[ Page 10829 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Natural Gas Price Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 63). Hon. Mr. Davis

Introduction and first reading –– 10829

Oral Questions

Beer and wine store locations. Mr. Sihota –– 10829

Fraser Valley raspberries. Mr. Peterson –– 10830

Nurses' strike. Mr. Perry –– 10830

Truck brake inspection. Mr. Miller –– 10831

Spinal cord unit at University Hospital. Mr. Mowat –– 10831

Building of super-ferries. Mr. Sihota –– 10832

Accountants (Certified General) Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 42).

Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Strachan) –– 10832

Ms. A. Hagen

Third reading

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Native Affairs estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Weisgerber)

On vote 50: minister's office –– 10834

Mr. G. Hanson

Hon. Mr. Davis

Mr. Harcourt

Mr. Guno

Mr. Zirnhelt

Mr. Miller

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

HON. MR. DIRKS: It's my pleasure today to introduce Mr. Major Singh Malik, consul-general of India in Vancouver. Over the past 20 years he served as his country's representative in Morocco, Kuwait, the Philippines, Iran, Portugal and, most recently, Ghana. He was appointed consul-general of India in Vancouver on April 21 of this year. Will the House please wish him a warm welcome to our great province and to this House this afternoon.

MR. SIHOTA: I'd like to join the Provincial Secretary in welcoming the new consul-general, who has been in British Columbia for approximately two months. Being the only Indo-Canadian member of this Legislature, I want to extend my personal greetings to him and at the same time thank him for the work he has been doing over the past while. I know he has considerable challenges in dealing with the Indo-Canadian community, but the community has come a long way in British Columbia over the past four and a half years, and some of that progress certainly can be attributed to the good work done by his office. Would all members please join me also in giving a warm welcome to the consul-general.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, later this afternoon, in committee and then third reading, we're going to be dealing with amendments to the Accountants (Certified General) Act, and here to watch the proceedings today is the executive director of the CGA Association. Would the House please welcome Mr. Bill Caulfield.

MR. RABBITT: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier), I am very pleased to introduce a delegation from the B.C. Central Credit Union. We have in the precincts today Tod Manrell, John Charlesworth, Ross Parkin, J. Philip Moore, Steve Waddell, Wayne Nygren, Richard Thomas and Peter Carter. I would ask the House to give them all a very warm welcome.

MR. PERRY: It's my pleasure to introduce to the Legislature today some very congenial constituents who enjoyed themselves so much yesterday that I'm told they are here again today, even if I can't spot them: Miss Alayne Keough; David, Amber, Elizabeth and Stephen Hopgood; and Kai Davis. I'd like to let the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) know that they particularly enjoyed his speech yesterday. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

HON. MRS. GRAN: I have a lengthy but very important introduction to make today. The members of the Task Force on Daycare Expansion are having their first meeting today and are in the House. I would like to introduce them: Nicole Parton, former journalist from Vancouver [applause]— I hope you will accord them all a similar welcome; Penny Coates of the Canadian Day Care Advocacy Association and a director of day care at Simon Fraser University; Peter Ashmore from Westcoast Child Care Resources, an informal chairperson of an early childhood network from Vancouver; Myrna Popove, chair of the college board of Douglas College in Coquitlam; Gary Johncox, vice-president of human resources for MacMillan Bloedel; Doris Born, a group day care operator and teacher of a family day care course at the College of New Caledonia in Prince George; Judy van der Meulen, representative of the B.C. Farm Women's Network; Charles Lasser, the mayor of Chetwynd; Paula McCrae, a school trustee in Kamloops; Kathleen Higgins, a member of Western Women for Family Life; Sandra Griffin, the president of Early Childhood Educators of B.C.; Linda Elliot, a director of the Kelowna family day care support program; Joan Poweska, the director of nurses at the Kimberly and District Hospital and alderman in Cranbrook city; Gayle Martin, president of the Langley Chamber of Commerce; and Charlene Belleau, the former executive director of the Cariboo Tribal Council, chair of the Nenqayni Treatment Centre Society in Williams Lake and former chief at Alkali Lake. Would the House please make them welcome.

MS. A. HAGEN: A constituent from New Westminster, Don Hauka, has decided to spend his birthday in the House today. I would like to ask all of you to join me in welcoming him and wishing him a very happy birthday.

Introduction of Bills

NATURAL GAS PRICE

AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

Hon. Mr. Davis presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Natural Gas Price Amendment Act, 1990.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Essentially, this allows the sale or devolution of the marketing end of the B.C. Petroleum Corporation to producers in the Peace River area. It establishes pricing for all comparative purposes as the price of raw natural gas at the wellhead. There are provisions in this bill to protect the Crown royalty and to improve the government's gathering, audit and publishing powers so that monthly we will be able to publish the going fuel price. Finally, it introduces penalties for non-compliance with information and/or audit requests.

Bill 63 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

BEER AND WINE STORE LOCATIONS

MR. SIHOTA: I have a question to the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services. Circular 498, which I

[ Page 10830 ]

brought to the minister's attention yesterday, requires beer and wine stores to be attached to pubs. The John B Pub was relocated from one Coquitlam location to another Coquitlam location. It held its official opening at the new site and continued operations at the old site. At the same time, it maintained a beer and wine operation at the new site to take advantage of the Christmas rush at the shopping centre it's located in. Could the minister explain why, given circular 498, the beer and wine store was allowed to remain open at a site different than the principal pub?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I can't provide the answer to that question at this moment; I think it's rather technical. I don't know just when this particular issue happened. I'm not aware of its having happened recently, so I suspect it might have been some time ago.

The member is obviously very interested in this type of question. I took one on notice yesterday; maybe I'll do the same with this one.

MR. SIHOTA: A new question to the minister — you may want to take this one on notice as well. The beer and wine store I'm referring to is across the parking-lot — I think it's about 300 feet away — from the government liquor store. Does the minister not agree...?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Perhaps it would be useful for members to allow the Chair to determine whether or not the question is in order. The question may very well be out of order, but there's a requirement for the Chair to listen, to determine whether it is in order. I'll make up my mind after I've heard the question. Will the member continue.

MR. SIHOTA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The beer and wine store is approximately 300 feet away from a government liquor store located at the same mall. Does the minister not agree that this site across the parking-lot violates the guidelines stated in policy 515?

MR. SPEAKER: I believe that question was taken on notice.

FRASER VALLEY RASPBERRIES

MR. PETERSON: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Fraser Valley raspberry producers are extremely concerned about false claims and threats from the Washington Red Raspberry Commission to ban B.C. raspberries from their market because of possible contamination by the herbicide Dinoseb. These threats are clearly aimed at sabotaging B.C. producers.

MR. SPEAKER: Could we have a question, please.

MR. PETERSON: What action is the minister taking to repudiate these charges and to safeguard vital export markets for local raspberry producers?

[2:15]

HON. MR. SAVAGE: You well know — it's been clearly stated in your preamble — the problem British Columbia raspberry producers are having with exporting raspberries to the U.S., particularly due to the notice by the Red Raspberry Commission in Washington State that any product with Dinoseb used on it would be banned.

Let me categorically assure you that neither the Red Raspberry Commission nor the Senate Committee on Agriculture in the U.S. has the authority to ban it. I have investigated this as of last Friday. It took extensive hours of work to deal with the issue relative to....

Interjection.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Good minister!

I spent a lot of time dealing with the U.S. Red Raspberry Commission and also with the issue of whether Dinoseb had been used by our raspberry producers. Dinoseb is used on raspberries only when they come up to about four inches in height, in order to destroy the shoots, as a way of pruning. I can also tell you that extensive tests have been done in the last three years, and no evidence whatsoever of Dinoseb has been found.

Furthermore....

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. That's enough.

NURSES' STRIKE

MR. PERRY: I wish I had known the minister was such an expert, because I would have asked him for help in pruning my raspberries. Perhaps he will oblige me next year.

I have a question for the Minister of Health. The government's dispute with the psychiatric nurses presents the potential for serious and irreparable harm in the near future. The difficulty in providing adequate care for acutely ill psychotic patients has created backlogs into the jails and acute-care hospitals, and it puts both patients and the public at risk. Has the Minister of Health informed the Premier and the Minister of Finance of the urgency of resolving this labour dispute?

HON. J. JANSEN: If the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey would spend more time in the House and researching medical matters than in his raspberry patch, he would know that indeed this is a serious matter.

Mr. Speaker, this matter is serious, and we are concerned about it. In fact, last Friday I met with the representatives of both unions and talked to them about their concerns. We share the member's concerns regarding the provision of service to patients,

[ Page 10831 ]

and we are treating it with the urgency with which he thinks it should be treated.

MR. PERRY. A supplementary to the Premier. My question was based on an inspection of Riverview yesterday morning. My question to the Premier is the following. The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) recently displayed his ignorance by making uninformed and very inflammatory statements about the value of psychiatric and community care nurses. To be specific, he said: "That tells me a nurse isn't a nurse isn't a nurse." Has the Premier informed his Minister of Finance of the need for some sensitivity in this situation, so that the minister might refrain from such harmful conduct in the future?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I don't know what the question.... But it seems obvious, I think, to everyone here that the member who asked the question pretends to be an expert on all things. When anyone else expresses their views, they're obviously wrong or ill-informed. That seems to me to be an attitude which is very arrogant. I think not only that member but the NDP should certainly keep in mind that that arrogance won't go unnoticed by the people we represent.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Members, members, it's question period. We had a statement and another statement. I would now like to ask for a question from the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey.

MR. PERRY: Supplementary to the Premier, who may not be aware that the number of senior nurses resigning from Riverview has doubled since the strike began: will the Premier state for the record whether or not his Minister of Finance's comments regarding the nurses represent government policy?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I think the member would like to read again the comments, which I'm sure must be similar to those I read, because I find that oftentimes their research is whatever the daily newspaper happens to report on a particular day. So I can only assume that we're reading or talking about the same article, where I believe the Minister of Finance was expressing his concern about the situation and was stating some of the facts. If the member opposite is not aware of the facts, I would like to restate them. We're obviously having a difficult time negotiating — that is, those responsible for negotiating and the members representing the nurses — in that there appears to be a gap between the 20 percent offered by the negotiators representing government, the people, and the request that has come from the Nurses’ Union.

I still believe and will continue to believe that we as a province, we as a people, are best served when we leave negotiating to those charged with negotiating, and when we don't see it as we so often hear it from the opposition. At every opportunity, whenever there's a dispute, on the very first day they want to become involved in attempting to resolve that dispute. That, I believe, is probably not out of line with socialist philosophy, but this is a free enterprise province and we don't believe in that sort of thing.

TRUCK BRAKE INSPECTION

MR. MILLER: Yesterday's very tragic accident at the Horseshoe Bay terminal was the fifth vehicle that has crashed through the barriers. Any one of those previous accidents could have resulted in a similar tragedy. Recommendation 9 of the May 24 coroner's inquest resulting from the Kamloops accident recommended that brake inspection pits be installed and that this be facilitated by the Minister of Transportation and Highways. Has there been a request from the Solicitor-General (Hon. Mr. Fraser) to establish these brake inspection pits?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: There are ongoing discussions between staff in both ministries with regard to those testing-spots.

MR. MILLER: It has been reported that the Ferry Corporation is seriously considering a runaway or run-out lane at the Horseshoe Bay terminal. Would the minister not agree that rather than that kind of action being taken, the implementation of the coroner's recommendations that flowed from the Kamloops accident would go far further in terms of proper enforcement, proper inspection and proper driver training and would be far more valuable in terms of preventing these kinds of very tragic accidents on our highways?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: The ministry is very concerned about the tragedy, and all arms of the ministry are cooperating fully with the West Vancouver police department in their investigation.

SPINAL CORD UNIT AT

UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL

MR. MOWAT: My question is urgent, and it's to the Hon. John Jansen, the Minister of Health. It's regarding the....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Even if the member is reading the question, the member should not be making a reference to the member's name. The member has been here a long time. I would ask the member to rephrase the question.

MR. MOWAT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's to the Minister of Health regarding the University Hospital and the acute spinal cord injury unit at the Shaughnessy site. I have information from the medical director of the unit that effective today the unit will no longer be able to take on high-lesion respiratory quadriplegics. With four high-lesion respiratory patients there now, they are full. Does the minister have any word of this, and could he look into it?

[ Page 10832 ]

HON. J. JANSEN: This is my first knowledge of the situation. It's obviously of great concern. I'll take the question on notice and deal with the matter appropriately.

BUILDING OF SUPER-FERRIES

MR. SIHOTA: I have a question to the Premier. The government has advocated a policy of building in B.C. with respect to the ferry fleet. Can the Premier give this House an unconditional assurance that the super-ferries will be built by the B.C. Ferry Corporation in British Columbia?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I will certainly defer the question to the minister responsible. Perhaps the member should be aware that all transportation comes under the Ministry of Transportation and Highways.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to put that question then to the minister, who I thought would rise once the Premier deferred it to her. Can the minister give an unconditional assurance to this House that the next super-ferry to be built by the B.C. Ferry Corporation will be built here in British Columbia?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I find the question quite interesting. It seems to me that this is at least the second time it has been put to me. I'm sure that the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew is quite aware of the fact that tenders on the two super-ferries close at the end of the month. At that time, a decision will be made. But he has also been told that we place a great deal of importance on jobs for British Columbians and jobs in British Columbia. But it would be inappropriate for anybody to give that type of assurance at this time.

I think we should look back to — I believe it was 1974 — when the NDP were in power, and the Queen of Surrey was purchased by the government of the day. It was purchased offshore, and it seems to me it was a very wise investment at the time.

Orders of the Day

ACCOUNTANTS (CERTIFIED GENERAL)

AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

The House in committee on Bill 42; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

On section 1.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I don't want to filibuster my own bill, but I think we should say a few things.

Essentially what we have here is an amendment to the Accountants (Certified General) Act that strengthens the capacity of this practice and puts the language of this act in tune with the language of the Accountants (Chartered) Act. This bill, as we go through it, does that, and I thought I'd say that in discussion on section 1.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, I want to comment briefly on this piece of legislation as well. We are aware that this legislation has been developed with extensive consultation with the certified general accountants who are here and, I think, quite grateful to have it going through its final passage at this time. We will be supporting the legislation.

[2:30]

I just have a couple of questions to ask, because this is in the vein of much of the legislation we deal with at various times in the House — it provides the rules and guidelines by which professional organizations in our province function.

I note that in this section and in other sections there are references to students in certified general accountancy. I just want to ask the minister if this is consistent with other pieces of legislation or if it is in any way unique to this legislation. I think it's a very good observation and reflection both that students are protected and that their standards are a part of the standards of the CGAs. I look for some comment from the minister on that.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Good question. Yes, both the certified general accountants and the chartered accountants have students for the purpose of training people to the practice standards they want. Normally the CAs are university graduates, and the CGAs are mostly students who have enrolled in the program, who are in a practice as a student and who are taking courses provided by either of the associations.

The member is right: we do mention students here. I can also tell you that in section 3 of the Accountants (Chartered) Act students are mentioned again. So it is consistent with other accounting practice that the students are mentioned in these acts. The students are a definite entity in both terms of practice.

MS. A. HAGEN: Section 3, in the language I think I have seen used, "elongates" the bylaws. I have never known of bylaws being elongated before, but that obviously says that there are some additions here. I wonder if the minister would like to briefly comment on the main import of those additions to the bylaws.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: As you will see in the notes, it amends section 11(3), which, if you went back to the original bill, has items (a) to (f) in terms of bylaws. This streamlines those bylaws and allows for the fixing of dues and for investigation; then, further, for a whole process of appeals. That is how the bylaws of section 11 in the act itself are amended.

Sections 2 to 4 inclusive approved.

[ Page 10833 ]

On section 5.

MS. A. HAGEN: This is a new section: "Investigation and Practice Review." I note that we are looking at procedures whereby people who are members of the profession may investigate the conduct of current or former members, or students, for grounds for disciplinary action.

In terms of public protection and public access to questioning standards of behaviour, is that encompassed in this particular section? Or are there any aspects of this legislation that deal with the protection of the consumer of the services of CGAs? Perhaps the minister could give us some information on that.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Good question. First of all, the Accountants (Certified General) Act now ends at section 19. So when we see section 5 in the amendments saying "20," that's a whole new process. Madam Member, I can tell you that from 20 to 25, that's right out of the CAs' act. It's cribbed; it's almost identical language, as I look at the Accountants (Chartered) Act.

As I said at the outset, this makes the two acts equivalent to each other — which everybody wanted, because the Accountants (Chartered) Act has served us well in that profession. And the CGAs feel the same way. They can certainly live with that language and would like to have that consistency.

In terms of consumer protection, I think both of these acts — as a matter of fact, most legislation that governs the practice of professionals — are designed for consumer protection in one way or another, whether you are dealing with a lawyer, an engineer, an architect or one of the accounting disciplines. These professional bodies want to ensure that their members are of the highest calibre in the way they have been trained and in the way they handle themselves. They want to ensure that they are honestly representing themselves to the public and that the public has every reason to believe that anyone who carries the designation of PEng, lawyer, CA or CGA is in fact a professional person and acting in the best interests of the client.

To do that, they have us as legislators pass their legislation in the House, giving them the right to discipline, to investigate and to say to the public in general: "We are a professional body. As a professional body, we are going to protect you, the consumer. Whenever a client comes to any of our members and seeks our services, that client, that member of the public, will receive the best possible service from our member. And we have legislation to back that up."

I think on balance the member is correct. This is consumer protection legislation, as is most professional-body legislation.

MS. A. HAGEN: One final question on this matter of consumer protection. Perhaps the minister can advise the House, from his consultations with this body, whether they advertise the process by which a consumer may access these protections.

I recognize that the language in the statute we are debating clearly notes the concern and the processes by which the organization will itself police and ensure the calibre of work of its members. Very often the knowledge of a concern comes from someone who is aggrieved. In this province we don't always have the best of consumer protection, and people don't always know. I'm just wondering if the minister can advise what processes, knowledge or information are available to the general public, which uses this profession a great deal, I know, because it is very accessible. They are around our communities, their fees are reasonable, and they are a group of people that business and private individuals make very considerable use of in the conduct of their affairs.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's a good question. They do currently have a very effective advertising campaign in place just setting out the job they do and, essentially in laymen's language, the extent of their practice.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

You might have seen them in magazines. They normally take the bottom two pages of a magazine, and they'll have a clarinet with two ends on it, or a fountain pen with two.... Have you seen those ads? They're quite clever. That is the type of advertising they are doing.

In terms of telling the public generally what they have in their legislation for consumer protection, I don't know if that's in the ads. I think generally it's known by the public — certainly by anyone who is going to be using the services of particularly the certified general accountants — that they do have an association, a code of practice and a method for discipline. If you feel aggrieved, there certainly is a body you can take it to.

I'm sure all MLAs know of this legislation, and I'm sure most of the general public does. I don't know how one would want to further advertise the protection that is offered to the consumer. It's a good thought but I think that's something the association has to do itself. It's our job as legislators to ensure that they have appropriate legislation in place, and it's up to the practice itself to ensure that the general public feels good and feels comforted by the type of professional treatment they're going to receive from a member of this association.

MS. A. HAGEN: One last question on section 5. This is in respect to section 23 — one of the new clauses that is being added with this bill.

I want to ask the minister what guidelines exist as to the financial penalty that may be imposed. This particular clause deals with disciplinary action and what options are available to the CGAs in terms of discipline. In subsection (e), it notes that there may be a fine of not more than $10,000 against a current or former member, or $2,000 against a student.

[ Page 10834 ]

We've been dealing with this a little bit in other legislation as well, in terms of the upper level of fines that may be imposed. I want to know just what guidelines there are for those kinds of penalties, to put them in some perspective in our review during committee stage.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: As you see in the discipline section, the committee or panel has the right — when they are satisfied that someone is incompetent — to do the following. One of them, as the member has pointed out, is to impose a fine against a current or former member of $10,000 or, if the incompetent action was taken by a student, a fine of $2,000 against the student. So really the decision is made by the people doing the inquiry.

I'll tell the member one more thing. This is identical wording to section 20 of the chartered accountants act. It was taken directly — lifted right out — and put in here. Again, it's the consistency argument that the CGAs were interested in.

Sections 5 and 6 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Bill 42, Accountants (Certified General) Amendment Act, 1990, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Chairman, I call Committee of Supply.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. De Jong in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

NATIVE AFFAIRS

On vote 50: minister's office, $281,782 (continued).

MR. G. HANSON: Following from this morning, we would like to have a little conversation with the minister regarding his position on the framework agreement between the Nisga'a people and the federal government and on their overture to the province to join them in resolving this 130-year-old grievance.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I would like to ask the minister what it is.... I think he owes this House some kind of a report — he didn't like the term "report" — or some kind of an accountability on the province sitting as an observer at these negotiations for 12 years. Could he please advise the House what his observations have been; what the accomplishments have been; what the obstacles are. Why will his government not take its place at those negotiations to do what Canada and the Nisga'a people...? Canada signed by a former minister for the Department of Indian Affairs, now Minister of Justice, Kim Campbell — she signed the document asking for the province to participate. Why don't you tell us a little bit more about your observations?

[2:45]

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: Yes, I intended to pick up on some of the comments the member made this morning and then respond as well to his question this afternoon.

This morning in his last speech to the House, the member accused me of not even reading our policy document and indicated that had I done so, I would have understood that the NDP are committed to third-party interests in negotiating treaties. The member quoted a line which says: "In negotiating treaties, a provincial government will ensure that third-party interests are accommodated, including those of municipalities and others."

This is a quotation from a rather broad and substantial document, and it's interesting that the only reference to third-party interests is to "municipalities and others." I am sure the members across the way must recognize that there are various interests in land subject to land claims. There is fee simple land, and there has always — at least until recently — been the premise that private fee simple lands are not subject to land claims. However, injunctions that have been obtained on Deer Island and Scheidam Flats would call into question that premise. But this very thorough document doesn't touch on that issue.

There are other interests. There are forestry tenures on lands subject to land claims, mining interests, grazing interests and a whole host of interests.

In this rather comprehensive document that received some five minutes of debate at the party convention, it's interesting that all it refers to is "municipalities and others," and I would question the commitment of the NDP to "others." If I were an "other," I would be concerned about this particular position.

However, moving on to the Nisga'a land claims, it's true that in 1989 a framework agreement was signed and that part of that framework calls on Canada and the Nisga'a people to encourage the province to become a participant in the land claim negotiations.

It's interesting that several years ago our Speaker, who was then minister responsible, put the question to Bill McKnight, who was then the minister responsible for DIA. He asked him to let us know three things: what claims the federal government had accepted for negotiation; what they thought the cost of settling those claims would be; and what part of the cost of those settlements they thought it reasonable for the province to accept — how big the pie is,

[ Page 10835 ]

how much of the pie should be provincial responsibility and how much should be federal responsibility.

I later asked that same question, because we've never had a response from Ottawa. I have since asked that question of Pierre Cadieux, of Kim Campbell, and most lately of Tom Siddon. I think it reasonable, before a province were to make a decision to start a process, to have some idea of what you were starting to negotiate. How many claims are there? How big are they? How much does Canada expect to pay or, conversely, how much do they expect the province to pay? We're still waiting for that. I think it would be irresponsible to start a process before you got that kind of response. That's basic information that any prudent businesslike individual or government would want to have before starting negotiations. Whether you're starting negotiations on land claims or whether you're starting negotiations to buy a piece of property, you have to have some idea of the size and scope of what you're getting into. There's no sense in starting to talk about buying a building if you don't know whether it's a one-bedroom bungalow or a multi-suite apartment house, because surely your pocket will dictate whether it's even reasonable for you to sit down and start talking about those kinds of things.

That is where I see us in this Nisga'a process. We're there because fisheries issues are being discussed at present. We both understand, Mr. Chairman, that those fisheries issues are federal responsibility; that they don't require the province to be there to settle. However, the province is interested in being there, in order for us to understand what kinds of settlements are being contemplated and what the impact of those settlements on other users might be. Certainly commercial and sport fishermen are going to be interested in these agreements, although the saltwater fishery, be it native, commercial or sport, is still federal responsibility.

There's nothing stopping that process from going ahead, and in the meantime we're awaiting a response from Ottawa. I think it reasonable that we should continue to insist on that kind of information before considering whether or not it's proper for us to get involved in the process.

MR. G. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, in addressing some of the remarks that the minister made, I would direct his attention to the agreement in the Yukon, which is a New Democrat administration — a result of 17 years of negotiations. The third-party interests were attended to.

Interjection.

MR. G. HANSON: Yes, federal land, federal jurisdiction. I understand that. But third-party interests were attended to. You know, Mr. Chairman, that the resource-based industries of the Yukon, particularly mining, are used to this type of negotiation worldwide. They perform their activities globally, and they're used to entering into agreements to allow for their enterprise to proceed.

When the minister uses costs to preclude the start of discussions and negotiations, I would ask him to contemplate the cost to British Columbia of not discussing and negotiating a mutually agreeable solution to this predicament. The costs are not all on one side — the costs in loss of investment and loss of stability and certainty for international and local investment. The minister has got to have two sides to the equation. We argue that there are many pluses to settlement: an influx of federal dollars in compensation, stability and a reinvestment of that money locally. That money would tend to stay and strengthen regional economies. It would tend not to go to Zurich or New York, outside of the country.

The N.W.T. settlement indicates, through their corporate entities, reinvestment in Canada and in the region. That has been stated over and over: we see the federal compensation dollars conming in and being reinvested in local and regional economies that are presently encountering difficulties.

He says, how do you know how big the bread-box is? You've got to know what the size and cost and numbers are beforehand. You enter into framework discussions, where categories are listed. This is the bare bones, the skeleton, the Nisga'a framework agreement. It indicates categories, and sometimes they're simply the denoting of a category, with nothing beyond; it's subject to talk and good-faith negotiations.

I think it would be useful just to list some of the categories agreed to by the federal government that would be subject to negotiations; they're on the table. The minister mentions the fact that the province is there because the federal government is discussing fisheries. The federal government cannot resolve the land claims issue for the Nisga'a claim with fish alone. There aren't enough fish, or using the fish to be extrapolated to other parts of the province is an unrealistic settlement. So for there not to be other variables or possibilities is absurd. You can't vacate the field to the federal government, expecting that they are going to resolve the matter on fisheries, because you have jurisdiction in other areas.

What are some of the topics for negotiations between the Nisga'a Tribal Council and Canada? Fisheries harvesting and management. The fisheries agreement has been the subject of negotiations since 1982. 1 know your staff are aware of it and the implications. You can't resolve it with fish. It's simply untenable. Recently there have been some shifts, a movement away from that, in the magnitude of an attempt to resolve using fish.

Non-renewable resources: resource-revenue sharing and participation in environmental management under Canada's jurisdiction. The federal government is willing to entertain an aboriginal voice, on the ground level where the non-renewable resources are known best, sharing in the responsibility to manage things effectively for the future.

Compensation: eligibility criteria and initial enrolment procedures, water, taxation, the relationship of existing Nisga'a reserve lands to any interests of the Nisga'a lands described in this agreement.

[ Page 10836 ]

Earlier the minister asked me if I would define aboriginal title. I would direct him to the Yukon agreement and the principle which states that aboriginal title is not extinguished on settlement lands. By implication, there is a reference to aboriginal title. Surely to goodness he can confer with his federal colleagues and find out precisely that it was agreed at the bargaining table that aboriginal title in the Yukon is not extinguished on settlement lands.

Another aspect of our topic is environmental protection. Because of their reliance on fish resources, game resources and wild stocks, aboriginal people are very close in the food chain to dealing with contamination through pesticides, herbicides and chemical toxins which are rapidly invading the food chain. They want to talk about environmental protection. They want to talk about the monitoring of toxins in fish, of antibiotics entering the wild stocks through fish-farming and aquaculture and being brought through to the higher levels of the food chain by carnivores that are eating wild fish or fish released from fish-farms by accident or whatever. These fish are getting into bears, cougars and other animals and contaminating their flesh with various antibiotics and other chemicals.

Mr. Chairman, this province and all citizens would be well served by greater involvement in the management of our resources and environmental management by aboriginal people.

Forestry. Everyone knows that our forests have been mismanaged. It takes different descriptions: falldown effect, overcutting. Those are just fancy forestry terms for mismanagement of one of B.C.'s most precious natural resources. That's a topic for discussion.

[3:00]

What share? The minister wanted to know what our bottom line is. I'd like to ask him: to what extent does he feel that aboriginal people are entitled to a share of the forest resources of the Nass Valley? Should they have employment? Should they have value-added? Should they have a share of royalties? Should they have a share of the wealth and a share of the management through committees? They are citizens. They are local residents. I'd be interested to hear the minister's views on how he sees the people of the Nass. I'm using the Nisga'a as an example, because it is the only area where a federally signed framework agreement is in place and a set of comprehensive negotiations has been going on for over 12 years, and where the province has been an observer, not a participant.

Geothermal energy in that area. Yes, I read releases that there will be a park created to contain the lava beds. There will be some kind of recognition and protection for the lava beds south of the Nass Valley, up the Kitsumkalum and so on. There are geothermal springs there and the potential for heat, power, horticulture, greenhouse agriculture. That's a subject; that's a topic. They would like to talk about it. They would like to have fresh vegetables in the Nass. They would rather not have the green, hard golf balls — by the time they get to the Nass from California or Mexico — that they call tomatoes. They would like to have fresh food that is not contaminated with pesticides and herbicides, etc. Geothermal is a possibility for greenhouse agriculture in the north. They would like to talk about it.

Cultural artifacts — their sites, their burial grounds, their sacred places, the places that are of importance to them. This is a subagreement that was initialed by the negotiators in 1984.

Nisga'a government. I read the letter the Premier received from the president of the Nisga'a Tribal Council, where he said:

"We understand there's a federal government. We understand there's a provincial government. But we also know that there are municipal governments, and they have a relationship to these senior governments. Can we discuss how we could have more self-determination and more self-reliance, and how we would relate to the municipalities, to the province and to the federal government?"

That's not that complicated. Surely it could be discussed.

In section 5.12.1: "The Nisga'a government subagreement will deal with matters including the jurisdictions and powers of the institutions and structures of Nisga'a government, while issues concerning Nisga'a authority over land and resources, such as fisheries management, shall be dealt with as part of each subagreement." I mentioned earlier that in that letter to the Premier they said: "And when the province takes its rightful place, this framework agreement will be reopened, the advent of the province at the table will be recognized and the jurisdiction of the province will be recognized."

General clauses; approval; dispute resolution process; amendment procedures; certainty for the use, disposition and ownership of lands, fisheries and other resource-related rights; finality of claims; scheduling and timing; communication; third-party interests.... In this framework agreement Canada will deal with third parties whose interests are affected by the land claims agreement. Do we want to leave that all up to Prime Minister Mulroney? Why would we want to leave third-party responsibilities and interests entirely to the Mulroney Tory government? Why shouldn't the province of B.C. be at the table to protect the people of British Columbia and to make sure that it's fair for everyone?

We are serious about third-party interests. We believe that there has to be a public education process and an involvement process — a consultative process— so that third parties, whether they be forestry, mining, fisheries, municipalities or other interested groups, can be heard; and that there should be hearings to register their concerns so that the negotiation process recognizes, accommodates and understands the interests of third parties as well as of the principles at the table.

Section 9 — the big vacuum. B.C.'s participation in the land claims agreement — nowhere; not there. It's abrogating its responsibility. Why should the federal government be allowed to proceed without B.C.'s voice being heard at the table? Then you want to know the size of the box of rights. But if it's not

[ Page 10837 ]

acceptable to either party, why would they sign it? If the Nisga'a comprehensive land claim settlement was not acceptable to the people of British Columbia, through this Legislature, or to the Parliament of Canada, or conversely to the Nisga'a people, why would anyone sign it? You have to sign an agreement for it to be law. It's not a pig in a poke. It's the result of comprehensive, detailed restructuring of relationships with aboriginal people, the province and the federal government. If it's not acceptable, the province wouldn't sign it and the people wouldn't tolerate it.

What further safeguards do you need? You'd ratify something in principle.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Under standing orders, the member's time has expired.

MR. HARCOURT: I think the first member for Victoria is carrying on a splendid discussion on the minister of aboriginal affairs' estimates, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to hear more.

MR. G. HANSON: As I remarked this morning, I know that the leader of our party — the leader of the official opposition — very clearly understands the importance of this issue. This is a fundamental issue which needs to be addressed. We're saying that the mode of denial that all provincial governments have had to date has taken us down a dead-end road, and it's time to change that course, to deal in good faith in a whole restructuring of the relationship. I don't think we should be afraid of it. We shouldn't be afraid of being taken to the cleaners, because, as I said, if it's not acceptable, no one's going to sign it What other trade union or corporation in the industrial sector would carry out negotiations for 16 years, since 1976, and have such fruitless talks?

The first page of the Nisga'a framework agreement says:

"Whereas there has never been a treaty or a land claims agreement between the Nisga'a nation and the British Crown, Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada or Her Majesty the Queen in right of British Columbia;

"And whereas since the first arrival of European settlers the Nisga'a have always asserted their aboriginal title to their traditional homeland and have always sought an agreement on sharing" — sharing, Mr. Minister — "the land and resources;"

Only the non-native mentality would extrapolate into their mind that they deny other people access. They talk about sharing.

"And whereas in 1955 the Nisga'a Tribal Council was given the mandate by the Nisga'a nation to negotiate a just and equitable resolution of the land question;

"And whereas in 1973, following the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Calder case, along with other considerations, the government of Canada introduced a comprehensive land claim policy, which was revised in 1981 and again in 1986;

"And whereas in 1976 the Nisga'a Tribal Council and Canada undertook to negotiate a land claims agreement;

"And whereas in 1976 British Columbia agreed to participate...as an observer;

"And whereas between 1976 and 1978 the Nisga'a Tribal Council, Canada and B.C. exchanged position papers;

"And whereas in August 1987, the Nisga'a Tribal Council tabled its position paper on these negotiations, which was entitled 'Proposed Framework for Negotiating a Nisga'a Land Claims Agreement';

"And whereas in February 1988, Canada responded..."

Mr. Chairman, this particular "whereas" is the most important for the purposes of the discussion today.

"And whereas the Nisga'a Tribal Council and Canada agree that in order to deal with topics such as land and resources, it is desirable that British Columbia be a party to the land claims agreement;

"And whereas Canada has further undertaken to endeavour to bring British Columbia into these negotiations as a full participant;

"And whereas Canada and the Nisga'a Tribal Council were actively negotiating at the time of the December 1986 federal policy on comprehensive land claims which introduced a new step, the framework agreement...."

My simple question to the minister, after that introduction, is why will the province not take its place at the table and represent all the people of British Columbia — aboriginal interests, third-party interests — and take our place to make sure that B.C. gets a fair share and this settlement benefits both aboriginal and non-aboriginal people in this province? It's long overdue. Why does he continue to refuse to take the position and instruct his senior staff to participate?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: First of all, let's understand that this government and all members in this government recognize the benefits of a resolution to the whole land claim question. There is no one here who would not want to see a resolution to the land question in British Columbia. It would seem to me that that should have been an accepted item when we started our discussions.

Certainly during the past year the Premier's advisory council has been an indication of our interest and concern with the whole question. Statements by the Premier, primarily, and others have indicated that the province is reassessing its position on the land question but that we want to understand some of the questions, some of the differences.

The Nisga'a people are ones I very much enjoy meeting and dealing with. They're very reasonable people. They lay out their arguments very reasonably, very cogently, very understandably. They put out a package. They acknowledge the need to negotiate, to co-exist, to do all of those kinds of things. That's something that I think is obvious. For anyone who has been watching over the last year or two the actions of the provincial government, you would understand that we are reassessing; we're understanding more about land claims.

[3:15]

But also, not all land claims are put forward in the same tone as the Nisga'a claim. This morning we talked about the Gitksan claim, and I want to now

[ Page 10838 ]

acknowledge that the comments I attributed to Chief Delgam Uukw were in fact the words of Chief Alfred Joseph, who also made final arguments in the Gitksan case. Let me read those comments. These are the words of Chief Alfred Joseph at the Supreme Court of British Columbia:

"We realize that the true financial value of this compensation for restoration would bankrupt both the federal and provincial governments. Compensation must remain an ongoing obligation of the federal and provincial governments 'until our hearts are satisfied'."

"We do not want financial compensation without the recognition of our authority over our territories. I will identify those areas where the powers of the province and the federal government need to be restrained in order for us to exercise our responsibilities under aboriginal title."

He goes on to say: "We must have the power to manage all human activity that brings change to the land, air or water on all of our territories." Now that's a pretty significant statement. "The chiefs must have control over the local economy by managing natural resource allocations within their territories." I remind you, Mr. Chairman, that the territories we're talking about are an area larger in size than New Brunswick. "This would include licensing, leasing and permitting. As well, royalties and taxation payments from resource use on our territories must be paid to us."

So, Mr. Chairman, my point is that one of the things we have learned as we travel around the province with the Premier's advisory council and meet with tribal councils around the province is that perceptions about land claims vary a great deal from tribal council to tribal council and from nation to nation.

So to say, "Here is the Nisga'a claim; it is a reasonable one, therefore we should negotiate land claims, " or to look at the Sechelt claim and say, "This is a reasonable claim, therefore we will negotiate claims, " I think underestimates the complexity of the problem.

The member noted that the Yukon government took 17 years to negotiate a settlement which, to the best of my understanding, still has not been ratified by the Indian people in the Yukon. Here is a situation where there are relatively few people in a territory, and a large percentage of those people are Indian people. There are relatively few tenures on the lands, and the member alludes to the fact that resource interests were looked after in the Yukon.

Mr. Chairman, I travelled to the Yukon soon after I was appointed to this ministry in order to speak with the people who were negotiating that land claim and to understand the similarities and the differences between the land claim process in British Columbia and the land claim process in the Yukon Territory.

In fact, there is only one government: the government of Canada. The territorial government paid, to the best of my knowledge, nothing toward the settlement — or offered to pay nothing — and had no tenure to land. So in fact it had nothing to contribute to the settlement. Canada owned the resources; Canada has the money; Canada will pay — perhaps a model that we both agree as being the proper one. But let's be cautious about comparing the Yukon settlement with what happened in British Columbia. Further, in the Yukon there was one negotiating group that represented all of the Indian people in the Yukon. We have 27 distinct nations in British Columbia, each of whom has indicated the desire to negotiate their own land claim.

When we talk about 197 bands in British Columbia and the fact that the federal government will negotiate with only one group at a time — be it a band or a tribal council — I think that it's going to take far longer than you or I hope to go through this process. So let's not all of a sudden hold the federal government up as the model for everybody to follow. I think their process is designed to frustrate rather than to facilitate. Furthermore, if they really wanted the province to be at the bargaining table, they would have provided at least part of the information that our present Speaker asked Mr. McKnight for and that I asked Cadieux, Campbell and Siddon for. Some of that information was readily available. If they really wanted to facilitate the settlement of land claims, they would have provided that to us. That has to be looked at realistically.

The member said we could go and negotiate a deal, and that it would have to be ratified in this House and in Ottawa. If it wasn't ratified, then it wouldn't be a deal. I'm sure the member is not suggesting that we go out and start negotiations or start to raise expectations. If the province decides to negotiate and meet with the federal government and Indian people to negotiate a claim, it's got to be with the expectation of a settlement. It can't be some kind of a shell game where you negotiate for years and years and then bring it back to the Legislature to get it trounced. I wouldn't want to be part of that process. I would want to go with the expectation that you could negotiate a deal that would be suitable to this House.

To that end, I believe we need the kind of comfort from Ottawa that I've suggested. Members on the other side stand up and say: "We know the federal government will pay all of the costs." That's nonsense; that's poppycock. You don't know anything of the sort. We've asked them how much — not whether or not they will pay at all. We've asked it of them minister to minister and year after year. They won't tell us. I'm reasonably certain they haven't — by some unofficial means — advised you that they would gladly accept all of the costs of settlement. I know that isn't right, and I'm sure you know it's not right.

We're moving; we're talking, and we understand more now. We have a better understanding of claims and the differential in claims from the Sechelt which requires no land but calls for cash, a share of resource royalties and an opportunity to share in fisheries — to the Nisga'a claim which you've outlined, to the Gitksan claim which I've outlined.

You go through the spectrum there that's radically different from one community to the next. One of the

[ Page 10839 ]

things we've found when we met with tribal councils is that there are no two identical visions. Some are similar; some are radically different. I think it's a worthwhile process to go through as a government to better understand that before you get involved in a process that you don't understand, and you don't know who is going to pay the costs of and all of those kinds of things.

I will wrap up by saying that I believe we are continuing to reassess. We're looking carefully and prudently at the options we have with the expectation that we can find a resolution that's suitable for all British Columbians.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, I'll be brief. I'm looking forward to hearing the comments of the Leader of the Opposition. He said just now that he endorsed everything the first member for Victoria said.

I'd like him to reflect on some things the hon. member from Victoria has said. Several weeks ago the first member for Victoria was in Vancouver, and he addressed the Musqueam band. He said emphatically that when the NDP become government, they would go back to square one to review the Pacific Spirit Park lands and take into account the Musqueam band claims. The inference was that some part, at least, of the Pacific Spirit Park would be turned over to the Musqueam band.

My question really is this, if I was phrasing one to the Leader of the Opposition: how many of the settlements which have been negotiated or otherwise dealt with in the past are also open to review? Under his direction — I believe from a resolution passed by the NDP — they are going to review all native land claims. Does that include, for instance, going back to square one on the Pacific Spirit Park? Does it go back to review the Sechelt arrangement or negotiated settlements in recent years whereby the Indian cutoff lands and some part of them have been returned to the bands? Will they go back and review those with a view to expanding the lands which are turned over to those bands in their particular areas?

I don't know where the NDP stands. I certainly don't know now where they stand on matters like the Pacific Spirit Park. I hope they don't intend to open that one, enticing the Musqueam to think that they are going to get virtually all of those lands turned over to that band. But were they ever to form government, God forbid, they are going to have to face those words which — if not engraved in stone — certainly are well memorized by members of the Musqueam band.

MR. HARCOURT: I wish to be clear on where I and the New Democrats are coming from on the issues that the ministers of aboriginal affairs and Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources have raised. I think it's important that I lay out the New Democrat policy on the aboriginal land question.

Our policy is based on five principles. The first is recognizing aboriginal title and the right of aboriginal people to self-government. The second is a commitment to reaching the just and honourable settlements through negotiations. They would involve aboriginal people and the federal and provincial governments. The third is to represent the interests of all British Columbians in the negotiation and settlement processes and the third parties that have been talked about here, which are involved in fisheries, forestry, mining and many other areas that interested British Columbians are involved in.

The fourth is that those negotiations be based on the concept of sustainability and sustainable economic development throughout this province. Fifth, we are committed, as New Democrats, to renewing the constitutional process so that the aboriginal right to self-government can be firmly entrenched in the constitution of Canada.

Those are the principles on which is based our policy of recognition that aboriginal title exists, that it hasn't been extinguished and that we want to negotiate, not litigate and lead the province into the bitterness and uncertainty we now face — with the billions of dollars of investment flowing around this province because of that uncertainty— bitterness and the stalemate that this government's non-policy has brought to British Columbia.

Our position is very clear. I was interested to read the minister of aboriginal affairs' comments this morning that the NDP policy, which took less than five minutes debate at our convention in March.... I want the minister to know, because he may not have been aware, that I chaired our aboriginal affairs committee which worked for two and a half years to put that policy together.

I have met with 28 tribal councils. We had seven regional conferences around this province and have met with thousands of British Columbians in developing this position paper, which was received by delegates at our convention who had participated in that ongoing dialogue between New Democrats and British Columbians about this very important question.

[3:30]

I'm sure the minister would agree that it is essential to having this province move forward that we resolve it in a prudent and just way. I want the minister to be aware of the fact that it wasn't a five-minute discussion. It was a paper that had been developed over two and a half years of dialogue with those delegates, who were at that convention with British Columbians throughout the province.

The other matter that I want to comment on is the role of the federal government. I would agree with the minister that the role of the federal government has been to hide behind the inaction of the provincial government, and that their policy is a major roadblock to satisfactory negotiations. First of all, of only seven claims being negotiated at any one time....

MR. G. HANSON: Six.

MR. HARCOURT: Six — and they have claims that are sort of sitting in the hopper. That's for Canada. That is the 150-to-200-year negotiating strategy, and I

[ Page 10840 ]

don't think that satisfies the minister. It doesn't satisfy me, British Columbians or the aboriginal people. Once the impediment is removed of the provincial government refusing to come to the table and recognizing that there is such a concept of aboriginal title — that it hasn't been extinguished, and that we have to negotiate — with a New Democrat government being willing to come to the table, the major obstacle is going to be the federal government, with its present position of only negotiating six at any one time and, as the minister says, refusing to sit down to detailed negotiations with the provincial government of what the obligations would be in the vast majority with the federal government and with the provincial government as a minority negotiating partner in this process.

I agree with the minister that we have a problem with the federal government. It would be a very real and very serious problem.

The minister and some of his colleagues this morning were making comments about bottom line and what is meant by aboriginal title. I have read through the transcripts. I didn't hear all the comments of some members of the government's side, but I found it really quite disgraceful the way the member for Atlin (Mr. Guno) was treated this morning by members on that side.

The minister didn't participate and was quite fair and respectful in his approach to the member for Atlin, but I found some of his colleagues being very unfortunate, at the best interpretation and, at the worst, displaying ignorance and prejudice in this matter. I hope that doesn't happen again during this very important discussion.

Having said that, I think the important challenge is how we define the aboriginal land question, how we get more specific, how we start to surround the monetary...and the access and the sharing of the natural resources and lands of this great, rich province of ours.

Whether or not a witness at a trial makes a statement that I don't agree with and we use that out of context is not the issue. That was a witness at a trial making a statement that may or may not be accepted, and my guess is that it will not be accepted by the court. It certainly isn't accepted by me and it certainly isn't accepted by the New Democrats that bankruptcy of Canada and British Columbia is going to flow from the settlement. I think just the opposite This province will have more security, more certainty, a sharing of the prosperity of this province that will be totally beneficial to British Columbians, when the federal government sits down with the province and the aboriginal people to negotiate the settlement over a number of years.

If the minister and his colleagues would like some guidance as to the framework for that discussion or negotiations and would like to know where to start, I would suggest that we go back and have a look at the most recent court decision, the Sparrow decision by the Supreme Court of Canada, and read what the justices unanimously described as the background for their interpretation of section 35(1), which, as the minister knows, deals with aboriginal rights. There are sources to start to get a glimmer of what we mean by the aboriginal land question, by aboriginal title, by aboriginal rights. I think the justices, unanimously in this decision, started to give us that direction.

I'll quote what the justices of the Supreme Court of Canada said in the Sparrow decision:

"In response to these submissions and in finding the appropriate interpretive framework for section 35(l), we start by looking at the background of section 35(1).

"It is worth recalling that while British policy towards the native population was based on respect for their right to occupy their traditional lands, a proposition to which the Royal Proclamation of 1763 bears witness, there was from the outset never any doubt that sovereignty and legislative power, and indeed the underlying title to such lands, vested in the Crown."

It's very clear what the justices of the Supreme Court of Canada stated. What they then go on to say is the point that I'm trying to make:

"And there can be no doubt that over the years the rights of the Indians were often honoured in the breach."

They went on to say, quoting Mr. Justice Macdonald in the case of Pasco v. Canadian National Railway Company in the 1986 reports of the B.C. Supreme Court: "We cannot recount with much pride the treatment accorded to the native people of this country."

As we start to try and understand these important concepts, which are fundamentally important to this province, we have two concepts of ownership. It does a real disservice when people say that the aboriginal people want 125 percent ownership of this province. You're talking two totally different concepts of ownership. We use the British common law, the Torrens system, terms such as "fee simple" and "leases." The aboriginal people talk about use and occupation of traditional territories for their sustenance. We have our concept of ownership, being the non-aboriginal population, and the aboriginal concept of use and occupation. We also have our concept of fee simple, based on the common law which came through to the Torrens system, which came out of Australia and has been applied in British Columbia for many decades; the concept of private property ownership, of long-term leases, of that form of documentation of legal and property rights. The aboriginal concept is quite different.

So we in the non-aboriginal population have our understanding of ownership: you have ownership and it's staked out, defined and registered under the Torrens system in our land registry offices. You can get a map that shows what you own. The Crown reserves certain rights to that ownership, so it's not exclusive. Then, over that title that the people of British Columbia hold over 90 percent of this province, through the Crown ownership, as I just described in the Supreme Court decision, you have aboriginal title, which is more — if I can use an expression that's close in our legal system — a lis pendens. You have a cloud over the title that the

[ Page 10841 ]

Crown has — that the people of British Columbia have.

That's really the question that has to be resolved, and it's going to take some courage and some goodwill for us to sit down and start that process. That's what we're urging this minister and this government to do — and to have done it 15 years ago when the Calder decision became very clear.

When our party was in government, it started to come to grips with that, with the Nisga'a School Board, with the Burns Lake timber project, with the start of the cutoff lands negotiations, when we were all trying to come to grips with what that meant, which really.... The Calder decision was the watershed, to finally get us to stop the decades of the non-aboriginal community's terrible negligence toward the aboriginal community.

The definition has to take place, but it takes place through negotiation. It takes place through our genuinely wanting to negotiate, to fundamentally come to grips with this cloud, with this lis pendens on the title of the land in British Columbia. I would hope that through the next few hours and days and months we could start to move in that direction, so that we can sit at the negotiating table with the federal government and the aboriginal people as soon as possible.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

The other point I picked up from the debate this morning is that the minister was concerned about our position on third-party rights. We've made it clear that we are going to be representing those third-party rights. If the New Democrats became government and were at the table negotiating, we have said that we are prepared to protect those third-party rights, whether it be fisheries, forestry, mining, oil, gas, energy or people with leases on Crown lands. Those are going to be a very important part of the negotiations.

Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, I think that we should be absolutely clear that the aboriginal people.... New Democrats have never said anything other than that fee simple, the private property that people have, where their homes and businesses are located, is not involved in these negotiations. We're talking about a sharing of the great resources of this province of ours.

Surely, Mr. Chairman, for 100,000 aboriginal people, a significant number of whom are living in abject poverty in this bountiful province of ours the size of West Germany and France — 360,000 square miles — with some of the most bountiful, God-given resources that can be found anywhere in this world, in terms of forestry, fisheries, agriculture, mining, oil and gas resources, the talented people we have, surely we can come up with the resources to settle this question, with the federal government having the responsibility for treaties, having the fiduciary relationship with the aboriginal people and having the vast majority of the responsibility for the settlements.

Mr. Chairman, I wanted to make those points very clearly. We as New Democrats are prepared to carry this important issue forward courageously and prudently, in the best interests not just of the non-aboriginal people of British Columbia but of the aboriginal people. It's my prediction that when we do conclude these negotiations, it's going to be not just morally right to conclude them; it's going to be of monetary benefit to British Columbians, particularly those living in the resource areas of the province, and to the businesses whom the minister has met with, the business leaders who have said businesses are being harmed by this uncertainty, this lack of predictability for investments — that we're going to end up with a lawsuit or an injunction.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, hon. member, your time has expired.

MR. G. HANSON: I think it's very important that this House hear the views from the Leader of the Opposition on this matter. He has been working in this field for a number of years and is very well informed. I think the House would be well served by his comments.

MR. HARCOURT: I put forward these comments because I think it is important that British Columbians do address courageously and realistically these outstanding issues and questions. I don't think fearmongering — "Oh, we're going to be bankrupt, " and "Oh, the aboriginal people want to own 125 or 150 percent of this province" — is helpful, and I hope we stop that. I hope we all go out and genuinely try and have British Columbians understand what is involved and what isn't. I put that forward, Mr. Chairman, as an urgent request. We on this side of the House are prepared to be realistic and to work with British Columbians to understand this very important issue.

[3:45]

It's the key, in my opinion, to unlocking the prosperity and the well-being of British Columbians, and mostly in the areas where unemployment is high, where young people are leaving. I think that if we can take that approach, rather than saying the aboriginal people want to own 125 percent of this province and make us into tenants, and have the non-aboriginal people come on their knees to beg for whatever.... I wish we'd stop that. And I wish that members of the government side would stop the harassing of our member for Atlin, who I think deserves far better treatment than he received this morning. I would hope that during this debate we would carry on that way.

I may say, in my last comment, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. Davis) wanted to know about the Pacific Spirit Park and our respect for property rights, and were we going to reopen this whole issue. I want to make it very clear that we do respect the right of people to own private property. We do respect and encourage people to own their own homes in this democracy of ours. So that statement is just false. For the minister then to ask if we are going to reopen the park and if the park is in jeopardy.... No, it's not in jeopardy.

[ Page 10842 ]

We found that Pacific Spirit Park offensive because the Attorney-General was using some legal trickery, with the park as a facade, to weaken the Musqueam's claims for their aboriginal rights. That's what we found offensive, and that's what I want the Minister of Energy to be clear on. We will change that offensive part of the act without affecting the park one iota, because we respect the Musqueam people — unlike the Attorney-General, who showed a complete lack of respect for them by using the Pacific Spirit Park act as a way of harming and trying to remove the rights of the Musqueam people by transferring the Crown's rights over that land to a third party, which I am sure the minister understands the significance of. It severely weakens the aboriginal claims when those claims are being dealt with through a party that isn't the Crown. That's what we objected to, and I want the Minister of Energy to understand why we objected to that bill last year.

Those are some of the comments I wanted to make on this very important issue. I may say that I have found the minister's tone and approach this afternoon to be helpful, and I hope we can continue that as we all try to come to grips with the aboriginal land question, with what is meant by aboriginal title and aboriginal rights. What did the court mean in the Sparrow case when it said that those rights have to be treated by federal and provincial governments in a broad and liberal way, in a fiduciary way, in a contemporary way, not of the past? The court has made very clear the direction we have to go.

I conclude by saying that I will be leaving shortly, because I have to fly to the Charlottes to meet with the aboriginal congress where I will be carrying on just the kind of dialogue that I have been trying to carry on here today, because this issue will not go away. We really have a choice of a far meaner, more divisive, more bitter and less prosperous British Columbia by continuing the present government's policy of refusing to recognize that aboriginal title exists and hasn't been extinguished. We should negotiate and not litigate this issue or hide our head in the sand. We have that choice or the choice the New Democrats have put forward, which is that we recognize that aboriginal title exists — as the Supreme Court of Canada is leading us in that direction and has said, as I have just outlined, that it has not been extinguished — and that we want to negotiate a just and honourable settlement which will be of benefit to both aboriginal and non-aboriginal people.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: I found the opposition leader's comments interesting. He displays a Pollyanna-like naivety toward the whole issue when he indicates that all we have to do is start negotiating claims, and by some magic, everybody will be better off, there will be no more conflicts, and everyone will get along. If only it were so, I think we would all leap at the opportunity. But we know it isn't so. He indicates that faith also in our federal government: that we will go ahead and negotiate the deal, certain in our hearts that Canada will come along and pick up the tab at the end of the day. Again, if only it were so.

I think that the position taken by our provincial government — this government — in trying to get some reasonable assurances from Ottawa before we start is a more prudent way to do it. It is more likely to result in a successful conclusion than having somebody go off and negotiate in the blind hope that at the end of the day Ottawa is going to pick up the tab, the province will be better off, millions will pour in, and everyone will be fine. I just don't think it's quite that simple. As a matter of fact, having spent a good part of my time over a couple of years on the issue, I really don't believe it's that simple.

The Leader of the Opposition says that their policy document received two and a half years of consultation with the tribal councils and thousands of other British Columbians who had input into it. I wish he were here so that I could get a little more information about who those thousands were, because it is surprising to me that none of those thousands — and we are led to believe that they were from all walks of life and all political stripes and all the rest — in their long and careful deliberations on the issue ever questioned the definition of aboriginal title. There were only four points to discuss. One was the recognition of aboriginal title. I've raised the question today: what does it mean? Surely one of those thousands along the way must have also asked the question. It certainly would have been useful had there been a little definition included in this document considered by so many for so long.

The opposition leader refers to a witness making some casual and irresponsible statements that he didn't agree with — and I'm referring to Chief Alfred Joseph. The issue is quite simply that, as I stated this morning, Chief Joseph is not a casual witness at a trial. He's a chief of the Gitksan-Wet'suwet'en people. He was one of five or six people selected to make closing arguments in a Supreme Court of British Columbia trial that lasted three and a half years. This is one of the most, if not the most, lengthy and comprehensive trials ever conducted on aboriginal title — if not, second only to the Calder case — so to think that one of the five or six chiefs getting up to make his closing arguments made some spurious comments that were a little fit of temper and frustration is nonsense. If you read the closing arguments, they were well thought out and well constructed. They represent a position that has been the basis of long argument. In fact, much of the information, I'm told, was a joint statement.

We now also have, as I Indicated this morning.... It's interesting in these debates, as we talk back and forth, because sometimes I wonder whether people hear or just continue to talk. I guess you have to then wonder whether you're guilty of the same thing that the members opposite appear to be guilty of. But we seem to keep talking about the same subjects over and over again. In any event, the opposition leader, who is a lawyer, gave us yet another unsolicited opinion on Sparrow. We've had a number of them. We've had a number that we've solicited as well. I

[ Page 10843 ]

suppose that if you have enough opinions from enough people, you start to develop some kind of consensus. I question a little bit some of the implications that the Leader of the Opposition read into the Sparrow decision. I think many of us, with that particular decision, are guilty of interpreting it to mean what we thought was the case all along and feel some comfort in reading that decision and then quoting from it.

Finally, the member talks again about fee simple land and says that fee simple land is not in question. This morning I raised the question of the injunction at Deer Island and the injunction at Scheidam Flats. I know the opposition leader had an opportunity to read the Blues today, so he was aware that those questions had been asked. He chose to ignore those questions, came in and made his brave statement about protecting fee simple land, and then scatted out of the House immediately after making his comments. Fair enough. But I think it should go on the record as well that there have been at least two cases where injunctions have been sought against fee simple land and granted. I can only assume that those injunctions were granted because they were part of a land claim. I would be interested, then, to know whether opposition members reject the validity of the injunctions gained at Deer Island and by the Kamloops band on Scheidam Flats. You can't have it both ways; either you do or you don't. I would be interested if any of the members across the way were to give us a clear position on that particular issue.

MR. G. HANSON: I think the minister, when he referred to the Scheidam Flats case, which is going to court sometime this fall, is misrepresenting that to this House — unless he provides us with the historical facts relating to the case, that lands were once apportioned.... They were never legally or through the processes of the day registered in such a way.... What occurred in Kamloops — and the courts will ultimately decide — is that a piece of private land, which I think some elder described as "the hole in the middle of the table," which a private rancher acquired, is subject to a dispute. So the question is that it was originally allocated as land for the Kamloops band, and it was to extend east from the confluence of the South and North Thompson Rivers for a certain distance and up the North Thompson for a certain distance. The understanding was that that was their reserve. Sometime subsequent to that a rancher acquired a piece of that land. That is the subject of dispute, and the Kamloops band has attempted to purchase it. They have attempted to enter into a relationship with the owner and the lessee — or whatever the relationship — but that is being contested in the courts.

[4:00]

It is very much an aberration in the position taken by aboriginal people in the province that individuals' private homes, ranches and fee simple property are not at question. The Scheidam Flats area.... If the minister knows that area — as I'm sure he probably does — if he has driven that road up towards Paul Lake and up on a bluff, parked his four-wheel drive and looked back down a valley which on every side is Kamloops band land.... In the middle — the hole in the middle of the table — is the Harper ranch. It's going to court this fall.

The point I want to make to the minister is that that particular case has unique historical features, because that land was understood to be part of their reserve very early on. It subsequently was allocated to someone else, and they have never relinquished their claim to it.

It's not a matter of heading off down the highway, finding a ranch and saying: "Hey, this is within comprehensive territory; I think we'll claim this ranch." That is not the point of this matter, and the courts will indicate that it is an aberrant matter which occurred within their territory and within lands that they honestly believed were allocated to them. I'll do more research on that. But as I understand that case, it cannot be used as a fundamental argument to cast all aboriginal claims as though they do not recognize or pay attention to fee simple alienation — third-party alienation — that has transpired in this province.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: Certainly the description the member gives of the Scheidam Flats is an accurate one. However, my understanding of the facts surrounding it are somewhat different than his. I am led to believe that numerous areas in British Columbia were laid out as possible reserve sites and were later surveyed. Some were included in the reserves, and some were not.

I'm told that in the Kamloops area alone there are 500 square miles of fee simple land that, while not located in the centre of the reserve, are part of the same lands that were set aside before the reserve boundaries were surveyed. So what would apply in Scheidam Flats would apply to some 500 square miles of other land around the reserve that's very similar. There are very similar situations in many other communities and in areas adjacent to many other reserves. So let's understand that this is not one isolated piece of land that's an anomaly in British Columbia. I think it's unique inasmuch as it's in the centre of the reserve. Nobody would argue with that.

But if you again read the comments made in the closing arguments of the Gitksan case, it refers to all lands in the territories. It doesn't say "all Crown lands." It doesn't say "all lands other than those owned fee simple." It in fact says "all lands." The question still exists with regard to Deer Island, which is not in the centre of a reserve somewhere. To the best of my knowledge, it's an island on the coast that's owned fee simple on which logging has been blocked by injunction, I assume because it's part of a land claim.

MR. GUNO: Mr. Chairman, I just want to make a few comments on some of the things the minister has just said. He described the Leader of the Opposition's comments as somewhat Pollyanna-ish, but I'm interested to know really what the role of the minister is, and whether he sees his role as that of an advocate

[ Page 10844 ]

for the aboriginal people in B.C., or is he an apologist for this government's policy of non-recognition and non-negotiation?

It's really a gross oversimplification to try and say that it's either negotiation or litigation. Those are two alternatives that are clearly set out. Just recently, a market trend polling company conducted a poll in British Columbia, and in fact across Canada. It was interesting to see the tremendous number of people who indicated they want this government to abandon its litigious route and start looking at the alternative of negotiation.

A major study undertaken by the Coolican commission pointed out many useful ways of dealing with this other than going to court. I can't understand what the purpose of this ministry is. Why was it set up? I've read your report. It's probably one of the thinnest reports of all the government publications. It talks about your organization, your mandate, your philosophy and what you do.

This morning, for instance, you said that you want to go on record as having said and continuing to say that you want to address the land question in a careful, thoughtful and prudent way which is fair for all British Columbians. I don't think they're going to get any arguments from us on this side. I think our leader has pointed out that we're basically taking the same approach. But how long do you take? How long do the aboriginal people have to wait for this government to take this careful, prudent, rational way — another 130 years?

There have been enough studies and enough discussions. I think the issues are clear. The way to resolve it has been indicated by many groups, and certainly public opinion supports the concept of negotiation.

I want the minister to describe more fully what he sees his role to be. Is it one of advocate or apologist? I think it's more the latter. So far today I have heard him defend the fact that this government hasn't moved on this issue, in spite of the fact there are many court pronouncements.

It's interesting to reflect on what happened two weeks ago when Elijah Harper took the stand that he did in the Manitoba Legislature. It's a matter of a moment of supreme irony that we had an aboriginal person seize the day and the opportunity to demonstrate that we do have the legal tools, that we're not completely without these resources and that when the opportunity arises it will be taken. You will see that happen if we continue this policy of confrontation. I don't think there's any other way you can describe the policy of this government than that it is continuing to ferment fear and discourage any kind of initiatives in partnership.

If you examine our history and what really happened in the early days of first contact between the Europeans and the aboriginal people here in British Columbia, I think you will see it was more of a partnership. There was an effort to try to coexist and to share. It was only later in British Columbia's history, when the increasing number of settlers moved in and coveted the lands that were set aside for the native people, that the problems began. The reserves were created to put us out of sight and out of mind, and, hopefully, some of the diseases that decimated the native population would do the job.

I have to agree with our leader's assertion that this issue is not going to go away. No matter what the outcome of the Gitksan case, we will still have to deal with this. The cost will be even greater then. We have an opportunity today to examine some of the possibilities. The Nisga'a have indicated a way out of this whole problem. So far, the minister says: "They are reasonable. They have cogently set out their proposal for a way to negotiate this matter." But then he points to the Gitksan case and says, "What about them?" and doggedly persists in citing what Chief Joseph had to say at a court case. I think that we have to put all that in historical context.

The Gitksan-Wet'suwet'en took this course because they just saw that they couldn't wait for another 13 years. The Nisga'a negotiations were dragging on and nothing was happening, so they took the only alternative they thought they had, which was to take this to court. But I don't think that that precludes coming to some kind of resolution through negotiations.

One of the things happening in my riding is the access road through to the Iskut River. I want to ask the minister if he's aware of it. What is the participation of the Tahltan people? Is legitimate aboriginal interest being considered in this whole development? I want some very specific answers on that issue.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: First of all, I should report that I think the deputy is feeling a bit wounded today. Members referred to him as a crow sitting on the fence of the Nisga'a negotiations. He's a very capable and resilient fellow, so I'm sure he'll recover from that grievous wound, but to attack the thickness of his annual report is rather a double blow for him today.

The member criticizes what we've not done over the past years. I can only speak for the three and a half years that I've been here. I believe that this government has done more in the area of improving relationships with Indian people and accomplishing goals than both parties have in any government, including your government in the 1972-75 years.

[4:15]

We've looked at and resolved cut-off claims. Look at the economic development activities that have gone on around the province, significant, substantial economic development projects, job creation, issues in forestry and a range of business issues, loan guarantees — and I'm not talking about nickels and dimes; I'm talking about substantial loan guarantees in excess of $1 million in a number of areas. We've also made some significant progress in the area of social services, if you like. I believe the work that this government has done in the area of access to justice, in education — both K to 12 and post-secondary — in child welfare and in health has been significant, and it deserves to be recognized, because we have worked hard. We've gone out and talked to tribal councils

[ Page 10845 ]

and asked them what issues are important. They have responded not only with talk about land claims but with talk about a whole range of economic and social issues, some of which we've been able to address, some of which we haven't, and some of which we will be able to address.

The member asks about the Iskut road. I'm sure that he's aware that the Tahltan nation are the people involved. Probably he is also aware of the very satisfactory agreement that was reached earlier on the Golden Bear road, where access was negotiated with the Tahltan people, where the route was negotiated to have the least possible....

Interjection.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: If you come from where I live. If you've got nothing more than that to contribute, Mr. Member, go have a coffee.

I suspect that the experience we had at Golden Bear was one of the most satisfactory arrangements that we've been able to reach on any mining access road, and it also resulted in substantial job creation. Perhaps more importantly, it was the launch for the Tahltan Development Corp., which is now, I believe, the largest employer in the Dease Lake area, one that generates substantial revenue for the Tahltan band and creates a significant number of high-paying jobs in the construction industry, which appears to be the industry of choice for many of the Tahltan people.

With regard specifically to the Iskut road, the Tahltans agreed to sit again with the province and the mining companies on an advisory committee to ensure that environmental and engineering issues related to the road are resolved in a way that addresses their concerns, their desire to protect the environment, their desire to be involved in the road building and maintenance portion of that project, and their desire to have access to resources that they have the desire to be involved with — the extraction of resources and the creation of wealth for the Tahltan people and for their development corporation.

I am led to believe — I speak to the president of the Tahltan Development Corp. and to the chief of the tribal council on a reasonably regular basis.... We've had some difficulties along the way, as you do with almost any group of people when you're trying to negotiate a deal; but I think this one's moving ahead satisfactorily, particularly for the Tahltan people.

MR. GUNO: First of all, I want to extend my apologies if I cast a low blow to the deputy minister. I do know that the Nisga'a people.... Certainly he has every respect in his dealings with the Nisga'a Tribal Council, and I think they enjoy his frequent forays into Nisga'a territory.

I don't think I'm going to apologize about the thinness of the report. But on that remark that my friend made about the crow sitting on the fence, I don't think you should take too much offence. The crow actually enjoys a very respected part in our culture.

I just wanted to say that what happened in the Golden Bear access.... I think the member failed to say that the arrangement to have a number of Tahltans given first preference in some of the jobs there came about only after the Tahltans staged that blockage to protest, firstly, an access road that went through a very environmentally sensitive part of their territory. I took part in that; I sent a telegram from the Tahltan Tribal Council office to your committee, more or less outlining the concerns of the Tahltan people.

The problem with some of these things — I think this has to go on the record — is that there have been some jobs provided, but you talk about their role in environmental concerns as being largely an advisory one. Again, that's nothing new. We're always being put in this kind of advisory situation, not in one of co-management.

Secondly, the jobs are largely of the labour type. I think we can go further than that and negotiate a deal that would involve managerial jobs — jobs that involve real decision-making. You certainly can't characterize the jobs that have been offered in this deal as that type. I just wanted to make that clear.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: First of all, I take the member's comments under advisement. I am certain the deputy will feel much better now, being reminded of the high esteem of the crow.

MR. ZIRNHELT: I have a question for the minister about the effectiveness of the involvement of the native people in some resource management planning problems.

I think it's well known that the courts recognize that there are certain rights that bands have which are somewhat different than rights of the ordinary citizens. I am thinking in particular of subsistence hunting rights, for example. Your government — and in particular the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) — has stopped prosecuting violations with respect to subsistence hunting, so clearly there is a recognition of some kind of right or jurisdiction. Yet it seems that your government is slow on the uptake with respect to what you might call "co-management." "Co-" means "between equals, " where there are equal but maybe different rights involved.

I want to know what your government's policy is and why you have gone rather slowly on this when you have had a number of innovative proposals put to you from my area. I think the Canoe Creek–Dog Creek band in particular have proposed a number of co-management plans to work with resource users and the provincial government.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER. The member suggests that we're moving slowly in the area of joint-use boards and that sort of thing. I think it's fair to say, having looked at the Sparrow decision, which is a month old or thereabouts, that there's enough in that decision to cause us to reassess where we're going in terms of aboriginal hunting, trapping and freshwater fishery rights and those kinds of things. I understand

[ Page 10846 ]

that the issue has been around for a long time. However, up until very recently I don't believe there was any basis for the kind of review that we're considering or the kind of review that we're now doing of that whole issue.

Your point is well taken. However, I can't tell you today what the results of that are going to be.

MR. ZIRNHELT: I was satisfied that prior to Sparrow we had enough minor court decisions that pointed to the need to make progress.

A different aspect of this. Would you not then consider it appropriate that bands with rights that don't seem to be challenged by the provincial government would have a role, or at least the status of a referral agency, which wouldn't even require legislative change but simply a change in regulation and policy? The major resource decisions that affect some of these other uses they have, whatever the legal status of those uses, could be affected by giving them the status of a referral agency. They've asked for a long time to be plugged in. The only way they are officially referred forest-cutting plans is if the band happens to own a trapping licence or a guiding territory. It seems to me a very simple process that would plug them into the information and planning process.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: There are a number of models that are being looked at. Certainly it's not fair to suggest that nothing has been done in this area. If you look at the various community resource boards that have been established around the province that include representatives from bands.... The Clayoquot Sound one has three members of a reasonably small commission who are appointed by the Indian people. There has been some work done on the Fraser River, with various Indian bands and leaders, to deal with the steelhead fishery. We're working along that way.

But there are a lot of users of those resources. We want to make sure that we're not only plugging in the local Indian band. It's important that everyone in the community understand that we're looking at a limited resource for the most part, whether it be hunting, trapping or fishing opportunities. The population grows, and the resource certainly doesn't seem to grow with it. In fact, the opposite may well be the case with population pressure.

We're not insensitive to what you're suggesting.

MR. ZIRNHELT: In the case of the Cariboo advisory board that your colleague the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Richmond) has established, he suggested that the tribal councils be represented. I was talking to the individual who was setting up this board, and he didn't appear to be aware of the fact that.... He assumed that because there were three tribal councils and they had among them some 15 members, the 15 members would have to be represented on the board

I'm wondering if your ministry had a role in briefing and preparing the Ministry of Forests for this. You are well aware of the political problems of having tribal councils represent the interests of bands. What we have developed here is an advisory process which is a little too global, a little too regional and too large-scale to effectively involve the local bands. Each family has territorial interests as well, which we have become very aware of recently in listening to the evidence presented in the Gitksan case. The level of representation has to go right down to the grass roots.

It was inconceivable for me to discover that somebody appointed as a mediator, as a facilitator, wasn't briefed on the point that he's going to run into arguments about representation and that he'd have to consider some other kind of substructure or whatever. Does your ministry have a role to routinely brief your own government people about the structures, the political process and what works and what doesn't work?

[4:30]

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: That's one of the functions that the ministry performs regularly for various line ministries.

Again, I appreciate the point you raised. However, let me tell you about a parallel concern that we had to deal with recently. In order to strike a native advisory committee to the culture, language and heritage committee, we asked 27 tribal councils and a couple of other provincewide organizations to send a representative. We got letters from several bands saying that they were uncomfortable with that arrangement because, although they were members of a tribal council, the council didn't represent them in areas of culture. They depended on the tribal council only for specific functions.

Then you are faced with the difficulty of having a council of 197 members. The logistics of it are very difficult, and I suspect that that's the same problem that the Minister of Forests came up against. If he was trying to strike a board that was balanced — I'm not sure of the makeup of that particular committee, but if it's half native people and half non-native people.... If you are going to put 15 various chiefs or representatives of individual bands on the board, you then have to find 15 other folks to have a balanced board. So I suspect that's also a part of the problem. I would be interested in a solution to that — if there's some way of keeping a committee small enough to work and large enough to represent all of the interests. We're not particularly hung up on the tribal council representation, but I suspect that that was logically the right kind of a mix for the number of people that the minister wanted to have on an advisory board —one that he was looking to for some real resolution.

But if there's some other mechanism.... I am sure the minister primarily wants to see a resolution and therefore would be unlikely to balk at the makeup of the committee as long as it was reasonable and equitable.

MR. ZIRNHELT: I want to pursue this particular case a little further, because you are aware of a

[ Page 10847 ]

significant amount of information on the Chilcotin area. You are already dealing with the Carrier bands, which are part of this, through their TFL applications, so there is a process going on there to look at options. We have the more serious flashpoint of the Chilcotin where six bands are represented in two different tribal councils. Then we have the Shuswap bands, and some of them already have their own process going to deal with the forest management issues. They are all in one timber supply area.

But the problem arose over the concerns in the Chilcotin that there seemed to be an impasse because the Ministry of Forests says: "Unless we say we are going to negotiate land claims, they won't even talk to us." Earlier today you indicated to us that you are willing to come to the negotiating table, but you want to know how much it's going to cost, how much the province is going to expect and how many claims there are.

I think you know and I know that the bands don't accept the comprehensive land claims process — in particular the Chilcotin bands won't — and therefore won't register, and therefore the federal government couldn't tell you that.

If we localize the problem and realize that we have interim problems that have to be dealt with, and we design a process that deals with that.... I see in this case the Ministry of Forests taking a lead. Although their management is in large part responsible for the issues, I see that there could be a much larger role for your ministry as the lead agency with respect to the design of consultation processes — especially if you can approximate dealing with the land claims issue and dealing with the issues over which land claims will be fought. You can put those issues on there, and within your policy you could make headway there.

But it would require that your ministry take the lead responsibility for designing a process that will work. I was a little bit confounded when I saw that the problem wasn't addressed and that you looked at more global issues. It left the particular issues that caused the threats of the blockade still very much on the back burner.

Can you comment on that Chilcotin situation?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: Again, I believe we're all concerned about the situation in the Chilcotin, but we are also concerned about the situation in the northwest, on Vancouver Island and in other places.

I think that it's been our desire to deal with.... If the issue is a forestry issue and it's related to harvest practices in the community and if that's causing some concern, then the authority at the end of the day — first of all who have the legislative authority to go in and reach a settlement or to change what's happening now — is the Minister of Forests. Through the ministry, we provide him with advice — good advice, I hope — on interests, who the groups are and the issues as we understand them. But I don't think trying to roll the resolution of the forestry issue into a larger resolution is workable.

If there are issues in the Chilcotin — and undoubtedly there are — that are deemed to be pressing in nature by the local Indian bands and tribal councils, then we should get out and try to deal with them. That's the process we've been following, and I think we've had reasonably enthusiastic cooperation from the line ministers involved, particularly from the Minister of Forests, the Attorney-General and other ministers as well.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

But those two issues — forestry and probably the environment — have been at the top of the list. We've had good relationships between the ministers and the tribal councils. The difficulty of them selecting a representative who can fairly represent all of their interests — even with only three in a tribal council —I suppose is significant. However, I would repeat: if there were a more workable model that you had in mind, I'm sure we would be interested in taking a look at it.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the minister a few questions with regard to.... Well, why don't we start with an argument that I was particularly concerned about? I just wonder if the minister had a hand in it. It goes something like this: lawyers argue that the native matrilineal system is discriminatory. Does the minister subscribe to that theory?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: No. I think you're probably referring to some arguments that were put forward in the Gitksan....

Interjection.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: Oh yes. I think the arguments have all been heard now. Actually, after June 30 it is okay for us to talk about it.

No, the ministry did not play a role in framing the defense that was mounted by the Attorney-General and the lawyers who were hired on contract by him to represent the province in that undertaking.

MR. MILLER: Well, did you have any opinion on it?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: I would certainly have to have a lot more information than you have just given me before I could form an opinion.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, it's pretty straightforward. The argument as presented says that he who pays the piper calls the tune. The government lawyers have argued that the matrilineal system is discriminatory, and that it contravenes the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Are you saying that you had absolutely nothing to do with this, that nobody talked to you, that you didn't talk to anybody else and that you have no opinions about it? It was an argument put forward by your government.

[ Page 10848 ]

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: I guess the decision as to whether that argument is correct or not will be made by the Chief Justice. I suspect that his opinion, rather than mine, is the significant one. Whether or not I agree with the arguments put forward is secondary to what Chief Justice McEachern decides.

MR. MILLER: It's always nice to think that a minister responsible for a certain field has opinions on issues that are part of that field. It's certainly a disappointment to me and, I'm sure, to all members of this House and to members of the public as well that the Minister of Native Affairs has no opinion, knows nothing about it, wasn't asked, didn't bother to advise and is not familiar with it. It certainly mystifies me. I'd be extremely reluctant to make that kind of admission were I a minister of any branch of government.

Dealing with the Northern Native Broadcasting system, I have communicated with you previously on a couple of issues regarding it. I think the system is fairly unique. They're trying to get some expansion in the system. Just to sort of recap, Mr. Chairman, the Northern Native Broadcasting system is a radio system that serves many communities in north central and northwest British Columbia. In my view, it has been extremely useful in that it establishes a vehicle for communication. Those who listened to CBC radio years ago must remember the old "Our Native Land" series, a Sunday program. People outside the lower mainland may not have listened to it much, but I know that people in my part of the world used to listen to CBC a lot. As was the CBCs mandate, the program attempted to provide a national perspective and communicate with all Canadians — in this case, native Canadians. That has been dropped, and Northern Native Broadcasting has really filled the void. I think it has done a marvellous job of setting up satellite broadcast systems and trying to communicate in the great variety of languages among the native communities.

[4:45]

They have asked this government to offer some support on two bases. Although the one, the training aspect, falls under the purview of the Minister of Advanced Education and Training (Hon. Mr. Strachan), I would ask the minister if he has had an involvement in that and whether he can offer an update on what that might be. The application has been put together for quite some time. The program has been approved by the community college in Terrace. It's ready to go. Unfortunately they missed the April deadline. The response I received from the Minister of Advanced Education was that a decision would be made in the summertime.

The minister is probably aware that really the next deadline to establish this training course is September. I think the ministry — or the government — has a responsibility to offer some positive statement at this juncture as to whether that course will proceed and whether you will be assisting in its setup. I certainly would be pleased if the minister could give a positive response to that issue.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: Yes, I've had the opportunity to visit Northern Native Broadcasting facilities in Terrace two or three times. I've also met with its director here several times. I'm well aware of the training proposal. As you indicate, it's in the hands of the Minister of Advanced Education. The application has been supported by me and by the MLA for the area.

We've also dealt with the whole question of the lack of funding or cutbacks in funding by the federal government to NNB and other native broadcasters and newspapers as well. What we have decided to do — and I think it's a reasonable approach — is not to step in and replace the federal government with grants or subsidies but, in fact, to try and direct enough advertising money from the province to those organizations to help them get on a stand-alone basis. Both organizations, I believe, have the long-range plan of becoming self-sufficient.

There are a number of services that NNB and Kahtou and others can provide for the government. We want to communicate regularly with Indian people on a whole range of issues — economic, social, forestry, health, education, social services. There's a whole line of ministries that regularly put out information that they want to address to Indian people. We believe we can do more with these organizations in that area and can, in turn, help them become self-sustaining.

MR. MILLER: Have you made any representations to your federal counterparts on the cutoff of funds? For the benefit of those who may not be aware, the two identifiable groups in Canada that were singled out — as much as the British Columbia government complained about the loss of federal transfer payments — to receive the brunt of the federal cuts were women and the native people. The women subsequently had funding restored, although clearly there was some mix-up between the federal and provincial ministers. The native people had what were to them significant cuts to the money they previously received to run their communication systems, whether it be radio, newspaper or whatever. It really is a tough one to take when you have to cut what appears to be such a minuscule amount in relation to the entire budget, and the full force of it is directed at a group that does not have the resources to respond. Have you made any representations to the feds to get them to change their minds, as your colleague the minister of women's affairs presumably did with some success, despite the confusion, with her counterpart in the federal government?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: The province is concerned in a number of areas about reductions in federal money coming into British Columbia — the loss of transfer payments, the loss of payments for agriculture, the loss of money for women's issues, and the loss of money to broadcasting groups and newspapers. However, as I indicated before, our response was neither to complain to the minister nor to try and step in and replace the federal funding

[ Page 10849 ]

with provincial dollars, but rather to make a concerted effort to direct more commercial advertising from the province to the organizations, in an attempt to make them self-sufficient. I'm not aware of any requests from those organizations for more than that, though I've talked to representatives of both groups.

MR. MILLER: Just to confirm then, your ministry made no representations to the federal government about these cutbacks and their impact on native people in British Columbia. I think you might have missed an opportunity, Mr. Minister, as the minister responsible, to register that kind of concern — and that's a bit unfortunate.

With regard to the advertising, could you be a bit more specific? I wrote you previously as well, and you indicated it was under consideration. You're advising me now that the decision has been made by your government to direct advertising to the Northern Native Broadcasting system. Perhaps the minister might want to amplify on that, but I really would like confirmation that the decision has been made. When would that be starting?

Perhaps the minister might want to comment on.... Tell me if I'm correct or not, but I've received information that your ministry has advertised to fill vacancies — or maybe they're new staff in your ministry — and you didn't advertise on this particular native broadcasting network. I wonder why that would be the case.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: Firstly, the decision has been made. Really, I suppose, the decision has two sort of distinct portions to it: one is a ministry decision, as far as our own rather small advertising budget is concerned, and the other is the broader provincial budget. We've already started with our own ministry. We bought a full-page ad — I think it was in the last Kahtou — providing information on the language-heritage-culture proposal. So that has started.

We have also done some significant work within the bureaucracy, at the deputy level, to ensure that all ministries pay careful consideration to the opportunities to use these groups.

With regard to your last point, I'm advised that it's provincial policy not to advertise jobs on radio — period — so that the opportunity to use NNB for the specific purpose of advertising the jobs that we had available in the ministry was one that just didn't seem to follow for us, in terms of policy.

MR. MILLER. Sorry, Mr. Chairman, I was a bit preoccupied with this note here, and I may have missed.... If the minister would repeat, if he has already said it: when will this commence? When can the system, or the people who run the system, expect that they'll be in receipt of this government advertising? I'm certainly not encouraging you to run those political propaganda ads that I see so much on television, but rather, the type of advertising that I think is necessary for government to do; and that is to advertise that services are available, and particular programs — for example, the TRY program and others that I think are useful. Could you advise me of when that will commence? As well, could you advise me of the...? Well, perhaps not; I can talk to you later. But advise me when they're going to start.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: Some of it has already started. As I indicated, we've already taken full-page ads in Kahtou. I don't believe any ads have actually arrived at radio yet. That should be able to happen in the very near future. The propaganda budget is so very small that it wouldn't keep even one announcer in one radio station going, so I can understand your desire not to have that kind of advertising but to take advantage of the good, factual information our public affairs bureau distributes regularly, that being 99.9 percent of the spending that goes on by the province. We're going to try to make sure that that's the part of it that gets directed toward the NNB and other groups.

MR. MILLER: I think I mentioned last week in another debate being a bit mystified when watching television the other night to see that the government is responsible for the sunshine coming back to the Okanagan. I cautioned the Premier once, when he visited Prince Rupert on one of those rare occasions when he actually stayed for a few minutes.... When he told me he was responsible for the sun shining, I said: "You've got to watch out, you know, because if you want to claim that, you also have to claim credit for the rain."

MR. REE: Blame Environment Canada for the rain.

MR. MILLER: I always thought you had to blame the BCTV weatherman for the rain, Mr. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano. Actually, I digress, Mr. Chairman. I shouldn't be talking about the rain, but it rains as much in North Vancouver as it does in Prince Rupert, as the member for North Vancouver–Capilano must agree.

Has the minister made any specific recommendations with regard to the question of forestry? Currently the Forest Resources Commission is conducting hearings around the province. They are prepared to make major recommendations in terms of forestry issues. The minister is well aware — and my colleague from the Cariboo has raised this on numerous occasions — of the feeling of Indian people in this province that their stake in those resources is being ignored; and that, faced with what appears to be the depletion of the resource at a fairly rapid rate and some of the poor management practices that have been in place, when it comes time to deal with the question — and I think the time is long past — and when we actually get down to the table and start dealing with the substantive issues around aboriginal title, those resources won't be there and that wealth will have been taken.

To some extent that's a regional view, but given those considerations and concerns.... The minister must surely have looked at some of the submissions

[ Page 10850 ]

made in the previous round of the TFL public information sessions. I would assume that as a matter of course he would have obtained copies of submissions made to the commission. Has the minister made any submissions with regard to that? I know that other ministries of government have, but have you done anything?

[5:00]

HON. MR. WEISGERBER. Yes, the ministry made a rather detailed presentation to the task force.

I've felt for almost as long as I've been in this job that we should be doing more to encourage the Ministry of Forests and Indian bands to enter into forestry agreements — some kind of timber-harvesting agreements. One of the difficulties has been that most of the applications for forestry tenure are tree-farm licence applications. As you're aware, there is a freeze on tree-farm licences that covers not only Indian applications.... The freeze on tree-farm licences had no relation to the number of applications we had from Indian bands for TFLs. It was brought on by large corporations making proposals for tree farm licences. In fact, the objectors to the tree-farm licences, in many cases, were Indian bands.

However, I think it's fair to say that most Indian bands that want to be involved in the forest industry want to be involved in some kind of land-based tenure as opposed to volume-based tenure. That has provided some difficulty for us in trying to find suitable licences and suitable vehicles for increasing the involvement of the Indian people in the industry.

I think it's important. Indian people — many of the bands — geographically are located in areas where one of the very few resources available is the forest resource. I think that those people feel a certain ownership aside from the land question — that there is a feeling not dissimilar to what small rural communities feel when they see timber licences awarded to a community down the road.

The land question aside, people in a geographic area feel that, to the largest degree possible, forest resources should be processed in the community in order to create jobs and all of the things that go with that. I think that should apply at least as much to Indian communities as to non-Indian communities.

I've worked quite a lot with the Intertribal Forestry Council, and in fact they have made a proposal to us to try to find ways of getting Indian people more involved in the forestry industry. That's very attractive, in that it isn't government going out and asking Indian people what they want, but Indian people meeting with other Indian groups. It's Indian people who are involved in the industry and who understand the industry saying: "What impediments are there to you being involved in the forest industry?" And they aren't all tenure impediments, as the member would know.

It takes a certain amount of capital to get involved in that kind of operation; it takes a certain amount of expertise and training. So we are interested in seeing more tenures for Indian bands, and we're generally interested in seeing Indian people more involved in forestry.

That's not to say that we haven't made some progress in that area. We have tree-farm licences, forest licences and woodlot licences that are held by Indian bands. We have provided loan guarantees for sawmills, when in fact our economic development policy particularly prohibits financial assistance for sawmills because of the competition in the industry. I don't have any problem with that....

MR. MILLER: For sawmills.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: For sawmills. We have not provided financial assistance to sawmills other than loan guarantees to at least one Indian-owned sawmill. So we have given, it appears to me, preferential treatment to Indian bands in their desires to be involved in the forest industry, and I'm proud of that. I don't see anything wrong with it.

MR. MILLER:  Just exploring that, there are a number of facets to this I wanted to deal with in terms of the tree-farm licence question.

The Forest Resources Commission was struck essentially, in my view, because of the controversy about the proposed policy to expand the tree-farm licence system. At that time — I believe last year I also questioned you on this — there was correspondence from federal ministers asking that the tree farm licence system not be expanded without considering the aboriginal title that may exist in the various areas. In other words, don't lock the land up in a proprietary form of ownership to a third party before addressing the very real issue of aboriginal title. I got the sense last year that the minister agreed with that.

Given that, have you made any presentations to the Forest Resources Commission — which has an explicit mandate to consider the TFL as a form of tenure — along the lines that I've just outlined?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: The short answer is no. However, if you think about what you've just put before us, if you're suggesting that there should be no action on tree-farm licences until the land question is resolved, and if you think about the comments of your colleague from Victoria, who noted that the very simple process of resolving land claims in the Yukon took 17 years, then it begs the question: are you suggesting that we shouldn't consider tree-farm licences for Indian applicants until after the question is resolved? That would mean that it could result in a considerable delay, and many of the bands that I talk to are anxious to get on with getting involved in the forest industry.

I have the feeling that they would be uncomfortable with what you're suggesting, because I have raised with them the possibility of other forms of tenure. For the most part those suggestions haven't been very well received. I am advised pretty definitely by most Indian leaders who I talk to about forestry tenures that they're looking for tree-farm licences.

[ Page 10851 ]

So to say we should shelve it until after resolving the whole question of land may in fact be counterproductive, in my opinion. I would be hesitant at least about putting that argument forward.

MR. MILLER: Let me just make things absolutely clear to the minister, who really does — or should — understand this. In 1983 the Council of Forest Industries, at the invitation of the then Premier, submitted a wish list. That wish list said: "Turn over the bulk of the Crown lands in this province to us" — to this highly concentrated industry that your government and previous governments of your political persuasion have allowed to develop in this province; that has alienated that land, that has been given proprietary interest in that land and that has frustrated the desires of not only aboriginal people but also communities in terms of access to that resource.

The actions of your government, throughout your too long a term in this province — in my view... You sent the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Richmond) around on a road show, and he got egg on his face every time he stopped. At every one of those sessions, native people came forward and said: "Don't alienate the land, which you were proposing to do." In my view, it is the biggest policy blunder that has ever been proposed in forestry in this province.

Having set that stage, got yourself into the glue and rejected the call for a royal commission into forestry — which should have been held — you struck a Forest Resources Commission which has as its mandate the question of tree-farm licences as an appropriate form of tenure. Having done all of that, you say to the native people of this province: "No, we're not going to issue any tree-farm licences, because we're studying the issue." You, Mr. Minister, and your government set the stage for that. Let's be clear on who did what.

Now let's deal with the question of tree-farm licences. Why, given what I've outlined and what you have said as well in terms of wanting to have secure access to that resource in its most desirable form — a tree-farm licence — is your government sticking to this policy of not dealing with native people in terms of tree-farm licences because you're studying the issue?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: A lot of this discussion probably is what the member has had and should have with the Minister of Forests. However, the point is that the member didn't give me any indication of where he was coming from. Are you suggesting that we should have a policy which freezes tree-farm licence applications from the non-Indian communities until the resolution of the land question, but at the same time we should have a process of awarding tree-farm licences to Indian groups? Or do you want to freeze all of them until the land question is resolved? That's my question.

We are at a point.... I've suggested to you that there are some difficulties with that. If what you are proposing is two separate regimes dealing with tree-farm licences, I understand that. But I'm not quite certain where the member is coming from.

MR. MILLER: I'm not quite certain where the minister is coming from. Given that he has informed this House that aboriginal groups and tribal councils would like to have that form of access to the resource, and given the fact — God, I hope he can accept the fact — that we have to get down and negotiate this question of aboriginal title.... We can't bury our heads in the sand. You talked about 17 years in the Yukon. Every year you wait is going to add to that time in British Columbia. I don't see how anybody could be happy about that. Why has the minister not...? Maybe he did. In terms of some kind of submission to the commission that is looking at tree-farm licences as a form of tenure, why would he not make a submission saying: "Let's proceed when it comes to native bands"? We're going to have to deal with the question of title. This won't interfere with our dealing with that.

I have no hesitation. My party is on record for a long time as saying: "Let's give tree-farm licences to communities and to native bands, but let's avoid handing over the resources of this province to four or five giant corporations." I have no problem with it. I know there are current applications out there. I know they are being told by your government: "We can't proceed." I don't have any problem with it at all. I think it makes all kind of sense.

Given the time that's going to be required, I don't know why you wouldn't want to get on with it or why you wouldn't make that kind of proposal internally, or, if not within your government, at least to the Forest Resources Commission. My position is on record, Mr. Minister. Let's hear about yours.

[5:15]

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: If life were only that simple. It seems to me that it's likely that in any area where there is an application for a tree-farm licence from a band, there are — at least to some degree — competing applications from other groups, organizations and companies. How can you deal with an application from one without considering the other? That's my question to you, Mr. Member —through you, Mr. Chairman. Are you suggesting that we only consider applications from one group and not from another? It seems to me a pretty jaundiced system, if that's what you're proposing.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, there are always competing interests for the resources of this province. But let's deal with specifics. Would the minister advise me how his government was able to devise a policy that encouraged Fletcher Challenge Canada, a corporation controlled from outside the borders of this province and outside this country, to make an application for 6 million hectares of land in British Columbia, the entire Mackenzie timber supply area, a policy that was to privatize 6 million hectares of British Columbia's land, to give that company proprietary interests and to establish the fact that in future,

[ Page 10852 ]

when some sane and sensible government reigned in this province and we started to deal with the question of title, we had locked ourselves into a position where we would have to compensate that private company? Can you explain the rationale for that policy, Mr. Minister? You might want to dissociate yourself from it, but I'd be interested in your explanation of the rationale, because I can't see any.

At the same time your government can continue to insist that there is no such thing as aboriginal title. They have no interest whatsoever. That is your position: there is no such thing as aboriginal title. How can you develop that kind of policy and ignore the legitimate aspirations and needs of the aboriginal people in terms of trying to come to a negotiated resolution on the question of outstanding title? Explain that to me.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: Mr. Chairman, as you're aware — as is, I suppose, anyone who has been in the House or paying attention to the speakers — the questions with regard to aboriginal title have been well canvassed in the House today, and I'm not going to go back over that ground.

The member knows that the questions with regard to the Fletcher Challenge tree-farm licence at Mackenzie should be addressed to the Minister of Forests. He's done this for a long time, and he knows that's where those questions should go.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, it is indeed disappointing. We have a government in British Columbia that refuses to recognize aboriginal title. They've got their head in the sand. They say it doesn't exist. They send their lawyers into the courtroom and argue that the matrilineal system is sexist and an abuse of the Charter of Rights. They use every argument in the book to deny there is such a thing as aboriginal title, and when we start to deal with some specifics about how they can conceive of a policy to alienate 6 million hectares of land to a private company, the minister doesn't want to talk about it. I'll bet he doesn't want to talk about it. He's probably embarrassed, and I don't want to embarrass the minister any more, but I'd be embarrassed if I were you, too. It's the most cockeyed public policy I've ever seen in my life.

Mr. Chairman, I don't want to get too heated on this, but I feel quite strongly about it and I would like to hear the minister respond in a little more positive way. I don't know of all the applications that may be in place for tree-farm licence tenure from tribal councils or band councils. I find it hard to believe that every one of those is in a competing position And really, even if they are, I still think that there is the latitude or the scope for the government to say that it is our intent, having sorted out these competing interests, to enter into that form of licence. I would like to see the minister give a little more positive response in terms of that.

I wanted to ask you as well — not to take too much more time, Mr. Chairman.... I thought that the Indian land component of the forest resource development agreement was extremely useful for a variety of reasons. As the minister outlined, it allowed Indian people themselves to determine what their needs were and to develop programs as a result of that. It made provision for, in my view, very useful training programs in many aspects of forestry, notably silviculture. It dealt with the question of bringing back into production some of the Indian lands that would be useful and could be more useful in terms of timber production. And it provided a valuable training component. In other words, when we get to that point — and I keep saying when we get to that point not to suggest that there should be any delay; I think we should dive in and start to tackle the issue of aboriginal title — let's get off our hands and start to deal with it. But it provided that training component that I think is going to be so useful in people's assuming control and responsibility for those lands.

I am disappointed — and I am sure all British Columbians who have a concern about this are — that so far we have not seen the renewal of that program. The Indian land component was quite small; I believe it was less than $7 million. I would note that other provinces, when they defined the scope of their needs under the forest resource development agreements — and they are in place in other provinces with a forestry jurisdiction —  have included at the provincial level a contribution or desire to have that program included under FRDA. In the previous program, by the way, this was solely a federal initiative.

Has the minister undertaken to define a provincial objective in terms of that Indian land component? Have you made any representations to your colleagues — either directly to the Minister of Forests, who is responsible for negotiation, or to the cabinet — with respect to establishing that as a desirable element of a new FRDA program? So far I have not seen it. When I look at the wish list developed by the Minister of Forests, there is absolutely no mention of this component. I am sure the minister, as well, is aware that Mr. Derrickson's organization is really looking for a greatly expanded Indian land component under the subsequent FRDA program, with much more administrative responsibility accruing to the organization themselves.

That's a fairly broad range of questions. Perhaps the minister could respond.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: I agree with you. I think the work done under the FRDA Indian land component was important in terms of renewing the resource on reserve. I think it was important in terms of the training aspects of it. I've written to my MP, Frank Oberle, to express a number of concerns that I have with FRDA, among them the concern that this component has not been funded.

I think, though, that Indian lands are clearly a federal responsibility. It's worthwhile for us to pursue the federal government in an attempt to get them to reinstate that funding, and that's what we're in the process of doing and will continue to do. If you had been in here earlier, you would have known that the

[ Page 10853 ]

UNN folks were here today. We've joined with them in a couple of actions — one at least — against the federal government in other areas of transfer payments. So I think there is an opportunity for us to continue to pressure Ottawa, particularly on that part of FRDA. I don't want to get into the Minister of Forests' purview as far as FRDA generally is concerned.

MR. MILLER: I don't have the details in front of me, and I don't want to stray too far from your estimates, but certainly there's a fairly broad range in terms at least of your title. And I would like to see provincial initiative. I don't think it's a question of Indian lands or federal responsibility; I think there's scope for provincial initiative. Clearly, other provinces have established and defined that kind of initiative in their provinces, and I don't see why British Columbia is any different.

I would only say that if you have any stroke with your MP, you should talk to him. Although I've been just as prepared to blame the Minister of Forests of British Columbia — and I'll continue to do that — for his failure to negotiate toughly on behalf of this province and for his failure to achieve the kind of FRDA agreement we need In this province.... It's interesting to note that your MP — and I hope you didn't vote for him — today blamed the provincial Minister of Forests for their failure to get a FRDA agreement; he says it's your colleague's fault. I would suggest, Mr. Minister, you write him another letter and threaten him. You should tell him that you're not going to vote for him anymore, because we all know the Socreds are the great supporters of the Conservatives in this province. You should tell him that you're disappointed and that next time you're not going to vote for him unless he delivers the goods for British Columbia. You should also tell him to stop attacking your colleagues, Mr. Minister.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

I don't want to take any more time. There are other issues that I can canvass at length with this minister, but I'll yield to other members who may want to question the minister.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: I suspect one of the things that frustrates the member for Prince Rupert — and perhaps others — is that the Social Credit Party continues to attract Liberals, Conservatives and others to our ranks.

MR. MILLER: You've been dreaming in Technicolor.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: We've been dreaming in Technicolor for some forty years now, since 1952. Unfortunately, you've never had the opportunity to dream except in black and white. Your day will come perhaps in the next century.

MR. G. HANSON: On a slightly different subject area in this minister's responsibilities, there's a lot of unhappiness among native people about the master tuition agreement and the lack of consultation and the lack of involvement in negotiations that they experienced. As a result, the local agreement section of the master tuition agreement is one that aboriginal people don't really want to participate in.

[5:30]

One of the key issues of concern about education is the ability to have more control and to exercise more decision-making over what is taught. They feel they don't have leverage with the local school boards to have the kind of schooling that is relevant to aboriginal people. I would like to hear what role this minister played during that negotiation on behalf of aboriginal people in the master tuition agreement. Was his office involved?

The depth of hostility to this process is really quite immense. When you look at the statistics for participation in the school system, you certainly see the reason for the concern: the dropout rate, the lack of opportunity, the curriculum — people do not feel that language training is available, nor authentic information in the school system about their culture and language. It's not surprising that there is a lot of ill feeling about the master tuition agreement.

I was just looking for some statistics.... Total university and college native students sponsored by INAC in B.C. last year: 2,850. The population going to higher education institutions is exploding. The desire is for higher education and relevant education. I'd like to hear the minister's views on the negotiation process and why the native people were left out.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: You don't have to travel around British Columbia very long meeting with Indian people and Indian bands to understand that they are unhappy with the master tuition agreement. I understand that clearly. I wasn't here when the MTA was negotiated, so I can't tell you the role the ministry played in it, but I didn't play any role at all.

We're in the process of rewriting those agreements with bands around the province. Some examples are the Kootenay bands — there are more than one in the Kootenay region. Just last weekend or the weekend before, I had the opportunity to go up and visit the Kinbasket school at Columbia Lake, where young Indian students from around the Kootenay region were gathered for their annual closing picnic. I met with Councillor Sophie Pierre to talk about the success they were enjoying in providing education to young Indian people. She is very optimistic, as I am, about the potential to increase the number of Indian students graduating from high school and going on to post-secondary education. I support that kind of activity by any and all who are prepared to make some other agreements and some other undertakings. I think you've got to see that that's happening in the province.

MR. G. HANSON: I want to make reference to another area around Bill C-31, which is housing,

[ Page 10854 ]

particularly for women, and the pressures being exerted and the strain that is happening around housing, with more and more women returning to reserve — the strain on local band resources and the need for increased child care, for training for women and for housing. I'd like to hear some of the minister's views on the impact of C-31 and what his ministry is doing to deal with the shock that's occurring throughout the bands of the province.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: The population increases on reserve as a result of Bill C-31 are well known and certainly evident as you travel around the province. However, to be fair, one must recognize that Bill C-31 was introduced by the federal government, and it involves Indian people returning to federal reserves. Clearly it's a federal responsibility. If there is a housing crisis created through Bill C-31, then it's one that DIA has total responsibility for.

We're not unaware of the problems, but we continue to focus our attention on off-reserve issues. We've done some work with the UNN, friendship centres and others who are interested in providing housing for status people off the reserve, for non-status people and for Metis people. I think that clearly is where the provincial responsibility lies. The federal government has its responsibility, and I'm sure the argument could be made that they don't always fulfil to the level many of us would like to see.

MR. G. HANSON: It's one thing to say it's a federal responsibility, but I think in your role as the provincial minister responsible, you should be carrying some weight when you pick up the phone and say to your counterpart in Ottawa: "There are X number of people living on a postage stamp. There's more in-migration onto that small postage stamp. The resources are strained." Communication at the political level.... It's not enough to say it's up to the regional director operating out of Vancouver and so on. Fine and dandy; sure, it is fundamentally the federal responsibility. But I think this minister has a special role because of the population that exists within the province of British Columbia. Various numbers have been kicked around in this House about how many people of aboriginal ancestry there are, but the statistics seem to indicate that there are something like 180,000 people of some aboriginal ancestry —Metis, status, non-status, Inuit — within the province.

I think this minister, through the course of this day-to-day... We would like to urge you to take a stronger advocacy role with the federal government. It doesn't mean that the province is assuming responsibility for everything. But kick a little federal you-know-what, make the alarm bells ring in Ottawa, make the alarm bells ring within that huge monstrosity that exists back there, to make them more responsive to the real needs here.

Some of the population statistics for small reserves are quite staggering, as the minister knows, and I don't think it's good enough for this House to say it's federal lands and so on. The minister has a responsibility to fight on behalf of aboriginal people, to get the attention of the minister in Ottawa, along with the cabinet and the Prime Minister, to make sure they fulfil their obligations, because we living in this province are sensitive to the needs.

Look at this area within greater Victoria, some of these postage stamps that are now exploding with population and with no immediate expansion in sight in terms of land. That's a partnership that I'd like to see us discuss in this House at some point. When those treaties covering this region were signed in 1854, that was supposed to be a partnership, not: "Okay, the deal is that the name's on the dotted line and the crosses are on the dotted line. Here's the 20 shillings. Goodbye." That's not my idea of a partnership.

The partnership should be discussed, and it should be honoured. It should be re-evaluated. If it can't be done in a treaty area like this — the only treaty area — where you can create a model partnership to show what can be done in some quite difficult circumstances in a small land base, but with rights that have been upheld and pronounced by courts.... I think some very important debate and discussion could occur on the partnership that should exist.

Treaty partnership — what does that fundamentally mean? That's being discussed in New Zealand. That's what it's all about — the partnership. It hasn't been honoured, and it hasn't been honoured in many parts of Canada. The minister knows that as well. I think that's the debate for the coming years: to discuss, realize, re-evaluate and restructure the partnership so that people feel good about what they're trying to do, about the future and about the possibilities.

I don't like it when I hear: "Well, it's a treaty. It's put to bed. Let's forget about it. If people live on postage stamps and have to have highway signs to try to create some revenue to provide some essential services in their community, that's the way it is." I think it's really a disgrace that that option is the only one available to people, and that that's the case with exploding reserves. People are having to turn to ways to raise revenue that really, with that fundamental structure of a partnership, if it was functioning properly, shouldn't be necessary.

I'd like to hear the minister's comments on that.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: Well, your points are certainly well made. There are serious housing concerns both on and off the reserve. Of those 180,000 or so people whom you refer to, about half of them are off reserve. The province steps up and accepts its responsibility in that area. But I've got to tell you that I'm concerned about the federal government's desire to continue shifting responsibility to the province. We see it in the area of FRDA, as the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller) mentioned. We see it in all areas of our relationship with the federal government.

In some areas we have picked up responsibilities that we had traditionally thought of as being federal. I think particularly of the language-heritage-culture initiative. If it's not entirely focused on reserve

[ Page 10855 ]

projects, I'm sure it's reasonable to expect that the vast majority of the centres and of the activity will be on reserve. We've also undertaken a substantial program, along with the Ministry of Labour and Consumer Services, on a drug and alcohol prevention program. Those are offered through the friendship centres, but my understanding, from talking to the people who present the programs, is that they are available to everyone — primarily Indian people. A good number of the people who take advantage of those are status Indians living on reserve. It's a big problem, and it's one we're prepared to involve ourselves in.

The housing problem. I think we should cooperate, particularly in the areas where the lack of available land is something that's within our opportunity to make land available for a larger reserve so that in fact there is room on reserve. There are situations.... What's that one called? Fishtrap, out in the Chilcotin area, has for years been a settlement that's off reserve, and for want of a few acres of land, it has not been able to have reserve status. I'm pleased to say that that has been resolved. There's a similar issue at Port Hardy, I understand. We are working in that area.

[5:45]

However, I don't think we should — and I don't think you are asking us to — get into the housing issue. If we can bring some pressure to bear on the federal government, certainly that's appropriate. Indian people, while they may live on federal lands and fall under the Indian Act, are still British Columbians. I agree with you that we should encourage the federal government to live up to its responsibilities in those areas.

Vote 50 approved.

Vote 51: native affairs, $2,774,218 — approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mr. Veitch moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:47 p.m.