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

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 1999

Afternoon

Volume 14, Number 5

[ Page 11789 ]

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

Prayers.

W. Hartley: Today in the gallery we have the president of the B.C. Agriculture Council. He's also the president of the B.C. Fruit Growers Association, a regional district director and a municipal council member. His name is Russell Husch, and it's a pleasure for me to meet with him today on agricultural issues. In support of the Buy B.C. program that we all support, Russell has some great stickers with him today saying "I Love B.C. Fruit." Please, everyone, let's give Russell a great welcome.

T. Nebbeling: As you know, we have a team of legislative assistants. The latest one that has joined us is Dave Beaton, who works with me. I see he is sitting in the gallery today, and I would like the House to make him feel very welcome.

B. Barisoff: I'd also like to acknowledge Russell Husch for the support and the work that he does in B.C. agriculture. On behalf of this side of the House, we acknowledge him also.

V. Anderson: Today in the House we'll have about 160 students from Sir Winston Churchill Secondary School coming through in two different sections. I would like to welcome them and their teacher, Mr. Williams, and wish them well as they listen. They had a question for me. When the students were here last year, they commented that we seemed to be very impolite to each other, and they wanted to know if we had improved. I said I was sure that we were even better now. Please make them welcome.

[1410]

F. Gingell: In the gallery joining us today is my Member of Parliament, Mr. John Cummins. I ask all the House to make him welcome.

Oral Questions

PAYMENT FOR PREMIER'S HOME RENOVATION

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, the people of British Columbia have a very simple question for the Premier. It requires a one-word answer. The question for the Premier is this: did he or did he not pay the full value of all the labour costs that Mr. Pilarinos, the Premier's friend and the casino applicant, generated on the Premier's home renovation? Yes or no?

Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Speaker, these are issues, some of which are before the courts and some of which -- all of which, quite frankly -- are being investigated and looked at in one way or another. There will be a conclusion to those investigations. There are other questions that have not been posed publicly -- and perhaps they should have been -- with respect to the fact that it appears clear that the Liberal caucus know far more than the public about this issue and have failed either to admit that or to reveal what they do know. So perhaps the Leader of the Opposition might take that into consideration as he continues asking what I think are superfluous questions.

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

G. Campbell: I'd like to be very clear for the Deputy Premier. The fact of the matter is that the Liberal caucus did exactly what the Attorney General of the province of British Columbia recommended that we do. We forwarded information to the RCMP. The people of British Columbia are shelling out hundreds of dollars an hour for the Premier's criminal defence lawyer. Only the Premier can answer this question. The least the Premier can do is answer this simple, basic question: did he or did he not pay the full market value for all renovations on his home last year? Yes or no?

Hon. D. Miller: Well, I find it somewhat interesting -- and I think there ought to be some kind of rule that there's one process of judgment for all -- that the Leader of the Opposition is now making statements about what he did. He expects that everyone will accept that on face value, but when statements are made on this side, somehow there's some implication that the truth is not being told. Hon. Speaker, fair is fair. The Leader of the Opposition has never . . .

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. D. Miller: . . . come clean with respect to the involvement of the Liberal caucus in this affair.

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. D. Miller: They have never come clean, and I suspect they won't come clean.

The Speaker: Minister, take your seat, please.

Second supplementary, Leader of the Official Opposition.

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, how can we judge an answer to a question when we don't get the answer? The question is very straightforward. The fact is that the Deputy Premier doesn't have a clue about the answer to this question. The person who may know the answer to this question, who does know the answer to this question, is who it's directed to. The question is to the Premier; it is only to the Premier. Did he or did he not pay the full market value for the labour costs on his home renovations? Yes or no?

[1415]

Hon. D. Miller: Again it's clear, or it seems to be . . . . Facts are starting to emerge now with respect to the involvement of the Liberal caucus and the Leader of the Opposition in this affair. Meetings with the RCMP -- they've never been forthcoming about that. The Leader of the Opposition says that he doesn't know. They have never been forthcoming. I think they've got some questions to answer. Quite frankly, it will be very, very interesting when all of these issues are investigated -- when all of this material sees the light of day -- with respect to the role of the Liberal caucus in this affair.

Interjections.

[ Page 11790 ]

The Speaker: Members, members.

M. de Jong: What a pathetic spectacle, when the Premier of the province is prepared to have taxpayers foot the bill for his legal defence team and doesn't have the decency to stand up in this House and answer simple questions like those we just heard.

Was the Premier billed, and did he pay the labour costs associated with the construction of the deck on his home in Vancouver -- yes or no?

Hon. D. Miller: I can appreciate, as I said a couple of days ago . . . . I think I understand why the Liberal caucus are asking questions, why they're rolling around in the dirt. It's because they think there's some political gain.

I want to reiterate a point that's been made in this House, a point that I think is fundamental in terms of holding public office and the vagaries of public office. Anybody in this chamber, by virtue of the fact that they hold public office, can be embroiled in legal issues that require legal representation. There is a fundamental principle when that happens. When that happens, the province or the state covers those legal costs. It's a fair policy. It's a policy that applies in other parts of Canada; it's a policy that applies to the Premier and applies to other members of this chamber.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. D. Miller: And there is nothing wrong with that policy, hon. Speaker.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Matsqui.

M. de Jong: And presumably it's a policy that presumes that the Premier will have the courage to stand up and answer the questions, Madam Speaker. He hasn't got that courage.

This is the Premier who began by saying: "We see each other occasionally." Then the story became: "We vacation together." Then we learned that the Premier gives the gentleman gifts. British Columbians want to know if he paid for the labour. Or was there another gift involved here that the Premier just hasn't got around to telling us about yet?

Hon. D. Miller: The questioner, the member for Matsqui, is the person who settled a court suit out of court -- confidential -- that has never seen the light of day. So when the law suits his purpose, to keep matters confidential, he has no difficulty whatsoever. I suggest that there is some level of hypocrisy with respect to that member and the line of questioning that he's pursuing.

G. Farrell-Collins: The question to the Premier is a very simple one. To the Premier of the province of British Columbia, who had a very good friend who got an approval in principle for a multimillion-dollar casino licence: did or did not the Premier pay for the full value -- the full value -- of the labour on the renovations to his home -- yes or no? The people of British Columbia deserve an answer to that question.

[1420]

Hon. D. Miller: I'll make two points. One is that the Minister of Employment and Investment answered yesterday or the day before specific questions relative to the casino licence. They're on the record. And the characterization by that member is absolutely incorrect. Secondly, I am not certain that the private lives of any members of this chamber, including the Premier or anybody else, are of particular significance to the public. I know that I do lots of things in my private life that have no bearing, and I venture to say that there are things done in private lives across the way . . .

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. D. Miller: . . . that have no bearing whatsoever in terms of their public duties. In fact, there may be things . . .

The Speaker: Minister . . . .

Hon. D. Miller: . . . that they might not even want the public to know about, but this is not the place to ask those questions.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain.

G. Farrell-Collins: The Premier knows full well that this has ceased to be a private issue. When Mr. Pilarinos applied for a multimillion-dollar casino licence, it became a public issue. This wasn't just some friend of the Premier helping him out. What the people of British Columbia want to know is: when Mr. Pilarinos, who had an application before his government for a multimillion-dollar casino licence, did work on the Premier's private residence, did he pay the full cost of those renovations -- yes or no? The people of B.C. have a right to hear an answer to that question.

Hon. D. Miller: In due course, the processes that we have in place in this province will answer all of the questions that the public, I think, has a right to know the answers to. We'll answer all of those questions.

But it's also clear . . . . I hope those public processes also answer the questions that I posed today, and that increasingly, I am being asked. That is, what is the role of the Liberal caucus, which we know -- at least their representatives -- met two, three, four times with the police on this question? We know that they've received information. We know that the Leader of the Opposition says: "Trust me. I don't know what's in it." That's what he says. Why should we trust the Leader of the Opposition more than we would trust any other member in this chamber? That's the kind of question, I think, that people are looking forward to the answer to.

G. Plant: It's a simple question. You would think that if the answer were, "Yes, I paid the full market value for the labour for the renovation on my house," the Premier would stand up and give it. But he won't. Let me give him another chance -- you never know. So my question is to the Premier. Did he or did he not pay the full market cost for the renovation on his home, including the labour -- yes or no?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. D. Miller: I'm starting to feel as though I'm repeating myself. I know for a fact that the opposition are repeating

[ Page 11791 ]

themselves. I want to go back to an answer I gave to the same question; I think it's been asked for the time we've been here. I did say that there are questions that I think are appropriate with respect to public policy issues.

There are questions that, it seems to me, have no bearing on public policy issues, and that is when they concern the private lives of members of this chamber. While the opposition persists in asking the same question on the basis that they think it has some bearing, I would caution them on that point.

I would remind people that there is a process in place. Questions will be resolved. There are legal proceedings in place. There will be an end to those processes. All of these issues will see the light of day. I think there might be some surprised people.

[1425]

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

G. Plant: The public business of British Columbia is being brought to a grinding halt because the Premier will not answer the questions that British Columbians are entitled to know the answers to. I wasn't there last week for true confessions; I wasn't there last week when the Premier and his lawyer came in and told their caucus members -- had a little true-confessions session with their caucus. Who knows how many people there know the answer to this question, in addition to the Premier?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, order, please. Members will come to order. Government-side members, please come to order. We haven't heard the question yet, which I know is imminent.

G. Plant: It's time for the Premier to come clean with British Columbians. Did he or did he not pay the full market value for the renovation done to his home -- yes or no?

The Speaker: I recognize the Premier.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members . . . .

Hon. D. Miller: Order, order!

The Speaker: The minister will take his seat. The Chair is not going to recognize anyone. Order will come to this House. Both sides of the House will remember the rules of this House -- language usage in this House and interruptions in this House. I'm now going to ask the Premier to respond to the question.

Hon. G. Clark: As the members know, I've stated repeatedly that I paid every invoice that came to me with respect to the deck of my house. And the members may know -- and I read it in the Vancouver Sun , so it must be true . . . . They asked several contractors about the cost of this, having looked at the blueprints, and they were roughly comparable. I have nothing to worry about in that respect. I want members opposite to recognize that there are two processes in place dealing with this and all matters related to this. One is a process with respect to the RCMP, which troubles me greatly.

I wish I could answer all of these questions and deal with it. And members know that I prefer to do that, both in this chamber and outside. All of that will be resolved, and I will be completely vindicated.

Secondly, there is a conflict-of-interest-commissioner investigation, which I requested. If the members opposite have any concerns at all with respect to benefits or declarations or what should happen, then they should go to the conflict-of-interest commissioner, who will do a full, exhaustive review. And I will be completely vindicated of that as well.

Finally, hon. Speaker, I want to say this: far from being paralyzed, this government was proud of announcing . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members . . . .

Hon. G. Clark: . . . yesterday 1,000 more nurses for our health care system. We are proud of the completion of the tower at Vancouver General Hospital. We are proud of the investments in health care that we are making, and every day from now on during this session of the House, we will make investments in health and education, we'll ratify the Nis g a'a treaty, and we'll get on with the kinds of things that we on this side . . .

The Speaker: Premier, thank you.

Hon. G. Clark: . . . of the House believe in, rather than muckraking, which the members opposite are attempting to engage in.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, the House will come to order. All members of the House will come to order.

Interjections.

[1430]

The Speaker: Members, the Chair is patient; we can wait all afternoon if you like, if this is what you prefer to do. I suggest you come to order. Ministers of the Crown will come to order.

Ministerial Statement

PREPARATIONS FOR SNOWPACK FLOODING

Hon. C. McGregor: I'm very pleased to talk today about some of the business that's going on in this House on the part of government and, in fact, to speak to one of the very important issues facing government and all British Columbians. That is the unusually high snowpack, which has resulted in an

[ Page 11792 ]

increased potential for major flooding across southern British Columbia, should a rapid runoff occur later this spring. Although we cannot control Mother Nature or prevent natural events such as floods from taking place, it is vital that we do everything we can to be prepared for them. As British Columbians, we're all becoming more concerned, as a result of recent media reports, about the possible damage to communities and personal residences. Today I want to ensure that all citizens are aware of the actions that the province is taking to prepare British Columbians and their communities in the event of major flooding, including the immediate steps we are taking to mitigate potential damage.

This morning I was joined by my colleague the Attorney General to announce more than $4 million in funding for 49 critical projects designed to strengthen dikes and riverbanks in high-risk areas across the province. These funds are going directly to local governments immediately, so that the work gets underway and can be completed in time for possible flooding in May and June.

The funded projects were all proposed by local governments, who were asked to identify projects which could be quickly and immediately done and which would provide an immediate safety net to protect lives and property from the risk of flooding. The selection was carried out by technical staff from my ministry, provincial emergency program staff and the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, based on the risk of flooding in the area, the benefits that the work would provide and the very tight time lines under which we are operating.

With this new flooding, the province has spent more than $11 million on flood prevention work throughout B.C. over the past three years. We've also been taking other steps to prepare for possible flooding this spring. We're working closely with local governments, dam owners and diking authorities, providing them with information and reminding them of their responsibilities to maintain dams, bridges and flood protection works. We've asked them to inspect their facilities to make sure that they're structurally sound, to withstand high river levels.

As well, my ministry is doing helicopter reconnaissance to inspect critical dams to ensure their continuous safe operation. B.C. Hydro is examining its capability of increasing water storage in some reservoirs where river levels are high, to help reduce downstream flows which could contribute to flooding. The provincial emergency program is increasing inventory of sandbags and locating sand-filling machines in critical areas around the province.

Later this month, as we become more aware of possible flooding potential, PEP will be prepared to set up provincial field response centres in Nanaimo, Surrey, Kamloops, Prince George, Terrace and Nelson. As the flood risk increases, we will work with affected communities and will have funding available for emergency work requiring provincial support to prevent flood damage.

The province is also working closely with farmers and the food industry to ensure that they are prepared. This includes updating lists of storage facilities, truckers, feed suppliers and services that would be useful to the farm community and emergency officials if livestock evacuation or care is required.

Provincial staff are also continuing to monitor snowpacks and stream levels. Updates on snowpack conditions are also posted regularly on the Internet by the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks.

In addition, comprehensive information is being provided to the public on a wide range of flood-related issues, including local responsibility and community involvement, flood safety and floodproofing precautions for homeowners. Information on flood safety, snowpack levels and flooding potential will be provided, of course, to all constituency offices, government agents, local ministry offices and provincial and local news media.

As members are aware, detailed briefings on the current situation, on preparation measures being taken and on the province's flood protection plan have been arranged for all members of this House. I urge all members to take advantage of these opportunities, to assist them in keeping their constituents and local communities informed and prepared as government continues to monitor and act to prepare for possible flooding.

We will continue to take the steps that are needed to minimize property damage and economic loss and, above all, to ensure the safety and well-being of British Columbians and their families.

[1435]

M. Coell: I thank the minister for that update. This issue is of concern to all members of this House, and I want to assure the minister and the government that from this side of the House we will be doing what we can to help on this issue. We support the actions taken by PEP, by local government and by your provincial staff to ensure that safety is there for our citizens and that safety is also there for the communities that are involved in this issue.

A. Sanders: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

A. Sanders: In the gallery somewhere -- I can't see them -- are Debbie Hamilton and her son Eric from Vernon. I welcome them to Victoria.

V. Anderson: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

V. Anderson: I would like to ask the House to welcome the second group from Sir Winston Churchill Secondary School, who will be in the precincts now. I'm delighted to have them here to share in the discussions which will be forthcoming.

Hon. G. Clark: I'd like leave as well, if I could, hon. Speaker, to make just a brief thank-you on behalf of the members.

Leave granted.

Hon. G. Clark: I understand that today -- certainly in the cabinet room and I think throughout the Legislature -- samosas and sweets were given by a Sikh community in Vancouver, as a tercentenary . . . . Mr. Jarnail Bhandal, who's president of the Ross Street Temple, and Balwant Gill, who is president of the Guru Nanak Temple in the Surrey-Delta

[ Page 11793 ]

area, sent a letter -- to us at least -- with the token gifts as a celebration of the tercentenary of the birth of the Khalsa. I think all members got that.

On behalf of all members of the House, perhaps we could send our appreciation for that gift and to once again, of course, celebrate the tercentenary. Perhaps I could be so bold as to suggest that both the Leader of the Opposition and I, with the Speaker's indulgence, sign a letter thanking them for that small token.

S. Hawkins: Hon. Speaker, I'm glad the Premier recognized the community for doing that. This side of the House enjoyed the goodies very much. I have to say that I did make the comment that I thought they weren't as good as my mom's, but that's just a personal opinion. We did enjoy them very much, and we would like to extend our thank-you as well.

Orders of the Day

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

[1440]

NIS G A'A FINAL AGREEMENT ACT

(continued)

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

On the schedule,

chapter 11 (continued).

M. de Jong: When we left off in

chapter 11, we were dealing with

section 9, I think -- the

section dealing with the provision for a Nis g a'a constitution. I guess the initial question that arises out of that . . . . The referendum has taken place. The

section requires that the Nis g a'a constitution be consistent with this agreement. The agreement is complicated; the constitution that will give birth to Nis g a'a government and govern its activities is therefore necessarily complicated.

But the question is: has the government of British Columbia reviewed that document? Is it satisfied that the Nis g a'a constitution is consistent with the agreement? Can the Attorney General, if he is the minister who's taking these questions, provide an explanation of the review process that has taken place thus far to ensure that

section 9 of this treaty is complied with?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The answer is yes. It is consistent with this agreement, and that has been determined upon review of the constitution by a senior ministry lawyer.

M. de Jong: Can I ask the Attorney General: did that review exercise take place prior to the Nis g a'a referendum or following?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Both.

M. de Jong: Can the Attorney General indicate at what point he and the government received notice from their officials that the constitution, as envisaged by this agreement, was consistent with the agreement pursuant to

section 9?

[1445]

Interjection.

M. de Jong: I'm not sure who undertook the review process on behalf of government. Presumably that is the person from whom the Attorney General would have received that information.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It's the Ministry of Attorney General that undertook the review. I have received that assurance from the ministry -- several times, actually -- in briefings that I have had.

M. de Jong: So is it the position of the government, then, that the Nis g a'a constitution complies entirely with the provisions of this agreement? Or did the Attorney General, in the course of receiving the information he has alluded to, also receive information that suggested that any provision of the Nis g a'a agreement might run afoul of or might be of questionable validity when compared to the text of the draft treaty?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I have assured myself, from discussions with the ministry, that the appropriate due diligence has been done in reviewing the document, and I have been advised so. Based on my discussions, I'm of the view that the provision in paragraph 9 -- the first sentence -- is complied with and that the constitution is not inconsistent with this agreement.

M. de Jong: Did the Attorney General receive a written opinion to that effect?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Well, first of all, we know that the practice in the Attorney General ministry is that even if I'm relying on an opinion from within the ministry or outside of the ministry, those opinions are generally never referred to or released. I have assured myself, upon discussions with the ministry, that they have done due diligence, and I'm satisfied that this provision has been complied with.

M. de Jong: Well, I'm aware of what the public and the opposition are entitled to in terms of the release of opinions provided to the Attorney General. At this point, all I'm asking is whether a written opinion was prepared. I'm mindful, by the way, of the fact that the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs took pains to point out that the government was so concerned about the accuracy of the documentation that they didn't trust the translation into the French language that was taking place in Ottawa. That's how concerned the British Columbia government was that the document be accurate in every sense of the word.

I'm not asking the minister necessarily to release the written opinion; I'm asking him if there was one prepared.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that no written legal opinion has been concluded. However, I have been verbally advised by the ministry -- several times, not just once -- that the document has been reviewed.

[1450]

M. de Jong: It seems to me that it would be of interest to the Nis g a'a government itself as to what the government's position is with respect to the constitution that they have now ratified via a referendum. I'm curious as to whether or not the

[ Page 11794 ]

government or the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs has communicated to the Nis g a'a the position that the Attorney General has laid out for us here today in this committee.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that the Nis g a'a lawyer is aware of that fact. Obviously, once this legislation is passed and the federal legislation is passed, we're prepared to sign the agreement.

M. de Jong: Again, when the Attorney General indicates that the lawyer for the Nis g a'a is aware of the fact, the question begs asking: was the government's position on this matter communicated orally or in writing? I guess the essence of these questions, of course, is that should this become an issue at some point in the future -- an issue that either the government or perhaps an individual challenging some provision of the Nis g a'a constitution wishes to raise, as this agreement in fact contemplates -- it's important that we be clear on what the government's position is, what its understanding is and to what extent that position has been communicated to the other parties.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think that upon the passage of this legislation and the federal legislation -- once the agreement has been signed -- it will become clear to all that the Nis g a'a constitution is consistent with this agreement. That's why we're prepared to sign the agreement and proceed.

G. Plant: I guess I'm just having a hard time connecting the enactment-ratification of the treaty by governments with the proposition that that constitutes evidence that the governments are of the view that the Nis g a'a constitution is consistent with the agreement. The constitution is a document outside the agreement. Paragraph 9, of course, speaks prospectively, so it happens to be the case that there is now already a document which purports to be the Nis g a'a constitution.

But nothing in the fact that the governments are going to ratify the agreement is evidence that I would have thought would support the argument that the Nis g a'a nation has complied with its obligation under paragraph 9.

Maybe it's just simply this. The public is taken to know the fact that the constitution of the Nis g a'a nation has been prepared, exists and has been approved in accordance with the ratification chapter. The government of British Columbia knows those facts to exist. The logic then is that if the government of British Columbia had a problem with the Nis g a'a constitution, it would withhold ratification of the treaty until such time as the constitution complied with the obligations in paragraph 9. I'm not sure that that would be acceptable logic, but I can't see any other logic supporting the Attorney General's statement.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Firstly, I've said several times, actually -- not just once -- that in our view, that constitution is consistent with this agreement. That is not a precondition to signing this. However, when you look at all of the processes that have been gone through, including the fact that the Attorney General is saying that the constitution is consistent . . . . We continue to proceed and sign this treaty. All of that simply means that everything is in order.

Even if the constitution was not approved at this time, that would not be a hindrance to signing the agreement, because this particular paragraph imposes an obligation on the Nis g a'a to have a constitution that's consistent with the agreement. And I'm not at all afraid that they would do otherwise.

[1455]

Interjections.

M. de Jong: I sense a government filibuster, hon. Chair.

The Chair: You have the floor, member.

M. de Jong: This provision, which lays out the framework -- those issues that must be dealt with within the Nis g a'a constitution . . . . I suppose that as the drafters were looking at this, the debate was to what extent you were going to prescribe and dictate -- and I don't mean that in a pejorative way -- what was going to be in the constitution, versus the whole notion of self-government, which was to leave as much room as possible for the Nis g a'a themselves to determine how that government was going to be shaped and what was going to be dealt with within the constitution.

One of the things that is very specific, however, is set out in 9(a). It lists, for lack of a better word, the levels of government that must exist, which must be set out in the Nis g a'a constitution -- the central government versus the village governments. Regardless of how society in the Nass Valley evolves, grows or shrinks, those levels of government must always be there.

Already we have had the exchange. The Attorney General has heard my views, my concerns about overgovernment. That degree of government is enshrined forever more by virtue of how the drafters of this treaty have chosen to deal with that issue in 9(a). I'm curious to know the rationale behind that approach. The simple answer would be that other provisions of the treaty contemplate village government, and other provisions of the treaty discuss central government. Yet in this

section we are compelling the Nis g a'a, a relatively small population, to have what is, in my view -- as I've already identified to the Attorney General -- a degree of government that is ultimately unsustainable. But I've made my speech; the Attorney General can respond.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: In addition to the rationale that the hon. member has put forth -- with which, in fact, I agree -- this is by agreement. This is what the Nis g a'a wanted; this is what British Columbia and the federal government agreed to as part of the negotiations. The Nis g a'a saw fit to govern themselves with these two levels of government. If they require to have that changed, which is purely for their internal purposes, they could approach the provincial and federal governments to enter into negotiations to change this.

Interjection.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It will also -- if you look at subparagraph (f), as just pointed out to me -- "provide for the creation, continuation, amalgamation, dissolution, naming, or renaming of: (

i) Nis g a'a Villages on Nis g a'a Lands, and (ii) Nis g a'a Urban Locals." So there is some flexibility there.

[1500]

M. de Jong: That was going to be my second technical question. What does this provision require? There must be a Nis g a'a Lisims government and Nis g a'a village governments. What's the threshold? What's the triggering event for the need to have a village government? What does this tell us about the

[ Page 11795 ]

number? We know how many villages there are presently. Is that number carved in stone? How do subparagraphs (

a) and (

f) operate to allow for or require the increase in the number of village governments or require the elimination of village governments without this treaty document being amended?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think that those villages or village governments can go up or down in number, as the Nis g a'a may choose. This is for their internal purposes. It's appropriate that they have that kind of flexibility.

M. de Jong: Well, maybe the Attorney General can help me with this. What are the funding implications with respect to the cost of Nis g a'a central government, village government, if the decision is made by the Nis g a'a to designate a new village? It might, by our standards, be a very small village. But are there funding implications associated with the costs of government that we know are going to be largely -- or a significant portion of those costs -- borne by the taxpayers outside of the Nass Valley?

Hon. G. Wilson: The answer is that there will be no funding implications, and that will be spelled out when we get into the fiscal chapter.

M. de Jong: Well, I think we will explore that issue at that point in terms of the formulas and how they operate. I'm not going to belabour the point, but surely the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs will agree that the addition of another local government has cost implications that become a factor when cost-sharing formulas are calculated and when funding agreements are renegotiated.

Hon. G. Wilson: I think that when we get into the

chapter that deals with this, we'll see that any additional cost implications that may be there will be borne by the Nis g a'a. It's their decision -- their cost -- if they should choose to do that.

M. de Jong: Sorry, I thought I heard the minister say that if there were any cost implications -- and I didn't hear everything he said, so I don't want to misspeak what the minister said -- they would be borne entirely by the Nis g a'a. Is that what the minister said?

Hon. G. Wilson: Yes, that's correct, and we can explore that in detail in that fiscal relations chapter.

M. de Jong: We will explore it. I just want the record to show that I'm not sure I agree with the minister.

My colleague has some questions.

G. Plant: I understand that the agreement intends to create some flexibility around how many Nis g a'a village governments can exist from time to time. There is even a definition of "Nis g a'a village" back in the

definitions section, although it identifies four villages and then speaks of additional villages. Paragraph 9(

f) speaks of the possibility of dissolution of Nis g a'a villages on Nis g a'a lands, and as my colleague from Matsqui has pointed out, 9(

a) requires the Nis g a'a to have a constitution that will provide for Nis g a'a village governments. From the government's perspective, do all of these provisions work together in a way that would permit the Nis g a'a, if they saw it to be in their interests to do so, to dissolve all four of the existing village governments and simply run their affairs through the central government? Or is that overreaching the scope of the scheme here?

[1505]

Hon. G. Wilson: I think we're sort of delving into the realm of the theoretical. I suppose that theoretically it may be possible, but it's certainly based on many, many years of governance in the Nis g a'a. It's quite unlikely.

G. Plant: I actually can't remember enough of my history of the Nass to say that I can agree with the minister's statement. I certainly know that in the Skeena within the last century, for example, there have been a number of new Gitxsan villages created for a variety of reasons. A century is actually a pretty reasonable time window to be looking at for the kind of commitments that are talked about here.

I agree with the minister that we are in the realm of speculation, but I think the context for the question was originally set by the concern about how much of this is going to entrench something that is perhaps inappropriately inflexible. So what the question looks for is the level of potential flexibility that's built into the treaty. If the minister's view is that, should the need arise, there is flexibility for the Nis g a'a at the least both to increase the number of village governments and to reduce them, then that's an answer to the concern, at least in that particular context.

Hon. G. Wilson: Yes, I think that's true. Just to underscore the member's observation, I think that Kincolith was established some time around the turn of the century.

Interjection.

Hon. G. Wilson: Right, New Aiyansh -- exactly.

I think that there is flexibility there on both sides.

K. Krueger: In the interaction of the Nis g a'a constitution and this draft agreement, noting that there's provision, of course, for authority to make laws and to enact those laws . . . . And there's subclause (c): " . . . assign to Nis g a'a Lisims Government and Nis g a'a Village Governments the rights, powers, privileges, and responsibilities under this Agreement that are not specifically assigned . . . " elsewhere. I'm wondering if the Nis g a'a, anywhere within the interaction of these documents, are denied the authority to write a Nis g a'a labour code.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The Nis g a'a don't have the authority to write a labour code.

K. Krueger: In searching the documents, I've been unable to find how they are prevented from having that authority. There are frequent references to cultural areas and so on, which arguably could include issues such as the writing of a labour code. Certainly we can deal with those as we come to them, but it would be helpful if the Attorney General or the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs could direct me to the provisions that specifically prohibit the Nis g a'a from having the authority to write a labour code or, for example, an employment standards act.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: If the hon. member goes to sections 64 to 67, it's paragraph 67 that deals with that issue.

[ Page 11796 ]

K. Krueger: I've studied paragraph 67, and I'll respectfully disagree, for the time being. It certainly deals with the format and proper procedures, and so on, if the Nis g a'a are before the provincial Labour Relations Board and so on. But I don't see where it precludes the Nis g a'a from writing their own labour code.

This is a topical issue for all of us, I think, but certainly in Kamloops, where the Kamloops Indian band has written its own labour code. The labour code prevents strikes by employees; it also prevents union dues collection, as I understand it. I couldn't see in this document any firm prohibition of actually writing law with regard to labour relations matters.

I'll accept the Attorney General's opinion for the moment. I'd like a comment from the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, if he'd like to give one. Perhaps we'll deal with the issue in a number of different areas as it comes up.

[1510]

Hon. G. Wilson: I know that the member opposite, being from Kamloops and making reference to the proposals that are being made by Chief Manny Jules with respect to a national labour code for first nations people, which is in the proposal stage . . . . It's certainly not there yet and may not get there.

This agreement does not provide the powers. In fact, I think, as the Attorney General has pointed out, that

section 67 puts a bar of sorts against that. We're about to sign an AIP on Friday with the Sechelts. That also does not provide for it. In fact, they're unionized IWA. I don't think this is an issue that the member needs to have concern about with respect to Nis g a'a.

M. de Jong: Just moving further through

section 9, there are provisions . . . . I recognize that what we're dealing with here is the framework for the Nis g a'a constitution. In a couple of these subsections -- and I'm looking now at subsection (k) -- the issue of Nis g a'a governmental accountability is dealt with. This is an issue that has been the source of much public debate -- quite frankly, an issue that the opposition, myself included, has spent some degree of energy commenting upon.

It is the notion that the negotiators to this treaty sought -- by virtue of these provisions and others, and some of the definition sections and how those defined terms are utilized throughout the text of the agreement -- and chose very purposely, I think, to ensure that to the extent that there would be democratic accountability by Nis g a'a government, it would be to Nis g a'a citizens only. It won't surprise the Attorney General to know that there are people who are troubled by that notion, insofar as this is a part of British Columbia where non-Nis g a'a citizens reside and may reside in the future.

There were some alternatives available to the drafters of the document, when they were dealing in general terms with the notion of democratic accountability, to seek the ratification of a constitution that would compel Nis g a'a government to be accountable to people residing on Nis g a'a lands or in the Nass Valley or subject to Nis g a'a laws. Those were alternative approaches that would have precluded the possibility that democratic accountability would stop short of all the people residing in the area or subject to the laws being passed by the government that this constitution creates.

The drafters chose a different course, and I think they did it purposely. I think they did it for reasons that the Attorney General will articulate now. I think the Attorney General knows that it is an aspect of this treaty that troubles the opposition and people who see this as a fundamental departure from a principle that heretofore has been at the heart of Canadian democratic principles.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: With the utmost respect, I want to say to the hon. member that what the hon. member is engaging in now is a philosophical debate and is second reading debate. The hon. member isn't talking about the scope of the section. The hon. member wants to ask for reasons why the

section has been limited the way it has been. I want to point out to the hon. member that there are other sections and paragraphs in this

chapter that deal with relations with individuals who aren't Nis g a'a citizens, for their participation in decisions that might affect them.

The rationale for doing what was done has been articulated many times both here inside the chamber and outside. That is that the Nis g a'a agreement is concerned mainly with the preservation of Nis g a'a heritage, Nis g a'a culture, Nis g a'a language and Nis g a'a traditions on Nis g a'a lands within the territory that's mentioned in this particular treaty. I think it's important that we view it in that context. This treaty is not aimed at excluding people who might be impacted by those decisions. That impact is taken into account through other sections, through other checks and balances in this treaty.

[1515]

M. de Jong: Well, I don't have to agree with the latter part of the Attorney General's remarks to acknowledge that he has an argument that he wants to present with respect to this particular section. I do, however, take some exception to the notion that it is inappropriate to raise the issue at this juncture. It is a philosophical discussion at one level, but it relates to a very specific provision of the agreement -- that is, a decision that the drafters took relating to whom Nis g a'a government would be accountable. I think that's a fundamental issue.

In the subsequent sections, we deal with things like voting rights, but this relates to the broader notion of governmental accountability. The drafters of this agreement have said very specifically that the government that arises out of the constitution that this

section contemplates need not be accountable to anyone who doesn't fall within the definition of "Nis g a'a citizen" -- which is itself a defined term -- and the determination of who will be a Nis g a'a citizen falls exclusively to the Nis g a'a themselves. So I don't think it's an esoteric point . . . .

G. Plant: That's a sort of circular definition.

M. de Jong: Yeah.

I think what has happened here is that a group of people have been excluded. A group of people who do not fall within the definition of Nis g a'a citizen -- who may live in the area, who may live on Nis g a'a lands, who may and will be subject to certain Nis g a'a laws -- are excluded. The Attorney General can try to dismiss that as somehow being insignificant; I don't. In fairness to the Attorney General, I think he appreciates the differing philosophy, but I want to try again to compel the Attorney General to offer a better defence or explanation for why those people who have been excluded pursuant to this

section and who will be excluded pursuant to this

section should not feel aggrieved.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: This is a treaty that has been agreed upon, pursuant to due deliberation amongst the Nis g a'a, the

[ Page 11797 ]

federal government and the provincial government. I think it's important that we recognize that. It's also important that we recognize that this particular agreement is about the obligations and the rights of the Nis g a'a as contained within this document. I know the hon. member wants to engage in a larger discussion. I have said before, very clearly, that this is the subject of a court action launched by the hon. members opposite, and I think the court will deal with those issues. We believe that what has been done is appropriate, and we are ready to proceed.

M. de Jong: Before I turn it over to my colleague, let me, to the extent I can, try to put the Attorney General's mind at ease. I'm not approaching this subject with a view, at this point at least, to garnering ammunition for some ongoing court challenge. In fact, that hadn't occurred to me until the Attorney General referred to it. Yes, that is part and parcel of what . . . . That is an aspect of an argument that is before the courts. But it relates -- insofar as the

section we are discussing here -- to how this Attorney General and this government believe it is appropriate that a notion of governmental accountability would be limited to a specific group of people and exclude another group of people who will be subject, in part at least, to the jurisdiction of that government. That is what this constitution contemplates by virtue of how it is going to be created pursuant to

section 9.

[1520]

I've not heard, in spite of what the Attorney General has said, an explanation from the government -- least of all the Attorney General -- as to how that is consistent with the broader notion of overall governmental accountability. When we start to carve off groups of people and say by implication, "Government will not be accountable to you, but it will be to your neighbour," then I think we've got some problems. But the object of this discussion was not and is not to somehow feather the nest of a future legal argument.

G. Plant: I approach the issue from the same perspective as my colleague. I know that we're not going to resolve at least the philosophical issues, if that's the correct term, although I think they are in fact directly engaged by this provision.

I want to explore again, from just a slightly different perspective, what I see as the problem with the scope of the obligation imposed on the Nis g a'a under paragraph 9(k). The Attorney General referred earlier in the discussion to other provisions in

chapter 11, in the context of discussing the issue of relations between Nis g a'a government and non-Nis g a'a citizens. I think that reference is appropriate, in the sense that we're not going to understand the totality of that relationship without exploring those provisions. I guess that the most important of those provisions are in paragraphs 19 through 23. We'll get to them.

It could be argued that a government which is subject to the obligations that are set out in paragraphs 19 to 23, in respect of non-Nis g a'a citizens, is a government that is democratically accountable to non-Nis g a'a citizens. If that were an argument that was being made, then we could argue about whether or not rights of consultation are equivalent to voting rights on the scale of what does and does not count for democratic accountability. But if that were the argument, then it would be entirely consistent with draft paragraph (

k) in a way that extended the obligation for democratic accountability to non-Nis g a'a citizens, because that form of accountability would be, arguably, no more and no less than the form of accountability that arises under paragraphs 19 through 23.

But that's not how paragraph (

k) is worded. Paragraph (

k) expressly limits the obligation that Nis g a'a government be democratically accountable to Nis g a'a citizens. Therefore it has to be said that there is no obligation on Nis g a'a government, under their constitution, to be democratically accountable to non-Nis g a'a citizens. I think that this is wrong in principle. I also think that it is unnecessary to achieve even the government's public policy purposes in respect to this treaty -- which I don't agree with in a number of important respects.

But even to achieve those purposes, I don't think it is necessary to exclude non-Nis g a'a citizens from the scope of the obligation on the part of Nis g a'a government to be democratically accountable.

[1525]

The fact is that Nis g a'a government will have some lawmaking authority which in some instances will extend to non-Nis g a'a citizens. The fact is that Nis g a'a government will be able to make decisions that affect non-Nis g a'a citizens. Yet this clause, by the reverse operation of its plain language, does not impose any obligation on Nis g a'a government to be democratically accountable to non-Nis g a'a citizens.

I would suggest that substantially all of the people who are non-Nis g a'a citizens who will be caught in this gap are people to whom the government of British Columbia is now democratically accountable -- but will no longer be, at least in respect of those areas where Nis g a'a government will have constitutional ability to make laws and to apply authority to non-Nis g a'a citizens. So it seems to me that one question which is entirely legitimate in this context is: what is the basis upon which the government of British Columbia has, essentially, abandoned its accountability to those non-Nis g a'a citizens who will be subject to Nis g a'a lawmaking and decision-making authority?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: We don't think that's the result.

G. Plant: Now, it may be that the Attorney General and I are proceeding from different premises in one respect, and I can imagine what that difference is. It may be that the Attorney General is of the view that Nis g a'a government will not have the power to make decisions that affect non-Nis g a'a citizens. My own view is that Nis g a'a government will have the power to make decisions that will affect non-Nis g a'a citizens.

Because we're talking about laws, we're talking about situations where non-Nis g a'a citizens won't have the ability to opt out of that; neither will they be able to hold the institutions of the government of British Columbia to account for those matters. So I'm not sure how it is that the Attorney General says that they haven't abandoned those non-Nis g a'a citizens, in the context that we're describing.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: This in no way diminishes the accountability of the government of British Columbia; obviously that is intact. Obviously this -- 9(k) -- is a minimum requirement. It doesn't place any limit on the government. The Nis g a'a government itself may pass different rules or regulations with respect to qualifications of voters and who can become a Nis g a'a citizen. Those are issues that they can deal with. To say that this excludes, for all time, the participation . . . is not true.

I just want to say, as I said earlier, that this is about Nis g a'a culture, Nis g a'a land, Nis g a'a heritage and Nis g a'a

[ Page 11798 ]

traditions. That's why the treaty has been agreed upon as it has been. Every care has been taken to make sure that we deal with other issues appropriately, and we've negotiated those issues.

[1530]

I think it's important that we not forget that while the hon. member may argue -- and I'm not suggesting that I accept the hon. member's argument -- that Nis g a'a government wouldn't be accountable to other non-Nis g a'a on the land . . . . However, there are enough mechanisms in this treaty to make sure that that government would be responsive to the people who are living on Nis g a'a lands, be they Nis g a'a or non-Nis g a'a.

G. Plant: To summarize the last part of what the Attorney General has said -- and if I'm summarizing it incorrectly, I'm sure that he'll correct me -- he's saying that protections that exist in respect of non-Nis g a'a citizens aren't found in paragraph 9(k), but they're found in paragraphs 19 through 23. Is that correct?

The Chair: Could you repeat your question, member.

G. Plant: I wanted to restate the Attorney General's explanation of a moment ago and then invited him to correct me if I was wrong. I suggested that what the Attorney General was saying was that the comfort, if you will, or the protections that exist in respect of non-Nis g a'a citizens are those found in paragraphs 19 through 23, not those found in paragraph 9(k).

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think those -- paragraphs 19 to 23 inclusive -- are the paragraphs. There are other paragraphs that we will come to that might not be as specific but do deal with these issues.

G. Plant: The Attorney General referred to the obligation in paragraph 9(

k) as a minimum obligation. I believe that was what he intended to say -- that is, to imply that it would be open to the Nis g a'a government to expand the zone of its protection. I know, for example, there's been some discussion about the possibility that the Nis g a'a government would pass laws in respect of Nis g a'a citizenship that might include persons who are not Nis g a'a by descent -- people who live in Nis g a'a lands -- and therefore those individuals might acquire some of the democratic rights that are extended to Nis g a'a citizens. I assume that's the kind of thing that the Attorney General had in mind when he made that statement.

I want to ask a question, though, because there are at least a couple of ways that that result could be arrived at. The first is that the Nis g a'a constitution could in fact go further than paragraph 9(k). The Nis g a'a constitution could require that the Nis g a'a government be democratically accountable to all persons who are subject to its authority, or it could provide that the Nis g a'a government be democratically accountable within the limits of its authority to Nis g a'a and non-Nis g a'a citizens. I have briefly seen the Nis g a'a constitution, but not for many weeks.

So my question for the Attorney General is: is he able to say whether the Nis g a'a constitution itself in fact expands the range of its protection along the lines that I talked about, or does it essentially track paragraph 9(

k) exactly?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: There is the ability to make laws about qualifications of voters, and once made, we will know what they are. But there is still the ability to do that with the Nis g a'a.

G. Plant: I know that there are requirements with respect to registers of laws and so on. Is the Nis g a'a constitution a public document?

[1535]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: The Attorney General will then have to forgive me for asking a question which I could get the answer to by getting out the constitution. I want to ask the Attorney General if he is able to look at the part of the constitution which complies with the requirement that is the subject of paragraph 9(

k) in

chapter 11 and if he is able to inform the House whether that part of the Nis g a'a constitution simply tracks the language of 9(

k) or goes further than 9(k).

I can help the Attorney General in one respect. We'll come back to the issue that he dealt with in his last answer in terms of whether the constitution permits Nis g a'a government to make the laws that he has indicated. If I could impose on him just to clear up this one detail about the scope of the Nis g a'a constitution in respect of paragraph 9(k), that would be very helpful.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'd be happy to give my colleague a copy of the constitution. I don't think it's possible for me to give a legal opinion here. I've given the general view of the Ministry of Attorney General that the constitution is consistent with this treaty.

G. Plant: One of these days in this debate, the Attorney General and I may actually be on the same page, in terms of (

a) whether I'm asking him for a legal opinion or (

b) whether he thinks it's his obligation to give one.

This is actually a really simple textual question. There are parts of the Nis g a'a constitution -- at least, to the best of my recollection -- where the constitution does nothing more than simply repeat, word for word, the language in parts of paragraph 9. So the question is -- and I apologize that it's such an unintellectual question; it's actually not a legal question or a political question: is the language in the constitution itself exactly the same as paragraph 9(k), or is it something different?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm told that it may be slightly different.

G. Plant: Then we'll have to look at it and form our own opinions.

Just for the sake of completeness on the point I was pursuing, there is at least one other means by which Nis g a'a government could expand the scope of democratic accountability, if you will. That would be by passing laws within its jurisdiction which define Nis g a'a citizenship in a way that might expand the category of citizens to include people who are not of Nis g a'a descent and by making laws with respect to the holding of elections and so on.

Assuming that's so -- if I'm wrong, the Attorney General will correct me -- the point that I think needs to be made is

[ Page 11799 ]

that that is certainly not an obligation imposed on Nis g a'a by any provision in

chapter 11 or anywhere else in the treaty. Is that correct?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: True.

M. de Jong: Just on a similar point . . . . I'll jump ahead, and then my colleague from Langley has some questions for the Attorney General.

In subsection (

o) of

section 9, the obligation is imposed upon the Nis g a'a to create a constitution to "recognize and protect rights and freedoms of Nis g a'a citizens." The point, again, is a similar one. The government of British Columbia, for example, has obligations to protect the rights and freedoms of everyone, quite frankly. That obligation extends, to a certain extent, without regard for the notion of citizenship and extends to people who reside within the geographic boundaries of our province. Here again I want to know what the Attorney General thinks would be lost by extending the obligation that appears in subsection (

o) to other people residing on Nis g a'a lands. How does that limit or somehow impose an unworkable obligation on Nis g a'a government via the Nis g a'a constitution?

[1540]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think we recognize that there are rights and obligations that may be imposed upon Nis g a'a citizens by the Nis g a'a government or the treaty itself. I think that this simply reaffirms the need, on the part of the Nis g a'a government, to ensure that those rights and freedoms that they have, within the four corners of this treaty as well as the constitution, are protected. But the Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies throughout. Therefore, if there is any fear -- there is no basis in fact for that fear to exist -- that somehow the non-Nis g a'a aren't as well protected, banish the thought. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms exists and applies.

M. de Jong: Well, at some point we'll get into a discussion about the application of the Charter to the Nis g a'a government. Maybe I can ask the Attorney General this -- and I won't ask the question with a view to being cute or trying to trap the Attorney General: is there another example in Canada of a government that has jurisdiction over a specific geographic area whose obligation to protect rights and freedoms is limited to a subgrouping within that geographic region? At a minimum, can we determine to what extent this is a unique exercise in governance?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think the basic premise for the hon. member's question is that there might be another modern treaty somewhere that may have been negotiated along these lines and that might be different. I'm not aware of any modern treaty that has been negotiated the way this has been negotiated. This is the result of a treaty negotiated amongst three parties.

Because it mainly deals with the rights and obligations of the Nis g a'a government and Nis g a'a citizens, the drafters of the treaty obviously felt that it was very important to make sure that the Nis g a'a government lived up to its obligations and that they did protect the rights and freedoms of Nis g a'a citizens over whom they have large jurisdiction. I think that's very important. No, I'm not aware of any other arrangement in Canada where this may be the case.

[1545]

M. de Jong: I wasn't attempting to restrict the Attorney General's analysis to treaty negotiations or arrangements with aboriginal peoples. I don't quarrel with the desire to impose an obligation on the Nis g a'a government, via its constitution, to protect the rights and freedoms of Nis g a'a citizens. But what we are doing implicitly, with the manner in which this

section has been drafted, is sever from that obligation the obligation that I think every other government in Canada has: to protect the rights and freedoms of the people who live within the geographic area for which they are responsible.

So if I inadvertently misled the Attorney General or created the impression that I was merely referring to other sets of negotiations or that I had something in my back pocket that I was going to pull out and say: "Aha, here's an example . . . . " I don't. I also am unaware of any other jurisdiction in the entire country where we have established a two-tiered obligation. That, I say candidly, is the essence of one of the concerns that we on this side of the House have.

This represents a significant departure from what we thought was a fundamental governing tenet of all governments in this country: that the obligation extends to all of the people that reside within the geographic area for which they have responsibility -- age and geographic location. Maybe, having offered that explanation, the Attorney General can respond. His answer may be the same, but I'll wait to hear.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I missed part of the question.

The Chair: Member, could you repeat your question.

M. de Jong: Well, having said that I'm not restricting the Attorney General to an analysis of other aboriginal treaty negotiations that have taken place, the question, in effect, is the same: is there another example in Canada of a government whose obligations to the people it is governing differs depending on something other than the age or residency of those people?

[1550]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I have been told that perhaps the current arrangement in Sechelt is quite similar to the arrangement in the Nis g a'a treaty in terms of the issue that the hon. member is discussing.

M. de Jong: I think that's a valid point. Is it significant, in the Attorney General's mind, that the arrangement contemplated here -- the model for governance and the issues we've been discussing over the past few minutes -- would by virtue of their inclusion in this document acquire that air of constitutional permanence versus what exists under the present Sechelt arrangement?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think this sort of brings us full circle to the debate on general provisions when it first started. I think that every time we raise this issue, we'll come back to the very beginning of that debate. The government's position is that these are rights that are negotiated between the parties, and the constitution provides for the acquiring of these rights. Whether one wants to use the term "constitutionalized" or other terms, it really makes no difference. Our view is that these are rights that have been properly negotiated between the parties and agreed upon, and the constitution provides for that process.

M. de Jong: To return to a theme we explored yesterday -- and I intend to move on now -- I don't for a moment doubt

[ Page 11800 ]

that governments in Canada can make these arrangements. The point of this exercise, however, was to attempt to illustrate the uniqueness of the arrangement that is contemplated here. It's clear that the government and the Attorney General are not troubled by what is going to emerge out of this -- obviously not to the extent that I and the opposition are. The Attorney General makes the point that we have disagreed on this point in the past and will in the future, and so be it. The record will show that disagreement yet again and the fact that we have not resolved that disagreement.

My colleague from Langley has questions that relate specifically to how the constitution contemplated by

section 9 will operate with respect to certain Nis g a'a citizens, so I'll turn it over to her.

L. Stephens: The issue that I want to address is aboriginal women. During the second reading debate on Bill 51, I talked about the fact that I was troubled that I didn't see any equality provisions in the Nis g a'a constitution, which we had all received a copy of. Neither do I find any language in Bill 51 that talks about equality rights for all members of the Nis g a'a nation.

The government itself ordered a study to be done on aboriginal women and treaty-making in British Columbia." That particular study showed quite clearly that aboriginal women in British Columbia were very concerned about the treaty-making process and felt that in fact they had not had the opportunity to participate in those negotiations. I would like to start by asking the Attorney General whether or not aboriginal women were in fact at the table during the negotiations and whether or not they were in a position of decision-making. If so, in what manner did that take place?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I can certainly get that information, but it was obviously up to the Nis g a'a to choose their representatives to negotiate this treaty. That is something the government couldn't dictate to them, nor should the government be able to dictate that to them. I think it's appropriate to remember that the Charter applies to the Nis g a'a government and to the Nis g a'a institutions, and therefore I'm confident that women's rights in law would be protected.

[1555]

L. Stephens: It's somewhat comforting to hear the Attorney General speak in those terms, but the experience of aboriginal women in the past has been that they've had to fight repeatedly for their rights in court. They are still there, as a matter of fact. They are still in the courts trying to fight for their rights.

One of the issues they have some serious problems with is the whole concept of aboriginal self-government. They've found that the largely male leadership of the band councils over the years has shown that women can't trust those male leaders when the interests of the women are at stake and when the band councils are making these decisions. I think it's well known and well documented throughout this province and other provinces, as well, that this is in fact the case.

So when we talk about this Nis g a'a treaty, which is the first modern-day treaty in British Columbia, I would like to have seen -- and certainly the aboriginal women would like to have seen -- some care taken to have their rights more entrenched, more protected, by the language of the treaty.

I hear the minister saying that it's up to the aboriginal governments themselves, the aboriginal bands themselves, to make sure that women are included. However, I think that the provincial and federal governments have a responsibility to make sure that they are protected as well. The Attorney General would perhaps like to answer whether or not women and children affected by the reinstatement provisions of Bill C-31 will be protected or whether they will continue to be rejected by their own bands. What kind of protection is there? If the Attorney General is saying that it's up to the aboriginal bands, that's just not sufficient at all.

Hon. G. Wilson: It's an interesting question that the member opposite poses. I can assure the member that at a number of side tables the Nis g a'a selected women to negotiate, and those women provided, I think, a valuable contribution to the negotiation.

In the four or five times that I've had an opportunity to visit the Nass -- visit the Nis g a'a -- I've never had any concern expressed. I wonder if the member might tell us when or where this perceived concern comes from -- from the Nis g a'a women. Certainly I've only heard positive commentary about this agreement, and if the member has some specific examples to the contrary, perhaps she might outline them.

L. Stephens: I would refer the minister to the select standing committee report, which clearly shows the different contributions from different aboriginal groups of women around the province.

[1600]

Hon. G. Wilson: That may well be true, but we're dealing with a treaty dealing with Nis g a'a, not aboriginal people in general. That may well be what the select standing committee's about. What this committee's about is dealing with the detail of this particular governance

section in the Nis g a'a agreement. I don't think it's an issue that is particularly relevant to the debate on governance in this particular treaty.

L. Stephens: I beg to differ. We're talking about recognizing and protecting the rights and freedoms of Nis g a'a citizens, and I think the minister would acknowledge that women are Nis g a'a citizens as well. I'm simply asking: where in the Nis g a'a constitution and in this piece of legislation does it specifically talk about protection for women and women's rights? As the minister well knows, or should know, the history of aboriginal women under aboriginal government is less than desirable. What I'm trying to do is find out from this government whether or not your government has protected the rights of aboriginal women -- in this particular case, Nis g a'a women.

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

Hon. G. Wilson: If the member opposite has a copy of the constitution of the Nis g a'a nation in front of her, I would refer . . . .

Interjection.

Hon. G. Wilson: Well, then perhaps she might want to get one and read

chapter 2, which talks about rights. In

chapter 2 it spells out very clearly that every Nis g a'a citizen is protected; it is very clear. I find it odd, given the specificity of

[ Page 11801 ]

the language in the Nis g a'a constitution, that the member would somehow think that the Nis g a'a people were going to not look after the interests of all of their citizens, including women.

L. Stephens: Well, the fact of the matter is that aboriginal governments have not. Aboriginal bands have not protected their women and children. That is a fact, and it's a historical fact in this province. That includes the Nis g a'a.

So what we're simply trying to do is get some answers to questions on whether or not women and children will be protected through this modern-day treaty and on whether or not they will be protected from the historical discriminatory practices of the bands in relation to membership. I'm sure the minister knows that if the bands have the ability to determine membership, they have the ability to reject aboriginal women -- women as in Bill C-31, which is the reinstatement of aboriginal women's rights. They have the ability to disregard those women and not allow them to receive their rights.

These are the issues that the aboriginal women are concerned about under the self-government. This is why they are so concerned about this particular treaty, because it is the first modern treaty in the province. It does give self-government to the bands. That is the problem. That is the issue -- that is, the assurance that the aboriginal women want that in fact they will be protected.

I hear the Attorney General talk about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We have had the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Aboriginal women are still going to court to apply for their rights. So I need to have something more than what the minister is offering as far as what we're talking about here -- some assurance that in fact somebody is going to be responsible for making sure that these women's rights are protected.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think I said earlier that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to Nis g a'a government. Nis g a'a government will no longer be a government dealt with under the Indian Act. There are eligibility and enrolment sections in this particular treaty, and there are other issues that deal with this question. I think it's important that we recognize that the Charter applies to these institutions. At the end of the day, if the Charter can't rectify those ills, then we're talking about a major problem; I think we're then talking about revisiting the Charter.

But the Charter is the weapon of last resort. I want to assure the hon. member that the Charter does apply to the institutions and the government that's going to be created.

[1605]

L. Stephens: I want to move on to another question, and I take the Attorney General's answer . . . . I doubt very much if it's going to satisfy aboriginal women, because at this point in time it really doesn't. They've ended up having to resort to legal means to have their rights protected.

I want to ask: does the provincial Human Rights Code apply on reserve lands under this treaty and under self-government?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: There might be instances where the federal human rights legislation might apply, but there would be instances where the provincial Human Rights Code would definitely apply. With the exception of that division, the human rights legislation generally would apply to Nis g a'a.

L. Stephens: Under the treaty, will child support orders be enforceable on Nis g a'a land?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Absolutely.

L. Stephens: Where does it say this? At the moment that does not apply. At the moment, with the federal provisions, an aboriginal woman can get an order of child support in the courts, but she cannot enforce it on reserve land.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think one of the things that the hon. member must recognize is that once the treaty comes into effect, these lands would no longer be reserve lands. They would be fee simple lands. One should look to paragraph 13 of "General Provisions,"

chapter 2. That deals with the application of federal and provincial laws to the Nis g a'a nation, Nis g a'a villages, Nis g a'a institutions, Nis g a'a corporations, Nis g a'a citizens, Nis g a'a lands and Nis g a'a fee simple lands. That's a general provision, and obviously custody, access and maintenance laws are laws of general application. The hon. member's question has to be answered in the affirmative -- absolutely affirmative.

L. Stephens: Those kinds of issues around the safety of women, custody, maintenance, access and all of those kinds of things were, under the Indian Act, very difficult for aboriginal women to deal with. Under this treaty, those provincial and federal pieces of legislation that apply to those issues will now be covered under the treaty on aboriginal land, as it's now going to be called.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: On all of those issues that the hon. member has enumerated with respect to violence against women and issues such as that, the provincial laws would apply as they apply anywhere else in British Columbia.

L. Stephens: In the agreement, the aboriginal governments will be setting up their education, health and justice systems. Will it be up to this aboriginal self-government as to what form those will take, how they will be run and who will be part of those different organizations?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The Nis g a'a already have a health board, an education board and the like. I didn't understand the thrust of the question.

L. Stephens: Who is responsible for monitoring what goes on there? Is the Nis g a'a government responsible -- or does it have to report -- to the provincial government or the federal government? Who monitors what happens there -- whether in fact the citizens are receiving health care? Are they receiving the education and the justice issues? I guess what I'm asking is: what kind of accountability from the Nis g a'a government is there for people who are living on aboriginal Nis g a'a land?

[1610]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think those are issues that pertain to self-government, and while provincial laws and standards would apply, we would assume that it's in the interests of the Nis g a'a to ensure that their children are educated and that the health of their citizens is appropriately looked after. There are laws and institutions in place to do those things, and they may change those institutions, subject to the treaty. But I'm not

[ Page 11802 ]

going to assume that the Nis g a'a, after wanting this responsibility legally devolving to them and having struggled for that for so long, intend to neglect their obligations.

L. Stephens: It is true: they have struggled for a long time to achieve self-government. I think people would agree, generally speaking, that some serious changes had to be made in the way that aboriginal issues were dealt with in the past. But now we are going on into the future, and there are going to be other treaties of this kind negotiated in this province. What we on this side of the House certainly want to know and have some comfort in is that what we purport to want to achieve is in fact achievable and that the systems are in place so that that would happen.

One thing that I've heard over and over is that there is no accountability from the band councils. Many people believe that with self-government, it's not going to change. The same people will be in the same positions of power in the band councils as they are now, and the same practices will continue.

What many people are asking and what I'm going to ask you today is: who is going to be making sure that the taxpayers' money that we're spending in this province -- and it is coming from the federal government -- is in fact going to those policies and services, which the taxpayers here are, in effect, paying for, to make sure that those Nis g a'a citizens are accessing and have access to those programs in a fair and equitable way?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I thought I answered the hon. member's general question in the last answer I provided. Let me restate the position of the government: there has to be a measure of self-government. That's what's intended in this treaty. We have to assume that Nis g a'a people and Nis g a'a leadership will be accountable to the Nis g a'a and will look after the needs of the Nis g a'a people themselves, as the rest of the country and the jurisdictions -- be they municipal or others -- look after the needs of the people that they serve and govern.

I'm not going to make an assumption -- perhaps based on mismanaged affairs in another era -- that somehow our Nis g a'a people are not going to be up to the task. They have been struggling to wrest control of their lives from us, from the shackles that we put them in. I'm going to -- and the people of British Columbia are going to -- give them credit for that and say to them: "Yes, you can manage your own affairs within the confines of this agreement that we arrived at."

L. Stephens: Many people would argue, too, that aboriginal women and men are struggling to throw off the shackles of some of their own people as well. This is what we're talking about. So my question is: does the provincial government believe that they have a responsibility to make sure that self-government and these treaties that they've negotiated do in fact serve all of the aboriginal people equitably?

[1615]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, they do, within the context of the treaty. If we're talking about mismanagement, about abuse, about all of those issues, there is a Criminal Code of Canada. That applies -- as I've said many times before, since I first became the Attorney General -- to every inch of British Columbia and to every person in British Columbia.

M. de Jong: Some of these questions around the notion of accountability fit well with the issue I'd like to explore. It relates specifically to subsection (

l) of

section 9, which we're dealing with as part of

chapter 11. That is the whole notion of financial accountability. It is something that all governments wrestle with and something that most people assume to be a given: that it is one of the primary responsibilities of any government to be accountable for the funds it receives, be they from other governments or from the taxpayers or ratepayers whom they govern and to whom they owe that responsibility.

This particular

section -- and I say this as much to remind myself of the context within which you have to have this discussion -- relates to the obligation that exists for the Nis g a'a to have a constitutional requirement for a system of financial administration comparable to other governmental standards in Canada. My question to whichever minister is going to respond to this

section is: has the province satisfied itself that this system of financial administration is presently in place?

Hon. G. Wilson: The answer is yes, and I would refer the member to

chapter 9 of the constitution of the Nis g a'a nation.

M. de Jong: I'm sorry, hon. Chair. I didn't hear the last part of the minister's comment.

Hon. G. Wilson: The answer is yes, they are required to put in place a constitution. The documentation of which is in

chapter 9, if the member would like to read it.

M. de Jong: I'm sorry. I wasn't clear enough in posing my question, which did not relate specifically to the constitutional provisions but to whether, in practice, that administrative safeguard is in place.

Hon. G. Wilson: They'll have to enact that on day one of the treaty.

M. de Jong: I'm sure this is my fault for not communicating this properly. In practice, today, is the provincial government satisfied that the degree of financial safeguards contemplated by this

section is in place and working in the Nass?

Hon. G. Wilson: I'm a little confused by the member's question. The treaty is not in place, therefore all of the requirements of the treaty are not yet in place. If the member's question is, "Do we have confidence in the capacity of the Nis g a'a to be able to deliver on the terms of the treaty?" the answer to that question is yes.

M. de Jong: It seems to me that this

section and how it operates to guide the creation of the Nis g a'a constitution create a practical standard that Nis g a'a government must meet. So maybe my question is something of a hypothetical one. If the requirement to meet this standard existed today -- and I understand the minister's response that it doesn't exist in law today . . . . If it existed today, is the province satisfied that Nis g a'a government meets that standard?

[1620]

[ Page 11803 ]

to comply with the outline under (l): " . . . a system of financial administration comparable to standards generally accepted for governments in Canada, through which Nis g a'a Lisims Government will be financially accountable to Nis g a'a citizens, and Nis g a'a Village Governments will be financially accountable to Nis g a'a citizens of those Nis g a'a Villages." If the member is asking if we have confidence in the capacity of the Nis g a'a to do this, the answer is yes, we do.

M. de Jong: That's one question, and now I have the answer. So I don't need to ask that question. The question I'm asking is whether or not the province is satisfied today that a system of financial administration comparable to standards generally accepted for governments in Canada exists. As the government has taken pains to point out throughout this debate, there is a Nis g a'a government today. The question is whether British Columbia is satisfied that a financial administration system comparable to other governments in Canada exists today.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: That's a bit of an unfair question, and I say this with the utmost respect. Currently the systems that the Nis g a'a have in place are under the Indian Act. Once this treaty takes effect, those systems will have to change to meet the standards that are established by their constitution or this treaty -- and both.

I think it's important for us to recognize that the British Columbia government is not going to be policing each and every action of Nis g a'a government. The Nis g a'a government's actions have to be lawful; they have to live up to the legal obligations. It's not incumbent upon the government of British Columbia to ensure that each and every detail of this treaty is implemented forthwith and done appropriately. I think that is very paternalistic, if I might say. They will look after their needs; if they don't, they will be accountable to the people they serve. If they violate laws, they will be treated like anybody else.

M. de Jong: A bunch of questions emerge out of what the Attorney General had to say. Let me begin by saying this: I don't think anyone is suggesting that the province or the federal government assumes a role, post-treaty, of . . . .

Interjection.

The Chair: Through the Chair.

M. de Jong: Well, thanks, hon. Chair.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the two existing levels of government assume a policing role. But I think it is fair, where we know that a significant proportion of the revenues -- upon which the government contemplated in this

section is going to operate -- is going to derive from those two levels of government, that there be some degree of confidence and that British Columbians be made aware of the basis upon which the government derives that confidence.

Now, I could ask the question whether in the past two or three years there have been investigations or audits that have revealed or disclosed inaccuracies or problems with respect to the system of financial management that presently exists in some quarters within Nis g a'a government; maybe I'll ask that question. The government can reveal today the extent to which it is aware of whether or not those audits have taken place and whether or not it is aware of the extent to which they have revealed difficulties.

[1625]

Hon. G. Wilson: I think that the member is way off track here. First of all, it wouldn't be the province that would be engaged in any formal auditing anyway. It would be the federal government, since it's under the Indian Act.

Secondly, if we delve into this level of hypothetical . . . . Goodness knows, there might even be the odd British Columbian who doesn't think that this government is handling its finances very well. I doubt there are very many, but there may be a few. I think that when we drift off into this kind of discussion, we're well beyond the parameters of what is intended by this section.

There is an obligation under this treaty with respect to the Nis g a'a. Once this treaty takes effect, British Columbia is fully confident that the Nis g a'a will have the capacity to deliver on that obligation. I think that's all that the members opposite need to focus on. If we were not confident and if we believed that the language needed to be different, we would not have agreed upon the language that is currently before us.

M. de Jong: Well, I'm just asking the minister to disclose on what basis the government presumes to have that confidence. I'm asking him to refer back historically to whether or not there is evidence that supports that degree of confidence or whether or not there is evidence to suggest that perhaps that confidence is misplaced. I don't think, given the amount of money we're talking about here, that that is an unfair or unreasonable question.

Hon. G. Wilson: I don't know if the member opposite has ever travelled to the Nass or spent time in the Nass or has worked with . . . .

Interjection.

The Chair: Order, members.

Hon. G. Wilson: If the member opposite has been there, the member opposite will know that the Nis g a'a have a long history of sound management with respect to the fishery, with respect to education and with respect to health. He would know that the Nis g a'a, after spending years and years in negotiation with the federal government, have finally put together a treaty -- the first modern treaty in Canada -- which is a significant contribution to moving toward resolution of the treaty process generally.

I think that, quite frankly, the member's comments are bordering on the offensive -- to suggest that we should somehow sit back and make some kind of comment on the competency of the Nis g a'a people to manage their own affairs. They believe they're ready to manage their own affairs. We certainly see all the evidence pointing to the fact that they are. The federal government believes they are. We put in place some obligations that they have adhered to and which we have adhered to and which the federal will adhere to upon completion of this treaty.

So I don't know what prompts the member to suggest -- if all of these people over the course of time have come together and put together this treaty that provides the Nis g a'a the capacity and ability to look after their own affairs

[ Page 11804 ]

-- that we should now try to seek to have a competency test to see whether or not they should or shouldn't engage in that process.

M. de Jong: Why is it that every time, in a debate that is designed to focus on the details of the treaty, we do that and do so with respect to issues the government is apparently uncomfortable dealing with, the immediate response is that somehow we are questioning the integrity of the Nis g a'a? What we are questioning, hon. Chair, is the accountability that will exist between Nis g a'a government, its citizens and other governments, who assume a significant responsibility for funding that government.

The minister stands up and says: "I'm confident." The opposition responds, "All right, explain it to us; give us something upon which you base that confidence," and the reply is: "How dare you ask that question!"

Well, if the minister detects a bit of skepticism on the part of the opposition when it comes to rating this government's ability to judge fiscal matters, then he's very astute. But let's not delve into that. In fairness, hon. Chair, I have tried to focus on a specific question, and it relates to whether or not and on what basis the government is satisfied. Now, the Attorney General said in his earlier response that there may have to be some changes made.

Again, I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I thought I heard him say that maybe some of the managerial structures that are presently in place with respect to Nis g a'a government will have to change slightly to meet the standard that is demanded in this section. Fair enough. I think that's a fair answer. I think it's a fair follow-up question to say: all right, to the best of the minister's ability, what are those changes? Where are those shortcomings presently, and what needs to change in order to bring Nis g a'a government in line with what is expected here?

[1630]

Hon. G. Wilson: Well, it will be the Nis g a'a who will be the judge of that. It will be the Nis g a'a who are managing their own affairs and are going to have to make a determination of that. And when the constitution is in effect,

chapter 9, the financial administration chapter, will outline how they intend to do that. When this treaty is in effect, the fiscal

chapter will spell out in considerable detail what the fiscal arrangements will be between the federal and provincial governments and the Nis g a'a nation. All of that is in this treaty, all of which we can discuss if we can get on with the detail of the treaty and get off this particular point.

M. de Jong: Well, that is another feature of the debate that has been curious. Whenever we get to a point in it that the minister doesn't like dealing with, we are encouraged to move off it as quickly as possible.

Look, the

section talks about financial accountability. The point that I was trying to get to throughout this discussion relates to the fact that it deals with financial accountability as between Nis g a'a citizens and Nis g a'a government at the village level and at the central government level. But it is silent on the issue -- on what I think is an equally important issue -- of accountability between Nis g a'a government and the provincial and federal governments, except insofar as it imposes a financial administration standard.

Maybe it is the position of the government that it falls outside the ambit of what should be here -- that this is exclusively, as the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs says, a matter for the Nis g a'a. But I think there is a compelling argument to be made by the people who are going to be funding this government, or funding a significant proportion of the cost associated with this government, that there should be some notion of accountability to the sources of that funding built into the Nis g a'a constitution.

Now, if the ministers and the government disagree with that notion, maybe they'll say so, and people will have a clear understanding of what this government's view of accountability is insofar as the handling of provincial tax dollars is concerned.

Hon. G. Wilson: All of the concerns with respect to the accountability will be spelled out in the agreements that will be signed -- the fiscal financing agreements -- which are outlined in

chapter 15 under "Fiscal Relations" in this particular document. If the member opposite would like to get into a discussion on that when we get there, I think it's perfectly appropriate. It doesn't fall into the Nis g a'a constitution, 9(l); nor is it intended to. The reference there is back to what the Nis g a'a constitution will say upon enactment, and that is found in

chapter 9 of the draft.

M. de Jong: Let me just conclude on this topic by suggesting the following. First of all, I acknowledge that we are dealing with the provisions of the Nis g a'a constitution. I also acknowledge that later in this agreement, we will be dealing specifically with financial arrangements as between governments -- Nis g a'a government, provincial government and federal government.

One of the reasons I'm exploring that issue here is because, as a result of briefings we've had with officials prior to this minister taking office, I'm not as confident as he is that those agreements preserve or create the degree of accountability that taxpayers are deserving of. I think I heard the minister spell out his position, which is that if accountability as between Nis g a'a government, the provincial government and the federal government is an issue in the minister's mind, it's not an issue that should be dealt with.

It should not be an obligation that is imposed upon the Nis g a'a within their own constitution. If I'm misstating that fact, then maybe the minister will say so.

[1635]

Hon. G. Wilson: That's what I said.

G. Plant: I just want to pursue one aspect of the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs's reference to

chapter 15 and fiscal financing agreements, not for the purpose of delving into the details of that but maybe just so that people who might want to see the debate that's just been held with this one little element of additional context . . . . It would be of some help to them.

We're obviously looking at

chapter 11. Most of what's in

chapter 11 is part of the treaty and therefore subject to all the considerations that the law applies to treaties. Fiscal financing agreements that will be negotiated from time to time will not themselves be part of the treaty. They are side agreements, and therefore they may not, for example, be subject to the same constitutional considerations that the treaty commitments will be subject to. Is that a fair statement?

Hon. G. Wilson: That's a fair statement.

G. Plant: I notice that paragraph 9(

m) imposes on the Nis g a'a nation an obligation to have a constitution that will

[ Page 11805 ]

have conflict-of-interest rules that are comparable to standards generally accepted for governments in Canada. Does the provisional or the draft constitution -- the one that has been approved by the Nis g a'a nation in accordance with the ratification

chapter -- actually set out specific conflict-of-interest rules? Or rather, does it set out a framework of objectives and principles that will apply to conflict-of-interest issues?

Hon. G. Wilson: It sets out the latter. This is a public document, and I wonder if the members opposite actually have a copy. If not, we'd be happy to try and get them one.

G. Plant: I'd appreciate that. I actually can't find mine. To be even further honest, during my recent absence I was trying to find it on the web page for the Nis g a'a nation, and my Internet searching skills are obviously deficient. Either that, or it's hiding in a place where I can't find it. So that would be very helpful.

I'm going to ask a question that may have been asked before. If so, the minister can tell me. The whole scheme of paragraphs 9 through 11 speaks about a document which is the Nis g a'a constitution prospectively in a way, I guess -- certainly paragraph 9 speaks about the Nis g a'a constitution prospectively. The fact is that there is a document called the Nis g a'a constitution, which has some status in the eyes of the government and the eyes of the Nis g a'a in relation to the obligations in paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 of

chapter 11. Should we describe this document, the constitution, as a draft, as a sort of a constitution-in-principle? Or do we have, in effect, the actual Nis g a'a constitution that will take effect and come into force on the effective date and that has been approved in accordance with the ratification chapter?

[1640]

Hon. G. Wilson: The answer to that is yes, it has been ratified.

G. Plant: When paragraph 9 says that the Nis g a'a nation will have a Nis g a'a constitution and that it will have certain things in it, is the intention there to ensure that over time, as the Nis g a'a constitution may perhaps be changed or amended in accordance with the rules that permit that amendment as set out in the constitution, it will nonetheless always comply with these obligations set out in paragraph 9?

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

G. Plant: One last question, at least for my part, with respect to this section. Paragraph 9(

s) says that the Nis g a'a nation, the constitution, will "include other provisions, as determined by the Nis g a'a Nation." Sometimes lawyers will look at a clause like that, and they'll call it a basket clause. Sometimes the question arises as to what's meant by that -- whether that kind of language is intended to open up whole new areas of consideration or whether it's really intended to deal with minor matters.

Now, the Nis g a'a as a nation can obviously do more in their constitution, presumably, than is required by paragraph 9 -- the rest of paragraph 9. But what, from the government of British Columbia's perspective, was its objective in either insisting upon 9(

s) or acceding to the request that 9(

s) be there?

Hon. G. Wilson: I'm advised that our position, when this was to be included, was simply an acknowledgment that there may be other issues that the Nis g a'a may choose to include in their constitution. I'm provided that there is an example with respect to a declaration of the Nis g a'a nation, as one example, appended in the constitution. When we get you a copy, we'll let you copy that.

G. Plant: Then I'm able to move on to paragraph 12, the Nis g a'a government structure. Let me ask this question. We've already talked a little bit about the fact that there may be changes over time in terms of the number or organization of village governments. Paragraph 13 says: "On the effective date, there are three Nis g a'a Urban Locals, as set out in the Nis g a'a Constitution . . . . " Then it defines them. Is there flexibility, also, with respect to issues like dissolution, amalgamation and addition of urban locals?

[1645]

Hon. G. Wilson: The answer is yes, and I'm told that it's covered in the Nis g a'a constitution, 9(f).

G. Plant: There may be Nis g a'a who reside outside the Nass and who don't live in either greater Vancouver, greater Terrace or greater Prince Rupert-Port Edward. What is their place within this scheme of Nis g a'a government? How do they participate, if at all, in the institutions of Nis g a'a government that presumably will have the power to make some decisions that affect them?

Hon. G. Wilson: That's covered under 14(a), which provides them the right to vote in general elections.

G. Plant: That's general elections for the Lisims government?

Hon. G. Wilson: Yes, but with the caveat that that's for the three members elected at large.

G. Plant: The Nis g a'a constitution is required to deal with issues of democratic accountability but contemplates residency and other requirements. I take it, then, that it's possible to be, I suppose you could say, a non-resident Nis g a'a -- that is, non-resident either on Nis g a'a lands or in any of the three locations of the urban locals -- and that, at least as presently constituted, those individuals would still have the right or the franchise, if you will, to vote for the three at-large members of the Nis g a'a Lisims government.

Hon. G. Wilson: Subject to the requirement set out, which could include a sort of general competency question, I think the answer to the member's question is yes. But there may be some subject-to clauses on it on an individual basis -- on a competency question or whatever. So there is a subject-to there.

G. Plant: Forgive me for asking this: what does the minister mean by competence? Competence in the sense of mental capacity and being of full age -- is that what the minister meant?

Hon. G. Wilson: Yes, that's the kind of thing I'm talking about.

[ Page 11806 ]

G. Plant: I realize now that I moved forward too quickly, because paragraph 11 has a couple of things that I should have asked about.

The issue of amending the constitution is dealt with in paragraph 9(r), and it's also dealt with in paragraph 11. Paragraph 9(r), as I understand it, is an enduring requirement that there be some provision for amendment in the Nis g a'a constitution. But paragraph 11 is a more specific obligation that the amending procedure require that an amendment be approved by at least 70 percent of Nis g a'a citizens voting in a referendum.

It goes on to say that is an initial obligation. Does that mean that at some point in time the Nis g a'a could revise the amending procedure, so as to require that amendments be approved by some lesser or greater number of Nis g a'a citizens? If so, what is the rationale behind that?

[1650]

Hon. G. Wilson: Yes, that is correct. The rationale is that virtually every constitution, I think, has provisions for the amending formulas to be amended or changed.

G. Plant: But why is there a provision that contemplates the possibility that . . . ?

Interjection.

G. Plant: Oh, I see. I want to make sure that I understand the minister's answer. The minister is saying that virtually every constitution has an amending formula, which includes the possibility of amending the amending formula.

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

G. Plant: Obviously there are Nis g a'a interests at issue here. But there are also provincial interests at issue here. What was the province's logic behind, I guess, agreeing to the possibility that the amending percentage might go up or down? To me, it seems hard to figure out why there has to be a specific requirement of at least 70 percent, recognizing that it could perhaps be changed a day after the effective date, because there's certainly no time limit, no time period set out here within which the Nis g a'a must continue to have this 70 percent formula.

Hon. G. Wilson: I think the rationale -- if I can say it's a rationale -- for the province was that we didn't intend to freeze an amending formula that would be enshrined forever. We recognize that amending formulas may, from time to time, be amended, and we don't have a particular objection to that. Now, there's nothing in here that obliges that amending formula to be changed either; it just simply provides that opportunity.

G. Plant: An additional element of the amending procedure in paragraph 11 is that the process is a vote in a referendum. Could that aspect of the process be changed so that, for example, the constitution could be amended by some means other than a vote in a referendum?

Hon. G. Wilson: Yes, if they had the 70 percent the first time to do it, it could be.

G. Plant: So the possibility exists that there could be a referendum held on a question of whether to change the amending procedure so as to give the Nis g a'a Lisims government the power to amend the constitution. That could take place, provided that that question was approved by at least 70 percent of Nis g a'a citizens voting in a referendum.

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

G. Abbott: Further also to paragraph 11, in the general provisions

section of the constitution of the Nis g a'a nation

section 61(3) reads: "A Nis g a'a village may be created, amalgamated, altered or dissolved only by an amendment to this constitution adopted in accordance with subsection (1)." As I read it, subsection (1) would be all of the five steps, culminating in a Nis g a'a-nationwide referendum in which 70 percent of the Nis g a'a citizens voting would have to vote in the affirmative. Do I understand, then, that . . . ?

For example, as happens quite routinely in the province, a municipality grows to some extent, and they need to make an alteration to their corporate boundaries. Am I to understand that in order to do that, the village would have to go through this very cumbersome process to achieve that?

[1655]

Hon. G. Wilson: I'm just trying to make sure we get that specific, because that's an interesting question. The village is a legal entity, so in the reference to alter it, it means to alter the legal entity, not to change the boundaries of the land. There are other provisions with respect to altering village boundaries.

G. Abbott: I do think it is important that we get this one right, because paragraph 61(3) clearly states: "A Nis g a'a village may be created, amalgamated, altered or dissolved only by an amendment to this constitution . . . . " Those kinds of phrases would be used, in the context of municipal affairs in British Columbia, when referring to a boundary expansion, the amalgamation of two municipalities into one or the reduction in the size of a municipality, potentially, as well.

All of those things would be fairly commonplace events that would occur sometimes with, sometimes without, the blessing of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. But it's not a complex process. So when we're using the terms "amalgamated," "altered," in the context of paragraph 61(3), are we referring to something other than those boundary adjustments that might occur in the context of municipal affairs in British Columbia?

Hon. G. Wilson: What that refers to is the changing of the legal entity. Now, in the changing of the legal entity, there may in fact be boundary alterations. But it's somewhat different than what, I think, the member has alluded to under the Municipal Act with respect to boundary redefinition or boundary changes. In respect to the Municipal Act and boundary changes now . . . often don't provide referenda for people who are going to be impacted by the change in boundary, in the way that our system works. So I think the member should not confuse what is intended here with respect to constitutional amendment, as opposed to what may be dealt with under the Nis g a'a government

section that deals predominantly with the Nis g a'a Lisims government's authority over land or a change or alteration to village lands.

G. Abbott: I appreciate the response of the minister, and it is important to make that clarification. Clearly what would be intended here would be more substantive changes -- for

[ Page 11807 ]

example, altering the number of village councillors or altering, perhaps, the way in which the village conducted important public business and that kind of thing. But I don't see anything specifically here that would allow the Nis g a'a village government to keep from having to embark on this process . . . . I don't see what relieves the village government from making those changes without a constitutional amendment.

Hon. G. Wilson: It's because the village is different, in the text of the treaty, from the village government. That's why. That's why I'm saying that I don't think the member should confuse what is intended here with respect to a village government as opposed to what may be structurally on the ground with respect to the change of village boundaries. They're two quite separate things.

M. de Jong: Dealing, then, with the three sections that fall under the heading "Nis g a'a Government Structure," one of the recurring themes in this debate and in the debate generally has been the attempt that the drafters of the treaty have made -- or claimed to have made -- to amalgamate the traditional notions of Nis g a'a governance with some of the more modern Western models for democratic government. So we see that objective being dealt with here by virtue of the provisions that call for representation by elected members.

One of the questions that I have been asked and can't answer -- and I'm not sure that it's a particularly contentious issue -- is how Nis g a'a government will operate, as between the council of elders that I think the Nis g a'a constitution contemplates and the democratically elected government that is called for in these provisions -- how those two entities will function together to form the larger notion of Nis g a'a governance.

[1700]

Hon. G. Wilson: I'm not entirely sure I agree with the

preamble to the question. Nevertheless, I think that the constitution sets out the relationship between the two bodies the member refers to. I think that it's important to remember that as it's set out in the constitution, it provides for the Nis g a'a to be able to maintain their customary governance -- if I can use that term -- in light of the language that is put forward in

chapter 11, "Nis g a'a Government." So the constitution is the key element that spells out the relationship between the two bodies that the member talks about.

M. de Jong: Well, then, let's return to the

preamble. If I was mistaken and that wasn't the objective -- to find a means of preserving the more traditional notions of governance, which have existed in the Nass Valley for some time, with the modern notion of democratic representation -- and if that wasn't what gave rise, at least on the province's part, to their position in negotiating the government structure as it's set out here, what was? Quite frankly, the minister's predecessor, I think, went to some length to impress upon me that this was one of the objectives.

Hon. G. Wilson: Clearly my predecessor did a fine job of impressing that upon the member opposite, and maybe we'll just leave it at that.

What is important -- the point I tried to make -- is that the council of elders, which is spelled out in the constitution, provides for the Nis g a'a a way to interface between the Lisims government, which will ultimately have dealings with the province and the federal government, and their customary practice with respect to the traditions that they have. That's something that they've worked out, that they've put into their constitution and that works for them in their constitution.

I don't know whether it's particularly useful to go back. I wasn't too sure what the member was meaning when he talked about modernizing and moving to modern forms of government. This is the government that works for the Nis g a'a; this is what they've negotiated. The province has confidence that this is a model that will work well with the provincial and federal regimes.

M. de Jong: Let's move, then, to the notion of the urban locals. The minister knows that . . . . I think he recently addressed a body that was concerned with representation. I don't think it was exclusively Nis g a'a urban-based natives but a larger urban-based aboriginal group.

We're dealing with the Nis g a'a treaty. There is concern that this attempt to bestow upon those individuals -- who, I believe, represent close to a majority of the Nis g a'a -- to ensure their degree of representation and their interests, particularly with respect to the settlement funds, proceeds and legacy . . . . There has been a concern expressed, I think, to the minister, the government and members of the opposition that this model falls short of ensuring that their interests are going to be adequately protected.

The government, in agreeing to this treaty and this portion of the treaty, thinks otherwise, I presume. Again, the question would be: on what basis do they take that position?

[1705]

[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]

Hon. G. Wilson: Well, it's on the basis that the Nis g a'a agreed to it and ratified it.

M. de Jong: Let me ask, then -- if those protections exist and are secure to the extent that the minister suggests they are -- what the response is to those who don't find themselves within one of the three urban locals that exist but are elsewhere in the province. The question, again, that has been asked of me by those individuals . . . . The statement -- I don't think it's really a question -- is: "This also represents our one kick at the can, in terms of the settlement.

How can we be confident from this point forward that we will receive our fair share?" The answer could be: "You are a part of the Nis g a'a collective, and you must abide by the will of the majority." Yet that concern is articulated by people who don't fall either on the Nis g a'a lands or within one of the three urban locals.

Hon. G. Wilson: They still have the right to vote for one of the three at-large members. Plus they still have the right to make representation to government. They're not precluded because they're not a member of the three urban locals.

M. de Jong: I think the other thing that needs to be acknowledged, though, is that by virtue of an individual not

[ Page 11808 ]

I think I want to move on to the

section -- unless one of my colleagues has something dealing with elections . . . . One of my colleagues does have a

section 15 . . . .

[1710]

G. Abbott: I have a question on the Nis g a'a government structure. One of the interesting features of the constitution is that, again, unlike municipal governments structured elsewhere in British Columbia, there can be an even number of councillors plus chief councillor, depending on the size of the community. There may be an even number of chiefs plus councillors, which is a feature we don't find elsewhere.

I'm presuming that the dispute resolution mechanism in

chapter 8 of the constitution may come into play here at times. Is there a clear understanding about the application of the dispute resolution mechanism with respect to what might be termed a deadlocked council -- which could occur on councils, given the even numbers?

Hon. G. Wilson: I'm tempted to say that . . . . My suspicion is that the Nis g a'a get along better than we do, so they're not likely to have as many disputes, but I don't know. I think there's also an attempt to find consensus. It's a different approach and different model. I think that it's important to note that the dispute resolution that the member refers to doesn't speak to dispute at council level. The council will have their operating rules of order, whatever they may be, and there will be tie-breaking procedures to stop a deadlock -- if they vote.

My understanding is that the Nis g a'a prefer to move to consensus, but if they should operate under a particular prescribed set of rules, within those rules will be some mechanism to break a deadlock.

G. Abbott: That's fair enough. I would think that there's clearly an understanding here that when a structure is created where there is the possibility half the time of having an even number of councillors, it is based on a consensus model of decision-making. What I suspect may happen, based on the 17 years I spent on councils and regional district boards, is that occasionally differences of opinion will arise. And where you have even numbers, a deadlock could occur.

But what I'm understanding here from the minister is that if and when those situations arise, the expectation is that those councils will develop their own mechanisms for resolving differences on council and that their differences of opinion will not be, for example, moved on to the council of elders or to any other body for determination.

Hon. G. Wilson: That's right, and that's spelled out in paragraph 43 of the constitution, where they do talk about simple majority being required at the Nis g a'a village government. The member makes a point that if there is an even