Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

[ Page 11305 ]

Prayers.

G. Robertson: With us today we have two special guests from the North Island, from my constituency. Christine Hunt is a Kwakiutl from the Kwakiutl first nation and a native adviser to the Minister of Fisheries. With Christine is her sister Corrine. Corinne is a famous -- and I mean that quite sincerely -- Kwakiutl carver from the North Island who does absolutely beautiful work. Her elegant and intricate jewellery is distributed throughout the world, and we're really pleased to have her. I'd ask the members to please welcome these North Island women.

I. Chong: Joining us today are three bright, intelligent young gentlemen who attend the University of Victoria in my riding. They are Mr. Aaron Gairdner, past president of the UVic B.C. Young Liberals, Mr. Herman Cheung and Mr. Dale Flood. Would the House please make them very welcome.

Hon. J. Kwan: Visiting us today is Robert Hobson, who is chair of the Central Okanagan regional district. He's also a councillor in Kelowna, and I'll be meeting with him later on this afternoon on an issue relating to his community. Would the House please make him welcome.

W. Hartley: On behalf of the Clerks-at-the-Table, I'd like to introduce one of their colleagues, the Deputy Clerk in the Manitoba Legislature, Bev Boziac, who's in the gallery. Would members please make her welcome.

S. Hawkins: I'd also like to welcome Mr. Robert Hobson, a very hard-working, conscientious councillor with the city of Kelowna and chairman of the regional district. This side would like to make him welcome as well.

J. Cashore: In the House today we have Prof. Richard Price, who is retired and finding lots of work-related things to do in Victoria. He's a leading Canadian authority on aboriginal treaty-making. Would the House please make him welcome.

Ministerial Statement

TAYLOR GAS PLANT EXPLOSION

Shortly after noon today there was a series of explosions at the Solex gas liquids extraction plant, which produces methane gas. At this time there are no reported deaths. Fires continue, but they are not contained, and serious threat remains. Due to the proximity of large pressurized gas containers in the area that could result in further explosions, the mayor of Taylor has declared a local state of emergency.

I want to express my government's concern for the Solex workers, their families and the emergency and firefighting crews on the scene and to offer our full support to the town of Taylor. We want you to know that we are doing everything possible to deal with the situation.

Here, hon. Speaker, is what we know so far about the situation. There are no fatalities, although at least 12 injuries have been reported. All workers are accounted for. RCMP and local officials, as a precautionary measure, have evacuated the town of Taylor. Evacuation is now complete. A local state of emergency has been declared, and the provincial emergency program, along with local emergency authorities, are on site. A reception centre has been set up for residents in Fort St. John for evacuated residents. They are expected to spend the night away from their community. We will continue to work with the community and local officials to ensure the safety of the residents, and I will keep the House informed as the situation develops.

R. Neufeld: These are situations that happen from time to time. We wish they wouldn't, but in the industry that these men and women work in, it's highly dangerous. It's highly flammable liquids that they work with on a constant basis, and unfortunately, we have what none of us likes to see: a serious explosion in the community of Taylor, which I represent. I was first notified just after it happened, and I spoke to a PEP coordinator in the community of Taylor just prior to that person being evacuated.

There are a number of injured. No one knows how seriously, and we hope not seriously. I've sent my regards to the mayor. I've been trying to get in touch with but have not yet been able to reach Mayor Fred Jarvis. Obviously he's a busy person at this present time, and I think he's probably got enough to do on the ground. I've left messages at the command centre in Fort St. John, at the fire department, that anything that we can do or that the ministry can do. . . . We're certainly there to provide those services.

On behalf of all members, I'd like to extend best wishes to all the families involved -- of those that are injured and also of those that are not able to go back home today -- and to congratulate all those men and women in the PEP program and all other programs that have worked so diligently to quickly remove all the school children from that community and to do the things that are necessary in the north. We must remember that it is a different climate than what we experience here. It's probably running about minus 15 -- 15 below zero -- right now, so it's a little tougher than trying to work in Vancouver or Victoria, where the weather is a little bit different. So we wish them all the best, and we'll be in touch with them.

Oral Questions

FAST FERRY PROGRAM COST OVERRUNS

[2:15]

[ Page 11306 ]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order.

Hon. G. Clark: After we announced the project, the Leader of the Opposition said it would sink. They have no faith in the workers in British Columbia or even in the idea that we can build a world-class vessel in this province.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order.

Hon. G. Clark: The minister responsible is taking immediate action; he has put people in place. The information will be completely available to everybody. I still have confidence not only in the minister but in the fast ferry project. I know that is not acceptable to the opposition, because they are opposed to every single constructive thing that the government is trying to do to create jobs in this province.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, this Premier's and this government's incompetence and negligence and abuse of the taxpayer are what we are opposed to. Let's look at the facts. Here's a minister who doesn't ask questions, who signs annual reports and whose lame excuse is: "I don't understand them." He won't even return the phone call of the president of the Crown corporation when he has information for him. Here's a minister who has misled the people of British Columbia for some time -- the Deputy Premier.

The Speaker: And your question?

G. Campbell: Could it be that the Premier is afraid to hold this minister accountable, afraid to fire this minister, because the Premier knows that this fiasco has been his fault from day one?

Hon. G. Clark: The members know. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members will come to order.

Hon. G. Clark: All members know that the Deputy Premier has reported to the House, on numerous occasions, factual information that he obtained from the Ferry Corporation with respect to this project. They now know and we know that some of that information has been incorrect. We are taking steps to get to the bottom of it. The members of the opposition have had years to canvass this subject -- have canvassed it. The information. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members.

Hon. G. Clark: . . .that I received and the information that the minister received, which we reported to the House. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. . . .

Hon. G. Clark: . . .was the best information -- which we believed to be accurate -- from the corporation itself.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members of the opposition will have an opportunity to ask a question very soon. Take it easy.

Hon. G. Clark: We know -- everybody knows -- that the opposition wants to play politics with this issue. They know that; that's obvious. They want to play politics with every issue, with the economy, with people's jobs.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members.

Hon. G. Clark: The members opposite have been in question period -- not just in question period. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members will come to order. The Premier will finish his remarks.

Hon. G. Clark: Members opposite, through estimates debate, have thoroughly canvassed this question. By the way, they were even at the launch of the fast ferry. Liberal members -- the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale -- were there praising the work, praising the project. They've been following this. We made public the information that we had available at that time; some of that information is erroneous. We are now putting teams in place. All of the information will be available as soon as it's available.

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

G. Campbell: Well, it's not too hard to see why this minister's a disgrace: this Premier is a disgrace. What message does it send to the public service when the Premier and the minister responsible slough off all their responsibility and try to blame it on one single bureaucrat -- all of their responsibility? What message does it send to the taxpayer when the Premier says: "It's fine with me if the minister responsible for B.C. Ferries stands by as the cost for a project doubles and the taxpayers are sent $200 million in additional costs"? What message does that send?

The Speaker: And your question?

[ Page 11307 ]

The Speaker: Members will remember to address their remarks through the Chair.

Hon. G. Clark: The members of the opposition wish to rush to judgment on this and every project that we face in British Columbia. Let's remind the people of B.C. that they were opposed to commuter rail. They said it would be over budget; they said it wouldn't work.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order.

Hon. G. Clark: They said it wouldn't work. They were opposed to it. They campaigned against it.

On this subject, they have been against it consistently, even though they had the temerity to come to the opening with 600 workers and say what a wonderful vessel it was, even though they were there and drank the refreshments and were at the celebration of the launch of the cat. They were there.

Now they want to rush the judgment on the numbers, on whether it will work or not. We have put in place a process to get to the bottom of this issue. All of it will be available to the public. I still have confidence in the workers of British Columbia and in this project.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

M. de Jong: Well, I have news for the Premier: they don't have confidence in him.

If the Premier wants to stand in the House and list every project that he has overseen that has gone millions of dollars over budget, then we'd better lengthen question period by at least half an hour.

We want this Premier to tell the truth. We want this Premier to explain how he can have confidence in a minister who wouldn't respond, for over a month, to the calls of a head of a Crown corporation overseeing a multimillion-dollar project. We want this Premier to explain to the people of B.C. how he has squandered millions and millions of their tax dollars.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, inappropriate language. . . . Remember the parliamentary rules about language, everybody.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The minister is not going to reply until we have silence in the chamber.

Hon. D. Miller: For a little better than a week now, the opposition has been essentially asking the same questions, and they've been responded to. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. . . .

Hon. D. Miller: . . .with frankness. We have clearly set out a process to try to get to the bottom of this. The information that was supplied to us was inaccurate.

I should say, as I said yesterday, that we have not rushed to judgment. We have not, if you like, tried to draw unnecessary conclusions or draw conclusions too hastily on this question. I think that when the report on this issue is made public, there will be lots of information, and I think it will be quite revealing. In the meantime, I think it's important that we stick to the position that we outlined. We've answered questions honestly; we've put a process in place that will get to the bottom of this. And, as we've said. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. . . .

Hon. D. Miller: . . .repeatedly over the last week, when we get that information, we will make it public and make it available to the opposition.

The Speaker: I recognize the member for Matsqui, first supplementary.

M. de Jong: If this minister had been doing his job, if this Premier had been doing his job, we would have had that information months -- if not years -- ago, and we wouldn't be in the position we're in today.

Let the Premier tell the people of British Columbia, whose money he has blown, how many times he asked the relevant questions. In the face of the information that was brought to this House by members of the opposition, how many phone calls did he make to the head of the Crown corporation to inquire as to why the project was three years late, to inquire how many more millions of dollars it was going to take to put one -- let alone three -- of these ferries in the water?

The Premier thinks he can lateral his baby off to the minister sitting next to him. The time has come for him to stand up and take responsibility for a pet project that is going to cost British Columbians hundreds of millions of dollars. It's his fault. Let him acknowledge that once and for all.

Hon. D. Miller: I suppose it's fair to say that if the Leader of the Opposition had been doing his job, he'd be the Premier now instead of still sitting as the Leader of the Opposition. I'm sure. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members.

Hon. D. Miller: . . .that the thought probably crossed the minds of some members of his caucus that perhaps there ought to be a change -- but there hasn't been.

[ Page 11308 ]

The Speaker: Hon. member, order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Both of you sit down. Come on; sit down.

Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Speaker, there are rules in this House. They ought to be followed if we are going to have civility in debate in this House. I would ask that member to unequivocally withdraw that statement.

The Speaker: Thank you. Minister, take your seat.

One of the rules of this House is that we will use parliamentary language. I will ask the member who made the comment earlier to withdraw the comment.

We also know that the point of order should happen later in the agenda. I will make that point later. But in the meantime, hon. member. . . .

G. Farrell-Collins: In no way would I ever intend to offend the hon. minister, so I withdraw. The public knows the truth, hon. Speaker.

The Speaker: But the member withdraws.

G. Farrell-Collins: My question is for the minister responsible for B.C. Ferries.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member, you're being asked to withdraw the comment.

G. Farrell-Collins: I did withdraw it, hon. Speaker. I withdraw it.

The Speaker: All right, you've said you withdraw the words. Thank you.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, we are now. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. . . .

G. Farrell-Collins: If the minister wants to raise a point of order, he can do it after question period, like the rules say.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, take your seats. All members please take their seats.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. Would the minister please take his seat. All right, now let's just slow down here.

I would like to ask the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain to please withdraw his comments unconditionally.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, for the third time, I withdraw my comments.

The Speaker: Unconditionally.

G. Farrell-Collins: Unconditionally -- what does it matter?

The Speaker: Thank you. You may proceed.

G. Farrell-Collins: My question is to the minister who is supposed to be responsible for B.C. Ferries. We are now being told that KPMG phoned the board of directors of the B.C. Ferry Corporation on December 10 to tell them that their project -- the Premier's project and the minister's project -- was massively over budget. For a month, the CEO of B.C. Ferries tried to get the minister on the phone. Can the minister confirm that the reason he didn't want to respond to the CEO of B.C. Ferries was that December 10 happened to be four days before the Parksville-Qualicum by-election and the NDP couldn't afford yet one more scandal?

Hon. D. Miller: I think a few facts are worth repeating. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, a question was asked. The minister was asked a question; he is entitled to give an answer. Members will pay attention.

[2:30]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members.

Hon. D. Miller: That report that they requested -- a synopsis -- was delivered initially on the 14th, with the full report to the board on the 15th.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. . . .

Hon. D. Miller: The record is absolutely clear.

Finally. . . .

Interjections.

[ Page 11309 ]

Interjections.

The Speaker: I'm sorry. The member. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. All members will take their seats.

Now, we've run into a bit of a snag here. The bell went. We thought the minister had finished his remarks, and the minister had not finished his remarks. I'm prepared to let the minister finish his remarks. I'm sure he will be brief -- to finish the sentence.

Hon. D. Miller: I can only urge some element of caution to the opposition. I can't tell them what to do, but if they insist on drawing from information that they see on television or read in the newspaper -- or from what some person says -- and determining at this point that they are facts, I would ask them to think about that. In hindsight, somewhere down the road they may have difficulty with the position they're taking right now.

The Speaker: All right. The bell calls an end to question period.

I recognize the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain on a point of order.

G. Farrell-Collins: As the Speaker and the member opposite know, points of order are to be raised after question period. Given the considerable amount of time -- and effort, I might add -- taken by the minister responsible to obstruct and delay the amount of time available in question period, and his deliberate attempt, when he saw the little light go off, to sit down before question period was finished, the opposition should be allowed a supplemental question.

The Speaker: I will hear one comment in response, from the Minister of Energy and Mines.

Hon. D. Miller: If the member wants to complain about the rules, perhaps he should set an example by following the rules.

The Speaker: Hon. members, the Chair has two choices. I think I'm going to opt for allowing. . . . Because we got into the issue of a point of order in the middle of question period, which isn't normal and normally wouldn't have happened, I am going to allow a brief supplementary.

Interjections.

The Speaker: But -- wait a minute -- I also want a brief response. So it'll just be very short, please.

G. Farrell-Collins: I have a very simple question for the minister. How many times in the month between December 10 and January 7 did Tom Ward try to get hold of you and you refused to take his calls?

The Speaker: Through the Chair, member.

Hon. D. Miller: I never refused to take any calls. As to what attempts Mr. Ward made or didn't make, I'm unaware of any of that.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, come to order. We'll move on to the business of day.

Orders of the Day

NISGA'A FINAL AGREEMENT ACT
(continued)

On the schedule, chapter 3 (continued).

Hon. D. Lovick: Mr. Chairman, in the course of our discussion -- more than a few days ago now, but on more than one occasion -- we have been grappling with the question of land valuation and, more particularly, the cost-sharing memorandum of understanding. Accordingly, the Premier and I and, I believe, the Attorney General, too, have all said that we would share with members opposite certain information -- indeed, that we would table some documents. Therefore I want to do that today, with a few brief words of explanation, if I might.

The first is the timber cruise. Timber cruises, I would point out, are conducted when and where harvesting is planned. The licensees conduct the timber cruises and submit the information to the Ministry of Forests. A timber cruise provides an estimate of timber volumes and grades for a specific cutting area. The information is used in determining the stumpage price of timber. The 1992 stumpage prices along with the province's forest inventory information were part of the calculation, along with other factors outlined to determine the number and the value of the representative hectares, which I discussed some days ago.

The second document I want to table in the House today is called the Klaasen report. The Klaasen report is a joint federal and provincial land valuation study that was prepared in 1993. At the time it was prepared, the report's goal was to offer advice to federal and provincial treaty negotiators on the value of the provincial Crown lands and to help ensure that any cost-sharing agreement between Canada and British Columbia would give provincial Crown land appropriate consideration. The Klaasen report, it should be noted, predates the memorandum of understanding between Canada and British Columbia on cost-sharing. The report was one of many elements taken into consideration in negotiating the MOU.

The third document is the cost-sharing memorandum of understanding. With respect to cost-sharing, B.C. and Canada needed to establish a mechanism to fairly share the costs of settling treaties with first nations. That's history; we know that. The mechanism that was agreed to is contained in the 1993 memorandum of understanding.

A critical issue that the MOU solved was how to value between the parties the components which Canada and B.C.

[ Page 11310 ]

The use of representative hectares was developed to reflect average values, to be practical and to be consistently applied across the province and thereby avoid fights about land values. Given the concepts on which it is based, the representative hectare system does not necessarily reflect the value for a specific parcel of land. B.C. and Canada agreed, however, that over all treaties in British Columbia -- and remember, the MOU was for all treaties that might follow -- the representative hectare system would provide a good basis for sharing the cost of concluding treaties in B.C.

[2:45]

I'm sorry. Pardon me, Mr. Chairman. I understand that they can't be tabled except when the Speaker is in the House. Is that correct?

The Chair: Oh, no. You're fine, minister. You've spoken from documents that you've tabled.

M. de Jong: To the extent that the minister is tabling new documents, we'll have a look at those new documents. If questions arise, I think there are sufficient provisions left in the schedule to the bill that would allow us to revisit those issues at the appropriate time.

For the benefit of members and the minister, might I just offer this as an indication of where I think this debate will follow over the course of the next couple of hours? There are some questions on site remediation remaining that relate to section 44. Then there are all of those sections that relate to expropriation rights between category A and category B lands, which we will be canvassing today; the respective rights of the two levels of government, federal and provincial; and the survey provisions and commercial recreation tenure. That order equates with how they appear in the document. That, for the benefit of the minister and his staff, is where I think we will travel over the next couple of hours.

My colleague has some questions with respect to section 44.

G. Abbott: I was fascinated by the discussion of this particular section late yesterday afternoon. I have a few questions that result from it. For example, I know that four of the five sites which continue to be of some concern to the ministry are logging operations of some sort. So four of the 19 are logging sites of some sort, and two of them involve special use permits. Could the Minister of Environment, in this case -- or the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs -- advise whether those special use permits will fall under the provisions of section 25, of the forest resources chapter? Will the special use permits be among those agreements, obligations and so on that the provincial government must terminate on the effective date of the agreement?

Hon. C. McGregor: Could the member please repeat his question?

G. Abbott: I'd be pleased to. Four of the 19 sites which are listed in schedule B of the lands chapter, the list of sites. . . . Four of them are logging operations; two of them are logging operations which are a product of special use permits. My question is: will those special use permits be the responsibility of the provincial government under section 25 of the forest resources chapter, which obliges British Columbia to ensure that agreements, etc., are terminated on the effective date of the agreement?

Hon. C. McGregor: They do fall under the section that the member makes reference to. They are terminated by the province, but they are reissued by the Nisga'a.

G. Abbott: We had considerable discussion yesterday about potential liability flowing into the future. I just want to be clear that when the minister says that they will be renewed by the Nisga'a government, these are things that will fall under the joint committee that's created. Or is it going to be a decision by the Nisga'a only to renew or not renew them?

Hon. C. McGregor: Because they are listed in the schedule, it's quite clear that they will be reissued. The Nisga'a have no choice. They will be reissued, as listed in appendix C-1 on page 73.

G. Abbott: Could the minister briefly advise what elements or characteristics or things are involved in these five sites which distinguish them from the other 14 that are listed in this schedule? What is it that calls attention to these particular five?

Hon. C. McGregor: As we've indicated in previous discussions on this point, they are still being considered -- whether they are potentially contaminated or not. But they have been identified as these sites. There are two sites that are currently used as logging camps, and the contamination is

[ Page 11311 ]

G. Abbott: The one question that comes to mind, then, given that there is some external evidence which leads the provincial government and the Nisga'a, as well, to conclude that these are of concern. . . . As a consequence of that, is there any concern with respect to the renewal of those special use permits? Does it in any way reflect on future liability considerations that they are intended to be renewed?

Hon. C. McGregor: As I indicated to the member before, the permits that are listed in the appendix will be renewed. Clearly, the Nisga'a would have concerns about the potential of contamination at those sites. That's why they were identified; that's why we're going through a process of investigation. It will lead to a requirement to clean up, if there is determined to be any site contamination.

G. Abbott: This is a point that was canvassed somewhat yesterday. A final concern that I have is with respect to the list of sites as it's currently structured -- containing ones that have been effectively cleared of ongoing concern, from an environmental perspective. Does the minister have any concern that those 14 sites that are no longer the object of concern continue to be listed here, given that in some respects, their continued presence on this list constitutes a kind of ultimate covenant on title against those businesses?

Hon. C. McGregor: I want to assure the member that I have no concerns. The documents and the appendices reflect the processes we've gone through with the Nisga'a. They identified to us legitimately those sites that they believed were in need of inspection. We followed the processes under the Waste Management Act, as constituted under the "Contaminated Site Regulation," in the same way that we would on any property that was identified to us.

M. de Jong: Moving on, then, from section 44, there is a series of sections in the draft treaty that refer to the various rights of expropriation that exist and how they are different insofar as category A lands and category B lands are concerned. There is a further differentiation in the rights as they exist, between the provincial government and the federal government.

As a sign of what it is in terms of the actual title that Nisga'a are achieving with respect to these various categories of land, many people have focused on and referred to the rights of expropriation that remain or are left to the various levels of government. I think it is worth taking a moment during this debate to have the minister -- I'm not sure which minister to direct it to, the AG or the Lands minister -- explain the rights of expropriation. I'm not going to do this section by section -- at least, I don't intend to. But explain the differences that exist with respect to the right of expropriation as it pertains to category A lands and category B lands, and the differences as they exist between the federal and provincial governments with respect to those two lands.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Let me just give a general overview without being technical about the issues yet. In terms of the federal right, the federal government has the right to expropriate Nisga'a lands and categories A and B lands as well.

The provincial government has a mechanism whereby it can acquire up to 2,800 hectares, I believe, which is almost three times what we currently have on Nisga'a lands, for roads and the like. But the process of acquiring that is not through the Expropriation Act; it's through mediation and arbitration. At the end of it, if we are not satisfied with the arbitration decision, we can walk away and say we don't want that particular piece that we were looking at.

With respect to categories A and B, the provincial Expropriation Act applies, the difference being that on all three categories -- the Nisga'a lands and categories A and B -- we have to provide the replacement value rather than the market value. The implication is that it's just for the improvements -- and that's the truth, that's the fact. With respect to category A, however, as part of the replacement value -- we are obliged to consider cultural values for any improvements that might exist in determining what replacement value it would amount to. With respect to category B, that's not the case. That's not the case with respect to Nisga'a lands, either.

Another distinction is that with respect to the mineral rights and the like, with category A we are obliged to expropriate both the fee simple and the mineral rights so that we keep it whole, because mineral rights go with category A lands, whereas with respect to category B we're not obliged to do that; we simply expropriate fee simple. With respect to Nisga'a, we can't expropriate; we have the mediation and the arbitration model that we deal with.

[3:00]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I believe the basic distinction is that we felt that since we were dealing with a large tract of land with that particular first nation, it was appropriate not to get into the cumbersome procedures of the Expropriation Act. You simply go through mediation and arbitration, and at the end of it, you have the option to say no if you don't like the cost that's included. The federal government, of course, wanted that particular right, and they were the ones who actually insisted on the replacement value aspect of it. We were happy with the fair market value, but that's a federal position. The Nisga'a, of course, didn't want two different positions on that particular aspect of it.

M. de Jong: Let's again restrict our discussion for the moment to the largest parcel of land, which is the Nisga'a lands. The various provisions, when taken together in the context that the Attorney has described here today, lead one to contemplate expropriations that in a general sense would take place for public works -- for matters of public interest. Again, I think it's useful to quickly articulate on the record what the provincial government has in mind insofar as what that captures. Roads are one of the issues that the Attorney referred to.

[ Page 11312 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Paragraph 2 of chapter 7 talks about rights-of-way. Then it goes on to define: ". . .or to a public utility, rights of way on Nisga'a Lands for public purposes, including provincial secondary roads or public utilities, in order to provide access or service to Nisga'a Lands or other lands. . . ." Then there are some conditions that all of that is subject to. So it's a fairly broad provision. But it only speaks to rights-of-way, because that was the only thing that the province was concerned about.

M. de Jong: That's helpful. So when we talk about provincial rights of expropriation, is it fair to assume that the province contemplates only exercising the rights that are granted under this agreement in instances where we are talking about rights of access or public roadways? Is that a fair statement, or are there other circumstances?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: With respect to the Nisga'a lands, that's a fair description.

M. de Jong: My colleague reminds me simply to verify. . . . When we discuss access ways, we are talking about, for example, access to transmission lines -- but also transmission lines themselves, be they overhead or underground.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

M. de Jong: Then since we've verified that, let's take that same question and apply it to category A and category B lands and ask whether the province contemplates a similarly restrictive set of circumstances around which it can exercise expropriation rights.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: With respect to category A lands, it is for a provincial public purpose -- "justifiable and necessary for a provincial public purpose." Those are the words directly from the treaty. For category B lands, of course, that's the provincial Expropriation Act. Obviously, all of the purposes for which we can expropriate under that would apply to B lands.

M. de Jong: When I see the term "provincial public purpose" -- and in the federal section it is a "federal public purpose" -- recognizing the conversation we've just had, that suggests a broader range of circumstances under which expropriation could occur. Is that the Attorney's understanding as well?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes. Powers under the Expropriation Act and otherwise for lands in category A, are, of course, much, much broader than what's available for the Nisga'a lands.

M. de Jong: I think I know the answer to this, but I suppose it is worth asking. Are there circumstances that the provincial government is aware of now that would lead it to anticipate utilizing any of the powers of expropriation that would be available to it under the treaty?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: At this time, no.

M. de Jong: If we take the application of the provincial Expropriation Act provisions and how they provide for the valuation of lands and compensation and the mechanism by which that plays out in a standard expropriation proceeding, insofar as the arbitration provisions are concerned, does the Attorney contemplate a similar process being followed -- albeit outside of the strict legislative requirements of the Expropriation Act?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: If the hon. member is restricting his question to categories A and B, the answer is yes.

M. de Jong: Let me ask this question. My recollection of how the Expropriation Act operates is that there are provisions, for example, to compensate a party who is subject to expropriation for reasonable costs associated with that process. Under the application of the arbitration provisions for expropriation, does the province recognize the possibility that it may assume a similar responsibility relative to the costs associated with that expropriation exercise?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I may, again, have misunderstood the question. If it's category A and B lands, section 45 of the Expropriation Act would apply, with any changes that might be contemplated within the treaty. I don't know many that would vary from the framework of the act itself.

M. de Jong: I don't think I asked the question very clearly. There are two procedures by which expropriation can occur. One is the traditional application of the Expropriation Act, and the other is on Nisga'a lands, where a different process -- although probably similar in spirit, but technically a different process. . . . Under the Expropriation Act provisions, the province, as I recall -- and I am relying upon my memory of how these things play out. . . . The expropriating authority can be liable for reasonable costs associated with seeing that process through. Is it the province's position that under the arbitration provisions that would apply to Nisga'a lands, it may be assuming a similar responsibility for costs?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Under the dispute resolution mechanism, the arbitrator may award those costs, but there is no pre-established formula on which those would be determined.

M. de Jong: I don't want to belabour this, but would the Attorney General be of the view that the test that would be applicable to the determination of whether those costs should be awarded would be similar to the one applicable under the Expropriation Act provisions?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: We are now in the realm of pure speculation. An arbitrator might look at the practice under the provincial Expropriation Act and say: "If the circumstances are similar and similar inconvenience has flowed from a particular desire on the part of the government to take a certain portion of the land for rights-of-way or otherwise. . . ." The arbitrator may feel that that regime should apply, in terms of the costs to be awarded. But that's pure speculation on my part. Under arbitration, the arbitrators have much wider latitude to determine these cases.

At the end of the day, I want to reassure the hon. member and the public that the government has the right to walk away if the government of the day believes that the award of the arbitrator is unacceptable. At the end of the day, there is nothing binding in this process.

[ Page 11313 ]

[3:15]

M. Coell: The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs tabled some documents in the House today that outlined how values of land were established for the Nisga'a treaty. What I'm looking for is an explanation of why that method was used, whereas at the same time, when we're looking at expropriation of the different categories of land, we're looking at actual value. So you're looking at a value for the amount of land that is seen as public dollars being spent on the land -- or transferred to treaty -- valued one way; and then the potential. . .for expropriation is actual value. Why are we using actual value in one case and perceived value in the other?

Hon. D. Lovick: The short answer to the question is ultimately a matter of practicality and scale. The scale is essentially the explanation. When we're talking about a particular piece of property, obviously it's a small chunk, as opposed to that whole area that we were talking about in describing the land value of 190,000 hectares. That is one answer. The second answer, I think, is simply because those small parcels will almost of necessity be surveyed and thereby appraisable, as opposed to that huge mass of Crown land, which isn't surveyed.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I may have caused some confusion by my answers earlier. Let me just correct that error, if I have made that. When I talk about the replacement value under the provincial scheme that's in the treaty, it applies only to the improvements on the land. The land itself, obviously, would go at market value.

M. Coell: The reason I bring this forward is that the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs has said how the land was valued, and that wasn't using fair market value or appraised value. I think there is a possibility of an error in the value that the people of British Columbia are seeing for the land. If there is a necessity to expropriate for a pipeline or a transit line of some sort, you're going to be paying on a totally different scale. I think that differentiation needs to be drawn.

G. Plant: That's inspired a chorus of silent but affirmative nods, I think, with respect to understanding, if maybe not agreeing with, the point.

I want to apologize. I missed the first part of the discussion about expropriation, so if the question or two that I'm about to ask have already been canvassed, I'm sure the minister will let me know. When we look at the expropriation provisions, and we're thinking about the province, those provisions relate to category A and category B lands. Am I correct that the province would have no expropriation authority in respect of Nisga'a lands?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: As I said, the answer to the hon. member's question is yes. We don't have the ability to expropriate Nisga'a lands. We have the ability to expropriate categories A and B, with certain conditions.

With respect to any acquisition of rights-of-way and the like on Nisga'a lands, we would follow the mediation and arbitration mechanism. At the end of the day, if it's not acceptable to us in terms of the costs that we may have to pay, we can walk away. Those are not binding decisions on the government. They have agreed in principle to give us up to 2,800 hectares. The current roads, rights-of-way and the like are about 800 hectares that the province has on Nisga'a lands. They have agreed to give 2,800 hectares additional to that -- if I'm wrong, we'll correct it ourselves, in terms of the hectares. Obviously they understand that it is in their interest for the province to be able to do these things, so that they can have some development in those areas. Otherwise, they wouldn't have agreed in principle to do this in the first place. So I feel quite confident that this is an appropriate mechanism to deal with those issues.

G. Plant: What I think the Attorney is saying in part is that with respect to Nisga'a lands -- and in this case, I mean lands other than category A and B lands -- there is no general power of expropriation. There are the rights that are described, I think, elsewhere in the agreement in respect of roads, rights-of-way for utilities and so on, and there's a process that is in place in the agreement for dealing with those. But those constitute, if you will, exceptions to the general principle that the province has no power to expropriate Nisga'a lands. Is that a fair characterization?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: I think the government of Canada has different powers in respect of expropriation. There's a heading in this chapter that encompasses paragraphs 73 through 86, entitled "Federal Acquisition of Interests in Nisga'a Lands and Nisga'a Fee Simple Lands." It begins with a promise by Canada that "as a general principle, estates or interests in Nisga'a lands will not be expropriated under federal legislation." I think that's more an expression of purpose than it is a binding limitation on the exercise of federal power.

It looks to me, at the sort of level of high abstraction or generality, that the federal government has in fact reserved a greater power of expropriation unto itself in this agreement than has the province. If I'm wrong in that characterization, I'd invite the Attorney General to correct me. If I'm right, I look forward to his explanation of why it is that there are essentially differential rights of expropriation between the province and the federal government.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member's comments are correct if applied to Nisga'a lands, not with respect to categories A and B. With respect to Nisga'a lands, one must bear in mind the thrust with respect to the distinction -- that is, the federal process of expropriation that's described here is quite cumbersome, much more cumbersome than the process that's been reserved for the province and Nisga'a with respect to Nisga'a lands. As I said earlier -- and I'll correct myself in

[ Page 11314 ]

I think that the process of expropriation, even at the best of times. . . . The hon. member, being a lawyer, must know that, if he's dealt with expropriation at all. Even at the best of times, the process of expropriation is very confrontational, adversarial and lengthy and, at the end of the day, unsatisfactory to both sides.

I think that what's embodied in this treaty is essentially the consent of the Nisga'a that they would be happy to give to us up to 2,000 hectares more, if we follow that process and if we like the price. Even in the provincial Expropriation Act, the price and compensation are determined by a panel. We didn't see much distinction between that and the arbitration model that we have, and we don't require the consent of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to do this, as they do with respect to the Governor-in-Council federally. And there are other conditions that they have to follow.

G. Plant: I think that the Attorney General is saying that. . . . You see, the federal government has a broader power to expropriate. The government argues that the mechanics of exercising that power are cumbersome -- they require, among other things, the consent of the Governor-in-Council -- and that may be so. On the other side of the ledger is the provincial power, which, leaving category A and B lands to one side, is much more limited. But I think the government's explanation is: "Well, we've got it where it's important to us, and we've got it on terms which are less cumbersome and will get us directly to the heart of the issue of public policy in a way that will adequately serve provincial interests."

Some will say: "Why is it that the federal government has reserved unto itself a general power and the province has not?" History may or may not smile on the explanation that the government is giving. I just want to make sure that I've understood that explanation correctly.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: That's true.

M. Coell: I have a question for the Attorney General. The act of expropriation which you described. . . . I very much agree with the tenor of your comments. If in the future, Nisga'a land is to be expropriated for a period of time and then it is deemed to be unnecessary for provincial interest, is there a mechanism within this treaty or within the Expropriation Act -- and I'm not aware of it, if there is -- to return the land, and how would that be done?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The provincial Crown doesn't have an obligation to return to Nisga'a, for categories A and B, any land expropriated that may not be of use to the Crown any longer. The federal government does, however.

M. Coell: I'm not suggesting you add anything to the treaty, because I know you're not wishing to amend it at this time, but it does strike me that there will be the occasion, with the use of different power in the future, where you've made a transmission line in one generation, and in the next generation that would not be of use to the province -- where the province would have expropriated a piece of property in Nisga'a land and have no use for it. It strikes me that there should be a way of turning that back to the Nisga'a, rather than putting it up for sale and selling it to the highest bidder.

[3:30]

G. Plant: I always find it difficult to express the level of interest that I have in expropriation issues, but whatever that level is, we've now exhausted it. Before we move past expropriation, I want to know if any of my colleagues have a continuing interest.

Seeing none, I want to ask about initial surveys. There are three clauses in chapter 3 that talk about conducting what is described as an initial survey. Paragraph 88 says: "British Columbia and Canada will, as agreed between them, pay the full cost of the Initial Surveys." What is that cost likely to be, and what is the province's share of that cost?

Hon. D. Lovick: The agreement does indeed provide cost-sharing of surveys, based on the following criteria. Let me simply read them into the record. The federal government pays for all surveys to redefine or to modify boundaries of existing reserves. The estimated total for that is some $300,000. The provincial government pays for new surveys that define all of the new boundaries, including the Nisga'a lands, category B lands and additions to category A lands. The estimated cost of that is apparently $1.2 million, I believe.

G. Plant: Are those costs included in the itemization of costs that we began this debate with? Are they additional costs? Has the minister received further information that he wishes to share with us?

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm glad the member asked the question. I was just handed a note saying that the costs I read into the record were for the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. In addition, there are costs for Highways of $360,000; Ministry of Forests, $788,000. So the total cost, then, is about $2.3 million. That's for line ministries. In addition, apparently, there's B.C. Hydro, $400,000. The total is $2.7 million.

G. Plant: I don't have in front of me the government's itemization of the costs associated with the treaty.

Actually, I now do. That's the document that I think we were looking at in the very beginning of this debate, when we identified total cash costs of something like $311.54 million and then costs related to the ascribed land value, the upgrade of the highway and compensation to third parties. Is this figure of $2.3 million included somewhere in that itemization, or is it a cost of the treaty over and above the costs that we've already identified?

Hon. D. Lovick: Those costs are apparently captured in the implementation section of the agreement. In addition, part of that total implementation budget is not entirely captured by the items I've read. There's something called the forest transition program for $610,000 and a forest training program for $750,000. The $2.7 million plus those two sums I just quoted are the ones captured in the implementation section.

G. Plant: Would they be included in. . . ? I'm trying to figure out where they are on the one-page sheet entitled

[ Page 11315 ]

Hon. D. Lovick: The member is correct.

G. Plant: What is the progress in this survey work? Has it been done? Has some of it been done? Is all of it in the future?

Hon. D. Lovick: The answer is: in the future.

G. Plant: That reminds me of a question I wanted to ask, and it's as good a time as any to ask it. The treaty -- the final agreement and the appendices -- contains a large collection of maps. Maps don't come cheap. I know, because I used to be a lawyer for the province of British Columbia, and maps used to come at considerable cost -- at least, of effort. Who made the maps that are in the final agreement and the appendices? What are the cost responsibilities in respect of that? And how much -- what's the bill?

Hon. D. Lovick: The staff from the surveyor general's office apparently are responsible for it. They were assigned to our teams. I gather that the costs in terms of staffing were just the regular ones of the line ministries that might have been involved.

G. Plant: In a sense, we had existing staff dedicating part of their time to this task. In that respect, I suppose the minister's position is that the cost is buried in the overall budget of government and is not something that can be pulled out and separately identified.

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm not sure that I like the word "buried," but how about "subsumed in" -- all right?

G. Plant: Yes.

Hon. D. Lovick: Yes, he's right.

G. Plant: I have to say that, based on my knowledge of the state of the province's capacity to undertake a mapping project like this as of about ten years ago, there's been a significant move forward, and it's interesting to see that. I suspect that this move forward has not come without some considerable cost.

But I expect that the province may be of the view that some of what has been learned here is in fact going to be applicable not just to treaty-making generally but across the province, in terms of the ongoing business of administering lands and other resources. I mean, if we got a buildup of intellectual capital here. . . . I won't say that it's like Tang in the space program, but there's some similarity, I guess, in the analogy. Is that right?

Hon. D. Lovick: I think the analogy to intellectual capital is absolutely correct.

G. Plant: I'm pretty sure that my colleague the member for Saanich North and the Islands has a question or two about commercial recreation tenure.

M. Coell: In looking at the commercial recreation tenure sections, 90 through 94, I just wonder: does the province have an estimated value of the commercial recreation tenure accorded to Nisga'a through the treaty?

Hon. D. Lovick: The point to make is that the Nisga'a will be paying fees like any other operator. Therefore there is no attendant cost. In fact, the cost then is neutral; there isn't a new cost to be borne.

M. Coell: I wonder if the minister could enlighten me as to what the cost of this tenure will be to the Nisga'a, then.

Hon. D. Lovick: I understand that by cost, the member is referring to the preparation of those sites in order to make them usable for commercial purposes and site prep and so forth. Those are costs that would be borne by the Nisga'a, and we don't have any particular information on what it might cost them or what it has cost so far. I'm sorry, I should clarify: I understand that they have already done some of that site preparation work on the category A and B. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. D. Lovick: Not yet, or they're in the process.

M. Coell: Possibly this may explain, or the minister can explain. . . . I just wonder how the Nisga'a's commercial recreation tenure differs from the commercial back-country policy that was recently released by the province. I just want to see how those two fit together, or if they do.

Hon. D. Lovick: The activities and terms of operation are the same as those governing other commercial recreation tenures. The only difference, I gather, is that there is a seven-year period. . . . Normally, it's a 20-year period; in this case, it's a 27-year period. That additional seven years at the front end of the tenure is given simply for that transition -- to phase in and to learn how to do it, I guess.

M. Coell: The 27 years -- is there a. . . ? It seems a little different, in that this is on Nisga'a land. Nisga'a will be running the tenure. Why a 27-year period? Is there a rollover? Significantly, they would be in control of that tenure for hundreds of years.

Hon. D. Lovick: To clarify, this isn't on Nisga'a land, strictly speaking. The area we're talking about is not exclusive use.

M. Coell: I guess what I'm getting at is that where there is. . . . I gather there's overlap -- the minister can correct me if I'm wrong -- and Nisga'a lands will be involved in some cases, either now or in the future. I just want to be clear on why there's a year set up without some acknowledgment that it will roll over in the future. If I can just add to that, in any other commercial tenure, it might come up for re-tender, and someone else may get the tender. In the Nisga'a's case, I don't think that will be true.

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm advised that the important point is that tenure applies to Crown land only. What we're talking about here is use of their own land, not the other lands -- if that's the member's concern -- so therefore it doesn't matter, effectively.

[ Page 11316 ]

R. Neufeld: I have just a little bit more on the commercial recreation tenure. My experience since I came to this House was that we were going to have before us many years ago some form of back-country tenure, so that individuals can begin that kind of business. Will the terms of the agreements that you have on the Crown land for the Nisga'a be similar to or exactly the same as what other individuals will face when they go the Crown to try to obtain a commercial tenure?

Hon. D. Lovick: They will be the same, except for that seven-year period we talked about. Also, in the agreement we are allowing the Nisga'a to assign that obligation, that duty, to a corporation created by them. That doesn't normally happen in the beginning, but in this case it happens at the start of the agreement. As soon as the agreement is in place, that can happen.

[3:45]

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm advised that 20 years is the period when there is major investment.

G. Plant: You talk about this thing called the commercial recreation tenure. Really, we're talking about a bunch of different parcels of land spread out across the Nass area. I suppose the idea is that there may be different sorts of activities that will take place there.

I want to make sure of one thing. If an ordinary citizen were to come along and ask to have one of these things, they would hold it on the same terms and conditions perhaps -- or similar. But would there be an acquisition cost? If I wanted to come and get a commercial recreation tenure, would I pay a fee? What is that fee, and are the Nisga'a going to have to pay it?

Hon. D. Lovick: One pays an application fee to cover the administrative costs.

G. Plant: What are those fees now?

Hon. D. Lovick: I can't give the member precise information, but I understand that they are somewhere between $200 and $300.

G. Plant: That's helpful. I suppose the question of whether the Nisga'a will have to pay that fee would need to be examined in that context.

Are commercial recreation tenures generally assignable? With particular reference to paragraph 94, will the Nisga'a nation -- or the Nisga'a corporation, in due course -- be able to assign their interest to anybody?

Hon. D. Lovick: They may do so with the consent of the province. I would emphasize that throughout the province, the provincial minister retains that responsibility.

G. Plant: One can imagine that just as there is a price attached to the transfer of guide-outfitting concessions in some cases -- maybe not in British Columbia, but I know that in the Yukon people are prepared to pay between $500,000 and $1 million for a guide-outfitting concession -- there is conceivably, perhaps after some investment by the Nisga'a of their own capital, an investment being made here that will have some significant value. The Nisga'a could, in the fullness of time, sell that to the highest bidder if they want.

Hon. D. Lovick: We would dearly hope so, but at the moment it's too early in the game to draw that conclusion. Rather, what is happening is that the Nisga'a are obviously making an investment with a view to gaining a return on that investment, and we all hope it's successful.

G. Plant: But in terms of issues like assignability or the right to sell in due course, do the Nisga'a stand in the same shoes as other British Columbians, generally speaking, who would acquire a commercial recreation tenure?

Hon. D. Lovick: That's correct. But I want to make it very clear that we're not talking about selling the land; rather, we're talking about a business interest. As long as that's clear, yes.

G. Plant: I suspect that the word "tenure" in this context is a word that ought to be regarded carefully, because it often connotes an interest in land. I suspect this is a long way from most people's idea of an interest in land. Whatever it is -- the permit, the licence, the right to carry on -- as the holder of a commercial recreation tenure, the Nisga'a will stand in the same shoes as other British Columbians would who hold such interests. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Lovick: That is correct.

G. Plant: Is the Nisga'a commercial recreation tenure management plan a document that's available to the public, or is that a document that is not?

Hon. D. Lovick: The document is indeed available to the public -- or would be.

M. Coell: Paragraph 93(b) says: "British Columbia will not issue another commercial recreation tenure within the areas set aside in Appendix E that conflicts with the Nisga'a Commercial Recreation Tenure Management Plan." Obviously there was some discussion around that issue with the Nisga'a, and I just wondered if the minister could give some examples of what would be in conflict.

Hon. D. Lovick: The intent is to protect against another operator coming into exactly the same site and conducting exactly the same activity. That agreement, however, obtains only for the first seven years. After that time, competition for that particular activity is open.

M. Coell: If we can move on, then, to heritage sites and the key geographic features. On the effective date, there are some sites turned over as provincial heritage sites. I wonder whether the province has done an estimate of the cost of doing this on the date -- or whether it will be done by that date -- that the agreement is signed.

Hon. D. Lovick: They are not turned over to anybody. Rather, it's just that they are protected under this particular apparatus. So, accordingly, I don't think there is a cost.

[ Page 11317 ]

Hon. D. Lovick: I understand that the process that is described here is indeed the standard process for all heritage sites across the province, or potential ones, whereby any individual can in fact say that they perceive this particular site to have special historical or cultural significance, and therefore try to invoke the process. The same thing applies here. Therefore it is more properly regarded, I think, as simply an ongoing operational cost but not a budget item specifically.

M. de Jong: For me this section evokes memories of another somewhat similar exercise in terminology changes and renaming. When I was involved in the practice of law, I remember the day the volume came to Crown counsel around the province, dealing with the question of gender equality and the need to address changes in all of the legislation. I heard similar explanations to what the minister is offering today about the potential costs or minimizing of costs. I don't want to engage in an exercise about whether that was a worthwhile exercise or process or not -- the government of the day decided to do it -- but there were costs involved, and it required amending a lot of documents. It required, in the government's mind, changing a lot of material, and I think the question that the member for Saanich North and the Islands is driving at is that we've heard this explanation before -- that an attempt to effect wholesale changes can somehow happen magically, at no cost. I rely upon the example that I've just alluded to as evidence of the fact that indeed it does result in cost.

Hon. D. Lovick: I think I can give the member opposite some comfort by simply saying that the policy of government is not to amend documents but rather, when documents are reprinted or something, the changes would then be made. It isn't a matter of going back to an existing corpus of material and saying that we have to bring it into line with the changes.

G. Plant: I'm looking at appendix F-1, "Sites of cultural and historic significance to the Nisga'a Nation to be designated as provincial heritage sites." I take it that insofar as there are lands involved here -- a hectare or so here and there -- these are all lands that are now currently provincial Crown lands.

Hon. D. Lovick: That's correct.

G. Plant: I think my colleague looked at the issue of names. I've tried to understand the difference between the first half of paragraph 96 and the second half. The first half speaks of recording names; the second half speaks about naming or renaming. My sense is that the first half -- that is, the recording half -- says that in addition to the information that's already in the B.C. geographic names database, some Nisga'a names are going to be added to that database; whereas the second half -- the naming or renaming -- actually says that from some point going forward, the places identified in appendix F-3 will have their names changed to the new names identified in appendix F-3. Have I captured the distinction correctly?

Hon. D. Lovick: The first category is just additional information. Again, I understand that this is quite common. There will be a given historic site, and somebody will come and say: "Ah! Here's a part of the history you didn't know." The concept to deal with that is called layering. What we do is simply add another strata or layer of information.

The second category, the member quite rightly points out, is different, and that is to represent a change to existing names. That has to be done carefully, for obvious reasons. Where there is controversy, for example, when somebody else says, "Wait a minute; we have a different spelling or different name, and we see that as land that we also may have an interest in," then those changes won't be made.

There are 21 names that apparently will officially change on the effective date of the treaty, under 96(b), and these are ones that represent features wholly within Nisga'a settlement lands.

G. Plant: What that means in practical terms is that at some point down the line, someone goes off to a government agent's store and says, "I'd like map sheet 103P," and instead of seeing Canyon City, they'll see Gitwinksihlkw identifying the place which is currently described as Canyon City. That's the process, isn't it?

Hon. D. Lovick: That's correct.

G. Plant: And there are no names changed outside capital-N Nisga'a and capital-L Lands. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Lovick: That is also correct.

[4:00]

Hon. D. Lovick: If the parties can agree, then there will be changes to the names, but if there isn't agreement, then the changes won't be made.

G. Plant: Let me just ask this question, then. If it's unfairly technical, I'm sure the minister will tell me. But I can't help noticing that the person beside the minister is the person that I would phone up with this question if I ever had it.

Within the Tsimshian language, there are things that we call languages sometimes, conventionally -- like Nisga'a, Gitxsan and Tsimshian. Oftentimes the differences between them are -- speaking only for myself -- more subtle than I would be able to follow, but they can result in changes in the way words are spelled -- in other words, changes that are. . . . I wouldn't say they're insignificant, by any means; but it's not quite the same, perhaps, as saying that something that in here is the Nisga'a term for a long river is now going to be replaced

[ Page 11318 ]

Hon. D. Lovick: Where there are competing claims in terms of the name, even if it's only a matter of spelling, changes are not made.

G. Plant: That is to say that the government has committed to the Nisga'a that these are the names and these are the spellings. I think that's what the minister is saying. Let me just go the one step that I thought I was going before. Where there is, out there, a difference arising from the overlap issue in respect of the names in appendix F-3, are we talking about tremendously different conceptions of what the names should be, or somewhat less significant ones?

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm advised that the range can be from something almost imperceptible, as a small spelling change, to a whole different word or a whole different name.

G. Plant: Let me just pause here to make an observation. It's a more general application, but this is as good a time as any to make it. Paragraph 97 says: "After the effective date, the Nisga'a Nation may propose that British Columbia name or rename other geographic features with Nisga'a names, and British Columbia will consider those proposals in accordance with applicable provincial laws." Well, I would hope that British Columbia would have done that in any event. That is, either yesterday, today or tomorrow, under whatever regime, the Nisga'a nation or anybody else could come along and say: "What you should really do is rename this place."

When I look at that obligation, I ask myself: why is it in the treaty? That's the general question. I look at, for instance, the issue we were discussing a few moments ago, a commercial recreation tenure, where the answer that the minister gives in answer to our questions is in part to say: "Well, you know, this document, this tenure that will be issued, will be in almost every respect the same as a tenure that might be available to any private citizen and, in fact, once issued, will be subject to provincial laws, just as similar tenure would be." In fact, this is a tenure that may expire. It may come to an end, yet because the promises to implement it are in a treaty, they have a different significance in the law. I think it's a distinction with a difference.

The same argument, I think, can be made about heritage sites and key geographic features -- that is, why is this in a treaty? Why are these promises to acquire section 35 protection? There is, as the minister will appreciate, the possibility of a different character of argument. On the one hand, there is the argument where the Nisga'a nation says: "You haven't done your ordinary job. We have the right to make application for name changes, and you haven't been respectful of our wishes." That's one category of argument.

[E. Gillespie in the chair.]

But because this paragraph 97 is in a treaty, there will be a different kind of argument. I think we don't even know yet what the full dimensions of that argument may be. It may be that the differences aren't significant, but I suspect that the Nisga'a are going to say: "You, the province, don't just have an ordinary obligation to consider our request; you've got an obligation that's sitting out there enshrined in the constitution."

Let me be fair to the other side of this argument for just a minute. I suspect that from the Nisga'a perspective, the Nisga'a could identify a long list of promises that the province and federal government have made to them and have broken over the years. That may be why, for them, they need to have this in the treaty. But as I said when I began, this is a recurring theme, and I don't intend to repeat these remarks every time the issue arises. This is as good a time as any to make that point, and if the minister has a response, I would be interested in it.

Hon. D. Lovick: The member asks an interesting question, and I'm going to resist the temptation to give a hugely long answer -- though it's tempting, because I think it's a fascinating question and a fascinating issue. The guts of it, the shortest explanation, is to say: "Because the Nisga'a want it. They want this in the treaty." The reason why that is the case, I think, is probably to be found -- and the member alluded to it -- in that very long history of first nations interactions with the rest of us and the legacy, quite frankly, of distress and concern. I think that is quintessentially what's it's about. In a word, history has made them cautious.

I think that's probably the main explanation. In more practical and pragmatic terms, I don't think they want bureaucrats to be able to say: "No, we're not doing it, because you've got a treaty, and it already deals with that stuff, so don't come looking for a change." Rather, they want a clear assurance that changes will still be possible and that government -- whatever government it might be -- has to respond in all sincerity and seriousness to their request.

Just to touch on the other dimension, I think this maybe takes us to that comment that we sometimes forget about. In Nisga'a culture, at least, if not in all first nations culture, the nature of a treaty is a kind of solemn ritual, almost a spiritual kind of utterance. I think the member would agree with me that that was certainly the language that Chief Gosnell was talking in.

Again, for a complex of reasons, I think that's the explanation why this section is in and, as the member correctly points out, will appear in various other parts as well.

G. Plant: I think the minister's answer is interesting. Let me respond to it with two further comments. The first is that the minister ended his answer by speaking about the solemnity of treaties. That is certainly so if one looks at the treaty process through the lens, if you will, of aboriginal expectations and hopes.

But I think, in terms of how the law responds to treaties, that is also the way the law looks at treaties in terms of the government's obligations. I suggest that it is in fact for that very reason that we ought not to put everything into a treaty. We ought to be careful about those things that we're prepared to invest with that degree of solemnity. In part, that's just simply recognizing that governments are not perfect. Sometimes it's better to keep the list of promises shorter, in the recognition that there is more likelihood that all of them would be kept, frankly, rather than to make the list longer and maximize the possibility for future disputes -- disputes in which, sooner or later, mistrust may arise on any side. That's my first response.

[ Page 11319 ]

Now let me just say this: in the context of the two issues that we're talking about, the point I've just made is not as strong as it could be in other contexts, for this reason. First of all, commercial recreation, depending on the nature of the activity, may be getting out into the remoter parts of the traditional territory of the Nisga'a for reasons that are very similar spiritually, if you will, to the things that the Nisga'a have traditionally done. There may be, therefore, a connection between this tenure and the principles that I think the framers of section 35 had in mind when they put it there -- similarly with names. Clearly, in any culture, what you call something is important to that culture's sense of identify. But I do know that in other parts of the agreement, the same connection is a little more tenuous.

We're not going to resolve this debate. It's not really a debate so much, I suppose, as it is -- just for a minute -- a discussion. But I think it's a discussion that is important, because when parties go off to courts and argue in the attempt to define and put circles around rights, and they do that in the context of section 35, the courts have said: "Well, you really need to look at the traditions and the customs in the lodge. You need to get close to the heart of the cultural identity of these particular people."

[4:15]

As I said, I'm not going to raise the issue again. But I think it's an important one, and this seemed to be as good a time as any to put it on the table.

Hon. D. Lovick: I would simply thank the member for putting his comments on the record. I think that's a valuable contribution to the discussion. As he said, it's less a debate than it is a discussion.

M. Coell: If we could move on to parks and ecological reserves -- that's 98 through 121 -- I have a number of questions, as do others.

Does the province envision the joint park management committee as a paid committee to oversee this park?

Hon. D. Lovick: The committee itself is not a salaried committee.

M. Coell: My understanding is that there are six members on the committee for decision-making and management. A six-member committee is a bit unusual, because if you have a tie vote, I wonder who -- whether it's government or Nisga'a. . . . That would render that vote either a success or a failure.

Hon. D. Lovick: I believe that it's spelled out that the numbers are up to six, not necessarily six. As well, the committee makes recommendations. Moreover, it says clearly that the committee will function largely on the basis of a consensus model rather than vote on everything that happens.

M. Coell: So the committee is not going to function much like this House, is what the minister is saying.

Under section 113, there's a vague reference to provincial funding, and I wonder whether the minister could elaborate on what funding arrangements that means?

Hon. D. Lovick: Right now, as I think the member is well aware, the Nisga'a Memorial Lava Bed Park is a B.C. provincial park. It will continue to be a class A provincial park. We have that obligation for it at the moment; we will continue that obligation to fund it.

M. Coell: Under the current provincial funding arrangements, what is the yearly budget for the Nisga'a Memorial Lava Bed Park?

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm sorry; I don't have that information at the moment, but I'd certainly be happy to dig it out as quickly as we can. Indeed, there are probably people watching this who can do that for us.

M. Coell: I look forward to getting that, because I have some other questions with regard to other areas and the ongoing costs of management and whether they'll be changed because of this treaty.

Can the minister. . . ?

Interjection.

M. Coell: Please.

Hon. D. Lovick: I just picked up on the member's comment. I can answer that. The short answer is no, they will not be changed. The financial arrangements will not be changed as a result of the treaty.

M. Coell: I have been to this park, and I know the minister has as well. There are no fees; there are no amenities that could be charged for. I'm not aware of the depth of the management plan developed for this park and whether it's seen as becoming more in the future than it is now, or if it will stay as it is. I'm looking at campsites, trailer sites. . . . I have a number of questions with regard to that as well.

Hon. D. Lovick: I would draw the member's attention to paragraph 113, which makes it very clear that this will not be

[ Page 11320 ]

To the specifics, I understand there has been a little bit of improvement work. Apparently there's an interpretation centre that's gone in, probably since the member and I were there. Also, I understand they're probably doing some work on trails and so forth, but there are no huge new initiatives underway or anything like that.

M. Coell: The boundaries of the park are set in this treaty. Is there a method by which expansion of this park could be considered in the future?

Hon. D. Lovick: I gather there is a provision in here that talks about what the boundaries are, and that's all the agreement says. However, with the agreement of the parties, I suppose one could modify those boundaries -- more likely to make it smaller, if anything, it would seem to me.

M. Coell: In paragraph 107, the joint park management committee can make recommendations periodically, with the revision of a master plan. That's what I'm getting at. That committee -- that's also made up of both Nisga'a and government -- may well make recommendations as to the size. That's why I was concerned about the number of six. If you had three from government and three from Nisga'a and there was a disagreement on the size of the park, how would that be mediated? I just wonder if the minister could comment on that.

Hon. D. Lovick: The discretionary authority to do anything with the park ultimately rests with the provincial government and the minister responsible for parks. In terms of. . . . Well, I think that's the answer.

M. Coell: Maybe I'll expand on what I'm getting at. This is a very different situation for a class A park in the province. I'm not aware of another park in the same circumstances. It may be beneficial and in the interest of the Nisga'a to have commercial development in the park. If that is a recommendation, I'm wondering about mediation to come to a conclusion -- whether the government says: "Yes, that's great, a hotel or motel or whatever is fine," or "No, we do not wish to have that. . . ." For the record, how much discretion and discussion will the government have with the Nisga'a on what goes into the master plan? And who has the final say?

Hon. D. Lovick: If I might, I will simply draw the member's attention to paragraph 101: "Unless the Nisga'a nation and British Columbia otherwise agree, British Columbia will not permit commercial resource extraction or other commercial activity within the Park or the Ecological Reserve." I think that's probably the comfort that the member is asking for.

M. Coell: I'm glad to have that on the record, because I suspect that discussion will come up in the future. That may well be a discussion that the government may want to enter into.

Will Bear Glacier Park be managed on the same basis as Memorial Lava Bed Park?

Hon. D. Lovick: The short answer is no.

M. Coell: I think this is one area of the treaty that is very positive for both British Columbia and the Nisga'a people. I think that the management of this park is crucial to a relationship that will develop between the Nisga'a and the rest of British Columbia. I also see it as having the potential for much greater use than it presently has. There are a number of roads to be paved in this area as part of the treaty, which will enhance the use of the park. Is it the government's view that the management committee will have the authority to restrict access to the park and/or to charge fees to enter the park?

Hon. D. Lovick: I simply want to make it very clear -- and if I haven't done so yet, I apologize -- that the management authority, the ultimate decision-making authority, still remains with the minister. The committee's job is, essentially, to make recommendations. That's, I think, the key point.

M. Coell: I appreciate that, and I think it's important for us to keep in mind that the province has the final authority. I don't have any illusion that there won't be discussions with the committee and discussions in the future with Nisga'a government on the use of the park, and that's why I bring it up. I think that there are potentials, and greater potentials than the park that's in use now. But I would say that from this side of the House, we wish the government well with this park. It is indeed a treasure to the Nisga'a and also to the people of British Columbia.

I don't have any further questions on the parks area. If anyone else does, I'll leave the floor. . . .

M. de Jong: Just with respect to the joint management committee, it's unclear to me whether the provincial government at least contemplates these positions to be paid positions.

Interjection.

M. de Jong: Did you ask that?

Interjection.

M. de Jong: I understand that while I was otherwise detained, that matter was canvassed.

Section 121, which is a specific section dealing with parks and the establishment of a marine park at the request of one of the parties. . . . Has anyone made that request at this point?

Hon. D. Lovick: I gather there has been no official request.

M. de Jong: If and when a request is made, that triggers the negotiations referred to in the first line of that provision?

Hon. D. Lovick: The member is correct.

M. de Jong: Last question. Does the provincial government, for its part, contemplate initiating that negotiation by making such a request?

Hon. D. Lovick: I think the matter has been discussed in the past, but whether it's part of any action plan or long-term planning process or program, I'm not aware.

[ Page 11321 ]

[4:30]

M. de Jong: We're now at the section in chapter 3 of the agreement that contemplates water rights and water reservations. I think the member for North Vancouver-Seymour has some questions relative to that.

D. Jarvis: I want to ask some questions on 122 up to 144, I believe. I'll try to keep it in some semblance of order -- in my mind, anyways. But there are some sections there that I feel do sort of jump to another section. I'm not purposely trying to jump from one section to the other -- it's the questioner that is jumping.

In the Nass River. . . . Under section 122, I see that they've asked to establish a water reservation of 300,000 cubic decametres, which isn't very much. I've been on the Nass, and it is quite slow-moving. Depending on what you want to relate it to, I think that's about 9-1/2 or 10 cubic metres per second. I think that under the Patullo Bridge, it's going 3,000. It's quite a difference.

I know that the Premier did explain to us the other day how you valued the monetary aspect of the agreement, but I wonder: was there any value put on the hydroelectric potentiality and/or the water rentals and permits and everything on the Nass itself and its tributaries?

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: I want to just establish what value was considered for the water for, say, either hydroelectric or rental, whatever it may be -- and fees -- in establishing the monetary value of the treaty itself.

The Chair: While we have a reprieve, the member for Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows rises on what matter?

W. Hartley: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

W. Hartley: In the precincts we have a group visiting us today from Explorations High School in Bellingham, Washington. There's a group of some 14 to 17 young, gifted students, five adults and their teacher Miss. S. Palmiter. I hope that members will make them welcome.

Hon. C. McGregor: The value of the water that's being attributed to the Nisga'a through this agreement is rather difficult to calculate. In fact, under the existing Indian Act, aboriginal people have access to water currently without any cost to themselves. There's no charge provided for the use of water. So this agreement really replaces that provision, but it also sets aside a reserve. In order to calculate what that reserve might be, what value might be attributed to that reserve, we did an estimate based on some domestic and some industrial use, on the basis of utilization in other parts of the province. Again, it doesn't apply, of course, in this region, because there aren't significant water users currently. If we were to take that formula at the very top end, including significant industrial use, it would be a maximum value of $200,000.

D. Jarvis: I hate to ask if that's per day or per year. I assume it's per year -- is it?

All right, then. Thank you.

I would like to go on to section 123. There's a section here talking about water licences issued before March 22. Is that anything we should be concerned about? What other licences were on the Nass and its tributaries prior to that date?

Hon. C. McGregor: The reference in section 123 is to make sure that any water licences that have been in place will be respected; that's why that provision is dated. The date is the day of the signing of the AIP; that's why it is included here. But all water licences that were issued and in place prior to that date continue to be in full force and effect, including those that may have only applied up to that date that hadn't been yet approved. If the member is interested in receiving a list of the existing water licences, we can provide that, but we don't have that here with us today.

M. de Jong: First thing, I think my colleague from North Vancouver-Seymour is interested in receiving that list.

Maybe in general terms, the minister can simply indicate the numbers of licences and licence applications that are captured by these provisions and, generally again, the amount of water that is captured by these provisions set out in 123.

Hon. C. McGregor: We do have information here that there are 18 licences in total which existed prior to the date of March 22, 1996. I'm afraid I don't have a list of how many applications might be outstanding; there may be none. But again, we can get that information for the member.

Those 18 licences are limited to domestic water supplies. Ten licences are in the amount of 500 to 1,000 gallons a day. There are some ten licences for small irrigation purposes, of one acre-foot a year up to a maximum of 52.2 acre-feet a year. There is a single non-consumptive right on the Nass River for river improvement purposes, held by Skeena Cellulose.

M. de Jong: Does the minister have information that would indicate -- for example, the Skeena Cellulose reservation or permit -- if there is a value that is applicable to that particular licence?

Hon. C. McGregor: Well, they do pay a fee on the basis of their use, but we don't have that information here today. We can get it -- that's not an issue -- if the member would like it.

M. de Jong: I think I hear the minister saying that the ministry can provide a listing of both the 18 licensees and the revenues that the ministry derives from those licensees. Is that correct?

[ Page 11322 ]

M. de Jong: I take it the minister is prepared to do just that.

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes, I am.

M. de Jong: I just want to go back to section 122. My colleague and the minister were discussing the significance of the 300,000 cubic decametres. I don't know how much water that is, Madam Chair; I don't even know if that's how you pronounce the word, and I understand that there is other terminology that is applicable with respect to measuring water. Acre-feet is another unit of measurement, and I don't know what an acre-foot of water is, either.

I am told, however, that 300,000 cubic decametres is sufficient, for domestic and other uses, for a city the size of -- ironically -- Kamloops, which is a city that the minister is eminently familiar with. Can she confirm, at least in terms of conceptualizing how much water we're talking about with 300,000 cubic decametres, that that is a relatively accurate assessment of the volumes we're discussing?

Hon. C. McGregor: While I'm a resident of Kamloops, I must claim ignorance on the point of how much water it is that Kamloops consumes on an annual or daily basis; I'm afraid I'm not familiar with that. But if I could give the member some comfort. . . . When you read the number 300,000 cubic decametres of water per year, it does sound like a large volume; but let me assure the member that it is less than 2 percent of the available water flows within Nisga'a lands. It is a very small amount of the total flows available on the Nass, and there's lots of water, obviously, still available for other uses.

M. de Jong: I wasn't intending to argue that point, and quite frankly, we will be in a better position to pursue that, if it's necessary, once we have information relating to the other licensees. I don't think any of us can speculate about the amount of water available, absent that information.

I'm not trying to trick the minister here. I don't know how much water Kamloops uses either. I don't know how much water the city of Abbotsford uses, or the city of Vancouver. I'm trying, though, to ascertain, in terms that the average person can understand -- i.e., me -- how much water we are talking about. I don't know, maybe 300,000 cubic decametres isn't a lot of water, but if there is some way to. . . .

The question I'm ultimately going to get to is: how did we get to this amount? Why this amount? In fairness to the minister, before I ask that question, I'm trying to ascertain just how much this amount is.

[4:45]

That speaks to the principle that the province used in terms of doing an overall calculation of the general availability of water. The amount, 1.2 percent, is actually very small in terms of the total amount of water available. But it does provide the Nisga'a with the assurances and certainty that under this agreement they will have adequate flows of water available to them in the eventuality, over the years, of continued growth within the area.

M. de Jong: I don't want the minister to be under some sort of misapprehension here. I'm not in a position to challenge whether or not the allotment of water rights is in some way going to impact negatively on the river or on the ecosystem. I'm not in a position to make that assertion, so I'm not going to. When one hears the percentage of flow that this comprises, a layperson like myself is inclined to say: "That sounds good."

But I am questioning this from the other perspective. There was something the minister said about reserving unto the Nisga'a an allocation of water sufficient for their needs. Nothing that's been said here today indicates that that is in fact the case.

Let me put it another way: the reservation of 300,000 cubic decametres of water suggests that someone has turned their mind to the notion of community growth. The question is: what level of growth are we anticipating by virtue of this assignment of water rights? What size of community are we planning for, in determining that 300,000 cubic decametres of water is sufficient?

Hon. C. McGregor: I'll check out my crystal ball when I get a chance, hon. member, but I honestly could not say how much development there might be in the Nass some hundred years from now, when this treaty will still be in full force and effect. But I will say this -- and I would hope that the member agrees: development in the northern part of British Columbia, in the Nass, would be a good thing not only for the economy of the province generally but for the people who live in the Nass.

M. de Jong: Well, of course it would be. Let's not get sidetracked. What I'm trying to ascertain is how we came up with the figure of 300,000. The minister has provided evidence that it won't impact negatively environmentally on the flow rates. So someone said that we need to reserve a certain amount of water. It is, I rather suspect, much more water than the Nisga'a need today. The minister has been there, and I've been there. I don't know how much 300,000 cubic decametres is, but it sounds like more than a community of 2,000 or 2,500 people would need today. What is it sufficient for? What size of community places these kinds of demands? At what point does 300,000 become insufficient to meet a community's needs? In fairness to the minister, I think. . . . Well, in fairness to me, then, let me say, I think it is a fair question to ascertain how we settled upon this figure. I'm satisfied, based on what the information has said, that environmental concerns have been addressed. What I'm not satisfied with at this point is how we settled on 300,000 as the appropriate figure for water reservation.

[ Page 11323 ]

However, as the member points out, there should have been some calculation other than just a percentage of the flow available. We should have looked at some of the other indicators -- and that was indeed done, including domestic and industrial. I do have one example here of an industrial use, which I'll share with the member: an existing pulp mill in Nanaimo, in fact, which uses almost half of 300,000 cubic decametres annually for water. One pulp mill could potentially use about 150,000 cubic decametres of water. That gives the member some idea of the volume of water that some industrial uses require. The 300,000 cubic decametres, in the sense of considering future industrial development, certainly shows that the amount is not excessive.

M. de Jong: Put in that context, it might show just the opposite. I don't know what the usage is under the Skeena Cellulose licence, but if the figures that the minister is preparing are accurate, and if we all acknowledge the desirability of promoting economic development in the area. . . . In fairness, I have heard no plans that there is going to be a pulp mill in the Nass Valley. In fact, everything that's happening in this province indicates that there may not be one operating anywhere, but let's leave that for another day. Maybe this isn't enough. If the minister can that quickly think of an example that would utilize half of this allocated amount, then I'm still curious as to the basis upon which the negotiators settled on this amount.

I don't mean to go on ad nauseam with this, but we've heard everything but an explanation for the rationale behind the reservation of a specific amount. That's why I began this series of questioning with: is there a city or a town that would use this amount of water? I think that would answer all of the questions that I've been clumsily presenting to the minister over the last five or ten minutes.

Hon. C. McGregor: Well, it was a matter of negotiation, hon. member. I've explained as best I can the calculation of the total water flows and the work that was done to ascribe how much is available for use by Nisga'a and non-Nisga'a. I've indicated to the member that industrial use can require large quantities of water. If he would like to know more details about what industries and how much water they use, we'd certainly be happy to provide that to the member. But it was a matter of negotiation.

On the member's point, if the Nisga'a don't have enough water, there are provisions in the agreement -- section 129 -- which make it clear that the Nisga'a can apply for available flows outside of their water reservation if, at some future time, all of the 300,000 cubic decametres have been attributed to other uses.

M. de Jong: The last question for me on this point, then. . . . If I can just confirm that the minister is going to. . . . Let me back up. We are still curious about determining to what extent a value can be assigned to a reservation of this magnitude. If the minister is going to provide those documents and that material which will assist us in that respect, I'd just like the record to show that I for one would reserve the right to come back to the minister and pursue that line of questioning, on the basis of the information those subsequent documents reveal. I think she's agreeable to that.

Hon. C. McGregor: I would confirm that I made a commitment to provide to the member a list of existing water licences and the fees that they pay.

D. Jarvis: In that same vein, did you tell us at all on those other licences how many decametres they were utilizing -- of that total 24.3 million?

Hon. C. McGregor: As long as that information is available to us -- absolutely, yes.

D. Jarvis: I understand, though, that in most cases where there's. . . . We'll come to that later on in the discussion about damming of the rivers, but I was. . . .

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: Yes, yes. It will drive your environmentalists crazy -- this section -- if they really get into it. The member for Burnaby-Willingdon will probably want to cross the floor.

It appears that under 124, the Nisga'a will not have to conform to federal requirements and that there is a restriction -- and that's in section 125. . . . This is what I was referring to. I feel as though we're jumping back and forth. It's not that I'm doing it on purpose, but it's the way I'm interpreting this section of the book. There's a restriction that 50 percent of the water of all the streams in the valley can be used. So if they're now getting 300,000 cubic decametres, and there's 24.3 million, that will leave them with approximately 1.2 percent -- give or take a few drops of water. So they can now go up to, say, 48 percent. They can increase their volume. . . . Does that mean that they can increase their volumes, re section 125(b). . . ? Can they go up another 48 percent?

[5:00]

D. Jarvis: It says 300,000 cubic decametres is presently their allotment of the Nass and other streams that are in or are partially in the Nisga'a lands. They've only been allotted 300,000. If I understand you to say that the total cubic decametres in there is 24,300,000, (a) I don't know if that includes all the tributaries and all the streams, and (b) that would mean, under section 125, that if they can go up to 50 percent of the allotment, they could go up another 48 percent of allotment. Am I correct in that?

Hon. C. McGregor: No, the member is incorrect. The total flow that I gave was for the Nass, not for the other streams wholly or partially within Nisga'a lands. But the

[ Page 11324 ]

D. Jarvis: Under section 124, then, I would like to discuss the aspect that it appears, as I said, that they do not have to conform to federal laws or requirements. When I say that, and in conjunction with section 129. . . . If the Nisga'a want a licence for water which is in excess of the global limit -- so they can ask for more water -- the provisions of section 129 would apply. They would not have to apply in the same manner as everyone else. Their application would have to conform to provincial regulation requirements, it says there, not federal. In section 129 (d)(ii), the words "flow to ensure conservation" may mean that an application would have to comply with the full regulatory procedures. That is the purpose -- for protecting watercourses, etc.

Do you understand what I'm trying to get at now? They can get more than 50 percent, because in there you say that you are going to allow them, if they wish to apply for more. Am I not correct there?

Hon. C. McGregor: I draw the member's attention to both 124 and 129, in which it talks about applications to the province of British Columbia. That is because water has jurisdiction in the province. It rests in the province of British Columbia, not with federal government.

Section 124 makes it clear that you must apply to the province. Section 129 makes it clear that the Nisga'a have the same rights as any other British Columbian to apply for a water licence outside of their water reservation. But they would be expected to go through the same application process, in every way, as any other British Columbian, and they would have to pay for their water rights in the same way as any other British Columbian.

D. Jarvis: There are federal requirements that they have to comply with, and those have to do with fishing. If you go back into what we were talking about there, "provincial regulatory requirements" is used in section 129; but if you turn the page and go up to section 138, the term "federal and provincial laws" is used, so they do have to comply with federal requirements. However, back earlier, you said that they don't have to comply; they only have to comply with provincial requirements.

Hon. C. McGregor: I understand that the member is concerned -- I think he's concerned -- about protection of values for fish. I'd point out again to him section 129, where it talks about the conditions under which they would have to conform with provincial regulatory requirements -- provided that the stream contained a sufficient flow of unrecorded water and that the flow for conservation of fish and stream habitat was all continued, as well as navigability issues. So this is the process that would be gone through prior to any application for an additional water licence being approved.

In terms of section 138, that makes direct reference to selling water in accordance with statutes that exist provincially and federally. Currently, for instance, in British Columbia the export of water is banned. To my knowledge there are not currently any federal regulations. But if there were to become federal regulations in the future, then any sale of water would have to be consistent with that.

D. Jarvis: There doesn't seem to be anything to prevent the Nisga'a from building small dams on the Nass or on any watercourse in the. . . . Dams, according to your member for Burnaby-Willingdon, would be just terrible things to put on there, because they would kill any fish habitat. But there's nothing in there to preclude them from building a dam now or in the future.

Hon. C. McGregor: As I've indicated before, provincial law applies. In the case of the Fish Protection Act, which was passed in this House a little while ago -- I can't remember the exact. . . . I think it might have been 18 months ago. There is a prohibition against any dams on the Nass. That would apply in this situation as well.

As the member notes, however, there are some hydro power opportunities that the Nisga'a can investigate over the course of the agreement. The provisions that determine that are listed in paragraphs 140-144.

D. Jarvis: Seeing that I jumped up to section 129, I want to know. . . . The provincial Water Act governs the Nass River and all its tributaries. I'm assuming that I'm correct in saying that the government of British Columbia will control and regulate anything that's on that waterway. This has not been turned over to the Nisga'a or their government per se. Do you agree that the Nisga'a government will have to ask the provincial government for permission with regards to anything they want to do with regards to all those tributaries, small streams and the Nass River itself? Is that right?

Hon. C. McGregor: That is correct.

D. Jarvis: Water licences can be issued to the Nisga'a in accordance with sections 129 and 143. I note that they are silent in relation to the payment of rentals, fees and charges and all that. But you say that there's an unwritten rule that aboriginals do not have to pay any licences or fees for any use of water. Is that correct?

Hon. C. McGregor: On Indian reserves, that is correct, member.

D. Jarvis: I guess I'm being facetious when I say "when it's not a reserve." Will that follow true in perpetuity for the Nisga'a nation -- that they will not have to pay any fees for water rental?

Hon. C. McGregor: I'm not sure which type of licence the member is making reference to. Section 128 makes clear that applications under 126 will not be subject to rental fees or other charges by British Columbia, but applications under sections 129 and 143 would.

D. Jarvis: My interpretation is that they might be able to avoid paying any rentals or fees or charges whatsoever because of the. . . . You know, I'm not going to question your drafting, but under section 129, it states: ". . .British Columbia will approve the application and issue the water licence." If, among other things, when you go up to 129, as I said, with regard to the dams, it appears that. . . . I think it should be

[ Page 11325 ]

Hon. C. McGregor: I draw the member's attention back to the "General Provisions" chapter, sections 13 and 14, which make clear the applicability. . . .

Interjections.

Hon. C. McGregor: No, let's not go back there.

But just to give the member comfort if he feels that it's not specifically worded, 128 makes it clear that fees and rentals will not charged for applications under paragraph 126. I am giving the member the information that when it says that it must conform with provincial legislation, rules and regulations, that means that fees must be paid under provisions 129 and 143. However, if the member is looking for further comfort, he can re-examine sections 13 and 14 under "General Provisions," where it makes clear that provincial laws and regulations will apply, including fees and licences.

D. Jarvis: I sometimes wish I'd never started.

Again, in section 129 I found it sort of impossible to determine the effect of the words "in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement." It could conceivably be argued that one of the purposes of this agreement is saving the Nisga'a culture through economic initiatives, etc., and therefore that would include the Nass River itself. That is, if at any time it should be acceptable, through your economic initiatives, for the Nisga'a to build a major hydroelectric project on the Nass, what would that do? The purpose of this is to try to make them economically sustainable, so a hydroelectric project on the Nass would certainly help them in that situation as they grow. What would happen to the fish aspect of their basic, traditional culture? Although those interpretations do change over time, I think there is a question there. I wonder if you could clarify it for me, please.

[5:15]

But the member does make a point about the impacts that hydroelectric power can have on fish. If the member is interested, I'd be prepared to offer him a briefing on what we call run-of-river, small hydroelectric projects which do not have impacts on fish and are in fact very widely accepted by the environmental movement. If the member would like a subsequent briefing on that, I could certainly provide that to him.

D. Jarvis: I assume you're referring to tributaries or small streams in the valley that do not have any fish in them at all; they're basically benign. I assume that's what you're talking about. I probably would be interested in it, so I will give you a call and find out if I can have a briefing, if you wouldn't mind.

I want to jump into section 140. It appears that this is sort of an admission by the province that it will not complete an inventory of the watercourses in the Nass Valley. I was wondering why this is. Other than the Nass River, which is wholly or partially within the Nisga'a lands, when we sign a treaty with them, we're saying: "You have all the waters; they're all yours to do what you want with, within certain regulations of the British Columbia government. But we don't know what's there." I was wondering why this government would not have done an assessment of the waterways in the valley.

Hon. C. McGregor: Hon. member, just to assist in our conversation on these points and to give you the information, unrecorded means that it's not licensed. That means it's an available flow for a water licence application.

D. Jarvis: At the moment, I have no further questions on this aspect.

M. de Jong: Let me just ask a couple more specific questions and then maybe give a general review of what we've ascertained through this discussion.

First of all, some time ago this province and this government passed legislation dealing with the whole notion of water exports. I will say, along these lines, that water is a precious resource that we in this province often take for granted -- fresh water obviously having that added importance. The province recognized that value and importance and the worldwide demand that is continuing to rise for access to that resource when it passed legislation dealing with the ability of British Columbians to export that water. That legislation is very narrow and very restrictive insofar as contemplating any manner of water export, particularly bulk water export. Both within the ambit of the 300,000 cubic decametres that we've been discussing and insofar as future applications might be concerned, can the minister indicate how the treaty will operate. . . ? I think I know the answer to this insofar as the relevant section is concerned and the application of relevant laws. But can the minister confirm that the prospect for bulk water exports occurring out of the Nass area is the same after this becomes a treaty as it is today, before it is a treaty?

Hon. C. McGregor: That is correct.

M. de Jong: All right, then let me just return to one other theme. You know, we get to this part of the day and this part of the discussion where the minister must be thinking that we plan to abandon an otherwise civil exchange. But I do want to make this point. It is not meant to reflect specifically on this minister, but it is a theme that has recurred through this discussion. Everything I have heard from the minister and from the government -- we're talking about water now; we're talking about the potential for hydroelectric generation -- tells me that water has a value -- fresh water in particular. The minister has described how a portion of that value, which is the Nass River, has been reserved for the Nisga'a. We have explored the mechanism by which that allocation can be increased to meet changed circumstances. We've talked about the hope and the expectation that economic development will occur. We've talked about and ascertained that there are water licences that exist now that carry with them a certain value, and we're going to find out tomorrow what that value is.

But what troubles me is that it's another example of an issue that has been dealt with in the treaty, a resource that has been assigned to a new entity -- a new government -- and another example where the government has agreed to that assignment and, I think, recognizes that there is an intrinsic value involved but can't tell us what that is. Let me say this: it

[ Page 11326 ]

I'm not sure if it's because no attempt has been made to calculate that value, or if the government thinks it's unimportant, or maybe -- and I may be misstating what has taken place here this afternoon -- the government doesn't think there's any value attached to this water. Maybe it's because, as the minister says, insofar as the flow levels are concerned, this is a very small amount. But I've heard nothing to indicate which of those options or which of those explanations the government favours. I think that as a matter of principle British Columbians are entitled to that information.

Hon. C. McGregor: I think that this government has shown that it does value water. In fact, the member makes reference to an act that was passed before my time, the Water Protection Act, which speaks to the values British Columbians share around the importance of water and why we took measures to protect water against bulk export. I think we also showed that we as British Columbians care about the value of water when we passed the Fish Protection Act. We had provisions within that act to make it clear that water for fish is an important value that we share, because fish are largely symbolic, not only of the economic values that we have in the province through the fishery but as a symbol of a clean environment, which British Columbians value highly.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

In fact, hon. member, I know that we on this side of the House value water as we do other resources. I take umbrage with your comments that we didn't attempt to calculate the amount of water. In fact, I've described at some length for the member some of the calculations we used to determine that 300,000 cubic decametre number, describing both domestic use and industrial use and projecting what that potentially might be in the future, as well as being concerned with conservation values for fish, deducting those from the amounts, and showing that clearly it was a very small percentage -- 1.2 percent of the available water. So I do believe that we have taken the time to analyze these provisions of the agreement.

It is a matter of negotiation, hon. member. You may not agree with the amount that we've come to in this treaty, but that is the number that has been put in the treaty -- negotiated among the Nisga'a, ourselves and the other party to the agreement, the federal government -- and that is in fact contained in this agreement. While the member might dispute that, I'd make it clear that we have taken efforts to determine how that number did come about, and I did share them with the member.

M. de Jong: Well, let's try and take this in some order. First of all, I haven't questioned today the minister's or the ministry's commitment to protect the environment insofar as the Nass River and water rights are concerned -- haven't done that at all. I will say to the minister candidly that I don't think we're in a better position now than we were an hour ago to explain how it is that 300,000 cubic decametres of water is an appropriate amount, beyond the minister's assurance that it was a function of negotiation -- "And you'll just have to believe me that it was." But I am mindful of what the minister has said. She said the government does value water. The question then is: insofar as a reservation of 300,000 cubic decametres is concerned, what value does the government attach to that reservation? It's that simple.

Hon. C. McGregor: I would ask the member to review Hansard; I believe that was the first question that I was asked upon my arrival in the House.

M. de Jong: I do recall a convoluted non-answer. It's not that difficult. Maybe the government and the ministry, for reasons that the minister has alluded to earlier, don't assign any value to it. Maybe the government's position is -- by virtue of what exists in the Nass Valley and by virtue of the fact that it's only 1.5 percent of the total flow of the Nass River -- that it has no intrinsic value because no one else is going to use it anyway, and there's no demand for it. I don't know. But if that's the case, then let the minister say so.

Hon. C. McGregor: Hon. Chair, I'll repeat my earlier remarks in answer to the question from the member for North Vancouver-Seymour. I responded on the value.

M. de Jong: I don't know why the minister would want to be so coy about this. I don't understand what the difficulty is. Unless I'm mistaken -- and I thought I heard everything the minister said -- she was reluctant to assign any sort of monetary value to the reservation of water rights that exists here. Now, if I'm wrong, so be it. The minister can repeat the value, and that's fine. But I don't think she did that. If she did, I'm sorry. But I don't see any harm in repeating the amount now.

[5:30]

The Chair: Perhaps the Chair could offer the advice to members that questions have been asked and questions answered, and we do seem to be getting into a repetitive phase at this time. It might be advisable to move on.

M. de Jong: I don't know why the minister wants to be cute about this, and I don't know why we always sort of descend to this. . . .

Interjection.

M. de Jong: Hon. Chair, if the government Whip wants to participate in the debate, then I suggest he take his chair. His Deputy Premier is very fond of quoting rules, and I suggest that if he wants to participate, then he should do so according to the rules.

I've tried to be fair about this. If the government doesn't believe that there is a monetary value to be attached to this

[ Page 11327 ]

Interjection.

M. de Jong: Then forgive me, hon. Chair. If she provided that dollar amount, then provide it again. But I'm advised by my colleague that she didn't.

Hon. C. McGregor: I have advised this House. I did provide the answer. I am not going to repeat it. I did provide the answer in terms of how we valued it. I gave quite a general description, yes, but I did provide a value, and it's time to move on, hon. member, to a new question.

M. de Jong: Hon. Chair, we can belabour this, but I'll tell you this: I raised the point simply to make a point, but everything the minister has done today and in the last five or ten minutes confirms for me that when there is an answer that the government doesn't want British Columbians to hear, they simply won't provide that answer.

It's shocking to me that the minister would try to leave an impression that wasn't correct. We're talking about an asset of the people of British Columbia. And do you know what? I said at the outset, when we embarked upon this exercise, that I don't know. I don't know if 300,000 cubic decametres of water in the Nass Valley has any value. What I'm asking is whether the government believes it has a value, and if it does, what that value is. Quite frankly, that is a very different issue than how we calculate values.

That's very interesting about how the government calculates values. Let's apply that formula to the 300,000 cubic decametres of water that is the subject of this discussion, and let's ascertain whether it has any value.

The Chair: Perhaps the member could move on.

M. de Jong: Hon. Chair, I think that's a pretty poor excuse for participation in a debate that's supposed to be about providing information on this treaty. I think the record should show that when confronted with a direct question on nothing more complicated than assigning a value to a resource that the province has given as part of these negotiations, the minister is refusing to answer. And she is refusing to answer. She's refusing to provide British Columbians with legitimate information about the subject of this treaty. For the life of me, I don't understand the reason for the reluctance. I don't understand why she would want to withhold that information from British Columbians. It really makes a mockery of this process that we are supposed to be engaged in, which is supposed to be about determining all of the relevant facts, all of the relevant issues and all of the relevant considerations that went into signing this agreement.

I will say this for other ministers who have participated in this debate: we certainly haven't received all of the information that we have wanted or think that we are entitled to from those ministers, but they have had the courage to stand up and say that they're not going to give that information, to acknowledge that they don't have it or that they might have it and they don't want to share it. This minister won't even do that. This minister hides behind a cute little answer; she says: "I dealt with it earlier." I think it is indicative of her unwillingness to provide information when it's information that doesn't further the government's political cause.

It's probably apparent that I'm angry about the non-response. I'm going to move on, because I don't think there's any purpose being served by asking questions of a minister who isn't prepared to provide that kind of information.

G. Plant: I'm in the happy situation of not having actually been in the House when that question about the monetary value of water was apparently answered by the minister. I'm looking forward to getting the Hansard Blues and getting my highlighter out and putting my yellow pen around that number, which I'm sure will be there. If it isn't, my goodness, that would be most unfortunate.

On the other hand, we're close to the end of the discussion on the lands chapter. The question I have relates to the information that the minister provided earlier today, which I've not yet had a chance to read but which I think will assist me in reading that.

Throughout this debate, we have used the figure of $106.66 million as the ascribed value for the land component of this agreement. I understand that this figure was arrived at primarily for the purpose of the cost-sharing arrangements between the federal and provincial governments. We have canvassed, in general terms, some of the principles and issues that are factored into that calculation.

Let me ask this series of questions. Is the figure of $106.66 million a final figure? Has it been conclusively agreed upon between Canada and British Columbia, or is it a figure that's still under negotiation? If it has in fact been finally ascertained, when did that actually take place? When was the decision or the agreement reached?

Hon. D. Lovick: To be more precise, the figure of $106.7 million -- that notional value -- will not change. That is the figure that was established at the time of the agreement-in-principle.

G. Plant: That's helpful.

I sense that it may be possible to move to chapter 4, but I certainly would not want to do that without consulting with all of my colleagues -- but among my colleagues, the member for Matsqui.

M. de Jong: Let us move on.

G. Plant: The member for Matsqui says that he, too, is prepared to move on.

On the schedule, chapter 4.

G. Plant: We actually would have been here much sooner, of course, if the questions that we've been asking had been answered.

Interjections.

G. Plant: Let's see; let's just see.

[ Page 11328 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes. That's in paragraph 13.

G. Plant: In giving effect to the opportunity -- essentially, creating the situation where some portion of Nisga'a lands can be subject to the Land Title Act -- is it the intention of the government to ensure that the operation of the Land Title Act is in no way affects in any other part of British Columbia, other than Nisga'a lands?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Correct.

G. Plant: On the Indian reserves which are within Nisga'a lands, there is a separate sort of land registry system. I say "sort of" because the registry that exists for interests on Indian reserves has been the despair of land lawyers for generations. I gather that part of what is intended by section 1 of this chapter is to get rid of the federal land registry system in respect of all of the Nisga'a lands.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Correct.

G. Plant: The same will apply to those Nisga'a fee simple lands that are currently reserves situated outside the territorial boundaries of Nisga'a lands. So they are currently subject to the Indian Act and its rules and processes around land rules, but what will happen to them, of course, is they'll become fee simple lands within provincial jurisdiction. Therefore I think the way this works is that they will automatically become under the Torrens system, part of the provincial jurisdiction.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Absolutely correct.

G. Plant: Perhaps the minister could just explain for a minute. . . . I mean, it's open to the Nisga'a to create a land title system, in effect. This may be a chapter 11 question, but presumably if the Nisga'a establish a form of land title or a land registry system, they'll do so on their own nickel. Is that correct?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: When the Nisga'a reduce lands that are Nisga'a lands, they bring them into the land title system -- the Torrens system. I think it would be an overgeneralization to say that all of the provisions of the land title system will apply to them, because there are certain qualifications in respect of that application, and that is one of the reasons why chapter 4 is longer than four or five paragraphs. Is it possible to state, in general terms, the principles at work in terms of carving out those limited exceptions?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The member's understanding is correct.

[5:45]

Hon. C. McGregor: I did indicate it could be up to $200,000, on the basis of an averaging of domestic licensing and industrial licensing. But I said that that would be an upper limit.

M. de Jong: I think we're ready to proceed to the next chapter, which at this point would be the forests chapter. I don't know whether the government is in a position. . . . That's not fair. Given the time, and since there is other House business, might I suggest that we rise, report progress and seek 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: I call private members' statements.

The Speaker: Proceed with private members' statements. As listed in the orders of the day, the first one is no doubt about to speak. We'll just wait another moment, and we'll be ready to begin.

Interjection.

The Speaker: All right. We'll declare a five-minute recess, then. We'll be back here at five to six, which is, in fact, three and a half minutes.

The House recessed from 5:51 p.m. to 5:53 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Private Members' Statements

MLAs AT WORK

An Hon. Member: You are here.

[ Page 11329 ]

If I were to ask anyone here in this chamber, "What does an MLA do?" I'm sure I would probably hear a variety of suggestions for what an MLA does. And they would probably differ somewhat from what we would hear from people out in the public. If we asked people in the public, "What does an MLA do?" I think that we would hear different jobs, different descriptions. So I have to ask: what is an MLA? What does an MLA do? Where do MLAs come from?

Let's first talk about where MLAs come from.

An Hon. Member: The stork.

E. Walsh: No, contrary to what I just heard, not the stork.

MLAs come from every walk of life. They bring their diversity of life experiences, and it doesn't matter where those life experiences come from. They are from our lives, whether it's a labour background or a business background. It could be a local government background or perhaps, like myself, a background in paramedic and health care training. As MLAs, we bring with us who we are. We bring with us our values, and we bring with us our commitment to our communities and our constituents.

You don't go to school and decide to take MLA 101. You learn through life experiences, and you move forward with that need to either change or better that which we already have in place. But you know, it might not work for the future.

What does an MLA do? Well, first and foremost an MLA has to develop some pretty thick skin to survive the criticism from the media, from the public and from other MLAs on a day-to-day basis. But further than the thick skin that we all have to develop. . . . Let me assure you that some days we MLAs begin our work very early, and they consist of back-to-back meetings. Some days see us beginning in very casual attire -- anything from gumboots first thing in the morning, standing in a pool of water with mud up to mid-calf, possibly in the rain, and overlooking sites with local governments, developers and whoever happens to be talking to us about some projects that they're interested in. . . . But after a quick cleanup and a quick change, now we're at the next appointment with another group or individual. Once these meetings have been completed, there may be a ribbon-cutting ceremony to finalize the hard work that we MLAs have actually done in realizing the completion and finalization of that wonderful project. Then after another quick change -- and all on the same day -- we may celebrate the retirement of a long-service worker or perhaps the hundredth anniversary of the Crowsnest railway, which we celebrated last year in my riding, in Kootenay. You know, hon. Speaker, this is all done in the space of one day.

As MLAs, we are also ambassadors for our constituencies. On this note, I would encourage everyone to come to the Elk Valley this summer, when we will be celebrating the 1999 B.C. Seniors Games. I would encourage everyone to come up to the Elk Valley and take in the wonderful country that we have and the celebrations of the Seniors Games. I know it will be a memorable experience.

As MLAs we are also confidantes, we serve as advocates, we are a source of information, we are counsellors, and we have families. Yes, heaven forbid, we have families. We have friends, too, unless of course they have deserted us or vacated the community because somehow we don't always have the time to play. We are also that very person who so very often has that sympathetic shoulder for many of our constituents that come to see us and need one.

But this can also be a very frustrating job. Issues that we as MLAs work on sometimes take some time to complete. Sometimes we can deal with issues -- weeks, months. We deal with inconsistencies throughout the riding and throughout the constituency, but we're always looking for workable solutions. We're working and looking towards workable solutions, but we understand that we are not always going to make people happy with whatever solutions come out of meetings and discussions and working around some of the issues, problems and concerns that we have to deal with.

Contrary to an article by a columnist in yesterday's newspaper and comments on a CBC radio station this morning regarding the four-day work week, I am surprised and somewhat dumbfounded by the lack of knowledge and understanding of an MLA's workweek. This workweek, whether it be in Victoria or in our own constituency. . . . The media has failed to give the public a true or clear picture of work that is actually being done by the MLA in any given seven-day or four-day or five-day period. They have also failed to address or talk about work that we as MLAs have to do in our constituencies after the sitting of the Legislature and the work that we have to do falling out of the sitting of the Legislature. After all, when we're not in these chambers, we have to be somewhere, and we are going to be in our constituencies and meeting with our constituents.

[6:00]

L. Reid: I'm pleased to enter into the debate this evening. I want to talk about politics as a people business, but I want to spend a little time on people who have come before us, have served this chamber extremely well and have gone on to do some things differently after they've left this political life. They're certainly still giving things back to their community: people who have crafted a value system around charitable work in the province.

The first one I will mention is Grace McCarthy. I think she has done some amazing things in terms of caring for children in the province. People who have taken the values that are common to this place -- which is public service and giving something back to communities -- and then have transferred them to agencies or boards within our society which, frankly, need that level of support; people who are willing to volunteer their time to give that level of support to those activities. . . .

We on this side of the House strongly believe in volunteerism and how important that is for the future life of this province. Having said that, the things that this particular person is doing in terms of working with children who have liver disease are valuable -- are an important support system for British Columbians, for children and for society at large.

In terms of other jobs that are out there that other past members of this chamber have done, Claude Richmond has gone on to a career in aircraft administration. He is, in fact, looking after a local airport in the province. That is a skill set that I think was probably crafted as a result of years spent in

[ Page 11330 ]

One that I really want to reference, who goes back a number of years, is Agnes Kripps, who served this Legislature and was the MLA for Vancouver South from 1969 to 1972, in W.A.C. Bennett's day. She is now a local president and national board member of the Children of Chernobyl Canadian Fund. This person is now 71 years of age and is continuing to give back to this province. So even though people have tended to be MLAs in this chamber, the skills they've acquired and the values they have promoted, I believe, continue to this day to affect how they continue to engage in their lives and livelihoods and to impact the communities they live in. Those are very fine things, I believe, for the community.

Certainly Rafe Mair, who served this province well as Minister of Health many years ago, continues to bring people together into a public forum, to indeed invite participation. All of us in this chamber talk about participatory democracy and how important it is for the future life of this province. We may not always agree with the issues he brings forward or with the callers that continue to say, "First-time caller," when none of us believes that. But he continues to provide that level of forum, which is valuable for what begins in this chamber -- which is the public good, I believe, and public support for activities and agencies and boards that in fact can genuinely touch somebody's life in a positive way.

My contribution to this afternoon's discussion will be about people who have sought and been successful in terms of fine employment opportunities, fine volunteer opportunities, once they've left this chamber. To me, it's important that we acknowledge that and create opportunities for people to continue to give back, because I believe that it's vitally important for MLAs to continue to have those opportunities. I will continue to fight for volunteerism being a vital core service in this province that we must not just accept but in fact encourage and promote, and to have people come forward who are prepared to give to the life of politics because they believe in public service, because they believe fundamentally in the rights and livelihoods and opportunities and obligations that come with being a British Columbia resident, with being a Canadian citizen.

Once they have that skill set, indeed, we would allow those folks to go forward and take the strongest possible message from this chamber: politics is a people business. It's important that we stand and value this as a profession, because frankly, that has often fallen by the wayside -- that indeed it would be important for people to see politics as a profession that should be well regarded, because it's the process though which public institutions are administered. Frankly, we've had some difficulties with how this particular group has managed the resources of this province. But the profession itself needs some regard. I stand strongly behind that notion. I'm delighted to have participated this afternoon.

E. Walsh: I'd like to thank the member for Richmond East for responding to my private member's statement this evening.

Analysts like to put labels on the various political parties that we actually have in the province and throughout our nation. Actually, my own experience at city hall and here in the Legislature tells me that most decisions that are made are actually driven by pragmatism rather than by ideology. Politics is not a grasping for an ideal; neither is politics a freezing of a tradition. It's an activity, hon. Speaker. It's lively; it's adaptable; it's flexible; and it's conciliatory. But perhaps one of the reasons that politics and the work that we do as MLAs in this province get such bad press is that conciliation doesn't sell newspapers; it doesn't sell stories, but confrontation does. The political theory that textbooks teach is that, in a parliamentary system, a strong and principled opposition would serve the public good by keeping a government on its toes.

Sometimes the government pays the opposition the ultimate compliment of stealing its policies and adopting them as their own. In the sixties, for example, the federal Liberals adopted medicare from coast to coast after Tommy Douglas had pioneered it in Saskatchewan. In B.C. -- and this was 1969 -- the Social Credit won the election professing opposition to the NDP's policy of making B.C. Hydro a Crown corporation, and then they set about doing just that.

Just recently, the political theory seems to have broken down. What are the academics or the public, in fact, to make of the strident calls for expenditure cuts on one day, followed by billion-dollar endorsements of, say, tunnels from North Vancouver or other calls for additional spending by the same group of any given politicians?

The work of a MLA, through constructive debate and meetings, benefits all British Columbia; it benefits all of our constituents and the whole province. Despite the brittle criticism and the brittle cynicism of the media today, it is certainly a job that I would recommend to anyone who is interested in working with people and in making a difference.

By the way, hon. Speaker, we know that God is not a MLA, because God actually had a day of rest.

MINING IN B.C.

The consequences of that announcement continue to reverberate around the world, across our country, throughout this beautiful province, and in a thousand kitchens and living rooms in Logan Lake, Merritt, Ashcroft, Cache Creek and Kamloops. Every one of the 1,046 people who work for Highland Valley Copper has hopes, dreams, expectations, plans and desires, and loved ones to care for. In a thousand households directly dependent on Highland Valley Copper and in thousands more being touched by the ripple effects, family meetings and serious conversations are taking place. Shall they try to sell the house now, or wait and see? Will the whole family move to Alberta looking for work? Or shall mom or dad go alone first and then send for the rest? Parents are delivering the hard news: "Yes, kids, I'm afraid we have to move. You'll make new friends; we'll find you a new school." The personal circumstances of thousands of affected families are playing out tragically throughout the region. A woman introduces herself on the street -- "My husband works for Highland Valley Copper" -- and she stops speaking and begins to cry.

Highland Valley Copper is a flagship, the most modern mine of its kind in the world. Its gigantic machines move mountains. Its highly trained workforce give from the heart to

[ Page 11331 ]

British Columbia owes a lot to mining. The industry has opened up the province, built roads, launched communities and fed families for a hundred years. Sure, it left ghost towns in some places, but many B.C. communities have built diversified economies from their early mining base and continue to grow and thrive long after the original mines closed. Mining in British Columbia has fallen upon hard times, but it is still a huge economic engine. In 1997 B.C.'s economy experienced $4 billion in revenue from mining of coal and metals. The average employee of those mines was paid $74,600 in salary and benefits. In the past ten years, mining in B.C. has paid $4.3 billion in direct taxes, including income taxes, to our governments. Mines have pumped $2.9 billion into machinery, equipment and supplies in British Columbia during that time.

B.C. is home base to a treasure-trove of mining expertise. Unfortunately, much of the knowledge carried by the British Columbians who possess it is at work in other locations around the world, generating wealth in those places instead of here. Sometimes uninformed people suggest that other jurisdictions are winning the economic activity because of lax environmental standards. That is not true. British Columbia experts are employed globally to develop mines with the same high environmental standards as they must honour here. The global village is in a new era, where corporations must be cognizant of the consequences if mistakes are made. Consumer boycotts, international agreements and liability considerations all mitigate against careless development. Our British Columbian friends and neighbours at work in Chile, Brazil and around the world are doing what they'd like to be doing here: creating wealth in environmentally friendly and environmentally conscious ways.

All members of this House should be aware of the tremendous contributions that mining makes to B.C.'s economy. Highland Valley Copper alone has a payroll of $80 million per year and, with its supply contracts and many spinoff jobs, generates $500 million per year for B.C.'s economy, driving one-quarter of the regional economy of my constituency and those of the members for Kamloops and Yale-Lillooet. The ore is still there; so are the people, the expertise, the pride of production and the means. Sure, we're in the valley of a market cycle, but so are all the other producers around the world. The price for a pound of Highland Valley copper is no less than the price for copper produced in Ontario, Quebec, Australia or anywhere in the world. If they aren't shutting down, why is Highland Valley Copper?

The answer is a B.C. phenomenon. The symptoms long predate the cataclysmic announcement at Highland Valley Copper. Since 1990, 14 mines have closed in B.C., and only seven have opened. None are anywhere near the scale of Highland Valley Copper. In 1990 B.C. saw the mining industry spend $227 million on exploration -- more than either Ontario or Quebec, by 25 percent. The industry in those provinces faces the very same global challenges as in B.C., including present prices. Yet in 1998 B.C.'s exploration expenditures were only one-quarter of the exploration in Ontario and Quebec -- a relatively tiny $40 million. What can we do to turn this around? I look to the member from the government side for his response.

[6:15]

Unfortunately, we cannot turn global market conditions around, and we can't increase commodity prices. But we can work with industry to ensure that when conditions improve, B.C. is in a position to capitalize on the new opportunities that will result. That's what we've been doing. Last April this government unveiled the B.C. mining initiative, a broad, comprehensive plan that directly responded to the B.C. mining industry's goal of expanding the industry over ten years. We promise to assure access to mineral properties and provide fair compensation when mineral properties are expropriated for parks, introduce an exploration code specific to the mining industry, support mineral exploration and development with financial initiatives, and create a new position of mining advocate.

In the year since then, we have delivered on every commitment. We've extended the new mine allowance to the year 2008 to provide significant financial incentive to open, reopen or significantly expand mines. We've introduced the mining exploration tax credit, which supports front-line, grass-roots exploration by refunding 20 percent of corporations' or individual prospectors' eligible exploration expenses. We implemented the new mineral exploration code, to clearly define environmental standards for exploration activities specific to mining and to address the mining industry's need for a one-agency, one-window, streamlined approach to permitting. We introduced the Mining Rights Amendment Act, an act that enshrines in legislation the right to mine, the right to access mineral tenures.

We listened to industry's concerns about having several government agencies determine access to mineral properties. A response designated the chief inspector of mines the sole authority for deciding whether to permit road access to specific properties. We worked with industry to develop a fair compensation and arbitration process for settling claims for titles expropriated for parks and, just yesterday, announced the formal compensation regulations that bring that process into force. And yesterday we appointed B.C.'s first-ever mining advocate. Among his duties, he will be working with industry and government to ensure smooth and efficient processes to support mineral exploration and development in

[ Page 11332 ]

Outside of the direct commitments made as part of the mining initiative, we've also taken several other actions to help B.C.'s mining industry operate as efficiently and competitively as possible. For example, we streamlined the review and permitting processes for smaller development proposals so that decisions are made at the local level instead of under the Environmental Assessment Act. We've sought to bring greater certainty to mining as well as to other resource-based industries by establishing a clear process in which industry perspectives and needs are taken into account in land use planning decisions. Also. . . .

Hon. Speaker, how's my time going there?

However, we will, of course, ensure -- maybe I should just pop a page here. . . . I would say that, combined with all these actions. . .serve as a foundation for future growth and prosperity, once world market conditions have corrected themselves. In the short term, of course, we will do everything we can. . . .

The Speaker: Member, thank you very much. Your time is up now.

F. Randall: Hon. Speaker, can I just. . . ? I just have one last comment.

The Speaker: Sorry, no. The time is up. We're pretty strict with the time in this thing, and I thank you very much.

F. Randall: We're very strict? Can I just. . . ?

The Speaker: I know the proponent is ready to reply.

F. Randall: I just want. . . .

The Speaker: Member, those are the rules.

F. Randall: This is an emergency.

The Speaker: This is the rule.

F. Randall: I just wanted to say, hon. Speaker, that. . . .

The Speaker: No, member. Member, will you take your seat. Thank you.

In reply, the member for Kamloops-North Thompson.

K. Krueger: Indeed, it's true that government cannot change world metal or coal prices, and, of course, it shouldn't try. But what can we do to turn things around? The answers are actually well known.

To its great credit, Highland Valley Copper has been saying that all it needs is what industry throughout B.C. ought to receive. The B.C. industry is not looking for handouts, and the answers do not include high-priced consultants, commissions and studies. Highland Valley Copper, like all of B.C.'s industries and taxpayers, needs change -- dramatic change. Sadly, in a press release yesterday, eight days after the bombshell news of the huge mine's closure, the B.C. government said this: "We have now delivered on all aspects of our mining initiative."

Well, it's not good enough. We haven't done anywhere near enough. That press release said that just before confirming that mining supports more than 20,000 workers and their families -- as my friend across the way has said. The same press release announced the hiring of a mining advocate -- which is strange. As if such an economic contributor as mining in British Columbia is should need a champion to protect it from government. . . .

What mining in B.C., generally, and Highland Valley Copper, particularly, are facing is a direct consequence of government policies. They face B.C. Hydro electricity rates where every third dollar is taken for government coffers as dividends, property taxes, water taxes, fees and licences. Hydroelectricity belongs to the people of B.C. The power is ours, as the utility's slogan goes. This tremendous, constantly renewing resource can be, and used to be, a gigantic advantage to British Columbians. It must be again.

B.C.'s taxation system taxes inputs: a corporate capital tax on infrastructure, even though companies invest, on average, a million dollars in capital to prepare for each mining job; a sales tax on equipment and machinery, which is not charged in competing jurisdictions; regulatory handicaps imposed on mining, which prevent its creation of jobs. Mining in B.C. faces all of these hurdles instead of incentives to create outputs, which would generate much greater revenue. Let's reap the benefits of outputs rather than stifling job creation by handicapping inputs.

Last week the industry withdrew from B.C.'s land use management planning process. Why? Because the process has been captured by special interests and used to betray the mining representatives who disclose information to it.

The decline in B.C.'s mining industry and the imminent closure of Highland Valley Copper, with its loss of 1,046 jobs, are direct consequences of provincial government policy.

It is not too late to change. Let us work together to reverse this situation; to pave the way for wealth creation; to dry the tears and keep the families together, the schools open and the communities thriving.

The Speaker: Thank you, members, and my compliments to all of you for your contributions.

For the third private member's statement, I recognize the hon. member for New Westminster.

THE ALBERTA ADVANTAGE

[ Page 11333 ]

To take a look for a moment at the issue of taxation, if we look at all taxes -- income taxes, child benefits that are paid out in the tax system, provincial taxes on property, sales taxes, fuel taxes, payroll taxes, health care premiums. . . . If we look at all those taxes and put them together and look at what a family of four with a gross income of $90,000 a year pays in tax, we know that in British Columbia they pay about $830 more per year than they do in Alberta. So it certainly is the case that Alberta taxes are lower for that family.

We should also note, hon. Speaker, that in Alberta they find other revenues to make up for some of these lower taxes, and one of them that jumps to mind immediately is the level of gambling in Alberta. We know that whereas in British Columbia we rely on gambling for just over 1 percent of our revenues, in Alberta it's about 3.5 percent. So there's substantially more revenue derived from gambling in Alberta than there is in British Columbia.

It's also important to look at public spending, because this is the flip side of taxation. It's important to note that in the field of education, if you look at both the post-secondary and the K-to-12 system, overall there's $1,100 more per year spent per student in British Columbia than in Alberta. One of the symptoms of that is that in Alberta they have higher class sizes than we do in British Columbia, and the divide is growing. In British Columbia this year, class sizes are being lowered in the primary grades, so we already see that the divide is continuing to grow. In the health care system, in British Columbia we spend $367 per year more per person than Alberta does. In both areas, British Columbia has the highest level of spending in this country, and Alberta has the lowest.

I note with interest recent Alberta Medical Association ads run by the doctors of Alberta in Alberta newspapers, where they run bar graphs showing this to be the case. They highlight the level of spending in British Columbia and use that as a means to pressure the Alberta government into raising health care spending, and they point out that Alberta's spending is the lowest in the country.

The response may be, from some quarters, that more can be done with less. Well, I would suggest that that mantra has lost all credibility with most people in this province and, indeed, with most people in this country. The fact is that if you ask people, they want more spent on health care and education, not less. They do not buy the "more can be done with less" mantra.

It's also important that we take a look at public services -- and when I say public, I put the emphasis on public in the sense that people feel these services should be paid for out of their tax dollars and not as additional charges out of their pockets. In view of the time, to take but one example -- sending a child to a university -- in this province it costs $800 less in tuition fees per year to send a student to university than it does in Alberta. That $800, I'll point out, makes up almost exactly for the tax difference between British Columbia and Alberta in terms of the savings of that Alberta family I talked about earlier.

I'll add, as well, that this gap is growing. I just read the other day in an Edmonton newspaper that the University of Alberta is looking at a 7 percent tuition increase. On tuition of $3,000 a year in Alberta, that's a $200-a-year increase, so next year the difference will be $1,000. That more than eats up the tax savings for that family of four in Alberta.

Finally, I want to touch upon employment as an economic indicator. Certainly the overall unemployment rate in Alberta is lower than in British Columbia right now. But I would argue that the difference is in the resource sectors, because the fact is that forestry is at the bottom of a cycle right now. Oil and gas is at the top, although we see it starting to slide with the announcement of layoffs in Calgary yesterday by oil companies. But let's compare apples and apples. If we compare similar resource sectors like northeastern British Columbia, which is dependent upon oil and gas, with Alberta, we see that the unemployment rates are very similar between the two provinces.

If we look at a comparison between more diversified economies in each province, like urban areas -- compare Vancouver's unemployment rate with Calgary's and Edmonton's -- Calgary's is a little lower than Vancouver's, by about a percentage point in December 1998. Edmonton's in fact is 0.1 percent higher. Greater Vancouver's unemployment rate in December was 6.3 percent; Edmonton's was 6.4 percent. What this is evidence of is that the major difference in the unemployment rates between the two provinces right now can be attributed to differences in the resource sectors and the relative place they have in the economic cycle at this time. When we compare the diversified urban economies of each province, we find unemployment rates which are in fact very similar. For the moment, I'll leave it at that and listen to the response of my colleague opposite.

[6:30]

But what really is the Alberta advantage? It's about families; that's what it's about. It's about families staying together. It's about their youth being able to stay at home, have employment in their communities and not have to move out of their province. It's about creating opportunities for all of their residents and, in particular, their youth. That's the Alberta advantage.

But the member who has just spoken talks about tax cuts. Spend, spend, debt and more debt, and eight years of unbalanced budgets -- $32 billion in debt. . . . But he did forget to say this government has no accountability. Well, I say no to that ideology. The member might do some more research. Bob Rae -- you may remember that name from Ontario -- now says no to that approach. Tony Blair says no to that approach. I think they wear the same team sweater. So you may want to do some more homework. You ask why I oppose it.

The Speaker: Through the Chair, member.

R. Thorpe: I'm sorry.

It's because I believe that the patients must be the number one priority in health care. What do we see happening in British Columbia today?

[ Page 11334 ]

R. Thorpe: Growing wait-lists, millions and millions in severance pay, regionalization wasting $40 million, no health care in rural British Columbia, and poor families that have children with autism not being able to get services in British Columbia. I say that's wrong.

The member made reference to students in British Columbia. Why, in some classrooms, do we not have books for our students to learn? Those reports don't come out of Alberta. Portables, increasing numbers of portables. . . .

He will say: "But we spend more." That's what that member will say: "We spend more." Well, it's not about spending more. It's about having effective management. It's about walking the talk and about having competent management.

So let us just see. A family of four in British Columbia -- is the head of a family of four in B.C. on an annual basis of about $4,300 per year. . . ? Albertans have more money in their pocket at the end of the day than British Columbians do.

It's about the NDP increasing taxes by over $2 billion. B.C. will be the only province to lose jobs in 1999. That's what the Alberta advantage is about. The Alberta advantage is about looking after families. You know, talking about taxation, in British Columbia, provincial taxes are 12.5 percent higher; basic corporate tax, 6.5 percent higher; small business tax, 41.6 percent higher. The Alberta advantage is built on a strong foundation of four principles: balanced budgets; business plans that ministers and ministries must be accountable for; measuring results; and delivering programs, as British Columbians say. . . .

B.C. is a great, great province. B.C.'s day will come, and it will be sooner rather than later. We all know what has to be changed in order that B.C. families are reunited, back working in B.C., with more money in their pockets. We all know that what we have to get rid of is Alberta's great advantage: the current Premier of the province of British Columbia.

G. Bowbrick: Hon. Speaker, I confess to being a little disappointed. I said I was going to cut through the politics and the rhetoric. I used numbers to speak for themselves, and the member opposite used terms like "families staying together." Now, there's an exact comparison between two provinces, which you can measure objectively.

The bottom line is: let's take a look at what we all want and how we have to pay for it. Sure, everybody wants lower taxes, and everybody wants good health care and education systems. But what I would suggest is that you can't have the lowest taxes in Canada and have the highest levels of funding for those programs. It's counterintuitive. Lower Alberta taxes equals more gambling in Alberta and less spending on health care and education, and it means more out-of-pocket expenses for things like tuition fees. The lesson to be learned here is: you get what you pay for. Alternatively, you'll pay for it one way or another. If it's not through direct taxation, it'll be through some other means.

I think that what we're going to see in the next few years is people increasingly viewing with suspicion the claims of some in this province that they can do the following: they can have the lowest taxes in Canada -- oh, that won't affect spending, by the way -- they can have the highest levels of spending on health care and education, they can get rid of the deficit, and they can pay down the debt; they can do it all.

But there's a province in this country where that hasn't been done, the province that the members opposite look to longingly, and that's Alberta. Ralph Klein can't do those things. He has the lowest taxes, but he also has the lowest levels of spending. The members opposite -- including the Leader of the Opposition in this province -- claim to be able to do something that Ralph Klein can't. That's stunning. They're more talented than anyone else in this country; they can do something that no one else in this country has ever been able to do. I believe that the people of this province will grow to see through that kind of rhetoric. It hasn't been done in Alberta; it hasn't been done anywhere else. It's clear that there are hard choices to make. One way or another, you get what you pay for. In Alberta, people learn that the hard way. They pay more out of their pockets for tuition fees because they pay less in taxes. It's a shell game one way or the other.

FAST CAT: A HOUSE OF CARDS?

When it was finally released from the drydock, there was enormous applause. This was spontaneous and, I believe, reflected the collective pride that all British Columbians -- and particularly those from the shipbuilding culture of North Vancouver -- shared. Everybody shared and took pride in this rather handsome vessel. I don't think anyone would deny that this is a handsome specimen of a vessel.

All of this should be pictured against the backdrop of a wonderful, sunny day, the Lonsdale Quay -- the SeaBus came and took a little turn around it -- and Cates Tugs and the Seven Seas Seafood Restaurant in the background, all of these very powerful symbols of North Vancouver. It showed us, I think, part of the marine and shipbuilding history of the North Shore, and that, of course, is the area I represent.

A memorial to Canada's naval vessels is located not very far away in waterfront park. I was reminded of the first vessel launch that I ever attended, way back in the seventies. It was an icebreaker that was being launched from Burrard drydock, done with bands and much bunting and celebration. The last vessel to be launched from Versatile Pacific was the Henry Larsen, an icebreaker; this was launched in 1988. The current plan for that site, which is very historic in the history of shipbuilding in this province, is for a museum to commemorate the shipbuilding industry.

That describes the backdrop for the launching of the first Pacificat or fast ferry. This project promised to rejuvenate the shipbuilding industry and create long-term jobs in the private sector, many of them in my riding. Unhappily, this has turned out to be a promise that is built on a house of cards. It is a promise that's built on a house with no foundation, a foundation that is ruined by political expediency, promises and lack of planning -- not by shipbuilders, but by politicians who have set deadlines that were impossible to meet. Costs were

[ Page 11335 ]

The point is often made about the new ground that has been broken. This is true. I have visited the plants; I have seen the design; I have talked to the engineers. I have seen how what used to be called loftmakers are now called CADCAM technicians, and this is part of the design process. I have been told about the software development that was needed to go into this project. I have been shown the intricacies of learning to cut the aluminum. I have seen the machines that have been developed to do just that. I have talked to the workers who are trained in the very intricate skill of aluminum welding, and I have learned about how much of this was trial and error. I have nothing but praise for the workers, the engineers and the various contractors that have had to learn and to perfect the process that goes into this.

But that cannot be an excuse for cost overruns. That was part of the cost of the project. The government knew from the beginning that this project was breaking new ground, that it was developing new technology and new skills. The development of new technology takes time. That time ought to have been factored into the equation, yet it wasn't. It is not acceptable to claim: "Yes, the project is over budget, but that's okay; we blazed new trails and developed new technology." The new trails and the new technology were part of the time line and, by extension, part of the cost. The political fast track and resulting outrageous cost overruns that have plagued this project betray the very industry it was intended to rejuvenate. It is indeed built on a house of cards.

[6:45]

Let me just point out some facts of the fast ferry program. Six different B.C. shipyards worked on the fast ferry project. It brought over 700 workers into the industry -- Vancouver Shipyards, in the member's own riding, 301 workers; Alberni Engineering, 26 workers. Because of that, Alberni Engineering finds itself out of space. Because of the technology that was developed, they are in fact embarking on a plan to build aluminum yacht hulls for the United States market. Kamma and Blake, across the street from the Alberni shipyard, is building aluminum tender boats for the Canadian Armed Forces. Ramsey Machine Works, 56 workers; Point Hope Shipyard, 60; Allied Shipbuilders, 45; A&F Aluminum Catamarans, 78; McRae Electric, 78; Brymark, a piping company, 72 workers. The list goes on and on and on, as workers develop new skills for a new industry and new markets worldwide.

In addition, over 160 of these suppliers -- 130 of them in British Columbia, more than two-thirds -- produce state-of-the-art systems for Pacificat that enable these companies to compete on the international market.

Alcraft Manufacturing in North Vancouver -- again, in the member's own riding -- provided frameless, watertight and direct glaze windows. Canadian Marconi in Burnaby custom-designed a world-leading navigation system; Weir-Jones Engineering, consultants in Vancouver, a real-time system to measure and display the vessels' trim and draft. Avcorp Industries -- we've heard a lot about Avcorp out at the airport, out in Delta -- designed and manufactured the Pacificat's interior furnishings. It doesn't take a stretch to imagine that if they can do this, they can do this for the aircraft industry. DBC Marine Safety Systems in Richmond -- in, I believe, an opposition riding down there -- developed one of the world's most advanced marine evacuation systems. Smaller suppliers, like Prime Mover Controls, installed the vessels' alarm and monitoring system. Plimley Elevators installed the elevators. Josco -- 17 staff members to install the fire protection for the structure and the machinery areas of the vessels.

And taxes. We know the opposition in all governments like to talk about taxes: $800,000 in property taxes to North Vancouver. We expect a letter of thanks from the community of North Vancouver. The employees of the shipyards fully pay personal taxes -- PST and others. They shop; they buy; they enjoy a decent family life.

There have been a few difficulties, and we're talking dollars here. I remind all members of this House that when Boeing started out to develop the 747, there was a little race for a while; then McDonnell Douglas dropped out, said it wouldn't work. People were skeptical, yet this year the Boeing 747 entered its thirtieth year of production -- the most successful aircraft ever built -- and they continue to build them. They continue to lead the world market. Boeing had faith, Washington State had faith, Seattle supported the company, workers and people of the United States took a chance 30 years ago, and today they're glad they did. That development, that research, that innovation, those small suppliers and companies, who are still developing local innovation, local jobs, are there today as one of the major. . . .

The Speaker: Thank you, member. Time's up.

K. Whittred: While I thank the member for his remarks, I am a little bit taken aback. I think this is the second or third time today that a member on the government benches has noted that North Shore MLAs were at the launching of the fast ferries. I can't imagine anything more appropriate for an MLA to do, to go to what is a major undertaking in their riding. That being said, I might point out the lack of manners that resulted from the government side when not a single introduction was made of the local MLA or the MLAs of the surrounding North Shore ridings. Just for the edification of the member, I might point out that not one of us had so much as a cup of coffee, so no, we did not partake of the goodies. We simply were part of the crowd; we were witnessing an event, and then we left.

Interjections.

[ Page 11336 ]

K. Whittred: The hon. member has very graciously pointed out to me how many workers there are in my riding that work on this project. Believe me, I am more than aware of that. That is why I have made these remarks today. We on this side of the House have no quarrel with the workers. We hope as much as you do, I think, that this project will be successful. What I am suggesting and suggested to you, hon. Speaker, is that the difficulties that this government has brought on the project place the entire project in jeopardy and that these jobs may be fleeting and may disappear as quickly as they came.

I was astounded to hear the member refer to the difficulties as "a few difficulties." This is an amazing remark -- that an overrun in cost of several hundred million dollars is described as a few difficulties. I would really love to know what he considers to be a major problem.

I think that on that note, hon. Speaker, I will take my leave.

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. members. I compliment all the speakers for having paid some attention to standing order 25(A). You've done a remarkable job with all of that.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I would certainly like to congratulate everybody on their non-partisan and very informative statements. With that, I would move that the House do now adjourn.

Hon. J. Pullinger moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:54 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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