Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

[ Page 11209 ]

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

NISGA'A FINAL AGREEMENT ACT
(continued)

On the schedule, chapter 2 (continued).

G. Plant: This morning I want to ask some questions for a while about issues that arise in the context of sections 33, 34 and 35 of chapter 2, the "General Provisions" chapter. In particular, I want to talk about the question of overlapping claims. I'll inform the minister that the way I hope I'll be able to proceed through the discussion of the issue is to first of all get some sense of the existence of overlapping claims as they affect the Nisga'a final agreement. I then want to spend a minute or two talking about what it is the government can say about the extent of Nisga'a territory as it may or may not be established in terms of section 35 aboriginal rights. Then, with that context in mind, I will turn to the way in which the province has responded to this issue. That will take me specifically to the text of 33, 34 and 35, and I will have some comments to make about that response and alternatives. I thought the minister might like a bit of a preview of the sequence that I at least intend to try and follow here.

As to the first general topic, which is identifying or establishing the existence of overlapping claims, we're talking about the assertions or claims made by neighbouring aboriginal groups -- first nations -- which affect or overlap the various components of this treaty. This treaty has something called Nisga'a lands; it has something called the Nass wildlife area; it has something called the Nass area. It also makes provision for fee simple lands outside Nisga'a lands. It also provides for commercial recreation tenure, and it does some things around provincial heritage site designation and the recording of names. I want to proceed in sequence through each of those categories.

We are, in general, talking about the extent, if at all, to which groups of first nations, such as the Gitanyow, the Gitxsan, perhaps the coast Tsimshian, the Tahltan and perhaps others, have overlapping claims that are affected by this treaty. When I look at the mentions of Nisga'a lands, as that term is defined in the treaty, I am not aware of any unresolved overlapping claim by any other aboriginal group to those lands. Is the government aware of any such overlap?

Hon. D. Lovick: The only one that fits into that pattern would be Gitanyow.

G. Plant: All right. So the Gitanyow claim does in fact overlap Nisga'a lands themselves. Is that the government's understanding?

Hon. D. Lovick: Yes.

G. Plant: In the wildlife area, which is of course a larger area, can the minister assist in identifying the groups that have overlapping claims to the wildlife area?

Hon. D. Lovick: Let me clarify first, if I might, that the wildlife area is not an exclusive area; that's the first point to make. But having said that, yes, there are three groups impacted and affected: Gitanyow, Tsimshian and, I guess, Gitxsan. However, of those three it's worth noting that Tsimshian indeed has an agreement with Nisga'a, and therefore that's not a problem, apparently.

G. Plant: Oh, Gitxsan. So from the province's perspective, so far as the province is aware, any issue between the coast Tsimshian and the Nisga'a has been resolved as it pertains to the wildlife area. But that leaves the Gitanyow and the Gitxsan issues unresolved. Is that correct?

[10:15]

G. Plant: When we go to the larger area -- the even larger area, the largest area of all, the Nass area -- what are the unresolved overlapping or competing claims in that area?

Hon. D. Lovick: You'll notice, Mr. Chairman, that I'm checking very carefully, because obviously I want to be absolutely accurate: Gitxsan and Gitanyow.

G. Plant: From time to time, in the broader public discussion of this issue, there has been reference to the Tahltan, who have aboriginal claims and, I think, are probably Nisga'a neighbours to the north. From the government's perspective, I take it, there is no unresolved overlap between the Nisga'a and the Tahltan. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Lovick: There was a memorandum of understanding, a memorandum of agreement signed, I believe, in 1995 between Tahltan and Nisga'a, agreeing on the traditional boundaries, I recall. It's called Treaty Creek or something. In any event, those differences have apparently been resolved.

G. Plant: In addition to the three categories of lands or resource interests or designations that we've talked about -- each of which has its own attributes, as the minister pointed out already, in the context of the wildlife area -- the agreement also creates and provides for fee simple parcels outside Nisga'a lands. There are two different categories of them, at least. One, I know -- category A -- is former Nisga'a reserves; we'll put that to one side. The other, category B, is fee simple lands that, as I understand it, are now Crown lands that will be transferred to. . . . I suppose, first of all, title will be raised, and then they will be transferred to the Nisga'a as category B fee simple lands. Is the provincial government aware of any overlapping claims that affect category B fee simple lands?

Hon. D. Lovick: One of the fee simple properties is affected and is under controverted question by Gitanyow.

G. Plant: Is that the Meziadin Lake property?

[ Page 11210 ]

G. Plant: I have heard some discussion on fee simple -- say on Meziadin Lake. Is that included in the list that the minister has just given?

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm sorry. That is a property that the Gitanyow have claim to.

G. Plant: Another thing that this agreement will provide for is a commercial recreation tenure. I've seen some expression of concern about the extent to which that tenure may be affected by overlapping claims. Can the minister identify whether there are overlapping claims that could conceivably affect that tenure?

Hon. D. Lovick: My understanding here is that. . . . First of all, I'll emphasize again that commercial recreation tenure -- back-country -- is non-exclusive use. Secondly, the only competing claim, I understand, is the Tsimshian, and that apparently has been resolved.

G. Plant: Another area in which I know there has been an expression of concern. . . .

Interjection.

G. Plant: Are you wanting to do some further study?

Two other areas in which there have been expressions of concern are with respect to the designation of provincial heritage sites and the recording of names. The example of this that I have been made aware of is the name that will be given or recorded for Cranberry River -- I think that's the one I have in mind. Could the minister indicate the extent to which the government is aware of the extent to which overlapping claims have an impact on the treaty provisions with respect to heritage site designations and the naming of places?

Hon. D. Lovick: A couple of points, if I might, Mr. Chairman. First of all, in looking at the map, it is possible that Gitanyow was also affected by the commercial back-country recreation. Re the provincial heritage sites, those sites, I understand, do perhaps fall into territories for which others may have a claim. They come, however, under provincial jurisdiction, and that means there is a consultation policy embedded in that and a policy that historically, I gather, recognizes the legitimacy of others' names. Indeed, Nisga'a have apparently said that if the conclusion is that the name for this ought to acknowledge somebody other than Nisga'a, then they don't object to that.

G. Plant: Is that statement a representation on the part of Nisga'a? Is that contained in the Nisga'a final agreement, or is it found somewhere else?

Hon. D. Lovick: It's in the heritage sites part, Mr. Chairman.

G. Plant: I'm sorry, you mean the. . . ? If the minister is referring to the heritage sites branch, does that mean that there is some statement of assurance by the Nisga'a on record in that branch with respect to this issue? Or is the minister essentially saying that this issue will be resolved by the application of the policies of that branch?

Hon. D. Lovick: If I might just quote the particular section, I think that will answer the member's question satisfactorily. I'm reading "Heritage Sites and Key Geographic Features," page 38, section 95. The second sentence reads as follows: "The Parties acknowledge that those sites may have cultural or historic significance to persons or groups other than the Nisga'a Nation." So in other words, it's anticipated that there may indeed be sites that others can make some claim to having significance and meaning to them, and therefore that will be acknowledged.

G. Plant: Don't lose that page, because the next clause deals with the names issue. There is a commitment in that clause with respect to recording Nisga'a names and naming or renaming certain geographic features. Are there any overlap issues in respect of the features and places identified in appendices F-2 and F-3?

Hon. D. Lovick: Yes, apparently there are.

G. Plant: Would I be correct in assuming that those are issues raised by both the Gitxsan and the Gitanyow and, so far as the government is aware, nobody else?

Hon. D. Lovick: I apologize for the delay; it's a bit more complicated. . . . Apparently, in some cases the names are essentially the same, but they have different spellings -- that kind of thing -- so therefore a little controversy in that regard. Apparently the only formal notice that there is some concern about the naming, and where the overlap is a factor, is with Gitanyow. I don't believe it fits in the Gitxsan case.

G. Plant: In more general terms, it has been asserted by the Gitanyow -- if I'm recalling the newspaper articles -- that something on the order of 84 percent of their claimed traditional territory is affected by the Nisga'a final agreement. Without presuming to judge the strength of the Gitanyow claim one way or the other, is that an accurate assertion so far as the government is concerned? Or does the government have another position with respect to the extent of the overlap?

Hon. D. Lovick: The member is quite correct, Mr. Chairman, that this is what the Gitanyow have said. What we have argued in the treaty -- and that's what sections 33 to 35 are about -- is that we do not believe that the Nisga'a treaty has indeed adversely affected. . . . We are saying that if it has, and the court judges that it has, then we have these remedies built in. That's what 33 to 35 are about.

Beyond that, I'm very reluctant, for obvious reasons, to say much about the Gitanyow claim. As you know, they're in court at this very moment, and therefore I obviously have to be a bit careful.

G. Plant: Well, I acknowledge the minister's answer -- that is, my question was put in overly general terms. There's no doubt that the government takes the position that there is no conflict or real overlap, because the treaty has been drafted in a way to accommodate those issues. With that acknowledg-

[ Page 11211 ]

Putting to one side the question of whether the treaty actually has that effect, I suppose the issue is. . . . Looking at the dimensions of Nisga'a lands -- the Nass wildlife area, the Nass area and the fee simple lands. . . . If you were to draw a map of those things on the ground and then draw the map of the Gitanyow claim, and just look at it on that basis alone, would the Gitanyow figure of 84 percent be correct?

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm advised that we've never attempted to verify just what the order of magnitude is. Certainly we recognize -- and one must acknowledge -- that there is a significant part of the Gitanyow claim that is impacted by the Nisga'a treaty and the area specified within that treaty.

G. Plant: I think it would be appropriate, in this context, to emphasize the fact that when we have been talking about the claims of other aboriginal groups like the Gitanyow, the Gitxsan, the Tahltan and the Tsimshian, we are talking about claims. We are not talking about traditional territories or lands over which aboriginal rights and title have in fact been conclusively held by the courts to exist. The minister is nodding, so I take it that he agrees with my statement of, shall we say, qualification.

However, the same is also true of Nisga'a lands -- that is, from the government's perspective, there's been no conclusive judicial determination of the existence of Nisga'a aboriginal rights or title in or to any of the areas which are the subject of this treaty. Is that correct?

[10:30]

G. Plant: The treaty is intended to resolve the issue. But before we get to the treaty, the situation as I've described it is correct.

I want, then, to move on to the second branch of questions for a moment: that is, to just make some comments about the uncertainty that exists around the strength of the Nisga'a claim. I will proceed that way.

There's a lot that could be looked at here. Let me just briefly highlight three parts of the historical record. First of all, there's the 1913 petition. That petition has a description of the lands that the Nisga'a asserted were theirs at the time they presented the petition, which I would have thought would have been a time in their history when they would be actively knowledgable about what they were doing out there on the land and perhaps ever so slightly less influenced by the issue of treaties and treaty negotiations than they are now, although that may not be a fair characterization. When we look at the 1913 petition, I understand that it's not a straightforward matter to attempt to reproduce that description on the ground, in the form of a map. But doing that, the area that's circumscribed is an area that I would suggest is, first of all, a lot smaller than the Nass area and, second, even smaller than the Nass wildlife area, although it is larger than the Nisga'a lands.

The second item of the historical record, if you will, that deserves pausing on for a moment is the map that was tendered as an exhibit in the Calder case itself. Both the 1913 petition and the Calder case are referred to in the preamble of the treaty, so they are clearly documents and historical events that are of some significance to the province in the context of these negotiations. I actually have in front of me a reproduction of the Calder exhibit map, and again, that map depicts a territory which, if I may say editorially, would impinge considerably less on Gitanyow and Gitxsan traditional territory claims than the Nass wildlife area, which I think is probably the focus of the concern -- the largest problem, if you will.

Actually, I have in front of me something that purports to be a copy of what became exhibit 2 in the Calder case, with the map and something that says that the area of the Nisga'a land claim at that time was 3,674 square miles. Let me just put that in context. I'm told that it works out to something like 9,515 square kilometres. In the documents that are published by the government -- the publicity literature, if you will, that the government has published, including the document entitled "Your Guide to the Nisga'a Treaty" -- the government points out that the Nisga'a treaty resolves the Nisga'as' "original claim to an area of almost 24,000 square kilometres." That certainly wasn't the Nisga'a claim at the time of the Calder case in 1969, when it looks like the Nisga'a claim was something on the order of 9,500 square kilometres. We may return to the significance of that fact when we get to the lands chapter.

I want to make sure that we -- I guess, out of a sense of fairness to the historical discussion. . . . I'll point out that I've also got a letter that Wilson Duff, who was then a professor of anthropology and who I think is still associated with the Royal B.C. Museum, wrote in August '74 to Frank Calder, who was then an MLA. He talks about exhibit 2. I think he was one of the persons who created that exhibit 2 map. Professor Duff says this: "The necessity for the above-described map arose from the wording of the statement of claim" -- I pause to say that that's the statement of claim in the Calder case -- "which carried over from the former Nisga'a petition a description of Nisga'a territory that included the entire drainage basin of the Nass and all its tributaries and would therefore conflict with the claims of other tribes or bands, including those of the Tsimshian and the Gitxsan -- especially Kitwancool." That was the term used by Wilson Duff to describe the people we now call the Gitanyow. Professor Duff concludes by pointing out that the Nisga'a case was therefore a test of the concept of native title and not of specific boundaries between tribes.

These are just parts of the historical record. The historical record, of course, with respect to traditional territories of the Nisga'a and their neighbours would also include reference to their oral histories, their laws and their actual activities on the ground. I don't purport to. . . . What I've done is just illustrate the problem. The problem is that there is uncertainty about the extent of Nisga'a territory.

The government would say that one of the objectives of this treaty is to resolve that uncertainty. Fair enough. That should, I think, be a primary objective of treaty-making -- that is, to take the uncertainty around aboriginal rights and title and create certainty in treaty rights and title. But the challenge in this context is in part a challenge of assessing the fairness of the Nisga'a treaty -- that is, how much land they got in relation to how much they should have got, but more to the point now, the fairness in terms of the claims of other aboriginal nations.

[ Page 11212 ]

Hon. D. Lovick: I think the treaty does indeed speak for itself in a very profound way, and to engage in a discussion about whether the boundary or the land quantum is appropriate or correct or whether it does due justice to competing claims, alas, gets us into dangerous turf indeed -- namely, because we are, as the member knows full well, in a court case. Therefore I am simply going to say that the government's position is that yes, the treaty speaks for itself. It says all there is to say on the issue.

We believe it is an appropriate, just and fair settlement. Moreover, and perhaps most importantly, we also believe that we have taken the necessary steps within the treaty -- particularly paragraphs 33, 34 and 35 -- to ensure that the legitimate rights of other first nations will be protected. I think that's the end of the matter from my perspective. Obviously we'll listen to other questions, but I think that is the short answer.

I also want, if I might, to correct very briefly and clarify a point I made earlier, simply because of the fact that there is a court case going on. I believe I said that the Gitanyow claims impacted. Because it is in court, I want to clarify and say, more properly, that the Gitanyow allege that their claims are impacted by the Nisga'a final agreement. I need to make that point.

G. Plant: Because I don't want to, in this context, commit the province to a statement that could have legal significance in the context of the court case, let me also make it clear that the answer in which the minister used the words that he now clarifies was an answer to a question where I made it clear that I was, in fact, only talking about the technical issue of geography as opposed to anything to do with the strength of the claims being asserted by any of the parties. That's why, although I heard the minister say that, I did not at the time think it was necessary to make the clarification.

I'm not surprised that the government doesn't want to go behind the treaty, if you will, but I want now to warm up the discussion just a little bit. One of the things I want to ultimately do is give expression to my concern around this issue, around whether the province has in fact come up with a solution that is fair to all of the parties.

The issue of overlapping claims was raised at the time. It's been there for generations; there's no doubt about that. For example, one of the maps that the Gitanyow used in terms of their assertion of their traditional territory is a map that's been in a document published by the province of British Columbia, by the museum, since about 1958, I think. So clearly these are not things that crept up on us overnight or by surprise.

But the issue did become a bit more acute in the context of the agreement-in-principle, because there, for the first time, British Columbians saw maps or the delineation of territory that looked like it created the problem we're talking about, that looked like the problem hadn't been solved. Indeed, except with respect to Red Bluff 88, the Tsimshian Indian reserve, I believe the AIP was completely silent on the question of overlaps. Yet I think the issue was particularly hot and heavy within the aboriginal communities themselves.

Before we actually turn to the province's response, I want to put one more aspect of this history on record. I've brought a document which is an extract from the "Ayuukhl Nisga'a Report," prepared for the forty-first annual Nisga'a convention. In particular, pages 53 and 54 of that document talk about the Nisga'a response to a report -- it's really a book -- prepared by Neil Sterritt, entitled Tribal Boundaries in the Nass Watershed. As I'm sure the minister well knows, this report, which was prepared for the Gitxsan treaty office, comes to some pretty strong conclusions with respect to overlaps, in particular the overlaps between the Nisga'a claims, on the one hand, and the Gitxsan and Gitanyow claims, on the other.

[10:45]

"It is important to note here that the researchers themselves" -- that is, the researchers on behalf of the Nisga'a, who were trying to refute, in effect, Mr. Sterritt's report -- "were not completely satisfied with the end product at the deadline -- July 18, 1997 -- especially knowing that we had not exhausted the source materials available to us, and largely due to time constraints. Although more time was required to do a more thorough job, particularly in the cartography section, one could only do what was achievable within the time frame allowed. In the end, the researchers had to accept that the work that was achievable up to that point at best could yet only be termed preliminary."

I'm quoting from these documents because I think it is important to get on the public record some glimpse -- because it really isn't much more than a glimpse -- into what looks like a lack of finality -- in fact, some state of perhaps uncertainty -- with respect to the strength or the validity of the Nisga'a assertions of rights and title. As I say, when the province is in the position, essentially, of saying, "Well, we got a really good deal here, because Nisga'a lands are only going to amount to 8 percent of their traditional territory" -- or whatever the number used is -- that assertion is only as good as, as persuasive as, the evidence that there is merit or strength to the Nisga'a assertion of traditional territory. I think it's interesting in that context that even as late as the spring of 1998, the Nisga'a work on this issue, in the form of a report,

[ Page 11213 ]

Notwithstanding all of this, I expect that the province's position is that the treaty solves all this, including the issue of overlaps. The treaty deals with the issue of overlaps by the clauses that we're going to look at in just a minute or two, which I'm now prepared to do. But I've spoken at length, and the minister may have some comments in response to what I've just said.

Hon. D. Lovick: I agree with the member's conclusion. The treaty does indeed address and solve the problem, including the problem of overlap.

G. Plant: Generally speaking, the province takes the position that the resolution of overlapping claims is a matter internal to first nations as opposed to a matter where the province should, for example, impose a top-down solution. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Lovick: That is the principle embedded in the treaty process.

G. Plant: The effect of sections -- let me just make sure I get the numbers right -- 33, 34 and 35 in chapter 2 is not to resolve the issue of overlap in the sense of saying that the issue has gone away for all time, but rather to, in effect, draft the treaty so as not to derogate from or compromise the ability of overlapping claimants to continue to make their claims and to create a process with consequences for what will happen in the fullness of time. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Lovick: That is correct. I would point out, however, that those three paragraphs, to be sure, don't say that we believe that the problem of overlap has been solved. But the rest of the treaty, in effect, says so. We do believe it has. This says that in the event it hasn't be solved, here's what we propose to do about it. It's a prudent precautionary measure, if you will.

May I also point out that sections 33 to 35, I think, need to be read as not just about overlaps. To be sure, that is the most obvious thing. But as well, it's the whole question of aboriginal rights and other people's contention that they have aboriginal rights in the Nisga'a area and that those also ought to be protected. That's what, as I say, the three paragraphs anticipate and, we think, solve.

G. Plant: Let me deal, then, first of all with 34. Paragraph 34 says, in summary, that if a court "finally determines that any aboriginal people, other than the Nisga'a Nation," has section 35 rights "that are adversely affected by a provision of this Agreement," the provision will operate in a way "that it does not adversely affect those rights. . . ." Or if it doesn't, then "the Parties will make best efforts to amend this Agreement. . . ."

Now, let me make what is probably the first political statement in the course of this debate. The government has not imposed on the Nisga'a the requirement to establish that they have aboriginal rights or title to anything; they have negotiated this treaty without resolving that issue. Yet in order to accommodate the issue of overlapping claims, at least in this context, the province has essentially put the burden on those who have overlapping claims to, in effect, do that. They've said to the overlapping claimants: "We've made this treaty with the Nisga'a without actually determining whether they have aboriginal rights and title. But if you want to displace any portion of the benefits of this treaty, the burden then will be on you not simply to make the assertion but to establish it in a court of law." That looks to me to be unfair. I invite the minister to explain to me why that which looks to me to be unfair is not.

Hon. D. Lovick: We see this as a simple reassertion of something that's been said for some time -- namely, that those who assert aboriginal title have an obligation to prove that assertion.

G. Plant: The government hasn't imposed that obligation on the Nisga'a. So why does it in fact impose that obligation on the Gitanyow or the Gitxsan, to take two examples?

Hon. D. Lovick: The distinction has to be drawn between negotiations as opposed to going to court -- that in negotiation, we are not asking people to use the proof of title that they need to do in court. We're saying, rather, that we negotiate those matters. It's when we go to court that we impose the Delgamuukw test, if you like, in terms of proof.

G. Plant: Well, that sounds like first come, first served in the context of paragraph 34. The Nisga'a get a leg up on everybody else because they were at the negotiating table, and too bad for the Gitxsan and the Gitanyow. What they have to do is prove their rights in court if they're going to displace the provisions of the treaty.

Hon. D. Lovick: That's precisely, however, why we have paragraph 35.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Lovick: Yeah, and I think that settles the matter.

G. Plant: But 35 doesn't do much to help the Gitxsan and the Gitanyow. The province has already given these lands and resources away. What possible incentive is there for the province to participate in a negotiation with the Gitxsan and the Gitanyow with respect to the same land? Surely the province is going to take this position in these negotiations: "Well, I'm sorry. I mean, I understand that you feel strongly about these things. I understand that you claim that these are your traditional territories. But we've already really made provision for those."

So really what's going to happen is that the province is going to bend every will and every wish and every way to try and find some other land, some other resources. What I don't see built into paragraph 35 is any fairness. What I see, again, is a reassertion, if you will, of the principle of first come, first served. If you're first in line, then you get your first cut at the cake, and everybody else who's left has, in effect, a fight over the crumbs. How is it that the province answers the claim that 35 reflects the obvious, which is that there will never be any incentive on the part of the province to, in effect, negotiate again in respect of those portions of the Nass wildlife area, the Nass area and the category B fee simple lands that have already been negotiated away?

[ Page 11214 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member makes the point that this process that is embedded in paragraphs 33 to 35 doesn't give a sense of finality to the question of rights.

Interjection.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member did say that. I was sitting in this chamber at that time, and I heard him say that.

The question of finality would only be concluded in terms of first nations rights once all of the first nations have had treaties in British Columbia. In the interim you need to move on, and you need a mechanism such as the one in 33 to 35 to deal with those issues. If we followed the hon. member's logic backward to its origin, one would argue that we shouldn't negotiate any treaties until we negotiate all of the treaties all at once.

G. Plant: I actually don't need to follow my logic; let's just follow the government's logic. The government's logic is in "Report of the British Columbia Claims Task Force." I'm sure that the minister is going to stand up and say that this report doesn't apply to the Nisga'a negotiation, because the Nisga'a negotiation is outside the Treaty Commission process. If that's an answer to the question of policy, then I don't think it's going to be a very good one.

This report makes it pretty darn clear that the. . . . Let me quote: "Because treaties will identify specific territories, it is not necessary to settle such issues" -- that is, overlap issues -- "prior to beginning the negotiations, but a process for resolution should be in place before conclusion of the treaty. In exceptional cases, the parties may agree to implement the provisions of a treaty in all but the disputed territory." Yet here the government has rushed right over all of that and done what I think is exactly as the minister has just described: created a process which serves those who are at the head of the queue better than those who are behind in that queue.

Let me just make this clear for the Attorney General's benefit. This is not about finality; this is about fairness.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I disagree.

G. Plant: Is the government of the opinion that it has acted in accordance with the principles established in recommendation 7 of the task force report that it accepted?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Those are the very issues that are being argued before the court, perhaps even today as we sit in this chamber. We have said -- and my colleague the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs has said -- that the treaty speaks for itself. You may disagree with the way the treaty has been negotiated or with what has been negotiated, but the treaty speaks for itself, and I'm not going to go outside the four corners of this document to comment on what's currently before the court in a claim brought by another first nation.

[11:00]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I disagree with the hon. member's contention that the process that we followed is unfair.

G. Plant: Explain to me what is fair about a process that first of all says to all those whose claims are affected by the provisions of the Nisga'a treaty: "You have to prove your section 35 entitlement" -- which is what paragraph 34 says -- "even though the Nisga'a never had to" or, alternatively, "We are going to renegotiate with you in circumstances where that would be completely contrary to our self-interest because we would be negotiating about land that we already negotiated about."

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I have said before -- and I'm not going to give a lengthy answer, and I'm not in the habit of doing that generally -- that there are matters before the court. On this question of fairness, we disagree with the conclusion arrived at by the member. With respect to forcing other first nations to prove their rights, that's an issue that we will deal with as we sit across the treaty table with the first nations in question.

We follow a process which could be different before the court and different at the treaty table. That is because we say to everyone in British Columbia that the best way to arrive at certainty is to sit down with the Canadian and provincial governments to arrive at treaties. We want to preserve for the Crown, in the right of the province, the right to be able to argue perhaps different standards in court. I have said that we admit to no inherent rights, per se, with respect to first nations if the matter is before the court. If we are sitting across the treaty table, we are prepared to sit down and negotiate, for the sake of fairness and justice, all of these issues and come to arrangements. What's so unfair about that process?

G. Plant: What's unfair is that you'd better be first, because section 35 of this chapter says that the province might in certain circumstances renegotiate provisions of the Nisga'a treaty -- if they're persuaded that the lands at Meziadin Lake that they've given to the Nisga'a really should have been given to the Gitanyow. If I were looking at that from the outside, I'd say: "That's unfair. You've already given those lands to somebody."

Let's be clear what we're talking about. We're talking about fee simple lands -- lands that could be developed; lands that could be sold; lands that, in terms of whatever it is that the Gitanyow say they do on those lands, could be developed in a way that will forever deny the Gitanyow the right to do that. And the province is saying: "Oh, don't worry. We'll just sit down and spend millions of dollars negotiating with the Gitxsan and the Gitanyow. Trust us. If we think it's fair to put those lands back on the treaty table, we will."

[ Page 11215 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I disagree with the hon. member's conclusion. I have stated that. It wouldn't serve any purpose to carry on answering the same question.

One has to look at fairness across the board. Would it be fair to the Nisga'a to negotiate with them for 25 years -- Canada for 19 years, and three of the parties together for six years -- and say: "We will not give you a treaty at all until all of the first nations come to the table and have treaties." We will not make progress, my friend, if we follow that path. We need to make progress; we need to move on. We need to have a mechanism in place -- and one is embedded in sections 33 to 35 -- for us to be able to move on. I'm not going to argue with my hon. friend as to whether or not what he thinks is unfair is unfair. I've basically indicated that we differ -- we beg to differ.

G. Plant: Until two minutes ago, I thought it was the policy of the province of British Columbia to not conclude treaties until overlapping issues had been resolved. The Attorney General has said something quite different. He said: "We must move on. We're simply going to negotiate treaty after treaty and not really resolve overlapping issues. We're not concerned about overlapping issues, because if we had to deal with overlapping issues, we wouldn't settle any treaties." Well, that is in fact exactly the opposite of the position the province has asserted. It's not just a position that the province has asserted in order to give comfort to people like me; it's a position that the province has asserted in order to allay the fears of the Gitxsan and the Gitanyow and the Tahltan and the Tsimshian. Again, I certainly want to give the minister a chance to say: (a) "No, no. We think overlaps should be resolved before we conclude treaties"; and (b) "There's something in here which is a fair process for achieving that policy purpose" -- because I think the minister just said something quite different.

[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I fail to see the difference between what I said earlier and what I said just now. But obviously these matters are before the court. I've given the answers that I'm going to give. We are going around in a circle here.

We have said we will negotiate treaties. When you have. . . . The hon. member is a lawyer. When the hon. member went to court in cases that he dealt with, he argued all of the strengths that his case had. When he sat across the table with another lawyer on the same case he made a deal, a compromise, without asking for proof and other kinds of issues or asking for different standards of proof. He made a deal, a compromise. Treaty-making is not the same as litigating. Treaty-making means that you come to a compromise, you come to an understanding, you come to an agreement. The hon. member is trying to get one of us to say something different. It won't be said.

G. Plant: The problem with this process, the problem with the answers being given in terms of the government's response to the overlap issue, is this. The Nisga'a have this treaty; they will have this agreement, will have these lands, will have these resource rights, will have these fishing rights throughout the Nass area, will have these fee simple sites, will have the names changed. There is nothing in any of this to give the Nisga'a any incentive to resolve the overlap issue. The Gitanyow and the Gitxsan are now beggars at the treaty table in respect of these areas. The government says: "Oh well, we'll negotiate with you." But the Nisga'a are sitting there, and they're happy; they got what they got. There's nothing in it now, nothing in this process that encourages the Nisga'a to resolve the overlap issue.

Let me read something that was said at a hearing of the select standing committee, I think it was in Hazelton, way back in the fall of 1996, by Neil Sterritt. He said this:

"At present there is absolutely nothing in the land claims. . .process to compel a reluctant first nation engaged in active negotiations to resolve a competing claim. . . . It is simply not right if you are first in line that you can. . .get preferential treatment with regard to resources and management within another tribal territory or even to an area subject to a competing claim."

The Attorney General says: "Well, the implication of the hon. member's argument is that we couldn't settle any treaties in British Columbia until we settled them all." That's absolutely and categorically wrong. There is in fact a process; I don't know why it never occurred to the government. There is in fact a process that was available to the province. They could have said this to the Nisga'a: "These are important issues. We, the province, are going to be engaged in litigation that will be expensive, time-consuming" -- in fact, they are, on this issue. "We don't want to be in that situation. So here's the deal, Nisga'a. You see all this money -- half a billion dollars -- all this land, all these resources? It sits there; it's ready for you. We'll do this deal; we'll put our initials on this agreement the day you come back to us with signed agreements with all your neighbours -- not the Stó:lo, not the Musqueam, not the Kootenay, but your neighbours -- that say: " 'We've resolved this.' "

The Attorney General is quick to make analogies to what happens out there in the world of litigation and negotiation. That is exactly what happens in the world of negotiation. People have leverage in negotiation. People say: "You want this concession from me? I will give it to you if you give me that concession." And the government has dissolved all of the leverage here. They've said to the Nisga'a: "We'll make this treaty, even though these issues are unresolved." The Nisga'a have no incentive now to resolve, and the very conclusion that I think anyone could have seen from that a year ago is, oddly enough, exactly what's happening.

The government is in court, because it didn't do the obvious. It didn't say: "Everything else about this agreement is okay, except this issue. We won't sign this agreement until this issue is resolved." So why didn't the government -- the government that says it would be unfair to settle treaties when overlaps are unresolved -- take that approach with the Nisga'a? Why didn't the government say to the Nisga'a: "We won't do this treaty with you until this overlap issue is resolved"?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It's interesting that the opposition that can't support this treaty as a way of moving forward is now casting itself in the role of the defender of aboriginal rights for other aboriginal people. This is politics; it's politics.

Interjections.

[ Page 11216 ]

[11:15]

Interjection.

The Chair: Order, please, hon. member.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, please, hon. members. The Attorney General has the floor. Please make your remarks through the Chair.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Chair, I will move on. We disagree with the position taken by the hon. member. I've answered the questions, and I will continue to answer the questions. We basically disagree.

G. Plant: It's interesting that the minister makes those comments. Frankly, I think I agree with him in one small respect. It sure would have been good to have the chiefs of the Gitanyow at the golden Bar here, speaking in their defence on that issue; but this government didn't give them that chance, so someone has to speak on their behalf. Someone has to speak on behalf of their claims. I've said all along that we're talking about claims; we're not talking about rights that have in fact been established.

The government made a treaty with the Nisga'a without actually determining whether the Nisga'a had aboriginal rights or title to any of the land. Well, that's fine. We're proceeding on that basis. The interesting thing is that if you even think for a moment about other solutions to this problem, it doesn't take very long before you do think of other solutions. Binding arbitration would have been another way to resolve this, yet that doesn't appear to have been the solution adopted by the government.

Here's the problem. For people who look at this agreement and this process and test it against what the government says its policies are around overlaps, they find that on the first occasion the government had to comply with its policies, it in fact created a process that runs exactly opposite. Firstly, the overlaps remain unresolved, although we have the treaty here in front of us. Secondly, the process that's been put in place to attempt to resolve the overlapping issues or to accommodate those issues is a process that I think puts an unfair burden on all of those who do say that they have overlapping claims.

I think I know why the government did this. The minister said a moment ago: "This is politics." I agree. It's not about fairness; it's not about justice. It's about politics. At some point, six months or a year ago, the government was looking at the polls and saying: "Whoa, are we ever low in the polls. We'd better do something to fix that problem. What's on the short list of things we could do to help ourselves in the polls? Oh my, there's the Nisga'a treaty negotiations. Well, there are a few issues unresolved in the Nisga'a treaty negotiations. What are those? One of those is overlaps."

"Well, we're looking for good news. Let's just figure out a process that'll kind of put the overlap. . . . Let's not try and resolve the overlap issue; let's not wait for it to be resolved. Let's just get rid of it, because the primary objective is not to be fair to the Gitanyow or the Gitxsan or others. The primary objective is to have a signing ceremony in New Aiyansh on August 4." I suspect that almost anybody's fairness or claims could be sacrificed on the altar of that particular form of political expedience.

Let must just explore this one other aspect of the problem, which I actually think illustrates the point. I have seen it suggested that the province's response to the Gitanyow over the last little while, and to their court challenge, is to say: "Oh, we'll make a deal with you. Drop your case, and we'll fast-track your negotiations." That sounds like expedience again. That sounds like the government is saying: "Oops, we got caught in this little bit of unfairness. What we're going to do is try and resolve it by doing something that is also unfair." Somewhere out there are people like the Tsawwassen or the Westbank or the Stó:lo, who are at the treaty table. Someday soon their provincial negotiator is going to come in and say: "I'm sorry, these negotiations are on hold, because we have to go and negotiate with the Gitanyow. The province has decided to fast-track the Gitanyow negotiations."

All of these things happen when you don't follow principles; all of these things happen when policy is made on the napkin of political expedience. I suggest, with the greatest of respect, that there is nothing in this agreement that should give anybody in British Columbia, whether aboriginal or non-aboriginal, any comfort that the province will adhere to any principles in respect of the issue of overlapping claims -- except the overarching principle of maximizing favourable press coverage as and when it's convenient to do so.

If there was something that seemed to. . . . Let me say this. What I've just said is clearly a political statement. I have looked in this agreement for something that I think does respect and honour the problem of overlaps, and I don't find it. I'm disappointed, frankly, that the government hasn't attempted to explain why this is fair. It doesn't look to me to be fair. It looks to me like a process that stacks the odds in favour of the Nisga'a, because they were at the front of the line first. And it says to everybody else: "Well, you'll get the crumbs -- and by the way, you may only get them if you can actually find the guts and the courage to take us to court." I think that is in fact one of the three or four singular failures in this treaty, and an issue that will come back to haunt the province when it continues to try and negotiate treaties.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: If the hon. member thinks that this is being done for political expediency and it's such a popular thing, come on board and support it.

M. de Jong: As I have listened to this discussion, it has occurred to me that the argument from the government side -- to the extent that there's been an argument -- has been: "What else would you have us do, without grinding the entire exercise to a halt?"

What I have failed to hear from the government is an acknowledgment of the obvious: by virtue of how it has chosen to proceed, it is imposing different standards on different people. It is requiring one group of people to bring its claim into court, to do all that the Attorney General spent most of the past two days arguing should be unnecessary, in terms of establishing and categorizing those rights.

He says: "I didn't say that." That's precisely what he said. There is a different standard at work now for those bands, for those people who believe in their hearts that their claim is

[ Page 11217 ]

What I haven't heard from the government benches is some acknowledgment, as well, that one of the partners to these negotiations adopted a very different approach back in 1993. When they signed the umbrella final agreement in the Yukon, this is the provision that was included in that treaty:

"Prior to ratification of a Yukon first nation final agreement by the Yukon first nation, any overlapping claim, right, title and interest, of other Yukon first nations within its traditional territory as delineated pursuant to [various sections of this agreement] shall be resolved to the satisfaction of the parties to that Yukon first nation final agreement."

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm not going to engage in debate about what happened in the Yukon. Each treaty is unique. We sometimes deal with issues in a different way when we are faced with different realities. We've been faced with the Nisga'a quest for justice for a long time. They took us, the Crown, to court back in 1973. The hon. member well knows, being a lawyer, the Calder case. And Delgamuukw recently essentially said to us and to governments across the country that we have at least a moral obligation to negotiate treaties.

Also, in fact, implicit in that statement was a directive to the politicians to get off their seats and go on and deal with these issues, and not to come back to court if they can help it. That's the message we've been giving to everyone. There are different standards when you go to court. Crown will reserve the right to take the strongest possible position on its behalf when Crown is taken to court, and that position is taken on behalf of British Columbians. When you're sitting across the treaty table, you try to find settlements that are just and fair. You find a process that allows you to move forward, and paragraphs 33 to 35 inclusive provide us with that process. I've answered that before, so let's move on to the next issue.

M. de Jong: Surely the point here is that with respect to those territories that are the subject of the overlap claim, those bands, those aboriginal peoples, don't have the very choice that the Attorney was referring to. With respect to those areas that are the subject of the overlap, by virtue of these provisions and the fact that this has now been negotiated, they don't have the choice to avail themselves of that dynamic of negotiation. Their standard is something different; it has only one option, and that is to go to court. Surely we can acknowledge that.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Chair, using that logic, the hon. member would argue that the treaty isn't fair to Nisga'a; they didn't get all the areas they wanted. That's what treaty-making is all about -- arriving at compromises.

J. Weisgerber: I have certainly listened to this debate with great interest, because I believe the resolution of overlapping claims is probably the single biggest challenge in the whole land claims settlement process. That's not to understate the other challenges, but resolving overlaps is a huge issue.

[11:30]

Perhaps I misunderstood the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. Perhaps the minister could clarify for me whether or not his ministry, the Attorney General's ministry, the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs -- someone -- has sat down and calculated the amount of territory that's disputed in the Nisga'a. I raise this not only because of a technicality, but in my understanding and knowledge of claims in this province, probably the overlaps and the competing claims in the area of the Nisga'a are as great or greater than any in any other part of the province. Every territory has areas of competing claims, but I don't think there are any territories where the overlaps and the competing claims represent a significant amount of the territory, as is the case here.

Hon. D. Lovick: I think the member was out of the House when I started talking about the overlap problem. He may have missed the fact that the Tsimshian have reached an agreement with Nisga'a -- that is not a problem -- as have the Tahltan. Those are two that have in fact been solved, so that's the first point to note.

Regarding whether we have a particular definitive measurement of the area directly affected by overlapping claims, yes, I stand by what I said: we haven't got that. We certainly have a pretty good intuitive or notional sense of what it is. But the reason you don't have a definitive one is simply that, as the member well knows, if you take all of the claims, that's where you get the figure of about 110 percent of the province. They're huge, and some of them don't look to be terribly well defined. The conclusion, I guess, that government came to was that if we tried to measure precisely what all of those were and where the boundaries stopped and started, we would probably effectively give the Lands branch a full-time job doing nothing else but that. In other words, for what we would achieve by doing that, frankly, it wasn't perceived to be worth the effort. It wasn't necessary, because we can function very well with a notional notion of what those overlapping areas are; we don't need to measure them precisely. I hope that clarifies it.

[ Page 11218 ]

I want to step back a little bit further. It was clearly the understanding of the three parties when British Columbia signed the framework agreement -- and I say this from personal knowledge and experience -- that it was clearly the intent of the province of British Columbia that overlaps in the area of the Nisga'a claim would be resolved before a final treaty was signed. That wasn't simply an understanding that those of us who initialled on behalf of British Columbia had. There was absolutely no doubt in the minds of all three parties, when the agreement for British Columbia to join those negotiations. . . . There is no doubt about the intent of the three parties that overlaps would be resolved prior to the conclusion of the treaty.

Again from personal knowledge, in support of that, I say that at about the same time as that event took place, there was the task force established on native land claims, which ultimately led to a recommendation for the establishment of the Treaty Commission. The minister might recall that the makeup of that task force was two aboriginal people. . . . It was originally intended that a representative from the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, along with a representative from the Summit, join with the province and the federal government, and that those four individuals would select a chair and come forward with recommendations.

I think it was the member for Matsqui who read out the recommendation of that task force with respect to overlaps, and that is: "Don't hold up the start of negotiations pending the resolution of overlaps." But again, in unanimous agreement, two of the four members of that task force, being leaders in the aboriginal community, said: "Don't resolve claims until such time as overlaps are resolved." That was later adopted by the Summit. The Summit agreed that this was an internal matter and that it shouldn't be resolved by parties outside of the aboriginal community, but that the aboriginal community itself had an obligation to resolve land claims before treaties were finalized.

I'm disappointed to see that they have moved back from that position. The province has apparently lost its appetite to see overlaps resolved, and there is somehow a belief that treaty-making can carry on, simply ignoring the issue of overlaps. Can the minister. . . ? I see that the Attorney General is being briefed by the chief negotiator, who obviously has intimate knowledge of this issue. Can the Attorney General perhaps tell me when the province decided that the resolution of overlaps wasn't essential to the resolving of land claims, particularly with respect to the Nisga'a claim?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member is obviously more familiar with this history than I am, because he was part of that history. I don't think that it would serve any useful purpose for me to pinpoint what the policy was six or seven or eight or ten years ago and when there was a shift. I think that's a question of historical understanding of the process, and I don't have that. Suffice it to say that, obviously, it has been clear to the parties that one must find a process to move on -- that the first nations amongst themselves are not always able to deal with these overlaps, just as the federal government and the provincial government have not been able to sign a modern treaty until now, in British Columbia.

So I think it's simply a recognition of that reality: that it would be impossible for the first nations to deal with all the overlaps at any given time and that one then has to find a process to arrive at compromises and resolve any difficulties that may arise if one arrives at a treaty. That's what these sections do. These sections provide us with the mechanism to deal with any anticipated overlaps. But government, in terms of dealing with the Nisga'a treaty, considered all of the issues, including the issue of overlaps.

Of course, our position is that the Nisga'a territory is the Nisga'a territory as defined in this treaty, and that's the position we take as a result of the fact that we've signed this treaty. If there are any overlaps, and if the court tells us otherwise, there is this process embedded in these sections to deal with it. We have taken this approach, understanding the objective reality that we will not be able to move forward at all if we try to find a consensus ad idem amongst all first nations who may have claims, either now or in the future.

J. Weisgerber: First of all, let's look at the Nisga'a claim. The government, time and time again in this debate, has said to us: "Let's come back. Let's not talk about the Treaty Commission process. Let's not talk about land claims. Generally, this isn't an open forum for land claims debate. We're here to discuss this bill and this treaty, so let's not talk about British Columbia and the need to resolve overlaps, although that exists and is a matter of paramount importance."

But in the Nisga'a, there were four overlapping claims. According to the government, two have been resolved; two have not. The minister would lead us to believe that it would be impossible to get four people to agree on an issue on which two have already agreed. I would suggest to you that, with some discipline, this issue could have been resolved.

I want to say one other thing before I allow the minister another chance to respond. Time and time again in the public debate that we've heard around the Nisga'a agreement-in-principle and around the treaty is the government's statement that it would be patently unfair to the Nisga'a to change the rules partway through. Even with respect to overlaps, the Attorney General suggested earlier on in this debate that it would have been unfair to the Nisga'a to introduce the issue of resolving overlaps partway through their negotiation process.

I say to you again: that is indefensible. You simply can't make that argument on this issue. In fact, the decision to start negotiations was predicated on a commitment to resolve overlaps. This time the government has changed its mind and somehow sees that as quite all right to do, yet believes that introducing, for example, a referendum partway through the process would be unfair to the Nisga'a. But abandoning a policy of resolving overlaps is somehow not unfair to those people who live in and have overlapping interests in the Nisga'a territory.

The government argues whatever side of the fence it happens to be walking on at the moment we're there. It doesn't seem to matter; consistency doesn't appear to be the issue. Although, when it suits the government's purpose, the argument is: "We couldn't do a referendum because we didn't say we were going to do a referendum when we started."

[ Page 11219 ]

[11:45]

I'm going to take a moment and quote, as I intend to do on a number of occasions, from this particular document. Mr. Sterritt starts out this article making the following statement: "The land area claimed by the Nisga'a in their treaty is a land grab at the expense of their tribal neighbours to increase the amount of land they would retain under the provincial government 5 percent land. . .policy." He goes on to record that on August 4, Premier Clark said that 1,930 square kilometres of Crown land would be signed over to the Nisga'a and that that represented 5 percent of the Nisga'a traditional territory. That made a presumption that the total Nisga'a territory was in fact 38,000 square kilometres. A month later, the province began its ads, which said that the base Nisga'a territory was 24,000 square kilometres -- not the 38,000 that the Premier had presumed a month earlier. But when we got to the start of this advertising blitz, the province said that the Nisga'a traditional territory was 24,000 square kilometres, and therefore the settlement represented 8 percent of the traditional territory.

I will argue, and I believe with every fibre in my body, that the province didn't want to determine the amount of conflicting claims on the Nisga'a territory because it wanted to be able to stand up and say, "We gave the Nisga'a only 8 percent of their traditional territory," totally ignoring the fact that two-thirds of that territory was subject to competing claims. Indeed, according to Mr. Sterritt's calculation, the lands awarded or given or making up the settlement lands in the Nisga'a represent 24.8 percent of the uncontested territory in the Nass Valley. Perhaps the Attorney General would respond.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think that I will reiterate the position of the province. These overlap issues are very serious issues. Whether something constitutes 8 percent of the traditional territory or the claim territory, and whether or not there are overlaps, that issue is currently before the court. The fact that we've signed the treaty is indicative of our view as to that question of the overlap and the entitlement. We will, obviously, be dealing with that issue in the court. Government did consider these issues of overlap seriously. I know of Mr. Sterritt -- I'm not familiar with him -- but obviously I now understand that he's being quoted extensively. He obviously has a view, which may not be shared by others.

The government considered all of these issues, and we realized that overlaps are serious issues. We realized that we needed to move on. That's why we provided the mechanism in sections 33 to 35. We believe we are not wrong, on the basis that we've signed the treaty. If a court does find that we are wrong -- which we believe is unlikely, but that's up to the court, at the end of the day -- there is a process in sections 33 to 35 to deal with that. I think that's fairly conclusive of the debate that we're having. We obviously differ. If you want to reargue the whole issue of what area, how much, and whether or not there are overlaps, we will not be able to resolve those issues here.

We realize that there are obviously claims being made; they are in court right now. Anything I say very definitively on those issues may prejudice and will prejudice the rights of the province in terms of what we're trying to do. So I am very cautious and very careful; that's why I keep coming back to the process that we have embedded in this treaty. Those are serious issues that the member raises, and we've tried to resolve them in the best way possible.

J. Weisgerber: Before we get into the remedies that are there, I think anybody who is a serious student of this topic will conclude that there is a basis for overlapping claims and that at least in part those claims will be proven and will sustain themselves. I never subscribed to the notion that one party is 100 percent right and that the other party is wrong. I know from listening to and reading the documentation that the Gitxsan have prepared that there is the basis of substance in their claim.

One of the points that I think is important before we get into discussing the remedies. . . . Up until now, the remedies that we talked about under the issue of certainty fell into the unlikelihood that these remedies would ever have to be used -- for example, the issue of indemnities and whatever. Those, I think we all concede, are unlikely to ever be called on; whereas I think that anybody who looks at this thing would understand that it's not only likely but absolutely certain that some of this territory will in fact be proven to have an underlying claim by a competitor. That's the nature of border disputes, whether we're talking about European disputes or aboriginal disputes. When you have overlaps that represent two-thirds of the territory, common sense suggests that somewhere in between there is going to be a resolution.

Recognizing the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. D. Streifel moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1999: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada