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

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, JANUARY 14, 1999

Afternoon

Volume 13, Number 4

[ Page 11087 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

C. Clark: Well, today is the last day on our staff for a very valuable staff member: Kevin Moorhead, who worked on the Ministry for Children and Families. I'm sure that the minister's office will be glad to see the back of him as he goes to South Africa. He's joined in the gallery today, on his last day, by his grandmother, Miriam Moorhead, and a friend of his grandmother, Mary Morris, who are both visiting. I hope the House will make them all very welcome.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm honoured today to introduce to the House Mr. Chih-Lin Chu, president of Canadian Metropolitan Properties Corp., whom some in this House will know as the owner of the Plaza of Nations facility. Mr. Chu is here in British Columbia to discuss the expansion of Canadian Metropolitan Properties Corp. business activities in this province. I know that all members of the House will welcome that news and will want to make him welcome.

Hon. P. Priddy: In the galleries today are a number of representatives from the College of Dental Surgeons that I would ask the House to welcome: Dr. Hank Klein, who is the president of the college; Dr. Kerstin Conn, vice-president of the college; Dr. Serge Vanry, president of the Association of Dental Surgeons of British Columbia; Dr. Bill Dunnigan, who is past president of the B.C. Federation of Dental Societies, which is now known as the Association of Dental Surgeons; Dr. Evelyn McNee, registrar at the college; and Jocelyn Johnston, the managing director of the B.C. Federation of Dental Societies. Accompanying them is Lorne Valensky. I'd like the House to make them all welcome.

G. Abbott: I see in the gallery today my former professor, Dr. Paul Tennant. Rather like it's certain every fall that the salmon will be spawning in the Adams River, I suspect, given the presence of Professor Tennant here today, that we are about to soon see some new legislative interns. I'm sure the House would like to join with me in commending our friend for doing such a fine job with that program and to welcome him today.

G. Janssen: It's with great pleasure that I welcome two fellow motorcyclists and good friends, Daisen Gee-Wing and Wilfred Vacheresse. I ask the House to make them welcome.

Hon. A. Petter: In the gallery today are Marnie and Ron Lundin, who have chosen to escape the chilly winds -- particularly chilly, it seems, right now -- of Kenora, Ontario, to visit Victoria here on the warm, wet west coast, with my executive assistant, Lorie Bennett. I'd like the House to join me in making them feel very welcome.

E. Conroy: In the gallery today is Shailine Rayner. Shailine is an immigrant from Kenya who is presently a businessperson in Ontario and is here in British Columbia sussing out some business opportunities. I might add that Shailine is also a good friend of Pratik Modha, who works in the building.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE FOR

RESOURCE-DEPENDENT COMMUNITIES

G. Abbott: People in British Columbia know all too well that the NDP's resource policies have killed thousands of jobs in this province and put entire communities at risk. It seems that the NDP have found an answer to this question. We've got in our possession a government document entitled "Fishery and Forest Communities Transition Secretariat." We're announcing this today, hon. Speaker, in hopes that we can save the government's A team a few hundred thousand dollars in advertising costs down the line by sharing this with the world a little earlier.

I'd like to ask the Minister of Fisheries: how will a problem that is created by too much bureaucracy be resolved by the creation of even more bureaucracy?

Hon. D. Streifel: I think I'm rather rewarded this early in the session to get a question from the opposition on fisheries. I'd like to point out that the problems we've had on the coast this past fishing season have gone wholly ignored by the opposition -- the devastation that's happened, that's been wrought by the federal Liberal government, the lack of fishing opportunity in what has been the eleventh-best salmon run in the history of the coast of British Columbia. We've had zero word, zero concern, and no opportunity taken for input from the members opposite.

So if we're going to address the circumstances on the coast -- I've been working very closely with the folks in the communities on the coast -- we have to gather information. If the member would pass over the document that he has in his hands, I would be pleased to expand further.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Shuswap.

G. Abbott: I would be more than pleased to table this document with the Minister of Fisheries. It's pretty clear now why this document wasn't shared with him and why he's not a member of the A team. That's pretty obvious.

The memo outlines the new bureaucracy and states that its purpose is to carry out transition planning for resource communities and workers that have lost their livelihoods. It's also promised an "economic assessment of existing fishery and forest industries in the community." To the Minister of Forests: after all this time, after the loss of thousands of forest jobs, why do we need another economic assessment to tell us about those forest jobs being lost?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: What the document shows is that this side of the House cares about what's happening in forestry and fishing communities. But we don't want to debate about secretariats, teams, implementation; we want to talk about what we're actually doing. It is important that we respond to communities in an organized fashion when they come to us.

If you go to Lumby or Merritt or Gold River, they will tell you that they like the way in which we've responded to those communities by saying: "You have a future, and we will work with you on the future, both in forestry and fishing and in the economic diversification realms, whether it's tourism or whatever." We will work with the communities. That's what that memo says.

G. Campbell: Let's talk about what this memo says and what it shows. First of all, the proposed secretariat -- just so

[ Page 11088 ]

the other side knows what it's called -- is called the F2CTC secretariat, and it has all the trappings of a bureaucratic nightmare that has in fact driven these resource communities to the edge of despair.

Listen to the reporting structure: this proposed secretariat is to be led by a consortium of ADMs who report to their home ministry DMs as well as to the new ADM of forest community transition, who'll report to the DM of Forests on a day-to-day basis. The DM of Forests will, in his capacity as chair of the economic policy deputies' committee, seek the advice and provide updates to the chair of the social policy committee and the council of deputy ministers. Well, that's going to solve a lot of problems, hon. Speaker.

[2:15]

Will the Minister of Forests enlighten this House as to how yet another level of bureaucracy in British Columbia is going to put one of those thousands of resource community citizens back to work?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members.

Hon. D. Miller: Beyond the laughter lie some very serious and troubling issues for people who live in resource-dependent communities. Over the years, in terms of the issues that have arisen, it became clear that government was not organized to deal with the kind of crisis that results when a major industry leaves a community.

It first started in Cassiar. Most of these members here were not in the House when the Cassiar situation arose and when we virtually had to close a town. It became apparent at that time that the various resources of government were not organized to move in in a way to assist that community across the broad spectrum of government services.

We have been working on that. It's been developed over the years, and it has been used successfully. There are some very real success stories. The Elk Valley was in crisis a few years ago. This model was used. The town of Golden was in crisis. This model was used. And by the way, it's a very successful restructuring and an industry that's contributing to jobs in that community. It was used in the Skeena situation.

No one is hoping that this mechanism has to be used. But surely there is an obligation on the part of government to be ready in a coordinated way to assist communities when these kinds of problems arise. For the Liberals to mock this is doing an injustice and a disservice to the people who depend on this in those communities.

The Speaker: Leader of the Official Opposition, first supplementary.

G. Campbell: There is one obligation here, and that's for this government to create jobs in this province instead of destroying them -- thousands and thousands of jobs you and your government have destroyed. Your answer is another layer of bureaucracy, another layer of regulation.

The fact of the matter is that this government has, in this model, come up with a new idea for the NDP. Imagine -- a new idea. "We're going to have a communication plan. We're going to have propaganda again. We're going to take dollars from the Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Fisheries and the Ministry of Advanced Education, and we're going to tell people that things are all right." Will the Minister of Forests tell me if he has talked to one forest worker in British Columbia who has told him that the answer to creating jobs in this province is for the NDP to run more propaganda campaigns?

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. D. Miller: I understand the opposition's desire to play politics with anything they think might enhance their position -- fair enough. I don't know what world the Leader of the Opposition lives in. I don't know that he's so isolated that he doesn't understand that the price of copper -- set internationally, not in British Columbia -- is at a 13-year low. I don't know if he understands that the price of molybdenum is half of what it was a year ago. If he thinks that all of those problems or British Columbia are somehow immune to the issues of a global economy, then he's not fit to sit in that chair, and he's certainly not fit to sit over here. Our job . . . .

The Speaker: Minister, complete your remarks.

Hon. D. Miller: Some dilettante who can loll on the beaches of Hawaii . . .

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon. D. Miller: . . . while in reality we're trying to deal with communities here that are in crisis because of the factors I've mentioned . . . .

The Speaker: Minister, thank you very much.

Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Speaker, it is not a propaganda exercise.

The Speaker: The minister will take his seat.

Hon. D. Miller: It is a genuine attempt to bring the resources of government to assist people in communities . . . .

The Speaker: Order, order! The minister will take his seat. The microphones have been cut off.

Second supplementary, Leader of the Official Opposition.

G. Campbell: Unfortunately, this minister has not even taken the time to find out that this is about fisheries and forests communities.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hasn't even read it.

G. Campbell: He obviously hasn't even read it. The fact of the matter is . . . . I will tell this minister that it is this minister and this government that have taken the forest industry from being the most productive, active industry in the province and have destroyed 16,000 jobs. It is this minister and this government that are responsible for the closure of 18 mills across the province in 1998. It is this minister and this government who have not lifted a hand to help those forest workers. They've ignored them day in and day out.

My question once again to the Minister of Forests is: have you met one forest worker who has told you that more government propaganda will create a job for them?

[ Page 11089 ]

The Speaker: I recognize the Minister of Energy, Mines and Northern Development.

Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Speaker, I represent, as the MLA, coastal communities from Bella Coola to the midcoast and up to Stewart. I have seen and I know firsthand the impact that the federal fisheries policies have had on those communities. I have invited the Leader of the Opposition to come to Prince Rupert and debate the issues around Skeena Cellulose and saving forest jobs.

The fact is that he does not have the jam to come up there and talk to real people. If he would get off his comfortable chair and go up to those communities -- come with me up to Prince Rupert . . . . Come with me, and we will address the community. I will ask them whether the Leader of the Opposition's vision -- which is to shut down those forest jobs, ignore those communities -- should prevail or what we're doing should prevail. And, hon. Speaker, I can give you the answer right now. No jam, no jam.

The Speaker: I recognize the member for Peace River South.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. The member for Peace River South has been recognized.

PRICE OF GASOLINE IN NORTHEAST B.C.

J. Weisgerber: My question is for the minister responsible for consumer affairs. Crude oil is down to $12 a barrel. Gasoline is selling for less than a dollar a gallon in many parts of the United States, the lowest pump prices in 20 years. In the lower mainland, gasoline is as low as 32 cents a litre, and many, many stations are selling for below 40 cents a litre. In the northeast, however, gasoline prices haven't come down one red cent. Stations in Chetwynd are charging 55.9 cents a litre; Dawson Creek is charging 57.9 cents. Can the minister advise what steps he's taking to investigate these consumer ripoffs in the interior of British Columbia?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, that's a very . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members. The Attorney General has the floor.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: That's a very important issue. I agree with the hon. member that the gouging by the oil companies should be stopped. I certainly will be looking into it and will perhaps review this matter.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Peace River South.

J. Weisgerber: Also to the Attorney General. Two years ago, when propane prices went through the roof, we were told that a shortage in the U.S. had driven up the price. The fact that the cost of propane produced in our own back yard was less than a third of the retail price didn't matter. International markets set the price. Now the shoe is on the other foot. North American crude prices are down, and oil companies are gouging the very people who live where all of British Columbia's crude oil is produced.

It's obvious to me -- and the minister appears to agree -- that the oil companies, at least in the northeast, are fixing prices and gouging consumers. Will the minister commit today to taking the steps necessary to investigate and stop this illegal and immoral price-fixing?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The answer is yes, and I'll be inviting the hon. member to be part of that review.

The Speaker: Question period is now over.

Orders of the Day

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

NIS G A'A FINAL AGREEMENT ACT

(continued)

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

section 1 (continued).

Hon. D. Lovick: When we adjourned, despite the fact that we were discussing

section 1 of the bill, we were into what seemed to be a slightly tenuous connection, if you will, with

section 1. We were talking about the corrigenda, or the errata, the corrections that were made to the final agreement from the blue document that was published, to the legal document that's here before us in the House today.

I want to explain what those corrections are, to give members and the public a clearer idea of why it is we say with such firmness and finality that there is no material difference between those two documents. In addition, I propose to table a document today that will show all of those corrections, every single one, and also explain the reason for them. In so doing, I hope I will be able to give assurance to my colleagues in the opposition that, frankly, this is not a big issue. Indeed, it is probably a non-issue. So let me just explain very briefly, then.

First of all, let's note that the Nis g a'a Final Agreement is an incredibly long, complicated and, some would argue, convoluted document. It's lengthy; it's complex. It consists of some 80,000 words and some 7,200-plus paragraphs. We made every serious effort to ensure that what we printed was, in fact, the Nis g a'a Final Agreement -- that that was the best we could get in terms of finality.

Given the magnitude of the task, alas, we discovered that we made some mistakes. The mistakes are almost entirely typographical. They aren't substantive in terms of affecting the meaning of the treaty in any significant way. The editorial corrections number approximately 30 in total. They are typographical, cross-referencing and grammatical errors, such as misplaced words and misplaced commas.

[2:30]

None of these corrections -- and here's the point I want to emphasize for everybody's benefit -- alters the substance or the intent of the agreement that was initialled on August 4, 1998. Moreover, what we did when we discovered those problems . . . . It was simply a matter of people going and doing the due diligence and getting the final document ready to come to the House -- legislative counsel and others being

[ Page 11090 ]

involved. When we discovered that this error had indeed been committed, what we promptly did was make sure that we made the changes. We put them into the next printing of the document. They are also, of course, part of the document. They are, indeed, embedded in the document that we are actually debating in the House today. We also ensured that the text of the agreement that was placed on the Internet made those changes. I would hasten to point out that further printings of the final agreement . . . . I think I already said this, but let me restate it. Once we identified the problems, in all further printings of the documents those changes were incorporated and inserted.

To give my colleagues across the way some flavour of what the changes are . . . . Again, you may have the document. Do my colleagues across the way have a copy? You're going to get a copy. As I say, I'm tabling it at the conclusion of these few remarks, because obviously I don't think we can have any kind of meaningful debate unless we do have that information. Certainly the last thing I would ever want to do is not make things available. I'll give some examples, if I might, Mr. Chairman, just to, as I say, give people a flavour.

The page references are out of the blue document -- the blue copy. "In the definition of 'gravel management plan,' delete the comma following the word 'size.' " That's one of the kinds of errors we're talking about. "Page 170. Paragraph 54 (in the second line) -- Add a comma after the word 'property' . . . . Page 190. In the heading before paragraph 23, change the word 'Corrections' to 'Correction' . . . . Page 242. Paragraph 7 . . . delete the comma after the word 'adult.' " Those are the substantive . . . . The majority of the changes are of those kinds.

In addition, there are some others that clearly needed to be made, because obviously we need a perfectly correct document for legal purposes. But again I want to emphasize that all of those changes, individually and collectively, do not alter the meaning or the intent of this document one whit. That is why we didn't do anything elaborate about making a big announcement that we found some errors. Our judgment was that the errors were, quite frankly, technical. They were editorial, and they didn't really have any huge impact. Indeed, they ought to have no impact whatsoever in terms of whether people felt good or not good about the Nis g a'a final agreement that we published.

So I hope that clarifies matters. As I say, I will be sharing this document in all its splendour with my colleagues opposite and indeed with members of the press gallery. I hope that helps.

M. de Jong: Well, it would help more if that courtesy had been extended prior to when we are engaged in the actual debate.

I guess what I want to confirm, still not having seen the document that the minister is alluding to . . . . The minister made a pretty clear statement only a number of months ago, when he said it would be irresponsible to be disseminating a document, sending out a document, that wasn't accurate in every way, shape and form. In fact, he said that it would be irresponsible to send out a document and then discover that it had 15 typos. Apparently that's what has happened. If we're getting the document, let's have it. Let's have it now, and let's determine whether or not there are any substantive differences.

Hon. D. Lovick: I stand entirely by what I said earlier, and I don't run from that for a moment. What I also said -- which the member doesn't point out, however -- is typos which would lead to having to redraft the whole treaty -- in other words, significant problems with the document . . . .

What we're looking at is very minor. Please consider the human dimension of drafting this document: 72,000 paragraphs and Lord knows how many commas. A group of people worked assiduously to the best of their abilities under some pressure to get this document out, so that people could indeed see what it said -- and they made some mistakes, minor errors. Some mistakes were made. Again, I want to emphasize that not one of those mistakes has any effect whatsoever on the intent or the substance of this treaty. That's the key point. Again, I'm sharing with the members opposite . . . .

I'm sorry if they don't have it in their hands at the moment. I had instructed staff to get it to them a.s.a.p. If that hasn't happened, my apologies; it will be sent over momentarily. There is nothing in there that, as I say, in any way affects the substance of the agreement itself -- nothing that materially affects this agreement. Again, if the member wants an apology -- for us to say: "Yeah, we made a mistake . . . . " Darned right we did, but I think that to err is indeed human. I won't even give him the last line of that.

G. Plant: Well, I'm not going to pursue this much longer. It may be that what's actually required is not an apology but simply an admission that the minister said it would be "quite frankly a little irresponsible" to do that which he in fact has done. We could move forward if the minister would simply establish that in fact he did that which in July he said would be "quite frankly, a little irresponsible." Because what he did was send out 250 pages, and then, apparently, he discovered that he had not just 15 typos, but, we're told, perhaps something like 30.

Then he did that which he said he would sure as heck not want to do; he reprinted and did it over again, that is, apparently, in copies of this blue document issued sometime in December, or something like that, all these corrections that are talked about are made.

I understand why the minister would be defensive about this. I understand why the minister wants to make the point -- and it may be fair; we'll see when we see the document that he said he's going to give us -- that there's nothing substantive here. But it is a bit disconcerting, frankly, to be part of a debate that was supposed to be a serious debate in July, where a minister of the Crown said: "Oh, don't worry. I'll never do that. I'd certainly never rush to print a document as important as this, because" -- and the minister said this to assure all those who were listening to him -- "quite frankly, it would be a little irresponsible to do that." Well, he's done that.

Of course, we don't know everything else that the minister has done, but what we do know at this point in the debate is that the minister has done one thing which he said back in July would be "quite frankly, a little irresponsible" to do. It may be that I am . . . . I have looked at the Hansard of this. It's pretty clear what the minister said. He didn't say "15 typos that would change the meaning of the agreement." He said . . . .

An Hon. Member: Read what it says.

G. Plant: Yeah, exactly. I will do that. "I think the member would agree with me that it would be, quite frankly, a little irresponsible to send out 250 pages and then discover that you have 15 typos and have to reprint and do it over again, or something. I think everybody would agree that we can wait a few weeks until we have that." That is what the minister said, and in fact he did something quite different.

[ Page 11091 ]

Hon. D. Lovick: Mr. Chairman, I am sure your patience is being tried, because we are obviously straying from the section.

I have said, and I do not retreat from the point for one moment, that we -- and by "we" I mean the Nis g a'a, the federal government and the provincial government -- all thought we had the document right, complete, correct. We took what we thought was a required amount of time to do that. Alas, various of the parties -- indeed, all of the parties to the agreement, I understand . . . . Each of them found something that wasn't perfect. And when that happened, we said: "Whoops, we have to correct it." And we did.

I don't think the fact that there are a number of minor errors that don't have any material significance ought to in any way lead one to the conclusion that somehow, therefore, the minister is breaking the faith with his word because he said that we ought to have done due diligence. We did due diligence. We made our best effort to get a perfect copy. Given the magnitude of the document and the possibilities for error, you can argue, I think, just as convincingly that we did very well. You've only got 30 errors out of a document that's 72,000 paragraphs. I think we did pretty well.

I hope, Mr. Chairman, that this ends this matter. Let's get on to talk about the substance of this agreement.

The Chair: The member for Matsqui on

section 1.

M. de Jong: We will get on to the substance of the treaty. That, quite frankly, is where most of our interests lie. But there are some other matters that we need to canvass, because we won't get another chance. We won't get another chance, for example, to talk about the circumstances that the minister just briefly alluded to, which I think contributed to the irresponsible conduct that gave rise to the dissemination of a faulty document -- that is, the circumstances around which the announcement was made that the document was prepared. Yeah, there was pressure put on the people finalizing the document.

But that wasn't pressure from the opposition; that wasn't pressure from people in the public. That was pressure that this government put on those people, because they made announcements prematurely, I suspect, because they were being driven by a political agenda rather than doing their homework and making sure, literally, that they had all of the i's dotted and the t's crossed.

Let me ask this question: if there was a problem with the document, if it did have to be reprinted, how many of these documents were thrown out? What was the cost involved in making the corrections? What was the cost involved in the irresponsible conduct that the minister said wouldn't take place back in July?

Hon. D. Lovick: The principal pressure was to counteract the fact that the Liberals leaked documents of material that was still being prepared. Therefore we had to correct it. There was considerable pressure to get a correct version out.

M. de Jong: Let's talk about that, hon. Chair, because when we're talking about the agreement which is referred to in

section 1, we're also talking about a document which this government gave assurances to TNAC that it would have an opportunity to review before it became public, before it was finalized, before it was initialled. That didn't happen. I don't know whether to this day TNAC has been advised of the changes, which today the minister characterizes as being minor. I don't know whether they have ever been advised of the changes that took place. Maybe the minister could advise us of that.

Hon. D. Lovick: I can't answer that with certainty. I didn't attend those TNAC meetings. One assumes that it would have happened, but I don't know.

What I want to say, though, is that I think we are wildly out of order from the agreement we made earlier this morning in terms of how we were going to approach this document. I can't see how

section 1 of this document in any way lends itself to a discussion of the kind invited by the member's question.

The Chair: The member for Matsqui on

section 1.

M. de Jong:

Section 1, hon. Chair, I hasten to point out, is the

definitions

section relating to the Nis g a'a Final Agreement. The debate we're having is to determine what the Nis g a'a Final Agreement is. I can't think of anything more relevant prior to embarking upon the agreement.

You know, you've got government ministers and a Premier who are sitting there presuming to be outraged that we're having this discussion. We're being told in the midst of the committee-level debate that there were changes. The same minister who said a few months ago that it would be irresponsible to do something, did it. Now he sits here and has us believe . . . . "Look, trust me. You're debating a document that's going to become embedded in the Canadian constitution. We've had to make a few changes. But trust us, they're insignificant." We've got the bloody document right now, in the middle of the debate.

And the minister and the Premier would stand there and presume to be outraged that we're having this discussion.

[2:45]

Look, I didn't wait until the last minute to give me the document. I didn't wait until the very last minute to discuss these minor changes that we're now going to have to go back and cross-reference and make sure are as minor as the minister says -- because, quite frankly, a lot of what of these ministers and this government have said about this deal hasn't been true.

Chair: Members, I believe this subject has been fairly well canvassed. We should move on to discussion of

section 1, the

definitions

section of this bill.

G. Wilson: I was just going to try to make what I thought might be a helpful suggestion here. I thought perhaps I might read into the record, for those listening to or reading this debate, what exactly it is we're debating. It says, for example: "Page 7. In the definition of 'gravel management plan,' delete the comma following the word 'size.' Page 55. Paragraph 5 (in the first line) -- delete the first occurrence of the word 'to' " -- because it's repeated. "Page 97. Paragraph 56 . . . change the word 'quantity' to 'quantities' " -- the plural. On page 98 we do the same thing: change the word "quantity" to "quantities." On page 170, we have to add a comma after the word "property."

Hon. Chair, there are a lot of people who take seriously the need for us to get into the heart and soul of what is going to be, I think, a very important treaty agreement in British Columbia. If we don't get a slightly more orderly process

[ Page 11092 ]

through which we can get into this debate, we're going to have to rank this discussion along with an eight-hour debate as to whether or not we should go for dinner. So I would really urge that we move into the substance of this debate.

The Chair: I believe that's the direction that I've given, and I understand that members are now ready to do that.

The member for Matsqui, on

section 1.

M. de Jong: I do have one further question somewhat related: what was the document that the Nis g a'a ratified? Was it the document that we have before us as a bill, or was it the unamended version?

Hon. D. Lovick: The document that the Nis g a'a ratified is the document that you have in the bill, the one under your desk. It was an earlier draft but with the corrigenda attached to it. In other words, they were dealing with exactly the same document as the one we are dealing with today.

M. de Jong: Just to clarify, then, it was the amended document, or the old document with amendments attached.

Hon. G. Clark: The old document with the corrigenda attached.

M. de Jong: I want to engage in a bit of a discussion about the costs related to this treaty, particularly those costs that will be the responsibility of the provincial government. I'm doing that now because, as I said earlier, one of the things we will want to pursue as we go through this document is to compare that which we have heard from the minister and the Premier in days and weeks past about what the ultimate cost to British Columbia taxpayers will be with what emerges from this debate and from the answers we get to the questions we put with respect to the questions.

So this is the minister's opportunity, or the Premier's, for that matter, to give us a comprehensive -- as comprehensive as they feel comfortable giving -- and all-encompassing description of the costs that accrue to the provincial government, to the provincial taxpayers, with respect to the implementation of the Nis g a'a Final Agreement as it is defined in

section 1.

Hon. G. Clark: I' m not sure how you want to proceed on this, but I'll start with the broad discussion of the costs. Perhaps that will elucidate the matter, or at least enlist more questions.

First, the total cash cost of settling the Nis g a'a treaty is $312 million. British Columbia pays about one-fifth of the cash costs, or $65 million. It is paid out over 15 years, so it works out roughly to about $1 per year per British Columbian, or $16.50 paid out over 15 years. The federal government will pay the remainder of the cash costs, which is 80 percent of the cash costs. So that is a distinction. I'm making this distinction on cash consciously, obviously, because I will just try to break it down into quantum.

Now, in addition to the cash, there is a land value. The land is the provincial contribution of Crown land. The valuation of the land is somewhat of a debate and a negotiated number. But the valuation that we have ascribed, the ascribed land value, is $106 million. In addition, there is compensation to third parties, which is yet to be entirely negotiated, and there the federal and provincial governments share those costs 50-50. The estimated cost of fisheries to be negotiated -- compensation to licence holders -- is about $5 million.

The estimated cost for forestry, yet to be negotiated, is between $18 million and $25 million. In addition to that, there was some forgone revenue -- I'm sorry, I shouldn't say "in addition." I'm going to be careful here.

The roughly $300 million I mentioned -- $312 million -- includes everything except the land value and the compensation to third-party holders. Follow me? I think I might have got confused there. It's $312 million in cash, including forgone revenue to the government for forestry, etc., and $106 million in ascribed land value and then some amount of compensation somewhere in the neighbourhood of $10 million to $20 million. That is, as I understand it, the total cost. Outside of the Nis g a'a agreement, the province agreed to pave the Nis g a'a Highway, and that will be done over a period of time.

The federal government, I think, made a further contribution -- no, that is included in the $312 million, sorry. So that is, I believe, the total amount.

As I said, if you take the cash part, it results in about 80 percent Canada, 20 percent British Columbia. Then our portion is bumped up with the ascribed value of the Crown land.

M. de Jong: As the Premier went through those figures . . . . I want to emphasize that when we're talking about things like land value, we'll come back to any sort of debate we're going to have around the valuation of that asset. Right now I'm interested in the global figure. The math that I do in putting together those figures that the Premier has mentioned is in the neighbourhood of $668 million. Does that jibe with what the Premier's figure is?

Hon. G. Clark: I'm sorry; no, it's not. I made a double count. Let me try to make it simple. The $312 million -- that's rounding up -- is the total cash part. Then you add $106 million, if you ascribe that as the land value; so we're now at $418 million. Then there is compensation to third parties, which is about . . . . You could maybe, if you want, put it at $20 million.

M. de Jong: One of the additional costs involved in this treaty relates to the treaty implementation committee. That, of course, has been an issue of some controversy for a number of reasons.

But I'm only interested in nailing down the figures at this point. Again, in so doing I want to refer to what we were told by the minister back on July 8. I raise this because I think it's important for us to try to establish some degree of comfort with the accuracy of the figures as the government presents them through this debate, starting today. The minister said:

"We estimate that the cost of the Nis g a'a public information initiative will be no more than $2.3 million. These costs will both cover the production and distribution of information about the treaty and provide the public with information on how to access more details about the treaty. This total figure is made up of the following: firstly, $600,000 estimated for publication costs, including printing the approximately 250-page treaty and appendices document, fact sheets and the treaty

summary to be mailed to every household in B.C.; secondly, $1.3 million for media costs, which will include radio and television production and broadcast, which we perceive to be the most effective means of ensuring that the public is made aware of the agreement and how it can obtain the agreement and information about it."

The minister then went on to say: "We assume we're not likely to spend all of that money; we are presenting a maximum budget."

I want to ask, firstly, whether those figures remain accurate -- whether that was the budget that the government

[ Page 11093 ]

expended. We know it isn't, but the minister will know where I'm going with that questioning. He can likely, I'm sure, explain what occurred between July 8 and over the course of the last three or four months, which caused what I think is a fairly sizeable overexpenditure.

Hon. D. Lovick: Yes indeed, the member is quite right. There is a huge increase in that, beyond that original budget, and that has been public information for some time. Indeed, the information was released on December 22, a complete accounting. At the end of the day, the total amount of budgeted expenditure on the Nis g a'a implementation project was $6,777,000 -- a huge increase, obviously.

The explanation for that is, in large measure, simply an unanticipated demand for information. At the end of the day, we ended up with something like 180,000 hits on the web site; we had 180,000-plus. In addition, we had . . . . I'm sorry; I'm doing this from memory. But I think we had 80,000-plus calls to the 1-800 line, and of course that meant staffing that line to make sure there were people at the other end to answer questions. So the demand for information was huge.

Indeed, it's worth noting that the demand spiked considerably the moment we put hard information advertisements on television -- namely, saying that if you want a copy of the treaty, then call. We discovered that at that point the calls to the 1-800 line spiked. It's an amazing thing. If you look at the graph, you see that they simply spiked at that point, because there was a huge appetite for information out there.

In addition, we found a huge appetite for information in the communities -- all kinds of people asking for a presentation to be made to the local service club or the chamber of commerce or high school classes in some cases. All of those things obviously put on significant pressure.

The other part of the explanation, I think it is absolutely fair to say, is that government decided that this issue did indeed matter. We were embarking on a course of action that truly was, as somebody referred to earlier -- I think the Premier made this point a while ago -- in a significant way perhaps redrawing the social contract in this province. I don't think we should run from saying that; I think we're doing so. For many of us, that's long overdue, frankly. We needed to do it, and we're doing it.

Accordingly, because of the magnitude and because of the importance, we the government made the decision that we ought to then mount a significant information campaign, larger than we had anticipated. Accordingly, then, I went back to Treasury Board and asked for a significant increase. That was granted -- thus the explanation for that much-increased budget. Again, I entirely accept the member's characterization of that as a huge increase. It is a huge increase. It seems to me, however, that it is an absolutely justified increase, too, given the importance, the magnitude and the significance of what we're trying to do with this treaty.

[3:00]

M. de Jong: With the greatest respect, nothing that the minister has just said persuades me that anything but political considerations were at work here. Nothing that the minister says today about the import -- the genuine import -- of this subject wasn't known to him and his government when he made these statements on July 8.

How do we have any faith in a government and in a ministry, in a minister, in cabinet ministers who, over the next number of weeks, are going to answer questions again and again with: "We've thought about that. Don't worry; trust us. We've thought it through"? On something as basic and fundamental as a communications budget, something that was completely within the control of the government -- completely, no variables . . . . They could control that entirely.

Hon. D. Lovick: Not the variables.

M. de Jong: They could control that entirely. "Not the variables," says the minister. Well, I'm sure he's going to tell us what they were.

One aspect of this whole process that they could control entirely . . . . You know how they could do it? By saying: "No, we're not going to overspend our budget. For the first time in our lives as NDPers, we're not going to overspend our budget." Wouldn't that be a novel thing? But they couldn't do it. They couldn't resist trying to wring one last ounce of political benefit out of a propaganda campaign that they were funding with taxpayers' dollars. "We assume we're not likely to spend all of that money; we are presenting a maximum budget." Those aren't my words; those are the minister's words.

Did the issue suddenly become so important as to justify almost doubling -- more than doubling, in some cases -- the amount of money that was going to be spent? What happened between July 8 and August 8? While I'm at it, in terms of ascertaining the cost of this Nis g a'a final agreement, can I ask the minister why, when I was written to at the end of November, I was still provided with the old budget figures? Why was I still told that the amount of money that was going to be spent was $600,000, with a grand total of $2.3 million?

Why was I being told, at a time when the budget obviously had been overspent, that we were still on course? And why was I getting that information at the end of November in response to an FOI request? Why should we believe any of the assurances that we are going to get from this minister and this government when something as basic and fundamental as adhering to a communications strategy eludes them? It is apparently beyond their level of competence. Why should we believe them on any of the issues that we are going to canvass in the days ahead?

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm tempted to respond by saying: "Why should I believe anything that the member for Matsqui says?" This is the guy that in July said he was opposed to a referendum on the Nis g a'a deal. One has to say: "Wait a minute. Is it true that new occasions teach new duties?" I'm also struggling mightily with the fact that these folks are lamenting the fact that there was a public information campaign. I note that the new member for Parksville-Qualicum is in the House, and she will appreciate this, I think.

In 1995, in the great Liberal mailing, there was a resolution at the convention that said they supported a strategic public awareness initiative that would address the fundamental principles of treaties and would confront those public actions which create unsubstantiated anxiety or racial stress.

It seems to me that what the Nis g a'a campaign was about, pretty evidently, was to achieve precisely that end. I wonder, therefore, if it's the case that three or four years has made a huge difference or whether it's all about Bill Vander Zalm coming on the scene. But I hope we don't have to play that game, and I hope we don't have to engage in that sort of debate; rather, we can talk about this treaty.

The information that the member wants to make into a major issue at this moment has been public for some while. On December 22 we made that information public. It's no surprise, and I have stood here and explained why we spent

[ Page 11094 ]

that extra money. The member disagrees. He thinks it was an absolutely outrageous expenditure. He thinks we should have been like Nancy Reagan and just said no, or something like that. Let him think that if he wants. I disagree. I think that what we did was spend money in a responsible and, indeed, necessary fashion. I think that what we're doing with Nis g a'a is something incredibly significant and that what we need to do is ensure that people who have questions or concerns are given every opportunity to have those questions addressed. That's what the Nis g a'a implementation project was designed to do.

I think it did it very well. I think the evidence, in terms of demand, would make that point. The member says: "Well, didn't you know that in the beginning?" No, we didn't know it in the beginning, quite frankly, because we discovered a demand hugely more than we thought. Our conclusion, in response to that demand, was to make it a bigger public information campaign.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Lovick: Well, the member says it was to buy more ads, and that was indeed part of it. But why suggest that that is somehow disreputable? That's a legitimate expenditure. Is the member saying that advertising is, by itself, a necessary evil or something? What's his point? I said why we did it. I think it's legitimate, I think it's justified, and I stand behind that.

M. de Jong: I guess you'd have to be a member of this NDP government to be baffled that parliamentarians would be somewhat disconcerted that the executive branch had purposely overspent a budget for communications that was set only a few short months ago. The minister seems baffled that somehow that causes opposition MLAs concern. That ain't his money. And he doesn't seem to understand that when you set a budget, presumably you do it with a view to living within that budget. What a novel idea; what a novel concept. "We didn't know." He would have us believe that in July of 1998 he didn't know this was an important issue; he didn't know that there was interest in British Columbia.

Here's the fallacy in what he says. What he and the Premier would have the people who are watching this debate believe is that somehow all of these costs accrued because there was this groundswell of demand for documentation and paper. Well, let me ask the minister this: what is the difference in the figure, between what was originally budgeted for printing costs and what was ultimately spent? And what is the difference in the figure, between what was originally budgeted for television and radio advertising and what was ultimately spent? Let's not create this myth that somehow we had to spend an extra $5 million at the printing press.

Hon. D. Lovick: I don't have before me the initial breakdown, but I do have the final cost, which is what the member asked for. I've got that. It would be a simple matter -- I'm sure he could do the math if he wants -- to take the final cost that I gave him, subtract the amount that he had, the earlier estimate, and he will have the answer to the question. I don't think I'm going to bother asking staff to run off and locate it. It's a pretty elementary matter.

M. de Jong: I didn't create the issue. The Premier and the minister are telling British Columbians that the reason they went $5 million over budget is because too many of them wanted a copy of the document.

I want to know what the relationship was between the cost of printing . . . . If it went up $5 million, if it cost $5 million . . . . If we had to print so many of these that we needed an extra $5 million, so be it. I'll sit down and shut up. But that's not the case. What happened was that the government unilaterally decided they wanted the Premier to be on TV 24 hours a day. That's what happened. The Premier wanted to be on television; the Premier wanted to be on the radio. So tell us the difference between the figure as it relates to print advertising, television advertising, radio advertising and what was ultimately spent.

Hon. D. Lovick: The short answer is that the member should do the math himself; it's not that difficult. If he wants, send it over; I'll do it for him. Second, the Premier was not on TV. He probably should have been; we could have used the exposure. But he wasn't; he wasn't on TV.

We decided to have a major advertising campaign or information campaign, depending on your point of view, because our reading of that increased interest, demand and concern about the treaty -- partly created by the opposition, I might add, in their regular efforts to foment uncertainty and anxiety -- was to therefore say that we'd better do a significantly enhanced advertising campaign. We did so. I think that what we did was absolutely legitimate. Again, I certainly make no apology for it. Indeed, I'm rather proud of the work we did.

The Chair: Members, the Chair appreciates the strong views of members on both sides of this question. It has been an interesting debate, but I have to remind members of the relevancy of the debate as it relates to

section 1 of the bill.

M. de Jong: Hon. Chair, I am mindful that we are talking about the Nis g a'a Final Agreement and costs associated with its implementation and passage through this House. I think this is very much an issue, particularly when we are talking about tens of millions of dollars, as it relates to this particular campaign.

We're not done, as I understand it from the most recent disclosure of information from this particular committee. It contemplates a whole series of expenditures to follow, between December 22 and February 28. It has budgeted -- and I'm mindful of what that means; I'll add a zero -- for print, radio and TV ad expenses in the range of $210,000.

Interjection.

M. de Jong: The Premier says that's not enough. I guess that at this point I'd be thankful for an acknowledgment that it won't be any more than that.

Hon. D. Lovick: Hon. Chair, I'm not about to make some claim that it may later be found I can't substantiate. I am being accused of doing that already, apparently, so I'm not about to do it again. Suffice it to say, we have released our best guess, our best estimate at this time, of what we anticipate costs will be. But again, what if we have another 200 requests for meetings? What if we are asked by people to go and do things, and therefore produce more information, more advertising on their behalf or more advertising of the treaty?

Part of our predicament is that we have been regularly forced to counter what we regard, quite frankly, as misinformation. That's pretty commonplace. That's why we still have a team that is monitoring what is said. We still have people working, doing that. I think it's necessary, and I think it's important to do so. I have to say, though, that one of the things

[ Page 11095 ]

that I have had to deal with on a regular basis for the last few months is a constant complaint about . . . . Indeed, I heard just the other day from people -- in fact, people on the other side of the House -- talking about the fact that they need more information. We're trying to provide that information, and alas, what seems to be happening is that our endeavours to do so are considered to somehow be not quite de rigueur.

G. Plant: One aspect about this that I want to pursue for a minute is what the Nis g a'a treaty implementation office has been doing. When I look at the document -- the release or the publication was in late December -- I see that $5 million of the $6.7 million budget is devoted to advertising and communications. I take it that that means it has to do with designing and implementing an advertising campaign in print, radio and TV, getting pamphlets and brochures, talking about the treaty in British Columbia households and the staff costs associated with that. Perhaps I can do this one step at a time. Is that a fair

summary of what was done by the treaty implementation office under the heading of advertising and communications?

[3:15]

Hon. D. Lovick: I don't know why the member suggests that there's any mystery to this. He has the same document before him that I have. What it is . . . .

Interjection.

Hon. D. Lovick: Well, no. Let's, however, make sure that he covered all the categories under that particular heading. I mean, if he wants to do this, let's at least be honest with one another and say what they are: print, radio and TV, pamphlets and brochures distributed to every B.C. household, and then -- if I misheard him, I apologize -- the other categories were production, staff and administration and contingency. Okay?

G. Plant: All of which is directed at essentially the two things, advertising and communicating -- that is, the government might say, informing British Columbians about what is in the treaty and what it means for British Columbians. I see the minister nodding. I think that he and I are in agreement on that.

Another category is ceremonies and events. I take it that one of those significant items there is the Nis g a'a visit, which I assume is the visit by the chiefs and others to Victoria last year. Then there is special events. Those would be events like ceremonial events, perhaps like the event at the Royal British Columbia Museum -- that kind of thing, generally having to do with, shall we say, the public recognition and the importance and significance of the treaty and what we're doing here. Is that a generally accurate description of what was intended or is encompassed by this part of the expenditure item?

Hon. D. Lovick: That is correct.

G. Plant: Another part of the expenditure item, representing something like $1.16 million of the estimated expenditures to December 31, is called public education and community outreach. Now, that includes, I take it, things like sending staff people or perhaps even the minister himself -- I'm not sure -- out to various events around British Columbia, publishing the document, the treaty itself, and monitoring the 1-800 information line. If you will, it's another side of the public education process around telling British Columbians what this treaty is and what it means for them. Is that a fair

summary?

Hon. D. Lovick: Yes, it is.

G. Plant: Now, the last item is the Nis g a'a treaty implementation office. There are three items here. Office and equipment is one of them, one of them is travel, and the last is staffing. What is it that the staff did, who are encompassed by that item? I'm not looking for a long explanation, just very general.

Hon. D. Lovick: Staff were involved in various activities. One of them was a media monitoring process where we weren't sure . . . . We would respond to calls for information from individuals, from groups, indeed from MLAs. Community outreach activities . . . . They would be organizing, you know, contacting community groups, chambers of commerce and others to ask: "Would you like a speaker? Would you like some information?" They were, I think it's safe to say, promoting the treaty in that regard, yes.

G. Plant: If you then take all of these expenditures, they are all, generally speaking, directed at what the minister just called promotion, communication, information by a variety of means -- in effect, the government informing British Columbians about what this treaty says and means for them. Is that an admittedly general but a relatively fair

summary?

Hon. D. Lovick: Yes.

G. Plant: So none of it actually has anything to do with implementing the treaty.

Hon. D. Lovick: If the member is suggesting that the title is perhaps not as accurate as it could be, he probably has a point, yes.

G. Plant: There's a lot of magic in titles, actually. One thing you could have called this committee or this office is the Nis g a'a government public relations office or the Nis g a'a public communications office or the Nis g a'a treaty promotion office, because that's all it did. It didn't do anything around implementing the treaty. In fact, if I'm not mistaken . . . .

I'd bet there are people all over government, in a host of ministries, who are actually devoting time to figuring out what this treaty will mean in terms of the administration of the wildlife provisions, the administration of the changes to the land title office, and so on. But none of the work of implementing the treaty is in fact represented by any of the money spent by the Nis g a'a treaty implementation office. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Lovick: It's very clear where the member wishes to go with this.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Lovick: Indeed you have. It took awhile, but indeed you have.

Mr. Chairman, I think the answer to the question, essentially, is that we are talking about implementation in the broader way, in terms of bringing this treaty into focus so that the people will be ready to accept the fact that we are negotiating the first modern treaty in B.C.'s history, and we hope, frankly, to be more receptive. I have said publicly on many occasions that I think what we are involved in, in negotiating with the Nis g a'a -- and others, for that matter -- is, in effect, analogous to growing a new culture in this province, because

[ Page 11096 ]

it is different. We're on different turf, and people, understandably, have apprehensions, concerns, anxieties. We the government decided that the best thing we could do, given that we were embarked on a pretty ambitious project, was to, quite frankly -- as I said earlier -- promote the deal. I don't think we did so in any way that anybody could say was dishonest. I think our campaign was factual; I think it provided good information. I don't see anything in what was done there as in any way anything to be loath to embrace on our part.

I want to also just draw attention to one other thing, for the member's benefit. I had occasion to visit the Nis g a'a treaty implementation office and to talk to a number of people there. What I want the member and others to know is that if we had in fact taken the work done by the people who were committed to this treaty and charged government for every hour they spent, the cost would have been hugely more.

I want that known: the dedication, the commitment, on the part of all sorts of people -- large numbers of whom were seconded from my ministry -- because they believed that this was the appropriate and the right thing to do, and they were therefore willing to give up weekends and evenings and to work huge numbers of hours with no recompense. I think that captures a little bit of the . . . . Call it, if you like, the zeal for this project -- the project of getting treaties in B.C., of getting the first modern treaty in B.C.

Zealots often will overreach themselves, and they will make claims for themselves to which most of us say: "Hmm, maybe that's overstated." But I think what's important to note is that everything that was done here by these people was with a view to bringing about what they perceived -- in my mind, absolutely legitimately and correctly -- to be building a much better and happier future for this province.

I want to take this opportunity now to simply thank those individuals for that dedication, because they showed it in an amazing way indeed.

G. Plant: I too am always impressed at the hard work and dedication of all the province's public servants.

But back to the issue of cost. I think that just for the purpose of taking the point the one step further that I, at least, want to go at this point . . . . It was the Premier who earlier summarized the total cost of the treaty -- that is, British Columbia's contribution, with the federal dollars also. Allowing for the fact that the calculation of compensation to third parties in respect of forest industries is a range, then the final number is itself a range, which I think is a range of $482 million to $489 million.

Now, on top of that, if someone were to look at this issue from this perspective, someone might say: "Well, there's also the $6.7 million, and counting, spent on what is called the Nis g a'a treaty implementation office," but in fact, none of that yet includes any of the cost that government will incur, in effect, by dedicating the work of public servants to the actual work of implementing this treaty.

As we go on in the weeks and months to come and as government implements this treaty and causes people in various ministries, who may already be doing this work, to continue to do the work of sorting out how this treaty will in fact operate on the ground, there will be additional costs to government. They may be indirect in the sense that it will probably not be work done by outside contractors or what have you, but it'll be the kind of work that is, in fact, done all the time.

Does the minister have any budget or sense of what that cost is projected to be over some reasonable time frame, in order that we can add one more number? If the minister doesn't have that number, then we can move on. I'm just curious to know if that number exists yet.

Hon. D. Lovick: I don't have a number to share with the member, but I would say that it is simply the ongoing operational cost, as we have with any legislation, quite frankly -- the ongoing operations of a ministry.

M. de Jong: Well, here's what I take from the discussion we've had, which hopefully we can shortly move off of, regarding this whole exercise. In initiatives of this sort and as we move into future negotiations, the government will reserve for itself the right to spend however much money it believes necessary, be that two or three or four times beyond what is originally budgeted for, if it is confronted by anything approaching a vocal opposition, and I don't mean opposition in the political sense.

If it hears a single person registering some opposition, some reservations, about what the government is doing, that's justification enough -- if the cause is right, in the government's mind -- to throw the budget out the window and keep spending.

That's what the government is saying it did this last time. The minister has said he was taken off-guard by the level of interest. I think what he means is that he was taken off-guard by the level of discontent -- the level of opposition -- and he wanted to respond to that. That's a political decision; that's got nothing to do with providing information. As my friend has discovered, it certainly has nothing to do with implementing the treaty itself. That is a political decision that falls squarely within the discretionary authority of the cabinet, and they made that decision for purely political reasons. It had nothing to do with the distribution of information.

We know now that the title of the committee wasn't accurate. We know that the budget wasn't accurate. We've always known that a lot of the information wasn't accurate. Nothing about what went on here related to the distribution of information; it was all about politics.

[3:30]

I guess the only thing I want to pursue before we move on relates to the individuals who I'm sure did work very hard in the tasks that they were assigned. There were a number of them, and I want to know from the minister where the project direction team, Messrs. McArthur, Heaney and . . . . I think there were six or seven. I want to know, from the various groupings of people, the project direction, media relations, advertising, research, Mr. Reid . . . . Are they still on contract, those who were on contract? Are those contract prices being charged back to the ministries?

If they are, how much is being charged back to the ministries? How much is being charged back to the committee itself? What don't we know about the personnel cost related to the operation of this committee?

[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]

It all relates to the hidden costs of this treaty that the government doesn't want anyone to know about. I think dishonest. If, as the Premier and minister say, they're proud of what they've done -- they're proud, apparently, of overspending a budget that they set -- then let them be forthright about the extent to which they've overspent that budget. I don't think they have been.

One of the issues that we touched on briefly, and which I think we'll come back to when we get to the implementation sections of the agreement, arises somewhat in this section. That is the method by which the agreement is given effect. It is still unclear to me what the government's or the Premier's or

[ Page 11097 ]

the minister's view is with respect to this treaty and future treaties as to the required involvement of this Legislative Assembly in order to give effect to a treaty -- a treaty, pure and simple.

Obviously in this case there are issues that affect the jurisdiction of the province, and we're going to have that discussion. But, as I think the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast said earlier, this

section refers to the actions of the federal parliament as being separate from the actions of this Legislative Assembly. I want to know whether that is the model to be followed here and if it is the one that would be followed with respect to future treaties as well.

Hon. D. Lovick: My apologies to the member. I was looking at another note, so I have to make sure I understand the question. If I understand the member's question correctly -- namely, whether this Legislature will be called on to ratify other treaties that we might negotiate -- the answer is, presumably, yes. I can't imagine why not. I suppose there . . . . Yes.

Section 1 of Bill 51 approved on the following division:

YEAS -- 38

Evans

Zirnhelt

McGregor

Kwan

Hammell

Boone

Streifel

Pullinger

Lali

Orcherton

Stevenson

Calendino

Goodacre

Walsh

Randall

Gillespie

Robertson

Cashore

Conroy

Priddy

Petter

Miller

G. Clark

Dosanjh

MacPhail

Lovick

Ramsey

Farnworth

Waddell

Hartley

Smallwood

Sawicki

Bowbrick

Kasper

Doyle

Janssen

Weisgerber

G. Wilson

NAYS -- 23

Whittred

C. Clark

Campbell

Farrell-Collins

de Jong

Plant

Abbott

Neufeld

Chong

Sanders

Jarvis

Anderson

Weisbeck

Hogg

Coleman

Hansen

Krueger

Symons

van Dongen

Barisoff

Dalton

J. Reid

J. Wilson

section 2.

G. Wilson: I have a series of questions that relate to the language of

section 2, because the language . . . . Let me read it, so those who are trying to follow this debate will know exactly what we're debating here. It says: "The Nis g a'a Final Agreement is a treaty and a land claims agreement within the meaning of sections 25 and 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982."

Now, my series of questions . . . . I hope that the minister or the Premier or the Attorney General or whoever it is on that side who chooses to answer these questions will bear with me. I think these questions run central to a significant fear that many British Columbians have that somehow the terms of the governance model that is proposed in this treaty is, by virtue of language . . . . I'm not quite sure which language, but they believe that there is some language in here that suggests that this governance model exceeds what is anticipated under sections 25 and 35 of the Canadian Constitution Act.

Again, to try and bring some order to this discussion -- because I have some questions -- I think it is important that people understand what sections 25 and 35 of the Canadian Constitution Act say, because we often refer to them . Perhaps those who read the constitution from time to time -- some of us even enjoy reading it from time to time . . . . Others won't know what that language is.

Section 35 talks about the rights of the aboriginal people of Canada.

Section 35(1) says: "The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed" -- i.e., that there are existing rights of aboriginal people within the Canadian constitution and that those existing rights are constitutionally entrenched.

Section 35(2) says: "In this Act, 'aboriginal peoples of Canada' includes the Indian, Inuit and Métis peoples of Canada."

Section 35(3), an important clause, says: "For greater certainty, in subsection (1), 'treaty rights' include rights that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired." That becomes an important consideration in my questions, which I'm coming to and which -- I hope you will bear with me -- I will get to very shortly.

Section 25 talks about aboriginal rights and freedoms not affected by the Charter.

Section 25 reads:

"The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of Canada, including: (

a) any rights or freedoms that have been recognized by the Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763; and (

b) any rights or freedoms that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired."

[3:45]

That, essentially, is a pertinent point.

Section 26, which also becomes relevant, says: "The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada." I think that that becomes an important consideration in my questions.

My question is to the minister or the Attorney General or the Premier -- whoever it is over there who would like to answer it. Because this agreement anticipates that it falls within the language of sections 25 and 35 of the Constitution Act, is there anything in the language of the constitution that the minister could possibly construe as allowing a first nations government to apprehend children from people living on aboriginal land without their permission? Is that an anticipated right of aboriginal people?

Hon. G. Clark: If I could just start with a very brief

preamble to my answer along the lines the member referred to, I think this is an important

section -- although on plain reading, it should be self-evident. I just want to read

section 2 for the record: "The Nis g a'a Final Agreement is a treaty and a land claims agreement within the meaning of sections 25 and 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982." So we are putting in statute what is a paragraph in the treaty. We are repeating a paragraph from the treaty and putting it into the statutes, so that everybody will know that this is not an amendment to the constitution and that this treaty is within the meaning of -- and will be so determined by any courts or otherwise -- and is to be treated in law as within the meaning of, sections 25 and 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

It is an explicit recognition by this House, if you will, that this treaty does not amend the constitution but that it must be

[ Page 11098 ]

within the meaning of the constitution. That's what's intended by the House, if it should pass, and by the parties. I think it is not an insignificant point. Really, I think it directly counters some of the propaganda against this treaty. It's a plain reading that says that this is part of the constitution of Canada and doesn't deviate from the constitution of Canada.

To get to the specific point you mentioned, I think the answer is no.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: To amplify the Premier's answer, the fact is that some of the provisions in this agreement are intended to make sure that the Nis g a'a have some authority over what is integral and internal to the Nis g a'a culture. I think it's important that we recognize that as part of the agreement, Nis g a'a laws about child and family services must include standards comparable to provincial standards, if not better, to ensure the safety and well-being of children and families.

Therefore the only real basis for apprehension -- because there would be -- of a child by Nis g a'a government would be the safety and well-being of the child. In fact, if Nis g a'a government does not live up to that obligation, the provincial government would have the right to go into the Nis g a'a territory and apprehend the children itself, if need be.

The Chair: The member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast -- on the same point?

G. Wilson: It is on precisely that point, hon. Chair, because it has been alluded to . . . . Let me be very clear where I'm coming from. There have been critics out there -- some who carry credentials that one would believe would give them a certain higher credibility than others -- who suggest that what this

section permits is an expansion of rights not anticipated under

section 35. They suggest that somehow it provides an entrenchment of those expanded rights that will provide some things.

Let me bring specifically to the attention of the members opposite -- because this has caused considerable concern among some of my constituents and people who have contacted me in the last 24 hours . . . . There were comments made by the member for Richmond-Steveston, who is not only a member of this Legislative Assembly but a practising member of the bar, and who therefore presumably understands legislation and law.

Let me quote from Hansard : "There are people who will be subject to Nis g a'a government, whose children will be taken from them without their permission, who will be required to use Nis g a'a language or practise Nis g a'a customs against their will, who will be convicted of Nis g a'a offences or be required to pay Nis g a'a taxes and who will have no choice in the matter." That's a direct quote. Not only is this quote from a member of Legislative Assembly, but this is from a practising member of the bar.

I think the difficulty we have is that many, many British Columbians who heard that comment, many people who heard that comment, are now extremely fearful that somehow the anticipated rights under

section 25 or 35 of the Canadian Constitution Act would provide the Nis g a'a rights that would well exceed those kinds of guarantees that are provided for every other Canadian citizen, not only by way of their constitutional rights but by Charter rights, which are most specific. I think it's really important that we clarify that point and that if in fact that is not true, those words be retracted and people in British Columbia know that that was a false statement.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It's very, very important that we debate and deliberate on these issues in the most comprehensive and dignified way possible. I think it's important for us to recognize that one of the fundamental reasons that treaties are being negotiated and that aboriginal people have asserted their right to have treaties is to make sure that they're able to deal with their culture and their language in the way they see fit within the constitution of the country, under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It was important for the Nis g a'a to assert the right to look after their children.

We have a sorry history in the province of British Columbia, and in fact in this country, of the children of aboriginal peoples being taken away. We all know about the sorry history.

So it's important that they asserted this right, and we recognized that as part of this agreement. They would have the obligation -- not only the right . . . . If they want to set up that service, they would have the obligation to look after the children within their territory. In fact, as part of that obligation to protect the children, they would have the right and the obligation to apprehend those children under laws that would be similar to ours, if not better than the provincial standards.

G. Wilson: The point that needs to be taken, with respect to the implication that is provided in the language of the commentaries that came from the member for Richmond-Steveston, is that somehow there would be constitutional authority granted to the Nis g a'a that is superior to or different than . . . . It would in some way give them the exercise of rights over people -- and it does not say Nis g a'a people -- living on Nis g a'a land, and that the Nis g a'a will somehow have the right to not only apply their law but also to convict of offences people who are non-Nis g a'a on Nis g a'a lands.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It's true that when one sometimes makes bald statements in the heat of debate one can be misunderstood. Obviously, when for . . . . We will deal with this in the

chapter dealing with the administration of justice, in terms of convictions. Whenever a non-Nis g a'a person might face imprisonment, for instance, as a result of a violation or a breach of a particular provision of the law, the non-Nis g a'a person would have the right to ask to be tried by a Provincial Court outside of that territory, unless there is a Provincial Court judge sitting there in the Nis g a'a territory. So there are qualifications that have been embedded and entrenched in this agreement to protect the rights of Nis g a'a and non-Nis g a'a alike.

G. Plant: I heard my name mentioned once or twice recently, so I thought I would just see if we could go over some ground. I, like the Attorney General, think we will probably return to this issue. But perhaps I could do it in a way that works occasionally when the Attorney General and I are debating things. Let me see if I understand some things correctly.

[ Page 11099 ]

First of all, this Nis g a'a final agreement contemplates that Nis g a'a government, as they exercise their powers in relation to child and family services in appropriate circumstances -- circumstances that will be defined by reference to standards that are themselves supposed to be comparable to those in the province -- will nonetheless have the power to apprehend a child who is considered to be, presumably, a child in need of protection. Is that a correct statement of the purport of this agreement?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It is a correct statement. I think the hon. member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast was raising another issue, which I really didn't want to address at that time, because I think we need to move on with this debate.

The hon. member for Richmond-Steveston made some remarks yesterday that were somewhat outrageous if one takes them out of context, because the hon. member didn't provide any context for those remarks. For instance, yesterday the hon. member said that people will be forced to practise Nis g a'a culture against their will. But I'm sure that even a Nis g a'a person living in Nis g a'a territory would be free to experiment with different cultural traditions and values. Nowhere is it written in the agreement that anybody is going to be forced to practise certain cultural traditions against their will.

We all have Charter rights. The Charter is going to apply to this agreement and to this treaty. I think it's important that we recognize that when we make these statements, we must provide some context. I appreciate the comments made by the hon. member today.

G. Plant: I don't think this is the appropriate point to try and conduct what would be, I suppose, a textual exegesis or whatever of what was a pretty compressed attempt to discuss an important subject in 30 minutes, so I'm not going to do that.

[4:00]

Let me ask the second question, which flowed from my first question. My first question was around the powers that Nis g a'a government will have under this agreement in relation to child and family services. May I ask this question of the Attorney General: is it in fact a purport of this document that those powers will enjoy the protection of

section 35? From the government's perspective, they will be in a land claims agreement that, by this

section 2 which is before us, is expressly intended to be "a treaty and a land claims agreement within the meaning of sections 25 and 35." That's a long way of asking the question of whether the child and family services issue that we talked about a moment ago is one of the parts of this agreement that is intended to be cloaked by

section 35.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: This particular section, in fact, is an absolutely clear statement of the fact that this agreement is "a treaty and a land claims agreement within the meaning of sections 25 and 35 of the Constitution Act." This section, in fact, responds to the question posed by the hon. member. If the hon. member has another question, I'd be happy to answer it.

G. Plant: I'll tell you, hon. Chair, why I was so cautious and perhaps less than direct. It's because not everything inside the document -- the

schedule to Bill 51 -- is in fact going to be a

section 35 agreement. There are clauses in this document that are expressly excluded from

section 35.

The minister was careful to point out a moment ago that sometimes things we say are taken out of context, and I certainly don't want to commit that sin again. There are things in this agreement that in fact have nothing to do with

section 35. So let me ask the question again. The powers that the Nis g a'a government will have are in fact intended to be

section 35-protected powers -- is that correct?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The powers of the Nis g a'a government would be powers within

section 35.

G. Plant: I notice that the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, having had his say, has lost interest in the subject for the moment.

Let me ask this question, though, which arises out of the discussion that we've just had. I take it that the view of the government is that the way

section 2 works is that even though

section 2 says that the agreement is a land claims agreement and a treaty, the specific provisions within the agreement that purport to take those specific provisions outside the protection of

section 35 would override that general statement in

section 2. Is that correct?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

M. de Jong: I just want to explore one aspect, one component, of this that we might return to again as we go through the treaty. That is the notion that what we are dealing with here is a codification of existing rights within the meaning of

section 35. I'm going back to a briefing we had -- I think that members of the opposition were there -- and some others from the then deputy minister. We talked about boxing rights -- that is, existing rights and new rights that were being imported and brought into this family and being granted

section 35 authority. What I'd like to explore somewhat is what the government's view is. What's in the box? What's out of the box? Is, for example, the

section dealing with the creation of Nis g a'a government a new right? Is that an existing right within the meaning of

section 35? Where does something like Nis g a'a government fall -- in the box or out of the box?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think that when one gets into this debate from that particular angle, one would be very confused. These were rights that were negotiated between three parties: the Crown in the right of the province, the Crown in the right of Canada, and the Nis g a'a. Whether the rights existed prior or the rights were created now isn't an issue. Three parties have agreed to codify, pursuant to negotiations, these rights that are before us. They obviously, as explicitly stated, become

section 35 rights.

M. de Jong: But surely it goes to the root of what it is that we are trying to accomplish by virtue of these treaty negotiations. If this is the exchange of uncertain existing aboriginal rights for certainty -- for a codification of those existing aboriginal rights -- then that is one thing; that is one approach to take. If it's something that goes beyond that, however -- if it's an exercise wherein we acknowledge that by virtue of this document and the

section 35 protection that it receives, we are adding to that body of existing aboriginal rights -- then we should know that. We should know what in the government's view represents existing rights and what represents new rights that are appearing here and that will enjoy that constitutional protection. I think it goes to the root of what we are trying to accomplish.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Historically, aboriginal people in Canada have asserted rights. Delgamuukw is the most recent and

[ Page 11100 ]

the most significant example of that to date. It is sometimes an academic debate.

Section 25(b), in fact, talks about "rights or freedoms that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired," and

section 35 has the same wording. Therefore the explicit wording of those two sections renders this debate somewhat meaningless.

I think the issue is that rights have been asserted. We have sat down and negotiated on behalf of the province, Canada sat down and negotiated on behalf of the country, and the Nis g a'a negotiated on behalf of themselves an agreement to codify certain rights which we agree that the Nis g a'a should have. Canada agreed, British Columbia agreed and the Nis g a'a agreed that those are all the rights they will have. They shall claim no more after this. There are obviously certainty mechanisms to deal with that sense of finality, which we can go into later on.

M. de Jong: But surely it's not entirely moot to differentiate between what we believe are inherent existing aboriginal rights and those new rights which, for perhaps legitimate public policy reasons, we decide should be part of the new package -- this new entity. Surely it is not an entirely moot point to make that differentiation and to understand where that line is drawn. For example, my recollection of Delgamuukw is that the courts stopped short of arguing an inherent right to self-government. Now, the government can decide . . . . And the federal government, until recently, decided that self-government wouldn't be part of a treaty that enjoyed

section 35 protection. It apparently has changed its mind, and that will happen if this becomes a treaty and passes.

But surely -- and I go back to the explanation that the then deputy minister offered . . . . My recollection is that he acknowledged that this really represented a mix of that which the courts had determined were existing inherent rights and another collection of rights that the government had agreed would be part of this treaty package. If the minister is saying that is a distinction that is irrelevant, I disagree with him. I don't think it's irrelevant, particularly when we are confronted by the reality that other bands will try to negotiate treaties, and some of them won't.

Some of them, whether we like it or not, will opt for litigation and will make these arguments and will argue that some of the things that are included in this document we're debating today represent inherent existing rights that they are entitled to. So there is a difference in my mind, and to simply dismiss that as being irrelevant or a moot point, I think, is unwise.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think the Supreme Court of Canada in Delgamuukw sidestepped that issue and did so for reasons known to them. We can speculate about that.

The model that we have put in place with respect to Nis g a'a does not require us to determine what, if any, rights are inherent or agreed upon or delegated. We have agreed amongst the three parties that these are the rights. If someone wants to determine whether some rights are inherent or not, obviously the courts are there to pronounce upon it.

That's why in fact we have adopted this model, so that we can carry on having negotiations with other bands and other first nations to deal with these issues without getting into the debate of what's inherent or not. It's important for us to talk about what's required for the first nations in this province to be able to sustain themselves as the entities that they want to be within the context of a thriving province and a thriving country. We're prepared to sit down with them, talk about these issues and arrive at a codification of their rights and obligations, as we have done with respect to the Nis g a'a.

M. de Jong: Again, I just don't accept the Attorney General's attempt to dismiss the significance of the point. Can I ask him this: if it's the government's position that all of the rights as they are codified within the document that we're dealing with today are existing rights that are merely codified -- uncertain existing rights that we've now made more certain by virtue of this document -- would it follow logically that those rights can be asserted by other first nations via the courts without going to a treaty?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Well, any first nation is obviously free, as is any legal entity in Canada, to go to the courts to ask for their opinion on various issues. But the important issue for us is that we have sat down and have negotiated an agreement that's acceptable to the three parties without any reference to what's inherent, what's delegated, what's otherwise. So the whole debate is in fact academic and irrelevant to the issues before us.

If the hon. member wants to engage in some constitutional arguments -- and we can talk about that -- obviously the argument the hon. member is making may lead to a particular conclusion. We have arrived at a conclusion in British Columbia after 25 years of negotiations, six years of tripartite negotiations: we have agreed that these are the rights to be enjoyed by Nis g a'a under this agreement. Nis g a'a agree with that, and both parties, Canada and British Columbia, agree with that.

[4:15]

M. de Jong: But if all first nations people have these rights, then surely that is significant.

Interjection.

M. de Jong: The Attorney General will say: "We didn't say that." Well, I guess I'm asking the Attorney General which . . . . If there are two different rights embodied, contained within this agreement -- those which we have negotiated and those which are inherent . . . . If, as the then deputy pointed out, there are those two groups of rights that we have brought together, then what we're asking is: in the mind of the government, which is which?

An example I've used is self-government. When the next band comes along, and if we find ourselves before the courts and the assertion is made -- "Look, that is an inherent right that we have; and as evidence of that, we point to its existence within the Nis g a'a treaty signed five years ago and implemented five years ago" -- then I think it's relevant for us to know what position the government takes today. To dismiss it as somehow being moot . . . . I suppose, in fairness, it's moot insofar as the fact that we do have a document here. But it's not, in my mind, an entirely academic question, as the Attorney General tries to paint it.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Chair, even in Delgamuukw the court sets out certain principles and mechanisms whereby one can provide proof of what rights exist at any time. Other first nations may not have these rights, if one wants to talk about existing rights. The issue is that each first nation's experience, contrary to popular perception, is unique. Their histories are unique. That's why negotiations and treaties are important. That's why we are prepared to sit down with each and every first nation to try and arrive at a tripartite agreement to determine what, if any, rights we can agree they should be able to exercise in the context of a thriving province.

[ Page 11101 ]

M. de Jong: Well, one last kick at this point, hon. Chair. I distinctly recall being advised by some fairly senior people involved in the negotiation process that the government approached this from the point of view that the self-government rights that are contained within this document represent new rights for first nations people. The Attorney General knows my position with respect to the inclusion of that package, the body of rights, within this document. That's not really the issue here. The government has made a decision, and they followed through on that.

But do the Attorney General and the government share that view -- that self-government rights, as set out in this document, represent something other than inherent pre-existing rights; that they are new rights that are created by virtue of this document?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think we've exhausted this. I come again to the issue, and the issue here essentially is that we have agreed, subsequent to very difficult and complex negotiations, that these are the rights that Nis g a'a would enjoy under the constitution of Canada, within the context of this province and this country. It really is irrelevant at this point to determine and to go back historically, to then say that right A may have been inherent; right B has been delegated; right C has simply been created.

It is absolutely irrelevant, and if someone is interested in having pronouncements made on individual sections and subsections of this treaty, someone is welcome to go to the courts and have a reference. I have no difficulty with that.

It is the Attorney General's view and it's the view of the government that it is, in fact, absolutely irrelevant to engage in a debate about existing rights and delegated rights. What's important is that we move forward in British Columbia, that we try and deal with our history, that we try and put together negotiating tables, that we try and put together treaties with all the other first nations and move on. Now, that's what we're trying to do.

G. Plant: Earlier we had a discussion about the issue of child and family services, in the context of trying to tease out some of the implications of

section 2 of Bill 51. There is another issue I want to just canvass for a few minutes, in that same context. We've talked about what it means, the significance of the fact that this treaty will be a

section 35 treaty -- that is, it will ensure that Nis g a'a people have the protection of

section 35 with respect to the vast majority of the provisions of this treaty. One of the aspects of the treaty that is interesting in that context is the fact that in certain circumstances, subject to some qualifications, the treaty will change the status quo for Nis g a'a people in the Nass Valley, because provincial laws of general application will, in some cases, apply. People have been looking at this treaty both for what it means for the Nis g a'a and for what it might mean for other treaties. In assessing the extent to which they're prepared to support this treaty, they are concerned about its implications in other contexts.

Recently all of us have had the experience -- as newspaper readers, at the very least -- of watching what is happening on the Musqueam reserve in Vancouver. Yesterday the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs took the time and trouble, in fact, to bring some of those issues to the floor of the House. I want to understand one or two aspects of the connection which the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs drew for us in this House in terms of how they actually might really work in respect of this treaty. I'm grateful that the Attorney General is here, in the event that he chooses to answer this.

The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs has been saying publicly, and he said it here in this House, that one of the things that's good about the Nis g a'a treaty -- that in fact provides an answer or a way out of the dilemma, if you will, that the people who are the residents of Musqueam Park face -- is that laws of general application will apply, including the Residential Tenancy Act. Here is my concern. I'm going to ask the Attorney General or whoever answers the question to see if I'm wrong in my understanding.

First of all, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs is obviously better briefed on this than I am, but I'm told that the original lease which the Musqueam Park leaseholders signed was a 99-year lease and is a bare-land lease. I'm going to impose on the Attorney General . . . to listen closely to this for a moment. My understanding is that the Residential Tenancy Act of British Columbia has no application to bare-land leases. I further understand that the Residential Tenancy Act of British Columbia has absolutely no application, for the purposes of the present discussion, to leases of more than 20 years.

This would lead me to the conclusion that any attempt to answer the dilemma of the Musqueam by saying in public: "Don't worry, the rent review provisions in the Residential Tenancy Act will apply; we'll insist on this happening . . . . " It won't happen for the Nis g a'a, and it won't happen if the province maintains the same course, because the Residential Tenancy Act of British Columbia is in no way, shape or form an answer to the dilemma faced by people who may be leaseholders in similar circumstances anywhere else in British Columbia.

Now, is there something about this statement that I've just made that is incorrect? I welcome the government's opportunity to explain to me why my legal analysis -- which is really what it amounts to -- is wrong and therefore the analogy that the government has been drawing is in fact a good one.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: First of all, we must understand that in a larger context the Nis g a'a agreement, this treaty, would provide certainty about the status of Nis g a'a lands. They would either have a land title system of their own or they would be part of our land title system, which would provide certainty to dealings with land. That's the first issue.

The second issue is that laws of general application such as the leases act -- or whatever laws apply to leases of the nature that we're dealing with on the Musqueam land -- and the Law and Equity Act and other matters with respect to judicial review procedures, and the inherent jurisdiction of the court to deal with some of those issues -- common law principles that apply across the country . . . . All of them would apply to land that's in the land title system if it's alienated the way it is alienated generally across the province.

The issue that I think we need to understand, unfortunate as it may be, and as is definitely the situation on the Musqueam land . . . . That situation, as the hon. member well knows, can in fact occur not just on native lands in British Columbia but anywhere on non-native lands in British Columbia. That is why, in fact, I was so horrified that the Leader of the Opposition sat there -- and I saw his face on television . . . . I was shocked that the Leader of the Opposition would say that we should rethink Nis g a'a, that somehow the sky is going to fall and that the Nis g a'a treaty is going to create these kinds of problems.

The hon. member well knows, as a prominent lawyer in British Columbia, that that statement was absolutely wrong, absolutely unjust, absolutely unfair. In fact, I was shocked. So this was a purely contractual issue that went to court, and the court ruled upon it. And the court may do exactly that for non-native land elsewhere. It happens every day in British Columbia.

[ Page 11102 ]

G. Plant: Well, I'm grateful to the Attorney General . . . . I had hoped that we could have a discussion where we could identify, with some certainty in an objective way, the facts. Therefore we could argue about the question of whether there's a reasonable basis for linkage. Unfortunately, the Attorney General has apparently been shocked and outraged by a number of things and once again expresses the view, for which I'm sure I should be eternally grateful, that I am -- I don't know that I am -- an esteemed member of the bar.

You know, the problem is this. The provincial government waded into this fight. The provincial government, mainly using the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs as the spokesperson, said to the people of British Columbia who, for whatever reason, are asking questions about whether there's a relationship between what's happening on the Musqueam reserve and elsewhere . . . .

Hon. G. Clark: And you know there's not.

G. Plant: In fact, there is a direct relationship. You see, that's the problem. I have established the facts, which the Premier is totally uninterested in. The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs stands up and says: "Don't worry. We will negotiate treaties which will ensure that the Residential Tenancy Act will apply and that all the protections in respect of rent reviews will be there." He says that as though, were that the case, the people on the Musqueam land would be in a different situation.

The problem is this. The province says: "Don't worry, because there is no linkage." We've already established that the statements made by the provincial government with respect to the application of the Residential Tenancy Act are in fact entirely unrelated to the position of the Musqueam people.

Hon. G. Clark: That's not what your leader said.

G. Plant: No. We've established that your statements are in fact misleading. It is your statements . . . .

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, please.

G. Plant: It is this minister's statement in the House yesterday . . . . "Don't worry," he said to the people of British Columbia, "the Residential Tenancy Act applies."

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, please, hon. members.

[4:30]

G. Plant: The difficulty is that I am so constantly embarrassed to have to stand in the presence of a government that has so little respect for the real rights of British Columbians.

We've already established that in fact there's nothing in the Residential Tenancy Act of British Columbia that is in any way, shape or form related to the plight of the Musqueam tenants, even though the provincial government insists that that is the answer: "Don't worry. We're going to insist that the Residential Tenancy Act will apply, because it's a law of general application. So anybody who lives on core settlement land will be entitled to the rent review provisions in the Residential Tenancy Act." Not true? Absolutely and entirely not necessarily -- at least not necessarily -- true, unless of course . . . .

Interjections.

G. Plant: No. It all depends on the language of the leases.

Interjection.

G. Plant: Yes. I'll give the minister lots of opportunity . . . .

Interjection.

G. Plant: If the Premier wants to speak, he'll have lots of opportunity to speak. Perhaps he can explain how it is that the people of Musqueam would be better off if in fact this treaty were applying to them. They would not be one whit better off; they would be in exactly the same position, and that's the point.

Now let me ask this question: since we already know that the people who live on the Musqueam reserve who are the residents of Musqueam Park would not be one iota better off if they were under the Nis g a'a treaty in respect to this issue, what does it mean to say, as this treaty does, that the Nis g a'a government can create and regulate -- that is, pass laws with respect to different interests in land -- on Nis g a'a lands? Is it the case under this treaty that the Nis g a'a government would have the power to pass and to create their own residential tenancy act?

The Chair: I remind members to speak through the Chair.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I have said laws of general application would apply. One of those laws is the Residential Tenancy Act. The Residential Tenancy Act would apply to tenancies that are covered currently on non-native land. It would apply to the tenancies in the same way on the Nis g a'a land, if there are tenancies.

I think it's important for us to recognize that the Residential Tenancy Act does not apply to Musqueam land at this point -- the Musqueam leases -- because the leases are 99-year leases, and the Residential Tenancy Act doesn't apply to 99-year leases on non-native land in British Columbia. What the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs said was two things: that residential tenancy would apply on Nis g a'a lands; and secondly, that there would be more certainty with respect to the foundations, land title and other aspects that go with the land under the Nis g a'a agreement. Both of those statements are true.

I think it's important for us to recognize that the issue at hand here isn't Musqueam. The issue is this Nis g a'a treaty. We know that under the Nis g a'a treaty the Residential Tenancy Act would apply. We also know that 99-year leases would be the same anywhere. It would be the same if the particular house where the hon. member lives in Richmond was covered with those leases on private land, with a 99-year lease. It would be facing a similar problem in terms of

interpretation by the courts. So it's important. Let's get on with talking about the treaty.

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

G. Plant: Perhaps I could just make this one final comment in this context, although we'll return to the subject. But I

[ Page 11103 ]

think, to complete the discussion . . . .

Chapter 11, paragraph 44 gives Nis g a'a government the power to "make laws in respect of: a. the use and management of Nis g a'a Lands owned by the Nis g a'a Nation . . . b. the possession of Nis g a'a Lands owned by the Nis g a'a Nation . . . including the granting of rights of possession in Nis g a'a Lands and any conditions or restrictions on those rights." Is it the position of the government of British Columbia that under that heading of power, if you will, the Nis g a'a government would lack the authority to make laws that would create interests certainly analogous to leasehold interests?

That is, they have no authority whatsoever in respect of regulating the way in which people might acquire and continue to hold interests either equal to or analogous to leasehold interests.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The Nis g a'a would be able to create different permutations and combinations of the way they use their land. There are strata title rights. There are other rights on the non-native lands in British Columbia, and the Residential Tenancy Act continues to apply to those kinds of rights that are created pursuant to different mechanisms. It is our view -- it would be the position of the province of British Columbia -- that the Residential Tenancy Act would continue to apply to the Nis g a'a lands if there are tenancies in Nis g a'a lands that are currently covered under the residential tenancy legislation in British Columbia.

G. Plant: Let me just get some clarity around one aspect of that. For example, the Nis g a'a would not be able to, in effect, create tenancy interests under their lawmaking power with respect to their interests in their lands and then regulate them by their own residential tenancy act. Is that the view of the government with respect to what they've done here?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Wilson: I want to come back to issues around

section 35, but before I do that, I wouldn't mind picking up on some of the points that the member for Richmond-Steveston was just making. There is now a considerable amount of fear engendered among people in British Columbia that somehow . . . . I think part of the reason is because of the comments that were made, and I don't want to take them out of context, but . . . . I go from memory, and I give you that caveat before I say so, but I think the Leader of the Official Opposition said of Musqueam that this is what we can expect when you have self-government.

I just want the people of British Columbia to hear something. In 1976 the Sechelt Indian band took over land management, and they later took over financial control, in 1978. They tried hard through till 1981 -- and in fact they even made application to the human rights committee to try to get full support . . . . They couldn't get it, so in 1983 they commenced the process of self-government and developed a level of self-government that on these questions -- the questions of these lands -- will have virtually comparable powers to that of Nis g a'a. They're almost identical.

In 1991 the leases came up for renewal, and the leaseholders were faced with an 1,100 percent increase. The Sechelt government, for the first time, had a chance to sit down face to face and negotiate with landowners in the absence of the federal government, which had previously negotiated their leases -- and not only negotiated their leases at absolutely bargain-basement rates so that they were well below market value but then collected the money and often didn't even give the money back. So they were getting it from both ends, if you can see my point.

It's interesting that when the Sechelts negotiated with the tenants and implemented that increase, they came up with a settlement with a five-year pay-in. My understanding is -- I stand to be corrected, but I think I'm correct -- that they didn't lose a single tenant in the process. I think it's important that we look at the facts of this question. That doesn't resolve the questions and issues and problems and the hardship that is currently being looked at and faced by people living on Musqueam, but there are solutions to that.

From my perspective, they have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the Nis g a'a. It doesn't matter who the landlord is -- if you enter into a 30-year agreement that says that at the conclusion you will renew at 6 percent of market value, and if the market value has gone up 7,000 percent, that's what you're going to pay. If we need to find a way to get jurisdictional effect to get that into place and work away to make sure that people aren't forced out of their homes, that's the issue at hand, and that's what we deal with.

I frankly find it a little bit problematic -- and I'm trying to choose my words carefully here -- that this is being somehow characterized as an issue that is connected -- and these are not my words but the words of others -- to a "race-based government." I think that is grossly misleading. I think it's completely inaccurate and, frankly, doesn't even stand the test of the one self-government that has been effectively in place with virtually exactly the same powers, and the Sechelts have been able to work extremely well with the tenants they have living on Sechelt land.

I make those points, but I would like to come back, more specifically, to what we're debating, and that's

section 35. I met with Mel Smith -- and I don't think he'll mind my mentioning that -- because I wanted to try to understand what the constitutional argument was under

section 35. I wanted to try and figure out where it was that there had somehow been this impression left that this constitutional agreement did two things . . . . That was the argument coming from those who oppose it. I think it's very important because British Columbians, I think, really have an interest in understanding this question.

The first point was: does

section 35 of the Constitution Act, in its anticipation of new treaty rights . . . ? When that was drafted and written in 1982, was it anticipated that there would be self-government as a provision of

section 35? The second point is around whether or not the constitution allows for self-government without creating new rights or rights that might be interpreted as a third order of government.

Here are my questions to whomever on that side feels that they would like to answer them. No, let me rephrase that: to whomever would feel obliged to answer them -- because none of you may feel like you want to answer them. With respect to

section 35 of the Constitution Act, it is my understanding that the rights that are anticipated with respect to Nis g a'a self-government are rights that are anticipated by virtue of the fact that self-government existed before colonial contact. All we are doing in this agreement is recognizing that those rights pre-existed; recognizing what they are, essentially, by describing them and codifying them in an exhaustive manner; and saying that this treaty, with respect to those rights to self-government, is an absolute and exhaustive list of what those powers are, and that in fact it does not create any new level of government in Canada. I'd like to get the government's view on that.

[ Page 11104 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: First of all, this is not a new level of government. Secondly, the experience of different first nations would lead them to assert different rights as we sit with them across the negotiating table. The assertion of those rights is then taken into account as part of the negotiations. There's give-and-take. At the end of the day, we arrive at an agreement such as the Nis g a'a agreement. The Attorney General of the province doesn't need to say whether someone enjoyed certain rights 100 years ago; that's part of history.

What we need to say is that we sat with them and negotiated, based on give-and-take, a compromise, which is this treaty, and that from that day on, from whenever the treaty is finalized and ratified by both Canada and British Columbia, they would have those rights.

That's important for us to understand. I think it's important because we want to make sure that other first nations understand the basis of our negotiations, the basis of how we work, how we want to bring parties together to deal with these issues.

[4:45]

G. Wilson: Fair enough on the answer. The reason that I believe it to be important is not so that we can say in a paternalistic way that this is what we deemed to have existed before colonial contact. The reason that it's important for it to be on the record, certainly from my personal point of view, is because many who are in support of this treaty opposed, in the Charlottetown accord, the constitutional amendment that introduced a third order of government that was aboriginal government.

The argument we used was that you don't need to entrench a third order of government constitutionally because aboriginal self-government predated colonial contact and therefore was an anticipated right under

section 35. That was the argument we used. Therefore we said that if you negotiate your contract or your agreement under

section 35, we will endorse it, we will support it, we will in fact honour it. That, from a personal point of view, is why I have such serious difficulty with some members of the Liberal opposition who stood with me on that argument and who now seem to have changed their position. That's troubling, because I think you have to stand on some principles at some point. Nevertheless, I'm sure they have their reasons, and I'm sure they're honourable and valid.

The second point I want to get to is whether or not this in fact constitutes self-government. I become confused. Let me say to those members opposite that there are people in British Columbia who believe that somehow the Nis g a'a government is going to provide powers equivalent to provincial statutes, which will allow them to have governing authority over non-Nis g a'a. This becomes more confusing when they're hearing from some people that this isn't self-government at all, it's government. Now, I know that the member for Matsqui has just referred to it as self-government, and I believe that to be true.

But let me refer to the comments yesterday from the learned member for Richmond-Steveston, who said: "Moreover, it is not only difficult, it is impossible to see any foundation in

section 35 for creating a new institution of aboriginal government which will have the power to govern non-aboriginal people. Yet Nis g a'a government will have that power. That is why

chapter 11 is not called 'Nis g a'a self-government.' It's called 'Nis g a'a Government.' "

And yet, if you look at

chapter 11.1, it says: "The Nis g a'a Nation has the right to self-government . . . . " So it becomes extremely confusing to anybody trying to hear this debate when they hear a member stand up and say, "This isn't self-government; it's government," and when the language says it is self-government and the official opposition critic, who I think is correct on this point, says: "Yes, this is self-government, even though we may differ as to whether or not it was anticipated under

section 35." Maybe whoever over there replies, hon. Chair, might comment with respect to the powers of the self-government as anticipated under

section 35.

From my reading of this agreement -- and what those powers are is set out in

chapter 11 very explicitly -- I do not believe that the Nis g a'a self-government is in any way comparable to provincial authority or powers. Nor do I believe that it in any way accommodates rights that would exceed those limited and express powers as set out in

chapter 11 of this agreement. Yet that's the implication that has been made, and British Columbians are fearful of it. I think we need to put that to rest, because, again, I believe that to be completely fallacious. If I'm wrong, maybe the government might tell me, and then perhaps I'll be concerned as well.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Obviously the hon. member feels quite passionately about this issue, and justly so. We have codified in

chapter 11 the self-government rights that we've agreed to amongst the three parties. I'll leave it at that.

J. Weisgerber: Well, it's been a fascinating debate, and it's fascinating to sit beside my friend from Powell River-Sunshine Coast. We shared podiums during the Charlottetown accord debate, and I remember both of us being opposed to a new third order of government. I don't recall the member being quite so forthcoming in the area of existing inherent rights, and I expect that the member will provide me with some documented evidence, because there certainly are . . . .

G. Wilson: Count on it.

J. Weisgerber: Yes, something other than caucus meeting minutes would probably be good, but . . . .

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: In any event, what I want to do under this

section -- because I do believe that what's being created here is a new third order of government . . . . I do believe the flaw is the lack of any mechanism to correct an entirely and absolutely untried form of government. The Sechelt agreement was set up by delegated powers, with the ability, I believe, to amend the legislation at both the federal and the provincial levels should there be obvious shortcomings in the government model. But what we're creating here, for the first time in Canada, is a form of government that I believe will become the model for self-government across the country.

What I'd like to know from the Attorney General or anyone else is if they could clarify the process for amending the self-government elements should they be seen to be flawed five or ten years down the road. If, five or ten years down the road, we see something like the Musqueam experience, which clearly works to the advantage of one group and the disadvantage of another, what mechanism is there for the province or the federal government or the Nis g a'a themselves to come back and seek c