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

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, APRIL 13, 1999

Afternoon

Volume 14, Number 4

[ Page 11763 ]

The House met at 2:10 p.m.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: We had a ceremony in the rotunda today, a very sombre and dignified ceremony in memory of those who perished in the Holocaust. In connection with that, I'll be making a ministerial statement after the introductions.

At this time I want to acknowledge those survivors of the Holocaust who have been able to be with us today in the gallery: Rita Akselrod, Susan Bluman, Marie Doduck, Dr. Ernest Forrai, Klara Forrai, Jack Gardner, Dr. Peter Gary, Leon Kahn, Rysha Kraskin, Dr. Robert Krell, Leo Lowy, Jocy Lowy, Eric Peter Parker, Ada Parker and Vera Slymovics.

As well, I would like to acknowledge the presence in the gallery of representatives of several organizations: Zena Simces, Canadian Jewish Congress; Bob Willmot, Jewish Federation of Greater Vancouver; Michael Peters, Jewish Federation of Victoria and Vancouver Island; Dr. Robert Krell, Vancouver Holocaust Centre Society for Education and Remembrance; Dr. Richard Kool, Victoria Holocaust Remembrance and Education Society; and Steven Feldman, Temple Emanu-El of Victoria. Would the House please make them welcome.

M. de Jong: There are several members of this House more closely identified with the Sikh religion than I, but I had the good fortune last week of being at Anandpur Sahib, where the celebrations relating to the 300th anniversary of the Khalsa are taking place. The highlight of those celebrations is occurring today in Anandpur Sahib. On behalf of the caucus and, I think, of all the members, I want to acknowledge that event and those celebrations and the joy they are bringing to Sikhs all over the world.

Hon. I. Waddell: I note in the House a former member of this House who is here also to mark the solemn occasion with respect to the Holocaust, which the Attorney General spoke of. I'd like to personally welcome him because he was the previous member for Vancouver-Fraserview. I notice that on his lapel he's also got an Order of Canada pin. I won't tell you his middle names. He's got a few middle names. One is Singh, and he's got other middle names. Would the House please welcome our friend and former colleague in this House, the former member for Vancouver-Fraserview, Bernie Simpson.

R. Neufeld: It's not often -- in fact, this is the first time -- that I've been able to rise in the House and introduce someone that I know. Like I say, it's so seldom that I get to introduce anyone that the member for Abbotsford is allowing me to introduce these people who happen to live in his constituency. His name is Herb Heppner and hers is Kay Heppner, and they're with Herb's sister Rose from Saskatoon. Just to show you that Mennonite blood travels far and wide, actually Kay is a cousin of my dad's and a cousin of the mother of the member for Kamloops. I would like to welcome to the House Herb and Kay Hepner and his sister Rose.

Hon. P. Ramsey: We're joined in the gallery today by a social studies teacher who has made Holocaust remembrance an integral part of his work in the classroom over the years and also in his work as president of the BCTF. Would the House please welcome Kit Krieger.

S. Orcherton: Joining us in the gallery today are 87 members of the B.C. Professional Firefighters Association. These are men and women who devote their working lives to ensuring the safety of British Columbians. They've been meeting all day today with MLAs from both sides of the House regarding increased training issues and initiatives, and they're here in Victoria today -- all 87 -- attending a legislative conference on behalf of their organization. They're led by their president, Mr. Bob Brett, and I also note in the gallery two old friends of mine, Mr. Ed Pakos and Mr. Terry Ritchie.

I'd ask the House to make all of these members of the B.C. Professional Firefighters Association very welcome to these chambers.

G. Farrell-Collins: I would like to second the comments of the member for Victoria-Hillside in welcoming the firefighters from across the province of British Columbia. It's that time of year again, and you're always welcome here. It's good to see you again, and we'd like to extend our welcome and greetings from this side of the House.

[1415]

Hon. D. Miller: Seeing that question period is about to start, I hope they haven't brought their hoses. [Laughter.]

The Speaker: Members, members, come to order.

Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Speaker, I have three introductions . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: All right, simmer down everybody.

Hon. D. Miller: First of all, I'd like to introduce an individual I recently hired to be my constituency assistant: Sue Staehli, from Prince Rupert.

As well, in the Legislature today are two people who are playing an important role in advanced education in northwestern B.C.: Michael Hill, the president of Northwest Community College; but particularly Deanna Nyce, the representative of what's called Wilp Wilxo'oskwhl Nisga'a, which is a post-secondary institute that the Nisga'a have started. They will graduate their first graduates this year from a post-secondary institution. They understand that if they're going to change the nature of their economy and provide new opportunities, education is the key. They will soon be joining the Advanced Education Council of B.C. I would ask the House to give a warm welcome to all three people.

R. Thorpe: I would like to introduce three guests visiting from Penticton today: Wayne McKenzie, Graham Gowe and Randy Wilkes. They're all members of Local 1399 of the Penticton Fire Fighters. I ask the House to make them welcome.

Hon. G. Clark: Yesterday, along with my wife and kids, I had the privilege to visit the motor vessel Global Mariner . The Global Mariner is a ship that was purchased by the International Transport Workers Federation, which is a group of affiliated unions from around the world. The Global Mariner has been stationed and berthed at Canada Place in Vancouver for people to visit. Over 10,000 largely Vancouver residents have visited the Global Mariner .

The International Transport Workers Federation has a representative here. People may be familiar with them,

[ Page 11764 ]

because they have been the ones pursuing unscrupulous ship owners sailing under flags of convenience, in the struggle for justice and the struggle for the rights of seafarers the world over. They do a superb job, and their visit here was a great success. I'd ask all members of the House to welcome them to British Columbia.

S. Hawkins: Visiting the Legislature today are two people from my riding. Mr. Sandy Dore is a very well respected teacher and human rights advocate. Our community's very, very proud of his anti-racism involvement with workshops and activities not only in the school system but also across the province, especially in our riding. With him, as well, is his wife Lee Claremont, who is a renowned first nations contemporary artist. She's in Victoria attending a B.C. Festival of the Arts event this week, where she's mentoring first nations youth participants. I ask the Legislature to please make them welcome.

Hon. A. Petter: I see in the gallery a number of familiar faces of people attending the Advanced Education Council of British Columbia meetings in Victoria. These are representatives from colleges, institutes and university colleges from around the province. They were kind enough to host some of us this morning at a very informative and worthwhile presentation. I hope that we can give them an informative and worthwhile presentation in the next few minutes. I'd ask the House to join me in making them very welcome.

J. Sawicki: Today I would like to introduce two of the Burnaby firefighters that are here. They are members of the executive of Local 323: Joe Robertson, who is the secretary, and John McQuade, who is the treasurer. In making the firefighters welcome today, I would ask the House to thank them not only for keeping our communities safe but for the tremendous work they do in fundraising for so many worthwhile causes in all of our neighbourhoods. Would the House join me in making them welcome.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Joining us today in the House are Robin D. and Robin J. Webb from Horsefly. Mr. Webb is down here to receive his 25-year service award -- he's been with the Ministry of Forests -- along with another 150 people. Would you please make them welcome.

E. Walsh: It gives me great pleasure to introduce to the House three constituents of mine. Along with my colleagues from Prince George-Mount Robson and Peace River North -- and as another member who really doesn't get up very often to introduce people to the House -- I am doubly pleased to introduce Ron Sauve, Clayton Murrell and Ole Hansen. This is Clayton's first visit to the parliament buildings. I would ask the House to please make them all welcome.

Hon. C. Evans: I'd like to introduce a couple of friends of mine: Bob Slade from the Nelson Fire Fighters and Richard Melnick from Trail. And listen, you guys: I think I may be the last one. When the bell rings after this, don't respond unless somebody gets hurt.

F. Randall: I also would like to introduce two members of Fire Fighters Local 323 from Burnaby: Randy Delmonico, who is the president, and Mike Hurly, who is the vice-president. Would the House please make them welcome.

[1420]

H. Giesbrecht: I have two constituents of Skeena visiting us here today: John Klie and Rick Thompson. Both are firefighters for the district of Kitimat. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.

E. Gillespie: This morning I had the pleasure of meeting with three firefighters from Campbell River. On my own behalf and on behalf of the member for North Island, I would like to ask members to join me in welcoming Reid Wharton, Ken Dawson and Les Ready to the Legislature.

The Speaker: It's one of those unusual occasions when the Chair has someone to introduce. In the gallery today is a very special guest who was a longtime Law Clerk in the House of Commons in Ottawa and a well-known parliamentarian. Would you please welcome Mr. Joseph Maingot and his wife Simone, who have joined us today.

Ministerial Statements

HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL DAY

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, as I said earlier, I rise to inform the House that the government has proclaimed today Holocaust Memorial Day in British Columbia. I'm pleased that British Columbia has officially recognized Holocaust Memorial Day: Yom ha-Shoah. This year Holocaust Memorial Day falls on April 13. The exact date each year is determined by the Jewish lunar calendar. British Columbia is only the second jurisdiction outside Israel to officially recognize Holocaust Memorial Day in remembrance of the persecution and annihilation of European Jews between 1933 and 1945.

During the Holocaust six million Jewish men, women and children were murdered. Atrocities were also committed against others targeted for racial and religious reasons, against people with physical and mental disabilities and against those targeted because of their sexual orientation. The establishment of Holocaust Memorial Day provides an opportunity for all of us to reflect on and educate ourselves about the enduring lessons of the Holocaust.

The events currently unfolding in the Balkans, as well as in other parts of the world, should serve to remind us that the conditions that led to the state-sponsored systematic annihilation of six million Jews by Nazis are never very far away.

Unfortunately, there are still some individuals and groups in our society who resent diversity and embrace a philosophy of exclusion. They continue to spread their poisonous messages of racism, hatred and religious intolerance. This government is committed to protecting British Columbians from hate, racism and violence. We are committed to promoting tolerance, diversity, respect and equity in our communities.

I ask all of my colleagues in the House today to take a moment to remember the victims of the Holocaust and their descendants. I ask them to also remember and reflect on the enduring lessons of the Holocaust as we observe a moment of silence after the opposition leader has responded to my statement.

G. Campbell: There are few things that are more difficult for us to face than the Holocaust, because it is simply beyond

[ Page 11765 ]

our comprehension. I applaud the government's declaration of Holocaust Memorial Day. Yom ha-Shoah is a time for us all to remember. This day brings us face to face with the reality. The Holocaust was about people, their families, their co-workers and their next-door neighbours. As one survivor reminded us all today, the Holocaust cost 1.5 million children their lives. It took away their chance to smile, to cry, to love and to live.

[1425]

Our responsibility to those children, as citizens of Canada and of this planet, is never to forget. As events unfolding today in Kosovo and Europe remind us, we must be ever diligent. We cannot forget. As uncomfortable as it must be, we must face the reality of the Holocaust and give the gift of remembrance to all those who suffered.

The Speaker: Members, let us all rise for a moment of remembrance.

Thank you very much. I recognize the hon. Minister Responsible for the Public Service with another statement.

KHALSA TERCENTENARY

Hon. M. Sihota: On April 13, 1999, today, the Khalsa will be 300 years old, and Sikhism, from which it emerged, will be over 500 years old. Sikhism was, and is, a pacifist creed started by Guru Nanak and developed by succeeding gurus.

Today Sikhs throughout the world are celebrating the Khalsa tricentennial. Indeed, it is a tribute to the culture that Sikhs are found all over the world today practising their religion and paying homage to their culture. The greatest challenge facing Sikhs outside of India is their desire to preserve their culture and pass on the cultural values, religions and traditions to their children. That challenge is as great here in British Columbia as it is in other places outside of India.

There is no doubt in my mind that the Sikh culture and religion will continue to thrive and flourish over the next 300 years, much as it has over the past 300. That's because of the determination and the desire on the part of Sikhs to never give in. The determination to never give in came to be deeply rooted in the Sikh psyche even in adversity, when they were exhorted to remain in buoyant spirits -- chardi kalaa , as the community often says. With it came the conviction that destiny was in their hands.

At the end of each congressional prayer comes the chant raj Khalsa , which means "the Khalsa will rule." No one will be able to resist them -- that is, those of the Sikh faith. Those who confront them will be routed, and those who seek their protection will be saved.

With that short comment and a little bit of history about the Sikh religion, I am sure that all members in the House will join me today in extending best wishes to the Sikh community here in British Columbia and throughout the world.

S. Hawkins: I want to thank the Minister Responsible for the Public Service for those comments, and I want to mirror some of the congratulations that he's offered to the Sikh community. As an immigrant to this country and as someone who was born in India and later raised here, I've seen quite a difference in the two communities, from what I remember as a child growing up in India and then growing up in Saskatchewan and then coming to Vancouver, which has the secondlargest Sikh community in the world. It is a credit to Sikhs, who came here 100 years ago, to keep the community, the culture and the religion alive here.

[1430]

Yes, we face challenges in the future. Certainly we must reflect on the last year's events, and we must move forward to carry on the message of our group, which is to live in harmony and unity and peace and to stick up for human rights and for the oppressed.

This is a very, very special year for the Khalsa; it's the birth of the Khalsa. I don't think I've seen an event like this discussed so many times in the Legislature. We did private members' statements and congratulations. Lots of members are going to events in their community, and I would commend them on doing that and would encourage other members to go and learn more about the culture and the religion. With that, I want to say congratulations to my Sikh brothers and sisters, not only in this province but around the world.

Oral Questions

DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION TO NDP CAUCUS

G. Campbell: Yesterday we learned once again that this government thinks there is one set of rules for the NDP and another set of rules for the public. We now know that the Premier's taxpayer-funded criminal defence attorney gave a private and secret briefing to the NDP caucus. My question is to the Premier. Can the Premier tell us why . . . ?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, the question has not been stated.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. Members, come to order.

G. Campbell: Can the Premier tell us why it is okay to disclose confidential information about an investigation to the NDP caucus but necessary to keep it hidden from the public?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

G. Campbell: At the same time that the Premier is arguing that the public's right to know should be trampled on . . . . At the very same time that he's doing that, he is secretly briefing the NDP caucus about an investigation that is underway.

My question is to the Attorney General. Will the Attorney General confirm that it was simply wrong for the Premier to give a private briefing to the NDP caucus while, at the same time, he was not prepared to give that information to the public, who were paying his bills?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members . . . .

[ Page 11766 ]

I recognize the Minister of Finance.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, these questions have nothing to do with the portfolios of the people asked.

The Speaker: Next question, the Leader of the Official Opposition.

G. Campbell: I want to be very clear. This question is to the Attorney General, who felt it was necessary to absent himself from a secret caucus meeting because the Premier was going to make a presentation of confidential information that was already under investigation. The Attorney General decided to absent himself, as I understand it, from that caucus meeting.

My question to the Attorney General is: will the Attorney General agree that it's simply wrong for the Premier's publicly funded lawyer to be giving secret briefings to the NDP caucus while, at the same time, he is arguing that information should be kept hidden from the public?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, firstly it must be recognized that it was not a secret meeting. Secondly, the Attorney General appropriately absents himself from meetings that he feels might be inappropriate for the Attorney General, in his unique role, to attend. Thirdly, with respect to the questions relating to the lawyer, there is government policy. The Minister of Finance has already answered questions with respect to that. That lawyer would be paid in accordance with that policy.

[1435]

BACKGROUND OF NBI CASINO APPLICANTS

G. Plant: Hon. Speaker, three facts. One, Tony Ricci was the co-owner of the North Burnaby Inn for six years, right up to one month before the NBI made its casino application. Two, Steve Ng, who was one of the applicants for the NBI casino, and Tony Ricci were business partners. Three, Tony Ricci has been charged and convicted of illegal gambling.

My question is to the minister for gambling. Can he tell us why on earth he gave the green light for a casino licence to the North Burnaby Inn when it had close connections to convicted illegal gamblers?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The member seems to be concerned about facts, so let's deal with fact No. 1. There was no casino licence issued to anybody. There was no temporary licence issued to anybody. There was no conditional licence issued to anybody. There was no interim licence issued to anybody. In short, there was no licence issued at all.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Second, let's deal with the facts. The applications . . . .

The Speaker: Minister, I ask you to be very, very quick.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The proposals were received and reviewed by an independent body consisting of members of the Gaming Commission, the B.C. Lottery Corporation, the gaming audit and investigation office and outside consultants. They did evaluations on all the applications.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Richmond-Steveston.

G. Plant: For weeks this minister has been running as far and as fast as he can away from the fact that he gave approval in principle -- that is, virtually a done deal -- to the NBI casino application.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, such interruptions are of no help to anyone. I cannot hear the question.

G. Plant: The minister gave the green light to the North Burnaby Inn without even waiting for the gaming audit and investigation office to complete its work in respect of that application. Will the minister tell us why he even granted approval in principle to the North Burnaby Inn before completing the bare-minimum criminal-record checks?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Hon. Speaker, I'd like to correct something again that the hon. member says. He says that approval in principle was given. Conditional approval in principle was given, dependent . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. M. Farnworth: . . . on them getting zoning approval from the city of Burnaby. That is a long ways away from being a licence; it is not even close to being a licence. Then, if once they got that zoning approval, they would still have had to go and conclude a negotiated agreement with the B.C. Lottery Corporation.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members . . . .

Hon. M. Farnworth: They would still have had to conclude the GAIO investigation, as would have every other application on their way to getting a licence, on their way to getting a final approval. And they also would have had to have gotten all the environmental, regulatory and necessary local government permits and approvals. Approval in principle or conditional approval in principle are a long way from becoming a licence.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order, please.

C. Clark: Hon. Speaker, page 13 of the gaming registration package asks applicants to state whether they have ever been associated with anyone who is connected in any way with illegal gaming. Can the minister tell us how the applicants for the North Burnaby Inn answered that question?

[1440]

Interjections.

[ Page 11767 ]

The Speaker: Members, come to order.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Under the proposal call, applicants were required to submit their application and to have it discussed and treated and looked at and evaluated by an independent body. This independent body was made up of the gaming policy secretariat, the Gaming Commission . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. M. Farnworth: . . . the B.C. Lottery Corporation and outside auditors, who were Coopers and Lybrand Ltd. What happens then is that the evaluation is scored, and there are a series of scores done. The scores then come to me.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, the question was heard.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I find it interesting, hon. Speaker. The opposition ask a question, but they don't want to wait for the answer. I've been giving them an answer, but unfortunately, they don't want to listen to it because it's very detailed and very precise -- which is why they're constantly making allegations.

The fact of the matter is that those results are then forwarded to me. It's on that basis that we make a decision, and part of that is that there has to be an independent audit by the gaming audit and investigation office. They are doing their work . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister, the answer is getting longer and longer. It's time to finish; it's time to conclude, please.

Hon. M. Farnworth: . . . and when the investigation is completed, a report comes to me. Then we can make the final decision on a licence.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain.

C. Clark: Precise and detailed are not two words I would use to describe any of the minister's answers on this question. The question is this: because the gaming registration package would have been filled out by the applicant before the minister granted approval in principle, either they would have revealed their connection, which should have raised a red flag for the minister, or they would have lied about it -- and the minister should have been able to find that out.

Will the minister tell us when it was that he first learned that the applicants for the North Burnaby casino application had a longstanding business connection with someone who had been tried and convicted of illegal gambling?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Hon. Speaker, you know, I listened to the hon. member . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members . . . .

Hon. M. Farnworth: The investigation into the background of the applicant is done by the gaming audit and investigation office. They are an independent body; they are at arm's length from my ministry. It would be completely inappropriate for me to (1) interfere in their investigation and (2) make inquiries into their investigations.

The second point I'd like to make is that there is an investigation underway -- okay? There is an investigation underway by the RCMP. There's information that we can release, and at some point, when I am able to release further information, I will be able to do that.

PAYMENT FOR PREMIER'S HOME RENOVATION

M. de Jong: Hon. Speaker, the Premier's taxpayer-funded defence lawyer says that the Premier paid for all of the invoices that were presented to him with respect to the construction of a deck at his home. What British Columbians want to know is whether the Premier paid fair market value for all of the labour costs associated with the construction of that project.

The Speaker: The question is out of order. It has nothing to do with the Premier's responsibilities.

M. de Jong: If this is, as the Premier would have us believe, a matter that falls entirely outside of his responsibilities as Premier of the province, then the question that British Columbians have is: why the heck are they paying the bills for the lawyers that have been hired to defend him?

[1445]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members . . . .

I recognize the Government House Leader.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I have said this before, but I'd like to reiterate it so that we can actually have a decent debate around this. It is the policy that people who are faced with issues in the course of the performance of their duties are provided with legal counsel. That is up until the point that there is wrongdoing, and that is exactly what the policy is. The policy is being applied fairly and equitably not only amongst all jurisdictions, from the public service point of view, but also within the private sector as well, hon. Speaker.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

G. Farrell-Collins: Well, now we know that the lawyer has been hired by taxpayers' money and clearly, according to the Government House Leader, it falls within the public duties of the Premier of British Columbia. So my question is to the Premier of British Columbia: did he or did he not pay the full amount for the construction of that deck, including labour?

Hon. G. Clark: I'm reminded, actually, of my predecessor in this chamber, the Hon. Alex Macdonald, whom I

[ Page 11768 ]

succeeded in Vancouver East, who once said: "He who throws mud loses ground." I know that members of the opposition want to throw mud every day in question period.

I have said publicly, and I'll say repeatedly, that there is a full investigation into this matter. I have nothing to worry about. We have nothing to worry about. The policy with respect to lawyers being paid is the same now as it has been for ten or 20 years in British Columbia and the same in every province in Canada. If you want to talk about that, we'll do what we did today, which is announce 1,000 more nurses in British Columbia and significant investments in the health care system. We will get on with governing in British Columbia on the issues that people really care about -- rather than the mud they want to sling across the way.

The Speaker: The bell ends question period.

Tabling Documents

Hon. D. Lovick: Now for something completely different. I have the honour of tabling the 1998 annual report of the Workers Compensation Board of British Columbia.

Orders of the Day

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

NIS G A'A FINAL AGREEMENT ACT

(continued)

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

On the schedule,

chapter 7 (continued).

[1450]

D. Symons: Just before the break, we were discussing the questions of

section 6. The minister had mentioned, I think, that the main purpose to our questions before was that we don't impede traffic on the roads that will still be provincial or the Nisga'a Highway. They will still be in the provincial purview.

I am wondering, then, if the minister could tell us whether, under that concept, charging tolls or doing something of that sort might slow the traffic down, or information giving, would be considered impeding, or whether that would be a possibility under this particular agreement.

Hon. G. Wilson: They are not permitted to do that. That would be an impediment.

D. Symons: The reason I ask that is because some of that has been used, I guess, as a method of protest to the fact that aboriginal land claims haven't been going ahead and so forth in the past. So I was wondering if it could continue under this act.

I wonder if we might take a look at

section 8. It talks about ownership of the Nisga'a Highway. I notice that in

section 8 it says, "British Columbia owns the Nisga'a Highway corridor," etc.,

whereas when we look at the secondary roads it talks about the right-of-way and doesn't mention the word "owns." There's a distinction, then, between the Nisga'a Highway per se and the other secondary roads that will remain in the provincial jurisdiction. Is that true?

Hon. G. Wilson: I think the member is correct. We actually own the land under the Nisga'a Highway,

whereas we have a right-of-way on secondary roads.

D. Symons: The minister told me earlier in this discussion that 47 kilometres of what is going to be the Nisga'a Highway already exist. That's roughly half of the length of Nisga'a Highway, or the highway-to-be. Can you give me an idea of whether those 47 kilometres will have to be upgraded or rebuilt, or will it just be incorporated as is? Or does there have to be a fair amount of work to bring it up to the highway standards that you'll want for that particular stretch of the road? That's for the portion that already exists.

Hon. G. Wilson: Well, insofar as it was built as a logging road, there would have to be some upgrading to bring it up to highway standards.

D. Symons: When we're talking about the Nisga'a Highway, will that be a two-lane or a four-lane highway or road? Will it be gravel, seal-coated or paved? What will be the finished condition of that particular road when it's built?

Hon. G. Wilson: I'm advised that at this time it's two-lane, and it will be paved.

D. Symons: Will this highway, when it's completed, only go to the borders of the Nisga'a . . . ? When talking about the Nisga'a Highway, is it only from the borders of Nisga'a lands? Will that continue on and connect into Highway 37, or down to Cranberry Junction? Will it go down to Terrace? What will be the finished product that joins into the rest of the province?

[1455]

Hon. G. Wilson: My advice is that the road comes from Terrace into Nisga'a territory now. At some point in the future, there will be a connection to Cranberry Junction, but that's not anticipated right now.

D. Symons: I gather, though, that the road from Terrace up to the Nisga'a lands is probably not in better shape than the roads that you're going to have to upgrade within the Nisga'a lands. So will that road also be part of this upgrading, to make at least the highway that goes to Nisga'a lands as good as the highway that will be in Nisga'a lands?

Hon. G. Wilson: I'm advised that this will continue the upgrade from what was built in the eighties, which is a two-lane, paved highway. That will just continue through into Nisga'a land.

G. Plant: I want to ask some questions about the issue of ownership first. Obviously the intention of paragraph 8 is that the Crown will own the Nisga'a Highway corridor, within the terms set out in this chapter, forever.

Hon. G. Wilson: Yes, subject to realignments and things that might change.

G. Plant: The ownership of the Nisga'a Highway that's expressed here in paragraph 8 isn't just a statement of owner-

[ Page 11769 ]

ship. It says in the agreement that "British Columbia owns the Nisga'a Highway corridor to use as a public highway." I know that there are provisions that follow that deal with the issue of realignment, which the minister just referred to -- questions of relocation and so on. The highway may move, and there may be consequences that flow from that. There is also a clause that speaks about discontinuance and closure of any portion of the highway.

Does the Crown consider that it owns, or will own, the Nisga'a Highway free and clear in fee simple, the highest estate known to the law and land? Or does it take the view that its ownership is in some respect conditional -- the condition being the requirement that it use those lands as a public highway, as expressed in paragraph 8?

Hon. G. Wilson: It is Crown land, and it is used as a corridor for highway and public access, if that's what the member's asking.

G. Plant: There have been and continue to be disputes among and between the owners of, say, statutory rights of way and the Crown in various places where . . . . Say a railway company has the right to use a particular parcel of land for railway purposes, and that's done for a hundred years or so, then the land is no longer used for railway purposes. What happens then is that people end up looking at the terms of the original grant and trying to decide whether the railway company still owns the land or whether it loses the land, because the terms of the grant essentially limited the ability of the owner to continue to own it only for so long as it was being used for railway purposes.

Again, mindful of the fact that we can't prevent or predict here what people might argue about 50 or 100 years from now, it would be nice to avoid that general problem. It would certainly be good to know what the Crown's position is now: that is, does it consider that it really owns this land outright? It's made a promise that it's going to continue to use it as a public highway, but that promise is not a condition around -- or a way that could be used to undermine -- the character of its ownership.

[1500]

Hon. G. Wilson: It's been my experience that it's hard to predict what people are likely to say in this chamber five minutes from now, never mind 50 years from now. I would draw the member's attention to

section 11, which deals with closure of the highway. We own it now, but there is contemplation that should we close it, we would return that

section of land to the Nisga'a.

G. Plant: The highway corridor is defined by reference to

schedule A. I think I've been on this road, and I think part of it goes through what is or will become Nisga'a Memorial Lava Bed Park. I guess the question is: how much of this corridor is actually on Nisga'a lands? Is any of the defined corridor what we would refer to as Crown lands that are neither Nisga'a lands nor within the park?

Hon. G. Wilson: None of it is on Nisga'a lands is the answer, I think.

G. Plant: Is any of it outside Nisga'a Memorial Lava Bed Park?

Hon. G. Wilson: Yes.

G. Plant: So the highway corridor . . . . What does the agreement say -- if anything, I suppose -- about parts of what are now the roads within Nisga'a lands? Is none of that within the so-called Nisga'a Highway corridor? It's way too open-ended. I guess I'm trying to figure out . . . . The minister's last answer has set me back a bit. I thought that the corridor was largely the part of the highway that went into and traversed part of Nisga'a lands, but the minister says it's not Nisga'a lands.

I hope we're not just being clever about the distinction between what is defined to be Nisga'a lands and what is defined to be the corridor. Maybe that's the key. Is that what the minister meant in answering my last question?

Hon. G. Wilson: I think that is the key, because the highway goes through Nisga'a land, but it isn't Nisga'a land.

G. Plant: The minister is explaining, in effect, the operation of the agreement. That is, this parcel that is the highway corridor -- as a line on a map, as a place on the surface of the Earth -- is, by virtue of this chapter, defined not to be Nisga'a lands, because it is instead the Nisga'a Highway corridor. But as a practical matter, portions of that corridor will be surrounded by what becomes Nisga'a land. Is that a more accurate description than my last attempt?

Hon. G. Wilson: Yes, that's correct.

[1505]

D. Symons: This answers, then, who owns the land and all the rest.

I gather, from what the minister was saying earlier, that roughly half the Nisga'a Highway exists in one form or another, but certainly it will have to be upgraded -- new roadbed put in to bring it up to highway standards. And the other half, I guess, will be new highway and will have to be totally built. Can the minister give us a pretty good ballpark guess -- or I hope it's better than that -- of what this particular Nisga'a Highway portion of this agreement is going to cost?

Hon. G. Wilson: I'm advised that it will be $41 million for the upgrade, and for the new

section to Kincolith it's $30 million.

D. Symons: So we have $71 million in capital costs for putting in the Nisga'a Highway. I'm wondering, then, if the minister might give me an idea of what the maintenance costs have been, traditionally, on the roads that will be maintained by the province. They end up now being part of this Nisga'a agreement, but we will be maintaining them as part of our provincial responsibility. What were those maintenance costs historically?

Hon. G. Wilson: It's about $1 million. And yes, because it's provincial highway, we'd obviously want to continue to maintain it.

D. Symons: So we're dealing with a continuing cost of $1 million per year and $71 million . . . . Now, I know the Island Highway was built to much more rigid standards, but I'm finding that that $71 million figure seems to be fairly low for

[ Page 11770 ]

100 kilometres of road. That's a pretty good bargain. I hope we can build some other paved two-lane highways in the province for that price.

I'm wondering if the minister might then . . . . If we can skip ahead a little bit here and take a look at the next section, I want to ask a question.

Section 15 deals with the highway alignment. Basically, how many kilometres of this Nisga'a Highway will go through fee simple lands that are not part of the Nisga'a lands? I'm sure it must go through lands that other people have in fee simple.

Hon. G. Wilson: I can't give the member a definitive number of kilometres, but it's not much -- which probably isn't a satisfactory answer. But I will try to get a better read on that.

D. Symons: Then the question is: if they're going through some lands that are owned by somebody in fee simple, will the province then be expropriating that portion of the land that they'll need for the right-of-way for the highway through those lands?

Hon. G. Wilson: It's unlikely that there would be any direct expropriation, but certainly we would work out some amicable relationship between Highways and private land owners to try to accommodate the existing right-of-way. Keep in mind that the highway corridor is there.

D. Symons: Is the corridor for the full highway there, or simply for those portions that currently exist?

Hon. G. Wilson: I am advised that the corridor is predominantly there. There may be some widening of some sections of this in order to maximize the width, and that might actually impact marginally on private land. For the most part, it's already established.

M. de Jong: I just want to make sure that we all understand this and, in particular, that I understand this correctly. The two figures that we've heard today are $41 million and $31 million. I think what I've heard the minister say is that the $41 million relates to the upgrade of the existing highway, and that would be the highway from Terrace in to New Aiyansh. Is that correct?

[1510]

Hon. G. Wilson: My apologies for the delay, but we're trying to make sure that we get this absolutely correct. The

section into Nisga'a up to Sand Lake, as I already mentioned, is already upgraded. The

section that we're dealing with here is the

section from Sand Lake into Lachkaltsap and into New Aiyansh and beyond. That is the portion now. I think it's important to recognize that this is not part of the treaty. Don't confuse that. These commitments on the highways have been made but are not part of the treaty.

M. de Jong: That's fine. Even the minister would agree, however, that they are liabilities that the government has assumed as a result of the negotiations that took place.

Let's talk about the second figure, the $31 million. That is for construction of a new highway. Is that the highway out to Kincolith? Is that the new construction we're talking about?

Hon. G. Wilson: Just a couple of things to go on the record here. It's $30 million, not $31 million. The $1 million was what was asked by the member for Richmond Centre with respect to annual maintenance costs. So it's $30 million, and it is apportioned between the federal government and the province. It is not part of the treaty. The commitment to highway upgrading and construction in fact happened during an administration several removed from this one, so it's not as a product of this treaty. It's an obligation that is longstanding that the government is now finally honouring.

M. de Jong: The Premier is here, and he may be the person best able to answer this. I have a very distinct recollection of comments being attributed to him in the days immediately following the announcement that a draft treaty had been agreed upon that a portion of these costs represented something called a "deal sweetener." The deal sweetener allowed for the affixing of signatures. If I'm mistaken about that, the Premier can correct us, but I have a distinct recollection of highways-related costs being discussed in the days immediately following the announcement of this draft treaty.

Hon. G. Clark: Well, I'm pleased to answer. I just can, first of all, only reiterate what the minister said, which is that this was a commitment made by previous governments in the 1980s, actually, that there would be a highway upgrade prior to the conclusion of negotiations. It didn't happen at that time, and part of it was done under the previous Mike Harcourt administration. Part of the highway was constructed, as I understand it, as well as a bridge across Gitwinksihlkw.

But it was a source of some contention with the Nisga'a people. In fact, I was at a dinner, as I recall -- looking at some of my friends in the gallery -- where, prior to the final negotiation, this was a key concern for the Nisga'a: that there be a paving of the highway. At the end of the day, there was an agreement to proceed on a timetable to complete that highway to finally live up to the commitment made in the 1980s by government, and the federal government agreed to contribute.

[1515]

It's an important distinction that it's not part of the treaty, because it does not cover part of the financial costs of the treaty. We've been fulsome and put it in the costs, but it's important for the purposes of any future negotiations with any other aboriginal group that this not be a part of the cost of the treaty for the purposes of any future negotiations with any other aboriginal group.

M. de Jong: I think the first thing I want to try and do is ascertain what we're talking about in terms of the roads here. There is the road that most people who have been to the Nass Valley have travelled, which is from Terrace into New Aiyansh. It continues on up to Cranberry Junction, and a portion of that has been upgraded. I don't think many people who have travelled that road would argue that it is not in need of some upgrade. Our discussion here is about the costs associated with that -- what part that played in the negotiations, and how those costs have been calculated.

The other component to this, as I understand it, relates to the road out to Kincolith, which is one of the few communities in the province that remains inaccessible by road. Maybe I can ask this question: what is the provincial liability, or what portion of the cost associated with the road to Kincolith has the province assumed?

Hon. G. Wilson: I was remiss not to introduce Mr. Dan Doyle, who has joined us and who advises me by way of

[ Page 11771 ]

providing some history to this: he happened to be with Alex Fraser in 1981 when the commitment was made to build the road from what was then Greenville to Kincolith. Now that this treaty is in place, the government is finally going to honour that commitment, which is not part of this treaty. The cost of the road is $30 million, of which the provincial government will pick up $17 million, the tribal council will pick $1.1 million, and the rest will be paid for by the federal government.

M. de Jong: What information, what documentation is the provincial government relying upon when it presents that figure of $30 million and therefore its share at $17 million? Had the cost of construction been calculated prior to the announcement last year that the government was going to contribute to the cost of construction of that road?

Hon. G. Wilson: I'm advised that we've been surveying, resurveying and resurveying again since 1981, so we've got a pretty accurate estimate of what it's going to cost.

M. de Jong: And is the government in a position to release the survey documentation that it's relying upon, the cost analysis that it bases its figures on with respect to the cost of that road?

Hon. G. Wilson: I'm told that all of the costing and information is available and that an invitation is extended to the members opposite if they'd like to sit down with Highways personnel to go through it. They'd be happy to walk you through it, keeping in mind that this is not part of the treaty.

M. de Jong: If I'm a member of the Nisga'a nation and I'm listening to the minister emphasize, first, that construction of this road is not something guaranteed by virtue of this treaty and, second, that it is a longstanding promise that dates back to at least the early 1980s, my question might be: what assurance do I have that this is going to take place? Maybe the assurance the minister can offer is a signed agreement -- a signed contract or tendering documents. What have we got that suggests that anything different exists today that didn't exist in 1982 or 1983?

[1520]

Hon. G. Wilson: I'm mindful, once again, of the attendance of distinguished members of the Nisga'a who are watching these proceedings and who will be far more familiar than I with the ongoing discussions around the construction of this particular

section of highway. But I am advised that it is completing its final environmental assessment work and that the final design work will soon be completed. Once the environmental assessment and the design work are concluded, construction will commence. There is an agreement by all parties that this will happen and that nothing should delay it.

M. de Jong: What form does that agreement take? I hear "agreement," and I hear "not part of the treaty." But taxpayers, who are ultimately going to be contributing to the cost of construction, want to see something a little more substantial than simply: "We have an agreement." What is that agreement? When the minister says that provincial taxpayers are on the hook for $17 million, is that a percentage of the anticipated cost? We've heard cost estimates from this government before. Quite frankly, I think people are looking for something a little more substantial than the minister's assurances that we have agreement. What form does that agreement take?

Hon. G. Wilson: Like any other agreement with respect to the construction of highways that either go through or impact on land that, up until this treaty takes effect, is federal land, there is an agreement that is established with respect to -- I would point out -- a longstanding commitment by the federal government to help finance construction of a road. That road is now part of an agreement that is signed between the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority and the Nisga'a nation, represented by the Nisga'a tribal council.

The detail of that agreement is, essentially, to do as we have said: to complete the environmental assessment work and the design work in order to build a road through to Kincolith. The costing has been done. The federal government has agreed to its share, the province has agreed to its share and the Nisga'a tribal council to its share. So it's a tripartite agreement that is signed, and the highway should get underway quite outside and quite separate and apart from the detail of this treaty.

M. de Jong: The first thing that comes to mind is the costing formula that may or may not exist within that document. Is it capped insofar as the provincial liability is concerned? Or is it open-ended? I'll then ask the minister to give us some indication as to the time line that is contemplated with respect to construction.

Hon. G. Wilson: The provincial portion is capped.

M. de Jong: At what amount?

Hon. G. Wilson: At $17 million.

M. de Jong: Turning to the question of the timetable, does the memorandum of understanding set out a specific timetable for work to commence and be completed by?

Hon. G. Wilson: There is a timetable which, of course, includes environmental assessment. Once that is concluded, it's anticipated that it will go directly to tender, which will probably be in the fall of this year.

M. de Jong: Maybe one of the ways to expedite this somewhat is to see the document -- which I don't think was included in the material, but I could be mistaken -- that I received from the ministry. When is work scheduled to begin?

Hon. G. Clark: From my recollection of the discussions, this fall, I believe, work is scheduled to begin. The part to Kincolith is a difficult piece, and paving the part that's gravel is a fairly straightforward piece. It's a phased project. I'm not sure how certain the timetable is, but when we were looking at it, it was about a three-year project, beginning this fall.

M. de Jong: Here's part of the difficulty that I'm having. On the one hand, I'm being told that the cost aspect of this is fixed and firm and that the agreement is solid to that extent. It's still unclear to me, though, based on some of the other information I'm hearing, as to whether or not what we have here is a firm, enforceable contract, versus a memorandum of

[ Page 11772 ]

understanding that leaves all sorts of room for delay or alternative courses of action by any one of the parties -- including the federal government, for that matter.

[1525]

I have heard plenty from this government insofar as criticism of the federal government for reneging on commitments that the province thinks it has had in the past. So I can even take this discussion outside of the context of the provincial government and ask the question: what loopholes exist in a document or an agreement that might leave room for the federal government to escape their liability?

Hon. G. Wilson: I don't know how the division of labour takes place with members opposite, but this project was announced in a press release on March 15, 1999. It was outlined very specifically and included both the minister responsible, the Minister of Transportation, as well as the member for North Coast, the Minister of Energy and Mines. There was a detailed discussion at that point as to the costs and associated activities around this highway.

I'm prepared to advise the members opposite that there is indeed a contract. It sits between the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority and the Nisga'a nation, represented by the Nisga'a tribal council. The apportionment of payment is agreed to between the province, the federal government and the Nisga'a tribal council.

Probably the reason that the members opposite didn't get it in their FOI is because it has nothing to do with the treaty; it is a separate agreement on highways. My guess is that the member for Richmond Centre knows about it, and if not, maybe you guys should keep up with what's in the paper, because it's been in the public domain since March 15, 1999. There's nothing new or different or exciting about it. It is simply an agreement to construct a road.

The Chair: Members, perhaps we could return to the treaty itself.

M. de Jong: I could digress and remind the minister that the government he now sits as a member of has issued a myriad of press releases assigning costs to any number of projects, the vast majority of which have come nowhere near the targets projected. So if the minister is asking me to rely upon a press release and take that home as comfort for what a particular project or commitment his government has entered into, I'm sorry; I'm inclined to be a little more skeptical. I'm inclined to be as skeptical as he was just a few short months ago when he sat on this side of the House.

I haven't seen the agreement referred to, and if the minister is saying that he's prepared to table it, then maybe that's a good start, and we can start there.

Hon. G. Wilson: Well, I'm shocked by the comments of the member opposite, who I thought used the Vancouver Province as his primary source of research when it comes to . . . .

But I'm happy for you to have a copy of the agreement. There's nothing secret about it, if you want to take a look at it. I think Mr. Doyle advised me that the member for Richmond Centre is more than welcome to sit down with staff from the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, and he'll talk to you about time lines.

I'm also advised that we've already got the federal money in our pocket, which is good. It means that at least we can press on with that. I think maybe we'll leave that there and move on to the agreement.

D. Symons: Just one question on that topic. You mentioned earlier that your figure is capped at $17 million. I assume that all the previous conversation has been taking place over the $30 million for the new portion of the highway. If we take a look -- and the member just made reference to some highway projects that haven't matched the projected costs -- at the Lions Gate Bridge project, I think there was somewhere around $70 million allocated for that particular project. The bids came in closer to $100 million once it went out for bids.

So what happens in the event that you find, when you go out for bids, that indeed it's going to cost more than the $30 million on that portion of the highway? Does it mean that you just do a portion of it, if you've got it capped? Or are you going to do the whole project and put some more money into it? Or do you go to the feds or to the Nisga'a? Where do you get the remainder of the money if it turns out that you have been estimating on the low side and the bids turn out to be higher than you expected?

[1530]

Hon. G. Wilson: Rather than continue on this line, it would be easier if the member just looked at the agreement. There is, I think, a commitment by the three parties that that amount is capped. I think the Nisga'a are clear. They don't wish to spend any more money than that, and given the nature of the area and the road, I think they will accept a tender that will fall within the parameters of the $30 million.

D. Symons: I'm assuming, then, that the $41 million that's for the upgraded remainder of the highway is totally the province's responsibility, and the province is picking up that. Also, while I'm at it -- so you only have to bounce up once -- is there a timetable for that particular . . . ? When will that upgrade begin, and when do you expect to have that upgrade completed?

Hon. G. Wilson: The member is correct in the number; it's $41 million and it's over seven years.

D. Symons: The next

section is one that I found -- I won't say amusing -- interesting: "British Columbia will consider the extension of the Nisga'a Highway from Nass Camp to connect with Highway 37, in accordance with provincial priorities . . . . " That "will consider" and "in accordance with provincial priorities" does not sound to me to be too firm a commitment. It does say: " . . . and having regard to British Columbia's long term goal of completing that extension." I'm just curious, with something as wishy-washy as that statement in there, how you managed to get that by the Nisga'a people. It isn't really a commitment as such. It's sort of wishful thinking.

Hon. G. Wilson: I would have thought that if we had given a firm commitment, we would have been chastised for spending too much money. I think that the government . . . .

Interjection.

[ Page 11773 ]

Hon. G. Wilson: That's right. The member for Richmond-Steveston says we're going to get chastised no matter what we do, so we might as well press on.

The issue here is that the Nisga'a are well aware of the fiscal restraints on government. They're also, however, well aware that if they don't keep this in the planning hopper, any chance of getting that extension is gone. What this does, essentially, is flag it as a potential development project. It's one that is clearly still in the planning hopper and one that won't be forgotten, because we have a constant reminder under

section 16. That's what it's there for.

D. Symons: On that same topic, I'm wondering if you might give me an idea of the length that that extension will be -- how many kilometres -- and what the estimated cost for that particular portion will be.

Hon. G. Wilson: I'm advised that we're talking about approximately 20 kilometres, but depending on when we construct it . . . . Of course, the costs will vary as construction costs go up. I don't think that work has been done.

An Hon. Member: In today's dollars?

Hon. G. Wilson: I don't have a figure in today's dollars, because I don't think it's been properly surveyed or properly costed. If I were to guess at a figure, you'd want me to give you some documentation substantiating that, which I don't have, so I'm not going to guess.

D. Symons: I want to skip ahead to

section 25, because here it says: "British Columbia may not without the written consent of the Nisga'a Nation assign or transfer any of its interest in any secondary provincial road right of way area except for an assignment to . . . . " And then I find

section 25(

b) interesting: " . . . to a lender as security for a borrowing by British Columbia."

So it seems that you can go to the Nisga'a nation and say: "The province is a little hard up for money" -- maybe we've got a little bit of a deficit this year that we want to handle -- "and we're going to end up borrowing some money against your highway." I just find that interesting.

Has the British Columbia government gone out and used a highway as security for borrowing in the past? I'm curious if that's happened. Do you intend to do this, or do you want to leave that in here as a loophole for some reason in the future?

[1535]

Hon. G. Wilson: I'm advised that the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority capitalizes on the road that they build, so this wouldn't be anything extraordinary. It doesn't mean that they can use the asset for security to borrow money to go and do something else. It simply allows them the opportunity to capitalize for a construction project.

D. Symons: Then, like most other highway capital projects in this province, this is all being done through the TFA, which is borrowed money, which means that our children and grandchildren will be paying off what we're doing today . . .

Hon. G. Clark: Enjoying the road, too.

D. Symons: . . . and possibly enjoying the road, as the Premier added in there.

Okay, I can see the purpose of that, then. I had the idea that possibly the government was going to start mortgaging its roads as a way of meeting its deficit problems. This does not seem to be the case, then; it's just the way the government is currently doing money -- out of future years' pockets.

If we can take a look at

section 26, it indicates that B.C. "will indemnify and save harmless the Nisga'a Nation" in regard to the provincial roads. I'm wondering if that will apply to car accidents on the road in the event that there is ice or snow on the road or some shoulder has given way. Will the province then be responsible? Potholes and all the myriad of things that can go wrong on a highway . . . . It seems now that the government will hold the bag for any liabilities on those. Is that true?

Hon. G. Wilson: I'm advised that this is exactly the same as it is on any other road in the province. The idea for the

section here is because the Nisga'a, as the landowner underneath the road, shouldn't be held liable for what happens on the road.

D. Symons: Prior to this treaty, I believe, the government had the ability to expropriate up to 5 percent of aboriginal reserves -- I'll use the term "reserve" there, because it was that -- for road purposes. I'm wondering: will that right of expropriation still exist with this Nisga'a agreement, or is the government now limited forever to the right-of-way maximum as stated in

section 1, which is at 800 hectares? Also, the minister did mention that we could purchase, I gather, land in the future if we wanted to, if the Nisga'a nation was so inclined to sell that land to us.

Hon. G. Wilson: The answer to the member's question is no. I'd refer him back to the

section on rights-of-way in general, which puts out the 2,800 maximum.

D. Symons: I'll skip a few pages here. I'm just looking at

section 42, which harkens back to

section 6 that we dealt with a while ago and talks about consultation with regard to traffic regulation. I'm not quite sure how much traffic may be travelling on this highway, but I suspect that it won't be quite the same as Highway 1 on the lower mainland. It says: " . . . British Columbia will consult with the Nisga'a Nation or that Nisga'a Village with respect to regulation of traffic and transportation . . . . " I assume, then, that the province is retaining the right, but as the proper way to do things, you're going to be consulting with the people regarding that. Is that true?

Hon. G. Wilson: It's just as we would in any other settled area or municipality. We negotiate what the speed limits should be, and so on. It would happen in exactly the same manner.

[1540]

D. Symons: We get back to

section 6, you see, that said Nisga'a law applies to secondary provincial roads, and here basically it says that you're consulting with them. There seems to be a little bit of a contradiction there, where

section 6 says Nisga'a law applies, and

section 42 says that British Columbia will consult with them. That sounds like the Nisga'a laws are going to prevail rather than the provincial laws.

[ Page 11774 ]

Hon. G. Wilson: I think this proves our earlier point that the province retains control over those matters except for, as in the governance section, when we get there, Nisga'a roads. We maintain that control over B.C. roads.

D. Symons:

Section 47: "British Columbia will administer the Nisga'a Highway and secondary provincial roads, including closing, abandoning, and maintaining them . . . . " I understand all of that. Does this then include -- and this goes back to something you asked before -- the administration, the traffic control, the limits and the enforcement? I guess we got into the enforcement. Since the Nisga'a Highway is provincial property per se, will the Nisga'a Highway be patrolled by RCMP, or will it be patrolled by some native police force that may be set up?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It will be the RCMP, unless we agree otherwise that the Nisga'a police could do it.

M. de Jong: I'm looking at sections 44 and 45 of the chapter, and I think they have to be read together. One of the concerns, however, relates to the jurisdiction the province is surrendering insofar as regulating activities that take place on adjoining lands. I can think of an example as it relates to highway signage.

My understanding, from reading the agreement, is that British Columbia, in fact, surrenders all of its jurisdiction in that respect, and therefore there would be a different set of rules applicable to a provincial highway running through Nisga'a lands. Am I reading those two sections correctly? If I'm not, maybe the minister can explain why.

Hon. G. Wilson: I think it's only to the extent that it's reasonably required to protect the safety of users of the Nisga'a Highway.

M. de Jong: Many of the minister's answers have been helpful, but I'm afraid that that one doesn't help me at all. When he says it's only insofar as it affects the safety of the usage of the highway. I'm trying, for example, to better understand how the province's authority to regulate -- and I use the example of signage, which is something that the province enforces in communities right across the province -- is limited by the provisions of this agreement.

My understanding is that it's limited severely, insofar as Nisga'a would have absolute jurisdiction to regulate activities along adjacent land -- including signage, for example. But if I'm wrong, I want the minister to tell me that I'm wrong.

Hon. G. Wilson: I think you're right, except to the extent that the activity may impact on highway safety. I think you need to read

section 43 to see that that's clearly covered there.

M. de Jong: That is a little more helpful. The argument would go like this, from the province's point of view. You, the Nisga'a nation, have jurisdiction to regulate activities on adjacent lands. It is, however, our -- that is, the province's -- opinion that to allow signage in the way that you presume to, impacts on the safety of the highway. Therefore we are claiming that as a part of our continuing jurisdiction with respect to the regulation of this highway. Is that a logical way for this argument to flow?

[1545]

Hon. G. Wilson: Yeah, that's right. To give some examples, if signage was put up in such a way as to impede sightlines or somehow blind an access onto the highway or anything that might, in fact, create a hazard on the highway, then the province has a right to act.

M. de Jong: Aside from the example we've been dealing with, which is signage, the only other land usages that I can think of would relate to matters that would logically fall within the zoning requirements. Is safety the one limiting factor here that limits an otherwise absolute Nisga'a jurisdiction?

Hon. G. Wilson: That and the integrity of the highway, obviously -- if anything was going to restrict it. I think it is spelled out fairly clearly with respect to

section 43(a)(i), (ii) and (iii).

D. Symons: In

section 51 . . . . We talked about maintenance and so forth before, and I'm trying to meld a few of these topics together. A moment ago, I was asking about the Nisga'a Highway. We retain the ownership of that whole corridor,

whereas with all the secondary roads -- and there are twice as many secondary roads, in kilometres, as there is Nisga'a Highway -- we have the right-of-way; we do not own the roadway.

My question on the enforcement goes for those particular highways. Will the RCMP, or will it possibly be, as of this agreement . . . ? The Attorney General mentioned before that with agreement with them, it would be the RCMP or something else. In this case, on all those other secondary roads . . . . Will it be the Nisga'a nation that will be enforcing regulations along those, or will the RCMP be the enforcement agency?

Hon. G. Wilson: It's the same answer as the Attorney General gave earlier.

D. Symons: My question is related to or is concerned about the area of maintenance of the roads, because indeed what goes on the road and how the road is used can dramatically affect the cost of maintaining that road. If people are driving on it with loads during the seasonal thaw that is currently going on up in that area, the road could be destroyed very, very quickly, and the province is on the hook for the maintenance of these roads. I'm trying to clear up the fact that since we could . . . .

If the roads aren't properly policed and the people who are using those roads aren't required to maintain all of the regulations throughout the province to save the roads from destruction, we're going to be in serious trouble. We've got an open-ended agreement, if that's the case. What I think we want here, then, is the assurance that indeed the same rules and regulations and the same degree of enforcement will be put on any roads that the province is going to be responsible for the maintenance and care of.

So with that, can the minister give the assurance that those same rules and amount of enforcement will take place on the Nisga'a lands as they will anywhere else in the province?

Hon. G. Wilson: Because we are responsible for the maintenance, that is also why we are responsible for the management of that road. It is anticipated, given the upgrade of the Nisga'a Highway, that in fact the maintenance costs may well go down. As you upgrade a highway, as you seal it

[ Page 11775 ]

and as you pave it, its maintenance costs may actually diminish. So we're anticipating that as those roads are brought up to higher standards, our maintenance costs in fact will be reduced.

[1550]

D. Symons: Just a few other questions remaining here.

When we look in

section 52, which talks about existing gravel pits, I note that the province will retain the right to use existing gravel pits that are there for highway purposes. Normally, I believe, the province in the past got a royalty -- from private owners, anyway -- on every yard of gravel taken out. Will the province, then, be getting royalties from gravel taken from these pits?

Hon. G. Wilson: I'm advised that there isn't a royalty per se. There is an internal ministry charge against the pit. Maybe the member might be a little bit more specific with respect to what he means by royalty.

D. Symons: I believe, even when people have a gravel pit, that they pay a fee or whatever you want to call it -- I forget the exact term that's used -- to the government for each yard of material that's taken from that particular site. Is that not correct?

Hon. G. Wilson: I think that now I see where the member is coming from. We don't pay them, and they don't pay us. They own the gravel.

D. Symons: Just a very few questions left here. That covers that one, then.

This is going on into the future. I'm concerned here in reference to the part on private roads in

section 65: "On the effective date, the Nisga'a Nation will grant private road rights of way for the private roads listed in Appendix C-1,

Part 3." Will this changeover not effect any change to the existing conditions relating to these roads? In other words, will whatever agreement was made with the province beforehand carry over and be the agreement that the Nisga'a will inherit, so to speak?

Hon. G. Wilson: I'm advised there are no private road easements now.

D. Symons: There are no private roads going into . . . ? Okay.

In the event that on one side or the other of Nisga'a lands -- and I can see some various places on the maps where this could be possible -- a mine is discovered that's worthy of mining in an environmentally responsible way and people want access to that through the Nisga'a lands -- and let's suppose that the Nisga'a nation decides that they don't care to have a roadway through there . . . . Is there any other avenue of recourse for someone to go to other than the Nisga'a Lisims? Is that going to be the final authority on the decision of whether some resource that might involve going through Nisga'a lands can be accessed?

Hon. G. Wilson: Well, I can't say with certainty that that may not be the case, depending on where such an operation may actually be located. But there have certainly been provisions undertaken to make sure that there is a network of roads that provide access to lands beyond. The anticipation is that such an issue will not arise.

D. Symons: Now, when I understand this network of roads . . . . Are you meaning a network that will cross through Nisga'a land, or will there be a network of roads that will give access to areas on opposite sides of Nisga'a land? When you're talking about those, is it something that will avoid Nisga'a land or include it? From what we said earlier, you're basically going to have to purchase corridors through the Nisga'a land if you're going to put the network on Nisga'a property.

[1555]

Hon. G. Wilson: I want to be very specific in my answer. I'm having difficulty doing that, because it's a hypothetical question. Hypothetically, there may be an instance where somebody who has a mine proposal would not be able to access that without getting agreement from the Nisga'a Lisims government. That's a possibility. Although given the network of roads that currently go to lands beyond the Nisga'a lands, it's not anticipated.

D. Symons: I guess just a final question. Much of what we discussed . . . . I assume almost all those answers carry over for utilities right-of-way as well. There are some unique features with utilities that we haven't covered with highways. I'm curious whether hydro, phone lines and so forth fall under pretty well the same jurisdiction. They'll have a certain corridor that will be a right-of-way given to them. I suspect that hydro often follows highways. But in the event that it doesn't, will they have a corridor that will be guaranteed as long as they're using that corridor for highway purposes?

Hon. G. Wilson: It is generally the same, although I think the agreement is that we will try to use highway rights-of-way for those access corridors.

D. Symons: I thank the minister and his staff for the answers on that particular

section of this agreement. Thank you very much.

On the schedule,

chapter 11.

M. de Jong: I think we're about set to move to

chapter 11.

Let me just say generally that we've had some discussion earlier in this debate about the manner in which self-government has been crafted, the model of self-government that exists. We've had an exchange of opinions with the minister's predecessor about the significance of that model from a constitutional point of view. I think that's something that my colleague the critic for the Attorney General will want to pursue now and in the days to come, with respect to the specifics of what is included in the

chapter and the breakdown of the assignment of jurisdictions.

We heard the present minister a few short weeks ago, when he sat on this side of the House, offer his opinion on what this model of self-government represents. The first section, where the treaty says that the Nisga'a have the right to self-government, means something to me and to many British Columbians, insofar as the constitutional significance of that recognition is concerned. We've heard the government,

[ Page 11776 ]

through the Attorney General, argue that it represents a negotiated right versus an inherent right. I heard the present minister, I think, voice his approval for that definition or

interpretation.

This is his chance, however, to articulate on the record, from his position as minister responsible, why it is that those who would describe this as a third order of government or a new constitutional order of government are incorrect. I think it would be worthwhile for us to begin there, at least.

[1600]

[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think we've had this debate before. We don't need to rehash the principles that we've discussed earlier.

It's very important to remember this is a treaty that's been negotiated, and this was the agreement all three parties arrived at after due deliberation and negotiations. Obviously, implicit in the constitution is the authority to enter into arrangements such as the one we've entered into here.

M. de Jong: I know that the Attorney General isn't going to let the discussion descend -- or ascend -- into a legal argument of the sort that is likely to be heard before the courts. I don't think, in fairness, that there is any doubt that the governments of Canada and British Columbia have the authority under the constitution to do what is contemplated here. I don't think that's at issue.

I think what is very much at issue is whether they have gone about it correctly from a constitutional point of view. I don't want to leave an incorrect impression that members of the opposition are of the view that it is impossible for us, as a society in Canada, to do just about anything we want, from a constitutional point of view, in terms of creating governments and bestowing constitutional protection on them. Clearly that's something that is within our capability.

The question is: have we done it correctly? If we presume to amend the constitution, there is a mechanism, a series of formulas, by which we can do that. The question is: does the mere declaration within a document such as this -- an important document, a constitutional document -- qualify? Does that meet the requirements of one of those amending formulas? I have my opinion on that matter; the Attorney General has his.

I think it's a fair question to ask either the Attorney General or the minister responsible to provide some manner of explanation, some assurance, to British Columbians that the governments, the parties to this agreement, have followed that procedure and have adhered to the formulas or the tests that are set out in our constitution.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I remember this debate, both in a very important question period that is still sort of etched in my memory . . . . This was the very question, in that question period, that the Leader of the Opposition was asking the Attorney General. I answered those questions then, and our position remains unchanged. This does not amount to a constitutional amendment. We have followed the appropriate procedures based on the appropriate authority granted to the two governments. This treaty has been entered into upon due deliberation.

[1605]

M. de Jong: Well, I don't doubt that there was a great deal of deliberation on the part of the government; I've never questioned that. I think, though, that one of the things we determined -- when we were dealing with the general provisions of the treaty some months ago now -- was that when we came to this chapter, we would devote a little more time to fleshing out the argument that the government relies upon in suggesting what the minister, in fairness, has just now summarized. The government is of the view that changes in the way government will operate in British Columbia . . . .

I think even the Attorney General would acknowledge that this changes, to some extent, the manner in which government is going to operate -- certainly in the Nass Valley, and by implication, elsewhere in B.C., if the model is followed elsewhere. We would spend just a little more time hearing -- from either the Attorney General or the minister responsible -- the rationale that the government relies upon in presenting this to the Legislature for our approval.

Again, I would suggest that it is fair to say to the Attorney General: "Give us, as members who are going to vote on this agreement, the rationale -- the assurance -- that this is something that falls within our constitutional competence."

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I thought, actually, that in debate on the general provisions, we did all of that. We laid out the arguments, heard the arguments from the opposition and gave the responses that we felt were appropriate. Those arguments haven't changed, I notice, and the answers haven't changed. Nor should they, because they were given very appropriately and correctly in the first place.

The treaty as negotiated falls within the four corners of the authority that has been granted both to the provincial government and to the federal government, implicit in the constitution.

M. de Jong: Let me ask a general question relating to the overall model of self-government here. It is something that I'm sure the Attorney General has heard, the previous minister has heard, the present minister has heard . . . . When the notion of Nisga'a government and the model of Nisga'a government is discussed by people who don't spend all of their waking hours studying this document, who rely on summaries from government, from the Nisga'a, from the opposition . . . .

One of the comments that I have heard from just about every source -- people who support the agreement, people who don't support the agreement, people who are indifferent . . . . When they come to this section, when they come to better understand the model of self-government, the comment is: "My God! That's a lot of government. That's a lot of government for a relatively small population. That's a lot of bureaucracy, and that's a lot of money."

Now, I think you could make the philosophical argument that says it's no one's business but the Nisga'a's. I think that that is a valid argument if the reply is also that that's the Nisga'a's responsibility; they're going to be covering the cost. But we know that's not the case, and we know that the government's own estimates are that ten years from now, the majority of the cost associated with the operation of this model of self-government will still be borne by non-Nisga'a taxpayers. So in agreeing to this extensive model of governance, we are told that the government of British Columbia had a notion of what the cost associated with it was going to be.

[ Page 11777 ]

I think the question that begs asking is: are there any concerns on the part of the government of British Columbia, the Attorney General or the minister responsible that we have assented to governmental overkill? When we consider the existence of Nisga'a central government, Nisga'a village government, it is . . . . My colleague the member for Peace River South, during one of the select standing committee tours -- actually, in the Yukon -- made the observation about the degree of government that exists in the Yukon for a relatively small population.

Well, you can multiply that ratio by ten, and you begin to get close to what is contemplated in the terms of this agreement. And the cost associated with that level of government is not mythical; it's not a figment of one's imagination. Someone's going to pay for all of this government. In part, it'll be the Nisga'a, but in larger part, it'll be non-Nisga'a and non-aboriginal British Columbians. It is a concern that I think the government needs to address in a general way and more specifically as we move through the provisions of this chapter.

[1610]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that the hon. members have raised the issue of costs before and are raising the issue of costs again. Both generally and specifically, it's been discussed earlier. In the first five years, British Columbia will provide $1.2 million annually, and Canada will provide $30.9 million annually. Of course, federal funding will be adjusted annually to reflect population growth. That's the status quo currently, and that will continue.

If the hon. member wants to deal with the issue of costs -- fiscal issues and those issues -- at some point, maybe we can get the Minister of Finance here to answer those questions. But I'm prepared to deal with the issues around governance and how that is to proceed. The issue of costs has been raised before, and I have provided an appropriate response.

M. de Jong: Well, I'm not sure that what I was asking from the Attorney General was a detailed accounting, although that is certainly relevant information that, through the course of this debate, we have tried to elicit from the government. But I think the question is more philosophical in nature -- that is: when we are dealing with a relatively small population . . . . And yes, populations can grow, and yes, one hopes that there will be economic development in the Nass Valley and that Nisga'a who are presently living off reserve will relocate back to the Nass Valley, back to Nisga'a lands.

But notwithstanding all of those facts, all of those hopes and desires, we see in this agreement provision being made for four or five different governments -- village governments, central governments, national governments -- for a population that I think at present totals, in the Nass Valley, in the neighbourhood of 2,500.

There is a part of me that says that doesn't make a lot of sense. That doesn't make economic sense, and it doesn't make functional sense from a governance point of view. I don't for a minute believe that the Nisga'a people, who have endured obscenely high unemployment rates, are going to be any better off ultimately if that unemployment rate drops because everyone is working for Nisga'a government. I don't believe that for a moment, and I hope that the Attorney General doesn't believe it. People who approach me and say: "Gee, it seems to be that what's driving this is a desire to make sure . . . .

" If you follow this through logically, everyone's going to have a job. They'll all be working for various levels of government. That is the question that arises in many people's minds when you contemplate the various levels of government for, as I say, a relatively -- genuinely -- small population in the Nass Valley.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I beg to differ with the basic thrust in the argument of the hon. member. Nisga'a government structures essentially reflect, to a great extent, the present organization of Nisga'a, which consists of the Nisga'a tribal council and four band councils. You would now have Nisga'a Lisims government for village governments. They already have a health board and a school board. I think it's appropriate that we keep this discussion in the context of what we are replacing. When you look at what we're replacing, what we're replacing it with doesn't seem out of the ordinary.

[1615]

G. Plant: I think that the minister is right to remind us that these issues have a practical context. I don't think people miss the point that there is a broad and approximate analogy between some existing structures, in the form of the tribal council and the band councils, on the one hand, and some of the structures that will be created in the treaty -- although I'm not aware of an analogy backwards, if you will, from urban village locals, which is another institution that exists. No doubt there are associations that exist through which the Nisga'a organize themselves when they're in Terrace or Prince Rupert or Vancouver.

I notice that my suggestion that there is no analogy has excited some interest on the other side. Maybe the minister could explain what he sees as being the analogue between Nisga'a urban village locals, which will exist, and the institutions that now exist that are officially recognized in the Nass Valley as being official ways in which people who don't live on the reserves can be elected to serve as members of the band council.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that they currently have urban locals. There is a representative of all of those urban locals on the tribal council. I think that that essentially mirrors what we are doing under the new structures.

G. Plant: That's helpful, then.

My colleague was exploring an issue that, as he said, was a philosophical issue -- surprising as that notion might be. I actually think that it's important that we at least get some sense of what the government's philosophical orientation is around these issues as well as keep the practical context in mind, as the Attorney General has asked us to do.

I guess what I want to do is re-ask part of my colleague's question again, because I do think that it's legitimate to ask the question whether we in society at large are already overgoverned, to look at governments as they exist and where they exist in relation to issues like fiscal liability and fiscal capacity and ask the question whether this is the right time and the right place to, essentially, create new institutions of government, which will be the result of this treaty.

To have the government stand up and say that this is the position of government, that what this treaty does in terms of creating Nisga'a government, in terms of providing mechanisms for its funding -- the details of which we will look at later -- not only represents a legitimate response to the personal or communal aspirations of the Nisga'a, but is right for British Columbia now and will be right for British Columbia going forward . . . .

[ Page 11778 ]

Some might suggest that we are overgoverned across the province as a whole. I actually am one of those. I am also one of those people who believe that overgovernment is the cause of our economic malaise and that overgovernment is a reason why more people are leaving British Columbia than coming to it.

I don't think that we can ignore those social or economic facts when we're looking at an agreement that purports to effect significant, permanent change in respect of a part of British Columbia and to create what amount to wholly new institutions of government that will, so long as they exist, have a call on our resources as a society and our ability as a society to generate the wealth needed to sustain them. The fact is, institutions of government don't create wealth; institutions of government collect wealth and use it to spend for public purposes.

[1620]

I re-ask the question that my colleague asked a minute ago, which is not the practical question so much as the philosophical question. From the broadest possible perspective, is it the government's view that this is the right thing to do in terms of ensuring, over the long term, that British Columbians will be governed in a way that's fiscally responsible?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Chair, it's absolutely the right thing to do. We should have done it decades ago. We're doing it now. It's late, but it's better than never. It's important that we do this. It's also important that we not belittle the institutions that the Nisga'a agreed upon with the federal government and the provincial government. They saw those institutions as the best way of governing themselves internally. If one wants to engage in a larger debate about too much government, then perhaps we should have been paying attention to that 30 or 20 or ten years ago.

Why is it that in the context of treaty-making, a people who have had no rights essentially, because they have agreed upon certain institutions to govern themselves -- and the federal and provincial governments have agreed, after due deliberation, that they should have those institutions that they are entitled to . . . ? Why is it that suddenly we are now throwing roadblocks out that somehow, philosophically, this is not an appropriate thing to do? It is absolutely the appropriate thing to do. It is decades too late. We had better proceed.

G. Plant: Is the government's position, therefore, that fiscal and economic issues are completely and entirely irrelevant? That's certainly the suggestion that I see as being a pretty strong message in what the Attorney General has just said.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Fiscal issues are important. They are not irrelevant. When you are making treaties, fiscal issues are one part of making those treaties. That's one aspect of it. You have to see this whole treaty in the total context in which it's being agreed upon. One may not like one aspect of this treaty; one may not like another aspect of it. There are several people that might not like certain other things in the treaty. But it's important to look at the whole treaty and the historical and constitutional contexts in which it's being done. In Delgamuukw, the court has essentially said: "Go back and deal with these issues. Governments, don't come back to court."

G. Plant: Well, a moment ago I thought I heard the Attorney General fairly clearly describe fiscal issues as roadblocks, erected by people, in the way of the aspirations of the Nisga'a represented by this agreement. I want to be absolutely clear about this. I want to make sure that I understand the minister and that it is his position that fiscal considerations are in fact not a roadblock. They are legitimate. They are a part of the overall context, as he emphasizes.

[1625]

We need to look at the overall context, but it seems to me that you can't have it both ways. You can't say: "Fiscal issues are a roadblock. It's only the opponents who, late in the day, are looking around and grasping at straws trying to find a way to oppose this who suddenly hit on fiscal considerations. That's why they're a roadblock." I don't think you can say that and then go on to say that fiscal considerations are actually legitimate. It's either one or the other. I guess Iwant to make sure I understand what the Attorney General's sense is of fiscal considerations before we move on.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm somewhat disappointed that we're actually redoing second reading. However, be that as it may, I didn't say that fiscal considerations are a roadblock. I may have been referring to the philosophical confusion that the hon. member may have been talking about. I think fiscal considerations are appropriate, but fiscal considerations aren't the only considerations that we make when we enter into treaties.

G. Plant: I appreciate the clarification. The minister referred to second reading debate. I thought his reference was timely, because I recall that the minister himself began his contribution to second reading debate by pointing out that committee stage debate would, in fact, involve what he described as "just and correct answers" to all of the questions that had been raised in second reading debate.

The one that we've been discussing for the last five minutes is actually a question that was raised in second reading debate. I think it's entirely appropriate that it be canvassed again here. I think that fiscal considerations, frankly, are as legitimate a part of the context of this debate as they are a part of the context of any debate around any social and economic initiative undertaken by government. We would be foolish to ignore them. As Members of the Legislative Assembly, accountable to taxpayers and voters . . . . If we ignore them, we ignore them at our peril. I think the minister's clarification is helpful.

I also want to come back to another thing the minister said a few minutes ago. He used the word "belittle" in the context of describing Nisga'a government institutions, almost as if to suggest that some of our comments were an attempt to belittle Nisga'a government institutions. I want to assure the minister that I suspect that at the end of the day, we actually disagree with each other the other way on that issue.

I actually think that it's important that we examine Nisga'a government institutions, as they will be created in this treaty when it's implemented, by giving them the fullest possible significance -- the significance that they will attract and acquire once they enjoy the protection of the statutes enacted here and in Ottawa and also the protection of

section 35. That will certainly be my perspective when we look at the institutions of self-government in

chapter 11.

I want to move from that, although others may continue to have introductory questions. I want to ask a question that I suppose probably goes without saying. In

section 1 of

chapter

[ Page 11779 ]

11, which I've always found to be very appropriately titled -- it's called "Nisga'a Government," not "Nisga'a Self-government" . . . .

Section 1, though, goes on to say: "The Nisga'a Nation has the right to self-government, and the authority to make laws, as set out in this Agreement."

The questioning of what is and what is not a law has excited philosophers and scholars for hundreds of years, and no doubt it excites the Attorney General as much as it excites me. We're not going to, I think . . . . I don't intend to explore all of the nuances of that debate; but laws, I guess, are more than practices, habits, customs and those things. Laws are special things. Laws are the things that we make here when we enact legislation. Laws are things which one institution of government has the power to make, and by and large, their application does not depend on consent.

That is, if I'm on the receiving end of a law, I usually don't have the opportunity to say: "Well, actually, I don't particularly like that law; I choose not to be bound by it." In that respect, laws are different from the rules that members of a voluntary association might create for themselves when they get together and say: "Look, here are the rules that we're going to follow." Everyone in the association says: "Fine, I agree to be bound by those rules, and there will be consequences if they're broken."

[1630]

I take it that as far as the government is concerned . . . . There may well be an answer to this question somewhere else in the agreement, but when it says here in

section 1, "The Nisga'a Nation has the right to self-government, and the authority to make laws . . . . " Is the term "laws" there at least intended to include laws as we understand them here in the Legislative Assembly, laws that will become rules made by Nisga'a government that will have the full force and effect of any other law made by this assembly or in Ottawa? The definition of laws, of course, may go further; it may include a recognition of particular customs or traditions in respect of the Nisga'a. But I want to know if "laws" in

section 1 of this

chapter at least also means laws that are laws just as we all understand them to be.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The answer is yes, but let me qualify . . . . The term "law" is defined in the

definitions, and it includes federal, British Columbia and Nisga'a legislation -- acts, ordinances, regulations and other things. And it goes on to say that it doesn't include some other things.

But the lawmaking ability and the authority should be understood in the context of what authority is granted to them in this agreement. Their laws -- Nisga'a laws -- in a sense cannot be comparable to British Columbia laws or federal laws. Their laws can only be considered in the context of the limited authority that's granted to them to make laws.

G. Plant: Well, I acknowledge that Nisga'a lawmaking authority will derive from the final agreement, the treaty. And presumably the implementation of the treaty by federal and provincial legislation, from the perspective of the federal and provincial governments, is a relevant consideration there also.

I also acknowledge the obvious: Nisga'a lawmaking authority is set out here in terms that -- at first blush, anyway -- look to be complex and comprehensive and carefully circumscribed. Just to give one example, there are a host of situations where the relationship between the laws made by Nisga'a government and laws made by federal and provincial governments is expressed. In some cases where there is a conflict, Nisga'a laws prevail; in other cases, federal or provincial laws prevail. So the treaty goes to some lengths to circumscribe, if you will, Nisga'a lawmaking authority.

Having said that, what else, then, about Nisga'a law is not comparable to federal or provincial law? What else distinguishes Nisga'a law in force and effect from federal or provincial law? In that respect, I am mindful of the fact that, certainly, the definition of law in the

definitions

chapter does not seek to draw any such distinction.

[1635]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I was really not saying anything much different from what the hon. member has just said, except that I was reminding the hon. member that their authority is limited by the treaty itself.

G. Plant: I think that the minister agrees in the most general way with my very general comments about, shall we say, the distinction between laws which are not consensually based from other things that might be -- that is, Nisga'a citizens who will be subject to laws validly made by Nisga'a government institutions within the scope of their authority will be subject to those laws in the same way as the minister and I are subject to the laws of British Columbia, in the sense that we don't have the option available to us to say: "I choose not to be governed by that law." If the law applies, then the law applies.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

J. Weisgerber: I'm delighted to have an opportunity to rise before we get too far into the specifics of this debate. It seems to me that since we last visited this issue of self-government . . . . Some of you may know that the major objection that I have to this treaty is in fact around this

section of the treaty. Since we last had an opportunity to have any discussion on this, we not only have had a change in minister but the new territory of Nunavut has been officially put into place. It occurred to me that we now have in this country three territorial governments, each with a population of somewhere between 25,000 and 35,000 people -- each about the size of a small British Columbia town, in terms of population -- and each of which has all of the structures of a provincial government and many of the costs that go along with that.

As I listen to the debate, I think it is important for us to talk about the costs associated with this Nisga'a government and what that's going to mean for British Columbians and for Canadians -- and not only the one time that a Nisga'a government is put in place but whenever this model is implemented again across British Columbia. Without any fear of contradiction, I will suggest that within a decade, every aboriginal community in Canada will be self-governed, using either the Nisga'a model or the Sechelt model.

So these costs are very real in terms of their application to the 2,500 or 3,000 Nisga'a who live in the valley and who will be directly affected by this government. But every aboriginal person living on what are now known as reserve lands in Canada will, I believe, ultimately fall under a similar style of government.

There was a good deal of pomp and ceremony around the creation of another northern government and very little opportunity to talk about the associated costs. The Attorney General said rather passionately that somehow we were just waking up to the fact that these aboriginal government costs

[ Page 11780 ]

had been going on for decades. Why were we tearing our hair out now, simply because there was a treaty being constructed, entered into or agreed to?

[1640]

I would suggest to the Attorney General: at what other opportunity would members of this Legislature who are concerned about the costs of treaty tribal councils or band governments . . . ? What other model . . . ? What other opportunity has there been to raise those issues? I don't know. It's not an issue of being primarily funded through the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs -- perhaps one could have gone to estimates to talk about this issue. The fact of the matter is that for the first time in my experience in this Legislature, we're coming face to face with the hard costs of this notion of aboriginal self-government and an inherent aboriginal self-government.

The minister or the Attorney General said that for the next couple of years -- or the next five years or so -- the commitments of the government would be $30-odd million from Ottawa and a million or so from British Columbia. That represents $10,000 per annum per person on reserve for self-government.

If we then assume that the Nisga'a family is like most families across this country, with about 3.5 people in it . . . . It's always amusing to think of who the 0.5 is. But nevertheless, the average family in British Columbia and Canada is about 3.5 people -- perhaps as high as four in the Nisga'a community. That would mean that every family in British Columbia, on an equivalent basis, would have to pay $40,000 a year in property taxes. What we're talking about is local government funded not by local taxpayers but by senior-government taxpayers.

I hope the minister, or somebody, is going to jump up and say: "No, no, no. There's a much broader range of services that we're providing." That's a fair debate, and we'll get into that. But what we're talking about is local government being funded by Canadian and British Columbian taxpayers to the tune of $10,000 a person per year. I would suggest that that is a reason for some consideration. I suggest that it's a reason for us to think about the extent of local government and whether that's affordable, not only for the Nisga'a but for Canadians and aboriginals across this country.

The minister also suggested: "Look, this is just the same amount of money we've been spending all along. So don't get excited about it." But I would suggest to you that there is a significant and fundamental change taking place. Up until the signing of this treaty, the federal and provincial governments had the prerogative to decide on the level of funding they were going to provide. That was an administrative decision by those people in the province and in Ottawa. This treaty changes that from an arbitrary or administrative decision to an obligation.

I've been through the treaty two or three times; actually, I've been through it several more than that. I've been through the treaty on a number of occasions, and I haven't seen the numbers that the Attorney General refers to. I haven't seen any reference to a limit of $1.2 million by the province or $30.9 million from Ottawa. I would suggest that what we're embarking on, here, is a constitutional and treaty obligation on the two levels of government to fund Nisga'a self-government.

If there are controls that would oblige the Nisga'a to look elsewhere if they overspend their budget, then I would certainly be very much interested in hearing what kind of mechanisms those are and how the various governments intend to bring some degree of fiscal discipline to this self-government process.

[1645]

Hon. G. Wilson: I think the member is raising some legitimate questions, to be sure. But I'm not sure that they legitimately fall under

chapter 11. I think there is a fiscal framework under

chapter 15 where those questions most appropriately would be answered.

The only point I would make is that I would, perhaps in the time between now and when we get to that

chapter . . . . I don't know if the member has made available to himself -- and if not, I'm happy to make it available to the member -- the "Financial and Economic Analysis of Treaty Settlements in British Columbia," prepared by Grant Thornton Management Consultants. They're an independent consulting team. What I asked, when I became minister, was to have not only the total cost of treaty-making costed out but also to have tied into that study a detailed breakdown and analysis of Nisga'a with respect to those fiscal costs. That's available, it's released, and it's public information.

I think that to date, there has been nobody of any credible source challenge these numbers. So I would strongly urge that the member perhaps look at that, and I'm happy to spend a bit of time -- if we need to when we get to

chapter 15, which talks about the fiscal arrangement, fiscal management, and speaks specifically to the questions the member raises -- to get into a bit of a discussion around that.

The only other thing I would say, with respect to those dollars, is that it's also important for us to keep on the record the fact that this is not an agreement between the government of British Columbia and the Nisga'a people; it also includes the federal government. With respect to federal transfer dollars into the province of British Columbia, there is a substantial sum of money, which is currently being expended by the federal government, that will now be directed specifically into the communities that the member refers to. That's no small amount of money.

That is a significant transfer, a net gain, to the province of British Columbia -- something that I think will do two things. One is that it will provide a level of capacity to first nations to be able to generate wealth within their own communities so that they can, like any other tax-paying community in British Columbia, pay taxes and therefore fund and maintain moneys toward the maintenance of their own government. Secondly, it will also provide significant economic opportunity for first nations and non-first nations alike, which improves the overall economy and therefore gives a greater degree of economic opportunity and economic certainty within the province.

I don't want to dismiss what the member is raising. I think that's a very valuable discussion. I think it's one that the people of British Columbia deserve to have dealt with in more detail. I just think the appropriate place to do it is in

chapter 15.

J. Weisgerber: I certainly will take the opportunity, in

chapter 15, to come back and visit those issues. That's an offer, and that's a fair observation. I think, though -- to carry on a bit with the minister's comments -- that there are really two sources of federal money. One is the cash settlement that flows into the Nisga'a economy -- and, arguably, the provincial economy and the local northwest economy -- as a result of the

[ Page 11781 ]

treaty settlement. Recognizing that we're talking now about self-government, if we were to take the Attorney General's words, the money that's coming in is precisely what's coming in now. So I don't think anyone can argue that somehow self-government is going to bring a net benefit. If indeed the Nisga'a government is now getting $31 million and they're going to continue to get $31 million, that seems to me to be simply the continuation of a very expensive government system.

Before I do leave this and move into the item-by-item debate . . . . I regret that the Attorney General has left. The Attorney General on this occasion and on other occasions has made reference to the historical and legal obligations that we as Canadians have to self-government. There -- the Attorney General returns. The Attorney General, apparently appearing quite passionate at that moment, spoke about the failure of previous governments to deal with the historical and legal obligations to provide local self-government. I had to question . . . .

I had to think to myself: was this historical obligation something that he sees as having been in place for decades? If that's the case, why or how in the world did the federal government and the Yukon first nations miss the obligation entirely? How did they go through an entire treaty negotiation process missing out on their historical and legal rights and obligations with respect to self-government?

[1650]

I suggest that there is no such thing. If one looks at the historical obligation with respect to treaties, then look back. The most recent are the Yukon treaties, with no mention of self-government. Look at the Labrador and northern Quebec treaties with the James Bay Cree -- no self-government provision. If there had been a historical obligation or a legal obligation, how did those folks miss out?

When I read the recent Supreme Court decision on Delgamuukw -- and I'm in a heady crowd here with these legal minds -- I looked in my own simple way at the questions that were put to the court, and it seemed to me that the Supreme Court very adroitly sidestepped entirely the issue of self-government. It wouldn't touch it. It talked about land rights and rights with respect to aboriginal title and entirely avoided the question of the inherent right to self-government.

I don't think whether or not aboriginal self-government is the right thing to do is the question. I quite honestly believe that aboriginal people, like other Canadians, are entitled to local government, to participation in federal and provincial governments. I also happen to believe that all of us, as Canadians, are entitled to any amount of government that we're prepared to pay for. Again, the only limit on the actions of the federal government is the willingness or the unwillingness of taxpayers to support it.

The only limit in this House on the actions of this government or any other government that sits over there is the willingness of the taxpayers to fund that spending. And I would suggest that the same thing happens in the city of Vancouver and the city of Dawson Creek and the village of Pouce Coupe. But it doesn't apply where this aboriginal self-government is in place, and I believe that that is a fundamental link that's missing.

There has to be a direct connection with the size and the scope of government and the willingness of taxpayers to fund it, or I believe it is doomed. I know that this is sounding an awful lot like a second reading speech, but it is something that I believe is pivotal to this whole agreement. I would be delighted to hear a response from the Attorney General or the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, those comments are in the nature of second reading debate. I wouldn't respond to all of them, except to clarify that when I mentioned historical obligations, I was not referring to self-government in particular. I was referring generally to the issue of treaties, which has been unresolved for some time. We've known that.

M. de Jong: We have a collection of sections that refer to the recognition of Nisga'a Lisims government, Nisga'a village governments. Let me, in that collection of sections, focus on the use of the words "intergovernmental relations." We have pursued the Attorney General at other times about how one could best characterize the model of self-government that exists here -- whether it is something new, whether it is something contemplated by the constitution and how it is, if at all, distinguishable from other forms of local government.

[1655]

For many, the use of that particular term, "intergovernmental relations," and the assignment of responsibility for intergovernmental relations to Nisga'a Lisims government provides a significant clue as to what the parties to this agreement mean when they establish this model. It's not a term that is utilized in respect of the relationship that might exist between municipal and regional governments. It is, however, a term that in this country has historically characterized the relationships between provinces themselves and the provinces and the federal government.

In fact, many provinces have a minister responsible for intergovernmental relations, and that minister has jurisdiction to deal with his or her colleagues in other provinces and the federal government. It is not a term, as I say, that has been historically used to describe relationships between local governments.

It's an interesting term and, as I say, to many people signifies the creation of something different and unique here. The Attorney General may differ in his

interpretation or explanation as to why the term is applicable, why the term is used, and I'm interested in hearing that explanation.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member started with the following question: does the use of this term offer a clue to self-government? The answer is no, because that term, intergovernmental, is used in its most literal sense, and therefore it should not attract anything more than that.

M. de Jong: I said something further, and maybe I was incorrect. The Attorney General, I'm sure, will happily correct me if that is the case. We don't, to my knowledge, use the term intergovernmental in any other statutory provision when we describe the relationship that exists between a municipal government and the province or a regional government and the province. If we do, I'm not aware of the context within which we use that term.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm sure that when councillors and mayors are talking about relations between the provincial government and the federal government, they employ, in its literal sense, the term "intergovernmental relations." It should not carry any meaning other than its literal meaning in this context. The issues around self-government are defined in the sections following sections 2, 3 and 4 -- and others.

M. de Jong: Not to belabour the point, but I'll try one more time. It is, I think, a question of defining status, of

[ Page 11782 ]

addressing the observation that many have made that what is created by virtue of this treaty and these chapters is a local government that enjoys a status that is not only different from local government elsewhere in the province -- indeed, the country -- but a status that elevates local Nisga'a government above that which is enjoyed by other local governments in the province and in the country.

To that extent, I would suggest to the Attorney General that use of the term is significant -- both from a symbolic and a practical point of view -- insofar as how that term has come to be used elsewhere in Canada, both historically and at present, as a means of defining the relationship that exists between levels of government.

[1700]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that one of the practical reasons this paragraph is in the treaty is because the provincial government didn't want to be dealing with village governments on all of the issues that it has to deal with. So I think it should be taken at its literal

interpretation and no more than that.

M. de Jong: That's helpful insofar as determining what the provincial government's intentions might be. I'm not sure it's as helpful in addressing the concern that I've identified -- or laying to rest that concern -- based on, as I say, how that term has come to be used historically in this country. I think there are other questions relating to that, and I'll let other members have their opportunity.

I will, though, ask this question with respect to another

section that appears in that collection of 2, 3 and 4, and that is the implication that Nisga'a government jurisdiction and authority is going to evolve. I think that at some point we have to address what the parties to this agreement mean when they talk about an evolving jurisdiction and place that

section in the context of an agreement that is being touted by its proponents as enshrining the concepts of certainty and finality.

Those three terms -- the one and the two latter, in particular -- seem somewhat inconsistent for those who, on the one hand, are being asked to look to this agreement as a definitive enumeration of the powers that Nisga'a government will e