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)

TUESDAY, MAY 16, 1995

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 20, Number 2

[ Page 14313 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It's my pleasure today to introduce to the House Jake Janzen, the president of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture; Bruce Bakker, the chair; Steve Torrence, manager of the B.C. horticulture coalition; Doug Kitson, chair of the B.C. Marketing Board; and Kirk Miller, chair, and Barry Smith, staff member, of the Agricultural Land Commission. In a moment it will be clear why they're here. I would like you all to please make them welcome.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: In the members' gallery today is His Excellency Rodrigo Diaz, Ambassador of Chile to Canada. The ambassador is accompanied by his wife, Mrs. Gabriela Diaz; the Chilean consul general in Vancouver, Mr. Dennis Biggs; and his wife, Mrs. Marcia Biggs. Would the House please make them welcome.

V. Anderson: Today we have with us representatives from the B.C. Central Credit Union. I'd like the House to join in welcoming Michael Tarr, Philip Moore, Henry Jansen, Sylvia Pritchard, Coro Strandburg, Wayne Nygren and Richard Thomas. Would you please make them welcome.

N. Lortie: Today we have another fine group of young people from the constituency of Delta North: 45 grade 11 students from North Delta Senior Secondary. They're led by their teacher Mr. John Baines. Would the House please make them welcome.

G. Brewin: Today in the gallery we have four representatives from the British Columbia Council for International Cooperation. They're here to meet with all of us at a reception this evening in the Ned DeBeck Lounge, and so I remind you all. I'd like the House to please make welcome Clyde Forrest, representing the Victoria International Development Education Association; Kim Daley, Canadian Crossroads International, Victoria; Moelala Tuitama from Canadian Crossroads International, Western Samoa; and Lewis Zamar, YMCA, from Argentina. Would the House please make them welcome.

T. Perry: Coincidentally we also have in the gallery today one of the founders of Physicians for Social Responsibility, later known as Canadian Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, and who, although she may not make it to the reception, will undoubtedly be pleased to hear that it's occurring: Dr. Dorothy Goresky. Accompanying Dr. Goresky from Vancouver are Dr. Minnie Aderem of the staff of the Capetown Children's Hospital and, last but not least, my mother, Mrs. Claire Perry. I know all members will join me in making them very welcome.

G. Janssen: Joining us today in the galleries is a constituent from the beautiful Alberni Valley, Joy Hanlin, a dedicated employee of the Ministry of Social Services in Alberni. I ask the House to make her welcome.

Introduction of Bills

FARM PRACTICES PROTECTION (RIGHT TO FARM) ACT

Hon. D. Zirnhelt presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Farm Practices Protection (Right to Farm) Act.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: This bill replaces the Agriculture Protection Act and makes consequential amendments to the Land Title Act and the Municipal Act. The legislation will replace the Agriculture Protection Act with more effective legislation and ensure that farmers can farm in the agricultural land reserve. It establishes a process to deal with complaints about farm practice in order to achieve a true right to farm for the first time in British Columbia by protecting farmers from nuisance bylaws and prohibitive injunctions when they are farming properly.

As part of this right to farm, this bill will ensure that where a farmer farms properly on the land in the ALR, or where agriculture is licensed, the farmer is deemed not to contravene a local government nuisance or miscellaneous bylaw. Based on existing people and infrastructure the government has, it establishes a board to deal effectively with complaints about farm practice, including the ability to order a farmer to improve or to stop poor farm practices. The board will build on an existing peer review process to investigate and will attempt to resolve disputes before hearings are held.

It will amend the Land Title Act and the Municipal Act to encourage effective planning for farming, and to better define and improve stability of the interface between farming and non-farming areas. It will replace the unworkable

section 977 of the Municipal Act with several amendments, including a new division 4.1 of

part 29. The minister's regulation power in

section 977 is replaced with guidelines for farm regulatory bylaws and a requirement for the minister's approval of bylaws regulating farming. Guideline development will proceed in consultation with the farm sector and with local governments.

The bill will incorporate the land use regulation components of

section 977 into the zoning and rural land use bylaw sections of the act. These bylaws are subject to compliance with provincial standards in that regard, subject to the minister's approval. It will add new specific bylaw powers for local governments, also subject to compliance with the provincial standards and the minister's approval, which will regulate farm conduct, require certain farm facilities, etc., and prohibit specific farm operations where needed.

In addition to consulting with the farm sector about this bill....

Interjections.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: If the House would bear with me, it is a complicated bill, hon. Speaker.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members. The minister's time has expired, but he can move the appropriate motions.

[ Page 14314 ]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm pleased to commend this bill to the members and urge its passage. With this bill, B.C. will lead the country in the protection of its farmers. I move the bill be read a first time now.

Bill 22 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.

The Speaker: Hon. members, this morning the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock informed the House of his intention to move an adjournment motion pursuant to standing order 35 to debate a matter of urgent public importance, namely the withdrawal of Bonneville Power Administration from the Columbia River Treaty. Since this morning, the Chair has had the opportunity to give the matter some consideration in light of the member's comments and the representations of other members. Certainly the Chair recognizes that the collapse of this agreement is a most serious and important matter which impacts on the province of British Columbia.

[2:15]

In dealing with the issues raised under standing order 35, the Chair must consider a number of guidelines set out in standing order 35, as interpreted by the established practice of this House in previous years. Among other provisions, the standing order states that the Chair must consider whether the matter would "anticipate a matter which has been previously appointed for consideration by the House...." Hence a key question that the Chair must determine is whether there is a probability of the matter being brought before the House within a reasonable time by other means.

In his submission to the House this morning, the member for Surrey-White Rock referred to the financial loss that Bonneville Power's decision would have on this year's budget. The hon. member also stated that the decision "calls into serious question the veracity of the very debate on spending estimates in this chamber." The member relates the question which he raises to the estimates debate. Indeed, I remind members that estimates, which have been referred by order of the House to Committee of Supply, offer members a clear venue to discuss questions such as those raised by the hon. member.

I conclude that the hon. member's application cannot succeed, as I note that a parliamentary opportunity is at hand through the vehicle of the estimates. A number of applications of this particular restriction are found in the Journals of this House, and I refer members to Journals, April 26, 1989, page 53; Journals, June 21, 1991, page 54; Journals, April 26, 1993, page 46; Journals, April 27, 1993, page 48; and Journals, April 21, 1994, page 57.

For these reasons I find that the matter raised does not meet the requirements of standing order 35, and I must rule accordingly.

Oral Questions

COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY BENEFITS AND 1995-96 BUDGET

G. Campbell: Yesterday all British Columbians and particularly the residents of the Kootenays were shocked to hear of the breakdown in negotiations over the Columbia downstream benefits. The memorandum of understanding signed by this government makes it clear "that they were to complete drafting of definitive agreements by December 31, 1994." The minister knew that this was not done. The minister also knew that Bonneville was "notorious for its arrangements." The minister also knew that Bonneville was in financial difficulties.

Can the Minister of Employment and Investment tell this House why the government decided to book $250 million of revenue into a budget when they didn't have the money in the bank?

Hon. G. Clark: We signed a memorandum of understanding -- a memorandum of agreement -- by the chief negotiators, by the Premier and by the CEO of Bonneville Power Administration. That MOA is not a legally binding contract but it defines the principles upon which that contract would be written. It is our view, legally and every other way, that they have a legal obligation, a good-faith obligation....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, order.

Just a moment, hon. minister. Hon. members, I think everyone appreciates the importance of the questions and the answers on this important matter. It is very difficult for the Chair to hear the responses when there are interjections to the extent that they've been happening. I'd appreciate it if members would allow for the questions to be put and the answers to be made.

Hon. G. Clark: Mr. Speaker, they have a good-faith obligation to complete the agreement that we signed. Shame on the Liberals for taking the American position on this. If that Leader of the Opposition were the leader in Newfoundland he'd be on the side of the Spanish. This is a question of standing up for what's right for British Columbia. We have an agreement. We're going to make the Americans live up to that agreement.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

G. Campbell: I know Mr. Tobin, and this minister is no Mr. Tobin. This minister did not do his homework. This minister jeopardized the province of British Columbia because this minister did not even bother to look at his memorandum of understanding. Hon. Speaker, this minister's and this government's failure will not be covered over by the kind of histrionics that this minister is known for.

The fact of the matter is you spent $250 million before you had it even close to the bank. You tried to cash a cheque when it wasn't even signed. The fact of the matter is, hon. minister, definitive agreements were supposed to be made by December 31. That was not done, hon. minister. This was just another reckless cash grab by this government so you could balance your budget. This government continues to pursue cruel deceptions.

I have a question for this minister: when will this government stop protecting their political hides and start putting the interests of British Columbians first?

[ Page 14315 ]

Hon. G. Clark: Why do the members opposite think the Bonneville Power Administration wants out of this agreement? Because it's a good deal for British Columbia; we negotiated a good deal. If we wanted to play politics, we could sell the downstream benefits now for $1 billion and have the cash this fiscal year. We're not doing that, because we're standing up for British Columbia and for a deal we signed which is in our interest; we're not prepared to sell our birthright or our legacy for cheap political gain. For once, that Leader of the Opposition should rise above petty politics and stand on the side of British Columbia against the Americans.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. Hon. members, this is taking up valuable time in question period, as I'm sure you appreciate.

F. Gingell: Recent events again reinforce what I've been saying for over a month: this year's NDP government budget is a fake. The Finance minister was desperate in her attempts to table a balanced budget. In this charade to create a surplus, she included $250 million of future years' income in 1995-96 -- and before the deal was signed. My question to the Minister of Employment and Investment is: why did your government tell taxpayers that the budget was balanced when it clearly wasn't?

Hon. G. Clark: That member knows that that's incorrect. We have three accounting firms' opinions: the auditor general, the comptroller general and Peat Marwick -- the member knows that.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. G. Clark: We decided to book the revenue when it was estimated to be received. We have a memorandum of agreement -- the member knows that. The Bonneville Power Administration CEO said this was a win-win for them. They signed on the agreement. They're reneging on the agreement. I ask members opposite to join with the B.C. government to challenge this American company, who've screwed us for years. We're not going to stand up and allow that to happen again.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

F. Gingell: I'm surprised that this minister would question my loyalty. We're not dealing with that issue. How dare you! How dare you! We are dealing with the issue of competence.

I'm very pleased to see that the Minister of Finance is here. The Minister of Finance went against the advice of her most senior advisers in using the $250 million to pretend to balance this year's budget. Last October, the comptroller general of British Columbia said none of the $250 million should be included in this year's budget. In March of this year, the auditor general said none of this $250 million should be included in this year's budget. The minister has also had the benefit of my advice; I also told her that none of this should be included. Why did this government include this $250 million in this year's budget before it had a deal?

Hon. E. Cull: This member is being very selective in what he is intending to report. What happened with the $250 million in its accounting treatment this year is that we received three separate opinions. After looking at the three separate opinions, on April 13, 1995, the comptroller general confirmed to me his advice. I'll read from his letter. It says: "Based on my understanding of the agreement, supported by KPMG" -- this is Peat Marwick -- "I feel that it is technically more correct to record the $250 million to be received in 1995 as revenue in the 1995 fiscal year."

Putting aside all of this stuff on accounting and the arguments of people about which way it should go....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. E. Cull: I think that the people....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. Will the minister please take her seat. Hon. members, I'm sure there's no question in anyone's mind in this chamber that the issues before us at this moment are serious. But I feel that there is no way that we can have an exchange of questions and answers when members are completely disregarding these standing orders, which all members know very well. I would ask members to keep in mind that we're here to do the public's business, and we're depriving the public of an opportunity to hear questions, or answers, in light of the exuberance that is being shown on both sides of the House. So I'd ask members to please control themselves.

Will the hon. minister please proceed.

Hon. E. Cull: While the accountants were arguing about how to treat this, I had to bring in a budget at the end of March, and I did what any householder in this province would have done, which is to take the cash that comes in and count it as revenue in the budget. That is what the comptroller general, who has to give me the final advice on how to treat accounting matters in the budget, advised me to do.

But I am surprised that this opposition wants to continue the argument of the accountants and not deal with the very real issue before British Columbians today, which is Bonneville Power reneging on a deal for British Columbians.

COLUMBIA RIVER NEGOTIATIONS WITH BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION

J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Minister of Employment and Investment. Yesterday the minister once again deliberately led British Columbians to believe that the memorandum of understanding with Bonneville was a binding legal document. Is it still the government's position today that that agreement is legally binding? Is it a legally binding agreement -- yes or no?

[ Page 14316 ]

Hon. G. Clark: We have a legal opinion, which is that they have an obligation to negotiate, in good faith, the completion of legal documents to bring it into effect. I'll read you the statement: "The parties establish legal and technical teams to draft the definitive agreements necessary to carry out the intent of the statement of principles." It is our legal position that that means that what is not legally binding is the legal text, but the statement of principles.... They have an obligation to pursue it to conclusion, to come to the legally binding agreement.

That is the position we'll be taking in court, among other things, to challenge Bonneville Power's attempt to renege on an outstanding deal for British Columbians.

[2:30]

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

Hon. G. Clark: We fully expect British Columbians, opposition parties, the federal government and our MPs to support British Columbia in its fight with the United States and the Bonneville power authority. In the 1960s, we signed an agreement that sold our birthright for 30 years in a lousy deal for British Columbia. Now that it's time to renegotiate, we've negotiated a good deal for British Columbia, and they're trying to back out from it. And we expect....

We will have legal advice; we will use environmental tactics; we will intervene in every forum to make Bonneville Power live up to this agreement they signed. They had their names signed on the document. They had a press conference. They told British Columbians the money would be there, they told the government the money would be there...

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order!

Hon. G. Clark: ...and we expect all Canadians...

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. G. Clark: ...to back this government when we're challenging an unscrupulous American corporation.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. members, the bell terminates question period.

Hon. J. Pement: I have the honour to present the 1993-94 annual report for the Ministry of Transportation and Highways.

Presenting Petitions

L. Boone: It gives me pleasure today to present a petition in opposition to the privatization of B.C. Rail, for the following reasons: private operators will seek to erode wage conditions and job security on the grounds of competitiveness; privatization will lead to a loss of jobs, resulting in a poor quality of service to B.C.

Rail customers and jeopardizing of B.C.'s exports; privatization is likely to result in further cutbacks to passenger service, which will have a negative economic impact on the many communities that rely on such service; rail transportation is critical in developing current and future economic policy, and privatization takes away the government's ability to do this and puts such decisions in the hands of companies that may not be concerned with development in our province. I present this on behalf of the many workers of B.C. Rail.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply: in

Section A, for the purpose of debating the estimates of the Ministry of Health; and in

Section B, I call the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs estimates.

G. Farrell-Collins: Point of order.

The Speaker: The hon. Opposition House Leader.

G. Farrell-Collins: Yesterday the Energy estimates were due to continue, and they were pulled at the last minute because of the Bonneville issue. We called for an emergency debate today in order to debate the issue, and we were told that this issue was coming before the House in an imminent manner -- I assumed today; it was on the schedule. Perhaps the House Leader can explain why the Energy estimates are not here today, given that this debate should be forthcoming.

The Speaker: That, hon. member, is a matter that is not appropriate for the Chair to address.

The House in Committee of Supply B; D. Lovick in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS

(continued)

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

A. Warnke: I want to continue with some thoughts from this morning, and I believe some other members also have a few questions. As I was going through the information package released by the ministry to the public -- we've already discussed a few aspects of that, and I appreciate the minister's response this morning -- part of this package includes some discussions on interim measures. In this context I want to introduce the subject of interim measures. I have a few questions on it, and then we'll see where we go from there.

The reason I want to focus on interim measures is that this is one area that is highly contentious. The information package makes it very clear that interim measures

arrange-

[ Page 14317 ]

ments do not transfer the jurisdiction of lands and resources to first nations, include broad moratoria over land and resource development, and predetermine the outcome of treaty negotiations. One could engage in a pretty lengthy discussion about this, but I will approach this subject by way of example.

One example I have before me is the Lheit Lit'en nation, which had an interim measures agreement with the Ministry of Forests. After all was said and done, the response to this was given by Chief Peter Quaw, who said that the memorandum of understanding gives the nation jurisdiction and authority to more than 200,000 hectares of land. We are under an impression that an interim measures agreement is supposed to be just a commitment to notify, consult and, obviously, listen to the aboriginal community. Indeed, interim measures agreements have been seen as a prelude to formal treaty negotiations.

Given the statement by Chief Quaw, by way of an example -- and he's not the only one; as a matter of fact, I've got a number of statements -- there seems to be an impression here that interim measures agreements facilitate something far beyond merely the commitment to notify, consult and listen to the aboriginal community, and that when a statement is given, it gives to the nation jurisdiction and authority over huge amounts of land.

This certainly seems to contradict the information that's released by the ministry, but it also creates an impression that doesn't really conform to what I thought was the intent and nature of the interim measures agreement. So what I want to put to the minister is: has the minister clarified this kind of impression? First of all, did the minister respond to Chief Peter Quaw in any form, perhaps clarifying the situation? Has the minister clarified this impression in more general terms?

Hon. J. Cashore: The words attributed to Chief Peter Quaw, if he said those words, are incorrect. The interim measures agreement did not grant any such jurisdiction or authority; it is neither a veto nor a moratorium. It is a modus operandi that ensures that the appropriate consultation will take place. I should also point out that, as the hon. member knows, whenever there are two or more parties to an agreement -- two in this case -- usually the various parties have some kind of political dimension to what they do: they have a constituency, they have their people -- their elders, their band members.

It is a fact that when a statement is made that is provocative, it will generally receive news coverage; the other party to such an agreement does not have any say over that. We expect people to participate in good faith in carrying out agreements. I can tell the hon. member categorically that Chief Peter Quaw and the Lheit Lit'en nation are signatories to an interim measures agreement which creates a modus operandi to enable the appropriate consultation to take place around the issues that are cited within that agreement.

A. Warnke: I guess that because the impression happens to exist -- I don't think it is just isolated to the Lheit Lit'en nation, but perhaps exists with others as well -- that sometimes bands have a veto over economic development, or that there is a transfer of jurisdiction, authority and so on.... Has the minister made a general policy very clear to all bands that this is not supposed to happen until the treaties are concluded?

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes. That is very clear; it is very clear within the context of these agreements. We have made it very clear; we have stated time and again that these are not vetoes or moratoria. I know that Chief Quaw is aware of the statements that we have made when we have been asked to comment on his comments.

A. Warnke: There are also, in one publication, classifications, I suppose, of the different interim measures. One classification is withdrawals of particular lands and resources from disposition, and the second is the development of new comanagement mechanisms. This is being articulated this way by Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. I would appreciate it if the minister could give his impression of, or clarify, the different types of interim measures agreements, because I think again that there might be some impressions out there that there is one kind of interim measures agreement and that perhaps....

Again, as the minister and myself have mentioned over and over again, there are many different cases and many different bands which respond to issues in different ways. I wonder if the minister could just provide a brief outline as to the different types of interim measures, and just maybe give us the nature of the interim measures as they are being applied. This has a potential huge impact, of course, as to how the ministry will go about its business in the coming year.

[2:45]

Hon. J. Cashore: The best reference that we have in response to that question is to go right back to the basics of the report of the British Columbia Claims Task Force, which states on page 64 that the range of options for interim measures agreements consists of five categories:

"1. Notification to affected parties before action is taken concerning matters which are or may be the subject of negotiations" -- so the first can be the simple act of notification.

"2. Consultation with parties affected by any proposed action" -- that in itself is an interim measure.

"3. Consent of one of the parties before action is taken;

"4. Joint management processes requiring consensus of all the parties;

"5. Restriction or moratorium on the alienation of land or resources."

That is in the context of interim protection measures agreements after treaty negotiations have started at the agreement-in-principle stage; that only applies in that context.

A. Warnke: Also with regard to interim measures, there are situations in which interim agreements are negotiated by individual line ministries, and there is an impression among several British Columbians that there is little or no coordination amongst the various ministers to establish the general goals and objectives of these agreements. I would appreciate it if the minister could maybe clarify whether in fact this impression is valid. Beyond that, what is actually being done to coordinate the various ministries? This is a tremendous concern to British Columbians.

Hon. J. Cashore: There have been 52 interim measures agreements signed, and 25 of them are land and resources interim measures. That is not inclusive of all those different categories that I referred to, where it can be an interim measure, according to the task force report, to simply pick up the

[ Page 14318 ]

phone or write a letter and notify somebody; that in itself can be termed an interim measure. That's not listed in there. With regard to the significant interim measures, those are the numbers. There are interim measures agreements relating to lands and resources that are under negotiation at the present time. The member is right that in most instances it is line ministries that are involved in those negotiations.

I think the other thing I would like to point out with regard to the reference to public awareness is that our ministry has undertaken the role of coordinating this information. This information is made readily available. We do an update on a regular basis so that we can have the most up-to-date information. There are currently 43 interim measures under negotiation.

A. Warnke: Also, there is an impression that interim measures agreements may actually provide a basis to avoid, I suppose, a commitment to the Treaty Commission process. Their argument goes somewhat like this: there are provisions contained in the interim agreements that one can obviously create or generate expectations in the final agreement, and there is a perception that an interim agreement is a prelude to what we can see in the actual treaty. I think that needs to be clarified.

In other words, interim agreements create a kind of floor to the treaty negotiations, thereby limiting the opportunities for more flexible and creative problem-solving. There is that and, secondly, the degree of commitment -- once an interim measures agreement is established, it becomes permanent, because there's no incentive to move toward a treaty. I would like the minister to respond to those concerns.

Hon. J. Cashore: It's my understanding that some interim measures agreements have actually lapsed and have not been replaced. Certainly in those instances one could not draw the conclusion that there's a direct connection between those interim measures and subsequent treaty measures. Also, I don't think it's necessarily appropriate to make that connection with the existing circumstances, because, as I said before, the primary role of interim measures is to enable a reasonable consultation to take place with regard to contentious issues, to avoid disruption.

How that gets resolved in the treaty-making process when we actually have first nations giving up aboriginal rights in order to be able to achieve certainty in the context of treaty rights could be a very, very different set of circumstances.

I would just reiterate that there are interministry committees that keep updated regularly amongst each other with regard to what's happening with interim measures; that the treaty negotiators are fully aware of the interim measures within their particular areas; and that, as I said before, there is regular reporting of the interim measures agreements, and the lists are fully available.

With regard to openness and consultation in the actual program-related interim measures, line ministries notify the stakeholders when interim measures negotiations begin; briefings are offered during negotiations; stakeholder input as negotiations proceed is part of the process; draft agreements are available for third-party review prior to finalization; and final agreements are made public.

With regard to treaty-related interim measures, they are in accordance with the UBCM protocol agreement -- the agreement with the Union of B.C. Municipalities -- and also the Treaty Negotiation Advisory Committee, regional advisory committee and local advisory committee terms of reference. Also, the openness protocol of this government applies in the case of interim measures.

I would just like, at this point on this topic, to again refer to the Sam Green case, in which Mr. Justice Hunter, in rendering his decision in the Supreme Court of B.C., referred to the 1993 Court of Appeal of B.C. decision on Delgamuukw, which held that there are non-exclusive aboriginal rights in the area. Non-exclusive means that the Gitksan, in this case, cannot exclude all others from using the land and resources. But the judge, in making his decision to discharge the injunction by balancing the rights and interests of the Gitksan and Skeena Cellulose....

In so doing, he concluded that limited timber harvesting would not significantly interfere with the rights to use land and resources the Gitksan continue to assert.

So we think that this a very, very significant decision, and it helps to provide some of the parameters that case law can sometimes provide to assist us with this matter. But very significantly, in reaching this conclusion, Mr. Justice Hunter noted that this province has an interim measures policy in place; therefore, had we not had that policy in place, it is very, very likely that that injunction would have continued and that the process would not be underway to get that area of industrial activity back into action.

I hasten to add that it is my understanding that the Gitksan have filed notice to appeal; I believe doing that will also result in some definition through the courts, which I am hopeful will be helpful in this process. But I think it is extremely significant that Mr. Justice Hunter, in deciding to lift that injunction which was put in place in 1988, did cite the fact that this government has an interim measures policy. So it was seven years that that injunction had tied up logging activity in that area.

The only other point I would like to make, in view of the opening statement that the Liberal Aboriginal Affairs critic made on opening day -- I think it was point Number 11 -- that it's now the policy of the Liberal Party, and also of the official opposition, that there be a moratorium on interim measures.... I'm very interested in how that would have affected the decision that was made by Justice Hunter in the unfortunate circumstance that had been the modus operandi at the time.

R. Chisholm: I addressed this problem last year, and I addressed it with the former minister too in the year prior to that. This is in reference to the Native Fishing Association and the guarantees that the provincial government were going to come forth with to match federal contributions for a loan to the Native Fishing Association. This didn't come through in the long term, and I'm wondering what faith these organizations can have in the ministry or in this government when agreements negotiated by this government have failed to come across.

After all, in the final analysis, the Toronto-Dominion Bank gave them a better deal than the provincial government did. I'm wondering if the minister has any comment on how this transpired -- how we came to this situation we are in now.

The credibility of this ministry and this government is in jeopardy over this particular situation. I won't reiterate everything I said last year or the year before, because the minister knows what he debated with me. When we make agreements with organizations and then we fail to honour them, or we fail to come across with a deal that is acceptable to all parties -- especially when this government has an obligation -- then

[ Page 14319 ]

how can we start treaty negotiations with this type of thing happening? I'd just like to hear the minister's comments on this. After all, this is now settled with the Toronto-Dominion Bank. Mind you, it would be nice if the province matched the federal contribution; then maybe it could do something substantial for the Native Fishing Association. I'd just like to hear the minister's comments now that we've got to this stage with this negotiation.

Hon. J. Cashore: This has to do with the Native Fishing Association proposal for a loan guarantee to enable them to assist aboriginal fishers in purchasing vessels and in having a reasonable place within the fishery. I thank the hon. member for raising the issue; I think it's an important issue.

I think that all members of the House would recognize that when it comes to first nations and fishing, and when it comes to issues regarding the financing of such activities, one of the factors that we have to think about -- I'm not saying it should be the only defining factor -- is that the federal government in two areas of its responsibility, fishing and first nations, is again trying to off-load these issues onto the province; very often we end up with a situation where the province is pressured to accept these off-loads.

But there is also an opposite pressure to look after the interests of British Columbians and make sure that the federal government fulfils its responsibility. But that's a general comment. That's not dealing with the specific question that the hon. member is making, except to say that in all considerations of such loans or loan guarantees, I think the federal government clearly has the major responsibility.

With regard to this loan guarantee proposal, the hon. member's outline of this is different than my recall of the situation. I would refer it to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which is the line ministry that has the primary responsibility for this. I'm sure the hon. member will understand that this is not an issue about which we would have the kind of documentation here in the House that would be available in that other ministry.

It is my recall on this issue that the government was prepared to consider the loan guarantee until it turned out that the Native Fishing Association, affiliated under the Native Brotherhood of B.C., had, as the hon. member pointed out, secured the financing through the bank -- and the hon. member has referred to that bank. I don't see the fact that that bank has decided to back those loan guarantees as something that should cause any embarrassment to the government. I look upon that as a win-win -- the bank coming alongside the aboriginal people and saying: "We believe there's a good business venture here, and therefore we will provide this money for these loans."

The hon. member didn't say.... My recollection is -- and if I'm incorrect I'd be interested in hearing about it -- that it turned out that the bank did not require a loan guarantee. I'm sure the hon. member wouldn't counsel Treasury Board or the government to guarantee a loan when the bank is prepared to guarantee the loan. I will ask staff to endeavour to consult with officials from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to make sure that my information is correct, but I believe it to be correct.

[3:00]

R. Chisholm: I'll just quote from Hansard of last year, when I addressed this situation. Obviously there have been memory lapses since then, and since 1993, 1992 and 1991. This particular issue has been going on for four years. I asked this question last year about the Native Brotherhood and the fishers.

Four years ago they applied through Penfund Management Ltd. for a $10 million loan, and they were guaranteed $5 million from the federal government on the stipulation that the provincial government guarantee -- and I reiterate, the stipulation that the provincial government guarantee -- 75 percent of the $10 million loan. To date, absolutely nothing has happened. I am wondering why nothing has happened, considering that this was a guarantee. We weren't putting out any money whatsoever, and this organization has less than a 1 percent bankruptcy rate, which is far better than that which the banks are showing.

The federal government has put forward the $5 million, yet the Penfund Management Ltd. money has been sitting there for the last four years. This is one way to increase the employment in this area and enhance the Native Brotherhood fishing association. That is an excerpt from last year. I won't go back into 1993's version of the same, or '92 or '91.

My point is: why would anybody have any faith in this government? The minister turns around and says that it's an Agriculture, Fisheries and Food situation. Well, it isn't. It happens to be this ministry. Agriculture, Fisheries and Food denies it has any responsibility whatsoever.

And while we go around this merry-go-round, we end up not doing anything for the Native Fishing Association. After all, it was only a guarantee. The only reason the Toronto-Dominion Bank came forward with it was that the deal the provincial government finally came across with wasn't worth the paper it was written on, so they had to go to other sources or lose the federal funding. That's a rather deplorable statement to make, especially when we're going into treaty negotiations and we start talking about interim agreements.

When we talk about the interim agreements, this agreement with the Native Fishing Association fell through when it never should have, and it's deplorable. I'd like to hear the minister's opinion on whether these interim agreements are precedent-setting -- in other words, they're going to tie the hands of the treaty negotiators when it comes time to negotiate these treaties. I'd like to hear his opinion on that particular statement.

Hon. J. Cashore: I observed that the hon. member was in the House when I answered those questions ten minutes ago. He was here and heard me answer them. I answered them very thoroughly.

With regard to what the hon. member is saying about the Native Fishing Association, he challenges the government on the fact that the government was not willing to put up a loan guarantee for $5 million. He said words to the effect of: "How can this government justify this to the voters?" At least, I think that was the gist of what he was saying.

I think the voters would also want to know why he would advocate putting up a $5 million loan guarantee when the bank doesn't need it, doesn't want it and didn't request it. The voters would find that a bit frivolous, for us to be voluntarily putting up loan guarantees in the amount of $5 million when the parties don't require them. As I say, the hon. member raised this question last year in estimates. I know that most of us, when we take our positions to the voters, are expected to be able to be accountable and that frugality is certainly an important part of being accountable.

[ Page 14320 ]

It seems to me that what we have here is win-win. The bank guaranteed the loan. The money is there to purchase the boats.

The government didn't get into the middle of it. There was a meeting very recently, hosted by Brian Smith -- the Business at the Summit conference. One of the messages from first nations and the business community was: "We want to get on with joint ventures and partnerships and doing business together. And we don't want government to interfere." So I feel that there's nothing to apologize about on this issue.

Hon. member, it's really unfair to say I have somehow avoided dealing with this issue. I've talked in the House on this issue for quite some time now, responding to the hon. member's questions with respect and also having stated that it is the primary responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. That's a fact; there's no denying that fact. I think it's really taking up the time of the House to be arguing about that. I'm quite prepared to respond to it; I even volunteered to get more information if that wasn't satisfactory. So I'm not quite sure what the purpose of that reference was.

R. Chisholm: The purpose of it, hon. minister, is to show that.... If you can't negotiate at this small level, how the heck are we going to do it in treaty negotiations that are going to be far more difficult to go through? This went on for four years. They went to the bank at the end.

If you want, hon. minister, I'll quote from Hansard from last year what you said; it is completely different than what you're saying right now. Hon. minister, let's admit it: if a person or a group comes to this government and negotiates a deal, then the government should be honour-bound to stand by that deal. But it didn't happen in this case. Now we're talking four years later, and they have got their loan, but not through this government. And they never did get a guarantee through this government, even though this government sat down at the table and discussed it with them. I find that rather deplorable.

My next question to the minister is with reference to another level of government, and that's the municipal level. They're not at the table, yet they as a level of government probably have the most to lose in these negotiations. The question to the minister is: with this organization that has so much to lose geographically and economically, how do you propose to keep them informed and have their opinions taken into account when it comes to the treaty negotiations? I know they will be sitting in the third table, but will they have any more access than the normal citizen? After all, as I said, they will have the most to lose of anybody in the three levels of government.

Hon. J. Cashore: The hon. member's information is wrong. I don't know where he got it. There's no such thing as a third table that I'm aware of. The fact is that the municipalities are present. If he had being paying attention last September, he would have noted that there was a major announcement made by our government that we had negotiated a protocol agreement with the Union of B.C. Municipalities. This was the end of a two-year process of negotiations; there had been a memorandum of understanding at the meeting of the municipalities one year before that.

That agreement was signed by the leader of the party that this hon. member was formerly a member of. That was the initial agreement with UBCM; it resulted in negotiations that went on for a year, which then resulted in the protocol agreement that makes a member of the municipalities -- an appointee of municipalities -- a member of the provincial team and present in the room during the negotiations.

There is no third table, hon. member; that individual is right there in the room. Therefore I do appreciate the opportunity to set the record straight. Clearly, what the hon. member said was misinformation and patently incorrect.

I'd also like to point out that the Union of B.C. Municipalities very shortly will be holding a conference of UBCM people with officials from the provincial government for the purpose of working together and ensuring that together we do the very best job we can to make certain that the municipal interest is represented in the negotiations. Joanne Monaghan, the president of the UBCM, is very, very positive about this initiative. I think it behooves members of the House -- apart from any party affiliation -- to be encouraging and to assist with such events being successful.

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

Leave granted.

L. Boone: On behalf of the Speaker, I'd like the House to help me greet and welcome to these chambers today Mr. L. Carr, who is a teacher with Catlin Gable School in Portland, Oregon. Mr. Carr is here with up to 38 grade 5 students and several adults who are accompanying them. They are here, of course, to study comparative government and local history. I think they will have a good view of the local history and of what is going on in this chamber today. I hope they didn't view question period and compare it to what takes place in other jurisdictions, or they would have had quite an earful and eyeful at that time. Would the House please help me greet them.

R. Chisholm: That last question was because there is a misconception out there. As a matter of fact, this question came from headlines in a Chilliwack Times of just two weeks back. I wanted to get it on the record so it can be disseminated and so we can get it out to the population so they realize what is going on, because even the press doesn't understand what is going on.

For my last set of questions, I'd like to draw to the attention of this House the fact that the Liberal opposition actually put forward their own 11 points -- guiding principles on treaty negotiation -- in a speech in this House on Friday, April 28, when no one but perhaps myself and the minister over there were listening. Now that I'm not a member of the Liberal opposition these days, I'm not promoting their 11 points; I'm just trying to understand them. I'm sure the minister has copies of their points.

First question: I wonder if the minister would care to comment on what he sees as the big difference between the government's guiding points on treaty negotiations and what the Liberal opposition has officially proposed -- has finally gotten around to proposing, I should say.

Hon. J. Cashore: I'd like to thank the member for his question. To give a very precise answer, the points in the Liberal position on treaty negotiations that we take issue with are points 5 and 11. But in order to take issue with them, I also

[ Page 14321 ]

have to reference point 1. Point 1 of the Liberal position is that the Liberals agree with us and would support resolving treaties in the context of the B.C. Treaty Commission. Basically they have affirmed the position that this government has taken with regard to the resolution of this issue. They have -- in a very appropriate way, I think -- said that this is bigger than politics; it's more important than politics. They want to enter this process and resolve these longstanding issues. I commend them on point 1.

When it comes to their point 5, they define private property. In parroting our comment that private property is not on the table, they then go on to describe private property as Crown lands, where there are leases or licences. While we take a very firm view with regard to such lands, we do not preclude them from being on the table. If they were precluded from being on the table, it would actually be in violation of the basic tenets of the task force report that I cited earlier. Therefore to say that you uphold point 1 and then say that you could not have Crown land on the table would really be inconsistent with the points in the task force report.

[3:15]

The second point in contention is where the Liberal opposition says that it would support a moratorium on interim measures. Again, that is inconsistent with the report of the British Columbia Claims Task Force -- very inconsistent. It really denies the.... I don't know if I should say sincerity, but it certainly denies the appropriateness of point 1. Therein lies a very serious problem, in that you can't have it both ways. You can't say that we'll buy into this process and all that that entails, and then suddenly and unilaterally change it. That's not how effective negotiations can take place.

There are two very clear.... It's not so much that they're disagreements with me and my position, but they're in direct conflict with the Treaty Commission process.

I would just add to that that I have cited on a few occasions the Sam Green case, where a Justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia lifted an injunction that was there since the time of the Socred government because they didn't have an interim measures process in place. In his judgment, he said that one of the reasons for doing this was that this government does have an interim measures process in place. I would think that that means that we're starting to get some legal framework around the appropriateness of what we're doing.

R. Chisholm: I'd like to quote to you from the Sun of April 9, 1994. It's from the Peat Marwick review of the fiscal state of the government, and it's talking about land claims. This is in the quote:

"The report does say that the ministry is supposed to negotiate all comprehensive land claims in British Columbia by the year 2000. While the largest cost associated with resolving land claims will be with the actual settlements -- land and cash -- the report says the cost of negotiations will be significant as well, and warned that the government may not be budgeting enough for funds for the talks."

My next question is for the minister and is a specific question for the government in this House. This is to try and understand what the minister meant when he introduced the estimates and said that an agreement must be fair and affordable; nothing less will be acceptable to the people of British Columbia. My question is for the minister. All that British Columbians are waiting for this government to state is: what is "affordable"?

Hon. J. Cashore: I have said many times -- and I have dealt with this question -- that treaties will be affordable. That has to mean that they fit in with the fiscal plan of the government. The fiscal plan of the government involves the elimination of the deficit, which we have achieved, and paying down the debt.

As I said in the House a few days ago, when treaties are resolved, there will be recognition of the fact that the major share of the cash component rests with the federal government. While there will be a certain amount coming out of a treaty that would be paid up front, most of it would be paid over a period of time in order to be able to allow for the careful management of that outlay and also to build that into the capacity of the first nation to come on stream with its economic development.

We would seek to do that in a very strategic way, to enable the best possible economic improvement for the first nation as it seeks to achieve economic interdependence through what the first nation would give up in the negotiating of modern treaties. But the fact is that the costs will be offset by the economic benefits of certainty and self-sufficiency of aboriginal communities. If that is not in the offing at the end of the day, then treaties will not be signed, because they have to be a net benefit for both first nations and non-first nations.

So just to reiterate, agreements must be affordable for all British Columbians. If a treaty is not affordable and does not project greater benefits to the community than costs, then the province simply won't sign it. The federal government's primary constitutional and financial responsibility for treaties must be maintained. The cost of treaties will not be borne by British Columbians alone; the costs will be borne by all Canadians.

Now, I do recognize the point that says: "Well, we're all taxpayers, but I think it would be nice for a change to see some of those dollars coming back into the province." It might be nice for people in businesses and in different areas to know that money is not money that is sent out of the country and invested on the New York Stock Exchange, and that the money would be spent within those communities. It would be an economic stimulus, while at the same time enabling people to be moving towards greater economic self-sufficiency.

As I've said before, tax exemptions for aboriginal people will be phased out. We won't sign agreements that don't build in that incremental process of phasing out tax exemptions. Also, we will not sign any agreements that would allow any kind of tax haven to be created as a result of a treaty settlement. As I have said before, part of the cost of settling treaties is fair compensation -- where there is unavoidable disruption, that's another factor.

R. Chisholm: I still haven't heard any amount that the taxpayer in British Columbia might pay in this negotiation. I guess that's what I'm trying to get a handle on, and I think the people of British Columbia are too. I realize that there is a federal component to this, as well as provincial. Certainly the minister's negotiating team must have some sense of what this number must be. It's nice to say that citizens are being included in the process, but as taxpayers they worry that their definition of what is affordable is different from your government's definition.

So my question for the minister is: what definition of "affordable" has he given to his negotiating team? They must have a better answer than what the minister has told this House so far.

[ Page 14322 ]

Hon. J. Cashore: As I have said, we go much further than that. We give instructions with regard to mandates on every aspect to our negotiating team, but we don't leave it at that. We insist that there be consultations with the public prior to treaty discussions beginning. We insist that the public be kept informed during treaty discussions.

When we're in the agreement-in-principle stage, we insist that the public be consulted on a regular basis through the provincewide Treaty Negotiation Advisory Committee and the regional advisory committee, and that at the end of day, after an agreement in principle has been initialled, it would then go out for public review and public comment. The government would hear very clearly from the people with regard to their sense of the affordability of that document.

Therefore at every step of the way, these issues are going to be very clearly spelled out, and the public will have ample opportunity to comment on such things as the cost and to look at the benefits in the context of the treaties that do emerge.

R. Chisholm: I've heard estimations as high as $8 billion. I'd just like to hear from the minister if there is an estimate of what it will cost British Columbians at the end of the day. Is there any sort of estimate? Has any sort of direction been given to the negotiating team as to how far they can or cannot go? The people of British Columbia would like to hear the answer to that. It would make them a little bit more comfortable with what is happening to them in this province.

Hon. J. Cashore: Very clear direction is given to the negotiators -- as I said a moment ago -- every step of the way. If the hon. member is asking for actual, precise amounts, he's asking a question that is completely unreasonable. What we have to do is deal with the costs and the benefits. There has to be a net benefit. At the end of the day, it has to be a result that really does not cost the taxpayers.

Even when you look at the cost-sharing formula that has been negotiated since these wildly inflated estimates that the member loves to repeat.... Since that time, we've seen the federal government get cold feet on the federal-provincial cost-sharing agreement. That's because they see themselves having to pay what they do not feel they want to pay with regard to forgone revenues.

All of those issues are very complex. We are in the process of doing a continued cost-benefit analysis. I would remind the hon. member that we are at the very beginning of the process. We are just starting the negotiations with the Sechelt; that's the first negotiation to get underway at the AIP stage, outside of the Nisga'a negotiations.

R. Chisholm: Finally, on this question of affordability, which is the nub of the central question that concerns taxpayers -- what is affordable? -- if we don't address this question during these estimates, then are we really having any meaningful debate at all?

My question for the minister is: has he had any representation -- any whatsoever -- now that he knows that in the Liberal opposition's new 11-point program of guiding principles for treaty negotiations, point 4 is that treaties must be affordable...? My question is: what do the Liberals mean by affordable? Shouldn't the government be trying to find out from the Leader of the Official Opposition what his caucus means by affordable? It is important for the minister to find out directly from the Leader of the Official Opposition. Seeing as the minister can't answer the question....

His caucus members have no authority to speak on his behalf. What does the leader think British Columbians can afford? After all, the minister hasn't answered that question yet. Let's find out now. What does Liberal policy really mean when they say that treaties must be affordable?

As I read their 11-point program, I don't see much difference between what they propose and what the government is doing in its approach to treaty negotiations with first nations. My question for the minister: if he can't answer the question, has he any word at all for the Liberal opposition in terms of what they think is affordable?

Hon. J. Cashore: I find it extremely awkward to be caught in the middle of this terrible vendetta between this scorned member and the Liberal opposition. I feel that somehow I'm being manipulated into having to choose between parties that have gone through an unfortunate parting of the ways. If I were in my former life, I might offer pastoral counselling -- for a cut rate, if that wouldn't be a conflict of interest. If it wouldn't be a conflict, I would be glad to do that, hon. member.

I would have to say to this hon. member that if we went back to our discussion of about 15 minutes ago, when the hon. member was admonishing the government for failing to guarantee a $5 million loan that the bank said wasn't necessary.... Given that kind of fiscal responsibility, I think the general public, whether they are coming out of a Liberal or an NDP background, would say they certainly wouldn't want to support that kind of approach, which suggests that there be a loan guarantee when the bank doesn't want a loan guarantee.

So I think with regard to the question of affordability, I have answered the question. It has to be affordable within the context of the fiscal plan of the government. It cannot be an amount in any given year that would subvert the government's intention to significantly pay down debt. It has to fit into that sort of plan. Treaties must be affordable in the context in which....

This is not about putting toothpaste back into a tube; it's not about adding up all the value of resources that have been taken out of an area since contact time; and it's not about adding up all the moneys that have gone to pay for social services for first nations. It's not about that. It is about coming up with a reasonable treaty that is going to ensure that we can say goodbye to the kinds of relationships where the only economic opportunity for first nations has too often been in the area of storing toxic waste or selling cigarettes or being seen as a place for gambling.

We need to do better than that, and that's what modern treaties are about.

[3:30]

R. Chisholm: Well, this spurned ex-Liberal, if you will, will stand up here again and debate the point about the fishermen's association to start with. And you had your numbers wrong, hon. minister. It was 75 percent of $10 million, which was the Penfund deal.

We don't know what the fiscal plan of this government is, and neither does the province of British Columbia. Especially after yesterday and the Bonneville fiasco, just what is the fiscal plan of government? The people of this province are asking: "How far are you going with this? What is it going to cost?" We haven't heard anything here this afternoon, and it's high time we did. And if you can't answer, well, maybe the leader

[ Page 14323 ]

of the Liberal opposition should answer the question for you, because it doesn't seem that this government wants to answer that question either. But the people of British Columbia want to know what the answer is.

In the constituency of Chilliwack, my constituents want settlement. Those residents who are first nations people want settlement of historic claims, and non-aboriginals definitely want settlement as well. But neither side really wants settlement that is not affordable by senior governments. Why spend months and even years in negotiations on pie-in-the-sky dreams that neither Ottawa nor Victoria can afford? British Columbians, both aboriginal and non-aboriginal, need direction on what their senior governments have in mind on affordability.

Ottawa is no longer a goblet to be drained, and certainly there is no appetite by provincial taxpayers to see years wasted discussing settlements that in the end are not affordable. I want my citizens, my voters in Chilliwack, to know that I don't want my first nations constituents led down the path expecting something that's not on. And I certainly don't want the senior governments thinking that they have a secret definition of what is affordable which is different from what my taxpaying citizens in the constituency of Chilliwack think is affordable.

We need better answers than we have had thus far from the minister and the leader of the Liberals and the leaders of B.C. Reform, the Alliance and Social Credit. Let's all say what we think is affordable. Let's have the Leader of the Official Opposition and the Premier, even, come into this House during these estimates. The Liberal leader needs to say whether or not he even supports the 11-point program put forward by his critic. No answers from anyone on the question of affordability -- this is not acceptable to the taxpayers and the taxpayers of Chilliwack; it is not sufficient.

I hope I will not be alone in pressing on this issue. I look forward to what other private members have to say on this issue. Let's hear from the government -- the government back bench. Maybe they can help get the Liberal leader to come clean, to come to this House and defend the 11-point program put forward by his critic. I frankly don't see much difference between this program and the government's when it comes to guiding principles for treaty negotiations.

But let's see if during these debates we can even get the Liberal leader into the House; let's see if we can get him to commit to a definition of affordability; and let's see if we can get this minister to come out with the same definition. Let's have a real debate in this assembly; let's get the Liberal leader here in this debating chamber before the election; let's get some real policy out of the Liberals and out of this government; let's have some action and assistance from the government back bench. Let's get the organ grinder in here, and let's get some real debate on these estimates.

After all, we haven't heard much so far.

I thank the minister for his comments -- what few I did get. He has helped us all focus on this issue with his own lack of clarity on this subject. I appreciate that he would like to avoid the issue of affordability somewhat, but it's what the public wants to know about. Taxpayers want to know now what their senior governors think is affordable and what those who think they have the stuff to govern -- the Liberal leader in British Columbia and others -- think about this most important issue: affordability in land claims negotiations.

Hon. J. Cashore: Actually, I agree with a lot of the hopes and vision that the hon. member has with regard to his constituents. I don't think any MLA would in any way want to denigrate the hon. member's support for the aspirations of his constituents, whether they be first nations or members of the Sto:Lo nation. I would just point out that with regard to the Sto:Lo, they are just at the very beginning stages of the treaty negotiation process, having filed a statement of intent; they have not filed their opening positions.

Under the context of the openness protocols that we're developing, I will be seeking to have, in general, the opening positions made available at the time they are available.

The only other thing I'd like to say is that I'm very hopeful that in the very near future, we will have the Nisga'a agreement that will define what we mean in that context. Again, let's remember that affordability covers a range of perhaps 20 topics that are part of the various mandate issues. They all exist in connection with each other.

C. Serwa: Just before we leave this area, I have a statement and a question for the minister on this. It's certainly a very interesting topic and one that the public wants to know a great deal more about. I have difficulty understanding the relationship between the government's position on the magnitude of the historical injustice on the one hand, and talking affordability on the other hand. To me, those two positions are really unrelated.

It's like saying that in our penitentiary system, a person has committed a crime -- let's say it's armed robbery -- and the judge then refers to the book and asks how many prison cells are available and how long they are available for before determining a sentence. Really the sentence should have no relationship to the actual crime. When the minister is talking about historical injustices and then, at the same time, talking affordability, they're really not related. Either there are points of view with respect to historic injustices, and the compensation is the net result in an objective fashion, or there aren't.

You really can't compromise your position, which you're doing right now in talking of affordability.

As we all know, ultimately the public at large has to be satisfied with the integrity of the process; the whole process has to be credible. The minister knows that full well, and he was talking about having public input at various stages all along the line. But the process is not complete with that, because it's all subjective. The minister, the ministry, and the negotiators.... The negotiators can be subjective in their assessment of the public input, and the public will never know what the public input is, because there's no factual way of accounting for it.

What we need is a sense of discipline in this government; what we need is a sense of discipline in the negotiators. That sense of discipline can only be acquired if the matter comes through to referendum for all of those individuals in the affected area. Native people have that opportunity, and that is part of the process. Non-native people in the affected area should have the equivalent opportunity, as part of the process, to ratify the process. That is the only way we're going to get an objective, fair and final treaty agreement that satisfies both the native concerns and the non-native concerns.

[ Page 14324 ]

wisely by the final process of public acceptance. If the public will accept.... The minister has gone and talked about the influence of the public on the whole process, but he's not willing to allow the public to have input, to get the final answer. The objective, final answer of the public can only be achieved through referendum.

I myself happen to believe in the personal sense of honesty, integrity, fairness and decency of all people. I believe that's an inherent sense. I believe that it exists in the native people and in the non-native people. It is my belief that if this process is to have the credibility it really requires, this type of opportunity should be made available. A referendum should be enabled for the people in the affected area. That is the only real opportunity we have of ensuring that objectivity and fairness come out foremost in the whole process.

Unless it is there, no amount of dialogue will convince the public that the process has been fair or final or objective. They will see that self-interest groups, specific interests or partisan interests have been stroked, but the public at large -- the non-native public -- is the only group exempted from this whole process in giving their final approval or disapproval to the process.

The fact is that if the approval is not given, then it means further work is required. We've just had the accord, for example -- the national vote -- turned down because the public didn't approve of where the governments were going. That's not a bad thing; that's democracy in action. The only way we can go along with something, even if it is controversial, is by the recognition that that inherent sense of decency and fair play is allowed to be a participant in this whole process. I hope the minister responds to that, because I think very highly of my fellow man. They should have that opportunity.

This would negate a lot of the controversial dialogue that goes on in here, because we can go armed and working together to resolve this. Yes, indeed, everyone wants this matter resolved, so that we can get on with life and so that the futures of the native and non-native people are focused and the foundation opportunities are all in place.

Until we have this concept of a referendum, the government is going to be suspect. The negotiators have absolutely no sense of discipline placed on them whatsoever, because the government hasn't been able, and is not able, to impose any discipline. Perhaps the minister would respond to that.

Hon. J. Cashore: When I hear a statement that the negotiators have no discipline imposed on them whatsoever, I have to wonder where that's coming from. I know that the former Minister of Native Affairs from the previous government is present in the House, and he's had relationships with negotiators. I have, and I think that negotiators function under the restrictions, requirements and discipline of the government. I think that is done well. They represent the people of the province well in a very, very difficult situation. After all, it is a complex situation.

First of all, with regard to the issue where the hon. member referred to me as using words to the effect of "the magnitude of historical injustice," I don't think that is a direct quote from these estimates. I may be wrong; it may have been a phrase I used. But I don't recall using it and don't believe I used the phrase.

I just said about ten minutes ago, in response to another question, what this is not about. It is not about adding up all the values of the resources that have been taken out of an area, such as the Peat Marwick study that was done up in the Nass. It's not about adding that up and saying: "Somehow we have to pay for that." That's not what it's about; nor is it about adding up all the moneys that have been spent through DIAND on various programs. It's not about that, either. In both instances, it would be a very costly exercise to ascertain that, and there's really nothing beneficial that would come out of it. So it's not about that, very clearly.

It is about achieving modern treaties that create a new relationship; and in order to achieve that, as I've said many times in this debate, parties have to be prepared to give something up in order to get something better. That goes for the first nations as well as everybody else.

[3:45]

This word "certainty" is, I think, bandied about a lot, and perhaps it's used too much, for want of better words to help describe what we seek to achieve here. One of the things I have said very clearly, over and over again, is that first nations would be giving up their aboriginal rights before B.C. would ever sign a treaty.

Treaties are about getting rid of the Indian Act. They are about getting rid of an old paternalistic system that did not work. They are about creating a new relationship. Treaty rights would be negotiated to replace what are currently aboriginal rights. That would be done in the context of a modern negotiation with everybody's eyes wide open.

Another thing: what would first nations be giving up? We would not sign a treaty unless there was within that treaty a process for getting rid of

section 87, the tax exemption on Indian lands. This is about change; it's about a new relationship; it's about people who, hopefully, as a result of this process, will achieve the kind of self-esteem and self-respect that comes out of economic interdependence and the ability to deal incrementally with the appalling employment rates in their regions, the appalling rate of infant mortality and the appalling rate of teen suicide.

It's not going to be done through a paternalistic relationship. We've learned that bitter lesson. The old system hasn't worked. We have to find a new way of doing this, and we believe that there has to be a respectful relationship among the three parties at the table in order to achieve honourable agreements.

To get on now to the hon. member's points about the openness, again, I just want to assure hon. members that since estimates first started, we have spent several hours on the issue of openness. I just want you to know that. We really have; we've had very thorough and exhaustive debate, I think, on the issue of openness. I have stated again and again, and I've read into the record, our key positions with regard to openness. Openness is the starting point in negotiations, and closed negotiations would be the exception. I've pointed out that there was an

article in the paper the other day that said that B.C. has only six openness agreements, and that there are 43 nations at the table. The fact is that there won't be any negotiations unless there's an openness agreement. We won't agree to negotiate without an openness agreement, and I'm very proud to report that we now have seven openness agreements in place. Another one was added just within the last few days.

[ Page 14325 ]

The details of treaties will be made public prior to being signed by the province, they will go out to the public and we will hear from the public. All agreements in principle will be taken to the public for review; all final agreements, to the Legislature for ratification. Local government participation in the treaty process is guaranteed, and all British Columbians will have an opportunity to be heard. We are committed to ensuring meaningful input from local communities and third parties. Yes, we are learning as this process, which is really in a very infant stage, gets up and running.

Some have been saying that the government is out there negotiating treaties in secret, behind closed doors. This isn't true, because the negotiations haven't started. I know it's a very complex situation, and sometimes when I say that, the answer comes back: "Yes, but what about the interim measures?" We've taken very stringent steps to deal with that openness issue insofar as the interim measures are involved. So we've heard from the public. We've done what the public said needs to be done with regard to openness around interim measures.

Also, the other reference that is made is: "Well, what about the Nisga'a negotiations?" The hon. Leader of the Third Party was in the House the other day when we had quite a go-round on that, so I'm not going to get back into that now -- just to refer you back to the comments that both of us made at that time.

The point is, hon. member, that we say with regard to a referendum that it's too little too late. It's too late in the day. You disagree on that. We agree to disagree. We say the process of public involvement has to begin at a much earlier stage than has happened in the past, and it has to be diligently applied at every stage of the way. If it isn't, the government is going to be judged on that. That's a simple political fact. The people expect that to happen; they have a right for it to happen. And we have a responsibility to see that it does happen.

But remember this: sometimes you'll have an individual in an advisory committee, such as a caller to an open-line program that I was on the other day, who will say: "I went to the regional advisory committee, and they didn't follow my advice. So I left, and I didn't go back." I think that's unfortunate. The fact is that this is a time for people to hang in, because if people walk away from the table and away from the opportunities they have for input, then they remove that opportunity for all time. I don't think this is about quitters.

At the same time, I do have to recognize that because we're trying at this historic time to make change -- change that will achieve certainty, change that will deal with the fact that we've got these roads in trespass that need to be resolved and all those kinds of changes -- that is going to mean, in order to have appropriate public consultation, that a lot of good people out there are going to find it's an onerous task for them. We do recognize that.

We have therefore come up with two experimental projects, one in Prince George and one in Smithers, to assist the local municipalities in setting up storefront operations to help them disseminate information from their perspective with regard to the treaty-making process.

With regard to the question of a referendum, I will be very brief because I've made these arguments before. It's simply to say that I believe that referenda have a history in this country of dividing communities, not binding them together. That can be demonstrated.

I also think referenda create an enormous administrative and cost factor. When we are dealing with the fact that all the citizens of British Columbia and of Canada are taxpayers, and when you get right into specific areas and talk about where you would draw the line and how you would define it, it becomes a problem. I know the hon. Leader of the Third Party doesn't agree with that, but I believe it is a problem.

We had, again on the same open-line program the other day, the negotiator for the Hartley Bay band stating that in the area where he lives there are no non-aboriginal people. So how would you define it? I'll try an answer for that myself. I'd say, if I had to do a referendum, that I'd have to try to define it as a functional economic area, so that people living in a particular area where the treaty was being negotiated would recognize that what was happening there was going to impact people out in Prince Rupert, Port Edward and other communities.

But the fact of the matter remains that we do have an agreement to disagree here over where you would draw the line. Indeed, some Canadian taxpayers living in other provinces would want to vote on this. So I don't think there's any point in us getting into a long-drawn-out harangue on this. I think we should take our opportunities to put our positions before the public. I just want to say very openly that some of us agree to disagree on this point.

I noticed the other day that the federal Reform Party has stated that they don't agree on referenda except in certain circumstances. I had never read that before with regard to their position. I believe I heard Mike Scott say once that he was opposed to referenda. I think their position has been modified somewhat.

It's an interesting debate. But I really think that if we get focused on the referenda issue, we will miss the boat. The boat is public involvement every step of the way and doing it in a way that is very respectful of those people the hon. member refers to, who are good people out there who have a right to be heard, and when they are expressing their legitimate concerns, they do have a right to have their questions answered.

J. Weisgerber: I came in to speak on a somewhat different topic, but the minister has now piqued my interest in returning to the issue of referendums, and so I will too.

Let me say this. I believe that there should be a process for ratification of agreements in principle -- those reached by the band by way of referendum of band members or tribal council members resident in and members of the group in the traditional claim territory. That's pretty straightforward -- a pretty clear geographical area,and pretty clear who would vote on the referendum to ratify the position negotiated by the band or tribal council negotiators.

Our position is that there should be a similar referendum held in exactly the same geographical region which would allow people who are not members of the band or tribal council -- non-aboriginal people -- to ratify the position taken by the province's negotiators.

There is absolutely no reason, first of all, to believe that if aboriginal people are going to have an opportunity to vote and ratify the deal their negotiators have reached, other British Columbians living in the same geographical area should not have an opportunity to do precisely the same thing -- not to ratify the position by the federal government; the federal government is free to develop its own ratification process. There should be a process for

[ Page 14326 ]

British Columbians to ratify the agreement in principle on treaties in the areas where they are most directly affected -- the areas in which they are resident.

The minister says that's far too late in the process. I disagree entirely. I believe that the reason the Charlottetown accord failed on referendum across Canada was that the parties to the negotiation came to an agreement behind closed doors in a pressure cooker situation in Ontario, and then brought it back to Canadians and said: "What do you think of this?" In enormous numbers, they turned thumbs down on it -- they didn't like it. Some of the biggest numbers rejecting the Charlottetown accord were in the northeast part of British Columbia, where I happen to reside.

But British Columbians, Canadians, rejected the deal because they didn't understand how it had been developed, didn't understand any of the compromises that had been made, and understood -- perhaps all too well -- that they didn't like some parts of it.

I believe that a good referendum ratification process would do a number of things. It would force those people -- all three parties to the negotiations -- to make more realistic.... It would cause the negotiators to bring in more realistic opening positions, because you would have to open the process up at the very beginning and allow those people in the traditional territory to follow the process through to ratification. I can't for a moment accept....

I'd like the minister to explain to me why it is that he supports ratification by way of referendum for band members and, indeed, agrees not only that a majority of voting band members should be required to ratify the deal but that a majority of band members or tribal council members eligible to vote must in fact ratify the deal. I expect the minister understands the criteria -- the threshold that's been set for the aboriginal community. A majority of members eligible to vote must vote in favour; anyone who doesn't vote is counted as voting against.

Why, then, wouldn't the minister agree to a simple referendum for ratification of the province's position -- nothing to do with the federal government -- that simply says yes or no to a series of questions around the treaty.

I'll go this much further. I don't think that a local referendum by non-aboriginals living in the traditional territory should deal with the cash components of the agreement. Those are cash payments that are going to be made by British Columbians and Canadians generally, and the referendum should be more focused on local issues. Would the minister then tell us why he believes there should be a ratification by referendum for band or tribal council members, and that the same right shouldn't be extended to non-aboriginals with regard to the ratification of their provincial government's position?

[4:00]

Hon. J. Cashore: I did agree with the hon. member when he was referring to secrecy and lack of knowledge with regard to Charlottetown. I think those were two real problems in terms of the way in which that issue was handled. I think he made a good point that we have to really recognize the importance of dealing completely with secrecy and that we do that in the ways I've outlined -- through the openness procedures I've outlined and through getting information out. That really needs to be done; there's no question about that and I don't apologize for saying that.

I think we have to do the very best job that is humanly possible in getting information out there. Therefore it's somewhat inaccurate to say that when a referendum comes along, people would not have had input up to that stage.

As a matter of fact, the openness protocols that have been negotiated are allowing for cable television to come into the negotiations -- onto the main table -- except for those instances when the three chief negotiators agree that there needs to be confidentiality similar to the confidentiality in

section 7.2 of the Leader of the Third Party's framework agreement. The point is that openness is the order of the day. The public can have access; the public can be there. They can have input. They can participate in the regional committees; they can participate in the regional processes -- in the forums. There are a wide variety of processes that we have put in place that did not exist in the day of the hon. Leader of the Third Party. The processes that we have put in place did not exist at that time. Maybe they would have come to exist, but they did not exist at that time except in a very skeletal way.

[D. Streifel in the chair.]

I also would point out that the hon. member used the phrase "behind closed doors." That simply is not correct. When you look at the openness agreements.... I would ask him to review those agreements. In the case of the Sechelt he said very positive words about that openness agreement -- that it was really headed in the right direction. I also took his positive words as indicating that he recognized that it was superior to the document that he had signed.

I also would point out that at the time that the hon. member was the Minister of Native Affairs there was not one word, not one mention, of referenda coming from him or from anyone in his ministry that I'm aware. To be suddenly converted to this process at this time, I think, begs a few questions.

With regard to his question about the first nations and the process for first nations ratification, I think he knows that is there for very practical reasons. For one thing, it is a very clearly defined group of people within a geographical area. Another is that it's a requirement of the courts in relation to the issue of certainty, and it is to ensure that we can avoid any kind of a court challenge following the result of the treaty being concluded. So there very clearly are requirements that this ratification process involve a referendum of the first nation, which is indeed necessary.

With regard to the point that the hon. member was making about it not being difficult to define a geographical area in which there would be a referendum, I'd just like to point out that I.... He might want to explain a little further what he was referring to. But if I again go back to the example I gave a while ago, the negotiator for the Hartley Bay band said there are no non-aboriginal people living in the area of the claim. Now I don't necessarily.... I'd have to look at that. Maybe there are one or two non-aboriginal people -- I don't know.

My understanding is that in the area of the claim of the Nisga'a, there are approximately 250 non-aboriginal people living. That doesn't include Terrace. I would argue that people in Terrace would argue that it's part of a functional economic area, and that they would feel that a referendum wasn't doing them much good if they weren't included in it, if there was a decision to go the route of referenda. I think that if the hon. member had responsibility for this, he might then say: "Well, let's include Terrace." But then somebody would say: "What

[ Page 14327 ]

about Kitimat? Lots of people in Kitimat have economic relationships with people and businesses up on the Nass. Let's include

Kitimat."

Pretty soon we'd have Smithers, then Prince George and Prince Rupert, and then we'd have people down in Vancouver saying that they wanted to be included in the referendum. And pretty soon we'd have an issue where there is not a clearly defined formula available to define that -- except if he is saying that it would be adequate to have the 250 non-aboriginal people in the Nisga'a claim area vote. Then I don't think it delivers on some of the points that he says it should deliver on with regard to including the perspective of those who are potentially affected by a treaty.

So I again say that we agree to disagree on this. It's an important debate, and I think it's a good debate for these estimates. But we believe, and I say again, that it's too little too late. We have to be doing a much better job than was done at the beginning of the Nisga'a negotiations. We have to be doing a much better job at the very beginning and at every stage along the way in this process.

J. Weisgerber: There are so many questions the minister raises. Indeed, his description of the sort of expanding group of people who would be involved in a ratification vote makes me want to go over and be a negotiator on the other side of the table -- if, indeed, the minister could be moved to expand in that way. I think my description of the area was pretty definite.

I'm curious, though, for the minister to tell me if he has decided now that only Nisga'a and others living in their traditional territories are going to be empowered to vote by way of referenda. Are band members, tribal council members, living off reserve not going to be able to participate in a ratification vote? I rather doubt that.

It seems to me, with regard to the arguments around the numbers -- the population -- of aboriginal versus non-aboriginal in the geographic claim area, that that argument would swing both ways. There are areas like the Nass where, beyond the people living in Stewart, who are very directly affected and who are resident in the geographic area, there might be a relatively small non-aboriginal group called on to ratify the province's position.

If we're talking about Musqueam, Songhees or any of the groups living in close proximity to large metropolitan areas, the reverse will be the case: the number of band members ratifying in relationship to the number of non-aboriginal people living in the traditional territory will be reversed. I don't think that that makes the ratification process by either group any less important, any less relevant, any less genuine. So I think the minister raises straw men -- in fact, defeats his own argument -- simply by the reality of the population distribution around British Columbia.

The minister likes to talk about secrecy and likes to say that if only he had his way with the Nisga'a agreements, there would be greater openness. The minister then says that in their new openness protocols, they've included a

section that sounds like it is very similar to

section 7.2 in the Nisga'a framework. He spent the last two or three years travelling around British Columbia using that as a shield for not providing information on the Nisga'a. He acknowledges that in those areas where the three parties don't want public involvement, don't want the cameras in and don't want openness, there will be in camera negotiations. The minister is using exactly the same rationale to apply to his new openness agreements that he has lamented all over this province with regard to the Nisga'a.

Let me say also that there has not been the openness that the minister likes to talk about applied in the negotiation of those interim agreements. People have been kept out. There have been 50 interim agreements negotiated, and there hasn't been openness. There hasn't been a framework agreement signed by anyone that would have prevented the minister and his government from providing the kind of openness that he likes to pretend he will bring to future negotiations.

The minister's arguments on this whole issue of openness versus confidentiality just don't stand up to the test of the facts. The facts are that with the Sechelt and others, the government is bringing in a clause that sounds like it's exactly parallel to the one the minister laments with regard to the Nisga'a. On interim agreements -- where there is no federal government involvement; there's only the province and the band -- there hasn't been openness.

Where was the openness when the Clayoquot agreement was reached? Where was the openness when the agreement in Penticton was reached? I challenge the minister to tell us that there was openness with the Penticton agreement. People were denied an opportunity to sit in on those negotiations. There were consultations, but there was certainly no openness. I could go through interim agreement after interim agreement and tell you that the people affected by those interim agreements do not believe and do not accept an argument of openness. Indeed, there was a total lack of access for the people who were most directly affected.

Perhaps the minister could try and tell us how he intends to apply openness and still adopt a

section 7.2 in some other version in those openness protocols. How can the minister rationalize his commitment to openness with his actions and his government's actions with regard to interim agreements?

Hon. J. Cashore: What this hon. member doesn't understand is the comparison between the process that he wrote and signed and the process that we have insisted on. There's a very clear departure in the two processes. Openness is a starting point with the negotiations that we will be a party to and for which we have had a role in designing the framework agreements and the openness protocols;

whereas openness is the exception in the Nisga'a protocol. The hon. member knows that. He's standing up in this House, and he's trying to make it sound as though it's the same thing, and it's not. I refer the hon. member to his own words, when he praised the openness protocol at the time that it was released pursuant to the Sechelt negotiations.

All we have to do is compare the two documents: the Nisga'a document and the openness protocol, six of which I have here. There's a difference, hon. member, between day and night. There's nothing in the Nisga'a document, which I've read several times, that says anything about the availability of television in the room, that those people who aren't able to go there and attend -- because it's open -- can watch it on television. That's not in the Nisga'a document.

As a matter of fact, I can tell the hon. member that it's still a challenge to try and get documents out before the light of day, even when that is very much the province's desire, because of the document that the hon. member is so proud of

[ Page 14328 ]

that he wrote and signed. They are very, very different, hon. member; there's no question about that. He knows that I have tabled this information before. I'm prepared to make these protocols available to him. But even the way the document is made up, it deals with a purpose, which is to guide the parties on openness. That's not the opening statement in the protocol that the hon. member wrote and signed -- not at all.

And then it gets into principles, the principle with the Sechelt: "Openness of the treaty negotiation process will lead towards a better public understanding and awareness of the interest considered by Sechelt, Canada and British Columbia in negotiation of a treaty." No principle like that is stated within the Nisga'a document. "Openness will provide opportunities for local communities and the general public to be informed as the negotiation of the treaty proceeds; openness is intended to increase public confidence in the process" -- and so forth.

The hon. member himself knows this is a good document, because he praised it very, very freely and openly, and I do appreciate that.

[4:15]

With regard to a comment the hon. member was making when he was talking about the area that might be considered in his concept of where you would have a referendum, again, I don't think he has responded to the issue of where you would draw the line. With the city of Terrace being outside the Nisga'a traditional territory, I would think that to be consistent with some of the interesting points that he has made, and he'd be in a bit of a bind if he excluded Terrace. Now he may stand up and say: "No, I would include Terrace." That's my point.

It's sort of "Well, include this and include that," and pretty soon we're including Corner Brook, Newfoundland, hon. members. I think we have to think about that.

But I'm really not sure of the advantage of us belabouring the point on referenda. I think we agree to disagree. And I believe the official opposition takes a position where they don't support referenda. We've all had an opportunity to make our points on that.

With regard to the question he asked about the first nations, yes, the hon. member is correct: first nations would be able to vote no matter where they lived, as long as they were part of the agreed-upon enrolment list. So if they're on the list, they get to vote; he's right about that.

J. Weisgerber: Just so you're absolutely clear, our proposal is that non-aboriginal people must be resident in the geographic area covered by the claim, by the boundaries accepted by the Treaty Commission -- overlaps resolved, I hope, at least before the government moves forward to negotiations. And, indeed, British Columbians will have one opportunity to vote on a referendum in the area affecting the area in which they reside and are entitled to vote -- very straightforward. I'm not waffling the words. I'm going to hear the arguments about tariffs, but those are the arguments that the minister chooses to create.

I accept the fact that the aboriginal vote will be provincewide, perhaps across the country. But for the purposes of referendums on ratification of land claims, I believe each British Columbian should have an opportunity to vote once on the claim affecting the area in which that person is resident and entitled to vote -- simple, straightforward and pretty easy to understand. If the minister wants to cut off the debate and say that we agree to disagree, fair enough.

Let me come back to the issue that I have been trying to press the minister on and which he has been quite skilfully talking around, and that is the whole question of openness and the protocol that he professes, as applied to interim agreements. It hasn't been applied, the minister knows it hasn't been applied, and I think that the minster speaks out of both sides of his mouth. He says he wants greater openness. He wants an openness protocol, but he has negotiated 40 or 50 interim agreements in which he has denied access to negotiations around interim agreements to those people most directly affected by the agreement.

Hon. J. Cashore: With regard to the question, we'll be glad to provide the hon. member with the lists of consultations that have taken place in relation to the interim measure he is referring to. He's aware that those have already been applied for under the freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy laws, but we will very willingly make that information available to him.

I don't want to belabour this point about referendums, but if I understood the hon. member correctly in terms of how he would define the referendum area, it sounds to me that he's defining it even more narrowly than I had understood in what he just said. If that is the case, that would mean that a very small number of British Columbians would be making decisions that would impact other British Columbians. For instance, Terrace is not within the land claim area of the Nisga'a negotiations, yet there are a lot of people in Terrace who have a very real interest in what happens there.

Another example is that there are a lot of people.... I think we're all aware of the intense concern among fishers and the fishing industry. There are a lot of people in Richmond who fish in the northern waters in the summer, and I'm not sure that they would be very happy with the definition of what this hon. member is putting out there. But it's good that he is putting a definition out there, because when you see that in the cold light of day, it is far more limited in delivering the goods than the general public that he's trying to reach would realize.

On an open-line program the other day I was talking to an individual who very clearly expected, on the basis of what this hon. member has been saying, that he would be able to vote on each and every treaty in British Columbia.

J. Weisgerber: Indeed, we have had a discussion. I have defined it. If the minister believes that the majority of British Columbians would be opposed to the proposal I put forward, I challenge him to put it to referendum and allow all British Columbians to decide. Indeed, I think the minister would find that he....

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: I guess you get a bit numb in this House, but the minister says: "We've got an openness protocol on interim agreements." I know that, because I have an application into the freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy commissioner to get a copy of it. If indeed these are open consultations and if this is public information, why can't I go down and pick up a copy of it? It's not available. I've got to apply through freedom-of-information. The minister hasn't allowed people.... So the minister says: "I will provide for you under freedom-of-information...."

An Hon. Member: He speaks with a forked tongue.

[ Page 14329 ]

J. Weisgerber: Indeed, my colleague sums it up rather accurately.

This debate is one that I'm sure will rage on much longer than these estimates. In finishing up, I want to take my place and make room for the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, and acknowledge that with respect to the Sechelt agreement and the signing of the framework agreement, the minister for some reason was not there. No members of the government were present for the signing of the Sechelt agreement.

Indeed, only the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast and myself were there as elected people interested enough to go and observe the proceedings and indeed celebrate with the Sechelt people, who have been waiting longer than they should for an opportunity to start their negotiations.

With that I'll take my place, and come back because I have a host of issues that I'm anxious to address.

H. Giesbrecht: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

H. Giesbrecht: The member for Prince George-Omineca has informed me that visiting in the gallery today we have the chairman of the Terrace School Board, Mr. John Pousette, who is observing the proceedings. Would the House please join me in making him welcome.

Hon. J. Cashore: The hon. member suggests that the only way he can get the information he is referring to is through an FOI request. I'm advised that the hon. member hasn't requested the information from the ministry. If he had requested it we would have provided it to him; we'll provide it to him now. I assume that the FOI request hasn't been processed yet; we will be most happy to give the hon. member that information. I'm not sure why he would say that we refused to give him the information. It's our information that we haven't been asked.

With regard to another point he made relating to Sechelt.... He suggested that there was an affront in the lack of my presence at the initialling of the framework agreement with the Sechelt. That was not the case at all, hon. member. I have the greatest respect for the Sechelt. I have been present with them in a number of settings, and I'm very interested in their proceedings. The formal ceremonial signing -- which has not taken place yet -- will take place. I will be present, as will Minister Irwin of the federal government. We are in the process of establishing an appropriate date.

We will make sure that the hon. member is aware of that date and that the hon. member who is the MLA for Powell River-Sunshine Coast is aware of that date also. There will be a ceremonial time when the appropriate respect will be paid by the federal and provincial ministers at the signing of the framework agreement. It's only been initialled to date. We will be present at that time.

J. Weisgerber: As a point of clarification, we could both go back and read the Hansard Blues. But with respect to my statements regarding the lack of information around interim agreements, the minister in his response suggested that through freedom of information those would be available. My point was exactly that the minister can't suggest that there is openness and then refer me to freedom of information as a means of having access to those documents.

A. Warnke: I just want to follow up on the comments made by the member for Peace River South; this is also in the context of the Sechelt case. Perhaps at a later opportunity we'll talk about the Sechelt model. With regard to the ratification of the treaty with the Sechelt, to begin with there has been self-government in the Sechelt region under the federal and provincial act since 1987.

There was a comment made by a provincial representative in meeting the people of Sechelt that each and every aboriginal has the right to vote for or against acceptance of the terms of the treaty -- the ratification of the treaty with Sechelt. Following from this debate, I think what is worthwhile to explore is the right of the aboriginal people there to vote for or against the acceptance of the terms of the treaty. Is it on the basis of unanimity or on the basis of some sort of majority?

I ask this because if only a majority vote is required, the prospect remains for dissenters -- those who vote against or whatever -- to raise the issue again. I say this because the Sechelt case is different from most bands in the rest of British Columbia that we've discussed so far in these debates, because other bands have not established a self-government body yet. No self-government body exists; it has yet to be approved.

Yet in the case of the Sechelt there is a representative body; therefore I'm wondering why the provincial representative claimed that every aboriginal has the right to vote for or against the acceptance of the terms of the treaty, when in fact there is a representative body for the Sechelt. Why is every aboriginal Sechelt individual given this? Then, and connected to this, of course, why not extend the vote to every resident of Sechelt -- aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike?

[4:30]

Hon. J. Cashore: The first part of the hon. member's question, if I understand it, had to do with the ratification process that the Sechelt nation would follow at the conclusion of that particular treaty. The Sechelt position on that, as I understand it, is that each party shall ratify the settlement in its own lawfully constituted way -- then characterizing themselves, the Sechelt process, being pursuant to

section 17(2) of the Sechelt band constitution. I don't have those details. Ratification is the title of an issue that's subject to negotiation in the treaty-making process, so we do not have an agreed-upon answer to that question until it is determined at the table. It's my understanding that with regard to the ratification process of the Sechelt themselves -- the Sechelt Indian band -- the definition of that process will be achieved as one of the negotiation topics at the table.

With regard to the question, "Why not have the vote among everybody in Sechelt?" I think it's an interesting suggestion. To be quite honest, I have to think about it a bit; it's raising some interesting thoughts, given the unique nature of Sechelt. I don't want you to hear my answer as some kind of dogmatic refusal to consider that question.

But again, I still think that when we're talking about referenda, the fact does apply that they are settlements that have the involvement of taxpayers of British Columbia and Canada, and therefore, for that reason, it raises legitimate questions that people who live outside of that area would have with regard to what their role might be in ratification once that process is opened up.

[ Page 14330 ]

Apart from the taxpayer issue, there is also the issue that.... For want of a better term, I keep referring to functional economic areas. I'm thinking about people who don't live there but who are involved in various ways in the commerce of the area. Their considerations are also a factor.

A. Warnke: Just to follow up a little on it, I'm very aware that in the terms that are going to be laid out, each party -- aboriginal and non-aboriginal -- has their own legally or lawfully constituted way of doing things, I'm sure. Under

section 17(2) of the Sechelt band constitution, they have -- for want of a better word -- a referendum process.

I would like to have the minister respond to something along this line, which is really a follow-up to this earlier question. It has been put.... I have here one letter, for example, from Sechelt. Tax-paying citizens of Sechelt, who are not only aboriginals but non-aboriginals as well.... The

interpretation of tax-paying citizens of Sechelt who are non-aboriginal is that the federal and provincial governments decide on their behalf, and no referendum is required. From that perspective, there is a perception that there are two classes of citizens: (1) those who can vote on a treaty as stipulated under

section 17(2) of the Sechelt band constitution; and (2) those who have no say because they supposedly have federal and provincial government representatives deciding on their behalf.

They don't have any say, but they have to live with its implications, including footing most of the bill, which in the Sechelt case comes to an estimation of over $77 million. There has been some comment by the federal cabinet on the memorandum of December 1984. An estimated $60,000 package value per capita is based on the Inuvialuit final agreements; and once the adjustment is made to December 31, 1994, $60,000 is increased to $85,500. Multiply that by the number of Sechelt band members, which is about 910, and that's where you come up with the magic figure of over $77 million. That's an aside, but there is that bill to be footed. Those who have no say claim that they have to foot the bill.

What I'm just following up on is this: what does the minister say to non-aboriginal tax-paying citizens who believe that each and every individual has a right to vote on some form of binding vote -- call it a referendum or something else -- accepting or rejecting any treaty with the Sechelt band and Sechelt aboriginals?

G. Wilson: I'm very tempted to go directly into discussion on some questions I have with respect to the Sechelt issue, since it's on the table; however, I would reserve the right to come back to that.

I do want to go to the minister with questions on two very specific issues that are not related to Sechelt. The first is the Seven Peaks interim agreement, and the second one is with respect to the procedures of the federal government with respect to the Adams Lake situation, where I know there are activities underway as we speak.

On the first issue of the Seven Peaks interim agreement, my concern is for clarification with respect to the process by which the technical committee that's been struck is working. We have already established within the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks an opportunity for environmental assessment and a proper environmental referral process that would accommodate the concerns of first nations people, the regional district and private interests in that area.

It would seem that what has been negotiated with the government is a technical committee that is running a parallel process on referrals and has provided for the first nations -- in this case, the Penticton band but also other bands that are in that area -- an opportunity for a parallel process with respect to environmental review. If the minister might tell us why we have gone that route and whether or not my assessment, first of all, is correct, maybe we could then move into some other matters of substance on this question.

Hon. J. Cashore: We did not agree to an environmental review; the project did not meet the threshold of requirement for an environmental review. What we did agree on was a process that would enable us to deal with our responsibilities coming out of the Delgamuukw case.

G. Wilson: I'm assuming that the minister is referring to rights to resource, or aboriginal rights, as defined in the Delgamuukw ruling.

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, we're referring to the potential impact of development activity on Crown land where it may impact on an aboriginal right, where we have a requirement that we must consult to ascertain whether or not there's an aboriginal right.

G. Wilson: I don't take issue with that. I recognize that there is a need for consultation. My question is with respect to the process that's been set up. The reason I raise this issue -- so that we don't kind of dance around it, because I'd like to come directly to the heart of the concern -- is that the parallel process, the technical committee that's been struck, has no local government representation. It has representation from the ministry; it has representation from first nations; it has representation from other ministries; but it doesn't have representation from local government.

I question why that's so, because within the regional district of an area, there is already an approval process for developments that may be using Crown land, with an approved referral process through the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and other associated agencies, including first nations. I guess what I'm asking is: why do we need this technical committee, when we've already got a referral process established through local government? And if we are going to have this technical committee, why would we not include local government on it?

Hon. J. Cashore: The technical committee is a means for consultation to take place between the province and the band to review the issues that are contentious, and the province, in the process of dealing with that, consults very widely. We have lists of those with whom we consult, including the municipality. So those consultations do take place.

With regard to the understandable point that the member raises -- that there are already consultation procedures in place as part of another process, and why not just use that -- it's my understanding that even with that in place, we still need the means to sit down with the three bands and discuss with them the issues that they feel need to be addressed, in the context of the Delgamuukw requirements.

[ Page 14331 ]

G. Wilson: I'm very familiar with the Delgamuukw case, and I think that the minister is somewhat overstating the case in this instance. It would appear to me -- perhaps I've got this wrong -- that as a result of the blockade that was quite contentious with respect to the Apex resort, as a part of the negotiation to have the Penticton band remove the blockade and to allow for access up to the Apex, Green Mountain and Nickel Plate areas, the government has agreed to set up this technical committee which provides for ongoing consultation with respect to environmental matters.

I understand that part of it is with respect to access to water. Water is one of the key components, I think, in this negotiation -- unless I'm wrong, and I don't believe I am.

The difficulty I note is that Mr. Stuart Phillips of the Penticton band has indicated that this band along with others is now watching this issue very closely with respect to how successful this process may be. They're anticipating that out of this technical committee will come some form of process for agreement on how we should proceed on these matters. This band is not actually involved in the Treaty Commission process, as the minister is well aware. We're in danger of creating here another whole parallel process for interim agreements between the band and the government, which will ultimately be a position that will be put on the table in some future negotiation.

This is a very dangerous proposition for the government to enter into, because we have an established process, the Treaty Commission process. Notwithstanding what we may individually or collectively th