Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

[ Page 11281 ]

Hon. D. Lovick: Joining us in the gallery today is Mr. Aidan Grove White, a former constituent of mine. I would like to ask my colleagues to please join me in making this young man welcome.

B. McKinnon: It gives me great pleasure to introduce to the House a friend and supporter of mine, Mr. Jasa Grewal, and friends of his. Mr. Malkit Singh, who is visiting us from Punjab, India, is an ex-minister of education. Also here with Mr. Grewal is Mr. Jasveer Grewal and Mr. Bob Hans. I ask the House to please make them welcome.

Hon. M. Farnworth: In the gallery today we have some distinguished visitors from Japan. Mr. Shuji Shimokoji is the consul general of Japan in Vancouver, and he's a longtime friend of the province. Accompanying him is Mr. Yashushi Yamazaki, who is the general manager of the Japan External Trade Organization in Vancouver. Would the House please make them welcome.

R. Thorpe: It's with great pleasure today that I introduce to the House Evelyn and John De Yaeger and Mary and Ralph Regan, all from Penticton. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. D. Streifel: It's a pleasure for me today to introduce to the House Mr. William Roberts. William is a former Alberta MLA, who sat with the NDP in Alberta. William is here working. . .

Interjections.

Hon. D. Streifel: It's really rude, you know, to heckle during introductions, hon. Speaker.

. . .on issues regarding aboriginal veterans. He's working with the Hon. Len Marchand on some fundraising initiatives to establish a national monument to the aboriginal veterans who served this country and made sacrifices in order that we could carry on our day-to-day activities as government -- even though they knew, coming back to this country, that they wouldn't have the rights that we enjoyed. Please make him welcome.

Hon. S. Hammell: In the gallery is a friend of mine. His name is Brian Gleason. He lives in Surrey-Green Timbers and is visiting Victoria today. Would the House please make him welcome.

Hon. C. McGregor: It's my pleasure to introduce today Mr. Fitzpatrick who's here visiting the assembly with a class of UCC students -- that's the University College of the Cariboo. Its campus is located in Kamloops. I understand that this is a group of students who are studying government and history. I think it's very appropriate that they're here today, because we are, of course, doing debate on the Nisga'a treaty. I'm sure they'll find it very interesting to observe. Would the House please make them welcome.

Ministerial Statement

SECHELT FIRST NATION AIP

The key point that I want to stress here in my few remarks this afternoon is openness. The provincial negotiators have held over 200 formal consultation meetings since these negotiations began in 1994. They continue to consult with the local advisory committee on the draft agreement-in-principle. The local advisory committee includes representation from Sunshine Coast environmental, forestry, commercial fishery, sports fishery and community interests. In addition, negotiators for all three parties will be holding public meetings in Sechelt over the next several weeks to inform the people of the Sunshine Coast about the draft agreement-in-principle. Bruce Milne, the mayor of Sechelt, will continue to play a key role in the negotiations. He has been a valued member of the provincial negotiating team. Mayor Milne and the provincial negotiating team will hold sessions with the treaty advisory committee, which represents local governments on the Sunshine Coast. The treaty advisory committee has provided invaluable advice to the provincial negotiating team throughout these negotiations.

As members will know, the Sechelt treaty negotiations have been open from the beginning. The side table and main table negotiating sessions have been open to the public; indeed, 12 key subagreements have been available for public consultation since 1997. Sechelt, federal and provincial negotiators have held public information sessions and have conducted many consultation sessions with their advisory committees. As well, Chief Garry Feschuk and his land claims committees have worked very hard to involve the Sechelt people in the negotiations. Thus the elders of the Sechelt community have attended most of the negotiating sessions and have played a key role in achieving agreement on many aspects of our draft agreement.

Now that the negotiators have released this document to the public, the people of the Sunshine Coast and people throughout British Columbia will be able to view the draft agreement-in-principle. They will be able to see that the province of British Columbia is indeed committed to negotiating treaties that meet the needs of first nations as well as the needs of their particular region.

This draft agreement-in-principle focuses primarily on economic development. For example, the land selection, although small in size relative to the land component of the Nisga'a final agreement, will provide economic development opportunities for the Sechelt people. It has been extremely important to the Sechelt people that treaty negotiations not affect their existing self-government agreements. For this reason, members will note, the draft agreement-in-principle acknowledges that the existing self-government arrangement will continue unchanged. Thus the agreement between Canada, B.C. and Sechelt reached almost 13 years ago, which is supported by the people of the Sunshine Coast, will continue.

[ Page 11282 ]

I should also advise those watching these proceedings that the draft agreement-in-principle will be posted on the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs web site to ensure that it is easily accessible to everyone.

In closing, Madam Speaker, I want to offer my very sincere congratulations to Chief Garry Feschuk, who led his community in these negotiations and who worked so hard to find a resolution to the Sechelt land claim. I look forward to being able to travel to the Sunshine Coast before too much longer to sign the agreement-in-principle, as a further indication of this government's clear commitment to create certainty throughout British Columbia by resolving outstanding land claims.

[2:15]

There was in the minister's comments very little referring to the actual contents of the draft AIP -- and I need to emphasize that word "draft." That's only one of the reasons that I will be guarded in my comments until such time as we've had an opportunity to actually review the document in its entirety.

The other reason, though, relates to something else the minister said, two words he used that, quite frankly, fill me with some foreboding. He has talked about consultation and about public information. We are at a point in our history of these negotiations where we know what those words mean with respect to this government. We had consultation -- or supposedly had consultation. We struck a select standing committee when it came time to analyze the terms of the Nisga'a treaty. We spent upwards of half a million dollars taking a committee of members from this Legislature around the province. They came up with 70 recommendations. The now minister of small tourism and culture chaired that committee.

Interjections.

M. de Jong: Sorry, the small minister. . . . [Laughter.] I'll quit while I'm ahead. He presided over that committee.

They made recommendations. Last year the government said they accepted those recommendations; that was part of a consultative process. Earlier this week we heard that the government no longer feels bound by that assurance. So we know what consultation means. Quite frankly, we're not persuaded by the seriousness with which this government approaches that all-important aspect of any negotiations. We know that consultation doesn't mean going to the people for a direct mandate. We know that consultation doesn't mean seeking via referendum the approval for the principles that will be enshrined in all subsequent treaties. So we know that it's not part of the consultative process. We on this side of the House believe that is wrong.

When I hear the words "public information," as I hear them being spoken by this minister, I also shudder, because we know what that means. We know that a $2.3 million information campaign over the matter of four short months can explode, can escalate to over $10 million of taxpayers' dollars being spent on a propaganda campaign. So when I hear the minister say we will engage in an exercise of informing the public with respect to the Sechelt treaty, forgive me if I'm skeptical. Forgive me if I am concerned, because all that says to me is that this government is going to replicate a propaganda campaign that it began with the Nisga'a treaty. And that's bad news for British Columbians.

We're going to study the document, because it ultimately needs to live and die on its own, leaving aside whatever the government may want to do by way of information or propaganda. We'll study that document and hope against hope that when the government says that this time it intends to consult in a meaningful way with British Columbians, it actually means that and will follow through on that promise.

J. Weisgerber: I request leave to respond to the ministerial statement.

Leave granted.

J. Weisgerber: I'm delighted to respond to the ministerial statement, and I want to start by extending my heartfelt congratulations to the Sechelt people. As the Nisga'a have worked to a settlement and enjoyed, I think, the progress with great fanfare, the Sechelts have just as seriously pursued their goals and their settlement -- perhaps not with the same degree of ceremony but with no less determination and no less intensity. In my time as minister, I spent a lot of time with the Sechelt people and entered into some very preliminary discussions with them with respect to their land claim. I join everyone in extending our real congratulations to the Sechelt. It's an important step for them.

I think it's an important day for British Columbia as well. It does mark the first treaty agreement-in-principle under the Treaty Commission process. The time frame on this has been much shorter than we saw with the Nisga'a, and I think it gives us some hope that future claims can move forward more quickly than we perhaps thought in the past.

I was particularly interested in the minister's comments with respect to self-government. Because of my history and the history of the Sechelt people with the first self-government in Canada, I was delighted to hear that the existing self-government agreement would leave that relationship unchanged. While I haven't had an opportunity to examine the rest of the draft agreement-in-principle, I have had an opportunity to examine chapter 15, which deals with governance. I'm delighted to see that the Sechelt Indian self-government will continue with delegated powers, that the

[ Page 11283 ]

I think this represents a very workable model, a clear alternative. While all of us have had great concern about the fact that the Nisga'a treaty represents a template, I think we can take at least some comfort in the fact that there is an alternative model. I think, also, that this agreement gives the lie to the argument that aboriginal people would never accept a delegated form of self-government, because obviously at least one has. It's worked for 12 or 13 years, and there is a conscious decision by the Sechelt to continue in that direction.

I believe there is reason for optimism, because with Sechelt there remain difficulties, particularly in the relationship between the Sechelt government and the non-Indian occupiers of Sechelt land. I think this model provides a far greater opportunity to resolve those issues, without going back through the process of amending a treaty, but rather by amending legislation, should a better and more workable model be found.

I haven't seen the rest of the document, or I haven't examined it. I'm not going to comment on the rest of the document, but from my reading of chapter 15, I think that there's been an important stride, an important new threshold set with respect to self-governance. I hope that bands and tribal councils across the province seriously examine the two models. And I hope that the province goes back and once again champions this notion of delegated self-government, as opposed to a constitutionally enshrined third order of government, which I -- along with others -- have been critical of in the Nisga'a agreement.

It's a great day for the Sechelts and a good day for the government, and I commend everyone involved in the process.

Oral Questions

FAST FERRY PROGRAM COST OVERRUNS

Hon. D. Miller: I have answered the question; I have answered it honestly. I refer again to an important meeting that took place in my office, where the cost of the first fast ferry, according to information supplied by B.C. Ferries, was identified as $86 million. I referred to the conversation of January 7, where this information changed, and events that took place subsequent to that.

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

G. Campbell: I want to be very clear about this. This is not my information; it is not the opposition's information. This is the minister's information in the minister's own annual report that he submitted to this House. The minister told the House and the people of British Columbia that the first ferry would be in the water by June of 1998, the second ferry would be in the water by the summer of '99, and the third ferry would be in the water by early in the year 2000.

Now we know, almost a year later, that the second ferry is just 60 percent complete and the third ferry is 15 percent complete. So what that means is that by the time the government had already spent up to $170 million, at the very best this project was only half done. My question to the minister is very straightforward: why, when he knew that half of the project had cost up to $170 million, couldn't he do the math to show that the full project would cost over $340 million?

Hon. D. Miller: I had always said -- even in estimates debate, I think -- that there were front-end-loaded costs with respect to the development of the fast ferry program. I have spoken previously in estimates, and publicly, about the purchase of the aluminum, the purchase of the engines -- in other words, the front-end-loaded cost. The information I was given. . . . I alluded to these associated costs in the press conference that we held a week ago Monday. It was a question of their allocation over the entire program -- how much was attributed to the first vessel, the second vessel and the third vessel. I repeat what I have been saying for a week now: the figures and the information I received have left me in a position where I have no confidence in that information. That's why we have taken the steps we've taken; that's why we have people investigating this. They will report, and we will make that public.

[2:30]

G. Campbell: This minister's answers simply do not wash. This is this minister's annual report. This is the minister whose picture. . . . It's his signature; it's his undertaking. It's this minister who told British Columbians that this project was going to be on schedule and on time. It's this minister who knew last year that less than half of the project was going to cost up to $170 million. Now it's time for this minister to do his duty. I ask him again: will he do his duty? Will he accept responsibility, accept accountability, and resign today from his post?

Hon. D. Miller: I have dealt with that question, and my answer has been very straightforward. My obligation is to try to get to the bottom of what happened and to make that information available to the public.

D. Symons: On May 27, 1997 -- almost a year before the annual report referred to earlier -- I received a letter from B.C. Ferries stating that they had already committed $152 million to fast ferries. This was over a year before the launch of the first ferry and before the other two ferries had barely begun. Can the minister tell us how he could possibly expect the fast ferry program to come in on budget when it had already spent over $150 million and the first fat cat was only half-finished?

Hon. D. Miller: The question is substantially the same as one that was previously asked by the Leader of the Opposition, so I'll let that answer stand.

[ Page 11284 ]

D. Symons: I think the minister missed that we had indeed backed up a year, and this was a year before the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition.

Back then, we were beginning to have the expectation that there was something wrong with the fast ferry program as far as finances went. This minister and Lawrie McFarlane of the Crown corporations secretariat were sent copies of this letter. The minister knew then that over 70 percent of the original fast ferry budget was spent just getting a single fat cat partially completed. It was obvious to everybody on the outside looking in that the cats were going to be way over budget. Can the minister tell us why he didn't start asking any questions and demanding answers until nine days ago?

Hon. D. Miller: I do believe that last week in question period I referred to a letter that the member received on May 21 of last year from the then president of the Ferry Corporation, which contains a number of pieces of information relative to ferries and fast ferries. I pointed out at the time that the information contained in that letter -- and I can quote it. . . . It was a letter received by the member for Richmond Centre from Mr. Ward, dated May 21, 1998, in which the following statement is made: "The forecast costs for the first will be higher than the second and third, and the second higher than the third, as the productivity improvements are realized. Forecast cost for the completion of the first vessel is $85 million; the cost of the second ship is expected to be in the mid $70 million range and the third in the low $70 million range."

I think it's safe to say, without having received any final report at this stage, that in hindsight, at the very least the information contained in the letter from Mr. Ward to the member in May of last year is inaccurate.

POUCE COUPE WEIGH SCALE

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for raising the question. I can tell the hon. member that there are a number of issues of concern to the trucking industry that the motor vehicle branch is currently working on. We're working with the B.C. Trucking Association in concert with my colleague the Minister of Transportation and Highways. We are addressing a number of issues that are of concern to them. We have dealt with some of them. We've worked with the member for Peace River North, in terms of trying to address some issues around long-haul and longer vehicles, and that's what we're trying to do. We're dealing with that issue. I'm working with members to ensure that we deal with that.

On the particular issue that the member raises, I'm more than happy to look into the issue further to determine the appropriate number of weigh scales that we need in the province and if there is overzealousness that is taking place, so that we can ensure that the trucking industry is well served by the appropriate number of weigh scales and that the member's concerns are dealt with.

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

J. Weisgerber: I appreciate the minister's undertaking. I had hoped that he had already come to a decision. This scale is infamous across North America. Truckers all over the continent have horror stories about this weigh scale. I want to tell the minister, just as an example, that farmers in the Peace country can't find truckers who will haul wide loads of hay if they have to go across the Pouce Coupe scale. Any other scale in British Columbia is fine. If you've got to cross the Pouce scale, the truckers simply turn the contract down. Rig haulers have come to expect a rough time any time they go across the scale.

For the minister's benefit, I don't know of any location -- and perhaps the minister can advise me -- any other place in British Columbia where there are three weigh scales within 25 miles on a highway, regardless of how large or how small it might be. Will the minister personally investigate these concerns and bring me an answer back to the House?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The member has my personal commitment that I will investigate the scale from hell. I know one thing, hon. Speaker. I'm concerned whenever there's a hellish situation like that, and I'm particularly concerned about scales. We want to work with the trucking industry to make sure that they're more competitive; we want to address the solutions. As I said earlier, we're working with the member for Peace River North to see that this happens. I'm more than happy to work with you, and we will. . .

The Speaker: Minister, time.

Hon. M. Farnworth: . . .do everything in our power to address the scale from hell.

FAST FERRY PROGRAM COST OVERRUNS

Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Speaker, I'm just a simple millwright from Prince Rupert, but I have, I think, been very consistent. I don't think that I've tried to cast. . . .

[ Page 11285 ]

The Speaker: Members. . . .

Hon. D. Miller: I don't think that I have cast aspersions on anyone. I have not singled out any individual. I have said it's quite appropriate that as the minister responsible for B.C. Ferries, I take the heat on this. I am; there's nothing wrong with that. But to repeat for perhaps the twentieth time in this chamber, I have implemented a process to find out the truth in this matter. When we get that, we will make it public.

The Speaker: First supplementary, member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain.

C. Clark: According to the minister's version of events -- and he has repeated this again and again -- Tom Ward was a man who acted alone, and nobody knew that anything was going wrong until it was far too late -- kind of what Oliver North argued in front of the U.S. Senate, kind of the same argument that he made. But in order for that to have happened, Tom Ward would have had to deceive not just the minister. He would have also had to deceive the internal auditors, the external auditors, the audit committee, the board of directors. Is the minister trying to tell us today that Tom Ward somehow managed to deceive all of those people? If he is so good at those kinds of deception, how long will it be before he gets a seat somewhere in this government's cabinet?

Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Speaker, it was a silly question, but. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members will come to order.

Hon. D. Miller: I suppose it's fairly clear that many people have formed their own conclusions on this issue. The Liberal opposition has clearly formed its opinions. But all of those opinions have been formed without the benefit of the kind of thorough analysis that we are now going through -- and that's fair enough.

But I repeat: I have not tried to finger anybody; I've not blamed anybody. What I've said is that we will get the information. That will tell a story, I am sure. There's nothing I can do in the interim to prevent the opposition or indeed others from reaching conclusions. I guess that goes along with these kinds of issues. But rest assured that there will be a story, it will be accurate, and it will be public.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister. That concludes question period.

Hon. L. Boone: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order. The minister has asked for leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. L. Boone: Now, it really isn't very often that I get to make an introduction in this House. But I am really pleased to announce that in the gallery today is my baby, my youngest daughter, Tanis Boone, from Prince George. Would you please make her welcome.

Hon. P. Priddy: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. P. Priddy: In the precincts today there are 11 grade 4 and 5 students from the Roots and Wings Montessori School in Surrey-Newton. They're accompanied by their teacher, Gina McMurchy-Barber, and parents of those students. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

Orders of the Day

NISGA'A FINAL AGREEMENT ACT
(continued)

On the schedule, chapter 3 (continued).

D. Jarvis: I'd like to ask the minister, or whoever is answering questions this afternoon: if a private company were to enter into some type of agreement to start a mine in the Nisga'a territory or lands, would the mine development assessment process take effect, as it presently does in the rest of British Columbia?

[2:45]

D. Jarvis: I just want to get it clear, then. If the environmental rules that are now applicable to mining in British Columbia are paramount in all the treaties, then the present mine development assessment program that's particular to mining will also apply in those areas. Or can the Nisga'a change the procedures?

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: Well, by doing away with the mine development assessment program. That was the question, Mr. Chair.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The environmental assessment legislation of the province prevails over any conflicts, and if any

[ Page 11286 ]

R. Neufeld: We discussed earlier all the places in the agreement where consultation has to take place. I appreciate what the minister just told the House -- that the mine assessment approval would prevail, but that if the Nisga'a made any laws of their own that actually conflicted with that piece of legislation, theirs wouldn't take precedence. Can the minister tell me who decides, and on what parameters, that Nisga'a law would conflict with provincial laws that apply to the mine assessment?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member well knows. . . . If the hon. member's argument was correct, this country would not work; this country would come to a standstill. There are rules and laws developed by the courts, and there are constitutional interpretation laws that have been developed by the courts over time. We have an hon. member on the opposite side who is well aware of those. At the end of the day, the courts will determine those issues if they can't be determined by negotiations. There is no magic or mystery to that. So let's not scare people somehow that the sky is going to fall; it's not going to fall.

Interjection.

R. Neufeld: If the member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine has some questions on this, I would encourage him to get up and ask those questions, the same as anyone else.

[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]

Again, I'm not trying to tell people that the sky is falling; I'm not trying to say that at all. I mean, if you go to all the letters. . . . I've received lots of them from mining associations, from tenure holders, from people who actually worry about what's going to happen in the future on their tenures, wherever they are in the province where there may be claims. People have a natural tendency to worry about what will happen. That's not trying to say the sky is falling; that's just, in fact, the truth.

The process I would like to know a little bit more about from the minister, if he could explain it to me, is what process the government of the day would use. Would they be taking all the Nisga'a laws and regulations and actually looking through them as the Nisga'a nation proceeds with that, to make sure that it doesn't conflict with provincial law? Is that the anticipated way we would go about it?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The laws obviously will coexist, unless there is a conflict. If you're asking whether or not the government of the day will monitor all of the legislation being passed by the Nisga'a. . . . You know, one must understand. . . . One must not take an attitude that somehow the Nisga'a are going to mismanage their affairs. The Nisga'a would want investment in their territory; the Nisga'a would want development for their own sake. The Nisga'a would want to pass laws that sit well and appropriately with British Columbian and Canadian laws. The Nisga'a came into this chamber to become British Columbians and to become Canadians, at the end of the day. I think it's important for us to recognize that if there are those conflicts, the governments of the day would resolve those conflicts; and if governments are unable to do that, the courts have done that for decades, if not centuries.

R. Neufeld: The two mineral titles that are held on category A lands. . . . Actually, all mineral title transfers to the Nisga'a in category A lands except for those two portions in the agreement, as I understand it. I've had some correspondence from the owners of those titles, and I just want to get on the record from the minister that provincial law will still apply to those two mineral titles -- all provincial law. There will be no superseding by any Nisga'a law. There will be no way that the Nisga'a can encumber that in any way, shape or form. And those people will have free access to those two mineral exploration areas forever.

[3:00]

R. Neufeld: So the minister is confirming that yes, they will have access. . . .

Hon. U. Dosanjh: In accordance with the law.

R. Neufeld: Yes, in accordance with the law. That's probably the part of the question that I left out. A legal person would want to say: "In accordance with the law." But he agrees that that in fact is the case.

Secondly, from questions that we asked earlier about royalties and those kinds of things, where the Nisga'a people will own all the mineral resources and not pay any royalties. . . . Does that happen anywhere else in British Columbia? Is there another Indian band in British Columbia that is totally exempt, that absolutely owns -- lock, stock and barrel -- all the resources under and above the ground?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm not aware of that. This is an agreement that's been arrived at between three parties. There are exceptions to that, obviously. The submerged lands are owned by the provincial Crown. Nisga'a lands are different. I am not aware that that is an arrangement that has existed anywhere else, and it may not exist anywhere else after this either. It's really subject to negotiation each time.

R. Neufeld: So the minister is confirming that nowhere else in British Columbia does this happen.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: No -- I am sorry; I would correct that misunderstanding on the part of the hon. member. I'm not aware of any, but that doesn't mean that there aren't any arrangements that exist across the country to the effect that the hon. member is discussing. I am not aware of all of the different arrangements that different bands and first nations may have across the country or even in British Columbia.

R. Neufeld: If I said "country," I meant "British Columbia." I see some staff here with the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. Maybe he would like to comment on that question, if he would, please.

The Chair: Member, maybe you could repeat the question.

R. Neufeld: I'll repeat the question. To the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs: I asked a question of the Attorney on

[ Page 11287 ]

Hon. D. Lovick: My apologies to the member. I understand that the question had to do with Indian bands; therefore he is referring to reserve lands. If the question has to do with reserve lands, then the bands do not own those resources; rather, those resources are, in effect, owned by the federal government.

R. Neufeld: I'd like to just leave that for a while and go back to expropriation, as it may take place. The Chamber of Mines had written a letter to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs last fall asking him a question. The question was: what happens when land is expropriated from mineral tenure holders, be it two-post or four-post mineral claims or, in many cases, actual mines? Who is going to compensate the claim holders and at what determined rate?

The Chamber of Mines actually got a response from the Minister of Energy, and it says: "The government of British Columbia has a clear negotiating mandate for treaties in the province. One of the principles states that disruptions to interests on Crown lands will be avoided. If disruption occurs, there will be fair and timely compensation. I believe that the Nisga'a agreement demonstrates that application of our negotiating mandate." He's tied it to the Nisga'a agreement. Maybe the minister -- whoever wants to -- could explain to me what "fair and timely compensation" means if there were to be, or maybe is, some interest being expropriated.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The way we're having this debate is haphazard. I would suggest that the hon. members opposite decide what particular sections they want to talk about. Then we can talk about them.

There are several areas in which expropriation may be discussed. Let's come to that area; we will deal with it. Nobody's going to run away from this debate. Let's do it in an organized way, rather than spending an entire day on an issue and then coming back the same day and starting from the beginning. If we want to talk about expropriation, let's methodically go through this chapter. When we come to expropriation, we'll deal with it.

R. Neufeld: The minister brings forth a good point. I'm not trying to belabour the argument; I'm talking about mineral resources. I can wait until we get to that point, and that's in fact what I'll do. When we get to that section of the bill, I will rise and ask those questions around mineral resources. I hope I don't hear from whoever is going to answer the question at the time: "That was under section 3, subsection 19. You should've asked that question at that time." I'll leave that issue until we get to the appropriate part of the agreement.

G. Plant: I suspect that since we're talking about mineral resources -- and there really isn't anything else in this agreement that deals specifically with mineral resources -- my colleague's questions about the way expropriation will work in the context of mineral resources are as timely now as they will ever be. We'll hold that thought for just a minute.

Let me ask a few questions, if I may, about mineral resources. Paragraph 20 in this agreement gives Nisga'a Lisims government "the exclusive authority to determine, collect, and administer any fees, rents, royalties, or other charges in respect of mineral resources on or under Nisga'a Lands." This may be self-evident to some people, but I just wanted to make sure that I understood it.

It's possible that the Nisga'a could choose to mine their own lands; they could choose to explore for mineral resources on their own lands. They could do so through the creation of some agency or corporation. It's also possible that the Nisga'a could set up a regime of laws under which they might decide to permit others -- non-Nisga'a -- to embark upon mineral exploration and development. It may be that at some point a third party, not a Nisga'a, acting under those laws will actually build a mine. At that point the Nisga'a government will presumably have some laws in place about what the royalties, and so on, will be, and those laws will apply to the mining activity on Nisga'a lands. Those laws will apply the same way, presumably, irrespective of whether the entity or the person conducting the exploration and development is a Nisga'a or a non-Nisga'a person. Is that a correct statement of the way it's expected that this will work?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm assuming that those would apply, whoever develops that resource. They have the exclusive authority to determine and collect those fees and royalties. But if the hon. member is asking, "Could there be different treatment for different bodies?" I'm not aware of that issue in this treaty. This treaty doesn't specifically express any view on that. However, you could have a body in the nature of a Nisga'a collective corporation, which might be exempt from some of these fees because it's a collective entity owned by all Nisga'a rather than by individuals.

G. Plant: I appreciate both the subtlety and the importance of the distinction that the minister is drawing. One of the things that we've begun to explore over the last day or two is some of the ways in which this regime may or may not work out there in the real world of commerce. We were talking about that issue when we were looking at foreclosures and mortgages.

The point that I was starting to get toward, which the Attorney General anticipated, is that it is possible that the Nisga'a could make two separate regimes of laws that would apply in terms of charging fees and so on, depending upon what the Nisga'a conceive to be in their best interests as the owners of the land and the resource. That is going to be for them to determine; that's the basic thrust of this, isn't it?

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: One thing that we've explored to a considerable extent is the question of the extent to which -- if at all -- there is any mineralization on Nisga'a lands. Let me pursue that just a little bit further, because there's been discussion about whether or not the province should have included some figure specifically representing an allocation of mineral values in coming up with the $106,660,000 figure for cost-sharing purposes. The impression has been created that generally speaking, so far as the province is aware, there aren't significant mineral interests at stake here.

But there are at least three general categories of areas. There are the core lands, the Nisga'a lands. There is the larger

[ Page 11288 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: When we refer to the very low likelihood of any minerals existing in the Nisga'a lands, we're talking about the core Nisga'a lands. The Nisga'a would not have any mineral rights per se in the wildlife area or the Nass area. Therefore we have not made any assessment of the existence or absence of any mineral deposits in those areas -- we may have; I'm not aware of it.

I understand that the staff is trying to tell me something. But it would be irrelevant to our discussion here, because obviously those are areas where they don't have mineral rights.

The Chair: Attorney General?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I've been advised that we know that there are significant deposits around Stewart.

G. Plant: I think the minister is right to make certain that we draw the distinction between these different areas in terms of what interest the Nisga'a will have in them. But having said that, if we're looking, for example, at a wildlife area -- and we will get to this in due course -- it is already the case in British Columbia that persons wanting to conduct mineral exploration face the risk that their activities may be brought to a halt by the discovery of some culturally significant remains that may prove the existence of aboriginal title but have nothing to do with mining. It may simply be evidence of hunting or fishing activities, yet because of what the law does in terms of recognizing and protecting hunting and fishing, there may be a serious impact on mining activities. I think people have questions around those issues in the context of the wildlife area, so we'll pursue them in that context.

[3:15]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Without really looking at the report the hon. member refers to, I'm led to believe, by the information that has just been provided to me by staff, that historically there has been no financial return to the province from the proposed Nisga'a land.

G. Plant: Let me ask some questions, then, about submerged lands, because as I followed the debate earlier, I wasn't entirely clear on what we were talking about. I thought I had a sense of it, but. . . .

The idea of submerged lands, as I understand it, essentially refers to the beds of rivers and lakes below the high-water mark within Nisga'a lands. If I'm right so far, what is of interest to me is whether the government is of the view that it also may extend to the seabed underneath salt water within Nisga'a lands, because I think there is Mill Bay -- or whatever the place is called -- where there are two bits of Nisga'a land that reach out sort of like the pincers of a crab's claw. I get it in terms of understanding how this idea works in terms of rivers and lakes. I'm not sure if it is intended to apply to any saltwater areas in or adjacent to Nisga'a lands.

Hon. C. McGregor: The member is correct when he describes the definition as below the high-water mark for rivers and lakes within Nisga'a lands. In terms of the applicability around the seabed, in the description the member gave of a portion that falls between what might be described as jaws of land, we are extending provincial jurisdiction to that example. But beyond that, it would be federal jurisdiction.

G. Plant: I take it that this is one of those miraculous examples of federalism at work -- that Canada has acceded to the claim of provincial jurisdiction here, rather than dragging the province all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada, as it did in the case of Georgia strait. So the province will have. . . .

I guess what I'm not sure about is this: whether it matters that the seabed in the area where these two peninsulas reach around to create the so-called jaws. . . . I'm not sure whether it matters in any respect that these are Nisga'a lands that happen to be owned by the province. By saying that British Columbia owns the submerged land within Nisga'a lands, there's the beginning of an inference that this seabed is now Nisga'a lands for some purpose. But it may not be, and that's where I'm uncertain as to how the agreement is supposed to work.

Hon. C. McGregor: I'm given to understand that this is really. . . . There is a drafting convention used by the lawyers who drafted these documents that "within Nisga'a lands" has specific meaning within those boundaries and did not in fact capture submerged lands. That's why there is a section, separate and apart, which describes provincial ownership of submerged lands.

G. Plant: One of the longest dogfights in the history of Confederation is over where federal jurisdiction ends and provincial jurisdiction begins in respect of issues like the boundaries of Indian reserves and rivers, lakes and oceans. My own concern here is to ensure that the province has not, I suppose, wrongly compromised its ability to continue to protect what it should protect as the provincial interest here.

When I began looking at this issue, I wondered whether the answer was going to be sort of a definitional answer -- that is, look at the map, and you'll see that there's nothing on

[ Page 11289 ]

Hon. C. McGregor: If the member goes back to the general definition of Nisga'a lands under section 1 of the lands chapter, it specifically excludes submerged lands as well as the Gingietl Creek Ecological Reserve, the highway corridor and the lands set out within the boundaries of appendix B.

G. Plant: Really, to understand Nisga'a lands, you need to look at the definition in chapter 1, the definitions chapter. But you also need to look at section 1 of chapter 3, the lands chapter. Is that correct? There may be other things that you also need to look at in contexts that are not pertinent to the discussion we're having right now.

Hon. C. McGregor: Well, the member does make note of. . . . It is in the definitions in the first clause of chapter 3. I'm told that there is a description in the appendices as well.

G. Plant: The potential that is contemplated here by paragraphs 22 through 27 is that in some circumstances, British Columbia may make grants of interests in submerged lands to persons other than the Nisga'a nation or Nisga'a government or any Nisga'a person. The paragraphs that I've just identified speak to those circumstances.

The scheme contemplates the possibility that there will be a dispute, that there may be a dispute; that's paragraph 26. There may be disputes about whether the Nisga'a Nation is unreasonably withholding consent -- a consent that's required from it -- or British Columbia is unreasonably refusing to grant an estate or interest -- under paragraph 25. Then the dispute resolution chapter is invoked.

I understand how all that works when you're talking about the three parties to the agreement: the Nisga'a nation, the government of British Columbia and the government of Canada. Is it the intention of this government that a third party -- that is, the person who wishes to acquire the interest -- would be able to invoke these dispute resolution processes? Or would that person essentially be out there fending for themselves under some other regime?

Hon. C. McGregor: The individual would have to bring the matter forward to the provincial government. The provincial government would have to agree to pursue it through this dispute resolution mechanism.

G. Plant: I think that was a way of saying that the individual's access to this dispute resolution mechanism would turn on the province's consent or refusal. Is that correct?

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes, that's correct.

G. Plant: In practical terms, I suppose that means that if we were in a situation where the argument was being made that it was the Nisga'a nation unreasonably withholding consent, then the third party would have to approach the province and say: "Look, the problem here is that it's the Nisga'a holding this transaction up. Will you, the province, permit me to invoke this dispute resolution process?" It seems to me that this would only happen, as a practical matter, if the province were essentially taking the same side as the third party -- that is, essentially their interests would be the same.

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes, I think that, largely, what the member describes is likely to be the outcome.

G. Plant: Now, I want to put a little bit of context around this before I leave the topic, because it's one thing to talk about submerged lands, and it's another thing to figure out what might actually happen here. When I read this, it seemed to me that from one perspective it was in the interests of British Columbia to maintain control over, essentially, the river beds and lake beds less from the perspective of economic development than from the perspective of managing the ecosystem of British Columbia, if you will.

Nonetheless, these provisions do contain or contemplate the possibility that there would be interests created on these submerged lands, and presumably some third parties might have them. Can the minister give some examples of the kinds of interests that could conceivably be created here, and could she indicate whether in fact there have been any discussions with the Nisga'a thus far about any actual such interests, as opposed to dealing with this simply as a kind of hypothetical structure?

[3:30]

In terms of whether we've engaged in any specific discussions with the Nisga'a about submerged land disposition -- no, not specifically. The member asked for some potential examples. An application for a marina might be one, or a dock or an aquaculture licence. Those are some examples that would fall under these provisions.

G. Plant: I appreciate the minister's answer.

I want to move to the part of chapter 3 that begins with paragraph 28, under the heading of "Interests on Nisga'a Lands," and to talk for a few minutes about paragraphs 28 through 40 -- that is, up to but not yet including the traplines provision. The heading of paragraph 29 is: "Former Interests

[ Page 11290 ]

What I want to ask, first of all, is this. I just want to get a sense of what the government sees as the relationship between this paragraph and the provisions that it has put in place to deal with the possibility of overlap claims. We've seen those provisions; we've talked about them at some length. We know that it is contemplated by this agreement that some other aboriginal group may establish title in court -- aboriginal title protected under section 35 -- to some part of the Nisga'a lands. This clause we have in front of us now, paragraph 29, stripped to its essence and put in general terms, says that on the effective date, the Nisga'a nation's title to Nisga'a lands will be free and clear of all interests. Now, there are some exceptions, but it doesn't seem to me that those exceptions are drafted in a way that encompasses the possibility of what you might call the perfection of an overlapping claim.

So the question is: what is the relationship between, on the one hand, some provisions that expressly contemplate the possibility that someone will come along and maintain an aboriginal title claim and this clause that says no, all the Nisga'a nation's title to Nisga'a lands is free and clear of all interests? It may simply be a drafting issue -- that is, the government's view is that paragraph 29 of chapter 3 must necessarily be read subject to the clauses in the general provisions that deal with overlapping claims. I don't want, necessarily, to have a debate about who would win that argument, but maybe the government could just explain how they see the relationship between these two provisions.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member's understanding is correct. The paragraph 29 that he is referring to has to be read in light of paragraphs 33 and 56 of "General Provisions." So the member's understanding that that can't be read in itself, in isolation from the other provisions, is correct.

G. Plant: To restate this discussion and to restate the minister's answer, if you were in the position of answering the question from the Gitanyow, "Does this not further impair our position?" the government's answer is, "No, it doesn't," because paragraph 29 has to be read in conjunction with the other provisions that the minister has referred to, and they think that those clauses work together in a way that fairly protects whatever competing interests the Gitanyow may in fact someday be able to establish.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Without really commenting on the merits of the Gitanyow claim, the intent, in drafting it the way it has been drafted, is to protect anyone else's rights that may be found to exist. If the hon. member looks at paragraph 33. . . . Let me just read this. This is under "General Provisions": "Nothing in this Agreement affects, recognizes, or provides any rights under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 for any aboriginal people other than the Nisga'a Nation." So this agreement, in itself. . . . It's clear that it is in no way intended to affect any other rights of any other aboriginal people that may exist. That's not to say they do -- but if they do.

Then one reads paragraph 56 of "General Provisions," and it says: "Except as set out in this Agreement, in the event of an inconsistency or conflict between a provision of this Chapter and any other provision of this Agreement, the provision of this Chapter prevails to the extent of the inconsistency or conflict." If one reads those two, I think one finds the answer to the hon. member's question. There is a framework for trying to deal with any matters that might arise.

G. Plant: Well, we won't go back to one issue that I never pursued in the context of paragraphs 33, 34 and 35 of "General Provisions," which is how, on the one hand, paragraph 33 can say that nothing in the agreement adversely affects any section 35 rights of anybody else but then goes on to say, in paragraph 34, that if it does, there is a process. I think the point the minister makes is generally right; I mean, I hope it's right. Let me put it this way: I understand the intent of the process, and that was the point -- to make sure that that was what was intended.

To come back to paragraph 29, there is, I suppose, as I understand it, a sort of parity or something. What paragraph 29 does is begin a process of transition that is completed by some of the clauses that come after it. That is, on the effective date, the Nisga'a nation's title to Nisga'a lands will be free and clear of all interests -- except certain other interests. The clauses that follow go on to say what those other interests are. They include a number of existing interests that are identified in what's called appendix C-1. That's on page 73 of the blue version of the appendices.

Let me just begin this brief discussion with this question. These interests that are identified in appendix C-1 now exist on the ground, if you will, in Nisga'a lands. On the effective date, they will cease to exist in the way that they exist today, but they will be replaced by interests that are contemplated in paragraphs 30 and forward.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: One thing that happens here is that the legal regime within which this list of interests now exists will change, because they will cease to become licences of occupation issued under the Land Act of British Columbia, and they will instead become licences of occupation issued by Nisga'a government pursuant to its power to create interests over Nisga'a lands. And these lands will become Nisga'a lands. By lands, I mean the lands which are burdened by, or affected by, these various interests.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: I'm not going to read the whole list of existing interests. There are some communications sites and navigation beacons; there's a log sort-and-dump, a store and a laundry. It looks as though the government has made an attempt to inventory all of the existing land interests -- other than agricultural leases, perhaps -- and, essentially, ensure that they are protected through this transition period. So the Nisga'a have agreed that they will become recognized interests, but under their regime, after the effective date.

Is there something that was obviously left off the table? Were there people who didn't want to be included in this, or is this basically a kind of inventory of everything that was there? And is everything that the government could find essentially going to be transferred over to this new regime?

[3:45]

[ Page 11291 ]

But in terms of understanding the way jurisdiction is transferred. . . . It is the case, is it not, that as these things become, in effect, interests created by the Nisga'a within Nisga'a lands, they'll be subject to Nisga'a law? And Nisga'a law may, in the fullness of time, change the terms on which these interests are allowed to continue to subsist.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It's my understanding -- and this is a complex issue -- that the appendices are part of the agreement, and they cannot pass laws that conflict with this agreement. Just for clarity, paragraph 32 of chapter 11 speaks to that: "In the event of an inconsistency or conflict between this Agreement and the provisions of any Nisga'a law, this Agreement prevails to the extent of the inconsistency or conflict."

G. Plant: Let's just pursue that one step further. Some of these interests in appendix C-1 look like they are licences of occupation. Licences of occupation can be granted on certain terms; presumably there's a licence document. The appendix to the agreement actually does set out the terms and conditions of replacement interests. Which is it that will apply in the fullness of time? Will it be these replacement interests, which are included within the appendix; or will it be the original licence of occupation, which is in some way incorporated by reference into this treaty?

Hon. C. McGregor: The interests that are represented in the new document will apply.

G. Plant: Can the government give the assurance that all of those individuals or corporations -- whatever -- who currently hold the interests affected by this process are essentially in agreement with or consent to the change in the relationship and the terms of the replacement interests that are included in the appendix?

Hon. C. McGregor: All of the interests that are represented here were consulted at great length. To our knowledge, they are all in agreement with the provisions of the document as it sits in the appendix.

G. Plant: I'm going to move forward, for the purpose of asking a question that is more general. By that I mean move to 33 and 34, which, I think, in general terms express the process by which people who currently hold certificates of possession under the Indian Act or have rights of occupation under band council resolutions will have their interests protected under this treaty and will get some sort of replacement interest. I'll have some questions about what that means in a minute.

In each of the cases we've talked about so far -- that is, all of the existing interests that are dealt with in appendix C-1 and also the holders of certificates of possession -- the treaty is drafted in a way that purports to be exhaustive and complete. It looks like the theory here is that everybody has been found -- that everybody who could conceivably have one of these interests has been identified and accounted for. What happens if the government is wrong -- that is, if they've missed somebody? Is there a process provided that accommodates that, or is that simply going to be an issue that the government is going to have to deal with if -- and it's a big if, given the work that's been done here -- the problem arises?

Hon. C. McGregor: Under section 39 there are provisions for any errors or omissions as a result of miscalculation or wrong description of a material fact. So that's to deal with an error.

In the eventuality of an omission. . . . And we want to assure the member that we have canvassed this fully, and to our knowledge there is no possibility of an error of omission. But if there were, it would be covered under clause 42, which indemnifies the Nisga'a nation and therefore would make the province liable for any compensation as a result.

G. Plant: I appreciate the answer.

Let me move ahead to paragraph 35. Paragraph 35 of this chapter says that a person to whom the Nisga'a nation issues a certificate of possession under paragraph 33 or paragraph 34 will have substantially the same right to possess that parcel of Nisga'a lands as they would have had as the holder of a certificate of possession under the Indian Act. But there's modification to reflect Nisga'a government jurisdiction and ownership.

I think I understand the general thrust of this -- that is, to ensure that persons who currently hold certificates of possession or rights of occupation under band council resolutions will essentially have the same level of interest or the same general kind of interest in land after the effective date under the new regime as they do now. Is that correct?

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes.

G. Plant: Then let's get to what I think is potentially the interesting part of this. One of the things that is almost universally regarded as a challenge for aboriginal people who are currently registered Indians occupying Indian reserve lands with certificates of possession is that they can't do much with a certificate of possession in terms of attempting to pledge it as security at a bank. I know that my colleague from Matsqui, in this context, sometimes refers to some of the testimony that the Minister of Lands was also present for, when we were all together in New Aiyansh. A young woman came up and explained what the problem was for her in terms of realizing some kind of economic future for herself.

Now, the treaty as I read it, as a whole, contemplates the possibility that Nisga'a government may create fee simple interests and may convey those interests or transfer them in some way to individual Nisga'a citizens, who are the folks who live in these villages. Yet here the treaty also goes out of its way to talk about preserving the existing rights in terms of certificates of possession and rights to occupy under band council resolutions.

I understand why parties to this negotiation would have an interest in ensuring that individual Nisga'a citizens who currently hold certificates of possession or rights of occupation under band council resolutions could not, in effect, be dispossessed overnight of whatever interest it is they have.

[ Page 11292 ]

But it does seem to me that there is a bit of a tension or an issue between, on the one hand, kind of creating something that may perpetuate in paragraph 35 the status quo and, on the other hand, the rest of the stuff in the Lands chapter and in the government chapter, which makes it look like the Nisga'a will in fact have the power to create fee simple interests. I know that the minister understands the problem. What is the government's reconciliation of what looks like a bit of going in two different directions at the same time?

Hon. C. McGregor: The purpose of the provision related to 35 is to ensure that on the effective date of the coming into effect of the agreement, we are taking the steps necessary to ensure that all the rights of existing Nisga'a citizens related to their certificates of possession -- or through band resolution; all of those rights -- are protected as of the coming into effect of this agreement. But once the agreement takes effect -- once the Nisga'a government, for instance, passes certain laws, and they have their electoral processes -- then different decisions could be taken by the Nisga'a at that time.

G. Plant: So, in effect, that will be for the Nisga'a nation to decide. The government of British Columbia, I guess, from its perspective has attempted to achieve some level of assurance here by including 33, 34 and 35 and, I suppose, also some of the other clauses here that essentially, as much as anything, are intended to avoid some kind of legal vacuum occurring after the effective date.

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes.

G. Plant: That brings us to. . . . Well, yes, someday I'll pursue the question of what paragraph 40 means. But a more interesting subject, and certainly a subject that engages one or two of my colleagues, is paragraph 41. I think the member for Saanich North and the Islands has some questions about that.

M. Coell: I have a number of questions for the minister with regard to licences for traplines and also guide-outfitters. The province at present has a revenue from the traplines and guide-outfitter licences throughout the province. On Nisga'a land it also has control over who gets those licences, through qualifications. I wonder if the minister could tell me whether they have an estimate of revenue loss because of the transfer to the Nisga'a nation and away from the government of these three sets of licences.

[4:00]

M. Coell: What I'm getting at is that in the treaty, the Nisga'a nation may create laws in these areas. I don't see how there wouldn't be a loss of revenue to the government -- and I concede that it may be small in this instance. But what I'm getting at is this: will there be losses of revenue in other treaties? If the province is still going to maintain control, but yet they're giving authority for administration to the Nisga'a nation, certainly there'll be a loss in revenue.

Hon. C. McGregor: I'm afraid I don't understand the member's questions. We will continue to administer them, and we will continue to collect the fees generated by those licences.

M. Coell: Can the minister enlighten me how, if the Nisga'a nation is going to administer laws that they create with regard to traplines, guide-outfitter licences and certificates. . . ? I can distinctly remember, during the public hearings, Nisga'a saying that they wish to have control over these areas and administer these areas. How is it that there will not be loss to the province if they administer these areas? There may still be a provincial licence, but if the province is not administering them, certainly they won't be collecting fees.

Hon. C. McGregor: Well, I would reiterate that the province will continue to administer. It doesn't really matter, quite frankly, hon. member, what people may have wanted throughout negotiations, with all due respect to those individuals who were involved. The treaty makes clear what the law, the requirements, will be. It says that the province will continue to administer it under the Wildlife Act and will continue to collect fees.

M. Coell: Will the Nisga'a nation not be able to create laws with regard to qualifications for traplines, guide-outfitter licences and angling guide licences? The minister is telling me that there is no provision, then, for the Nisga'a nation to have any control over these three areas.

Hon. C. McGregor: That is correct.

M. Coell: I realize -- and I don't want to get into too much detail -- that this is also covered in the wildlife section, in a separate paragraph. What I am concerned about -- and I don't seem to be able to either make myself clear to the minister or have a clear answer back from the minister -- is what role the Nisga'a will play in these three areas. The minister is telling me that she sees the Nisga'a nation not playing any role in these three areas. That's a different statement from the minister again. If they're not playing a role. . . . When we get to the section on wildlife, there's a whole bunch of comanagement and management teams that will be affected. What I'm trying to get from the minister is what role they'll play. . . . If they're playing a role, do they assume any of the costs? If you're telling me that that's the case, then that's fine.

Hon. C. McGregor: I think the hon. member is really making reference to some of the provisions under the chapter that relates to the wildlife management committee and some of the responsibilities and roles for participants through that management committee. That is a different chapter.

Let me say once again that these licences will be retained. . . . The administration will be retained by the province, and we will continue to garner fees as a result of that continued administration. It's not the responsibility of the Nisga'a.

R. Neufeld: I must admit that I didn't realize, when I read through the agreement, that the province was going to

[ Page 11293 ]

Can the minister maybe give me a little background and let me know why the province would retain the control over, and also the fees that are associated with, fishing, trapping and guide-outfitting, just so I have a general sense of why she would do that -- which is totally different from what she's done with the other natural resources?

Hon. C. McGregor: The member takes issue with the fact, I think, that we're collecting fees to continue to administer what is viewed to be a provincial resource as it's described here. That's why we collect the fee, hon. member: to ensure that value is achieved as a result of that fee. We also continue to administer, and that fee helps pay for the service that's provided.

On the question of wildlife management, let me say that I sat on the standing committee, as several members have already noted. We had repeated comments from British Columbians all over the province who were concerned with wildlife management questions. The concern they expressed repeatedly was that they wanted the province to maintain management of the provincial wildlife resource. I think this provision speaks to that principle.

R. Neufeld: I don't want to belabour the point. I appreciate the interest that British Columbians have in wildlife. I also appreciate the interest that British Columbians have, which I understand was brought forward to the committee, about other resources -- one being minerals. Maybe this minister can't answer it, but the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs may be able to. I'm sure that many people brought forward the issue of mineral resources and forest resources that were being turned over, and the management of those resources. I'm sure they were as concerned about those resources as they were about hunting, trapping and fishing.

I want to know -- other than the minister just saying that people in British Columbia told us they wanted the province to look after the wildlife -- why in the negotiations you would view the wildlife issue as it relates to hunting, trapping and fishing so seriously that you would retain control of that. Yet you've turned over to the Nisga'a nation all other resources, which are just as serious and wide-ranging and could in effect be a huge revenue -- we don't know that.

The government of the day has admitted that it has no idea what there is for mineralization; they have no idea what there are for hydrocarbon deposits. They took a brief, cursory look at the forests. I just need to have a little more comfort in why the government would be so clear in setting out that they're going to retain everything in hunting, trapping and fishing, but all those other resources they're going to leave with the Nisga'a nation.

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm skipping ahead to the wildlife chapter, because I think that's probably the way to deal with this.

I just want to remind the member that the question we are ostensibly discussing is in the "Lands" chapter. I'm trying to remember . . . . Was it 41? Yeah. Here's the point that I think has somehow gone missing. I think I heard the minister explain, but perhaps I didn't. In any event, the point we're making there is to protect existing licence interests -- in other words, non-Nisga'a people who have existing licence interests: traplines, guide-outfitters, etc. We are saying that the treaty will not jeopardize their interests. That's essentially what that section in "Lands" is.

To the larger question about licences, fees, charges and royalties, I'd refer the member to chapter 10 and beyond, in terms of the wildlife chapter. That's where we will grapple with the larger question about whether we are indeed protecting other interests and whether the province is living up to its obligations in terms of management responsibilities, collection of fees and so forth. But at the moment it seems to me that we're in danger here -- and we have been, frankly, for a couple of days now -- of wildly going from one chapter, one paragraph, to another paragraph 15 chapters later. I just don't think we're well served by that.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, members.

Hon. D. Lovick: Somebody across the way who hasn't yet participated in the debate seems to take umbrage at my comment. I'm not assigning blame to anybody; I'm merely saying that it's awfully difficult to proceed if we seem to be going all over the place. My colleague from Matsqui and I tried to nail down in the beginning a kind of protocol for how we would deal with this treaty. It seems to me that through the fault of nobody in particular, we have lost sight of that. Therefore I would suggest, with the greatest respect for my colleagues opposite -- all of them -- that perhaps we ought to try to stick to the protocol that I just sketched out.

M. Coell: I'll try to be a little more concise as to the section 41 traplines and licences. What I've been trying to get on the record is the role that the Nisga'a nation will play in the licensing of these three areas. I guess a simple question would be: will trapline owners, guide-outfitters and angling guides of non-Nisga'a origin be subject to Nisga'a laws or to provincial laws or to both?

Hon. C. McGregor: Provincial laws.

M. Coell: Then the minister is saying that the laws that the Nisga'a people will have the ability to create through the treaty will not be enforceable for non-Nisga'a resident licenceholders at this time, only for Nisga'a citizens.

Hon. C. McGregor: The Nisga'a government has no authority to pass those kinds of laws.

M. Coell: In the appendix that is attached to the bill, there is a list of licensees and, I believe, one guide-outfitter. So on the day that this turns over, they will have to be responsible only to the provincial government and will in no way be responsible to the Nisga'a nation for the management, the licences and the collection of wildlife with regard to those licences.

[4:15]

[ Page 11294 ]

M. Coell: Well, that was what I was getting at in my first question. Let me phrase it differently. The Nisga'a have the ability to regulate these three things by access. They can charge a fee for that access. I appreciate the clarification by the minister on that; that's what I was trying to get at.

The problem, as I see it -- and it may not be a problem -- is: how do the Nisga'a have input, for starters, into what's going on on their land with regard to these three licences? If they themselves are just subject to provincial law, then certainly there's a very big discrepancy with what we'll discuss in another chapter and this particular licensing area.

What I'm trying to get at is that the licensing aspect of wildlife is one paragraph in a huge section, and then you've got another couple of paragraphs that deal with it; but I think this is of key importance both to Nisga'a and non-Nisga'a, and the non-Nisga'a on Nisga'a land, as to who they're going to be ultimately controlled by to do their jobs. I think that the minister has rightfully said that the province has a number of areas of authority that they're going to continue to have control of. The Nisga'a also have control of these licences in a roundabout way. When this becomes the law of the land, how are the people -- the trapline numbers that are identified and the guide-outfitter that is identified here -- who are subject to the appendices affected?

I think what I'm hearing from the minister. . . . Correct me if I'm wrong, and we can move on, or you can suggest another question, possibly. I see these people as affected by the licensing in that there is a roundabout way to control the licences -- in the position that the minister said. . . . What I'm looking for is some comfort for these people that they will be able to continue the work that they traditionally have done. Many of these licences are Nisga'a, as well; some of them are not. So what I'm looking at is: how can we give some comfort to these people, when the agreement becomes law, that they can continue about their business in the same manner, with the same laws, as they do now? And if they can do that, and the fees and the access are over and above that and don't affect that, I'll be happy.

Hon. C. McGregor: Section 41 sets out the guarantee that the member wants to be given to these individuals. It makes it clear that the province will continue to administer these licences. I don't know how much clearer we can be.

When we do get to the wildlife chapter -- and I think it's a very interesting chapter -- there will be an opportunity to talk about the roles that many people will play in terms of managing the wildlife resource. It is not just the Nisga'a. Many non-Nisga'a, including trappers, guide-outfitters and general hunters and fishers, will have, through the wildlife committee or the fisheries chapter, those opportunities provided. They'll have the ability to really talk about their issues and how best to manage. . . .

When we talked earlier about the wildlife resource. . .it isn't restricted just to the Nisga'a area. It's migratory, in terms of how the animals themselves behave. We have to manage for a broader class, for all of the animals within a region of the province. That's one of the reasons why it's very important and why the B.C. Wildlife Federation and other interest groups wanted the province to have that jurisdiction. They understood the nature of the wildlife resource and the way it travels and the need to manage its populations for conservation and for continuing, in some cases, hunting opportunities. So I think there's acknowledgment of the importance of the role of both Nisga'a and non-Nisga'a. We'll get an opportunity to talk about that in more detail, I think, in the wildlife chapter.

M. Coell: I understand what the minister is saying. What I have been trying to ascertain is the management of the licences and the fees paid for those licences and the varying categories of those licences. What I'm hearing is that the province will continue to collect a fee and manage those licences, but the Nisga'a have an ability to, basically, have another fee called an "access fee." So you may see that a guide-outfitter has to come to the province for a licence and then go to the Nisga'a to actually access the area that they wish to have a guide-outfitting opportunity in. That's what I'm trying to ascertain -- if I'm correct. I see the minister nodding -- or one minister nodding -- but I'll sit down and wait for an answer.

Hon. C. McGregor: We will have the opportunity to talk about access in a broader context when we get to chapter 6, but I draw the member's attention to article 3 in the "Access" chapter, which sets out the limitations under which the Nisga'a may regulate access. It includes, for instance, public safety. In the case of people hunting close to village lands, that could be very much a safety as well as access issue. Those are the kinds of things that we as a province do regulate, and the Nisga'a will be able to, as well. But we will certainly be able to get to that chapter at a later point.

M. de Jong: Just dealing with section 41 of this chapter. . . . I think that someone in the House said earlier: "As I understand it, this is about protecting existing rights" -- that that is the genesis of this chapter. If we go to appendix C-7, I think we ascertain from that document -- those two pages -- whose rights we are protecting. It sets out, on pages 294 and 295 of the schedule to the bill, specifically whose rights we're protecting. I have a couple of questions that I want to ask related to those interests and those individuals.

The first question. . . . Well, let me put it in these terms. I'm not a trapper, and I don't have a trapper's licence. But they have value. They are bought and sold, and they represent something in the manner of currency for those who are interested in these things. It's unclear to me from the section. . . . We are talking about the interests of those people who hold these interests as set out in appendix C-7. Does the section contemplate the transfer or assignment of those interests by these people?

Hon. C. McGregor: Under the provisions of the wildlife chapter, there are sections on both trapping and guiding. If there were to be any transfer of the existing licence, there's a requirement for consultation. There's a requirement for consultation for the transfer. It's listed in point 76, page 146.

As well, under the guiding section, there's a reference in section 82 that indicates that if there were to be a new guide-

[ Page 11295 ]

I would also mention that we are getting into the wildlife chapter, and it would certainly be my preference that we save those particular questions until the time when we're in that chapter. I know it probably helps the member to understand some of these other provisions, but it's difficult to keep flipping back and forth.

M. de Jong: The answer is helpful, but I will say that what we're talking about is directly relevant to section 41. The cross-reference that the minister makes is pertinent and on point, and I think it helps to establish a point that arises directly out of section 41 -- that is, by virtue of the treaty, the rights or the interests of those people referred to in appendix C-7 are protected to a point. What I'd like to ask the minister to acknowledge or set me straight on is that that requirement to consult prior to any transfer or assignment is a hurdle that they wouldn't ordinarily have to overcome. That is something they inherit as a provision in the treaty. Now, I may be mistaken about that, but my understanding is that if you have a trapline, in many instances you may assign or otherwise transfer your interest in that trapline. Under section 41, as cross-referenced by the minister with the wildlife section, that protection we are presuming to extend is limited somewhat by subsequent sections in the treaty.

[4:30]

M. de Jong: Help us along. If I am one of the individuals whose interest is described in appendix C-7 and I want to transfer or otherwise assign my interest in one of those items, can the minister explain to me what process I need to follow that would satisfy the consultation requirements set out elsewhere in the treaty? Again, I'm speaking about those individuals who are covered by section 41 of the chapter we're now on.

Hon. C. McGregor: It is our obligation to consult, not the obligation of the individual licence holder.

M. de Jong: All right, then let me ask this question: if I am one of those individuals whose interest is described in appendix C-7, what certainty do I have that I will be in a position to transfer or otherwise assign my interest in one of those instruments, as I would normally be able to in other circumstances? This document, this treaty, adds something, and from the perspective of those individuals whose interests are affected, they deserve to know what that is.

Hon. C. McGregor: Hon. member, I think it's important for us to acknowledge that it is the Crown's responsibility to do this prior to reissuing or transferring a licence. The definition of consultation is in the document; it is on page 5 under "Definitions." It sets out the meaning of consultation in this document. It is the province's obligation to do that process prior to making a decision on renewing or changing or transferring an existing licence.

M. de Jong: Then maybe the question is: what assurance do I have, as one of the individuals holding the interests described in C-7, that the government will engage in that consultative process? Probably more important -- and this is probably the practical question -- is: what assurance do I have, as one of those individuals referred to in C-7, that it will occur in a timely way?

Hon. C. McGregor: In the definition of consultation, it sets out that it must be within a reasonable period of time.

M. de Jong: Well, I don't want to be unreasonable, but the government. . . . Let me say this graciously. Without even focusing on this government, governments' notions of what is reasonable can be far different from the average person's notion of what is reasonable. Maybe what I'm looking for. . . . Maybe the best I can do, insofar as my questioning of this minister on this section is concerned, is to obtain from her an acknowledgment that the interests and, presumably, the value of the licences and certificates referred to in section 41 are now diminished, insofar as the freedom to move and transfer and assign those interests is somewhat encumbered now. There is an added hurdle, and that is the obligation to consult -- an obligation that the government, the minister says, is required to fulfil. And the best an individual can hope for is that government will fulfil that obligation in a reasonable time frame.

Hon. C. McGregor: We don't accept the member's view. . . . I don't accept the member's view that it in any way diminishes the value of those licences.

M. de Jong: Does the minister accept that there is now an added cost involved in a process that formerly involved only two individuals -- that is, the assignment of an interest in one of these licences?

Hon. C. McGregor: As the member well knows, it's the role in this ministry and others to consult on a very regular basis. That's a part of what we do as a government; it's part of our business in this ministry and other ministries. It does not have a specific cost attached to it. It's the way we should do business, in terms of always taking the view that we should consult in many situations. So I don't share the member's view that there is cost specifically attached to that.

M. de Jong: Is the minister suggesting that this exercise in consultation would take place without any participation either by the present licence holder or by the individual who would presume to assume the interest following the assignment?

Hon. C. McGregor: I think that the member is asking for a broad description of how consultation occurs. It does occur in a different way from case to case. If he perhaps wants to try and suggest a scenario, then I could give him some indication.

M. de Jong: Appendix C-7 lists interests that individuals hold in traplines. Guide-outfitter licences are listed there. It is entirely possible and very likely, I would suggest, that one of

[ Page 11296 ]

There is now, we know, an obligation on the part of the Crown in the right of the province of British Columbia to consult with the Nisga'a before approving that assignment. I imagine that consultation would revolve around the nature of the interest that is being assigned, how it may impact on others in the Nisga'a nation, what the original interest holder has done with the licence, what the intended licence holder intends to do with that licence. Presumably those individuals -- most particularly the person who seeks the licence on assignment -- would be in the best position to provide that information. Therefore it follows, in my mind, that they would become involved in that exercise. If you're consulting with the Nisga'a, presumably they are going to be asking questions about the whole exercise, and the person that's going to be in the best position to answer those questions is the person who presumes to take the interest on assignment.

I think that the minister is not being fair. She's suggesting that it's going to be business as usual. There's an added dimension to this now that didn't exist formerly.

Hon. C. McGregor: I think the member is right in describing a process, and I wouldn't disagree with any of what he said. I think there might be other avenues of consultation as well, and they might include a broader consultation with the wildlife committee. I didn't want to presuppose what that consultation would include. But I do not disagree with what the member has just said.

M. de Jong: Okay. And if we accept that for the people listed in appendix C-7, their involvement will, at a minimum, require them to devote some time to an exercise that formerly they wouldn't have had to participate in, and to the extent -- and I am now thinking about how this might unfold -- that there may be costs involved to them in engaging in that process, is the government prepared to consider compensation that might flow to them by virtue of their need to participate under this new process?

Hon. C. McGregor: I can't accept the member's contention that there are necessarily costs involved in the act of consultation. I think there are many opportunities that can happen that do not have costs. The telephone comes immediately to mind; this is something that people use on a regular basis. I don't think there is a need to suggest that there is compensation payable as a result of that.

M. de Jong: I agree with the hon. minister. There are many circumstances that I can imagine where no costs would accrue as a result of engaging in this consultative exercise -- beyond time; if you believe the old adage about time being money, then necessarily there will be some costs involved.

But I can also think of circumstances in which costs might accrue. So let's deal with that smaller subset that the minister, by virtue of her earlier answer, I think, acknowledges could exist. Let's accept that there might be circumstances in which there are no costs but also, in fairness, accept that there might be circumstances in which this new process does impose some costs on people who, before this treaty becomes effective, wouldn't have to absorb those costs. Is the minister prepared to entertain compensating the present licence holders and assigns for those costs?

Hon. C. McGregor: There are circumstances where consultation happens in different ways. I don't want to make any hard-and-fast rule about how it might occur. We do have policy within government. . .policy and practice in regard to compensating people who may have to travel as a result of consultation we're doing. But again, it is not a hard-and-fast rule. In the circumstance where we might be consulting with a guide-outfitter, let's say, on a licence provision, if there were significant costs for that individual to have to travel -- frankly, I'm not certain that it would be an outcome of having to transfer a licence, but nonetheless -- then we would engage in the consultation in such a way as not to cause any compensable costs for that individual.

M. de Jong: Again I want to emphasize a point. We're not dealing with hypotheticals here. We're dealing with real people, and in fairness, we're not dealing with thousands of them. We're dealing with the people referred to in appendix C-7, that group whose interests the government says it wants to protect. We've learned a lot about the degree of protection that exists for them. The minister would try to minimize the impact that this section, and how it operates in conjunction with the rest of the treaty, has on their interests. I don't think she's done a very good job -- at least, I'm not convinced.

I can see all sorts of circumstances where (a) the value of these interests is going to diminish as a result of how this treaty operates, and (b) in order to do things that they used to be able to do, the holders of these interests are going to incur significant costs in terms of realizing the full value of their interests under appendix C-7. They are very interested in the responses that the minister is giving. I suspect that they are as unconvinced as I am that the government has properly turned its mind to the costs that they are going to absorb as a result of how the treaty is going to operate. The minister has said nothing to this point that leads me to a conclusion other than that.

Let me ask the minister this: what will happen if one of these licences or certificates as set out in appendix C-7 lapses? Who does the interest revert to under the terms of this section and other provisions in the treaty?

[4:45]

M. de Jong: Appendix C-7, I surmise, is set out with a view to being exhaustive of all of the interests covered under those categories. Is that correct?

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes.

M. de Jong: In a couple of the other sections where we refer to the appendix listing interests on Nisga'a lands and various parts of Nisga'a lands, those sections are referred to -- specifically C-1 and I think C-5 also -- in the sections dealing with indemnities, which begin at paragraph 42 of the chapter we're on. I guess two questions flow from that. If an individual has an interest that is not referred to in appendix C-7, what

[ Page 11297 ]

Hon. C. McGregor: The difference, really, is that those other appendices make reference to rights that are being transferred to the Nisga'a, and they are reissuing those licences of occupation and so on. But in the case of the angling guides' licences, the trapline licences or guide-outfitter licences, these remain as a part of provincial jurisdiction, so it is a different circumstance.

G. Plant: I suspect my colleague will return to that particular issue in a moment. I wanted to rise because, on a number of occasions, the ministers who have been answering questions have dealt with the issue of consultation and have made the assertion, in so many words, that the increased burden of consultation is not and does not translate into an increased cost to government. I am just perplexed by that assertion.

Let me put it in very concrete, practical terms. There are a finite number of individuals who work for the government of British Columbia. There are a finite number of individuals who work in the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. I suspect that most of those individuals think that their days are already full; that is, when they get to wherever they work in the morning -- an office or whatever -- they already have enough to do to occupy their lives. A forester in the regional office of the Ministry of Forests has to process applications for cutting permits, has to review management working plans. There is already a lot of work involved in that. It is not as though the people sitting in those offices in Smithers -- or New Aiyansh, for that matter -- are sitting there with time weighing heavy on their hands, waiting for something to do.

In fact, in the context of this ministry, earlier this year we already explored with some interest the question of how staffing relates to, among other things, the speed at which the government can process applications for lands. That's because there is only a finite number of hours in the day and only a finite number of bodies. If this agreement results in giving more work to those individuals, because they will now have to embark upon consultation processes that they did not have to do before, then I think that amounts to a cost to government. It's all very well to say, "Yes, you can consult over the phone," but. . . .

I guess it's partly because I've been in some of these offices; I've seen what these people do who are trying to work on behalf of the government of British Columbia. I remember once, for example, being told that there were only two conservation officers for virtually the whole northern half of British Columbia. That's rather a lot of territory; in fact, it includes the territory we're talking about here.

So I'm interested in knowing how many dozens of people exist within the Ministry of Environment who are just sitting around waiting for the opportunity to add this one more job to their already long list of jobs. It just seems to me to be beyond comprehension that the government could continue to insist that consultation does not come at a price. That is my question: is it really the position of this minister that the added burden of consultation does not come at a price -- that there is not a cost in terms of the additional hours, the additional bodies that will have to be hired to do that work?

The Chair: Would you just have your seat, minister, please. Hon. member, the Chair is having difficulty understanding the relevancy. . .

Interjection.

The Chair: Just one moment, member.

. . .of this last discussion on this particular section of chapter 3. If the hon. member could explain his rationale for this particular section of this chapter, the Chair would really appreciate that.

G. Plant: I would be delighted to do that, hon. Chair. I thought that in exploring how paragraph 41 was going to operate, the minister herself had indicated that there would be consultation involved in ensuring that the people who have existing interests, the potential assignees, the rights of the Nisga'a and the rights of the government would all be adequately protected. My recollection was that it was the minister herself who suggested that consultation was something that was built into how paragraph 41 operated and that it was the minister herself who said that in fact there would be no cost to government associated with that additional burden on government. I was exploring that issue with the minister, having regard to what I think is a very real impact that paragraph 41, along with other paragraphs in this agreement, will in fact have on government. That was the thrust of my question.

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm going to try to be reasonably brief, but I want to address the point the member made. I want to make it very clear, to begin with, why we're having a discussion on consultation ad nauseam -- and many, many times in the last four or five days. As I said before, we thought we had some understanding between the parties in terms of how we would proceed. Apparently we don't, and that's lamentable.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Lovick: No, no.

The Chair: Order, members.

Hon. D. Lovick: Let's ask the member opposite to listen for a change, rather than continue to make speeches. Just listen for a moment, if he would.

We're discussing paragraph 41.

Interjections.

The Chair: The members will come to order.

Hon. D. Lovick: Paragraph 41. . .

Interjection.

Hon. D. Lovick: No, no.

. . .in the last sentence, says very clearly: "If an interest referred to in this paragraph is not renewed or replaced, that interest will cease to exist." The members asked: "How about that notification? How would that be notified?" The reference that came from the minister was: "Look at the wildlife chapter, where you will discover that the discussion on consultation occurs."

[ Page 11298 ]

If the members opposite want to assure us that we'll have a full and complete discussion on consultation, the costs, the obligations, etc., under paragraph 41 in chapter 3, let's do so. But let's not pretend that suddenly this is absolutely and entirely generated by paragraph 41. We'll spend an hour on this, and then an hour from now we'll start it all over again on paragraph 51 or some such thing. That's point one of my short response.

Point two. I must confess that my colleagues and I. . . . I'm having a little difficulty listening to the members opposite lament the lack of resources for consultation when their prescription for government, quite frankly, would deprive government of resources to do just that activity.

Interjections.

Hon. D. Lovick: It's nice to know that the member opposite is capable of theatrics. I wouldn't have guessed to this point. But it's nice to see.

Point three is just this. Here's the serious issue. I ask my colleagues opposite to please pay attention. It's reminiscent of an advertisement that used to be on TV, when the poor devil walked into the muffler shop. The guy looked at the muffler and said: "You can pay me now or you can pay me later." That metaphor is exactly what this is about in terms of consultation.

What the Nisga'a final agreement does is specify very clearly what one's obligations are in terms of consultation. Our difficulty with the post-Delgamuukw universe that we live in is that we don't really know the rules. Therefore government is spending, I suggest, hugely more resources in attempting to do that consultation. We think this is a preferable model. Indeed, most of the stakeholders with whom we've dealt -- like the guide-outfitters, like the trappers, like the anglers and like the hunters -- have said that they're quite happy with this because they know the rules. They know what the rules of consultation are.

The conclusion to all of this, I think, is that we have canvassed this at great length. The members opposite and we disagree in terms of whether this will confer an extra burden. We happen to disagree. We don't think it confers an extra burden; we think it's a burden that is comparable to the existing one, perhaps even less. That ought to end the debate, I dearly hope, on paragraph 41 at least. Surely we don't need to have more discussion on consultation.

The Chair: Prior to recognizing the member for Saanich North and the Islands. . . .

Interjection.

The Chair: Member, if you could just take your seat for a moment, please.

The Chair recommends that the discussion be a little bit more succinct, and perhaps we can. . .

Interjections.

The Chair: Members, order.

. . .get on with the debate. We are in fact debating paragraph 41 in chapter 3.

M. Coell: I apologize to the minister if a very simple question on protection for guide-outfitters and trappers has caused him this much problem. I started with a very, very simple question, and that is the protection for the traplines, the guide-outfitter licences and the angling guide licences.

[5:00]

I think the government needs to look at this issue if it's going to be duplicated in other treaties. There's a potential for no protection at all, in the long run, for these numbers of people. Granted, traplines don't have the worth in dollar value that guide-outfitting licences do. If you can put a guide-outfitter out of business and assume that licence, that can be a hefty profit. So I point out, and my colleagues have tried to point out, that this is a potential loophole that government hasn't looked at, one that could cause problems for owners of licences for traplines, guide-outfitting and angling.

Hon. C. McGregor: Hon. Chair, I would like to ask, if I could, that questions related to access, which are in chapter 6, be dealt with after chapter 5. We are currently on chapter 3, on the lands provision. While I appreciate that the member is trying to link it to 41, chapter 6 is some considerable time down the road. It makes it clear that there are some opportunities for the Nisga'a to be able to charge for access, but it's also spelled out clearly that it is reasonable. The member's allegation that people will lose their licences as a result of that is not substantiated in any way. I want to make that clear. It's not substantiated. I'm not trying to avoid what your question is, but I do believe that the questions around access should be a part of chapter 6, as opposed to being here under 41.

M. Coell: I'm simply trying to point out that I see a major loophole that government hasn't seen. Whether it's in one chapter or the other chapter, together there is a loophole there.

Hon. C. McGregor: It's clear that I disagree with the member.

M. de Jong: I would like, unless other members have questions relating to 42 and 43, to leave my impression of what we've learned about section 41, and then the next section on my list is section 44. I think that either it is by design. . .or perhaps the minister has misunderstood the submissions that have come from this side of the House. There are two aspects to how section 41 will operate. The member for Saanich North and the Islands pursued one of those issues, which relates to

[ Page 11299 ]

I will make this last observation. It is inaccurate, in my view, for the minister to deny that by imposing an obligation to consult, albeit on government, it will necessarily impact on the ability of these individuals to transfer or otherwise assign their interests and that it will somehow not have an impact on those individuals or on the value of the interests they presently hold. It is inconceivable for me, quite frankly, that the minister wouldn't acknowledge this.

Now, it may be a very nominal impact, depending on the value of these various licences themselves, and I don't know what the values of all of them are. When government purports to restrict the transferability of an interest, that impacts on those values. I will move on, but I will afford the minister this one last opportunity to rebut the submission that we are making; if she chooses not to, I'll move on.

Hon. C. McGregor: I don't accept the member's allegations that there is a loss of value as a result of requiring consultation. There is nothing in the requirement for consultation to indicate that any interest holder is losing their ability to hold that licence.

M. de Jong: I have failed abysmally in trying to communicate where I think the loss of value results. Yes, they can hold the interest. It is their ability to transfer or assign the interest that has been restricted by how this section is going to operate. If the minister is unable to grasp what I think the significance of that point is, then I have done all I can to try and impress that point upon her.

I think that the member for Saanich North and the Islands has some questions relating to section 44, the site remediation provisions of the agreement.

M. Coell: We have identified sites in the treaty. I wonder if the minister can tell me whether there have been any assessments, at this point, as to costs of those sites.

Hon. C. McGregor: I believe this question was asked of me in question period a couple of weeks ago. At that time, I indicated to the members opposite that there has been a beginning of an inspection. Twenty parcels have been identified as requiring no further assessment, and there could be potential remediation required on the remaining five parcels that were visually identified. But beyond that, no assessment has gone forward at this time.

M. Coell: Does that assessment include putting a dollar figure on the ones that have been assessed?

Hon. C. McGregor: That would require additional investigation to determine the specific nature of the potential contamination, how that might be remediated, and so on. But I want to make it clear from the outset -- and I believe that I did this in question period, as well, when this question came up -- that this is not at the expense of the province; it is at the expense of the polluter. That's pursuant to our legislative framework.

M. Coell: My understanding is that there are instances on Nisga'a lands, once turned over, when the polluter is long gone and not able to make the remedy. Who, then, does the cost fall to?

Hon. C. McGregor: The contaminated-site regulation makes clear how we go through a process of identifying polluters and how to assess value, and so on. It's quite a detailed process. If the member would like more information, I would be happy to offer him a technical briefing.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

M. Coell: I'm aware of that process. What I'm asking is: have the sites been identified where there isn't a polluter or a company still around that would be charged with the remediation for the site? I suspect -- I'm not sure -- that there are many of those sites, where the companies or individuals who may have caused the damage in the past have long gone or have died. So in that instance, my understanding. . . . Would it fall to the province through this treaty, or would it fall onto the Nisga'a nation, to pay the cost?

Hon. C. McGregor: It is premature to jump to that conclusion, hon. member. There are in fact, though, two responsible parties that are still unidentified for two non-permitted landfill sites, as well as one log sort. So there is a process through which we will continue to work to try and identify those previous owners.

M. Coell: The process of remediation is quite costly for landfill sites. For these sites that have been identified, if the government is looking for an owner and can't find one -- I will be very surprised if you can find one -- what I'm interested in is this: has there been an assessment of those sites as to the cost of the remediation no matter who does it, whether it's government, Nisga'a or individuals?

My fear -- and I'll elaborate -- is that you will find a number of sites that have been identified where the polluter of record is long gone or deceased, and the remediation is to be completed, in my understanding, as part of the treaty. Now, the minister may not know or may not be able to tell me. But does it fall back to the province if the case is made that there isn't a polluter of record available? You've got an assessment of $1 million for remediation of a landfill site. Who's going to pay for it -- Nisga'a nation or B.C. government?

Hon. C. McGregor: First, the member needs to understand that we don't necessarily know that any of these sites require remediation. First, we need to do more investigation to determine whether that's necessary. Contrary to what the member said about the cost of remediating landfill sites, it isn't always a costly endeavour. In fact, sometimes it's a matter of simply inspecting the site, making sure it's appropriately covered or relandscaped.

Interjection.

Hon. C. McGregor: But, of course, the member knows that we don't know the specific contamination on any of these sites.

Nonetheless, if we go through a process and identify that there is significant contamination at one of these sites, and if

[ Page 11300 ]

M. Coell: I thank the minister for that answer. The concern I have is that in many respects this is an open-ended agreement and, I hasten to say, is like a ferry that we're all talking about during question period. But we don't have a dollar figure for the remediation of literally dozens of sites. We don't have a dollar figure for the sites where there isn't an owner or that are Nisga'a sites -- and some of these are Nisga'a sites. So what I'm trying to point out, and I would appreciate the minister's comment on it, is: why have we entered into 44(a) and (b) without any kind of an idea of how much it will cost? I mean, there are many costs that are laid out in this agreement. This is an open-ended cost. We will fix these sites. At the bottom end, it's our responsibility if we can't find a polluter or a person responsible. I would be interested in the minister's comments as to why we've entered into, as I see it, a potentially very open-ended and costly endeavour.

Hon. C. McGregor: Let me assure the member to begin with that it simply is not open-ended. We already know that there are only five sites that have potential for contamination; yet we don't know if any of those sites truly can be identified as contaminated under the definition. So it's clearly not true to say that it's an open-ended cost.

[5:15]

M. Coell: I would be interested in knowing which of the five sites -- they're not in the treaty -- have been identified as contaminated. If the minister is able to provide me with that information, I'd appreciate it.

Interjection.

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes, the hon. member across the way notes that all of the sites are on pages 56 and 57.

Interjection.

Hon. C. McGregor: Which of the five?

The Chair: Through the Chair, please, members.

Hon. C. McGregor: Hon. member, I'll endeavour to find out for you exactly which of the five sites they are and to provide you with that information.

M. Coell: On the issue of the Nisga'a and the sites that may be contaminated, they would not be responsible, because before this treaty the federal government would be responsible. So you're falling back to either the federal government, I believe, or the province. I guess what I just want to point out to the minister -- and she may disagree with me -- is that I see this as very open-ended. We don't know how much it will cost for these remediations. We don't know which of the dozens -- the minister says there are five identified now -- will be identified and who the owners or the polluters were. To me, to enter into a contract like this without a dollar figure on it is irresponsible.

Hon. C. McGregor: I would like to read into the record, if I could, from chapter 3, schedule B, which is the list of sites. I've just been provided that information. There is the Ksedin logging camp, which is considered for further investigation, the Kwinatahl camp, and the Sim Gan logging camp and dryland sort. There is the Omar Island log sort, and there is the Ksedin landfill and the Echo Cove logging camp.

M. Coell: I'd just like to thank the minister for that answer. I realize another colleague has a question.

M. de Jong: Well, here's what I've taken away from this exchange thus far. We've narrowed down, out of section B. . . . We've established, I think, that the government has visited all 19 sites and has determined which of those 19 sites are contaminated or possibly contaminated and has determined, in its mind and at this point, that the remaining 14 are free of any possible contamination. Is that correct?

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes, that's correct.

M. de Jong: Well, the question that follows, then, is: do the Nisga'a agree, and if they do, why are they still in the treaty? If all of the parties agree that they're not at issue here, why are they still in the treaty?

Hon. C. McGregor: Section 44, under "Site Remediation," makes it clear that. . . . Subsection (b) says that when a site is contaminated, the nature and extent of the appropriate remediation will be determined under B.C. law. So it is the provincial jurisdiction that determines whether or not the site is contaminated.

M. de Jong: I am a bit confused. Then there is a process that needs to be followed by which confirmation of the statement that the minister just gave -- that 15 of the 19 sites have been determined to be clear of any contamination. . . . Is there something else that has to be done?

Hon. C. McGregor: I'm confused by the member's question. I think we went through this before, indicating that we've done a preliminary inspection of those sites. We've indicated that there are 14 on which no further steps need to be taken. There is no evidence of contamination, and only on the five sites that I've identified would an additional process need to be applied to determine whether or not they are contaminated.

M. de Jong: I am undoubtedly missing something in the submission here. The Nisga'a and British Columbia governments resolved to identify possible contaminated sites. They

[ Page 11301 ]

Hon. C. McGregor: It is our standards which apply; it is B.C. law which applies. It is not up to the Nisga'a to determine whether or not they view them to be contaminated sites. It is provincial law that will be applied in that case. When the agreement was first drafted, all of those sites were listed because, of course, there had been no inspection yet to indicate whether they were or were not contaminated sites.

G. Plant: So if it's up to British Columbia to decide if they are -- and British Columbia has decided that 14 of them aren't -- then certainly one way of dealing with this would be to rewrite schedule B and take out 14 of the sites, rather than put them into a treaty. If in fact it is that simple. . . . At the time this was written, there were 19 sites on the list. Since then, the government has gone out and done a bit of work. It's realized that 14 of them don't belong on this list; it's not sure about five of them. There may be an issue or there may not be an issue. Well, if 14 are in the clear and it is in fact the province that gets to decide that, and we don't have to worry about going back to the table with the Nisga'a and ensuring that they're happy, then the way to deal with that would be to edit schedule B to take out 14 of those sites. I don't know why that can't be done. Maybe the minister could explain why that can't be done. Not to be lawyerly about it, I actually don't think it's in the interests of the province of British Columbia to undertake a constitutional obligation which the facts on the ground indicate is entirely unnecessary.

Hon. C. McGregor: It's simply not necessary for us to reopen the schedule, and so it won't be reopened.

G. Plant: Well, then, let me just make sure that I have the point. From the minister's perspective, it is entirely unnecessary that 14 of those sites be on schedule B. There is no reason that those 14 sites are on schedule B, other than the minister's lack of desire to remove them. She says it's not necessary to take them off the list; I would say it's not necessary to have them on the list in the first place now. I just want to be clear: there is no reason -- none at all -- for those 14 sites to remain in this agreement.

Hon. C. McGregor: It was an undertaking that the province agreed to take in terms of site remediation. It is written in the treaty because it is something we have agreed to. It is a permanent record, then, of what we have agreed to as a part of this treaty.

G. Plant: The treaty doesn't yet exist; we're debating a treaty that may come into existence if this bill passes.

We already know that with respect to 14 of the sites, it is up to British Columbia to decide what to do, and British Columbia has decided there's nothing it has to do or that it has done everything it has to do. So before we in fact pass this bill and before the minister of the Crown signs the final agreement, we already know that 14 of these sites don't deserve to be -- and there's no reason that they need to be -- on the list. But what we do have is the residual apprehension that someone might come along later and say: "Well, they're in the treaty. That must mean something."

After all, no one would put something into a treaty that was totally unnecessary, so there must be something there. Maybe the Nisga'a will come along 40 years from now and argue that the province hasn't honoured its obligation in respect of those 14 sites. Long after we're all gone, long after the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and I have tried to out-theatricalize each other, someone might actually discover some argument that will bring this all back to life. I think it would be wrong to have that sitting there as a potential problem. If you want a permanent record, then make a list and put it in a file somewhere.

An Hon. Member: Write your memoirs.

G. Plant: Yeah, write your memoirs.

It just seems to me perplexing that we know now that the government gets to decide this issue, the government has decided the issue, and there is no issue with respect to 14 of these sites, but we just want to have it in the treaty, because. . . . Because why? I don't get it. I'd be interested in having the minister try one more time to explain why it is in the public interest to put these 14 sites in the treaty when the province firmly maintains that it has absolutely no further obligations in respect of them.

Hon. C. McGregor: I believe that I've answered the member's question. We made a commitment to engage in this level of site remediation. We identified the sites, we agreed we'd do the inspection, and we're going to maintain that as a part of our obligation.

G. Plant: Is it the case that the Nisga'a won't sign off? Is that why the other 14 so-called unnecessary sites actually have to stay there -- because the Nisga'a haven't agreed and the Nisga'a in fact don't agree that it's just the province's decision? And the Nisga'a maintain some authority over this and therefore won't give the province a release in respect of this? Is that really the problem, when it comes down to it?

Hon. C. McGregor: No.

G. Plant: On a separate but related issue, what is the obligation, if any, on the part of the province if there should be other sites discovered that in fact are polluted or contaminated within what are now provincial Crown lands but will become Nisga'a lands?

Hon. C. McGregor: Our obligations are those that are outlined in the schedule.

G. Plant: Is it therefore the province's position that there has been a negotiation, if you will, and that the Nisga'a have agreed, in effect for all time, to waive any claim against the province in respect to pollution on any lands other than those identified in schedule B?

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes, that is correct.

[ Page 11302 ]

[5:30]

Hon. C. McGregor: Hon. Chair, I have repeatedly tried to answer the member's questions, and I think my answers stand on the record.

M. de Jong: Before I pursue the question that I have, let me simply make this point. When the government gratuitously accepts obligations that will be constitutionalized and that may involve costs, those costs will be borne by taxpayers. If, years in the future, one of the 14 sites that has been the subject of this very brief conversation is determined to have contamination that is required to be cleaned up and that cost is visited upon the province, I think the record will show that that obligation has been incurred because the minister decided there wasn't any point in following through in a rational and logical way on the assurance she is presuming to give to us.

I think the member for Richmond-Steveston is quite correct when he says that the reason the government is not in a position to delete those 14 sites is because the Nisga'a don't agree. You know what? There's no shame in admitting that. There's nothing wrong with admitting that the Nisga'a want to preserve a right. I wish the government would stop trying to play cute with the taxpayers, who may ultimately be called upon to absorb the costs that are part and parcel of sections like this one.

I see the minister. . . . Well, I'm going to continue. What we have learned is that the government, having conducted the inspections of these sites, has ascertained that on five of them there is the possibility of contamination requiring remediation. We have also learned that the minister believes that in no case will any of that cost accrue to the Crown, although it certainly will, I presume, insofar as post-cleanup inspections, and that sort of thing.

But let's just pursue the sites. The Ksedin logging camp -- and the legal description applies there. . . . Who is responsible for the cleanup of that site if, upon subsequent work by the provincial Crown, it's determined that remediation work is required -- recognizing that we already know there is a strong possibility of contamination?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Chair, obviously under section 44 there's a reference to contamination, and that's governed by the Waste Management Act and the processes and regulations that have been made pursuant to that. If you have a set of facts and you want us to now give you a determination based on those regulations, that's a process that's very long. But this simply says that the province will cause appropriate remediation to be undertaken, essentially. That doesn't mean that the province will do it itself.

Interjection.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Well, each particular situation will have parties that would be responsible. At the end of the day, who would be responsible would be determined by that legislation.

M. de Jong: The Attorney wasn't here for all of the discussion. We learned a great deal from the minister. We got her assurance, first of all, that inspections had been carried out and that only five sites had been determined to have the potential of any contamination. We got an assurance from the minister that none of those sites. . . . Responsibility for the cost of cleaning up those five sites in no case -- the determination has been made -- would fall to the Crown in right of British Columbia. There has been the entity responsible, and maybe it's the holder of special use permit 16189.

But I think it's a legitimate question to ask. In fact, I think we'd be derelict in our duty not to ascertain today who is going to be responsible for the cost of cleaning up one of five contaminated sites contained within the properties of this treaty.

Hon. C. McGregor: First, we haven't resolved that they are contaminated, so we don't know that there are. . . . We can't name the responsible parties if we don't know for certain that they are contaminated.

But I've explained on several occasions how the legislation works. There are processes in place. That's what the Attorney General just made reference to: the processes we will follow to determine who are the responsible parties in the eventuality that we determine there is contamination. There have been multiple tenants and occupiers. But we do not know for certain who is responsible, and we've got to continue. That's a part of the process we would go through.

M. de Jong: Let me move on to the second site, which is the Kwinatahl camp, and the Sim Gan logging camp and the other ones identified -- Omar Island log sort, Ksedin landfill and the Echo Cove logging camp. Now, is the minister going to tell us -- having conducted preliminary inspections, having distinguished these as sites where there is likely contamination that will need remediation work -- that she's not in a position to advise the House with any degree of certainty who it is that is responsible? The minister said just a few moments ago that it's not the Crown. Well, how could she say such a thing if she's not in a position to tell us who is responsible and whether the people that are still responsible actually still exist?

Hon. C. McGregor: Hon. Chair, would the member please check the Hansard? He'll know that what I said was that in the eventuality that, upon going through multiple processes, there was no responsible party which we could identify and cause the cleanup to be paid for by, then it would fall to the province.

[ Page 11303 ]

Interjection.

M. de Jong: You know, if the Education minister wants to participate in the debate, let him, hon. Chair. It's easy, I know, to make light of this when you flit in and out of these things, as he tends to do. We all know that the cost of site and soil remediation is high. We're talking about a logging camp, where they use all sorts of chemicals, where the likelihood. . . . This is not conjecture on our part. The minister has already conducted preliminary inspections and concedes that these are five sites where contamination likely exists. And then she comes into the House and isn't able to tell us who is going to be responsible for that cleanup. But she is prepared to sign an agreement that assumes ultimate responsibility for the Crown.

With the greatest respect to the minister. . . . Maybe I should let her respond, because I am certain that she can do better than that. I am certain that she wouldn't stand here and tell this House that the Crown is assuming a liability, a responsibility for a cost item, and it has no idea where it might end. Maybe this was a unique set of circumstances relative to one of the sites -- the one I happened to pick, which is the first one. I'm sure the minister has better information with respect to the remaining four, and now is her chance to share that information.

Hon. C. McGregor: I've repeatedly answered the member's questions about the process that we're going through to identify whether or not there are potentially contaminated sites. The liability to the province would be the same. It is provincial legislation that applies in every circumstance around the province; it is not exclusive to this treaty. Our liability under the act. . . . Regardless of whether it occurs in Nisga'a lands or in Saanich or in any other part of the province, the law would apply in the same way. The province's liability would be the same, going through the processes to identify, in the end, if there are no responsible parties.

G. Plant: The Minister of Environment is suggesting that she and her ministry know the location in British Columbia of every potential contaminated site, wherever it is -- 100 miles south of Fort Nelson or two blocks south of my back yard. If she is suggesting that she and her ministry are already fully engaged in a process of ensuring that all of these sites will be tidied up, then I don't buy it.

"What's happened here is a little bit different." It's not a little bit different; it's big-time different. They sat down with an entity called the Nisga'a, and they said: "Guess what -- over this really big area of 2,000 square kilometres, we the province will ensure that these 19 sites are tidied up." The province doesn't go around doing that everywhere. The province may do it on Expo lands; the province may do it here and there. But I don't detect a provincewide campaign constantly underway to clean up every place where some logger has spilled a litre of gasoline within the last 50 years. This is a special obligation.

It doesn't have to take forever. The point of the questioning is not obscure. The point of the questioning is simply to have the province stand up and say: "Yes, we have undertaken and accepted an indeterminate liability on behalf of the taxpayers of British Columbia in circumstances where we know there is a risk, where we know there is a potential that we may have to ultimately pay the bill because no one else will be found to do it, but we don't know right now. We don't know what the bill is, we don't know with certainty that we're going to be able to find the person to pay it, but we have decided that in order to achieve a treaty agreement with the Nisga'a, we're prepared to take that risk -- to assume that obligation. We know it's there; we know it's a risk. We can't quantify it, but we're prepared to do that in the interests of concluding an agreement."

I think that's the point. If the government would admit that that is basically the situation, then I think we can probably move on. But let's not kid ourselves that this isn't a potential issue. I think there is something here, and I think I've identified what the parameters of the problem are for the debate.

[5:45]

I don't know why the hon. member is saying that this is somehow different -- that this is an added burden on the province just for the sake of getting a treaty. It's an absolutely incorrect inference.

G. Plant: I wasn't planning to have a debate about the Waste Management Act, but here is the point. There is to be a transfer of these lands, so we know there are 19 sites, and we know that, in fact, 14 are off the list. But we also know a few other things. What we know here, right now on the floor in this debate, is that the province isn't absolutely certain who may be responsible and whether there is someone, a private citizen or a private corporation, that may be able to pay the bill for remediation -- if there is a bill that needs to be paid. The province has chosen to take that risk in making this treaty. We don't know if there's a bill, but you know what? Why doesn't the government just admit that there might be a bill and that they might have to pay it and then say: "We have chosen to undertake those two uncertainties because we think that's part of what we the province are prepared to do for the purpose of this treaty"?

But the Attorney General is going to stand up and say: "Because we don't know with certainty whether there's a bill, the issue of what that might cost is totally irrelevant." If that's his point, then I know ahead of time that we're going to disagree.

M. de Jong: And then he's going to say. . . ?

G. Plant: And then the Attorney General will say: "Well, let's just agree to disagree."

[ Page 11304 ]

G. Plant: No, let's not deal with straw men. There are 19 sites that someone cares enough about to put in a treaty, there are five of them that the government already thinks there is a problem with, and the government can't stand up and say: "We've already found the deep pockets of a private citizen who will pay to clean up each of the five sites." If those sites are contaminated, if the province can't find somebody else to pay, the province will have to pay. That's it. Stand up and admit it.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member knows full well that his assumptions and his inferences are incorrect.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, members.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member is an experienced lawyer at the bar; the hon. member knows the law. The Waste Management Act and the contaminated-sites regulations pursuant thereto make it incumbent for a process to kick in once there is a discovery that there may be a contaminated site or sites. I said that if the hon. member stood up tomorrow and said, "Hey, minister, there may be a contaminated site in my back yard," the same process would kick in. Ultimately, after going through the process of determination of liability, it might be concluded that the province may be on the hook to clean up the hon. member's back yard if that were the case.

So the point that I have to make is this -- and I cast no aspersions on the members opposite. . . . But what bothers me is that when we're engaged in a debate back and forth to elicit information or positions, we then jump to a conclusion and an allegation that this side of the House is somehow hiding something that it knows. It is absolutely incorrect for any member to infer that on this issue.

G. Plant: Well, it would be impossible for any reasonable person to infer that this government could ever hide information, because there is this. . . . After all, there's a memo from the minister responsible for Ferries to everybody in his ministry, saying: "Please, never tell me anything important about the fast ferry project."

Interjections.

The Chair: Members, relevancy and order, please.

G. Plant: I think that's an excellent suggestion, hon. Chair. That is why, having ascertained that the government has in fact undertaken an indeterminate obligation on behalf of the taxpayers in respect to an indeterminate type of liability -- which I think is progress -- I move that we 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. Lovick: Hon. Speaker, I must advise the House that we are indeed sitting tomorrow. We will resume at 2 p.m. tomorrow, then. With that, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Hon. D. Lovick moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:54 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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