1995 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 35th 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)

THURSDAY, MAY 11, 1995

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 19, Number 23

[ Page 14191 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

R. Chisholm: Today in the House we have a Mr. Lemna from Chilliwack Secondary School and 100 students plus adults to observe the parliament in action. Would you make them welcome, please.

Hon. A. Edwards: Today it's a great pleasure for me to introduce some special guests from Mexico. We have the Secretary of Energy, Mr. Ignacio Pichardo Pagaza. With him is the chairman of the Mexican Energy Regulatory Commission, Mr. Hector Olea, and also the newly appointed consul general for Mexico in Vancouver, Mr. Gabriel Rosales Vega. With them are some other senior officials, and they have been accompanied in a cross-Canada trip by Senator Jack Austin. Please make them all welcome.

D. Jarvis: Sitting in the gallery is a constituent of mine, Miss Terri Kennedy, who is with Gore Mutual Insurance Co., the first company that I ever worked for in the insurance industry. Miss Kennedy is here in Victoria attending the convention of the Insurance Broker's Association of B.C. Would the House give her a warm welcome, please.

G. Brewin: Today joining us in the House are some very special visitors from Japan: Mr. Masaki Abe and Mr. Shigeo Hatanaka are from IBC Television in Morioka, Japan. This is the tenth anniversary of the sister-city link between Victoria and Morioka. Next week over 400 Moriokans will be taking

part in the Victoria Day celebrations here in Victoria. The gentlemen from IBC are here to organize a live program to be telecast between Victoria's CHEK 6 TV and IBC in Morioka. One of the stars of that program is going to be, of course, the mayor of Morioka -- and others, including our own carver, Tony Hunt, who will be officiating at the raising of a totem pole as our gift from Victoria to Morioka. It will be seen live on television in both countries, and that is apparently a first for Canadian broadcasting. Would the House please make them welcome.

F. Jackson: Visiting in the gallery today is a constituent of mine, Linda Walton. I met Linda wandering in the halls this morning admiring the beauty of this place, and I suggested that she should take in question period to see the other side of the story. I should also mention, hon. Speaker, that there may well be an ulterior motive for what I have done today, because Linda's husband, Bill, has got some ideas of replacing me in this chamber. Would the House please make Linda and her friend, Wilma Beddington, welcome.

V. Anderson: I'd like the House to welcome a constituent who works with the Insurance Bureau of Canada: Keith Frew from the Vancouver-Langara riding.

Also joining us today is an old friend of mine and of people of all parties in this building for many decades, a gentleman named Bill Chernoff, formerly of Nakusp, presently of Vancouver. Bill is a bit of a visionary, an entrepreneur in the forest industry, an educator of Forests ministers of all parties for at least 20 years and a tiny bit of a stubborn fellow.

Please make them all welcome.

W. Hurd: I'm pleased to advise the House that my colleague the MLA for Surrey-Cloverdale is celebrating his fifty-sixth birthday today. I would ask the House to mark that occasion. I can say that after four years in this assembly, he's getting younger every day.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I want members today to welcome some visitors from the North Island, except in this case this is the North Island of New Zealand: my wife's sister, Christine Bell-Booth, with her children, Anna and Emily. I'd like all members to make them welcome.

Introduction of Bills

TOBACCO SALES AMENDMENT ACT, 1995

Hon. P. Ramsey presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Tobacco Sales Amendment Act, 1995.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

This bill introduces an administrative plan by which a tobacco vendor's licence may be suspended for repeated infractions of the Tobacco Sales Act. This is a further step in the government's strategy to reduce the consumption of tobacco among young people. Last June, our government brought in legislation which imposed several prohibitions on retailers, including the sale of tobacco to persons under 19 years of age. This was followed by an educational campaign and by increasing levels of enforcement.

The bill introduced today provides for tough enforcement measures to be taken against vendors who repeatedly violate the legislation. A vendor's licence to sell tobacco may be suspended for a period of between three and 12 months. Additional amendments are made to facilitate prosecution and enforcement of existing legislation, and I'll describe the details of those at second reading of the bill.

In tabling this legislation today, I want to acknowledge the considerable assistance provided by the Minister of Finance in bringing this bill forward.

Bill 21 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

GUARANTEED AVAILABLE INCOME FOR NEED AMENDMENT ACT, 1995

Hon. J. MacPhail presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Guaranteed Available Income for Need Amendment Act, 1995.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that the bill be introduced and read for the first time now.

[ Page 14192 ]

This government has examined every aspect of the income assistance system to find ways to make it more effective, efficient and fair. We've identified a need for several amendments to the GAIN Act. Most of the amendments in this bill are of a technical nature and clarify the substance and intent of the existing act.

[2:15]

But the bill does introduce one substantive change that affects the income assistance appeal system. Under the GAIN Act, anyone who disagrees with ministry decisions to cut, stop or deny welfare benefits can request a review conducted within the ministry. If that's unsatisfactory, clients may appeal to a three-member tribunal comprising community members selected for this purpose.

A comprehensive review, including consultations with ministry staff, community members and the office of the ombudsman has revealed serious concerns about fairness in the system. Selection of tribunal members needs to more fully represent the overall community; tribunal decisions vary widely from case to case; some decisions are made in error of law; and tribunal decisions can only be appealed or overturned in court -- generally a long and costly process.

If the public is to have confidence in the integrity of the income assistance system, decisions made by tribunals must truly reflect the substance of the governing legislation and reflect the standards and values of the broad community in which we live. Therefore this bill will enhance the recruitment, training and selection methods of those who sit on tribunals, and establish a provincial appeal board with expertise about the GAIN Act to ensure that decisions across the province are consistent and fair to both clients and taxpayers.

Bill 20 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

NISGA'A TREATY NEGOTIATIONS AND COMMERCIAL FISHERY

A. Warnke: My question is for the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. We have learned that the NDP government is now making another offer to the Nisga'a on their land claim. As the minister knows, British Columbians are very concerned about the secrecy surrounding these land claim negotiations. Will the minister table this offer in the House today, so that all British Columbians have the opportunity to see its details?

Hon. J. Cashore: The document being tabled today is the document that was referenced in the information that came out last week, so it's not separate from that. It was indicated in that information that we would be tabling a document. With regard to making it public, in the context of the confidentiality clause that was signed by the previous minister, the inister of Native Affairs, I have instructed the chief negotiator to seek the support of the other two negotiating partners to enable us to release that position so that it may see the light of day.

A. Warnke: My supplemental is to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. As it stands now under the present system, aboriginals have the opportunity of purchasing licences to fish and acquire boats through buyout programs. Since we've learned that the minister is operating a separate commercial native fishery as part of the Nisga'a settlement, and since we learned this week that this government is committed to only one gambling policy for all British Columbians, will the minister commit to ensuring that there remains only one commercial fishing policy for all British Columbians?

Hon. J. Cashore: I've consistently made it very clear that the only way the provincial government would ever sign a treaty with regard to any position put forward by the federal government on fish would be where there was an absolute assurance that there would be written into the treaty the process and the details with regard to monitoring and enforcement that the federal government would have to ensure so that our fundamental position is upheld, and that is the conservation of the stock.

ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS MINISTRY POLICY ON OFFICIAL BUSINESS MEETINGS

W. Hurd: I, too, have a question for the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. Through freedom of information, the opposition has obtained an internal audit that shows irregularities in the way officials in the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs bill their expenses for business meetings. The manual calls for business expenses to be approved prior to the meetings, but of 104 billing claims in the audit sample, 86 were given approval after the function occurred, and 38 were never given proper approval at all. Can the minister explain how these frequent violations of policy have occurred within his ministry?

Hon. J. Cashore: This is the first time that I have heard this. I will examine this in the context of the statement the hon. member has made, and I will take the question on notice.

The Speaker: The member has a new question?

W. Hurd: The internal audit also shows that meetings with aboriginal groups are perceived to be class 3 meetings. In the operating policy manual, examples of class 3 meetings are: "Official visits by royalty, heads of state, heads of government and foreign ministers." Can the minister explain why meetings with aboriginal groups are regarded by the government in British Columbia as meetings with sovereign states?

Hon. J. Cashore: I said I would take the question on notice.

CROWN DECISION NOT TO PROSECUTE ALLEGED RAPIST

R. Neufeld: My question is to the Attorney General. British Columbians don't want creeps like John Oughton, the paper-bag rapist, on the streets, and the people in my community are mad as hell that the Crown is refusing to prosecute a known individual who allegedly raped a 14-year-old girl who became pregnant as a result. The day before the victim was to gain her day in court, Crown prosecutors decided that they would not proceed, because the courts had just

[ Page 14193 ]

dismissed a similar case. What recourse does this victim have against her alleged assailant if the Crown won't even prosecute her alleged rapist?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm afraid I'll have to take that question on notice.

The Speaker: The question is taken on notice.

COST OF B.C. HYDRO RESTRUCTURING

G. Farrell-Collins: According to documents obtained from B.C. Hydro, Hydro spent $2 million to relocate 40 employees during their recent restructuring. That's $50,000 per employee. Can the minister responsible for B.C. Hydro explain why it cost $2 million to shuffle people around the province for B.C. Hydro?

Hon. G. Clark: I'm familiar with the freedom-of-information request that the member has filed. I have reviewed the information, and I'm quite pleased that he's raising this in the House. We've eliminated 800 positions at B.C. Hydro -- about 12 percent of the employees at B.C. Hydro. We're making that corporation more efficient. We want to provide efficient energy to British Columbians, we want to keep hydroelectric rates among the lowest in the world, and we want to make sure that this healthy Crown corporation is contributing to economic development throughout the regions of British Columbia.

The restructuring.... If we are to make the downsizing required to make B.C. Hydro more competitive in an increasingly deregulated and energy-competitive world, we have to treat our employees fairly. We have to make sure that the restructuring is done in keeping with treating those workers in a way that is consistent with government policy. Yes, it does cost about $23 million to accomplish the restructuring; and we save $23 million a year in perpetuity from these efficiency gains.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'm sure that all those employees will have actually had moving expenses, unlike Connie Munro, who didn't and received the money anyway.

A person only has to read the documents obtained from B.C. Hydro to know how out of touch with reality they really are, despite what the minister says. Under the heading "Furniture Moves," B.C. Hydro estimates that it has cost another $2 million to relocate their office furniture. Last year B.C. Hydro spent $1 million to move furniture from downtown to the Edmonds site, and now they're spending another $2 million to shuffle desks. How can that minister, despite all the rhetoric, justify $2 million to move office furniture from one office to the other?

Hon. G. Clark: This is not rhetoric. We have eliminated 800 FTEs; some 600 individuals were terminated. We have moved to make this corporation much more efficient than in the past and to prepare for the future. It costs money to restructure a large corporation and put it on a competitive footing, and we make no apologies for some short-term expenses which lead to a more efficient corporation in the long run for the people of British Columbia.

NISGA'A TREATY NEGOTIATIONS AND COMMERCIAL FISHERY

L. Fox: My question this afternoon is to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The province has indicated that it is prepared to grant the Nisga'a a formal share of the commercial salmon fishery. Given that the courts have never recognized an aboriginal right to commercial fishing, how can the minister responsible for fisheries support this position? Why is this government bound and determined to carve up a commercial fishery based on race, and to grant a special status to one class of British Columbians at the expense of equal treatment for all?

Hon. J. Cashore: The settlement of treaties has more to do with history and the legal framework than it has to do with race. I think we need to recognize the context in which this discussion is taking place. We're seeking to achieve certainty; new, modern treaties enable us to deal with issues which are now very confusing, in many instances because of the anomalies of the federal Indian Act.

With regard to fish, the fundamental and basic point with regard to the provincial government is that conservation is paramount. We will not agree to anything with regard to any federal position unless we have a guarantee in the treaty that there will be protection of the stocks through monitoring and enforcement, and we want that spelled out by the federal government.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

L. Fox: The province's negotiating mandate states: "British Columbia will support a Nisga'a commercial entitlement outside the treaty...." It also states: "British Columbia will not support a treaty right to surplus salmon." Is it the province's position that there's no aboriginal right to a commercial fishery? If so, is the province now prepared to say that it will not negotiate or ratify any treaty that includes a legal right to an aboriginal commercial fishery?

Hon. J. Cashore: In the document the hon. member read, he quoted a commercial right outside the treaty. With regard to any commercial allocations, they would be outside the treaty, and therefore would be subject to the conservation limitations that would be placed on that by the Minister of Fisheries in consultation with all the fisher groups in the province. I don't want to stand here and defend a federal position, but that is how they have explained their position with regard to what they want to take to the table.

When it comes to the issue of food fish, what we're talking about here is basically the removal of a right -- the right for food fish for sustenance -- and the removal of that right, as an aboriginal right, to come into what would be a treaty agreement. But if that is to happen -- and I say, if that is to happen -- there has to be the kind of quid quo pro that makes that a benefit to the province as well as to the Nisga'a.

USE OF NON-B.C. CONSULTANT IN B.C. HYDRO RESTRUCTURING

M. de Jong: The Minister of Employment and Investment is fond of proclaiming his commitment to providing jobs for British Columbians. Therefore I question.... My question

[ Page 14194 ]

to him is to explain why, during the recent reorganization of B.C. Hydro, B.C. Hydro used an American consulting firm, Mercer Management Consulting Inc. Maybe he can indicate whether that was a referral from Karl

Struble.

Hon. G. Clark: Mercer Consulting is the recognized international expert on restructuring of hydroelectric and energy utilities. For the edification of members of the opposition, all utilities in North America are going through significant restructuring as the rules of the game change. All utilities are struggling to come to grips with a competitive environment which heretofore did not exist in regulated monopolies.

Mercer is recognized internationally as an expert in giving advice on how to position a corporation to take advantage of the opportunities that exist in that new marketplace and to minimize the costs associated with that. Mercer consultants were hired to assist and to give advice. They did not write the full report; they gave some preliminary information, which Hydro management then took and worked on internally to provide the restructuring.

[2:30]

I might advise members, if they don't know, that I believe they have retained Mercer again, to review the restructuring to ensure that it meets the proper efficiency standards; that we make sure that we continue to have the most efficient utility in North America.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

M. de Jong: Well, I hope the minister is right as far as this group having some expertise is concerned, because the invoices suggest that they've received a total of $194,000 that was spent on the design and launch of the first two phases of the restructuring of B.C. Hydro. The first phase was run out of Toronto, and the two most recent bills for $55,000 were payable to Boston in U.S. funds. My question to the minister quite simply is this: where did his commitment to hiring local firms go when B.C. Hydro decided it was time to restructure?

Hon. G. Clark: There are only ten utilities in Canada that I know of -- ten or maybe 12 utilities in Canada -- in the hydroelectric field, and we are leading the country in terms of becoming more efficient and restructuring. The expertise in terms of giving advice on that question does not exist in the form that we required to ensure that we were meeting the standards that our competitors shortly will be meeting.

I find it interesting that this member talks about jobs in British Columbia because B.C. Hydro is pursuing the construction of Stave Lake, of the fifth unit at Revelstoke, of the Seven Mile unit at Revelstoke -- all with British Columbia labour, all with local hire, all with union hire. Those members oppose the local-hire provisions in every single way, whether it's the Island Highway or B.C. Hydro.

I want to advise the members that very shortly we will be announcing a significant new investment in British Columbia of private companies building turbines in British Columbia, by using the leverage of our Crown corporation to build jobs in British Columbia instead of selling to their friends like the Liberal Party wants to do.

The Speaker: The bell terminates question period.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I have the honour to present the Report of the 1995 Judicial Compensation Committee of British Columbia. Under subsection 7.1(8) of the Provincial Court Act, I am required to inform the Legislature of the effect of tabling the report in the House.

As hon. members will recall, last session the House passed an amendment to the Provincial Court Act which established a new process for determining the remuneration for Provincial Court judges. Under the act, a committee is established every three years to make recommendations to the Legislature on compensation for the provincial judiciary. One of the amendments states that the Provincial Court judiciary are entitled to receive the remuneration, allowances and benefits proposed by the committee in its recommendations, unless the recommendations are rejected by the Legislature under subsection 7.1(9).

The Legislature has 21 sitting days after the report and recommendations are tabled in the House -- which means, of course, 21 sitting days after today -- to pass a resolution to reject one or more of the recommendations made in the report on the grounds that the recommendations are unfair or unreasonable. If the House does pass a resolution of rejection, the resolution must also fix the remuneration, allowances or benefits that are to be substituted for the remuneration, allowances or benefits proposed by the rejected recommendations.

If, at the end of 21 sitting days, the Legislature has not passed a resolution, then the recommendations in this report take effect retroactively to January 1, 1995.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply: in Committee A, the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources estimates; in Committee B, the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs estimates.

The House in Committee of Supply B; H. Giesbrecht in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS

(continued)

On vote 10: minister's office, $322,041 (continued).

A. Warnke: Actually, the last time I addressed a series of questions was on the Nisga'a agreements, and what I want to do is follow up on them. I believe other members want to continue on, because I think there is still enough out there that really needs extra clarification. The clarification is so essential, because a number of groups have been very explicit and clear that if, for example, there is some sort of an agreement that imposes upon them in the fishing industry, it will have an adverse effect on the industry as a whole.

As a matter of fact.... I'm sure the minister is quite well aware of this, and obviously I will be putting these questions to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food as well. Where it pertains to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, I am wondering whether the minister.... I'm sure he's aware of some of the comments made by, say, the B.C. Fisheries Survival Coalition and many people involved in the fishing

[ Page 14195 ]

industry as well. They're concerned about the pending treaty that might take place, but I suppose what I'm searching for now is the rationale for that kind of agreement.

Indeed, perhaps the best way to lead off is to actually quote from the B.C. Fisheries Survival Coalition and other groups that have come together which represent the industry, and point out that the proposals advanced to the Nisga'a would provide special kinds of privileges in the allocation of salmon, especially where there is a marine-sensitive area. The minister has made it very clear that conservation and ecological concerns are uppermost and primary. But even if that could be established, the problem is that the fishing industry wants access to the fish and the Nisga'a want access to the fish.

I guess where there's a lot of discussion or controversy is that there are a lot of British Columbians who understand from the courts, especially from the Sparrow decision, that the right to have fish allocated for food, social and ceremonial use is proper. A lot of British Columbians have no problem with that; they don't have any problem in terms of using fish for sustenance, for people to live from. But it gets kind of controversial when we get into the area of selling the fish, especially in the commercial area.

What I want to explore, and where it pertains to the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, is that in coming to terms with this agreement -- there is the Nisga'a agreement and then there are going to be other kinds of agreements -- there is this feeling that whatever is finally decided in the Nisga'a case will also carry on in some of the other cases. We're really wondering why there seems to be almost a concession at the outset that says that beyond fish allocated for food, social and ceremonial use, perhaps it should be enshrined in the resolutions at the end to sell fish for commercial purposes.

Perhaps I'm off track, and maybe I've just heard the wrong things or read the wrong things in the papers; as we have all said in this House from time to time, you can't believe everything you read in the papers. But I would like to explore this with the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and seek some clarification on this.

Hon. J. Cashore: With regard to the fish component of the Nisga'a treaty, I reiterate that fish is primarily a federal issue, except where the province's conservation responsibility for inland stocks comes into play. It is true that there are three parties at the table.

We have made it very, very clear -- again and again and again -- that if we are to get a deal on fish that is an appropriate deal when you look at the range right across the spectrum of issues that are being negotiated, if we are to give any support to the federal position, then that support will require a treaty commitment to monitoring and enforcement. I think it's very important that hon. members realize the significance of that, because I am not aware of any treaty precedent for such a condition.

We are aware, however, that the people of British Columbia are very seriously concerned about the record of the federal government on protecting fish stocks. Therefore here is one way in which a treaty can be of benefit to all British Columbians: having a legal requirement written into the treaty that would ensure that the federal government has to monitor and enforce in a way that would be specified within the treaty. I believe that it is very significant, and I think that that in itself should be seen as one of the possible benefits of a treaty.

With regard to the questions the hon. member was raising, I just want to outline some of the points that were made in the document that came into the light of day last week.

Any support for any position that has to do with fish would require that effective measures for monitoring and enforcement are provided in the treaty, as I said; that the sale of fish is subject to the laws of general application -- that would be whether it was any commercial fish inside or outside of the treaty, and there are possibilities through negotiation of some considerations outside of the treaty, which would therefore not become a treaty right -- and that all harvest entitlements are provided on a communal basis.

British Columbia will not support a treaty right to surplus salmon, and government and industry recognize the need to rationalize the commercial fishing industry in British Columbia and feel strongly that the fisheries component of the treaty must be flexible enough to fit into any future restructuring such as would come out of the recommendations of the John Fraser report.

I would also point out that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and I went to Ottawa and met with ministers Irwin and Tobin at the beginning of last week. We informed them in very clear terms of this government's requirement with regard to monitoring and enforcement.

With regard to the question of the sale of any fish that might result, it is our position that where it comes to fish for food and sustenance, if that were to be considered as a treaty right -- if that were to be the case -- there would be a concomitant removal of it as an aboriginal right. That would be one of the effects of the treaty. The treaty would have the effect of removing the first nation from the Indian Act. That is our goal, and that is our intent when it comes to treaty settlements.

It is very clear that conservation is what this province is taking to the table, and that fish issues pertaining to the federal government are what they're taking to the table, and we've made it very clear where we stand on that.

[2:45]

L. Boone: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

L. Boone: On behalf of the Speaker, I'd like the House to join with me in welcoming Ms. M. Smith, who is a teacher from Riverview Elementary in Snohomish County, Washington. She and 86 of her students and some other chaperones are here to learn about comparative government and some local history. I hope they are learning about comparisons, and that the comparisons between what they see here and what they see in their own communities are not too bad. I hope we don't fare too badly. Would the House please join me in welcoming this group of people to our Legislature.

A. Warnke: I want to follow up on that particular question. There was a concern expressed by the same group I referred to that the creation of a special fishery does not meet the test of equity. Perhaps it's just something here -- a principle -- that obviously needs to be filled out, and I'm wondering if the minister has a response to that.

[ Page 14196 ]

Hon. J. Cashore: I do respect the point the hon. member is making with regard to the test of equity in all matters pertaining to citizens of British Columbia. I recognize, however, that in the context of treaty negotiations, we're talking about resolving issues that go back 150 years.

The resolution of these issues therefore does not violate tests of equity in any way, but it does mean, based on historic circumstances where there are undefined rights and where the courts are saying we need to define those rights through negotiation, that in the context of a treaty the purpose is to get finality to an agreement with regard to several issues that are now very confusing. It's not clear because of the anomalies of the federal Indian Act, etc. I do not think that an agreement violates an issue of equity.

I know what the hon. member is getting at, and that is that there are a lot of British Columbians who want all the laws to be the same for everybody. The laws of general application will apply, but by definition treaties do mean that there would be those agreements between the province and the first nation that would be within the treaty, and that would be something that is freely and openly negotiated.

A. Warnke: I guess it would also be fair to say that.... Maybe I'm prejudging the case a little bit. Aboriginals themselves have time and time again suggested that to move in a direction of a resolution that adheres strictly to the principle of equality or equity actually hides the policy of assimilation and integrationism that is rejected by a number of aboriginal groups. So there is definitely a problem there. This point has been made before, and I will not elaborate on it.

I also wanted to clean up, I suppose, one little matter that jumps out in terms of the Nisga'a case. In the document that the minister has referred to and is well acquainted with and has quoted from -- it was released or leaked or whatever by the federal Reform Party last week -- there is stated the expressed determination of the provincial government to settle the Nisga'a land claim issue by June 30. I must admit that I'm still wanting in terms of what happens after June 30.

The reason I suggest this is that in terms of any negotiations that I'm familiar with, once you've established some sort of deadline -- especially if the deadline is perceived as a way of forcing the other side to come to terms with or accept or reject a proposal -- if the deadline is passed there will be certain kinds of actions taken. Quite often what is generally perceived as a skilful tactic in negotiations.... Once you've established some sort of deadline, you set out the terms of what will happen if the deadline is passed.

One states very explicitly the course of action or the implications that are going to follow after a particular deadline. If it's established and clearly laid out, then there are really no surprises. That's number one.

There's another aspect to this as well: sometimes if there's a deadline established without any explicit mention of what the implications are or the course of action that will follow, then the person initiating the deadline can often be accused of bluffing. That's number two.

Third, in this particular case I've noted that a number of people have actually suggested that this may be a tactic by putting the Nisga'a in the situation of having to reject the proposal. It has raised the view expressed by many people that perhaps the government had not intended to negotiate a settlement. Whether that's a fair comment or a wrong comment, all of this leads up to an impression that perhaps the government is not negotiating in good faith. So there is that view out there, and I suppose it's an accusation as well.

I'm sure the minister has come across newspaper reports that there's a political agenda attached to this as well, that by putting on a deadline, somehow it's due to some sort of political consideration. I must admit I don't quite see the obvious connection. Nonetheless, I'm wondering, after having said that, whether the minister would care to comment on, first, the course of action that the government intends to take after June 30, if the deadline passes; and second, whether there is going to be a clear statement of the implications and course of action that the provincial government will take if the deadline is passed.

Hon. J. Cashore: I do appreciate the question, because I think it puts out the framework for a response that I want to give. I have answered this question before, but I think this is an opportunity for me to answer it again and put it in a sequence.

The fact is that we have put out a date, which is the date that we have stated when we wish to achieve an AIP -- an agreement in principle. We have indicated, as was revealed in the leaked documents, that we planned to table our comprehensive position imminently -- and I think "imminently" is a very correct word in the present circumstances. So we are doing that, as we said we would and as has been indicated in those documents. That comprehensive position we are putting out there, to a very great extent -- but not entirely -- is foreshadowed in the documents that were released last week.

The purpose of this is to recognize the historic context in which we are operating, and that is that the Nisga'a have the longest-standing claim in the history of Canada. Indeed, with the federal government they have been negotiating for 20 years; British Columbia has been negotiating as a third party in that process for four years. After 20 years, the federal government still has not tabled a final position in a number of areas, including fish, taxation and financial compensation.

I would expect that every member of this House would support the fact that this government wishes to negotiate removal of the

section 87 tax exemption. When I say that, I always hasten to add that aboriginal people do pay a lot of taxes. But there is that exemption. We think that one of the results of a modern treaty should be to put an end to that and to recognize that when people become fully interdependent and functioning effectively within an economy, part of self-determination and self-respect is that they would pay their fair share of taxes for services.

We don't believe that it's in anybody's interest to allow these negotiations to drag out without any context of a finishing time. There have been times when people have talked about dates, but they don't seem to have had any real meaning.

We recognize that there is a way to go, but we believe that by putting out a date it says to the other parties: "We want to know if you're serious about getting a treaty." I think there have been some indications recently that the federal government does not seem to be signalling its intention to follow through on a federal-provincial cost-sharing memorandum of understanding, which they have agreed to. I don't know if that's a factor, but we need to know. We need to know if that's a factor.

Also, hon. members will recall that about six months ago the Nisga'a were lobbying, they were talking to media, and the message was coming through that somehow it was the provincial government that wasn't putting a position on the table, which was not correct. But we did take in good faith what they were saying. Then the Premier ordered that there

[ Page 14197 ]

be a comprehensive review of all the negotiating and all the mandates that have been discussed -- and there are many. We then followed through on what we said we would do after we had talked to them at that time, and we have done that; we have put that out there.

I have also said in the House today that we seek to be able to make our mandate statement public. In order to do that we are under the terms of conditions of a framework agreement, and we wish to have the support of the other negotiating parties to enable us to make that public, because we believe the people of British Columbia have a right to know where this is going.

[3:00]

Having said all that, the hon. member has rightly asked the question: what happens after that date if there's no agreement? That's a perfectly valid question. Parties seriously put positions on the table in negotiations, and they expect other parties, if they are serious, to come back to the table with their serious positions. A serious position coming back to the table would be a position that also puts out where they stand with regard to timing. We need the focus, and the purpose of what we are doing is to achieve that focus.

If they were to come back with a position on timing that indicated to us that they were serious, that they have brought information to the table that said, "In order to have achievable goals, we need this kind of time," and if we were able to see that this was very much in good faith, then we would have something to negotiate with regard to time.

And yes, our position on time would therefore be subject to negotiation, because what we have done would have served the purpose of receiving a good-faith response. Then we would know we had a basis for seeking to continue. We need to know if we have a basis for seeking to continue, because if we don't -- if the federal government is satisfied to just let this go on and on, perhaps because their negotiating budget is something that they feel more comfortable with than their budget for settlements -- then we just can't see that being open-ended and going on without any focus.

Our position is that if they come to the table and say, "Yes, we think there's a basis for a conclusion here; we think the time is unrealistic, and this is the time we would suggest," and if we ascertained that this is a good-faith response, then we have a basis for getting down to some serious talking about how we can set a realistic time line and how we can seek to achieve that in the interests of all British Columbians, including the Nisga'a.

If we were to find in our considered judgment that they simply were not intent on getting serious about setting a time line and putting realistic positions on the table, then I have to tell hon. members in all seriousness that we have an enormous task with regard to seeking to negotiate modern treaties. And we would have to consider the deployment of the resources that are currently involved in that negotiation so that we could have the greatest value for the work that the members of that negotiating team are putting forward.

So we are seeking to get focus and are seeking to come up with a realistic date. We believe we've put a realistic date out there. If they don't think that it is, for goodness' sake tell us. Let's talk about it and let's find out if we are all moving in good faith towards what is going to be a lasting and appropriate settlement.

A. Warnke: I appreciate the minister's answers. Very frequently the minister referred to whether they are serious, and I guess the magic word is "they." I'm not exactly sure whether it's the federal government or the Nisga'a he's referring to, or both. Perhaps just a quick clarification would be appreciated there.

I take it, then, from what the minister is saying, that there is a June 30 deadline. Then, to see if there is any sort of response.... Based on the response, that June 30 deadline is renegotiable; perhaps for the purpose of establishing some sort of time frame, June 30 could be delayed to another time whereby people come together. Am I correct in that?

Hon. J. Cashore: We have put a position on the table. We have said that we think it's achievable by a certain date. If our other parties at the table come back with a position that indicates that there's a basis for negotiation, and that negotiation can also consider the setting of the time.... Just to be hypothetical, if the other parties were to come back and say, "We don't think we can do it by the date that you have cited, but we think we can do it by this other date for these reasons," then we would have to look at that very seriously. That's what I mean by us being convinced that they are serious.

But if the parties came back and said: "No, we have no idea when we can get this thing accomplished...."

Also, I have to add to that that I think it behooves the federal government to put a comprehensive position out there, such as we are doing. I think, again, that this is one of the messages we heard very clearly from the public. Perhaps the federal government isn't quite as close to hearing what the public is saying as we are, but they should be. The public wants to know what's out there. We believe that we should make our position available to the public; we believe that the federal government should do that also.

A. Warnke: I deduct from the answer that the minister seems to be pointing the finger in the direction of the federal government for not putting out its comprehensive position. It seems to me that the minister is under the impression that the federal government is primarily responsible for not pursuing the matter seriously. If that's the case, perhaps the minister could confirm or clarify that. But I'm wondering, then, what appears to be the basis of the problem here. Is it a fact that the two governments are just coming at this from separate viewpoints or perspectives, and that they're not in contact with one another? Just what seems to be the problem here?

Hon. J. Cashore: I don't want to be misunderstood on the issue of seriousness. I think that the respect that's necessary in order to achieve modern settlements means that we have to have an awareness of the seriousness of all the parties. A lot of really valuable work has been done in a context of seriousness; there's no question about that. So I don't wish the use of my word "serious" to imply that the other parties have not negotiated in good faith; they have.

I'm talking now, however, about being serious about "getting to yes," about getting to a conclusion, about recognizing that there has been adequate time to do the research -- to do the background -- and it's now time to put the very clear, comprehensive positions out there. That's what we are asking our other negotiators at the table, in all seriousness, to do. After all, we have been asked to do it, and we've done it; and we're asking them to do it also.

[ Page 14198 ]

D. Symons: I ask leave to make an introduction, please.

Leave granted.

A. Warnke: I just want to put forward another question on this in terms of trying to reach some sort of settlement -- that is, the status of the acreage to be negotiated. There are all kinds of figures out there, ranging from a hundred and.... I believe the Treaty 8 is about 160 acres per person or something like that.

An Hon. Member: One hundred and twenty eight.

A. Warnke: One hundred and twenty eight, all right. Thank you, distinguished colleague. One hundred and sixty.... I've heard 500 -- there's quite a wide variety of acreage involved here. I'm wondering, since we're on the subject of the Nisga'a, whether in fact the minister could present to us the status of the acreage question -- just exactly what we're dealing with, how far apart we are, and so on.

Hon. J. Cashore: When we talk about land area in consideration in a treaty, there's quite a difference between a treaty adhesion such as McLeod Lake, where the role of the provincial government is to be present at what is really a federal-first nations negotiation based on Treaty 8, the post-Confederation treaty, and to ensure that the interests of the province are represented within that negotiation.... With regard to the treaties that come under the Treaty Commission, or indeed the Nisga'a treaty, we're talking about treaties that end up with a wide array of issues that probably....

I think there would probably be about 19 or 20 of the issues that would be the titles of specific mandates in the overall context of negotiating a treaty. So you have to look at the amount of land in the modern treaty-making process, the tripartite process, as part of a total package. Therefore any formula based on per capita that may be projected, even on the provincewide treaty-making process or on the basis of what's going on in an adhesion treaty, is really apples and oranges. In an adhesion treaty, for instance, we are not into a tripartite negotiation that's dealing with a range of perhaps 20 topics.

C. Serwa: We'll just go back a few steps -- I couldn't get in earlier -- to several questions with respect to fish. It's not clear in my mind under what mandate of authority the provincial government is taking a position of negotiating with respect to the fish, whether they be inland stocks or saltwater stocks. Perhaps the minister could enlighten me on that.

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, the mandate or authority of any activity with regard to our negotiating within the context of the Nisga'a treaty would be in the agreements that have been achieved between the previous provincial government, the federal government and the Nisga'a with regard to sitting down to negotiate. It's within that context that the guidelines are laid out and that the authority to do so exists. So our government, when we came into government, decided to continue the role that this hon. member's previous government had embarked on with regard to negotiating that treaty.

Now, with regard to his question of fish, whether they be inland fish or saltwater fish, the fact is that when a treaty which is tripartite is concluded, there are three entities that sign that treaty. Therefore those entities have an interest in virtually every topic that comes up for discussion.

C. Serwa: It's my understanding that under the British North America Act the federal government retains, I guess, the monopoly right with respect to fish, whether it be saltwater fish like salmon that migrate into the fresh water or freshwater fish. That is sort of being sublet as a responsibility of the province. The province, in the final analysis, is subject to the will of the federal government. My question is that I don't understand, even though it's a tripartite process, how the provincial government has any legal authority to enter into these discussions, other than in an advisory capacity.

After listening to the minister, who has talked about conservation and the fact that the province has some interest in conservation of stocks -- which is desirable -- I don't understand under what authority the minister believes it has any right to negotiate in matters concerning fish.

Hon. J. Cashore: I think the hon. member partly answered his own question with regard to our commitment to look after the interests and hear the concerns of British Columbians with regard to conservation.

The same can be said for economic interests. British Columbia fishers are part of B.C.'s economy, and it behooves the provincial government to stand up for those interests in any type of tripartite negotiation that involves the federal government. Actually, in reference to the BNA Act, I think that when we're looking at such things as environmental assessment -- fish or whatever it may be -- it is, perhaps, an opportunity for the province to have more of a say with regard to issues that affect the people of British Columbia -- from which we have too often been precluded because of the BNA Act.

A modern treaty is actually an opportunity to enable the province to stand up for the interests of British Columbia.

[3:15]

C. Serwa: Again, I might say: "Well spoken." Nevertheless, the reality is that neither the minister nor the provincial government has the legal authority to make the determination of what happens with the fish, no more than I have that legal authority. The fact remains that it's a federal government responsibility. Obviously, the interests of the province matter a great deal; obviously, the fishery means a great deal to the economy of British Columbia. It's my understanding that the value of the fish landed in Prince Rupert, for example, exceeds the entire value of the eastern seaboard catch of saltwater fish; it's certainly very, very significant.

The point I was trying to make is that the provincial influence in the actual final determination is not anywhere nearly as strong as the minister would have us believe. On the matter of conservation -- and that is a very serious concern -- the minister has indicated that the federal government has been lax or indifferent to the conservation of fish stocks in British Columbia. I can say, similarly, that the province has

[ Page 14199 ]

been very indifferent to the conservation of fish stocks in the province itself, and certainly to the conservation of game animals in British Columbia. That's a serious concern I have.

One of the real problems in this whole issue of the treaty negotiations is the rewriting of history with a significant amount of wistful thinking and goodwill. The government is proceeding on the basis of perceived wrongs and historical injustices, riding forth as the white knight in shining armour and giving away things. I don't know if the end result is going to be what they believe it is; I simply do not believe that the end result is going to lead to the goal or objective that many hope it will lead to. I think there are opportunities within the province for all of us, regardless of our ethnic background.

It's up to us to seize those opportunities, not for someone to give those opportunities to us.

The treaty negotiations are very important. But, again, if we look at the concept of conservation, if we look at the Sto:lo people and what happened to the salmon over the last two years, in my mind it is not, in any way, shape or form, a responsible act by the Sto:lo people to use modern technology -- not primitive technology, where they had the right to the resource, but modern technology -- for the harvest of the salmon.

It's the same thing with the wildlife. For example, two natives from the Prince George area virtually eliminated the Pink Mountain bison herd. No steps were taken by this government with any concern for conservation. The animals were not indigenous and not traditional, in the manner that they were there and had been there for hundreds or thousands of years. They were simply stock that got away from a ranch and continued to multiply. There was no significant action taken by the province with respect to conservation.

Numerous incidents occur throughout the province with wildlife -- in the Princeton area and certainly here on Vancouver Island, where elk have been shot. On Vancouver Island we're looking at transplanted animals from the Olympic peninsula -- the Roosevelt elk -- and again with no concern with conservation.

It seems again, unfortunately, as the member for Richmond-Steveston has said, that there are two sets of rules in place right now with respect to the Ministry of Environment. This leads to more and more concerns for British Columbians. While we're talking at the moment about fish, later on we'll certainly talk about wildlife and the concerns that have been made evident with respect to treaty negotiations.

In the end, the minister -- and I've listened to some of the debate -- is using a different form of looking at it than the minister has used in the previous year or two in estimates. The words of finality and certainty come forward more and more often. Yet the minister has said in previous debate in estimates that these treaty negotiations are much like a union agreement that can be opened up every two years and then renegotiated. It's a process like planning, that has no beginning and no ending, no alpha and no omega. It appears that it has the potential to go on.

I listen to the minister. Now he's talking about openness. Openness was never a concern in previous estimates, but after the Premier's speaking on it, openness seems to be coming forward. I think that, by the way, is a very healthy occurrence. If the treaty negotiations are in fact to succeed and to win the confidence of not only the native people but the non-native people in British Columbia, openness is going to have to be a very major factor in the negotiations and for the acceptance of the final treaty plan, whenever that occurs.

I certainly hope that the minister will continue to look at these issues objectively, with the reality that he not only serves the native people, or the perceived historical injustice that he continues to refer to, but looks at the best interests for the native and the non-native people -- all of the citizens of British Columbia.

Hon. J. Cashore: Thank you to the member for Okanagan West. I appreciate hearing his comments. I just want to reflect on some of the hon. member's comments.

The hon. member referred to provincial economic interests and conservation, and I think we've canvassed that. The hon. member suggested that there had been some real concerns with regard to the conservation of those entities that the province -- by definition, the BNA Act and all that -- is responsible for. He referred to game and also, I believe, to freshwater fish.

As a former Minister of the Environment, I know that the hon. member knows how important it is to carry that message forward to the decision-making process at the big table. I also know that this hon. member has done that when he was the minister. But I do want to say that when I became the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks, one of the first things I did was to succeed in getting 15 new conservation officers plus six other staff related to conservation officer work, which was the largest increase that had taken place in the province in 20 years.

I'm not saying that to try to confront the hon. member; I'm trying to say that we both know from experience how important this is. Yet when you put it in the context of all the other things that government is trying to manage, it's something we need to continue to do. I believe that the former Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks has also recently brought in some further measures for conservation and environmental protection. It may be that that will be canvassed when the Environment estimates come up.

The hon. member referred to a rewriting of history. No, hon. member, we're not into rewriting history. I have said many times -- I said it in the estimates last year -- that we can't put toothpaste back into the tube. I hope that hon. members don't do anything out of a sense of shame or a sense of guilt. I don't have that. I don't feel guilty; I don't feel a sense of shame.

But I think I might feel a sense of not taking up my responsibility if I wasn't diligently trying to build a new relationship, a more effective relationship, a relationship which would be more of a service to both people of first nations and non-first nations. That's what this is about: seeking to build a new relationship.

I'm not interested in going back into history and saying: "Okay, we're going to try to re-create what existed 150 years ago." I'm not interested in people's economic surveys, where they say: "This is the wealth of the land that has been taken out of a traditional territory." I'm not interested in that because I don't think that's helpful. Nor am I interested in somebody saying we should add up all the funds that have been spent on first nations peoples through the old relationship; I don't think that's helpful either. I think what we're trying to do is talk about how we can build a new relationship.

[ Page 14200 ]

It's something that.... I noticed a news sheet that came out today: the Twigg report. I don't have it in front of me, and I can't remember the words that Mr. Twigg used. But it does refer to the need for parties on all sides to have -- I think he said -- a sense of altruism towards each other. I think we have to try to achieve that in order to be able to resolve this effectively.

The hon. member referred to perceived wrongs. What we're trying to do is recognize, first of all, that the present relationship with first nations is not working for a variety of reasons. Some of the reasons, many of the reasons, have to do with our own self-interest, such as roads throughout the province that are in trespass. These are issues that haven't been resolved by federal and provincial governments for many, many generations. We simply have to try to achieve certainty through treaty agreements, because the situation as it now stands is very, very difficult to resolve.

The hon. member referred to.... Some of the examples that he cited with regard to aboriginal people and some conservation issues.... I do know that there are those examples out there. I would encourage the hon. member.... I know he wasn't trying to do this, but I think we have to be very careful that we don't send a message that we're tarring everybody with the same brush, which we're not. I know that the hon. member knows aboriginal people who do not fit into those examples at all; I know that he is very much aware of such people.

I just want to mention with regard to that that the Nisga'a -- just to talk about the Nisga'a for a moment -- have received an award for their stewardship on the Nass River. Their work has been recognized with regard to the way in which they are working with various fishers' communities and the way in which they are being very respectful of that resource. That has been recognized. One of the things that has been discussed -- I think the hon. member is aware of this -- is the possibility of some technology that helps to enhance the protection we're talking about.

It's really an old technology, a technology that goes back to the time of precontact, which is the fishwheel. In certain circumstances, this would enable them to take those fish in the bycatch that they don't want to be destroyed and put them back into the river in good shape -- I think it's probably at the same time a fairly good counting technique -- and at the same time to be harvesting the numbers of fish that are scientifically approved to be appropriate for harvest. I think that at that table there's quite a bit of agreement on the possibility of some of those kinds of considerations.

The hon. member referred to some issues regarding elk poaching, etc. I do have to recognize that this happens among different elements of our society. But we should also remember that when an aboriginal person shot a trophy sheep at a salt lick up in the Kootenays, one of the very first statements to come out publicly was that of the Ktunaxa-Kinbasket saying that they deplored that and that it should be dealt with to the letter of the law. To go on to the point of finality and certainty, in negotiating modern treaties I don't think we should go beyond the appropriateness of the administration of contract law.

I'm saying that not as a lawyer; I'm saying it as a layperson, and it could be that I could stand to be corrected on that.

[3:30]

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

Let me give an example of what I'm saying. From time to time there can be a mutual interest in revisiting a topic that has been negotiated. I'm not talking about the type of situation that seems to apply to hockey players and baseball players, but let's look at the example of the Musqueam. I realize that there's a bit of a problem with this example because it was negotiated by the federal government on behalf of the Musqueam, which is not exactly a parallel. As I understand it, for several years in that case there was a limitation, I believe, of $300 for a lease.

At that time many people wrote letters to the editor and said that this was an injustice and they were ashamed that such a small amount was being paid to these people for the use of that land. But then this date and time clicks in, and all of a sudden I'm reading that the first nation can charge as much as $15,000. So we have an amount going from $300 to $15,000. I would think in that instance that the non-aboriginal people would want to have the opportunity to renegotiate that in their interest.

When it comes to the question of finality, on the basis of the information we have, we have to do the very best job we possibly can. But we have to recognize that sometimes either party -- and it could be the non-aboriginal party -- might say: "Hey, we want to look at this again; this isn't exactly the way we understood it was going to work out." I do take the hon. member's point about certainty and finality. We have to build everything into it that we possibly can in order to make it work well.

Finally, I want to say that in listening to the hon. member's comments, I believe that virtually every comment he made was a strong argument in favour of achieving the certainty that would come through the negotiation of honourable modern treaties.

G. Wilson: While we're on the matter of fish -- or we were; we went into a bit of a divergence there -- can the minister tell us his government's position with respect to the Sparrow ruling? Is it the position of this government that the Sparrow ruling warranted commercial sale of fish? Is that what this minister's

interpretation is of that judge's decision?

Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is no.

G. Wilson: In light of that, I wonder if the minister might clarify what is meant.... I realize that we discussed some of this last week, but in reviewing Hansard on it, I think there were two questions I neglected to ask. If there is no entitlement to commercial sale -- and I would concur; I think that's the same position that we take -- can the minister clarify what is meant by: "All harvest entitlements are provided on a commercial basis with respect to the Nisga'a settlement"?

Hon. J. Cashore: I apologize to the hon. member. I was listening to some advice with regard to an answer, and I didn't hear the question clearly. But I think the hon. member asked me what I meant by saying, in my earlier statement, that "all harvest entitlements are provided on..." -- and I think he thought I said "a commercial basis." I actually said -- and I'm glad to be able to point to this out for Hansard -- "on a communal basis." I apologize for my bad diction. Had I had the dramatic training that the hon. member has had, I would have been more clear with my words.

[ Page 14201 ]

With regard to the point that the hon. member made, I just want to read something into the record here:

"In recognition of the unique state of the salmon fishery in the Nass River, the province has supported a provision for Nisga'a to sell their food fish" -- that's 'their food fish' -- "that they have present entitlement to. This regulates the sale of food fish and brings it into the regular marketplace...and off the black market."

I do want to add a proviso and say that it is not a reference to the Nisga'a when I say "and off the black market."

The statement is indicating one of the reasons for seeking to achieve in modern settlements what I understand would be the case at the time the treaty is signed: the entitlement to food fish would no longer exist. It would be supplanted by the rights contained in the treaty.

G. Wilson: I appreciate that clarification, because I thought maybe I had missed something the other day.

I'd like to draw the minister's attention, then, with respect to fisheries and the aboriginal fish strategy.... I apologize if the minister has not had copies of this; I'll be happy to send it over if he needs it. It effectively is a response to a letter that I've written to the Minister of Fisheries -- a response coming back on December 14, 1994 -- in which the minister talks about the fact that in his judgment.... I'll quote.

He says, "Generally speaking, the fish stocks on the west coast are in a healthy state, and their management is sound," and then goes on to say: "The facts simply do not support the conclusion that the west coast fishery is 'at risk'" -- as I had suggested they were in my letter. He suggested that one of the reasons why that was so was the work that was currently being undertaken with respect to the AFS in the Fraser River Sockeye Public Review Board and the independent review board, and that the province is taking an active role in it.

I wonder -- given that it is very much a functional part of the aboriginal fish strategy federally -- to what extent this ministry is actively participating in that review process and to what extent the information from that is going to be used as a negotiating position with respect to the final settlement on fish through the Treaty Commission process.

Hon. J. Cashore: First of all, I just want to make clear.... I think it's clear, but I believe the hon. member was referring to a letter from the federal Minister of Fisheries. I want to reiterate a statement I made a few moments ago that government and industry now realize the need to rationalize the commercial fishing industry in British Columbia. They feel strongly that the fisheries component of the treaty must be flexible enough to fit into any future restructuring such as comes out of the John Fraser report.

With regard to the provincial role in AFS, I really do not have the details of an answer. That should be provided through the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; I simply don't have that with me. But with regard to the AFS, I can tell you that our government has expressed its concerns through the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food -- and also through myself, on many occasions. We have some very serious concerns with regard to how that strategy has been carried out.

G. Wilson: I would share that concern. I think the minister hit the nail firmly on the head when he said that there was rising frustration with what appears to be little more than political rhetoric coming from Ottawa with respect to potential resolution, especially on the matter of fish. I won't read them all into the record, but over the last year I have written repeatedly to Minister Tobin on this question, and I have received very little back other than platitudes that everything's fine; just don't worry about it; the fish stocks are going to be as well managed as they were on the East Coast -- which is rather a tragedy.

Nevertheless, the concern I have with it is that we are about to enter into an agreement with respect to the Nisga'a entitlement to food fish, which is undoubtedly going to be used as a precedent for the settlement of at least 12 other potential claims that will have fish and access to the resource on a commercial basis as a substantial component. I'm not talking about food fish in terms of Sparrow; I'm talking about the broader matter of commerce here. I recognize Sparrow; I don't have an issue with Sparrow; we see that.

My concern is that if conservation is going to be the primary concern.... I would applaud the government for taking that stand. If we are going to make sure that the provisions of pseudo-independent work that is being done on behalf of the federal government are going to be administered adequately in the province, it would seem to me that we would have to be pushing for one regulation. I wonder where the minister's negotiators stand on that matter.

I realize that you can't negotiate land claims in this venue, and I don't expect that the minister will do that, but I do think it's important that we and the fishers of this province -- those people whose livelihoods depend on it -- understand where the government's coming from on this question. They get very mixed messages from the federal government. You'll hear something quite different from Minister Tobin, the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, than you're going to hear from Minister Irwin, who's the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

What I'm hearing in my constituency.... My constituency runs from Gibsons Landing almost to Bella Coola. This minister will know that there are many aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities whose dependency on fish is high. They want to know that this government is looking toward one regulation, one set of rules, that will apply evenly and equally to all of the people who access that resource. If the minister could assure us that that's a functional part of the negotiating position of this government, they might at least rest easier knowing that one of the two government agencies is looking for some kind of equity in the provision of the stock.

Hon. J. Cashore: The point is well taken. We want to see equity with regard to the stock. I have acknowledged in earlier answers to questions that there is the element of treaty-making in which we are seeking to see that if there is an agreement for the sale of food fish, it would become a treaty entitlement, and there would no longer be the previous entitlement as under Sparrow. That would be a quid pro quo, but I think we have to recognize the general principle that the laws of general application apply.

There have to be effective measures for monitoring and enforcement provided in the treaty. For instance, Nisga'a fishery officers would receive their training under approved programs of the responsible government agency, and Nisga'a fishery officers would be employees of or under contract to the responsible government agency. There would have to be

[ Page 14202 ]

the establishment of designated landing sites, and appropriate auditing would have to be carried out by the responsible government agency. Any sale of fish would be subject to the laws of general application, and all harvest entitlements would be held communally.

G. Wilson: Can the minister then clarify what, in his view, is the responsible government agency? Is that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, or is it a provincial...? I see the minister is nodding that yes, it's the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. So, notwithstanding the fact that there is Nisga'a administration, there is still an overriding administration by DFO in terms of regulation. Is that right?

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes. With regard to anything that has to do with the environment or a renewable resource, the laws of general application would apply; the meet-or-beat standard would also apply. It would be required that any standard with regard to the stewardship of those resources would at the very least meet provincial standards and also, in instances such as I have just outlined, that it would be under the control, in this instance, of a federal agency.

I also want to point out to the hon. member that, with regard to a point he raised earlier regarding correspondence, I will send him a copy of the letter we wrote with regard to our position on the AFS, just so he will have that in hand.

G. Wilson: I will send the minister copies of the letters I have, and then perhaps we can get together and commiserate on the miserable responses we've had.

However, having said that, I know that the member for Prince George-Omineca is anxious to get in the debate, and I did say I would have a few questions on fish. I do want to come back and get into matters of land taxation and self-taxing authority, but at this point I yield to the member for Prince George-Omineca.

[3:45]

L. Fox: I thank the leader of the Alliance Party for giving me this opportunity.

I've listened with great interest this afternoon, particularly in question period to the minister's answer to one question, where he seemed to indicate that he's had the tools all along to provide more openness about what's happening in the Nisga'a agreement. But up until recently, he has been citing the confidentiality clause contained within the agreement. I think I'd like to read that clause into the record. It's

section 7.1 of the agreement, headed "Communication, Consultation and Public Awareness." It reads:

"Subject to paragraph 7.2, the parties agree that the public -- including individuals, groups or organizations having a particular interest in the outcome of the negotiations -- should be knowledgeable and well informed regarding the general status, aims, objectives and progress of the negotiations, and for that purpose...."

Then,

section 7.1.1 says:

"The parties will together develop and implement a process of public information and consultation, and will attend meetings with such selected individuals, organizations or groups as they may agree will assist in the process of public consensus-building...."

Section 7.1.2 says:

"The parties may separately carry out such additional consultation and communications initiatives as they see fit, including initiatives to obtain a broad range of input and consensus."

Section 7.2 says:

"Except to the extent the parties agree that disclosure is necessary or desirable to achieve the principles and objectives described in paragraph 7.1, details of positions and documents exchanged or developed during negotiations will be confidential."

It seems to me that it's a fairly straightforward proposal that was accepted by all parties, and under that clause the minister does have that ability. He seemed to indicate that today during question period in a question asked by the member for Richmond-Steveston. Maybe the minister would just like to comment on it.

Hon. J. Cashore: I want to thank the hon. member for reading that into the record. I was planning to do the same thing myself, and now I don't have to do it. He's quite right. I would just go back to the beginning of the clause he read, 7.1, which says: "Subject to paragraph 7.2" Then it goes on and says all of these nice things about consultation and information, and all that that entails.

I do agree that that's in there, although I think if you compared it to the openness agreements that we have with six first nations, it pales in comparison. The clauses that the hon. member has just read pale in comparison to the openness agreements that we have with six first nations, which are going to guide deliberations. There's nothing in here, for instance, about enabling the media to come in to main-table sessions of a negotiation. There's nothing in here that foreshadows the kind of consultation that is now taking place as we get going with this new era of negotiations.

If the hon. member would objectively assess what is in this document, which was signed by the leader of the Reform Party when he was the Minister of Native Affairs in the previous Social Credit government.... In any objective assessment of what this hon. member has just read in comparison to the openness agreements that have been put in place in consultation and negotiation with the Sechelt, he would say that the agreement with the Sechelt is outstanding compared to anything that's in the Nisga'a agreement that was signed by his leader.

I would also point out to this hon. member that the Leader of the Third Party and the hon. member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast attended the news conference when the Sechelt openness agreement was released, and both of them had very positive words. They were saying that it was a very good day for openness, and it was good to see this happening.

I'll also point out to the hon. member that this province won't enter into negotiations with anybody unless they have an openness agreement; that's a bottom line with us. We won't go beyond whatever stage that agreement is negotiated, whether it's at the second or the third stage. We won't go beyond it without an openness agreement that fulfils our commitment to openness.

Munici-

[ Page 14203 ]

palities convention in Whistler, where he stated that openness would be the order of the day. In some instances, as the hon. member recognizes -- and that's also reflected here in this agreement -- it's necessary that they go in camera on certain types of issues, but openness is the order of the day.

With regard to what the hon. member just read, I do have to point out, first of all, that when 7.1 talks about those very limited ways in which this agreement, which was signed by the Leader of the Third Party -- which isn't all that adequate.... It goes into some ways in which the public would be consulted and in which information would get out. It does start off by saying: "Subject to paragraph 7.2...." What's in paragraph 7.2? Paragraph 7.2 states something that governs every other openness consideration in this document.

It says -- and I'll read it again: "Except to the extent the parties agree that disclosure is necessary and desirable to achieve the principles and objectives described in paragraph 7.1, details of positions and documents exchanged or developed during negotiations will be confidential." Compare that, hon. member, to the fact that, on this very day, we're tabling a position and we're asking that by June 1 we have the ability to make it public. Because of this document, which is signed by the Leader of the Third Party, we have to get the permission of those other parties in order to do that.

L. Fox: There are a couple of things I would like to address with respect to the minister's response. It has been very obvious, since October 1991, that this government has tried to hide under this confidentiality clause. The fact of the matter is that there is the ability under this clause for the minister to seek the opportunity to release information that would be very useful in informing the public around what is being negotiated at the table. Up until recently.... I grant the minister that since last September, there has been a new approach by this government.

I think that, partially, we've seen that new approach as well because the aboriginal people understand that if they're going to have an informed British Columbia, part of that is going to be from opening the process up.

While this agreement cited was, I believe, signed in 1989, if I recall correctly -- or in that vicinity -- the climate of that day among the aboriginal people was somewhat different than the climate of today. The climate of today is one of recognition by the aboriginal people that they have to have a better-informed public in order to bring all their concerns forward.

I want to say as well that the Reform Party very strongly supports the need to resolve these claims, and to resolve them in a way that we strengthen the native community in British Columbia so that they can become, indeed, a very productive part of the province, and so that they might work with the rest of British Columbians equally to bring prosperity and quality of life. I just wanted to put that on the record, and I appreciate the minister's response earlier.

I have a few other questions. There are presently 43 native groups who have filed statements of intent to negotiate treaties under the B.C. Treaty Commission. Many of these were filed at the same time. Given that the ministry has very limited resources, how will these be prioritized?

Hon. J. Cashore: In regard to the hon. member's earlier comments, I just wanted to clarify.... The confidentiality clause that was signed by the Leader of the Third Party was signed on March 20, 1991; that was the date. The hon. member is right: that was in an earlier era, and a lot has happened. I want to give credit to the hon. member for crediting aboriginal people for their role in providing leadership to help to achieve openness. If we don't have that leadership coming from all three parties -- such as was the case with the Premier in September -- then we're not going to get these openness agreements.

It's very clear now that without them, we're not going to be able to proceed. I think we all have different perspectives on how we got there, but the fact is that that's where we are now.

I just want to point out that with regard to the Nisga'a negotiations, doing everything we possibly can under the terms of reference of the clause that the hon. member has just read into the record, there have been 28 regional main-table advisory committee meetings; there have been 30 regional third-party forestry advisory committee meetings; there have been 23 regional third-party fisheries advisory committee meetings; 17 regional third-party mining advisory committee meetings; 14 regional third-party self-government and taxation advisory committee meetings; seven regional third-party wildlife advisory committee meetings; six regional third-party advisory committee -- Nass Valley Residents' Association -- meetings; and 17 general third-party consultations.

And I don't know if that includes the times that I have travelled into the area personally and been present to speak to public meetings and to receive the questions of those who came out to those meetings. So I think that any objective assessment would be that we have followed through on the spirit of that agreement that was signed.

With regard to the 43 statements of intent, the hon. member has pointed out a very significant issue here: it's the manageability of the process. We've made a commitment to negotiate modern treaties, but it's not an open-ended process. There have to be constraints, and the constraints have to be those constraints that fit into the budget requirements of a government. There are two elements in which those restraints apply: one is when it comes to the treaty negotiation costs, and the other is with the settlement costs.

The hon. member's question was in the context of the treaty negotiation costs. We have come to a negotiated agreement of the understanding among the three parties of what the position of the provincial government is with regard to the funding of these negotiations. There has been pressure on us to increase the amount of money going into negotiations, and we have held the line on that. We believe we need to hold the line in order to seek to achieve economies of scale.

The task force report which was agreed to by the federal, provincial and first nations summit, and which was.... Actually, again it was the Leader of the Third Party when he was the minister who had, along with the other two parties, authorized the process that led to that report. When we became government we accepted all the recommendations within that report. But one of the things that was foreshadowed in the report was that there would be less than 30 sets of negotiations. And as the member points out, already we have 43 statements of intent, and more coming.

[4:00]

So we have five regional negotiating teams in the province, and we are seeking to enable the greatest value for the dollar in that process by seeking the economies of scale of accomplishing what we can on a regional basis. In other

[ Page 14204 ]

words, we think there are some issues that need to be negotiated that would be pro forma for the various parties within a region, and that they could achieve economies of scale by coming together instead of us having to go through it several times with each of the different first nations that filed statements. So we are trying to find ways to get the most progress, the most result, from those resources that we have budgeted for this, and in doing so we seek to try to achieve those economies of scale. But the fact is that we can only achieve what our available resources can achieve.

L. Hanson: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

L. Hanson: On behalf of the Speaker, we have visiting us in the gallery today a group of students from Riverview Elementary School in Snohomish, Washington. They are the second half of a group of students who have come up to observe some of the affairs of the British Columbia Legislature, and they are accompanied by a number of chaperons and adults who are looking after them. Would the House please join me in making our American neighbours welcome.

Hon. J. Cashore: Further to the last question, I wanted to point out that we are negotiating the recognition of that regional approach into framework agreements. So we are seeking recognition from the first nations that, wherever possible, we will use that regional approach when it comes to those issues that can be negotiated on a regional basis rather than on a first-nation-to-first-nation basis.

L. Fox: If I take that logic forward, then, and if I understand what the minister has put to us, there will be issues that may be able to be negotiated on a regional basis. That would also suggest to me that we're looking at some consistency in how they are to be settled throughout the negotiations. Given that, how much of a precedent, in presenting this to the aboriginal people, is the Nisga'a claim going to be? Is the standard set during this claim going to be the standard which is used to try to bring forward regional consensus on particular issues?

Hon. J. Cashore: It is very significant, but it's not a template; I think we can say that from one negotiation to another, with regard to other first nations. We are seeking an evenness in administration around some of the situations -- for instance, regarding child protection and some of those aspects of a treaty.

L. Fox: Obviously, just following up a little more, then there would have to be some variance in areas other than those social areas. In terms of the financial areas and certainly of the assets applied, there would have to be significant variances in different parts of the province. It seems to me that the regional negotiations would have to be pretty well restricted to the social areas of concern. Is that not correct?

Hon. J. Cashore: There are some broader, resource-type issues that could be applied in the same way. An example is watershed management, for instance, where you would seek to negotiate certain standards and, again, a standard approach among first nations with regard to how to manage that issue.

L. Fox: I have just one further small question, because it was my understanding that initially the design was to negotiate with each band on a state-of-readiness situation and that there was some vision that there would be quite a lapse period, because many bands aren't as far along as others. While there may be some that have their state of readiness almost prepared, there are others that do not.

It was also my understanding -- and I don't know whether this has changed -- that, prior to them being at the state of readiness, if there was any overlap in terms of claims, they had to resolve those among themselves before the talks started. Is that still the policy?

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, our principle there is that they are capable of resolving those issues themselves. If we are to finalize a treaty and those issues are not resolved, they have to have a process that we accept in place that will assure that the issues will be resolved.

L. Fox: One final question, then, on that issue is: of the 43 that have filed statements of intent, how many are in a state of readiness to move forward?

Hon. J. Cashore: Six are declared ready. As the hon. member knows, the Sechelt have actually got into the AIP stage.

L. Fox: If we're going to have some negotiations on a regional basis, we're a long way from deciding what issues we might be able to negotiate presently. Obviously those six would be spread around the province. In the interim, other than the Sechelt, are we not moving forward in those other negotiations, waiting to see whether we can approach this on a regional basis?

Hon. J. Cashore: An example of a regional approach would be the Gitksan, the Wet'suwet'en and the Gitanyow. We believe that there would be some issues that we could do there. With regard to readiness, we think that others are imminent. I can't say how soon, but I would expect that quite a few more first nations will be declared ready within the next few weeks. As the hon. member knows, they would be declared ready by the B.C. Treaty Commission.

L. Fox: I'll move on to another issue. The federal government is presently reviewing its stated policy of acknowledging the inherent right to self-government. Is the province also revisiting its policy?

Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is no. In some ways the provincial government is in an enviable position compared to the federal government in that there are so many different sets of circumstances throughout the country for the federal

minis-

[ Page 14205 ]

ter to try to relate to. For the most

part in British Columbia, given the imperatives of the courts, we take the position that self-government is subject to negotiation; therefore it would be subject to negotiation at the treaty table.

The way I like to characterize it is that what is currently undefined will become defined; what is currently uncertain will become certain. And that will be in the negotiated agreements, with regard to the definition of what self-government is, in a very site-specific way. It will be dealing with actual practical situations that will be defined at that table. Everybody knows that there is a lot of confusion out there in the current set of circumstances, and that's what treaties should change.

Self-government is as practical as achieving certainty with regard to a road issue, so we don't have these interminable situations where, because a road is in trespass, we're not able to easily resolve an issue. Treaties will be a means of negotiating resolve, so that we don't have those problems again.

L. Fox: It might help -- me certainly, and my constituents, I think -- if I could have some explanation as to what this government sees as the inherent right to self-government. Does it see a municipal model like the Sechelt's? Does it see a model which may have some tribal concerns, hunting rights, or laws governing hunting and fishing that are separate from the rest of other Canadians? Just exactly what does the province envision?

Hon. J. Cashore: I think that where the term "inherent right" is used, it refers to a pre-existing condition prior to contact; I think it's generally recognized that first nations were self-governing communities at that time.

But to give a more practical answer, I want to say a bit about what self-government is not about. This is the position of the provincial government: it's not about sovereignty; it's not about tax havens; it's not about setting up separate nations, in the sense of a balkanized situation -- it's not about that; it's not about setting up borders; it's not about setting up two justice systems; and it's not about inconsistent taxation. It's not about that.

Some of the topics that it is about, and the array of issues that you can see are decided within the context of a framework agreement to be discussed, have to do with self-government: family and child services, social welfare, education, health care services, justice and policing issues -- we're not talking about two separate systems, but we are talking about being able to negotiate around justice and policing issues -- traffic and transportation regulation, preservation of cultural heritage, fish and wildlife management, arrangements with local governments, health and safety standards, labour practices and standards, and delegated legislative authority and accountability.

[4:15]

L. Fox: Just one thing, and I'm not sure that I heard it in with what it is about or what it is not about. I have to ask: what about environmental standards and conditions? Unless I missed it, I didn't hear that mentioned on either side. Perhaps the minister might inform me on that.

Hon. J. Cashore: We don't see it as a self-government issue, because of our meet-or-beat standards. The provincial standards will apply.

G. Wilson: It brings us sort of naturally, then, to the questions I have on what the government's anticipation is with respect to the matter of taxation in the self-government proposition. I want to be very specific with respect to property taxation, because I think that a fundamental principle in the operation of western democracy in Canada is that taxation without representation is something that we don't condone. Therefore if we're to have taxation, there has to be some way in which you can have representation on those boards, committees or governments that are empowered to levy fees or taxes against you.

We've got an interesting situation existing in self-taxing authorities, and there are a number of them. I want to use a very specific case example which the minister may be aware of -- in fact, I know the minister is aware of it because I've communicated with his office on this over the last year and a bit. It has to do with a case that exists with the Sliammon Indian band.

I don't reference Sliammon for any other reason except than that Sliammon has been granted self-taxing authority and self-taxing status, and it is now able to levy property tax against leaseholders who have capital improvements -- i.e., houses -- on aboriginal land. They are treated as though they are fee simple property holders. They are assessed by the B.C. Assessment Authority, which is acting as a subcontractor to the Sliammon Indian band, as though they were fee simple holders.

But in this one instance -- it affects roughly 40 people -- there is a strip of land retained by the Sliammon Indian band that borders the high-water mark to where these properties are, and yet these properties are taxed as waterfront. Here is an interesting legal problem. First and foremost, if you were to tax that land as anything other than leased properties within Sliammon.... I think that the minister would agree that if that lease strip was a highway, a road, an easement or a legally registered access, that would therefore change the tax structure in terms of that property.

But by virtue of the fact that the land that is withheld is federal in its jurisdiction, the B.C. Assessment Authority is treating it as though those properties go to the water, and therefore the taxes go up. That's inherently unfair, I think, to those people who have no use of it. Obviously, the Sliammon Indian band can use that land when and as they wish, because it's theirs to do that with.

I would like the minister to comment on that. It seems to me that in the negotiation process, as we get into self-government, it's important that there be an inherent fairness in the process by which this property taxation system is done. That's one point.

The second point -- and it relates directly to it -- is that property owners in British Columbia are able to defer taxes. A lot of seniors, in particular, get hit with quickly rising property taxes because the resale values of neighbouring properties go up, and therefore their assessments go up and their taxes go up -- mill rates within the local communities force them up. But they're able to defer taxes.

In this case, people who are leaseholders on aboriginal land cannot defer taxes within British Columbia under provincial statutes, because, it's argued by the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations, they cannot go back and claim the land if there's a forfeiture, because it's federal land. So that's inherently unfair. I would like to get the minister's comments on that, because this is something that's affecting a growing number of British Columbians.

[ Page 14206 ]

Hon. J. Cashore: I agree with the hon. member on both counts. I think in both of those situations there is a fundamental inequity; I don't think it's appropriate. Those would be part of a long list of issues that exist now that I don't think are appropriate. Hopefully, through the treaty-making process, we are able to address those inequities. Again, at the end of the day, non-aboriginal British Columbians are going to want to see what is in a treaty that addresses their interests.

These are two very good examples of issues that should be on the table, to seek to find a way to enable those two communities of people -- some of whom are on first nations land -- to not have this thing as a constant separating factor in their lives.

G. Wilson: I am pleased to hear that response, because I think British Columbians living on reserve land -- who are leaseholders on reserve land, who have put a lot money into their own capital improvements -- are going to want to be assured that when the negotiations over the self-government process occur, their rights as property owners, or property lease holders, are going to be somehow protected.

I guess the second point on this issue, in the broader context, is around the proposition of lease renewals. We've seen a somewhat controversial situation in Tsawwassen, where some leaseholders had difficulty renewing their leases. As a result, the Tsawwassen Indian band took a pretty hard line with respect to non-renewal and forfeiture of capital improvements on those properties. Certainly, I guess, you could argue the point that you're free to either lease or not lease land on aboriginal property. Therefore, if you have concerns in this regard, don't lease the land in the first place -- you know, the "buyer beware" kind of thing. That's true to a degree.

The problem is that there are a lot of people who are already there and a lot of people who have already got capital improvements. They are concerned, in the negotiation process, as greater autonomy is provided to aboriginal communities, that they're going to have no recourse in the traditional courts of the province or the federal courts, should there be unfair practice with respect to renegotiation and extension of leases. At the moment, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is the agency that is going to be dealing with that.

But what is anticipated, I'm told from Ottawa, is that once the self-government propositions are properly in place, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development will step out. Then there will be no recourse to either provincial or federal courts on the matter, and they'll have to go to some form of negotiated arbitration. Well, that causes people some real concern, because there are some very clear legalities at work here, in terms of protection of investment, that people want to see being dealt with.

Hon. J. Cashore: Again I find myself agreeing with the analysis of the hon. member. I think the best opportunity the provincial government has to address this is through the.... It's sort of saying you can't get there from here. We have to start by a negotiated agreement as to how we can come up with a mutually beneficial arrangement.

Right now, under the present circumstances, they're federal lands in trust, as I understand it. It's a very difficult situation to come to terms with. I think we have to try. The real opportunity we have is in the treaty-making process.

G. Wilson: I'm making great progress. Normally.... I can recall past estimates where this minister and I bitterly disagreed on a lot of issues, and we're seemingly agreeing....

Interjection.

G. Wilson: Perhaps this minister has converted his thinking somehow, and that's great.

Maybe the minister, then, could help me with a third area of concern around this question of an inherent right to self-government, recognizing the definition that was provided to us -- that's what it isn't and what it is, to the extent that it's been fleshed out. I think we want to flesh a couple of them out a bit more.

Let me use the Sechelts as an example, because I've had an opportunity to meet with the Sechelt Indian band -- the band council. I've actually met in what I think were very productive sessions with them. The minister will know that I think their record of eight years of self-government is exemplary. They've done an outstanding job. But there is one area that I have some real difficulty with. The way I phrased it to them and phrase it to the minister is: "I ask your help on this one, because I have some real difficulty understanding how we're going to 'sell' this" -- if I can use that term; and I say "we" in a generic way.

If you're going to implement an inherent right to government and there's going to be a transfer of legislative powers, which the minister said it is about -- those legislative powers have not yet been defined, and we don't know the extent to which those powers will be put in place -- how is it possible that we in British Columbia will permit the right of aboriginal people to seek and run for elected office in this chamber, but not provide an equal right for non-aboriginal people to seek to run and stand in elected office in their council and chamber?

In the case of the Sechelt Indian band, how is it possible that we can have a former chief -- somebody I have a certain admiration for -- currently sitting on the non-aboriginal community of Sechelt council, but there could not be the same kind of consideration given to non-aboriginal people to sit on the council of the Sechelt Indian government district? That I have difficulty with, because I think it is inherently wrong.

I have the greatest respect for the Sechelt Indian people, for their band and for what they've done in eight years of self-government. But this is one issue that is inherently not what we as a people believe in. There must surely be equal right to access and to run for elected office, and there should not be restriction on one's entry into that process because of one's heritage. That's what the Indian Act did. It assigned status and land, and that was wrong; it was a racist document that was wrong.

Surely, if we now entrench an inherent right to government that puts in place those same fundamental characteristics with respect to eligibility, that is equally wrong. I'd like the minister's comment on that.

Hon. J. Cashore: First, with regard to inherent right, our position is that we have recognized that politically. We know that there is debate around that, but we have recognized it politically. We have said that it will be defined in treaties, so that's where the definition for that comes.

With regard to the issue that the hon. member raises around representation, the fact is that we have stated very clearly that first nations will remain citizens of British

Colum-

[ Page 14207 ]

bia and Canada. The Charter of Rights will apply, the Canadian constitution will apply and all that. Therefore they will have the rights of citizens; that's something that we have declared.

With regard to the issue that the hon. member is getting at -- and I do recognize that it's a challenging issue -- our position is, for instance, in the context of the Nisga'a, that residents of Nisga'a lands who are not Nisga'a citizens shall have adequate and appropriate means of representation with respect to Nisga'a government decisions which may affect them. This would include prior consultation, eligibility to vote and to run for office on subordinate elected bodies, guaranteed seats with full voting powers on subordinate elected bodies, and where such residents are taxed by Nisga'a government, such rights of representation as are made conditions of the delegation agreements.

I know that doesn't go as far as what the hon. member is advocating, and I recognize that. However, in the context of the integrity of the process that we are involved in -- which recognizes first nations as a people -- we believe that it is our responsibility to ensure, to the greatest extent possible in the process that I've just outlined, that their rights have effect with regard to anything that happens during their time of residency on those lands and are protected in that way.

[4:30]

G. Wilson: I just have a couple more questions, and then I'll yield. That provision doesn't go as far as I think it should -- the minister is correct. I'm not going to hammer away at this right now, because I think we've been through this before. We are both very clearly on record, we see where we agree to disagree, and we'll just leave it at that for the time being.

I want to talk a bit about this question of citizenship, in terms of eligibility. In the negotiation of eligibility, that is, with respect to the overall compensation package, the matter of.... Let's deal with the Nisga'a, because that's one of the more concrete ones we can talk about. If there's going to be the proposition as was agreed upon in, I think, March 1994.... I could be wrong on those dates, but I think it was March 1994 when the citizenship agreement was put in place with the Nisga'a with respect to the establishment of the eight members from the four clan groups and so on.

We don't need to go back through all that. When that agreement was put in place with respect to determination of Nisga'a citizenship, did that also mean that eligibility with respect to compensation was tied to that process? Or is there a judicial process that runs parallel to the determination of citizenship that might also provide for eligibility based on...? I can think of a series of conditions -- for example, past tenure or principal property ownership. I can think of a whole series of reasons why somebody might have a claim.

Even though they were denied Nisga'a citizenship, they may still have a claim to some part of the compensation package that may come out of a final negotiation. If the minister can see that distinction.... Let me put it to you very simply: if you're not deemed to be a Nisga'a citizen, does that render you ineligible for any portion of the claim regardless of what other conditions you may wish to put before some form of tribunal?

Hon. J. Cashore: The answer to the question is yes. There is an appeal process if there's a dispute over that. I would also point out that compensation is not based on an individual allocation process; it is compensation that would go to the first nation collectively.

G. Wilson: The appeal process -- and the minister can correct me if I'm wrong -- is still not a judicial process, in the sense that it is two members from the band government and a member from the senior civil service, if I recall the debate. There is no external judicial process. Even though the compensation would go to the band as a whole, it is certainly up to the band as to how they're going to allocate that in terms of property rights or access to a resource or any kind of measure that may be there with respect to the provision of those resources.

This is my last question on this, and then I would yield to the member for Richmond-Steveston -- whom I would like to thank, actually, for letting me in to get this

section done before I have to leave. The last question relates to the question on citizenship.

Is the minister saying that if you are a Nisga'a citizen, you are eligible as per the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to all of the rights and freedoms of any Canadian citizen, and that therefore you may freely access all aspects of Canadian government services -- social services, education, health and all those sorts of things -- outside Nisga'a traditional territory, and in addition to that, you are also eligible to all of the rights that may accrue to you as a result of the treaty that is finalized; but a Canadian citizen, who is equally protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, would be ineligible for the provision of the same services, even though they may well be funded out of the Canadian tax base generally, if they are deemed to be non-Nisga'a?

If that's the case, then I'd like the minister to explain how that stands the test of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

Hon. J. Cashore: I'm trying to think of an instance that might be applied to the point that the hon. member is making. For instance, if there were non-Nisga'a children attending a school that was operated by the Nisga'a, there would be a process worked out whereby the costs would be covered, and therefore that child would be eligible to receive the benefits that the child is entitled to.

C. Serwa: I just want to put up an example of that, because the concern the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast has raised has occurred in the Okanagan Valley. It's a smaller concern, but it's evidence of what he was saying. It has to do with the provision of services. In this particular case, native residents on band land on the west side have access to all of the goods and services, including, for example, rights of access to the local library system, the Okanagan Regional Library system.

The reality, though, is that the 6,000-plus non-native residents of band land do not have that right of access, in spite of paying equivalent taxes; the tax base does not go to the appropriate sources. There was no protocol established when the federal government enabled native taxation that encouraged any type of dialogue between bands and the provincial government, or between bands and municipal governments or regional districts. Consequently, we treat two classes of Canadian citizens -- British Columbia citizens and Canadian citizens -- in different manners.

I think that was the type of example the member was referring to.

Hon. J. Cashore: Exactly, hon. member. What treaties should enable us to do is resolve those kinds of inequities that have been identified in the example the hon. member has just given.

[ Page 14208 ]

A. Warnke: Actually, I want to follow up in the same vein of thought here because, in a way, we can come back full circle in discussing and debating the Nisga'a agreement. There is one area of self-government, I guess, that I would like to have clarified. It is something along the following lines: when one takes a look at the notion of self-government, and follows through.... I'm again referring to the document that was released last week with regard to the Nisga'a land claim issue.

First of all, in terms of access, it's very clear -- and this is expressed on page 3 -- that British Columbia will require that non-Nisga'a have reasonable access on Nisga'a public lands for hunting, fishing and other recreational purposes. That really demands some clarification, because it implies that even on public lands the Nisga'a have some sort of control -- and they must obviously have some sort of control, in order to spell out that non-Nisga'a must have some sort of reasonable access, and that what is reasonable can actually be defined by the Nisga'a. That's one factor.

The second factor concerns subsurface resources. It says here: "British Columbia will stand by its proposal that Nisga'a will own all subsurface resources on Nisga'a lands, including oil, gas and precious metals." I guess the key word here is "own," and this needs to be clarified, because certainly every Canadian operates under the assumption, whether they know it or not.... Every intelligent Canadian who has property knows that ultimately the property is owned, if you like, by the Crown; you essentially have property by the good graces of the Crown.

I'm wondering whether the term "ownership," as applied here, is still subservient to the Crown, or whether ownership means exclusive or equivalent to Crown land.

The third factor involves taxation, and it says here: "British Columbia will agree to a treaty provision recognizing Nisga'a government authority to impose direct taxes on Nisga'a citizens on Nisga'a lands." Actually, I want to explore taxation in another context later, but with the way this reads, again, it needs some clarification here. It suggests that the Nisga'a government authority has some exclusive authority. If you put all this together with some other features of self-government, such as self-government which can define whether in fact there is exclusive.... Well, there is an exclusive clause.

In other words, does the Nisga'a government authority have the authority to define who is excluded or who is included? Self-government has a land base. I think it's very fair to say that any time you're talking about self-government, it has to have a land base, with certain kinds of boundaries and all the rest of it. Then add to that this notion....

The member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast referred to the March '94 agreement, but I've even seen since then a reference made by the Nisga'a to the concept of dual citizenship. In one way I understand what it means -- that I am a member of the Nisga'a and I am a Canadian. But with another kind of connotation it might suggest something else: that it is a dual citizenship like that of people who claim -- and I would say a very small proportion of Canadians, really, fall into this category -- that they are dual citizens of the United States of America and Canada. Incidentally, I think that's a very small percentage, contrary to conventional wisdom. But that's what it could connote.

I guess, then, what this suggests is that while the minister has made it very clear this is not about sovereignty and this is not about separate nations, nonetheless there is an impression out there that the Nisga'a nations are moving towards defining themselves as citizens. They have a certain kind of citizenship; they negotiate on some sort of nation-to-nation basis and all the rest of it.

So something needs to be really elaborated on here, really clarified: one, that the Crown still essentially owns the land, so to speak, and that any form of self-government or taxation concessions or whatever by the federal government assumes not only that the Charter prevails but that the Crown prevails. So I think what we need is some sort of clarification on that, and I'd appreciate it if the minister could elaborate.

Hon. J. Cashore: The hon. member covered a number of topics; I was writing notes and trying to keep up with it. But I'll comment, actually, on three of the issues that were raised.

The first one is access. British Columbia will require that non-Nisga'a have reasonable access on Nisga'a public lands for hunting, fishing and other recreational purposes. We will negotiate a process for regulation of recreational access which is responsive to Nisga'a interests and to the unique attributes of Nisga'a lands -- for example, cultural sites, sensitive habitat and villages.

[4:45]

With regard to the point that the hon. member was making about wildlife, I think that there was a mistaken assumption there. Any considerations with regard to wildlife that would give any rights to the Nisga'a wouldn't be based on a negotiation.

There are two points I want to make with regard to the subsurface rights on mining. First of all, let's keep in mind that we are talking about a very small portion of the area that the first nation refers to as its traditional territory. So we're talking about a very confined area. The second thing is that off Nisga'a lands -- that is, off that very confined area -- they would not have any subsurface rights. In some treaties, in some negotiations, there's an argument that there would be a sharing in that instance.

We believe that what we have proposed is in the best interests of the province in that it gives a clarity of definition and it protects those lands which are the vast majority of the lands in question as being rights that would belong to all the citizens of British Columbia.

With regard to tax, the province is prepared to negotiate an arrangement to delegate tax powers and/or tax room in respect of the taxation of non-Nisga'a occupiers of real property on Nisga'a lands, and to enter into this arrangement concurrent with the signing of a treaty. The province is prepared to negotiate an arrangement to delegate tax powers and/or tax room with respect to retail sales tax, subject to satisfactory revenue-sharing agreements, tax-rate and tax-base restrictions, administrative arrangements and non-discrimination provisions. So I think what we are talking about here is based on the principles of fairness and equity and a new relationship.

A. Warnke: Well, I suppose in terms of taxation we'll take this up at another time and explore that a little further. But as it applies to this document, I guess what I'm really focusing in on is the fact that this power of.... Essentially, there might be this transfer of legislative authority to tax and, indeed, set up a government structure. I'm not sure just yet -- and perhaps this needs to be clarified or elaborated on -- what form it will take. Is the minister confident that this will still be subordinate, within

section 92 of the Constitution Act of 1867, to the provincial government? It's much along the lines of what the

[ Page 14209 ]

member for Prince George-Omineca put forward. What does the minister envisage at the end of the process as to what kind of government structure will be in place, what kind of taxation powers it will have and whether it will still be under provincial jurisdiction? Could the minister just clarify that?

[B. Copping in the chair.]

Hon. J. Cashore: First nations governments will be subordinate within the context of the Canadian constitution, but we will negotiate arrangements whereby they will take up some tax room and some issues where those matters would be duly negotiated where the interests of British Columbians are represented.

I think the hon. Minister of Skills, Training and Labour would like to enter the debate, and for this I'm very grateful because I'm looking forward to his comments and also because it gives me an opportunity to look after my personal needs.

Hon. D. Miller: I appreciate the opportunity to take

part in the debate, and I appreciate the patience, I hope, of the members opposite, in that the normal role of members of the government is not to take the time of members of the opposition to question the minister in estimates. But this issue of land claims is one that is obviously of some importance to me not only as the representative of the North Coast constituency, a constituency that may have the highest per capita number of people of aboriginal ancestry in the province -- I think, in fact that it has -- but also as a British Columbian, someone who was born in this province, who has led a very good life in th