1995 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 35th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MAY 4, 1995

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 19, Number 16

[ Page 13983 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

L. Reid: It's my pleasure today to welcome to the precincts individuals representing the College-Institute Educators' Association of British Columbia: Mr. Ed Lavalle, Mr. Keith Gilley and Kathy Conroy. I'd ask the House to please make them welcome.

Hon. J. MacPhail: It gives me great pleasure to make a very special introduction today that concerns the family of one of the members of our illustrious press gallery. Scott Sutherland is the reporter for Standard Broadcast News, and today his son Bart is here, and also Bart's very, very famous and special grandfather, Edward Jolliffe, who was a member of the Legislature in Ontario. In fact, he was the leader of the CCF from 1941 to 1953 and Leader of the Opposition for seven of those years. He should really be sitting down here with us, I think; maybe we can arrange that after.

He represented the riding of York South. He is out here visiting his grandson today. Bart is 12 and attends Saltspring Elementary. Please give them a very warm welcome.

K. Jones: Seated in the gallery today are two representatives of the B.C. Coalition of Motorcyclists: Rory and Lynda Corneille, from White Rock. I had a great time today being part of their annual legislative ride to raise awareness for motorcycle safety. I'd certainly like to have the House welcome them today.

D. Schreck: In the gallery today are Molly and Yvonne Bain, my friends of many years, formerly of North Vancouver and now of the Sunshine Coast. Will the House please join me in making them welcome.

D. Streifel: In the gallery above us today are some very, very good friends of mine who were over with their motorcycles to take us for a rumble through the neighbourhood. I really enjoyed the ride today. We have Lyle and Diane Pona, and their friends Chuck and Bev Davey. I bid the House make them welcome.

D. Symons: I also have two friends who were here on the motorcycle ride today, although I would suspect that they're not the type that would take

part in a rumble. They are Mr. Craig Heale, from Richmond, and Barry Weinbaum, who is a BCCOM computer expert.

D. Mitchell: In the Speaker's gallery today is a good friend of mine who also happens to be the president of my riding association. Would the House please welcome Caroline Meredith from West Vancouver.

D. Lovick: On your behalf, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make an introduction. We have some guests of the Speaker visiting us in the precincts today: Mr. Craig McNulty and his wife, Roseanna, and their two boys Sean and James. They're from Victoria and are good friends of the Speaker. As well, Beverli Barnes, the Speaker's daughter, and her friend Yves Leduc are here from Vancouver. I know that all of them had lunch with the Speaker, and I understand that Roseanna also managed to get on the back of a bike with our friends from the motorcycle coalition. I hope everybody will join me in making them welcome.

Oral Questions

PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS AND NISGA'A LAND CLAIMS

The Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. [Applause.]

G. Campbell: I appreciate that response from my colleagues, because it gave the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs a chance to get back into his chair.

I would like to address my question to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. Today British Columbians have been given another glimpse into the province's position in the Nisga'a land claims negotiations. The April 12, 1995,

summary of B.C.'s Nisga'a mandate review raises a number of serious concerns that seem to be in conflict with the public statements that this government has made on a number of issues. The people of B.C. have lost confidence in this government's negotiations, because what the NDP are doing in private is so clearly opposite to what they're saying publicly.

The Speaker: Your question.

G. Campbell: The document points out that the government is committed to tabling a detailed proposal in early May. Will the minister commit today to make public the document the government has prepared for negotiations, so that the people of this province can find out what is really going on behind the closed doors of those negotiations?

Hon. J. Cashore: I can't for the life of me understand why the Leader of the Opposition would want me to table a document that he's holding in his hand. That sounds a bit strange to me. But I would certainly be quite happy to comment on any of the items that he finds within that document, because I very much appreciate that we now have an opportunity to talk with some concreteness about substance, given the fact that we have been encumbered by the secrecy clause that the present leader of the Reform Party wrote and signed when he was Minister of Native Affairs.

The Speaker: Supplemental question, hon. member.

G. Campbell: I would hope that the

summary of the provincial Nisga'a mandate review dated April 12 is not the document that this government is working from in negotiations that are this important. The question remains to the minister: will he table the detailed negotiation package the government puts forward? The problem the minister has is that he doesn't understand what is happening in British Columbia. People are tired of the secret deals this government has been doing.

The Speaker: Order, hon. member. You've placed your question, and

preamble is inappropriate after the question.

G. Campbell: I haven't placed my....

[ Page 13984 ]

The Speaker: Order.

G. Campbell: My question is: will the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs guarantee that this government will protect the private property rights of British Columbians across this province, in view of the aboriginal land claims and the position paper that's been presented to the public today, dated April 12?

Hon. J. Cashore: Fee simple land is not on the table. Fee simple land, I repeat, is not on the table. Where there are licences and other activities on Crown land, we will do everything we possibly can to ensure that the interests of those who already have interests will be protected. That is done through consulting with those parties prior to it being discussed at the table.

[2:15]

M. de Jong: Those assurances from the minister ring awfully hollow to thousands of British Columbians. In the Nicola Valley, members of the Upper Nicola Indian band are now blockading lands that have been owned by the Douglas Lake Cattle Co. for over 105 years. They are claiming an aboriginal right to gill-net domestically stocked fish from two lakes located entirely within the Douglas Lake lands. The question to the minister is: has he advised the Upper Nicola Indian band that its claims respecting Minnie and Stony lakes relating exclusively to privately held land are not acceptable and therefore not negotiable? And if he hasn't communicated that to the band, why not?

Hon. J. Cashore: The Minister of Lands may wish to comment on this. We are in the process of receiving the legal information that we need in order to be able to appropriately respond to that issue, dealing with it in the context of the question the hon. member has raised.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

M. de Jong: The minister knows that confrontation between aboriginal peoples and private land owners in British Columbia continues to break out across the province, leading to more blockades, more arrests and more uncertainty. What is the minister's definition of private property, and when will he finally stand up and aggressively and effectively defend the rights of private property owners across British Columbia?

Hon. J. Cashore: I do not believe that British Columbians appreciate that kind of fearmongering. Unspecified allegations means that the more you repeat the statement, the more it appears to be the truth. The purpose of this Legislative Assembly should be to deal with real situations.

When the hon. member refers to blockades, I ask him to look at the history of this province and to recognize that we have been managing this situation appropriately in the context of the Delgamuukw decisions -- which was acknowledged in April by the Supreme Court in its judgment with regard to the Sam Green case, which ended an injunction that had been in place since 1988, and that those companies are now preparing to get back to work. That injunction started because of the uncertainty when the former Social Credit government was in power.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

Hon. J. Cashore: The court acknowledged the policies of this government with regard to interim measures as a reason for lifting that injunction.

J. Weisgerber: My question is for the Minister of Aboriginal affairs as well. My question also comes from the documents released by the federal Reform Party this morning -- the documents that the Liberals appear to be using as their primary research tool today.

My question to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs deals with the issue of fee simple designation for reserve lands. Can the minister tell us why his negotiators refused to grant fee simple title to the McLeod Lake band in their negotiations, resisted the use of fee simple as part of the McLeod Lake settlement, and are now proposing something exactly opposite for the Nisga'a?

Hon. J. Cashore: The hon. member knows full well that the McLeod Lake negotiation is a federal treaty adhesion; it is not under the aegis of the B.C. Treaty Commission. He knows that full well -- and I think this is a mischievous question. He also knows full well that it is the responsibility of the federal government; the province is there because we are maintaining the affirmation of our responsibility for lands and resources. That's why we are there: to protect the interests of the province of British Columbia.

He also knows full well that the direction the McLeod Lake decision is taking is supported by the municipalities and those in the district that want to see it settled, because they see the direction this negotiation is going as being economically beneficial for their region.

J. Weisgerber: The minister knows as well as I that his negotiators resisted the application by McLeod Lake for fee simple status; he knows that, I know it, and the negotiators know it.

Also in this document is an indication that the government -- the provincial government, this minister's government -- intends to extend full subsurface rights as part of land claim settlements with the Nisga'a. Can he explain why he wasn't prepared to extend the same subsurface rights to the Doig and Blueberry bands under Treaty 8, and resisted the extension of full subsurface rights under the negotiations with McLeod Lake -- if he is indeed prepared to extend them to the Nisga'a as part of these negotiations?

Hon. J. Cashore: This hon. member, with his experience, doesn't understand that a negotiation on any type of agreement is an array along a spectrum that includes many different topics. It has to be examined as a package. He knows that.

DEADLINE FOR NISGA'A LAND CLAIMS SETTLEMENT

A. Warnke: I'll try to formulate a question around the information leaked to the Reform Party. The NDP government has given its negotiators an ultimatum to settle the Nisga'a land claims by June 30. It's very clear that this unilateral ultimatum is designed to help the NDP face an election campaign. Indeed, the NDP government is so desperate that they are even abusing the Nisga'a negotiations for crass political

[ Page 13985 ]

gain. My question to the minister is: since the minister has established this deadline of June 30, what happens the day after the ultimatum passes, on July 1?

Hon. J. Cashore: I find the hypocrisy of these parties, the Liberal Party and the Reform Party, federal and provincial....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. J. Cashore: Five months ago these parties were saying: "Why isn't the province moving forward with their position more quickly?" They were saying: "Why aren't we coming to a conclusion on this issue?" They were accusing us of not wanting to conclude. Here we have performed the public service of putting a focused position out there before the public. We've done it in such a way that it is now enabling a public dialogue around these important issues. And now they're saying: "We don't want to see it." They can't have it....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. The minister concludes.

Hon. J. Cashore: They want to have it both ways, because they're desperate. They're not government, and they don't recognize that when you are government, you have to manage an issue the way we're managing it. Putting this focused position out there is serving the purpose of getting the other parties...

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. J. Cashore: ...who have gone on for 20 years...

The Speaker: Would the minister please conclude.

Hon. J. Cashore: ...to finally put their position on the table.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

A. Warnke: Hon. Speaker, I wonder who is really desperate at this particular time. I think it's pretty clear. Call an election and we'll find that out.

The minister cannot have it both ways, because it was that government that stalled for six months and then, all of a sudden, went and put on a deadline of June 30. It is quite clear that the government is playing brinkmanship politics and jeopardizing the Nisga'a negotiations. If that minister wants treaties in British Columbia that are fair, honourable and lasting.... My question to that minister is: what other secret instructions has the minister given his negotiators, which he should now reveal to British Columbians, that could jeopardize the Nisga'a treaty?

Hon. J. Cashore: I can't tell you what a relief it is to now be in a position where we can publicly discuss these issues, because we have been encumbered by the Weisgerber secrecy clause up until now.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. J. Cashore: Now this information is out there...

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. J. Cashore: ...and we are able to start to talk about these issues.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order! On several occasions, members have referred to other members by their proper names, which are improper in the House. Members know that they should refer to them by their constituencies, and I would ask members to please keep that in mind.

COMMERCIAL FISHERY ENTITLEMENT FOR NISGA'A

G. Wilson: This Minister of Aboriginal Affairs knows full well that gill-netting privately stocked fish in a lake was not covered in the Delgamuukw case.

My question is with respect to this document. It suggests that British Columbia is going to support a Nisga'a commercial entitlement outside the treaty, with respect to a commercial fishery in addition to food fish. Can the minister tell us exactly what is meant by the entitlement of a commercial fishery outside a treaty, and where that could be justified in any court ruling anywhere in this country?

Hon. J. Cashore: The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and I met with the federal minister on Monday. We made it very clear to both Minister Irwin and Minister Tobin that if they want any support from this government on their position with regard to the entrenchment of food fish in a treaty, as a concomitant quid pro quo, we require the entrenchment of conservation, monitoring and enforcement that will mean treaty protection for all the citizens of British Columbia. That's what we require.

We require on behalf of the citizens of British Columbia that in that treaty -- legally binding -- the federal government must put many more resources into monitoring and enforcement. That's what that's about, and that's how treaties can benefit all British Columbians.

The Speaker: Hon. members, the bell concludes question period.

Ministerial Statement

CHILD CARE MONTH IN B.C.

Hon. P. Priddy: It's with great pleasure that I officially proclaim May as Child Care Month in British Columbia. Our

[ Page 13986 ]

government recognizes child care as an investment in workers, and as an essential part of creating new jobs and a skilled

workforce. It helps families, it helps communities, and it helps the economy. Child care is one of the biggest worries and greatest barriers to parents wanting to work. Investing in quality child care gives more parents the chance to continue their education, receive training, develop skills and find jobs so they can contribute to the economy of British Columbia. Investing in quality child care also creates jobs in the construction of new facilities as well as in the child care field, and that makes child care an important part of our government's plan for B.C.'s future. We're making affordable investments to ensure a strong and growing economy that works for ordinary British Columbians.

We're investing in child care to increase choices. A special incentive grant helps increase the number and choice of critically needed infant and toddler spaces. Working and learning isn't only from eight to four, Monday to Friday. There are new and unique needs, such as the need for extended-hours care. Another program of ours supports communities in assessing and planning child care for these new and emerging needs. Our child care support programs have been expanded to serve 140 rural and urban areas. This means it's easier for working families to find information about quality child care in their community.

We're also working to make child care more affordable, and give more parents the choice to work and get training. The child care subsidy program has been increased, making child care available to an additional 3,000 children. This means that low-income families of 29,000 children are receiving support to stay in the workforce. As a result of our wage supplement initiative, some centres are telling us that for the first time in years, they have not had to increase fees to families. This means greater affordability for parents.

[2:30]

This government is also committed to taking action on the linkages between child care and the economy. Capital funding has helped create and retain 1,800 child care spaces in schools, hospitals and post-secondary institutions in British Columbia. There are 14 new child care centres open or under construction in colleges and universities throughout this province. This means that child care is more readily available for students wanting to gain new skills for our growing economy.

An integral part of the Skills Now training program is to create accessible child care options and to support parents in finding child care, so they can participate in training without worry. This is not just about facts and figures; it's about real families.

Let me give you an example. Funding through the B.C. 21 initiative is helping 20 women in Victoria build a different life for themselves and their children. This project allows women who have never had an opportunity to receive training a chance to learn skills to support themselves and their families. They've received training in basic construction skills, and they're using these new skills to build a women's shelter in downtown Victoria. This would not have been possible for our economy without child care.

In conclusion, child care strengthens our economy, and it is an investment in the skills and talents of British Columbians. I urge all members of the House to show their support for child care throughout May. Let child care givers know that you recognize and value their work. Involve your community in promoting more quality child care choices for families at a cost they can afford. But don't stop there. Make child care one of your priorities every month, because our children and the future health and economy of this province depend upon it.

L. Reid: I am pleased to rise in response to the statement by the Minister of Women's Equality on the designation of May as Child Care Month in British Columbia.

We certainly support the designation of Child Care Month, because we support child care. We support the notion that this is about investing in families. It's not only a women's issue in British Columbia but an issue of society and the community. It's truly about investing in families, and for that, all of us must stand together to ensure that young people in this province have safe and secure child care. There's no question about that.

The reality is that the majority of British Columbia families today require two incomes to survive -- not two incomes as a luxury, but two incomes to survive and support their families. To have those individuals in the workforce without the constant threat of an interruption of child care or simply with the inability to secure child care, to have them at work without two worries hanging over their heads, has to be the goal of any child care program. We want uninterrupted service and we want consistency and uniformity in that service. We believe that's very, very important.

We also understand that child care needs to offer tremendous diversity -- there isn't a magical solution. There must be a number of different options for children with special needs and families who work outside of regular hours; and oftentimes, respite care should be part of the child care option. We often have special needs children who require additional care, and I would like to see these programs continue to offer an outstanding level of care to those particular families, because I believe that is very, very important.

Both the minister and I come to these current roles from a teaching and a child care perspective, from a sense of how important it is to support families, and that is all to the good. It makes perfect sense that this is seen as a family issue, and that we refuse to have this issue marginalized as only a women's issue. I believe we need to move beyond that thinking and go to the broader perspective.

I'll conclude by saying that the best social program in the world is a job, but integral to that is access to reasonable child care so that the worries are not constantly upon you about whether your learning or schooling is being interrupted, or whether your working life has been interrupted by the fact that you're not able to secure reasonable child care. I believe very much that if we're going to have British Columbians continue to have dreams, child care is going to be a part of realizing those working and learning dreams.

The Speaker: For the third party, I recognize the hon. member for Prince George-Omineca.

L. Fox: It's a pleasure for me to stand up and support the minister in her initiative to declare May as Child Care Month. But in doing so, one must reflect on what it is we're doing in order to meet the needs of families and the demands of children. Why is it that in today's society, we're seeing more and more demand for good quality child care positions? The social pressures that we're placing on a young family today in

[ Page 13987 ]

our economy, where we have the highest tax rate of any jurisdiction in Canada, demand that both family members have to go to work in order for a young family to get along. As a society are we really doing the right thing when we put those kinds of pressures on young families that really do drive the need for child care spaces? Are we really doing the right thing when we see 100,000 more welfare recipients out there and more and more demand for social programs? Are we really addressing the problem in society today? Those are some of the questions that we as legislators have to ask ourselves while we reflect on May being Child Care Month.

In my view, we're not succeeding. We're not succeeding in meeting those social demands, because we are continually increasing the spending in this province at all levels of government. We're putting more and more demands on the taxpayer, therefore putting more and more walls, if you will, in front of young families in British Columbia today. I think we should reflect on the policies of the government and the policies of society and the drive that we have to try to correct those problems rather than increase the problems, as I believe we're currently doing.

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of Supply in Committee A for the Ministry of Housing, Recreation and Consumer Services, and Committee of Supply in Committee B here in the House for the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS

(continued)

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

A. Warnke: This morning a number of documents related to the Nisga'a land claim were revealed through a press conference in Vancouver. Ironically enough, we just touched on it very briefly yesterday. This morning I made mention of it, in that perhaps it's one area really worth following through on. There is a perception that the Nisga'a agreement, while it is quite different from what we might anticipate in other treaty negotiations, nonetheless has the prospect of setting some sort of precedent in some of the other claims, and seeking some sort of settlement, which, in turn, could have a profound effect on what the ministry will be doing in this coming year.

Therefore I first want to explore the nature and implications of the Nisga'a negotiations. I recognize that there are some aspects of the negotiations that obviously cannot be revealed, because we're in the middle of those negotiations. Nonetheless, I think there are some points -- given some of the documents that have been released -- that maybe we need to seek clarification of, which would go a long way to hopefully alleviating some of the concerns. Maybe it won't, but we'll soon find out.

At the outset, since a statement has been made that the Nisga'a land claim has to come to some sort of resolution in treaty form by June 30, it does beg the question of what happens if, in fact, the June 30 deadline is passed? We could be hopeful that some sort of resolution will occur by June 30 -- something in treaty form that could be brought forward. On the other hand, there was concern when some of the documents were released -- and we discussed this very briefly in question period -- about the province delaying for six months, as some have put it, before proceeding with the Nisga'a discussions.

On the other hand, a deadline has now been imposed. There might be a rationalization, and I would like to give the minister an opportunity to clarify the rationale for putting forth such a deadline.

Hon. J. Cashore: It would be summed up in the phrase "cut to the chase." The federal government and the Nisga'a have been negotiating for 20 years. I've had concerns expressed from some MLAs in areas such as Sechelt that we've been accused, just at the very beginning of the process, of taking too long. That's been going on for 20 years in the AIP stage, and the AIP stage in Sechelt is just getting started.

I ask the hon. member to go back to what he and other opposition parties were saying about five months ago. He was saying there has been enough time for the province to be able to come forward with its position. We took that seriously, and the Premier decided to ask for a thorough review of all the topics that have been discussed pursuant to the various mandates that had to be discussed during those many years of negotiations. As a province, we haven't been at that table for 20 years, but we've been there for a significant time.

By putting forward a comprehensive document that indicates the steps we are going to take in seeking to achieve focus, decision and finality, what we have done is to serve the purpose of causing the federal government and the Nisga'a to get to very serious consideration of where they stand on this issue. I do not know how that can be reasonably interpreted in any way other than to serve the purpose of providing a focus that enables decision-making.

[2:45]

We are firm about any dates we've talked about. We've put that out firmly and seriously. Instead of the kind of posturing we're finding in the wake of this information that's coming up, I can tell you that if we saw some real intent to get down and move this forward within a time line that respects the position we've taken in putting this out there, we could make headway. We could make progress.

The other thing that is very worthwhile about this is that it would enable us to go to the table and seek the agreement of the other two parties at that table to agree to override the confidentiality clause and to table the document publicly. I can tell the hon. member that this is what I'm asking for. I want it to be tabled publicly, because I have every confidence that when the public can see this document in its fullness, the public will see that what we have achieved here is a workable solution that bodes well for the future of the province.

Let's not forget that one of the issues we have put on the table -- and I don't see how any political party could disagree with this -- is that we want an end to the

section 87 tax exemption. We want to deal with that in a reasonable way, through honourable negotiation -- and we're serious about that.

We believe that when a federal official writes a self-serving federal briefing note in response to our position which clearly indicates that they're backtracking.... All of a

sud-

[ Page 13988 ]

den, those federal officials who have been accusing the government of British Columbia of not moving forward quickly enough find themselves in a position of needing to say where they stand. They're saying that they don't want us to be dealing with their issues: fish and taxation. We're saying: "We've been going to public meetings all around the province, and what we've been hearing at these public meetings is that the citizens of British Columbia want to see an end to the tax exemption." So we're taking leadership on that, and that leadership is expressing the wishes of the citizens of British Columbia.

With regard to fish, we're making it very clear that while this is a federal issue, to a major extent, it's very curious that the federal government would indicate in that briefing note that it's not a provincial issue. I can't think of a citizen of British Columbia, either first nation or non-first nation, who is not concerned about the conservation of fish stocks and what is happening to fish stocks.

It's very important to indicate, when we're talking about the Nisga'a, that the Nisga'a have recently received a federal award for their stewardship on the Nass River, and they deserve credit for that. They have partaken in exemplary activities with regard to stewardship of that resource. The discussions that they have been involved in with the various stakeholders in that area have been, to my knowledge, very cordial discussions. There has been a great deal of mutual respect there, and that should be the case.

We are saying that since we have a very fundamental concern for conservation and for the monitoring and enforcement of conservation standards, if there is going to be any support for the entrenchment of the commercial sale of food fish, that will require a quid pro quo: a treaty requirement that defines, in a way that the federal government cannot avoid, that they will put the resources for monitoring and enforcement into place. I can tell you, hon. member, that when I met recently with the federal ministers, I got that assurance.

G. Wilson: I rise to seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

G. Wilson: I want to ask the House to please welcome my son and his friend Sarah, who are here today to listen to and be edified by this enlightening debate on Aboriginal Affairs estimates. Could the House please make them welcome.

A. Warnke: I'm a little bit surprised at a couple of statements by the minister. As a matter of fact, when the minister said that the provincial government is really attempting to put pressure of some sort on the federal government and the Nisga'a first nation and force them to give serious consideration as to the negotiations, he implied that the federal government is not serious. In fact, I've got quite a different impression of the federal government.

The federal government has made it very clear that they're not opposed to expediting the treaty. The minister is quite right; this has been going on for more than 20 years -- 22 years. That's not the federal position. The federal position.... They are not opposed to expediting an agreement, but the federal government has also made it very clear that what they don't like is the threat of some sort of artificial deadline that has been imposed. Indeed, one could make the argument that putting forth an artificial deadline could contribute to the collapse of talks.

That's why there is the concern of the people who have released documents. Today, what has shaken the British Columbia public and the British Columbia community is: what are the potential implications of putting forth a deadline?

A second aspect I want to explore with the minister is that the province needs a sufficient period of time to explain to non-aboriginal British Columbians and to other first nations what has been agreed upon. The way the talks are going, by imposing this kind of deadline one wonders whether there is going to be any attempt by this government to explain the implications of the Nisga'a treaty and the settlement to British Columbians. Will there be any opportunity prior to the June 30 deadline? Considering that that's not very far away, my thinking on this is that the opportunity might be there.

I could be wrong, and I hope the minister will clarify that. But if it's after the June 30 deadline and if.... I don't want to deal too much in the hypothetical, but if there is an agreement by June 30, then that agreement is not involving people prior to the June 30 deadline. Now it seems that what will be explained is not in any way to seek information, but to just say: "Here it is. This is what's been agreed and accepted. Like it or lump it."

Perhaps I'll just toss that out, and let the minister to respond to those couple of questions.

Hon. J. Cashore: There are three aspects of that question that I want to comment on. First, the hon. member sounded as though he was being a bit of an apologist for his federal cousins in Ottawa, and he's saying he doesn't have a problem with doing that. That's fine. It's good to establish that linkage, but that then begs the question: whom do you represent? We're here representing the taxpayers and citizens of British Columbia.

What is being represented here is starting to appear to be a federal position which, after negotiating for 20 years and after criticizing our government with regard to the need to be getting our positions together and out there.... We've done that, and now they're saying: "We don't have time." What can you make of that? They're not wanting to deal with.... Are they saying and are you saying that they aren't wanting to deal with this seriously in view of the fact that they have been at this for 20 years. Is that what is being said?

What we need to recognize here is that there is no need, in putting together an agreement in principle that we can then take out to the public -- and this gets us onto the next point.... The public have to have an opportunity to comment on what is within that document, within that agreement in principle. We can still have the time to do the further work on all the details, but the public have to be able to take that

[ Page 13989 ]

document and have a sense of where that is going, and have an opportunity to comment on where they stand with regard to that. So the answer is yes, where the member is asking whether this would go out for review. That's why we want to be able to get it out there.

We've been hearing from many people about the urgency of getting out there what has been accomplished. We are in favour of that; we want to see that happen. When the advice to the federal minister is, "Well, we're going to take another five months," I think we all know that five months ends up being ten months and maybe more. We also know that under the cost-sharing agreement that we have with regard to negotiating costs, there have been accusations. I don't know if they're accurate. Somebody, perhaps some of the federal Reform members, should be asking these questions in the federal House.

They should be asking if the federal government really wants to conclude, or do they want to simply be dealing with this in the context of the budget that they have for negotiations? And would they just rather keep spinning wheels? So there are some questions that I think this information begs with regard to where the federal government is on this.

I think the third point is that I would encourage this hon. member to use all his persuasive powers with his federal counterparts to get them to live up to their commitment under the cost-sharing memorandum of understanding. It is not acceptable to be a party to the signing of an agreement and then to decide that they don't like it anymore, or that it's not serving their purposes. Surely they negotiated that agreement with their eyes wide open. Surely they knew what was going into that agreement. Surely they understood the meaning of stumpage. Surely they had the experts there who could advise them.

They have negotiated an agreement, and it's their responsibility to follow through under the terms of that agreement. I do encourage this member to use any power of persuasion that he has to deal with that. But let's remember whose interests are being represented here. We want a fair deal for all British Columbia, and a fair deal for all British Columbia means that it's going to be fair for the Nisga'a and fair for all the people with whom we seek a viable interdependence.

[3:00]

J. Weisgerber: In the interest of some continuity, I'll pick up with the Nisga'a talks and then perhaps go on to some other issues that I want to discuss. With respect to the material that has been the subject of discussion today, the documents released by some of the federal Reform members, I would like to go back to this question of fee simple land. I get a sense from reading these documents that the government is now willing to embrace the notion of fee simple title on reserve lands that would go to the band or the tribal council.

Would the minister clarify that and also the form of tenure that he would envision and that is being sought by his negotiators on lands extending beyond current reserve boundaries that would form part of the settlements? Can the minister first of all clarify this position of fee simple title for reserve lands and then tell us the form of title that he envisions being part of future settlements?

Hon. J. Cashore: Since we are dealing with a document that has been released, and since I assume that members of the opposition have this document, I don't think that we should play footsie with it. I'm prepared to read it into the record. In reference to the question, I would first of all say that I encourage the members to read very carefully what the document says.

I'm just going to read it where it says "Land":

"British Columbia will stand by the land proposal tabled in July 1994, and will be prepared to negotiate a nominal increase in that land area.

"British Columbia will consider reasonable adjustments to the boundaries of Nisga'a lands -- that is, based on topography or Nisga'a objectives -- provided these do not result in an increase in the overall size of Nisga'a lands."

And here, very significantly in relation to the hon. member's question:

"British Columbia will stand by its proposal of minor adjustments to reserve boundaries outside Nisga'a lands -- which reserves would become fee simple lands -- and to create a limited number of small fee simple sites."

I know the hon. member is in consultation right now, but I really want him to hear what I'm going to say next. That third point refers to Indian reserve lands, which are now held in trust by the federal government and which are outside of the core area that has been considered.

So we are recognizing, given our intent to see Indian reserve land as part of the abolition of the Indian Act -- which is just part of another process that the federal government is involved in -- that we would seek to see the current Indian reserve land become land that is held perhaps collectively, but fee simple, and that it would be subject to the land title base of the province of British Columbia. That is our intent. That's what we seek to achieve, and therefore this should not be misunderstood to read that we are putting fee simple land on the table.

We're talking about taking land which is IR land currently held in trust by the federal government, and bringing that land in as part of the treaty, and that would become fee simple land.

With regard to the member's question of what we see with regard to lands that are not currently Indian reserve land, we would see that in a settlement, where there was land that was agreed upon as part of a settlement -- recognizing that this would be in a very confined and limited area in relation to the total original claim -- that, too, would be land which we refer to as settlement lands. Those lands would be lands that would all be in the same category. Those lands also would then become fee simple lands over which other elements of the treaty would have effect.

J. Weisgerber: First of all, I acknowledge that I, as the minister was talking about Indian reserve lands that are now contemplated to be transferred with fee simple ownership.... Perhaps the minister would confirm that he is talking about the kind of title that was, in fact, established at Sechelt some years ago when the Sechelt Indian band achieved self-government and title to their land. It was, indeed, fee simple. Perhaps the minister will confirm that it is that model that is being anticipated with the reference to fee simple in this document.

Furthermore, perhaps the minister would be good enough -- as we're talking about the document which refers to a proposal table, July 1994 -- to make available for us the July 1994 proposal so that we can then have the benefit of a full discussion around this issue, or, if indeed for some reason the minister is unwilling to table this document, describe for us the contents of that proposal. So my question to the

minis-

[ Page 13990 ]

ter, who I gather is also involved in some consultations.... Well, I'll wait. As the minister was good enough to wait for me, I'll also wait for him.

Could the minister either describe for us or agree to table the land proposal referred to in this document? And would he refer us then to the various forms of tenure which are anticipated on those lands thus described?

Hon. J. Cashore: First of all, with regard to the land that would eventually be what we've termed "the settlement land," while we can't say that it would be identical to the situation with the Sechelt, I can state what the approach of the government is in its negotiating position: settlement land is land owned and managed by first nations, but the underlying title is retained by the Crown. Treaties will clarify the rights and responsibilities of first nations and non-aboriginal communities with regard to settlement land, and all citizens will have an opportunity to be heard by any government if and when issues and activities affect them.

I want to put a more correct emphasis on something that I said earlier when I referred to fee simple land. The term that we are using is "fee simple equivalent." There may be some aspects of the definition of that land where it may not fit a strict definition of fee simple land. If that is the case, it would be the equivalent of fee simple land, in that the underlying title of B.C. Lands would obtain.

With regard to the questions about tabling the July proposal and the proposal that we are about to table as referenced in the documents that became public today, I think the hon. member knows that because of the agreement that he signed when he was the minister, we are required to consult with the other parties about the release of such documents. I will say to him now what I have said before: we are asking our negotiating partners to agree to allow us to make those documents public. We are restricted by the terms of the framework agreement under which we are operating. I know what the hon. member says about some aspects of

section 7 which have to do with public consultation and all of that, but the fact still remains that the negotiators advised me when I raised this issue that they cannot unilaterally, because of the terms of that agreement, enable us to release those documents.

F. Randall: I would like leave for an introduction.

Leave granted.

F. Randall: In the gallery we have about 62 grade 4 and 5 students from Second Street Community School. They are accompanied by their teacher, Lorraine Hodgson. I would like to mention that they are from that great riding of Burnaby-Edmonds. Would the House please make them welcome.

J. Weisgerber: There a couple of questions that flow from that, and we could probably carry on here for a long time. Without wanting to debate the framework agreement again -- and I certainly would be prepared to -- I do believe that, indeed, if one or the other of the parties at the table continues to refuse broader access to information, then the minister, at the very least, has an obligation to tell us which of the parties is being uncooperative in releasing detailed documents around negotiations, as a start. I would be curious about that.

I deliberately asked the minister to either table or describe the contents, and from my

interpretation or knowledge of the framework agreement, I don't believe there is anything at all in the framework that would prevent him from describing the proposal that was tabled in July 1994. Perhaps the minister would be willing to at least do that for us.

Finally -- and again, understanding the minister's desire to respond to these questions -- in reference to fee simple land, the minister has suggested that the ownership and management of the land would flow to the band, with the underlying title remaining with the Crown. Can the minister tell us if, specifically in the case of reserve lands, the title would then remain with the Crown provincial or the Crown federal?

Hon. J. Cashore: With regard to that question, we want to get rid of reserve lands. Therefore we want to see all the land that is part of the settlement in the same category, and it would be underlying Crown provincial title.

J. Weisgerber: Is the minister saying to us that's what the province wants to achieve, or that it's what is anticipated through the negotiations? Will the minister, again, consider responding to my request to describe, if not table, the 1994 proposal for lands?

Hon. J. Cashore: We want to be as descriptive as we possibly can be, given any restrictions that there are. I am endeavouring to do that, and that is why it is.... Actually, I want you to know that I had nothing to do with these documents being leaked today, but I really do mean it when I say that it's kind of a sigh of relief on my part to now have an opportunity to be talking at least about the aspects that are contained within those documents. Yes, it is my desire to be discussing in a descriptive way, to the greatest extent possible, the various elements we are using as at least the underlying principles of what we're doing.

[3:15]

With regard to the land, we seek an end to reserve land and we hope to achieve that -- if I understand the question. That is what we hope to achieve through negotiations. That's the position we're taking forward. We're seeking, through negotiations, to achieve the day when we see an end to reserve land and when that land would be underlaid with B.C. Crown title.

J. Weisgerber: Okay, one last shot at this about the land described in the July 1994 proposal. Could the minister tell us the number of acres involved, the various forms of access or ownership, and the rights of access? Can the minister describe in some general way the proposal contained in the 1994 proposal? I am absolutely convinced that there is nothing in the framework agreement that would prevent him from giving us that description.

Hon. J. Cashore: In fairness to our relationship with the three negotiating teams, we would have to have permission with regard to the numbers. We have to recognize that, in honouring that agreement. If the hon. member says that that is not consistent with the agreement he signed, I have to advise him that the negotiators do not agree with his position on that -- any of the negotiators. He can continue to make that statement, but I have a copy of the agreement that he signed, and I'd be very happy to table it. As a matter of fact, I have it here right now. I'm not sure of the proper procedure, but I would like to table this agreement so that it's available for all to see.

[ Page 13991 ]

The Chair: Minister, I must advise you that we can't table it in committee. However, we can have it understood that it will be photocopied and shared.

Hon. J. Cashore: In that case, hon. Chair, I would like to ask that I have it back, because I may wish to refer to it.

I would like to describe the access provisions that are in the document that was released today -- I feel I can refer to that:

"British Columbia will negotiate access provisions based on its 'Discussion Paper on Access: Considerations' dated March 7, 1994.

"British Columbia will require that non-Nisga'a have reasonable access on Nisga'a public lands for hunting, fishing and other recreational purposes.

"British Columbia will negotiate a process for regulation of recreational access which is responsive to Nisga'a interests and the unique attributes of Nisga'a lands -- for example, cultural sites, sensitive habitat, villages."

J. Weisgerber: I was hoping to find something a bit more descriptive in terms of hectares, square kilometres or volumes of that nature. Just so the minister knows, he was kind enough in some venue over the last year or two to have tabled the framework agreement at least once before. So I'm sure that if all members go back to their files, they'll find copies of it.

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: No -- and fair enough. It's a document that there have been

interpretations of. I will continue to believe that I'm right and you're wrong, and it probably ever will be thus.

If the minister is not prepared to give us a greater description of those lands, perhaps he will be good enough to share with us at some later date correspondence with some other negotiating teams specifically requesting permission to provide details of the July 1994 proposal to members of the Legislature.

Hon. J. Cashore: I have stated on the record that I'm going to be requesting their agreement. I don't think that requires any other documentation; I will be on the record in Hansard.

J. Weisgerber: If by that answer the minister is confirming that he will share it with members of the Legislature as it becomes available, no further documentation is required.

Hon. J. Cashore: If we can get agreement to make this information public, that is consistent with what we have been seeking to do ever since we launched the openness process and did everything we could to open up the treaty-making process. I read an

article the other day that said that out of the 43 treaties where statements of intent have been filed, only a very small number have openness protocols. Anyone reading that would think: "Well, gee, that's not very good." But the fact is that those are the only ones that are beginning the process of negotiations, and we won't go into negotiations if we don't have an openness protocol. So the fact is that if there are 43 negotiations, there will be 43 openness protocols.

J. Weisgerber: I know that there are others who would like to get into the discussion. I won't go beyond my questions around Nisga'a without giving others the opportunity. I'd like to pursue each and every one of the items in this document -- the provincial position -- but I'm going to resist doing that and try and hit those that particularly have questions that jump out.

I'd like to go back to the subsurface resources question that I raised with the minister in question period earlier today. I find it ironic that the province has maintained a position, starting with the Fort Nelson band, of negotiating a 50 percent sharing agreement with Fort Nelson at the end of the day, and applying that same position to the Doig River and Blueberry bands, which I did compliment the minister on pursuing and achieving some months ago.

I find it strange, given that that issue arose again with McLeod Lake, that this document suggests that the province has become willing to concede total subsurface rights pretty early in the process of the Nisga'a negotiations. I'm wondering how the minister explains that different position, and what implication he might see of this position as it would relate to Treaty 8 and agreements that were previously reached with other bands.

Hon. J. Cashore: As I said before, the McLeod Lake and the other one that the hon. member referenced are adhesions within Treaty 8, and therefore he is really comparing two very different situations. It's very important to recognize that these are primarily negotiations, treaties, between the federal government and those aboriginal bands. British Columbia is involved in that process with regard to the need to protect the interests of British Columbians where British Columbia land is involved. To make a comparison between those two situations is to stretch the point.

There should not be any impact with regard to what is happening in the Nisga'a negotiation, because those are two very different sets of circumstances.

J. Weisgerber: I'm not sure that I would agree with the minister. Given that I had long discussions with the negotiators for the McLeod Lake band, I was advised repeatedly that both the provincial and the federal government kept coming back to the McLeod Lake adhesion negotiations with precedents not only from the numbered treaties across Canada and across the Prairies but from modern precedents set in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. Indeed, the province continues to refer to agreements reached in Treaty 8 with respect to subsurface rights.

The fact of the matter is that the province owns subsurface rights; it owned them on the Doig River and Blueberry band reserves, it owned them on the Fort Nelson reserves, and it was unwilling to agree to transfer those rights to those bands but appears willing to transfer rights under existing reserves to the Nisga'a. I think there is a very clear parallel, and I'm somewhat surprised by the minister's position.

Hon. J. Cashore: I would point out that the hon. member is still referring to 91(24) lands in his comments, which are reserve lands. As I said before, through the Treaty Commission treaty negotiation process, we are seeking to move away from Indian reserve lands. To my knowledge, this band has not filed a statement of intent to negotiate a claim under the B.C. Treaty Commission. It's possible that they have, depending on their current relationship with the Treaty 8 Tribal Association. But this hon. member is referring to lands that would still be federal reserve lands at the conclusion of this agreement with McLeod Lake. So I really do think it is apples and

[ Page 13992 ]

oranges, when I have stated very clearly that our goal -- through the treaty-making process that we have helped to design with the First Nations Summit and the federal government -- that we are seeking, through a whole spectrum of issues, is to build a new and more effective interdependent relationship. So we are not dealing with that spectrum of issues when we are dealing with Treaty 8.

At the end of the day we don't have the option in that treaty adhesion to be altering the position of the federal government. At the end of the day it continues to be Indian reserve land, because it's their negotiation. We are there to protect the interests of British Columbians.

J. Weisgerber: I've got to try again. The McLeod Lake band is claiming that treaty rights are an adhesion under Treaty 8. The lands transferred to them as part of that treaty agreement come from the province. The lands transferred to the Fort Nelson band came from British Columbia. The lands transferred to the Doig River band and the Blueberry band came from British Columbia without subsurface rights being included. As a result of threatened litigation, and later negotiations, the province -- both the former government and the current government -- believed that there should be a split in the revenues generated from those subsurface reserves.

As we are led to believe today, the Nisga'a proposal suggests that British Columbia will stand by its proposal that the Nisga'a will own all subsurface resources on Nisga'a lands. I assume those to be both existing reserve lands and those described in the July 1994 proposal, and that they will include gas, oil and precious metals.

For the life of me, I can't see how there is any substantive difference between the position taken by the province with the Nisga'a and the position taken by McLeod Lake with respect to lands that would ultimately become reserve lands, given the fact that there is a further precedent existing with the Treaty 8 bands. It's just an unusual position, and it's inconsistent. I think it probably describes the inconsistencies that we've seen in those bits of information we've been made privy to.

[3:30]

Hon. J. Cashore: I have responded to the question that the hon. member asked. There's no inconsistency whatsoever in the provincial position on this. We are involved in two very different sets of circumstances; one is seeking in a very complete way to bring about the end of the Indian Act, and end reserve land, in the availability of negotiations with first nations who have entered into the treaty process. With regard to the Treaty 8 discussions, that's not on.

So we're looking into a different array of issues when we look at what's happening with the treaty negotiations that come under the Treaty Commission or with the Nisga'a. This is an adhesion. I have made that point, and I don't see much value in continuing to repeat that point.

J. Weisgerber: I recognize when I've hit a brick wall, and I'll move on to something else.

I'd like to ask the minister: under the area that deals with taxation at the bottom of page 4, could the minister confirm that under

section 87 of the Indian Act all areas of taxation are under discussion? In other words, is the province negotiating...? Is the provincial position not only to open up the issue of taxes on properties but also personal income tax? Or, to be more specific, is it the intent of the minister and his negotiators to ensure that aboriginal people become fully involved in the B.C. tax structure as part of these negotiations?

Hon. J. Cashore: The short answer is yes. With regard to whether or not

section 87 encompasses all the issues the hon. member referred to, I believe it does, but I may stand corrected on that. If I do, I will certainly follow up on that appropriately -- but I believe it does. We want to see the same tax structure for all British Columbians. There are conditions within the self-government aspects of negotiations that deal with the ability of the first nation to tax its own citizens for services within that area also. So that's another factor in that whole part of the package.

I just want to read from the document that has been released, since it is now out there. What it says is:

"British Columbia will agree to a treaty provision recognizing Nisga'a government authority to impose direct taxes on Nisga'a citizens on Nisga'a lands.

"The continuation of the tax exemption in

section 87 of the Indian Act after a treaty settlement is unacceptable to British Columbia and the treaty should provide for its discontinuance after some period of time."

[M. Lord in the chair.]

I just want to say that while this may cause some concern among some parties with regard to the position of this government, I don't know of any other government that has ever put this position forward. I'm not aware of the previous Social Credit government, at the time that it was working on its preparation with regard to the Nisga'a, having put that position forward. We believe this is a position which recognizes the benefit of first nations being able to be in a productive and honourable relationship with British Columbians, which affords a more effective entry into the economy of the province.

We think they have demonstrated time and again that they are capable of this. As they do that and achieve that kind of self-respect and self-determination, a mark of it will be the ability to pay for the services provided to them. I think that's a matter of pride, and I think that we can support this position, on the basis of the values both to non-aboriginal and aboriginal British Columbians, as the appropriate way to go about it.

I do want to say that within the context of negotiation, we recognize that there would need to be an incremental process for this to be accomplished. That would need to be done in a way which is purposeful, setting a date time line, and which also takes into consideration the time it would take to achieve the capacity to enable that to happen appropriately. We believe that we have taken very significant leadership in putting this position forward.

J. Weisgerber: In the minister's selective reading of documents that he inherited, I would refer him back to something called the principles for land claims negotiations, which were broadly published in 1990 when the province first -- under my ministry -- agreed to participate in land claims generally and the Nisga'a claims specifically. The reference in principles for land claims negotiations includes a

section that dealt with the provision of equal opportunities and obligations, including taxation. For the minister's information, it was my full intent and that of the former government, when the decision

[ Page 13993 ]

was made to enter into negotiations and specifically into the Nisga'a negotiations, that taxation would indeed be a topic and would be something the government would achieve during negotiations.

Perhaps the minister is prepared to go a bit further in his statement. Is the minister prepared to insist on requiring that part of this settlement will be a formula to bring aboriginal people into the tax regime in British Columbia? Is this a point on which the government is prepared to take a stand?

Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is an unequivocal yes.

J. Weisgerber: That is encouraging. As we go through, perhaps I'll be able to get more unequivocal yeses on a number of principles that were spelled out in 1990, when we went into this process.

Under the heading "Cash" in the document we've been discussing today, there's a statement that British Columbia will support a modest increase to the cash component. I find that curious, inasmuch as this minister and former ministers under this government have led us to believe that all the cash would be coming from the federal government. I wonder why the government would bother to take a position, if B.C. taxpayers are not going to be involved directly in the contribution of that cash. We know that British Columbia taxpayers will participate, at least indirectly, in providing cash for settlements.

Can the minister tell us the reason the province feels obliged to take a position such as is outlined in this document?

Hon. J. Cashore: In the MOU, the projections are that it averages 17 percent cash for the province. We have never, ever said that the federal government would pay all the cash; we have never said that. We have said that it would break out to approximately 17 percent of the cash, and that also under the MOU, the province is responsible for most of the land. That is what we have said time and time again, and we're on the record as saying that. This is a straw man; there is no difference in anything we have said, as the hon. member alleges. I'll leave it at that.

J. Weisgerber: I certainly have never had that sense. Indeed, the province has gone out of its way to say that the federal government would accept the responsibilities for cash and the provincial government would accept the responsibilities for land and resources. I've often thought that the province was going too far and that it hadn't done a very good job of negotiating the cost-sharing arrangement. If the minister is telling us now that we're exposed for 17 percent of the cash and most of the land and resources that will be involved in settling land claims, then this cost-sharing agreement is even worse than I'd expected it would be.

Hon. J. Cashore: The hon. member says he doesn't think we've done a very good job negotiating this. Canada obviously thinks we've done a very good job, because, as indicated in the documents released today, Canada feels that the cost-sharing arrangement is a problem for them. I think this speaks for itself.

I want to make it very, very clear that aboriginal people in British Columbia do pay taxes now in a great many ways. They pay income taxes in a great many circumstances. They pay the sales tax, and they pay other taxes when they are involved in activities that are off reserve land. I see some opposition members disagreeing with that. I cannot understand why. I recommend that you sit down with people of first nations and talk to them about their taxation experience.

I think that when the time comes when we see a much better relationship, in which we've effectively addressed poverty and unemployment, we will see, even without the position we've taken here, a greater amount of taxes being paid by aboriginal people as they are able to come more into the mainstream. But as Joe Mathias and others have said, they want, as a means of treaty-making, to come into British Columbia and into Canada, and I take that to mean that they do want to see the day when they are able to pay their share of taxes along with all other Canadians.

J. Weisgerber: Indeed, we're talking about tax exemptions under

section 87 of the Indian Act; you understand that, and I understand that. That means that incomes earned on reserve are not taxable; it means that purchases made on reserve of major items are not taxable. Those are the areas under discussion, and to tell me about purchases and taxes paid by aboriginal people off reserve is, I think, a bit redundant.

Finally, before turning it over to the leader of the Alliance, I'd like to raise a couple of questions around Nisga'a government issues. In negotiations with McLeod Lake, the province seemed particularly unwilling to venture into the area of self-government. Can the minister tell us whether or not the idea of the inherent right to self-government is being pursued as part of the Nisga'a and government negotiations? If it is, can he give us some sense of the extent of that government?

Hon. J. Cashore: With the Nisga'a and in the Treaty Commission negotiations, we have recognized that self-government will be negotiated within the context of the treaty. The learned judges have said that there are undefined aboriginal rights and that those rights are best defined in a negotiated process. So where self-government is involved, that would be defined in that treaty process. Self-government is not an issue that is being negotiated in the federal government and McLeod Lake negotiations.

J. Weisgerber: As the minister knows, it was an issue raised by the McLeod Lake band that governments refused to address. However, my primary question is: will the minister confirm for us that any self-government arrangements reached under the treaty will not be enshrined in the constitution?

[3:45]

Hon. J. Cashore: I won't guarantee that. Some will and some won't.

I want to go back to a comment the member made a little while ago about me having referred to the fact that first nations people do pay taxes. The hon. member was concerned that my comment was redundant. I just want to say that the reason I made that comment was that I think all of us have heard a number of aboriginal people express a very real concern that there's a kind of myth out there that they never pay any taxes. I think it's important to put on the record that we do recognize that under the present circumstances, in many, many instances they do.

I was not seeking to be redundant; I think that is a point that needs to be made, because what we're trying to establish here is fairness and keeping the

[ Page 13994 ]

record straight. The record is that first nations pay many, many taxes. The hon. member is correct: what we have put forward is that we seek to end the

section 87 exemption.

G. Wilson: I appreciate the opportunity afforded by the Leader of the Third Party to keep to the topic of the Nisga'a while we have this document in front of us, and I recognize that we will have an opportunity to come back to other, broader questions at a later date. I wanted to go through this because I really, genuinely, want to understand what it is we're attempting to do. I don't have a very clear understanding from the discussion to date as to exactly what the government's position is on a series of issues.

For the minister and his staff to perhaps get ahead of me here, I'll say that I want to talk specifically about land; I want to talk particularly about forest tenure, subsurface resources and fish. Those are the four areas in which I have primary concerns.

On the first issue of land, this document, this land proposal that's referred to in this document that was tabled in July 1994, which we unfortunately are not able to have because of this confidentiality agreement -- or at least the

interpretation of it by one or more of the members involved in the negotiation.... Could the minister tell us who tabled that document? Whose document was it and who tabled it?

Hon. J. Cashore: British Columbia tabled that document at the table in July 1994. We had to have federal agreement on that because of implications under the federal-provincial cost-sharing memorandum of understanding. Within that memorandum of understanding, where a dollar amount is being tabled, the federal government has the right to grant permission for that document to be tabled, because that process has been agreed upon in the memorandum of understanding.

G. Wilson: So this is our proposal. When I say "our," I'm talking about the province, on behalf of the people of British Columbia. It says that we'll be prepared to negotiate a nominal increase in that land area. I noticed that, with respect to cash, it suggests that there will be further increases to cash if in fact there is no increase from the July 1994 proposal, and that seems to be tied. So are we saying: this is our proposal but if you want more money we're prepared to trade additional land? Is that what's on the table in this question?

Hon. J. Cashore: There is a relationship between cash and land; if there's more cash there's less land, and if there's more land there's less cash.

G. Wilson: I understand, then, that this relationship between the cash and the land is a relationship that is exclusive to the province's costs. Because presumably the province is responsible for the land, and therefore any cash in lieu of land comes out of the proportional amount that the province is undertaking to pay. So in the event that the province is broke -- which we are, to the tune of about $28 billion of debt -- one might argue that expanded land and jurisdiction to land would be a favourable position in lieu of cash payment. Is that a fair assumption?

Hon. J. Cashore: No, that isn't a fair assumption at all. Again, I think we have to consider that question in the context of the federal-provincial cost-sharing MOU which I have outlined recently.

G. Wilson: I'm not trying to be argumentative here, but it seems to me that within this arrangement, the matter of land is a question that is exclusive to the province, if we're not talking about cash in lieu. If there's some kind of agreement, then, between the federal government -- that they may be able to expand, or to essentially sweeten the pot in terms of the amount of money paid....

If there is an agreement not to go beyond the land proposal tabled by the provincial governments, can the minister tell us if that additional money will still be subjected to that same cost-share relationship; or is it something that is going to be exclusively born by the province? Because the matter on the land, presumably, is something that the province has to agree to exclusive of the federal government.

Hon. J. Cashore: All cash would always be subject to the cost-sharing arrangement.

G. Wilson: Okay. So that clarifies that position. Effectively, we put down a position. We've tabled a position on land, and there is some agreement between the three parties that if they stick to that position, then there may be an opportunity for them to get some additional cash. That, I think, is what it suggests under this -- if indeed the documents we have are accurate, and the minister seems to suggest they are -- because it says: "Some further increases to cash may be possible if the land is not increased from the July 1994 proposal." So that is something that is agreed to by all parties.

Presumably, then, if they chose to stick to our opening...or whatever our position was -- I'm not sure it was an opening position, but anyway, the position that we tabled in July 1994 -- they are open to go for additional dollars. Is that correct?

Hon. J. Cashore: We seek the agreement of the other parties to the position that we are tabling.

G. Wilson: Then let's come down to this question of British Columbia standing by its proposal with respect to reserve boundaries. I understand -- the minister explained that in some detail -- exactly how he's proposing to do this, and I'm not.... I don't think that's a bad idea. Actually, the Alliance position is that we should move toward the provision of title on reserve lands as a means of resolution. So I think that is a good way to go.

But where I have some difficulty, then, is in understanding, if we're going to do that with respect to the land that is currently under comprehensive claim, that is within the broader negotiation, and if we're going to eliminate the lines between the reserve land and the balance -- which is what the minister's intention is to do, so that the Nisga'a land is not in any way distinguished as IR land and non-IR land, which is I think, understandable from all parties' points of view....

Then can the minister tell us how title runs with that land and what it does with respect to both the Constitution Act of the province of British Columbia and the Land Title Act, which defers title of Crown land to the Crown, effectively? How does that work legally in the matter of title?

Hon. J. Cashore: The title to the land would be in the first nation ownership, but the underlying title would be with the provincial Crown.

G. Wilson: I wonder if the minister might want to just explain that in a bit more detail, because what we're

suggest-

[ Page 13995 ]

ing is that then it would operate in a manner that would be comparable to fee simple title as we have it now -- as any individual owning fee simple title. There is an underlying right of Crown on fee simple land. If I understand that's going to be exactly the same relationship, then I wonder if the minister can tell us what powers of expropriation we have, whether or not they're the same, and whether or not we have the same right to access on behalf of the Crown. Do we have the same right to communication and transportation corridors, for example? Is it going to work as an exactly parallel comparison?

Hon. J. Cashore: The treaty would provide for access provisions. It would provide for the resumption of land for utility corridors, and the Expropriation Act would not apply. When I talk about this land being owned in a manner similar to fee simple, one of the reasons that the definition of it might be a bit different -- albeit it's underlain by B.C. Crown title -- is the fact that this land would be held collectively by the first nation. Within the area of those lands, there could be different rules governing, for instance, the sale of land. Insofar as there were land issues that pertained to that particular area, they could have their own method of administering them.

G. Wilson: That answer led me right into my next question. Without actually looking at some legal text, it's a little difficult to know what exactly is being agreed to here or is up for agreement. One of the principal differences in this model, and one of the distinguishing factors, I assume, would be that fee simple title runs for the most part with individuals or with a collective group of individuals who are entitled under some company or some collective. That's not always so, because there are partnerships, and we have different methods of ownership of land.

In this instance, we now have an authority that is a first nation "government." With respect to this new government being proposed on the matter of land title, I wonder if the minister might want to tell us how that is going to be impacted on or in what way that's going to provide for those people who will be covered under the agreement that took place last year with respect to Nisga'a citizenship. I believe that was in March 1994.

I understand that there is a companion agreement on Nisga'a citizenship whereby two members of the four clan groups are able to come together to determine the right of a Nisga'a citizen. If we're dealing with land title now, and if we're giving provision of land title notwithstanding that there is a clause that would provide for underlying Crown title for the province, where do we find the connection between the right of a Nisga'a citizen to access and ownership of the land and the right of the actual owner, who must be the Nisga'a first nation? How does that relationship work?

[4:00]

Hon. J. Cashore: As Nisga'a citizens, they will be members of the first nation. They will have a constitution, and within that, they will have the right to vote on issues that relate to the way in which their land will be administered.

G. Wilson: Now we get into what becomes a rather complicated issue. They will be Nisga'a citizens -- that is, citizens of a first nation that is going to have authority and jurisdiction over land to which they have fee simple title or something comparable to it, even though there is an underlying right of the Crown on the land ownership.

But I would assume that if the Nisga'a citizens decide that they are going to administer their lands in a manner that may be contrary to the provisions that would be enacted by provincial statutes, particularly in relation to resources, given that we're providing ownership of both surface and subsurface minerals, and talking about access to extraction and harvest of fish -- and I'll come to that in a minute -- in a commercial manner....

What we're effectively doing is creating a classification here, and a jurisdiction within the province, in which rights and the determining factors on rights around things like representation in government, ability to tax and those kinds of things are going to be exclusive to one group of people, exclusive of the right of other British Columbians, even though that land is a functional part of what we would know as the province of British Columbia. Is that correct?

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

First of all, and I'm talking generically here about treaty-making principles, I think that in most treaties we would see that there would be an agreed-upon process between the first nation and the government as to how to handle environmental protection and assessment, so that there is a mutual benefit. In some instances, for instance, it would be the first nation stating that in their interest, they would like the province to continue administering this function. In other instances, they may wish to have some role in that, perhaps as conservation officers or something like that. It would be a negotiated process that would state within the treaty how that relationship is to function.

The purpose of the treaty would be to ensure that it's very clearly spelled out how those possibilities this hon. member referred to which might impact on the province would not impact in a negative way on the interest of the province. That would be negotiated into the treaty, and it would clarify, as the courts have pointed out, that which is currently not well defined.

I go back to an example -- at the risk of boring you; I know you've heard me say it before -- from when I was Minister of Environment. There were limitations with regard to the ability of conservation officers to enter first nations land, because it was held in trust by the federal government. It was in nobody's interest, in that instance, that those officials would not be able to enter. These treaties will describe how that will work, so that it works in the mutual interest of the first nations and their neighbours.

G. Wilson: This is a really, really critical issue, as I'm sure the minister and his negotiators well know. It's one that I want to get a very clear understanding of, because, for example, there are transportation corridors -- highways -- that run through this land that is under negotiation. Those highways were built by the province -- or at least have been administered by the province; if not in whole, then certainly in part.

[ Page 13996 ]

They are highways that are going to have to provide access to lands beyond. That's something within the transportation and highways act that we know we have provision for, as well as within the regulations governing it. We see that there is this proposition of a negotiated access or easement through these highways.

My question to the minister is: who will have ownership of those roads? Will those roads be the province's roads? Will those roads belong to the Nisga'a, where there will be an agreement that they're going to allow us to drive through? What happens there? If, in fact, ownership of those roads becomes that of the Nisga'a, then is there a compensation factor paid back for the construction, maintenance and ongoing development of those highway systems? How does that work?

Hon. J. Cashore: The main roads will be provincial roads; the roads in the settlement area will be Nisga'a roads.

I just want to put on the record the position with regard to access. Access through settlement lands that are required by third-party interests to get to resource tenures will be maintained through treaty settlements.

We have problems in the province right now with the number of roads that are technically in trespass. In many instances the federal government, being the trustee of the land, has not fulfilled its responsibility to transfer the land where those routes are in provincial jurisdiction. Because that has not happened, we continue to have to deal with this problem. Treaties will resolve the problem through mutual consent so it is very clear that access is ensured. The very treaty itself will identify the category of the road and who has the responsibility of maintaining it.

It is our position that access must be ensured; that will therefore be a treaty right. It is not a right of first nations but a right of British Columbian citizens. At the present time, we have problems exercising that right.

G. Wilson: I can't see how our inability to exercise that right now is going to be made easier in any way if in some instances.... I certainly don't direct these comments toward the Nisga'a, because I've had an opportunity to be up there and spend some time with the Nisga'a people, and I understand what they're doing. I have a great deal of respect for the Nisga'a people.

If you enter into this in principle, and you get a negotiation that stalls somewhere along the line, one of the easiest ways to get your way is to block the road. We've seen that in a number of instances. I don't think we want to digress into that discussion just yet, because there are some issues that might come up around that a little later on in these estimates.

It's important for us to understand, then, that no matter what the outcome of this negotiation is -- and I'm assuming that we are going to see something of that in this Legislature shortly -- there will be a provision of free access to all citizens of British Columbia. Indeed, not just citizens of British Columbia but any member of the travelling public must freely access, cross and have uninterrupted access to those roads. It's important to have that on the table. I assume that would also apply to energy transportation corridors and so on.

I come back to this matter of title. I talk about the forest tenure and the subsurface resources, which are on page 2 of this document. What it talks about here.... Just to read it into the record, so those who are following this debate might know what we're talking about, it says:

"British Columbia is willing to pursue creation, without expropriation, of the Nisga'a forestry interest in the form of a forest licence, which would be subject to the Forest Act."

It then goes on to say:

"Subject to cost and resolution of cost-sharing issues with Canada, the forest licence would have an AAC" -- that's an annual allowable cut -- "of up to 150,000 cubic metres per year.

"Arrangements with respect to regional fibre supply and jobs will have to be negotiated and settled."

This is obviously a very critical

section of this agreement.

The question I have is with respect to this forest licence and the Forest Act. First of all, does that mean that the province is going to retain ownership of the forests within the Nisga'a lands, and does it also mean that the Forest Act and the licence of the forest that would be governed under the Forest Act will be the sole jurisdiction of the province of British Columbia, as it would be in any other provincial forest jurisdiction? Or does it mean that we are transferring to the Nisga'a people, under this new government, a forest licence with a guarantee of 150,000 cubic metres per year?

Hon. J. Cashore: With regard to this forest tenure heading, I want to make it very clear that this is in reference to a forest tenure which is off the Nisga'a settlement land. On those settlement lands that we were discussing earlier that we would seek to cease being IR lands, and the other settlement lands that would be included in that, they would have ownership of the forest resources. With regard to this land, we are referring to a 150,000-cubic-metre forest licence.

Therefore I think we need to look at that and recognize that this would be part of the package that has considered seriously an agreement in principle, which we believe in good faith can help to achieve economic interdependence in a way that recognizes the needs of fibre supply in the area and the needs of workers in the area who are non-first nations. Therefore this is considered a component of this array of aspects of this agreement-in-principle proposal.

G. Wilson: So the minister is telling us that we are effectively entering into an agreement of 150,000 cubic metres' supply of fibre under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Nisga'a, given that it's governed by the Forest Act, in addition to ownership of all of the forest lands within this huge territory that they're negotiating. Is that what I understand?

Hon. J. Cashore: I think I should read into the record what the document says.

"British Columbia is willing to pursue creation, without expropriation, of a Nisga'a forestry interest in the form of a forest licence, which would be subject to the Forest Act.

"Subject to cost and resolution of cost-sharing issues with Canada, the forest licence would have an AAC of up to 150,000 cubic metres per year.

"Arrangements with respect to regional fibre supply and jobs will have to be negotiated and settled."

So I think that is very clear.

In order to put some perspective into this, I should point out that there are three other major forest licences in the area.

[ Page 13997 ]

When you consider that two of them are over 342,000 cubic metres and one is 250,000 cubic metres, this is a great deal smaller than those existing forest licences in the area, and we seek to negotiate.... This is not a fait accompli by any means, but we seek to achieve this through consultation and work with people in the industry and in jobs in that area. At the end of the day, it should be a win-win that is cognizant of the surrounding community -- of their need for jobs -- and of the importance of keeping British Columbia fibre going to British Columbia mills.

Therefore we believe that this is a very important part of this package, that we will have no difficulty in putting forward as a very positive element that we believe is potentially a win-win.

[4:15]

G. Wilson: I'll defer to the forestry interests in that region as to who's going to win and who's going to lose, or if it's going to be a win-win. I don't pretend to be an expert on forestry matters in that area.

It's implied that the 150,000 cubic metre area that's going to be available in addition to all the timber within the jurisdiction will be subject to the Forest Act. Can the minister tell us if the forest practices and forest harvesting activities within the so-called tribal area, if that's the appropriate term, will be subject to the Forest Act? Or is it going to be exclusive to the Nisga'a people as to how they decide that they're going harvest and what kind of forest practices they'll adhere to?

Hon. J. Cashore: The timber licence would definitely be subject to the Forest Act and the Forest Practices Code. With regard to the land on the Nisga'a settlement lands -- and some would argue with regard to the characterization that this is a huge area -- that is still subject to negotiation. We are seeking to achieve assurance through the treaty that those lands will be managed in a way that's very effective for sustainability and stewardship. I would refer to the good reputation of the Nisga'a when it comes to matters of ecology. This is a positive element of the ongoing discussions.

G. Wilson: I don't take issue at all with the Nisga'a people's record on ecology. As I say, I've been up there, and I've had a chance to spend some time there, but this a precedent-setting agreement, and let's not fool ourselves. Not all jurisdictions may act in a similar manner.

Because this is precedent-setting, we have to be extremely careful as to how we proceed. If this is subject to negotiation, I wonder why there wasn't the same caveat put against the forest lands with respect to the agreement to that land area that was put on the matter of the fish. Maybe we'll get to that. The minister might want to answer that with respect to the need to have reclamation, reforestation, silviculture and all the things that have been brought forward in the forest practices act,

an act which I think this government should take some credit for. Anyway, we'll get to that a bit later.

The minister has mentioned that there are three current licences and that there is a considerable harvest out of that area. How much of the actual existing harvest now falls within the Nisga'a territory? What is the revenue to the government from that activity, and what is the anticipated revenue loss to this government? I'm assuming that any revenue from licence or stumpage agreements is going to go to the Nisga'a people rather than to the provincial Crown. Maybe the minister could give us a breakdown of how much is coming in now and what is anticipated to be lost as a result of this agreement.

Hon. J. Cashore: I'm sure the member will canvass some of this with the Minister of Forests. Having visited the Nass, I'm sure the hon. member is aware of this, but I think that one of the real concerns of the Nisga'a is the extent to which harvesting has already taken place. Given that it's the northerly part of our province, the trees don't grow as fast, so there are some real concerns on their part about how long it will take for the forests that have been logged to become productive.

There has been harvesting on that land, and some of the concerns expressed by the Nisga'a are about the sustainability of the lands they would see in the settlement area we have proposed, given that factor. That's one of the reasons we believe this forest tenure is in good faith, recognizing a desire on the part of all three parties to achieve something which enables them to have that economic activity

With regard to the numbers the hon. member asked for, those are matters that are subject to negotiation. I don't have those numbers with me, but I don't intend to put that on the record at this time.

G. Wilson: I look forward to hearing the same response from the Minister of Forests when I ask him -- that it will be subject to negotiation and he can't.... That's the kind of information the public is going to want.

The people of British Columbia are going to want to know what those hard numbers are, because let's face it, there has been an awful lot made of the fact that the $28 billion debt we carry in the province is underwritten by our Crown lands, our resources and our resource wealth, and that therefore we shouldn't be looking at the situation too pessimistically, because we have such tremendous wealth within the province.

If we're now negotiating that wealth into another jurisdiction -- and in effect that's what we're doing -- I think the public is going to want to know why, exactly what the cost is, what the revenue is and what the impact of it is going to be.

I have a question on that with respect to subsurface resources, and it comes to the same thing. Why is it...? I know this was canvassed by the Leader of the Third Party. I don't want to go back through all that, because I'm very familiar with the case he was referring to. He was unsuccessful in getting a real answer, I think, to his question -- again, to give credit to the minister -- probably because of the sensitivity of the ongoing negotiations.

But I think the public wants to know why we would stand by a proposal that will provide ownership to all of the subsurface resources, and whether or not the province has actually done a fair inventory of what those resources are. If so, is that inventory available to the public so we know exactly what we're trading away? This is the future generation's wealth which we're just about to trade off -- that is, of the non-aboriginal community, recognizing that the Nisga'a will benefit.

Have you done the inventory? Is that inventory available to the public so that we know what oil, gas and precious metals we're dealing with here in terms of the trade? Have we actually costed out what they would be in '95 dollars if they were active in terms of extraction? Has the government done some detailed number crunching when it comes to revenue that may be beneficial to the government in terms of tax

[ Page 13998 ]

revenues that may come out of operations which may very well get active in the area that will now be diverted into a new jurisdiction?

Hon. J. Cashore: All those issues with regard to cost are factored into considerations in the cost-sharing memorandum of understanding. It's for that reason that we continue to push the federal government to meet their commitment in that MOU where just those very issues that the hon. member has mentioned are addressed. We seek to see that happen. We are seeking to see full value from the federal government with regard to their responsibility in the cost-sharing.

I just want to go back to a point that was made a few moments ago, when the hon. member was referencing the standards in forestry on Nisga'a lands. I had been outlining how there's some real concern over the amount of harvesting that has taken place on those lands in the past. Therefore we're talking about harvesting anywhere in the province -- requiring that it be sustainable. But with any logging that goes on within their lands, the province's position has been made very, very clear: we won't sign an agreement in principle that does not either meet or beat our standards.

So yes, there are still discussions taking place with regard to that, but they must either meet or beat our standards before we sign an agreement.

G. Wilson: That's encouraging, but I have to say that the problem is that I would think the province will have no jurisdiction with respect to the administration, ongoing assessment, review and analysis of those procedures. All right, you have an agreement that this is what should happen in the best of worlds. In the event that it doesn't happen, what right does this province have to go in and deal with it? Is the province going to have any jurisdiction on that matter, and if so, what would the jurisdiction be?

Hon. J. Cashore: We would not sign an agreement that did not guarantee the monitoring in the treaty, just as I pointed out about an hour ago.

To jump forward to the fish issue for a moment, it's primarily a federal issue. The province has primary concern with regard to conservation, and what we are asking Ministers Tobin and Irwin for is a guarantee that the conservation issues of monitoring and enforcement will be spelled out and guaranteed within the treaty. We think that's another example of how a treaty can serve the interests of all British Columbians -- first nations and non-first nations.

We all know that there's a great deal of concern about the lack of monitoring and enforcement on the part of the federal government when it comes to protecting the salmon resource. That is why I and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food travelled to Ottawa to state that if they want any support for the position on fish they're taking to the table, our number one requirement will be that the treaty protection of the conservation values is guaranteed.

In the same way, we will seek to have it guaranteed in the treaty that we are able to monitor and enforce the treaty agreements with regard to the stewardship of the land.

G. Wilson: I find this a bit perplexing, because treaties are signed between government, government and government, and that's what we're doing here -- although in another set of this estimates I'd like to come back to my position, which this minister is only too well aware of, and which I won't get into today, in terms of the legality of that negotiation under the laws of Canada and the Constitution Act. But that's another matter.

This government has entered into this agreement. People make these negotiations all the time; you negotiate treaties. Once the treaty is signed, what authority is the federal government going to have to enter Nisga'a lands to determine if there are violations of the act? If they notice violations to the act, are they going to be able to enforce it? Goodness knows, they're reluctant to prosecute aboriginal poachers who are poaching game in British Columbia right now.

We had aboriginal people putting gill-nets into a privately stocked lake on the Douglas Lake Ranch and poaching private fish, and the federal government is reluctant to deal with that matter. We've got the Adams Lake blockade, where the federal government was reluctant to even register a title; the aboriginal people in that case got totally ripped off by the original land settlement and James Douglas.

These problems are not new, and I don't know what authority we're going to have to go in and to actually put them in place.

Hon. J. Cashore: The problems are not new. We agree with that. The example of Douglas Lake is a good example. The best eventual resolution of that issue is a treaty: an agreement among Canada, British Columbia and the first nation. The hon. member seems to have this concept of treaties that once a treaty is signed, then there is absolutely exclusive jurisdiction on the part of the first nation with regard to those settlement lands. I assure the hon. member that we will not sign such treaties.

We will only sign treaties where we are guaranteed the opportunity to have a right to monitor and enforce those situations that are in the interests of British Columbians, whether it has to do with forest practices, environmental standards or environmental assessment standards. As we all know, the environment -- that which makes up the ecology -- is no respecter of political boundaries; therefore we have to negotiate a process whereby that will ensure that the provincial interest is able to be maintained in the post-treaty time. We won't sign agreements where we are not enabled to do that.

[4:30]

When we say that environmental standards shall meet or beat, we are saying that we must be in a position to protect the interests of British Columbians vis-a-vis those environmental standards. What we see happening at the actual treaty negotiating table are some of the most creative parts, I think, of treaty negotiating, where you have practical people sitting down and asking how we can make it work. There is a recognition of the interest that all parties have in the post-treaty environment in having a role in monitoring and enforcing that which is an agreement of the treaty.

G. Wilson: I don't want to get into the Douglas Lake issue in any detail right now, but surely to goodness we're not going to try to negotiate treaties every time there is an issue where.... In this case it seems that it's a relatively black-and-white one. These are not domestic fish; these are stocked fish; this is private property that's being poached here. You don't need a treaty to say you shouldn't go in and take someone's private property, surely.

It sounds to me as though what the minister is saying in this instance -- I don't know if this is a good analogy; if it isn't,

[ Page 13999 ]

let's drop it -- is that there's going to be a relationship not unlike a landlord-and-tenant situation. I don't mean that to be offensive to the Nisga'a people, because I'm sure they don't see it that way. But if we have the right to go in and to monitor, and we've got some right of recourse and of authority to make sure that, at a minimum, the laws of British Columbia are going to be enforced and maintained on Nisga'a land, I think that is going to be a great relief to a great number of British Columbians -- if that's exactly what the minister is saying.

It effectively does put a landlord-tenant kind of relationship to it. It says: "All right, this is your property; you can treat it as though it's fee simple.

We still hold title to it, although the title will be given with this underlying Crown title, and whatever our laws are in the province, you're going to have to meet or beat them." I would assume, then, that if we increase our environmental standards through this legislative process, they're going to have to increase theirs; if we determine we're going to put in new forest practices through this legislative process, they're going to have to put new ones through. They're going to be bound by that agreement.

I'm hearing this minister say that if they fail to do it, we can access their lands; we can go in and monitor it; we can check it out, and if they're not doing it, we have some legal right of recourse. I wish the minister could explain to me what that legal right of recourse is going to be.

Hon. J. Cashore: The metaphor I would use, other than the one used by the hon. member, is a partnership. The legal resource will be negotiated into the treaty; there will be an agreement at the table as to how that legal recourse will be assured. When we're talking about getting a comprehensive agreement in principle, that is one of the issues that has to be very clearly worded so that that assurance is there. I do recognize the right of the public to have that assurance. We are requiring that as a condition of finalizing a treaty.

G. Wilson: In effect, what the minister is giving assurance of to the people of British Columbia today is that notwithstanding what is on the table right now, the government of British Columbia will not sign a deal that will not allow, as a minimum standard, the laws of the province of British Columbia to apply. It will be the same law affecting all people, Nisga'a and non-Nisga'a alike, even though they may be the author of their own particular document. Is that what the minister is saying?

Hon. J. Cashore: I wish I had said that myself, because it was well said and absolutely correct.

G. Wilson: Again, I think the people of British Columbia are going to feel a little more comfortable hearing that, because that is an important point that needs to be stressed.

If we could move to fish, which is on page 3.... This was effectively the question I asked in question period today, and I would like to expand on it. Let me read into the record, which the minister may choose to do again if I misquote a line or a word:

"British Columbia will support a Nisga'a commercial entitlement outside of the treaty and will support a 'food fish' entitlement, including sale, provided that:" -- then there are three or more provisions -- "effective measures for monitoring and enforcement are provided for in the treaty; the sale of fish is subject to laws of general application; and all harvest entitlements are provided on a communal basis."

And it says:

"British Columbia will not support a treaty right to surplus salmon.

"Government and industry now recognize the need to rationalize the commercial fishing industry, and British Columbia feels strongly that the fisheries component of the treaty must be flexible enough to fit into any future restructuring."

There are two questions that I come to right away. The first is that all harvest entitlements are provided on a communal basis. That's an important line. If we're talking about a food fish entitlement, then maybe the minister might want to clarify how that food fish entitlement is going to be seen on a communal basis, and how there may be a commercial entitlement outside of this treaty in addition to that -- which might also be provided on a communal basis. Because that's what this says. It says that all of these harvest entitlements must be subject to that communal basis.

So you've got two: you've got a commercial entitlement outside of the treaty, and you've got a food fish inside the treaty, which are, by the wording of this particular document -- although I recognize this is not legislation, by any means -- provided on a communal basis. I don't understand how that's going to work.

Hon. J. Cashore: With regard to the communal basis, I think the word describes it. We are not doing this in a way that's allocating in the treaty specific entitlements to individuals. But we are looking at this -- perhaps the word "generic" -- with that first nation.... With regard to the elements that he referred to -- commercial entitlement outside the treaty -- we would see that as being outside of the treaty, so that the federal Minister of Fisheries would be in a position to, on an annual basis, ascertain the availability of stocks for that purpose.

As I said before, if we are to support the treaty protection of the sale of food fish, we are expecting a quid pro quo from the federal government to support our position on conservation -- meaning monitoring and enforcement, and not just some airy-fairy indication. Yes, we agree with this. We want it spelled out. We want it very clear to the citizens of British Columbia, in the interests of non-Nisga'a and Nisga'a, that they will do a much better job; that it's spelled out in the treaty as to how they will monitor and enforce this issue.

We seek to ensure, as it says here, that the sale is subject to the laws of general application, so anything that is involved there is subject to the provincial law. But the number one consideration has to be conservation.

G. Wilson: Let me go on record as saying I've toured the Nisga'a fish hatchery. I understand that the Nass River is better for their efforts, and I don't take anything away from what they're attempting to do. But I think this, probably more than any other issue that is raised in these documents -- no matter how clandestine the efforts were to get them -- is really going to cause a lot of problems in the province. The minister, I think, is aware of that. What it says is...this business of trading off food fish.... I just don't see where there's the trade.

The courts have made it very clear with respect to the Sparrow ruling on the food fish entitlement. Where we run into real difficulty is in the definition of what constitutes food fish. There's the problem. What this agreement is saying is that in addition to that -- which is already, under DFO

interpretation, quite different from the fishers of the province, who see it quite differently, and which various bands will interpret

[ Page 14000 ]

in their own way quite differently -- we're saying that we're going to look at a commercial entitlement. So there are two aspects of this.

I don't know what the trading chip is here, because everybody wants conservation; that's a given. There's no question that we have to try and do something about the west coast salmon stocks before they're gone. But the method by which licensing occurs right now is not communal; it's done on an individual basis or by boat. You've got aboriginal people in the commercial fishing fleet who are also going to have.... It'll be a second component.

There will be the commercial entitlement, presumably within the AFS -- the aboriginal fish strategy -- a very controversial issue and one that many of us think is abhorrent and shouldn't be there. And then you're going to have a food fish entitlement, given the vagaries of the definition of that.

The minister has to be very specific as to what is meant by this, because on the one hand, you're saying that British Columbia won't support the treaty right to surplus salmon. If that's the case, and if we're looking at the enforcement provided with respect to conservation, I would guess that when this document is interpreted there isn't going to be any salmon left for non-aboriginal fishermen on the Nass system. Basically you're negotiating the agreement for all salmon. I don't know how you can reconcile what is a commercial fishery, a food fishery and a conservation fishery that's bound by this treaty for first nations Nisga'a.

Hon. J. Cashore: The aboriginal fishing strategy of the federal government could be characterized as an interim measure. It's a process the federal government has come up with to deal with certain aspects of Sparrow, and I know there's a lot of controversy over their

interpretation of that. There's no way that the AFS and the circumstances in a Nisga'a treaty would be layered. The AFS would no longer apply. It would not apply in the post-treaty circumstances. As a matter of fact, I'm not absolutely certain -- my colleague the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food could advise me -- to what extent it currently applies on the Nass river. It's my understanding that the major application is on the Fraser. But this is a fisheries issue that I readily recognize is not my main area of expertise.

I do know that to whatever extent the AFS may now be a player in the federal government's relationship with the Nisga'a, in the post-treaty environment the AFS would be toast -- it would be history.

G. Wilson: It would be history, because it wouldn't be necessary. This effectively provides both commercial and food fish opportunities through a treaty negotiation which is, from what I can see...and I would yield to those who may know more about it than I do. I have spent a lot of time studying AFS and the Sparrow decision, and have met with many, many fishers on this coast who are coming out of Prince Rupert and areas in that region, as well as out of the Fraser system and the Island.

Every one of them to an individual agrees that there has to be one set of laws that apply evenly and equally to all British Columbians -- aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike -- when it comes to access to this resource. Otherwise there isn't going to be access to this resource for non-aboriginal people. And that's going to cause a problem, because there are a lot of communities whose livelihoods are dependent on that.

Before anything is signed, I we need to have a much more thorough public discussion with respect to this particular section. I would hope that the minister would agree today that there won't be any signature to this document until the implications of what's put forward in the wording is thoroughly and properly discussed with the people who will be most affected by that, and it's the people who are the commercial fishers in the province. I wonder if the minister could give us that assurance, and then we can move on.

[4:45]

Hon. J. Cashore: I have met with the commercial fishers. I know what their issues are. I've met with them through the context of the Treaty Negotiation Advisory Committee. Our negotiators have met with them on a very thorough basis -- regular meetings. Documents have been discussed in very recent days with members representing the commercial fishing industry. As it states, government and industry now recognize the need to rationalize the commercial fishing industry in British Columbia. It feels strongly that the fisheries component of the treaty must be flexible enough to fit into any future restructuring.

As I've said, and I think it should be acknowledged.... I would hope that the hon. member and other hon. members would join us in the message that we are taking to Ottawa: they must put in place in the treaty the actual method by which they will follow through on our requirement that they monitor and enforce in the interests of conservation. I don't entirely agree with the member when he says everybody believes in conservation. I know that he's right in saying that this is a value that is very widely held; that is true. But at the same time, I am saying that I am concerned.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is concerned about the adequacy of the federal government resources that have gone into monitoring and enforcement in the interests of the protection of the fish stocks in the province. We think, therefore, that putting this there is a condition of British Columbia's support for a position that they are engaging in discussions about with the commercial fishing industry and the Nisga'a. It is a very valuable opportunity to protect a conservation interest within this province.

It also sends a signal that this is going to be expected within the tripartite agreements relating to other treaties.

G. Wilson: I wish I could share the enthusiasm that the minister has with respect to the possibilities of getting the federal government to look at that conservation side. Quite clearly, through successive governments, the west coast fishery has been allowed to deplete further and further. Now they're spending more time worrying about the future political ambitions of the Minister of Fisheries, off fighting his turbot wars to give himself a high profile so that he might ascend to the ultimate job over in Ottawa, which is my suspicion. I think he's running for the leadership. If I was Mr. Chretien, I might look behind me.

Having said that, I think that what we have to recognize is that this agreement is going to be extremely difficult for British Columbians who are dependent on the fishery to swallow. My guess is that they're not going to, because they have no confidence, notwithstanding the province.... They may in fact have every confidence in the province; I don't know. In fact, I doubt they do. But they certainly have no confidence in the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans to look after their interests in this negotiation. So I really hope that the minister will commit that this

section of the agreement, if no

[ Page 14001 ]

other -- and I would argue that of the whole agreement -- will not go forward until such time as it has the widespread agreement of the people in the industry, and those communities that are affected by it, so that we can at least, as a province, recognize that we are extremely vulnerable with respect to the loss of our fishery. If the minister would agree that there would be some process for ratification of that, I think this would be something that we would all like to hear about today.

Hon. J. Cashore: As we go through the process, as I said before, we are in very close consultation with the industry -- with the fishers. I have gone to the Treaty Negotiation Advisory Committee and called on the federal government to join us in removing the clause there that requires secrecy or confidentiality. Therefore I've met with them, with the media present, and we have discussed this issue in a very open forum, as is also happening in the regional advisory committee relationship up in the area that relates to the Nisga'a settlement. So those discussions are ongoing.

I want to recognize and acknowledge the people who are involved in consultation from the fisheries sector. They advocate very firmly and very effectively on behalf of their interests. They also recognize that in the context of doing that, in order to get a treaty, there are quid pro quos. We're discussing that with them, and we're talking openly about those kinds of arrangements. I can say I'm going to be very certain and assured with regard to the position that we are taking forward, based on consultations that we have had with the fisheries sector and with other sectors who also have an interest in this.

The very nature of negotiations is that you work out a settlement which is in everybody's interest. There are some things that you put on the table. There are some things that you have to be able to negotiate in order to get an agreement, and that factor exists for all aspects of this. That's why I keep emphasizing that our number one concern is conservation, and we won't agree to a deal where conservation is not assured.

G. Wilson: I've just got three other areas. I know there are other members who may want to get in on this particular issue. One is the question of access, which is on page 3. It talks about British Columbians requiring "that non-Nisga'as have reasonable access on Nisga'a public lands for hunting, fishing and other recreational purposes." Well, I have two questions. One, who is going to determine what amounts to reasonable access, and if that is going to be negotiated, what are our terms of reference in that negotiation? What are our negotiators mandated to put on the table for what's reasonable?

And second, if there's a question of public lands, and given that this is an agreement that is being provided for fee simple ownership on a communal basis, what would the minister then regard as private lands?

Hon. J. Cashore: The difference between community lands and public lan