are very difficult, and I suspect that that's the same

problem that the Minister of Forests came up against. If he was trying

to strike a board that was balanced — I'm not sure of the makeup of

that particular committee, but if it's half native people and half

non-native people.... If you are going to put 15 various chiefs or

representatives of individual bands on the board, you then have to find

15 other folks to have a balanced board. So I suspect that's also a

part of the problem. I would be interested in a solution to that — if

there's some way of keeping a committee small enough to work and large

enough to represent all of the interests. We're not particularly hung

up on the tribal council representation, but I suspect that that was

logically the right kind of a mix for the number of people that the

minister wanted to have on an advisory board —one that he was looking

to for some real resolution.

But if there's some other

mechanism.... I am sure the minister primarily wants to see a

resolution and therefore would be unlikely to balk at the makeup of the

committee as long as it was reasonable and equitable.

MR. ZIRNHELT : I want to pursue this particular case a little further, because you are aware of a

[ Page

10847 ]

significant amount of information on the Chilcotin area. You are

already dealing with the Carrier bands, which are part of this, through

their TFL applications, so there is a process going on there to look at

options. We have the more serious flashpoint of the Chilcotin where six

bands are represented in two different tribal councils. Then we have

the Shuswap bands, and some of them already have their own process

going to deal with the forest management issues. They are all in one

timber supply area.

But the problem arose over the concerns

in the Chilcotin that there seemed to be an impasse because the

Ministry of Forests says: "Unless we say we are going to negotiate land

claims, they won't even talk to us." Earlier today you indicated to us

that you are willing to come to the negotiating table, but you want to

know how much it's going to cost, how much the province is going to

expect and how many claims there are.

I think you know and

I know that the bands don't accept the comprehensive land claims

process — in particular the Chilcotin bands won't — and therefore won't

register, and therefore the federal government couldn't tell you that.

we localize the problem and realize that we have interim problems that

have to be dealt with, and we design a process that deals with that....

I see in this case the Ministry of Forests taking a lead. Although

their management is in large part responsible for the issues, I see

that there could be a much larger role for your ministry as the lead

agency with respect to the design of consultation processes —

especially if you can approximate dealing with the land claims issue

and dealing with the issues over which land claims will be fought. You

can put those issues on there, and within your policy you could make

headway there.

But it would require that your ministry take

the lead responsibility for designing a process that will work. I was a

little bit confounded when I saw that the problem wasn't addressed and

that you looked at more global issues. It left the particular issues

that caused the threats of the blockade still very much on the back

burner.

Can you comment on that Chilcotin situation?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER :

Again, I believe we're all concerned about the situation in the

Chilcotin, but we are also concerned about the situation in the

northwest, on Vancouver Island and in other places.

think

that it's been our desire to deal with.... If the issue is a forestry

issue and it's related to harvest practices in the community and if

that's causing some concern, then the authority at the end of the day —

first of all who have the legislative authority to go in and reach a

settlement or to change what's happening now — is the Minister of

Forests. Through the ministry, we provide him with advice — good

advice,

I hope — on interests, who the groups are and the issues as we

understand them. But I don't think trying to roll the resolution of the

forestry issue into a larger resolution is workable.

If there are issues in the Chilcotin — and undoubtedly there are — that are

deemed to be pressing in nature by the local Indian bands and tribal councils,

then we should get out and try to deal with them. That's the process we've

been following, and I think we've had reasonably enthusiastic cooperation

from the line ministers involved, particularly from the Minister of Forests,

the Attorney-General and other ministers as well.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

But

those two issues — forestry and probably the environment — have been at

the top of the list. We've had good relationships between the ministers

and the tribal councils. The difficulty of them selecting a

representative who can fairly represent all of their interests — even

with only three in a tribal council —I suppose is significant. However,

I would repeat: if there were a more workable model that you had in

mind, I'm sure we would be interested in taking a look at it.

MR. MILLER :

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the minister a few questions with regard

to.... Well, why don't we start with an argument that I was

particularly concerned about? I just wonder if the minister had a hand

in it. It goes something like this: lawyers argue that the native

matrilineal system is discriminatory. Does the minister subscribe to

that theory?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER : No. I think you're probably referring to some arguments that were put forward in the Gitksan....

Interjection.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER : Oh yes. I think the arguments have all been heard now. Actually, after June 30 it is okay for us to talk about it.

No,

the ministry did not play a role in framing the defense that was

mounted by the Attorney-General and the lawyers who were hired on

contract by him to represent the province in that undertaking.

MR. MILLER : Well, did you have any opinion on it?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER : I would certainly have to have a lot more information than you have just given me before I could form an opinion.

MR. MILLER :

Mr. Chairman, it's pretty straightforward. The argument as presented

says that he who pays the piper calls the tune. The government lawyers

have argued that the matrilineal system is discriminatory, and that it

contravenes the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Are you saying that you

had absolutely nothing to do with this, that nobody talked to you, that

you didn't talk to anybody else and that you have no opinions about

it? It was an argument put forward by your government.

[ Page 10848 ]

HON. MR. WEISGERBER :

I guess the decision as to whether that argument is correct or not will

be made by the Chief Justice. I suspect that his opinion, rather than

mine, is the significant one. Whether or not I agree with the arguments

put forward is secondary to what Chief Justice McEachern decides.

MR. MILLER :

It's always nice to think that a minister responsible for a certain

field has opinions on issues that are part of that field. It's

certainly a disappointment to me and, I'm sure, to all members of this

House and to members of the public as well that the Minister of Native

Affairs has no opinion, knows nothing about it, wasn't asked, didn't

bother to advise and is not familiar with it. It certainly mystifies

me. I'd be extremely reluctant to make that kind of admission were I a

minister of any branch of government.

Dealing with the

Northern Native Broadcasting system, I have communicated with you

previously on a couple of issues regarding it. I think the system is

fairly unique. They're trying to get some expansion in the system. Just

to sort of recap, Mr. Chairman, the Northern Native Broadcasting system

is a radio system that serves many communities in north central and

northwest British Columbia. In my view, it has been extremely useful in

that it establishes a vehicle for communication. Those who listened to

CBC radio years ago must remember the old "Our Native Land" series, a

Sunday program. People outside the lower mainland may not have listened

to it much, but I know that people in my part of the world used to

listen to CBC a lot. As was the CBCs mandate, the program attempted to

provide a national perspective and communicate with all Canadians — in

this case, native Canadians. That has been dropped, and Northern Native

Broadcasting has really filled the void. I think it has done a

marvellous job of setting up satellite broadcast systems and trying to

communicate in the great variety of languages among the native

communities.

[4:45]

They have

asked this government to offer some support on two bases. Although the

one, the training aspect, falls under the purview of the Minister of

Advanced Education and Training (Hon. Mr. Strachan), I would ask the

minister if he has had an involvement in that and whether he can offer

an update on what that might be. The application has been put together

for quite some time. The program has been approved by the community

college in Terrace. It's ready to go. Unfortunately they missed the

April deadline. The response I received from the Minister of Advanced

Education was that a decision would be made in the summertime.

The

minister is probably aware that really the next deadline to establish

this training course is September. I think the ministry — or the

government — has a responsibility to offer some positive statement at

this juncture as to whether that course will proceed and whether you

will be assisting in its setup. I certainly would be pleased if the

minister could give a positive response to that issue.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER :

Yes, I've had the opportunity to visit Northern Native Broadcasting

facilities in Terrace two or three times. I've also met with its

director here several times. I'm well aware of the training proposal.

As you indicate, it's in the hands of the Minister of Advanced

Education. The application has been supported by me and by the MLA for

the area.

We've also dealt with the whole question of the

lack of funding or cutbacks in funding by the federal government to NNB

and other native broadcasters and newspapers as well. What we have

decided to do — and I think it's a reasonable approach — is not to step

in and replace the federal government with grants or subsidies but, in

fact, to try and direct enough advertising money from the province to

those organizations to help them get on a stand-alone basis. Both

organizations, I believe, have the long-range plan of becoming

self-sufficient.

There are a number of services that NNB

and Kahtou and others can provide for the government. We want to

communicate regularly with Indian people on a whole range of issues —

economic, social, forestry, health, education, social services. There's

a whole line of ministries that regularly put out information that they

want to address to Indian people. We believe we can do more with these

organizations in that area and can, in turn, help them become

self-sustaining.

MR. MILLER : Have you made any

representations to your federal counterparts on the cutoff of funds?

For the benefit of those who may not be aware, the two identifiable

groups in Canada that were singled out — as much as the British

Columbia government complained about the loss of federal transfer

payments — to receive the brunt of the federal cuts were women and the

native people. The women subsequently had funding restored, although

clearly there was some mix-up between the federal and provincial

ministers. The native people had what were to them significant cuts to

the money they previously received to run their communication systems,

whether it be radio, newspaper or whatever. It really is a tough one to

take when you have to cut what appears to be such a minuscule amount in

relation to the entire budget, and the full force of it is directed at

a group that does not have the resources to respond. Have you made any

representations to the feds to get them to change their minds, as your

colleague the minister of women's affairs presumably did with some

success, despite the confusion, with her counterpart in the federal

government?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER : The province is concerned in a number of areas

about reductions in federal money coming into British Columbia — the loss of

transfer payments, the loss of payments for agriculture, the loss of money for

women's issues, and the loss of money to broadcasting groups and newspapers.

However, as I indicated before, our response was neither to complain to the

minister nor to try and step in and replace the federal funding

[ Page

10849 ]

with provincial dollars, but rather to make a concerted effort to

direct more commercial advertising from the province to the

organizations, in an attempt to make them self-sufficient. I'm not

aware of any requests from those organizations for more than that,

though I've talked to representatives of both groups.

MR. MILLER :

Just to confirm then, your ministry made no representations to the

federal government about these cutbacks and their impact on native

people in British Columbia. I think you might have missed an

opportunity, Mr. Minister, as the minister responsible, to register

that kind of concern — and that's a bit unfortunate.

With

regard to the advertising, could you be a bit more specific? I wrote

you previously as well, and you indicated it was under consideration.

You're advising me now that the decision has been made by your

government to direct advertising to the Northern Native Broadcasting

system. Perhaps the minister might want to amplify on that, but I

really would like confirmation that the decision has been made. When

would that be starting?

Perhaps the minister might want to

comment on.... Tell me if I'm correct or not, but I've received

information that your ministry has advertised to fill vacancies — or

maybe they're new staff in your ministry — and you didn't advertise on

this particular native broadcasting network. I wonder why that would be

the case.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER : Firstly, the decision

has been made. Really, I suppose, the decision has two sort of distinct

portions to it: one is a ministry decision, as far as our own rather

small advertising budget is concerned, and the other is the broader

provincial budget. We've already started with our own ministry. We

bought a full-page ad — I think it was in the last Kahtou — providing

information on the language-heritage-culture proposal. So that has

started.

We have also done some significant work within the

bureaucracy, at the deputy level, to ensure that all ministries pay

careful consideration to the opportunities to use these groups.

With

regard to your last point, I'm advised that it's provincial policy not

to advertise jobs on radio — period — so that the opportunity to use NNB

for the specific purpose of advertising the jobs that we had available

in the ministry was one that just didn't seem to follow for us, in

terms of policy.

MR. MILLER . Sorry, Mr. Chairman, I was a bit preoccupied with this note

here, and I may have missed.... If the minister would repeat, if he has already

said it: when will this commence? When can the system, or the people who run

the system, expect that they'll be in receipt of this government advertising?

I'm certainly not encouraging you to run those political propagand