Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

[ Page 11407 ]

The House met at 2:09 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. G. Clark: It's a great pleasure to me to introduce a number of friends of mine. I'll introduce them collectively, because there are so many here today. We have representatives of 35 Sikh temples as well as certain other Sikh organizations, including women's organizations, with us here today. It's a great honour, because we are here to join with our Sikh Canadians to celebrate the 300th anniversary of the birth of the Khalsa.

The first Sikhs arrived in Vancouver just over 100 years ago. They worked extremely hard amidst very challenging times, and they've made a very important contribution -- and continue to make a vital contribution -- to the economic, cultural and political life in our province. It is important that we acknowledge that this tercentenary -- the 300th anniversary -- is a milestone in community development for Sikhs living in this province and around the world. I might take this time to mention that the Minister of Highways will be representing the people of British Columbia at the celebrations in the Punjab in a few weeks.

I'd ask all members of the House to give a warm welcome to our Sikh friends and join with them in celebrating the 300th anniversary of Sikhism.

G. Campbell: On behalf of the official opposition, I too am pleased to welcome members of B.C.'s Sikh community and the societies to the Legislature today. As 1999 is the 300th anniversary of the birth of the Khalsa, it's going to be a very significant year for the Sikh community around the world. My caucus and I look forward to working with the community in the coming year, to joining in the celebrations and to commemorating the Khalsa's tricentennial.

[1410]

M. de Jong: Two constituents of mine are here visiting today: Mr. Mohinder Singh Gill, president of the Abbotsford Khalsa Diwan Society; and Darshan Mahil, vice-president of that society. Please make them welcome.

B. McKinnon: It gives me great pleasure to introduce some of the members from the Sikh community who are visiting today: a friend of mine, Sarbjit Kooner, who is a semi-retired teacher from Surrey; Amrik Nijjar, one of my constituents -- he's a general secretary for the Gursikh Temple on the Westminster Highway in Richmond; and a friend, Jassa Grewal, who is a supporter of mine. I also notice in the House a constituent of mine, Dave Hayer, and Charan Gill, an opponent of mine who ran against me in the last election. I bid the House make them welcome.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I too join all of our colleagues in the Legislature in welcoming the Sikhs from all over British Columbia. I will not name anyone; they're all friends -- I think, and I hope. I have kind of grown up with them, wrestled with them on issues and joined in the struggles that we've all faced together in British Columbia for the last many decades, as I have been an immigrant to this great province of ours. I want the House to please make them all welcome.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I know that both sides of the House will welcome people who have been circling the buildings here in trucks, protesting an action by the United States to further restrict lumber that's going into the United States. It's a very serious issue. They are Jason Kearns, Ron Helmer, Innes Wight, Brian Zak, Don Backs and Dave Gillis, all with associations and companies that are employing people in the value-added industry. They suffer this onslaught by, I think, overzealous American traders. Let both sides of the House welcome these people to the House and give them our support.

[1415]

G. Abbott: As Forests critic, I want to join with the Minister of Forests today in welcoming the representatives from communities around this province that may well be adversely affected by the rougher-headed-lumber dispute. We, of course, as well as the government, want to see a successful resolution of that dispute go to the top of the agenda for the federal Minister of Trade, in hopes that we can protect the jobs of those 8,000 forest families that are threatened in British Columbia.

Hon. P. Priddy: I appreciate that the Premier and the Attorney General have collectively welcomed people who are part of the Sikh societies throughout B.C. There are some additional activists here from my own community who are active in the Sikh community, and I do want to acknowledge them -- for a couple of reasons, actually: Harry Bains, who is active in the community and also active, by the way, in the forest industry; Raj Chouhan, active in the Sikh community and in the health community as well; Balbir Gurm, who is a member of the nursing faculty at Kwantlen College; and Darshan Singh Aujula, who is very active in the seniors community and works hard to keep all of us fit. I want to acknowledge these people not only because they are activists; many of these people are friends, and they are also teachers to me. Those of us who are not part of the Sikh community have had to and wanted to learn from people in the Sikh community, so I thank them for their teachings.

Hon. J. MacPhail: It gives me great pleasure to welcome Raminder Dosanjh to the House today. She is an educator, a mother and a women's rights activist, and she's a very good friend to many of us. Some would actually say she's the brains

[ Page 11408 ]

Hon. H. Lali: I too would like to join others in welcoming all of the members of the Sikh community who are here today in the galleries. In Punjabi, I'd like to say: Sat sri akal. Ji aayian noo. Khalsa ji dé 300 saal dé janam din di lakh, lakh wadhai hové. [Punjabi text provided by Hon. H. Lali.] That means salutations, welcome and congratulations on the 300th anniversary of the Khalsa. Would the House please make everybody welcome.

M. Coell: I'd like to welcome two guests from the Victoria Khalsa Diwan Society: Sarbjit Singh Nagra, who is the vice-president, and Avtar Singh Sandhu, who is the secretary. Will the House please make them welcome.

Hon. M. Farnworth: In the gallery today are two constituents of mine. I'd like the House to please make very welcome, for their first visit here to the Legislature, Herb and Sylvia Croft. Will the House please make them welcome.

T. Nebbeling: Also in the gallery today is the president of the Squamish Sikh Society, Major Singh Kahila. I would like the House to make him welcome as well.

Hon. A. Petter: There are two people in the gallery today that I'd like the House to join me in welcoming. The first is Travis Wong, who is a grade 11 co-op student from Lambrick Park Secondary School; the second is Carla Ostrowski, a government work experience program representative who is working with the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology. This is, I believe, their first visit to the Legislature, so I'd like the House to make them feel very welcome.

J. Cashore: In the gallery today are 12 grade 11 students from Coquitlam College and their teacher, Mr. White. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. S. Hammell: I would also like to welcome the people from the Sikh community, but in particular I'd like to welcome Lucky Takhar and Aaron Gill. They are both activists from my constituency. I'd also like to welcome Param Grewal and Tina Bains. They are my CA and part-time constituency assistant. While I'm up, I'd also like to welcome Tom Jones. He is the owner of Teal Cedar and J. S. Jones and works out of Surrey and Boston Bar. Would the House please make all of those people welcome.

[1420]

I. Chong: Today I'm delighted to have a number of constituents visiting the precinct. First of all, I'd like to introduce 14 students from the University of Victoria and members of the B.C. Young Liberals. I'll read all their names so I don't forget them. I see a number of them there. I don't think they have classes this afternoon, which is very good.

First of all, I have Herman Cheung, Frank Costa, Katherine Bergen, Dale Flood, Raymond Lau, Costa Bonnis, Jessica Barbar, Jennifer Burnett, Duayne Woytowich, Aaron Gairdner, Cheryl Lo, Tim Mowrey, Andrew Gorrie and Steve Ocsko. Would the House first of all make those students welcome before I introduce my other guests.

I'm delighted to introduce five constituents of mine who are here today as well: Beverley and Melvin Gustavson, Dave and Gloria Draper, as well as Mr. Brian Small, who many of us here in Victoria know as the former manager of the Greater Victoria Chamber of Commerce. In 1971 he started the Victoria and Vancouver Film Commission -- which we know today is one of the industries which is really starting to turn this economy around. I thank Mr. Brian Small for being at the forefront those many years ago, and I ask the House to please make him very welcome as well.

Hon. M. Sihota: When I was a little boy growing up on Vancouver Island, we never considered this Legislature to be our home. If the Indo-Canadian community had issues to deal with, they were dealt with in our temples -- normally in our five original temples in Vancouver, Abbotsford, New Westminster, Victoria and Paldi. It amazes me to reflect back on the remarkable accomplishments of the Indo-Canadian community here in British Columbia over the course of my lifetime. People can now learn Punjabi in our schools; they can get government medical information in the language of their choice. We've come a long way. I'm very proud of what our community has been able to accomplish, and it gives me great pride to welcome all of these people from all corners of British Columbia here today to the Legislature.

Point of Privilege

I remind this House that the member was introducing the first budget of a new government, his party having been re-elected just one month earlier. From the Morfitt report, it is clear that the member was fully briefed by his acting deputy minister the day after he was sworn in as Finance minister that rather than the 1995-96 fiscal year having a surplus budget, it was in fact in a $200 million deficit; that rather than the 1996-97 year having a surplus of $87 million, it was projected that it would have a deficit of $533 million. In addition, one week before the member tabled his first budget as Minister of Finance, his office received draft consolidated revenue fund financial statements from the office of the comptroller general on June 21, 1996, showing a $235 million deficit for the 1995-96 fiscal year.

[1425]

[ Page 11409 ]

I submit that these actions are not only a breach of the act but also a breach of privilege, as the member's conduct in fact impedes our ability to perform one of our most important functions -- that is, scrutinizing the province's accounts. The member's conduct shows contempt of this House, hon. Speaker. If I may refer you to chapter 9 of Parliamentary Practice by Erskine May, twenty-first edition, page 115, it states: "Generally speaking, any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any member or officer of such House in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results may be treated as a contempt even though there is no precedent of the offence."

See Parliamentary Privilege in Canada by Joseph Maingot, QC, second edition, page 233, where it says that should any person present documents to this House that have been forged, falsified or fabricated with intent to deceive this House, or be privy to such forging or fraud, this will constitute contempt, because it is an obvious affront to this House to do so. "The House. . .is not only entitled to but demands the utmost respect when material is placed before it for its scrutiny, investigation or study." See Parliamentary Practice by Erskine May, twenty-first edition, page 118, or Bourinot, pages 55-56.

I note that in the Morfitt report's overall conclusions it states:

"In our opinion, information provided by government when these budgets were presented did not make full and fair disclosure of the extent of the business risk being assumed and the government's plan to address it. In that sense, crucial information was missing, and consequently the prudence and appropriateness of budget decisions could not be properly examined by the Legislative Assembly and the public."

The Speaker: Hon. member, take your seat.

I recognize the Minister of Finance.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, I appreciate the member's right to make a motion of privilege, but there is no opportunity for him to argue his case at this point. I would ask you to ask him to keep his submission to the facts, if he could, please.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Leader of the Official Opposition, continue. And wind up your comments, please.

G. Campbell: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I will.

I refer you to Debates of November 9, 1978, pages 964-966, and the Debates of December 6, 1978, pages 1856-1857. I also refer you to Parliamentary Privilege in Canada by Joseph Maingot, where this matter is examined on pages 233-234.

In all the circumstances, hon. Speaker, I believe that I have made out a prima facie case that the member has breached the privileges of this House, and that I believe a committee should be struck to examine his conduct. I wish to tender the documents in support of this motion of privilege. I also wish to advise you that I am prepared to tender a motion for your consideration, should you find that a prima facie case has been made out.

[1430]

I recognize the Minister of Finance, in reply.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, let me begin by saying that I reserve my right to examine the documents submitted and make a submission at a later date.

But let me also start by saying that the auditor general was very clear in his report. He said: ". . .we found no action taken or decision made by senior people in government, elected or appointed, that was not permitted by such legislation and other authorities." Clear statement, full stop. That is the conclusion that the auditor general came to.

Secondly, let me say that this government has embraced completely the auditor general's report -- each and every one of his recommendations. That is not a government that is misleading anyone -- not the public nor those members opposite. However, with the tabling of these documents, we will have to look at them thoroughly and reserve our right to respond.

The Speaker: Very briefly, the Minister of Advanced Education.

Hon. A. Petter: Hon. Speaker, I too wish to reserve my right to respond to the motion of privilege and to table supporting documentation.

But let me just say, in immediate response to this, that. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, order, please. The Chair wishes to address the minister who is speaking. We acknowledge your request to bring further information later, but the Chair has heard from both sides, and that is all. It's not a debatable point at this point. I've heard from both sides, and that's sufficient for now. I will reserve my right to bring a reply later.

Point of Privilege

[ Page 11410 ]

As you may know, the report of the auditor general into these matters has now been released, and we submit that the report exposes that the member has breached the privileges of members of this House. I remind this House that the member was presenting to this Legislature the final budget of the previous government. That same day, the House adjourned without providing the members an opportunity to debate this budget, and this government sought re-election based -- at least in part -- on this so-called surplus budget.

I submit that it's clear from the Morfitt report, at least on a prima facie basis, that the former member misled this House with respect to the results of the 1995-96 fiscal year and with respect to the estimates for 1996-97. I submit that in the circumstances, the member breached the privilege of the members of this House by being in contempt of this House in tabling a false budget and misleading the House as to the financial condition of the province, for both the '95-96 fiscal year and the estimates for the '96-97 fiscal year.

I submit that the Morfitt report clearly establishes that the former member knew of the true financial picture and chose to misrepresent it to the House and to the people of British Columbia. I submit that the member's conduct in fact impedes the Legislature's ability to perform one of its most important functions -- that is, the scrutinizing of the province's accounts.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members.

G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

The member's conduct showed contempt for this House. If I may refer you to chapter 9 of Parliamentary Practice, by Erskine May, twenty-first edition, page 115, it states:

"Generally speaking, any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions or which obstructs or impedes any member or officer of such House in the discharge of this duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results may be treated as a contempt even though there is no precedent of the offence."

[1435]

I refer you to page 140 of the Morfitt report, where it states:

"If either the optimistic or most-likely projections had been used for both revenue and expenditure, and if further revenue had not been included and expenditure not reduced, the result would have been a projected deficit of up to $256 million.

"Considering the information available to her, Minister Cull's decision to include in the revised forecast a revenue projection that was a full $156 million over and above the secretariat's optimistic forecast seems inappropriate."

In all of the circumstances, hon. Speaker, I believe that I have put out a prima facie that the member has breached the privileges of the members of this House, and I believe that a committee should be struck to examine this conduct. I wish to tender the documents in support of this motion of privilege. I also wish to advise you that I am prepared to tender a motion for your consideration, should you find that a prima facie case has been made out.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Let me begin in kind of an unusual way, to say that the government reserves its right to respond to this motion of privilege. I say that it is unusual, if one is sincere in bringing about matters of conduct of the House, that the Official Opposition House Leader would do this in such a fashion for a member that's no longer present. Perhaps he would have. . . . I was waiting for him to call that there be a resignation and we have a by-election. Wouldn't that be a bit strange for the members opposite -- to call for such a solution as that?

It seems apparent to me that this isn't about the integrity of the House; it's about politics by the opposition -- nothing more and nothing less. There are very important matters that we are very anxious to address here. There are very important matters that they allege they want to address. And instead, they're in this silly politics of challenging a former member here, hon. Speaker. It does seem a bit bizarre, and I hope your ruling would reflect such.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister. On this second motion of privilege, the Chair reserves decision until a later moment.

Point of Privilege

[1440]

[ Page 11411 ]

Well, Madam Speaker, the Morfitt report clearly indicates that the former Finance minister took the optimistic projection of revenues and added an additional $156 million in optimism over and above the Treasury Board secretariat's optimistic revenue forecast. Again, I refer you to page 140 of the Morfitt report, where it states:

"If either the optimistic or most likely projections had been used for both revenue and expenditure and if further revenue had not been included and expenditure not reduced, the result would have been a projected deficit of up to $256 million.

"Considering the information available to her, Minister Cull's decision to include in the revised forecast, a revenue projection that was $156 million over and above the secretariat's optimistic forecast seems inappropriate."

I wish to tender the documents in support of this motion of privilege. I also wish to advise you that I am prepared to tender a motion for your consideration, should you find that a prima facie case has been made out.

Hon. A. Petter: I will, on behalf of the government as well, reserve the right to respond to this motion of privilege. But let me just say that this motion of privilege, like the previous ones, engages in a very selective use of facts to try to construct a case that simply cannot be made out.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order.

Hon. A. Petter: My recollection is that. . . . I think the submission and the. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. . . .

Hon. A. Petter: . . .auditor general's report confirm that the forecast by the previous Minister of Finance that the member is referring to was indeed based upon a range of options, from which she chose the middle option, as I recall.

And with respect to this general matter, as is clear from the auditor general's report, my conduct throughout was consistent with the advice that I received from my deputy ministers and senior officials. That has. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members. Come to order.

Hon. A. Petter: . . .been fully borne out by the auditor general's report, which also finds, as was indicated by the Minister of Finance, that the conduct of the government throughout was consistent with legislative requirements and with the authorities.

I'd be very happy to respond further.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Point of Privilege

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

B. Penner: . . .this being my first available. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members. Come to order. The member for Chilliwack has been recognized and has the floor. All other noises are interruptions and will cease forthwith.

B. Penner: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I too take my place today to rise in this chamber to raise a matter of privilege, this being my first available opportunity to bring this matter forward.

On August 13, 1996, I asked the Premier the following. "The question is: would Mr. Gunton have ever been authorized by the Premier to go to officials in the Ministry of Finance and have them change revenue projections in the budget planning process?" I'll quote his answer. "Of course not. The Minister of Finance makes the appropriate determination as to the various revenues that go in the budget -- the forecasts -- and that information, which the Minister of Finance makes, is based on a range of forecasts prepared by various arms of government. The minister makes a judgment, puts it in the budget and is then held accountable in this chamber."

[1445]

It's important to note that in the preparation of his report, Mr. Morfitt had the right to call witnesses and examine them under oath. It's very clear that Mr. Gunton's job was to meet with a representative of the Finance ministry and, on behalf of the Premier, push the revenue projections up. I quote from page 182 of the report. "Mr. Gunton requested that Ms. Eaton also have her staff prepare additional revenue estimates based on greater commodity price impacts than had been incorporated into these four earlier scenarios." Once you have reviewed the Morfitt report, I submit that it will become very clear that the Premier misled both this House and myself on August 15, 1996, when I asked him about Mr. Gunton's role in the fudge-it budget scandal.

I submit that this is not a dispute as to facts. The facts are clear, and they are unambiguous: Mr. Gunton was involved, yet the Premier says he wasn't.

[ Page 11412 ]

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member is continuing his remarks, which I believe are just about to finish. Am I right?

B. Penner: Thank you, hon. Speaker, yes.

The Speaker: I recognize the Minister of Finance.

The member for Chilliwack will take his seat.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, it says clearly here that the form of the motion is not supposed to reach the conclusions upon which the committee is to decide upon. The member is reaching conclusions. I would ask you to limit or remove them.

The Speaker: I thank the minister for her comments and obviously comment. . . .

I recognize again the member for Chilliwack, and I request that he confine himself to facts as best he can. I know they blend. . . . Proceed and finish up quickly, please.

B. Penner: The facts are very clear. They are contained in the auditor general's report, and they do not jive with the Premier's statements. In all of the circumstances, I believe I have made out a prima facie case that the Premier has breached the privilege of this House by making misleading statements. I refer you to page 119 of Parliamentary Practice by Erskine May, twenty-first edition.

I believe that a committee should be struck to examine the conduct of the Premier of this province. I wish to tender the documents in support of this motion of privilege. I also wish to advise you that I am prepared to tender a motion for your consideration, should you find that a prima facie case has been made out.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, I again begin by reserving our right to respond to the submission and argument that the hon. member made. This is a very. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members. The minister has the floor.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members will come to order. The Minister of Finance has the floor.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The Morfitt report was extremely complex, forward-looking and wide-ranging. Clearly the opposition hasn't had time to absorb it, and it's unfortunate. I hope that they will be able to take some thoughtful time, when they can actually read what is in the Morfitt report and read the response that our government made that day and the next day -- how we embraced the Morfitt report. Then we can clearly have a situation here where we are dealing with what actually did occur in this chamber and Mr. Morfitt's contribution to it, and then we can discount and discard the motions of privilege.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister. The Chair reserves decision at this time.

Oral Questions

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, since we last met in this House, this government has gone from being a provincial embarrassment to a national disgrace. Our economy is in free fall, jobs are disappearing and paycheques are shrinking. We have a government, hon. Speaker, that is paralyzed by one investigation after the next, by one scandal after the next. My question is to the Premier: will the Premier admit that he and his government have created a crisis in confidence and call an election?

[1450]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. G. Clark: . . .to an election, where we can have a debate on education policy and whether we should have a tuition freeze or not, as we announced last week. I look forward to debate on education, when we've reduced class size, from kindergarten to grade 3, to the lowest in Canada. I look forward to debate on health care, where this opposition said that $6 billion was enough, and we're now spending $8 billion on improving health care. I look forward to debate on highways in this province -- on the Vancouver Island Highway and the other investments we're making. I look forward to debate as well.

The member said that jobs are fleeing. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. . . .

Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, 40,000 jobs in the first two months of 1999. . . .

The Speaker: Thank you, Premier.

Hon. G. Clark: The only problem we have is the negative naysayers on the other side, doom and gloom on the other side.

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. G. Clark: I look forward to an election, and it'll come soon enough, hon. Speaker.

The Speaker: Thank you, Premier.

First supplementary, Leader of the Official Opposition.

[ Page 11413 ]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order, please.

G. Campbell: . . .but unfortunately, this Premier won't be in it. He'll be on his deck, sucking back margaritas.

The people of this province have no confidence in this government; they have no confidence in this Premier. This is the government that misled the people about their budget. They brought B.C. Ferries to the brink of bankruptcy. They have taken our province, which was once thriving, and pushed it into a recession. This government is now embroiled in an RCMP investigation. My question to the Premier is: if he's so proud of his government's record, why doesn't he have the courage to call an election?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order.

Hon. G. Clark: This is what passes now for political debate in this province, hon. Speaker: the opposition calling us names, the opposition stooping to rumour and innuendo. That's all they have to offer. Every time I turn on the radio, I hear them calling us names, and they think that's political debate. I can't wait to debate the real issues, the relevant issues in British Columbia: health care, education, jobs and what it means for working families. That's what politics is all about -- not name-calling.

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

G. Campbell: This Premier is a disgrace to his office. This Premier has been a huge embarrassment to all of the public institutions that he should be upholding. This Premier has destroyed opportunities for working families across the province of British Columbia. My question to this Premier is: if you don't have the courage to call an election. . .

The Speaker: Through the Chair.

G. Campbell: . . .will you at least have the decency to resign?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. G. Clark: I'm going to bring the tone down a little bit, because on the other side of the House I can feel all the name-calling, all the yelling, all the screaming. . . . There are real issues in British Columbia to be debated. This Liberal Party wants massive tax breaks. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. . . .

Hon. G. Clark: . . .for big corporations; they want massive cuts to health care and education. That's their agenda. That's what they campaigned on. That's why they lost, hon. Speaker, and that's why they'll lose the next election as well.

[1455]

COST OF LAWYERS FOR CABINET MINISTERS

So can the Attorney General tell us today how much it's costing taxpayers to finance a criminal lawyer for the Premier, a criminal lawyer for the Minister of Employment, a criminal lawyer for the former chief of staff? How much is it costing us to pay for these lawyers to defend these members of this absolutely morally and ethically bankrupt government?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order.

Hon. J. MacPhail: A few moments ago we had the opposition rise and raise motions of privilege. The reason why there is an ability to raise a motion of privilege is because of the understanding of the authority that this office carries, and that the office across the way carries as well, in acting in our capacity as elected officials. There are many tasks that the opposition has to do in terms of carrying out their duties, as there are here.

However, it is still the case that when we carry out our duties in our official capacity, we have the same rights under the law as anyone else. The recent events may not necessarily have proven that; people may have a different perception. But we have the same rights.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. . . .

Hon. J. MacPhail: When the head of any corporation or any person responsible for the running of that. . . . When there is an allegation made against them, they have a right to a legal defence in the carrying out of their office. That exists in the private sector, and that exists in the public sector. Our policy is within the realm of those bounds.

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

C. Clark: The NDP operate according to a different rule book than the rest of us, because nowhere in my rule book does it say: "Granting casino licences to your friends is fair play." Nowhere does it say: "Inventing budget numbers out of the air is called 'optimism.' " Nowhere in my rule book does it say that. As a result, the taxpayers are also financing the defence team for Tom Gunton and the rest of the New Democrats in the budget investigation.

My question for the Attorney General is this: when you add up all the investigations and all the lawsuits that are underway, how many lawyers are taxpayers financing to defend the members of this morally, ethically corrupt embarrassment of a provincial government?

[ Page 11414 ]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I understand the necessity for the opposition to make cheap politics on everything that they do, but I also know or expect. . . . Let me be. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, the minister has the floor.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I also expect that there have been times when the Liberal opposition has sought legal counsel, as well, in the carrying out of their duties. I expect that's the case, because, of course, they have been embroiled in some particular problems amongst their members as well. So I expect that they had legal fees that probably. . . . I don't know. Maybe it didn't come out of their own pockets. Maybe they'd like to stand up and say: "No, I paid for it out of my own pocket."

But on this side of the House, hon. Speaker, we have been very forthright that in the carrying out of any of the duties of a person in the capacity of their government job, their legal fees are covered. That makes sense. It makes sense from the point of view of what is fair. It's the private policy, and it's the public policy in British Columbia as well.

ALLEGATION BY
MINISTER OF TRANSPORTATION

My question is this: will the Minister of Transportation finally show some respect for the office he holds and unconditionally apologize for his outrageous and dangerous statements?

[1500]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members will come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, the Chair awaits the chamber coming to order. Chamber, come to order. We haven't finished question period yet, and there is clearly a question.

I recognize the member for Richmond-Steveston for a supplementary.

G. Plant: Hon. Speaker, the New Democratic Party is attacking the integrity of the judiciary and the RCMP by cynically raising money on the lie that the courts have somehow violated the Premier's rights. Meanwhile, the Transportation minister continues to run around, ranting irresponsibly about a conspiracy. My question is for the Attorney General: will he stand up right here, right now, and tell his cabinet colleague -- his pathetic excuse for a cabinet colleague -- and his party that they are wrong and that they must call a halt to this dangerous and irresponsible attack on the RCMP and the judiciary?

Interjections.

An Hon. Member: It's that funny, is it?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: No, that issue isn't funny. It was something that the hon. member said.

It is important that we remember that we make statements both inside this House and outside of this House. I have already dealt with this matter in a very public fashion. I have said very clearly that ministers of the Crown ought not to and must not criticize the law enforcement agencies of the province -- such as the RCMP, or it may be the municipal police -- and that is not. . . . Because there is another problem. The problem is that we are the lawmakers, as a collective body, and law enforcement agencies are the ones that enforce the law. If any member has a problem, there is the Public Complaints Commission, and there is the complaints commission with respect to the municipal police forces. Those are the appropriate areas to deal with these matters in, and I have made my position clear as the Attorney General.

[1505]

Hon. H. Lali: It gets a little hard to take these kinds of comments from the member opposite when he himself went out in public and told complete untruths about a high-profile Member of Parliament in the federal Parliament and then had to apologize for his remarks.

I want to talk about an element of that statement that I made, and that's the element regarding the Leader of the Official Opposition. When he first learned of the home inva-

[ Page 11415 ]

The Speaker: The bell ends question period.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order.

G. Campbell: I rise today to ask leave to suspend the standing orders in order to move a motion of non-confidence in this NDP government.

The Speaker: Hon. member, I gather that you are proposing to move a motion without notice. Is that correct? Do I understand?

G. Campbell: I'm asking leave, hon. Speaker.

The Speaker: I will respond to that. Would you take your seat, please, hon. member.

A private member, as you may well know, is not entitled to rise and ask leave to move a motion without notice unless the House is engaged in the business of motions on notice, as designated under standing order 25. So I thank you for that, and that's the response: it's out of order.

G. Campbell: Then I will place it on the order paper, and I will challenge the Premier to call the debate.

Standing Order 35 Motion

With respect to the requirements of standing order 35, I say this. One, the statements in question have been repeated and reaffirmed on several occasions within the last three weeks. Two, the matter proposed for debate has not been the subject of debate during this session. And three, the matter is urgent because there is an ongoing criminal investigation by the RCMP, and the statements in question raise the spectre of political intimidation of that investigation.

[1510]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. . . .

Hon. J. MacPhail: . . .what the Attorney General said publicly last week and to the chamber this week -- that he. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, the minister has the floor.

Hon. J. MacPhail: . . .and he alone speaks on behalf of the government about the relationship between the RCMP and our government. He reiterated the full confidence in the RCMP by our government. He also chastised all of us who perhaps have made inappropriate comments. Those of us who have made inappropriate comments were publicly and privately brought to order by the Attorney General; he reiterated that in the chamber today. That puts an end to the matter.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister. At this point, the Chair will reserve the decision on this matter.

G. Plant: This being my first opportunity to do so, I rise to reserve my right to raise a point of privilege with respect to the statements of the member for Yale-Lillooet earlier today in the Legislature.

The Speaker: Thank you, member.

Hon. members, before we carry on to orders of the day. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, order, please.

Tabling Documents

Orders of the Day

NISGA'A FINAL AGREEMENT ACT
(continued)

[1515]

M. de Jong: Just before we continue with chapter 8, which is the fisheries provisions, I just thought I would canvass a couple of more general topics, insofar as I think it is worth noting that since we were last involved in this discussion, we have a new minister. He was a participant in these discussions but occupies a new role today, a very significant role as the minister responsible. I wanted to at least canvass this, because this afternoon we have come through a question period and some procedural debates that all go to the heart of

[ Page 11416 ]

[1520]

I think the question needs to be asked of the Premier, perhaps, when he says that we're going to adjourn for a couple of weeks. . . . He wonders why he sits in the low teens in terms of popularity. It's because no one believes him. Why should they? Something as non-partisan -- supposedly non-partisan -- as arranging a lousy schedule that members can adhere to in terms of conducting what we all agree is one of the most important historical debates around the issue of aboriginal affairs in this province. . . . You can't believe him, because a couple of weeks turn into a couple of months.

Maybe the Premier can explain to people, who are wondering why. . . . Here we are. We find ourselves at the end of March, the day before the budget must be tabled -- not needs to be tabled, but must be tabled -- with probably two or three hours of debate time left before we'll have to move on to the budget. Why is that?

Hon. G. Wilson: One thing I can note is that having been back in the House for a little over an hour, it's as though we never left. It would seem to me that what we want to do, rather than waste any further time on speculation as to the calling of the House, now that we're here in committee, is get on with talking about oolichans and fisheries and getting this Nisga'a treaty completed. I'm happy to engage in that debate now.

M. de Jong: Well, that's convenient. There is a great deal of speculation about what might be transpiring behind the doors of the NDP caucus room. But I was going to be fair to the minister, because I know that the minister doesn't make the. . . . At least, I thought it wasn't the minister who made decisions around the recalling of the House and the scheduling of debate.

I don't know how to put this more subtly: I don't think the Premier told us the truth.

Hon. G. Clark: Oh, come on.

M. de Jong: The Premier says: "Oh, come on." The House adjourns; that shouldn't be a terribly contentious issue. "We're going to be back in a couple of weeks." It's now a couple of months. Let the Premier explain to the people of British Columbia and to members of the Nisga'a nation who are here why it took him two months. Or perhaps it took his minister two months to get up to speed, though I don't think that's the case. Let him explain why his promise of reconvening this debate after a couple of weeks stretched into a couple of months. Or is there a problem with telling the truth?

The Chair: Member. . . . I remind members about the standing orders related to parliamentary language and also remind members that we are dealing with Bill 51. Under standing order 61, all matters for consideration should be relevant to the bill.

M. de Jong: Hon. Chair, I take guidance from the Chair very seriously. If you're suggesting that something I've said falls outside of the rules, then I'd ask for your direction more clearly.

The Chair: Standing order 61 -- relevant to the bill, please.

J. Weisgerber: Like the member for Matsqui, before we get into the ongoing debate of this legislation, I think it's worthwhile for us to recall that what we're doing is debating Bill 51, section 3, which deals with the Nisga'a Final Agreement. This has been an unusual debate for committee, inasmuch as we are going through the agreement-in-principle almost line by line. We're not passing sections of the treaty, but rather we'll deal with section 3 in its entirety, once it's concluded.

Before we get on to new debates. . . . Given the fact that the new minister spent a good deal of the time during which the first 60-odd pages -- 35 pages, at least -- of the treaty were debated. . . . He sat here next to me. . . . What I'd like to know from the minister, given the fact that he's had a couple of months to be brought up to speed. . . . Whether that was all necessary or whether or not it was all time spent on Nisga'a is an internal issue. What I want to know from the new minister is whether or not there were any answers given by the previous minister, in the debate of this issue, with which he disagreed. Did he, sitting here as a member of the opposition, hear something and say: "I don't think that's the case; I don't think we're getting the right answer"? And in the period of time since he was briefed, is the minister aware of any information given to this House by the former minister, or ministers, with which he takes disagreement?

[1525]

Hon. G. Wilson: I appreciate the question from the colleague who I sat next to for many a session. We had a chance to chat from time to time, which is probably at least partially the source of his question.

Let me just say that as a minister of the Crown, I obviously adopt the position of the former minister, having

[ Page 11417 ]

I appreciate that question. I can say that certainly, as a minister of the Crown, one has to move these issues forward, and that's what I intend to do.

J. Weisgerber: Before I turn the debate back to my colleagues here, let me just be clear that when the ministers -- and I use that in the plural sense -- answered questions about overlaps involving the Gitxsan, the Gitanyow, the Tahltan and the Tsimshian, there was a belief left in this House that the overlaps with the Tsimshian and the Tahltan had in fact been resolved. Is the minister still of that opinion? Has the minister, over the last couple of months, had reason to believe that perhaps former ministers were a bit optimistic, particularly in reference to the Tahltan?

Hon. G. Wilson: I'm advised that there is no change from the previous position, that letters have been exchanged, and that's the view.

M. de Jong: On a somewhat similar line of questioning, it is unusual for the government to change horses mid-race, and that's what's happened here. I don't know what gave rise to that, but I think it is worth exploring briefly whether that change at the helm of this ministry, at least, signifies any significant, substantial shift in approach or policy that the government brings to this particular bill.

[1530]

The minister has written. He has discussed this treaty in the past. One of the things he's written is a book in which he talked about his approach to aboriginal land claims. I think the book was written in 1996. I think it's necessary, in the time available to us, to confront some of those statements, because they don't ring entirely consistent -- in my mind, at least -- with some of the things that we have heard from the government with respect to this treaty.

In his 1996 volume, in the chapter dealing with aboriginal land claims -- which deals specifically with the Nisga'a agreement in certain places -- the minister had this to say about the cost of treaties. . . . This is something that we have discussed previously in this debate, when he was a member of the opposition, and we will come back to it when we get to the chapters dealing with cost-sharing and own-source revenues. But he had this to say at page 115 in the chapter called "The Realpolitik of Aboriginal Land Claims". . . . I know that the minister is familiar with the words, but I just want to read them into the record. "On the first of these, it is clear that we are already well beyond our capacity to handle our provincial and federal debt. We are broke! Consequently, it seems to me most strange that elected politicians continue to entertain the settlement of land claims when they know that they lack the financial means with which to settle them."

That is a significantly different approach or analysis than what we heard from the minister's predecessor. I think it's worth providing this minister with an opportunity to disassociate himself from those earlier words or to point out where I am failing to understand what, on the face of it, appears to be a blatant inconsistency.

Hon. G. Wilson: Let me first of all say that I'm delighted that the member opposite is taking the time to read what I think is a good book. But we're actually not here to debate my book in committee, although that would be an interesting debate.

Let me also say that I think that from 1996 to 1999, a great deal has changed. I think that in the provision of mandates, both federally and provincially, and in the conclusion of the Nisga'a treaty, we have been able to move forward and find a way to develop capacity, to be able to settle at least the Nisga'a and very shortly the Sechelt and, hopefully, four or five more. I think that's an indication that those of us -- and I include myself in this number -- who are out advocating that we find a way to come to meaningful resolution on treaties have gone a long way to finding that resolution. I'm delighted that the words with which I cautioned in 1996 are now dealt with and taken care of in 1999 and that we can in fact move forward and settle treaties. And I look forward to getting down to debating this one.

M. de Jong: One of the things we're discussing is the affordability of the treaty. I think that when the minister wrote these words, we were dealing with the amount of $190 million. The minister knows that that amount has increased significantly since then, in terms of the calculation. Is the minister saying that today the province is in a better position financially to absorb the costs that in 1996 he said we weren't in a position to absorb? Is that what he's saying -- that we're healthier financially and we're better equipped as a province?

[1535]

Hon. G. Wilson: Hon. Chair, I appreciate your caution. As I said earlier, I'm not here to debate in committee a book that I wrote in 1996, although I am delighted that the member has taken the time to read it. Let me say that by 1999 we have, both federally and provincially, moved a great deal from where we were in 1996. The full costing of treaties is something that I have taken some time, in the interim period since the last time this House sat on this one, to work forward on. A report has been made public that outlines what those true costs are.

If the member is curious about what those costs are in a formalized way and wants to look at the full costing, that

[ Page 11418 ]

M. de Jong: Look, this is not a complicated exercise. If what the minister is saying is that discussions about his views on the affordability of this treaty aren't relevant to this discussion, then I'm troubled by that. He is the minister charged with sponsoring this legislation through these debates, along with the Premier and the Attorney General, and he has said quite clearly in the past that he believes that the settlement of this treaty is something that the province, at least, isn't in a position to absorb.

If he has changed his mind about that, then he should say so and provide us with some basic understanding of the basis upon which he changed his mind. I don't think that's unfair when we are engaged in a debate that is designed, amongst other things. . . . Surely it is one of the pre-eminent considerations of this chamber to determine whether or not we can afford this settlement.

The minister said one thing in 1996. He said that times have changed, things have changed. What has changed, in his mind, that leaves us in a better position today to absorb the cost of a settlement -- and meet the cost of a settlement -- that has doubled since he made his original statement?

The Chair: Perhaps the Chair could just remind members that debate in a general manner on section 3 could take place once we've dealt with the schedule we're now dealing with.

Hon. G. Wilson: It's the mark of anybody who is a clear thinker to keep up with the modern set of information. I would urge the member, having read my book printed in 1996, to now read Grant Thornton, 1999, and he will get a full costing of what these treaties are. I would take it from somebody who has done a far more detailed analysis, given the facts of the day, than I was able to do, given the facts I had in 1996.

M. de Jong: In a similar vein. . . . And I do again want to provide the minister with an opportunity, whether he takes advantage of it or not, to deal in some way, shape or form with comments he made previously. People will read his book now because he is in a much better position today to act on what he presented as his beliefs less than three years ago. Now he's the boss, so I think people are going to read his book. His publisher will be happy, unless they photocopy it, like someone did for me.

[1540]

One of the issues that we dealt with and will continue to deal with in this debate relates to that notion of independence, of autonomy, and yet the ongoing and continuous flow of money from governmental sources, be it federal or provincial. When I read that statement by the minister, which I'm in agreement with, quite frankly, I understand the frustration that people feel. I'm at a loss to explain how he reconciles that concern with the support he now professes for an agreement that we know contemplates the ongoing supply of money. We can deal with this generally now. I know there's a more specific opportunity in the chapters coming up for us to get into the details, but this is a general statement that seems to fly in the face of the direction of this agreement that we are now dealing with and that the minister is defending.

Hon. G. Wilson: As the author, let me say that I don't recall giving permission for it to be photocopied. Maybe the publisher did; that could be.

Having heard the member, let me help him out. I think that the need for treaties is underscored by the requirement for our own-source capacity to be able to allow first nations to be able to do for themselves what they now have to depend upon Ottawa to fund. However, having said that, once treaties are signed, that should not eliminate the opportunity for first nations to be eligible for program assistance, as is any British Columbian or Canadian.

Where we were headed in '96, I think, was down a somewhat different path. I think that in the last three years, we have been able to pull ourselves much more directly toward self-government provisions. Sechelt is a good example; Nisga'a is now a very good example; and there are several others that are very much advanced in the negotiation, that will provide financial opportunities for first nations people and also allow them to be equal participants in the broader spectrum of programs provided by the provincial and federal governments.

I'm sure that the member isn't suggesting that because a first nations person signs a treaty, they should not be eligible for federal or provincial programs like any other Canadian. Surely this member isn't suggesting that we should somehow eliminate the opportunity for first nations people to have equal access to programs as any other Canadian might.

M. de Jong: What I'm seeking to do is reconcile some statements that the minister made not so long ago in a different capacity as a member of this House.

The section of the chapter in the minister's book is called "Racism and First Nations Citizenship." The minister wrote with some passion about that subject, and it's something that we have debated in the earlier provisions of this bill and that we will come back to when we get to the self-government provisions. But let me read what the now minister had to say, starting on page 122.

"With the transfer of so much power into the hands of the band chief and council, consideration has to be given to the protection of the individual. This becomes critical when one understands that our federal and provincial governments today are prepared to grant various first nations bands the right to decide, without appeal to the courts, who their 'citizens' are under this new governmental structure. This concept is as bizarre a notion to me as having a Quebec separatist party as the loyal opposition in Ottawa."

[1545]

[ Page 11419 ]

That's a pretty forceful statement. Does the minister stand by that statement in light of his now professed defence of the provisions of the treaty? Again, I think the question has to be asked: how does he reconcile that and the additional statements which I will read into the record?

"For example the agreement that was signed between the Nisga'a, the province of B.C. and the government of Canada on the matter of citizenship in 1995 states that the determination of Nisga'a citizenship, with all of the rights that such citizenship confers, will be determined by two members from each of the four Nisga'a clan groups on the basis of the mother's kin line. Should a person not agree with their decision, she or he will have the right to appeal to a board composed of two Nisga'a appointed by the Nisga'a government and one senior federal civil servant appointed by Ottawa. There will be no appeal available to the courts of Canada, because they will hold no jurisdiction over the matter."

Hon. G. Wilson: Well, hon. Chair, I don't know how valuable it is for the time of this committee to sit here going through an analysis of a book that I wrote in '96. Let me say to the first point that on the matter of concern that was expressed in that paragraph with respect to appeal to the court, I'm delighted that there is an appeal to the court. I'm delighted that in the modern treaties as we are signing them, the laws of general application do apply. And I'm delighted that over the course of negotiations, we have been able to provide a fair and equitable opportunity for both first nations and non-first nations people in those communities, so that we have an opportunity to succeed together. So concerns that were expressed in '96 are dealt with, I think, in large measure in modern treaties. And that's a good thing.

I think also that we'll have plenty of opportunity to talk about membership and so on as we get into the debate later on in this particular committee. At that time, I'd be happy to discuss in much more detail what the member has as his concern.

M. de Jong: Well, I appreciate that, but let's just spend a few more minutes here if we can. The minister described the notion of citizenship as it is included within this treaty as "bizarre" -- his word, not mine. If it's not bizarre any longer, explain to me why that is. Explain to members of the Nisga'a nation who have read this, I'm sure, or are now hearing that the minister described the process by which citizenship will be bestowed on an individual as bizarre, why he has -- if he, the minister, has -- changed his mind. Or does he continue to believe that the notion of citizenship enshrined within this treaty and, therefore, the constitution is bizarre?

Hon. G. Wilson: Well, I think that we're not in committee on a book that was written prior to my taking on duties as a minister, and I'm frankly not going to spend any more time discussing it. I certainly am not going to discuss every word or line that may be taken out of context and then presented as a formal set of facts by the members opposite. I would suggest that the members opposite must recognize that in 1996, based on a 1995 AIP and an AIP that was presented in the last election, there were concerns.

There has been a great deal of discussion since 1996, from the AIP to the final agreement. Many of these concerns have been addressed, clarified and dealt with. I wish the members opposite could somehow pull themselves into this modern treaty that we're debating here today, rather than continually delve back into an AIP which has in fact been under modification over time. So if the member would like to pull himself into this committee, I'm happy to continue on this debate; failing that, I think we're really not going to get very far.

The Chair: Minister, thank you. The Chair has made cautions in this regard, and I'd again remind members that we had a joint agreement as to how we would proceed with this bill. We are dealing with the fisheries chapter, by agreement.

M. de Jong: With the greatest respect, hon. Chair, I don't think that it is somehow an abuse of this House, or an abuse of the attempts we have made collectively to pursue through this document in some order, to query whether or not the replacement of the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs in the middle of that debate has some significance. That's all this is about. We are benefited greatly by the fact that the present occupant of the minister's chair has expounded at length very recently on some of the views that he brings to this portfolio. To suggest that somehow that is irrelevant, that it is an abuse of our time here to ascertain whether or not his positioning as minister isn't influenced by his previously held positions. . . . Then I am confused, and I reject that argument, hon. Chair. The now minister. . . .

[1550]

I would remind members that a Chair's caution and a Chair's ruling is not something that is to be argued about; there is no argument on that. We're dealing with the fisheries, chapter 8.

M. de Jong: Let me read what the minister -- the now minister -- said on page 123:

"The granting of 'membership' or 'citizenship' within first nations provides for an entrenchment of the 'aboriginal status' spelled out in the Indian Act. The only difference now is that eligibility will rest with the first nations peoples themselves.

"What will result from this practice is the creation of a new class of citizen who will enjoy exclusive benefits provided by virtue of his or her membership within a particular first nation, as well as all of the benefits provided a non-aboriginal Canadian. The obvious conflict that can arise from this practice is at the root of my concern. Whenever a country openly discriminates, there are problems. When a country openly legislates such discrimination, the country itself is in peril."

Hon. G. Wilson: I'm not going to stand up and get into a long debate with the member opposite about comments or writings that I made as an individual. I sit in this chamber today as a representative of the government, as a member of the Crown and as a minister trying to debate a bill that is in front of us in committee stage. Quite frankly, for the member opposite to be putting his spin or adjectives or somehow

[ Page 11420 ]

Hon. Chair, if this member is interested in debating this bill in this committee, I am anxious to do that. If this member wishes to sit down with me and go through a long discussion of my writings -- of which there are many -- I would be happy to do so elsewhere, but not waste the time of this committee. I believe that any further discussion on this would be a complete waste of time.

M. de Jong: I am rapidly losing whatever confidence I may have brought to this debate with this new minister, if his attitude is that questioning something he wrote -- his considered description and analysis of the document that is now being discussed or the AIP that gave birth to the document we are now discussing -- is somehow an irrelevant exercise.

[1555]

Have I embellished that entry in any way, in the minister's analysis? Have I misconstrued, by reading that quote, the message that he intended to convey? If I have, correct me.

Hon. G. Wilson: The member will know, when we get to the governance section, when we get to the membership section, that the concern expressed in that book is no longer a concern, because in fact there are provisions that take care of that. The member will also know, if he reads the appendix of the book, which actually deals with the AIP, that what is included in the appendix gives greater clarity to the work that he is now quoting.

That's the last I am going to comment on this. The book is out there and has been out there for full public circulation. As far as I'm concerned, it's time to get down to this bill, because that's what we're here to debate.

The Chair: Members, we are currently considering chapter 8 of the schedule, on the fisheries.

M. de Jong: I don't doubt that it causes the minister some discomfort to be confronted by words that he wrote a few years ago. I don't doubt that he would rather leave that on the shelf. But I think that British Columbians want to know what attitude this minister brings to his portfolio. We have the unique advantage, in his case, of having some evidence upon which to form opinions about what that attitude might be.

Can I ask, having regard for the question that the member for Peace River South asked earlier and the minister's own participation in these debates earlier from the opposition side: is it his position that there is anything in this draft treaty which diminishes the sovereignty of either the federal or provincial government?

Hon. G. Wilson: No.

M. de Jong: There is one other matter that has arisen since we were last here and since the minister assumed his post. That is, of course, the Gitanyow Supreme Court in-chambers decision dealing with the question of the overlap, the impact of the Nisga'a draft treaty and the obligation to negotiate in good faith, and whether that exists as a legal obligation or not. I will momentarily let my colleague from Richmond-Steveston pursue that matter. Maybe we could just begin by clarifying if it is the position of this minister or. . . ? I see the Attorney General readying to respond. What is the position of this government with respect to the obligation to negotiate in good faith and whether that is a legal obligation?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The decision is recent. The ministry is obviously studying it, and it may have many implications. I want to reaffirm the position that the provincial Crown has always taken: the Crown, whenever it enters into negotiations with first nations or anyone else, does so honourably and in good faith and will continue to do so.

[1600]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The provincial Crown, whenever it enters into negotiations, particularly with first nations, does so honourably and will continue to do so in good faith as well.

The question of the decision is a difficult one to answer at this time, because it is under review, and it may be appealed.

M. de Jong: Before I turn it over to Richmond-Steveston, here's part of the problem I had as I went through the decision. I am mindful of the discussion we had earlier this year, where on the opposition side we attempted to pin down the Attorney General and the Premier and the minister on questions of what represented an inherent right versus what was a negotiated right. I must confess that we enjoyed very little success doing that. But ultimately the assurance that I recall getting from the government side of the House was: "Look, it is a function of negotiating, and we as government must negotiate and will negotiate in good faith." So I had difficulty reconciling that statement with what appear to be references in the judgment by Supreme Court justice Mr. Williamson, where, apparently at the same time as we were engaged in that discussion, the Crown, in right of the province of British Columbia, had counsel in the Supreme Court arguing almost the opposite: that there was no legal obligation, there is no legal obligation once the Crown has decided to embark upon those negotiations.

Reading from the decision on page 22, the question Mr. Justice Williamson asked was: "Does the B.C. treaty process release the Crown from its duty to negotiate in good faith?" Paragraph 54 reads: "The province submits that once the parties enter into negotiations pursuant to the B.C. treaty process the rules change and if any duty to negotiate in good faith exists, it falls away." That hardly seems consistent with the impression that I think the government took pains to leave in this House, that they assumed an overriding obligation to negotiate in good faith. At the same time, a precisely contrary argument was being made in the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I don't think that I have said anything that's inconsistent with the position taken by the Crown

[ Page 11421 ]

G. Plant: I think the Attorney General is perhaps drawing a distinction between statements of political policy, which I think is a category into which his last statement would fall, and statements of legal obligation. In this case, the question of the existence, if any, and the nature of the obligation to negotiate in good faith are the issues that were the subject matter of the decision of Mr. Justice Williamson just a few days ago. I understand the Attorney General is saying, in effect, that this decision is under consideration by his ministry. One option may well be an appeal, but the time is not yet right for that decision. Presumably we'll all find out in due course what the government of Canada, I guess, as a co-defendant may do. But I too participated in the debate earlier this year around the overlap issue. I think timing was a problem then, because the matters that have now been adjudicated upon were being argued almost contemporaneously with our debate here in the House. But most of the concerns that I had then have, for better or for worse, been affirmed or encouraged by this decision.

[1605]

Does the Attorney General have a position at this point on the implications of this decision for the provisions of the treaty in relation to the overlap issues and what the treaty says about them? Or is that just a matter that's also up in the air at this point?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think that's the very issue that has yet to be argued. The issue is how the treaty affects the Gitanyow. I think it is still before the courts; it hasn't been argued. Therefore it's not appropriate for me to go into any details. The hon. member understands these issues better than most of us.

G. Plant: Let me put this concern on the record, though -- that is, that those issues are before the court. We already have a trial-level decision that, at least in some respects, is adverse to the position taken by the province, particularly on the point that my colleague from Matsqui made a few minutes ago. The practical significance of that is another issue and probably not something we're going to get to explore here today.

I guess in simple terms the question is: given that this issue is out there, given that there is a group urging the courts to grant a declaration that there has been some injustice done to them and given the possibility that this -- at some point and in some way that we may not even be able to completely articulate -- may have an adverse impact on this agreement, the one that's before us, why are we moving towards ratification now, rather than waiting for the outcome of that question?

It seems to me that it would be better to get the issue resolved one way or the other and then to make whatever changes may or may not be required as a result of the final view of the court, rather than to implement this agreement and find later that we have to come back and undo it -- that perhaps the province is put in a position where they have to negotiate with the Nisga'a. Wouldn't it be better to sort those things out before we implement this treaty, so we have answers to those questions before we commit the huge undertaking of resources that is going to come into force once this agreement is given the force of law?

[1610]

G. Plant: I understand that the Attorney General wishes to take comfort in the mechanisms. Obviously that's what they're there for. The question, though, I suppose, has to do with the practicality or wisdom of proceeding, in effect, where we already know there is at least a risk -- without attempting to quantify that risk -- that those provisions may have to be called upon. It's one thing to design fail-safe mechanisms in a context where you're really providing for that which is foreseeable but remote. It's another thing to design fail-safe mechanisms and then proceed to implement the document that contains them in circumstances where that risk is now more apparent.

I ask the Attorney General again whether he thinks it is in fact the course of wisdom to move forward, notwithstanding the risk that is now there for the government.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think that it is appropriate for us to move. Chief Gosnell said just yesterday -- I saw it in the papers today, and he's present in the gallery now -- that they've waited a long time. There are always risks associated with any undertaking, be it by the government or a private undertaking, and those risks have to be weighed in the context of the undertaking that we're engaged in. This is a very serious undertaking. I would also like to remind the hon. member that it was in fact their application to have the treaty held up until their case was heard and concluded. The court said: "No, the court is not going to deal with that until the treaty is actually approved by the House and the federal government." So I think that we are proceeding appropriately, and the court has, in a sense, given us some direction.

G. Plant: I appreciate the reference to the decision in the case commenced by the official opposition, because I'm sure

[ Page 11422 ]

An Hon. Member: It was independent.

G. Plant: Oh, it was entirely independent, but I suppose what the Attorney General is doing is counting his wins and his losses. I think the point that I made applies in both cases. Where there are legitimate issues -- in this case, legitimate issues, I believe, before the courts -- that may ultimately have an impact on the treaty, the better course would in fact be to try to resolve those before the treaty is implemented. It's just so much harder to unscramble an omelette after it's been cooked than it is before the eggs have been broken -- but metaphors are always dangerous in this context.

[1615]

I took away from the debate we had earlier this year, under the former minister, a sense that that was no longer the position, if it ever was, of the provincial government on overlaps. Rather, the province's position had become one of what might be called political pragmatism: if we can do a deal, let's do a deal and then move forward and do another deal, rather than holding up the process by reference to some principle of fairness around the resolution of overlaps.

I know that the new minister is aware of the problem and has expressed concerns about this issue. What I want to ask now -- and I think it does have relevance to the issue we're talking about -- is whether in his view the policy. . . . Well, what is the policy of the province in relation to overlaps, now under his watch? If the minister could tie that specifically to the particular issues around the Gitanyow, then so much the better. But that is an area where I sensed that the province had expressed a political position during the course of debate earlier that may or may not continue to be the policy of the government under the current minister. I want to raise that issue at this point.

Hon. G. Wilson: This ministry has offered the Gitanyow to have a senior negotiator go up there. It's my understanding that President Gosnell has offered mediation. We clearly wish to try to find a satisfactory resolution to this question, and we are endeavouring to set up a mechanism in order to have that done in as expeditious and fair a way as possible.

G. Plant: I thank the minister for his answer, which is specific to the issue of the Gitanyow. Is it the minister's view that overlaps should, as a matter of policy, be resolved prior to the implementation or even the enactment of treaties? Or is there a different position of the government on that issue than what I've just said?

Hon. G. Wilson: I'm sure the member would know that under the Treaty Commission process, overlaps are dealt with in the early stages, so the government, as one of the three parties at the table, is there to make sure that that occurs.

G. Plant: I want to thank the minister for the answer; that is, no doubt, an issue we can return to in the estimates debate.

I think the member for Peace River South has a question.

J. Weisgerber: Is the minister telling us that, in or about stage 3 of all of the negotiations that are underway, overlaps have been resolved and that the Nisga'a represents an anomaly? If there has been great news about progress with resolving overlaps, the media have been remiss. This is an issue that has been outstanding for decades. I'm not aware of any significant number of overlaps that have been resolved. Yet there are at least a dozen, if not more, sets of negotiations that are well past stage 3. Can the minister clarify?

Hon. G. Wilson: At around stage 4 or process 4, resolution of overlaps is required. I think the member should take some comfort that at the advanced tables, matters of overlaps are in fact being dealt with -- and dealt with rather well -- between first nations who are involved in negotiations.

[1620]

Hon. G. Wilson: The overlaps are dealt with in Sechelt, and that should not be an issue. It is obviously the desire of the government to make sure that all overlap issues are dealt with prior to the conclusion of treaties.

J. Weisgerber: That's very encouraging, very good news. Can the minister tell me when the province changed its position with respect to the overlaps involved in the Nass Valley? I will again speak from experience. I know that the province joined the negotiations with a clear understanding that the overlaps would be resolved. So at some point after I ceased to have responsibility and apparently before the current minister accepted responsibility, there was a change in policy at the provincial level. Can the minister tell me when that occurred?

Hon. G. Wilson: I think the member will know, because he has in fact acted in this capacity as a former Aboriginal Affairs minister, that the Nisga'a negotiated outside of the Treaty Commission process. The Treaty Commission process now -- as a function of stage 4, as I've just mentioned -- requires that overlaps are dealt with. So to the extent that there are outstanding issues with respect to overlap in Nisga'a, we are finding ways to resolve that in as fair and as equitable a manner as possible. I'm encouraged that there are, I think, opportunities now available to us if all parties are prepared to sit down and get into meaningful discussion. I think that's something I would advocate and would do everything I could to make come about.

J. Weisgerber: That's significantly different than an undertaking to resolve overlaps prior to ratification. Again, I know that the minister has had a little extra time to be brought up to speed, so I would perhaps have been reluctant to ask

[ Page 11423 ]

Hon. G. Wilson: I'm not certain what the member is actually asking. With respect to Nisga'a, the Nisga'a negotiation took place, as the member is aware, outside of the Treaty Commission process. With respect to the Gitanyow, there were offers made to the Gitanyow as recently as January to put a negotiating team in place, to have mediation take place, to find ways to resolve the overlap. The Gitanyow have elected to go to court and have done so, and we've seen the product of that. Notwithstanding that, we're anxious to get back into discussions in order to take care of that issue.

On the question of the other tables, the matter of overlap and a process designed to deal with that overlap is required at stage 4. Now, I think it is clearly in the interest of every first nation at the table to solve matters of overlap between themselves, and I am encouraged at the extent to which that is happening without conflict and with resolution that provides equal opportunity in an amicable way.

[1625]

J. Weisgerber: Well, I can say without any fear of contradiction that it was the policy of the government at the time the Nisga'a framework was signed by the province that overlaps would be resolved prior to treaties being concluded and ratified. It is my understanding, not only from people who were my staff at that time but also by responses provided by ministers in this House, that that was the position taken forward by the Harcourt government following the 1991 election. But we are here with a treaty initialled by the province, ratified by way of a referendum with the Nisga'a and before this House for ratification, and there are significant overlaps -- on at least two of which there has been virtually no progress made. I'm trying to find out when it was. . . . At what stage in the process did the province decide that this wasn't a critical issue any longer, and when did the government make a judgment to move forward without resolving the overlaps or without ensuring that the overlaps were resolved? I don't think it's the responsibility of the province to resolve overlaps.

Hon. G. Wilson: Well, I can't give the member a definitive date on change in policy, because I don't believe one such date is there. I can tell you that in my review of the file -- and I appreciate the fact that the member has given me the opportunity to have that time to go back and review ministerial policy -- it has always been the policy of this government to seek, through the mediation process, ways to resolve overlaps.

What we cannot do -- and I think that the member would agree we can't do it -- is permit one particular first nation who may have a concern on overlap to stall or in some way stop treaties going forward -- through unwillingness or a lack of commitment to a particular process. What is important is that within the text of the treaty, as is the case in Nisga'a, there are mechanisms to deal with those matters as those matters may arise. But I'm sure that the member would not suggest -- if the member is committed to signing treaties and getting treaties resolved in British Columbia and getting certainty in place and providing opportunity for first nations to have an equal standing in this province -- that we should stop the whole process if one or two groups are taking longer to find resolution on those questions.

What's important is that the mechanisms be there to do that and that there be an opportunity to use those mechanisms and make sure that those mechanisms are in place. That is done here. I look forward to seeing the Gitanyow, the Nisga'a and the federal and provincial governments -- but certainly the Nisga'a and Gitanyow, in mediation -- able to find an equitable resolution to their issue. I'm encouraging that to be the case, rather than litigated in court, which I don't think is, frankly, going to get any of us very far.

J. Weisgerber: I think we've come around on the argument. The minister started off. . . . I was interested to hear him say that the province has now taken the position that overlaps would be or should be resolved before any treaties get past stage 3 -- or I gather, from his correction of me, that it was stage 4. But now I hear the minister say: "There may be circumstances where one of the parties is unwilling to find a resolution, and therefore we're not going to hold up the resolution of the treaty because of the resistance by one or two neighbours to the treaty negotiating group."

[1630]

The history on this issue is that that will always be the case. There will always be one or more partners. . . . Or it will almost always be the case. The minister may want to jump up and show me where indeed the Sechelt were able to resolve their overlaps, and that therefore the issue is resolvable.

We have a whole host of bands out there who aren't even in the treaty process, and to think that we're going to be able to negotiate agreements with those that are in and still be true to the minister's commitment in this House to resolving overlaps appears, at least on the surface, to be a direct contradiction. The minister will wind up coming back -- or a new minister or some subsequent minister -- to explain why, again, that wasn't possible. It seems to me that while there is a need for everybody to negotiate in good faith, one of the areas of discipline needs to be to find a binding way for aboriginal people to resolve their overlaps -- either with a council of elders or chiefs or someone within their community, or with a movement to binding arbitration.

We're just setting ourselves up, with this current treaty, to a whole new round of negotiations once those overlaps are finally resolved. I think it's critical. . . . It needs more than a kind of feel-good statement that says: "We really believe that they should be resolved, and we hope that they are, but indeed we're going to go ahead anyway if there are outstanding overlaps."

I would appreciate some clarification. It seems to me that I've heard two arguments in the space of the last 15 minutes. One is, "We're going to resolve overlaps. . ." and the other is:

[ Page 11424 ]

Hon. G. Wilson: The member may or may not be aware that the summit right now is working on an arbitration process, and there is some discussion around that. The Treaty Commission process, I think, has worked out a mechanism or a series of mechanisms whereby first nations are able to come together to resolve those questions. To date they have been more successful, perhaps, than the member may be aware.

I'm certainly not suggesting that there are not going to be areas of conflict; there will be. Neither do I suggest that all first nations are in the Treaty Commission process, because clearly they are not. But as an objective, the government wishes to see overlaps settled. As a mechanism to do that, one has to get first nations together to settle those issues. I do not think that it will be successful if the provincial Crown or the federal Crown seeks to try and impose some settlement upon first nations people. I don't think that is going to stand the test of time; neither do I think it is a desirable approach.

There is no doubt that there is leadership being taken within the first nations community to try and find ways to settle overlaps. They are acutely aware that these matters of overlap have to be dealt with, because it is, after all, their history that has generated the maps the way they are. Our role must be to encourage that process as best we can to make sure that those matters are dealt with. I think that with respect to any particularly inherent contradiction, the only contradiction that is there -- if there is one, and I don't think it is particularly contradictory -- is the fact that Nisga'a negotiated outside of the Treaty Commission process. The process that we now have within the Treaty Commission process, I think, addresses this matter fairly well. So I don't want the member to think that there are not mechanisms being worked on -- one of which in fact is an arbitration mechanism by first nations through the summit. This is an issue that's being addressed at all levels and, I will say, with considerable success. We should all take encouragement that this success is forthcoming.

I think history tends to be living, and it is changing. Perhaps things as they were when the member opposite was the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs are not quite not as they are today.

[1635]

Hon. G. Wilson: I can't give you that answer off the top of my head, but I can certainly get you the information. I'd be happy to do that and get it to you as quickly as I can. But I think it's probably a question, frankly, that is more suited to the estimates process and estimates debate, because it has very little to do with Nisga'a per se.

J. Weisgerber: I accept the admonishment from the minister. As I spoke the words, I thought to myself that I should really be asking this in estimates, and I accept that.

In some of the debate very near the adjournment on February 1, the former minister advised this House that the province had never attempted to calculate, quantify or qualify the overlaps in the Nisga'a traditional territory -- that they knew vaguely that some overlaps may or may not exist, but they had never attempted to identify the extent of those overlaps. Can the minister tell me: in the period of time since he's taken the portfolio, has work been done in that area? Has the minister a better sense of the extent of the overlaps in the Nass Valley?

Hon. G. Wilson: I'm tempted just to say no. But after such a briefing, I want to give you a more detailed response. We certainly have a good idea of the claimed overlap. The maps are evident. But nobody has sat down to try to quantify as a percentage what it amounts to.

J. Weisgerber: I'm going to conclude this, because I think we're perhaps going over some old ground. But I do find it astonishing -- given the importance of overlaps and the importance of this particular agreement, this treaty as the first modern-day British Columbia treaty -- that we would have reached this stage and, given that the claims registration process has been in place in this province since the late eighties, that the province wouldn't know precisely the overlaps in every claim not only before it got to stage 3 or stage 4 but certainly before it got past stage 6 -- that there would be any hesitation or doubt as to the quantum involved. I don't think the validity of the claims is an area where the province should be involved; the province shouldn't be trying to decide whether this overlap or this claim has greater validity over the other. But surely we couldn't be surprised by the quanta of the competing claims that are made to a particular territory.

[1640]

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

In fact, as I pointed out earlier on in my comments, there is a great deal of work being done now, both through the summit and at the tables, to get an early identification of where those overlaps are, to find opportunities to try and get resolution to those overlaps and to make sure that in the final analysis, there is a fair treatment of all parties to it.

I share the member's concern over this. It's obviously a concern that we have to address. The member knows that, because we've discussed this before. What I am able to do today is to give the member some comfort that there is a great deal of attention being paid to this issue now and that we are making substantial progress with respect to dealing with the matter of overlaps in a fair and equitable way.

J. Weisgerber: I'll close this off simply by thanking the minister for giving me a better answer than I got the last time around. It's certainly an answer that is clearer in my mind and more consistent with what I would have expected from the province as part of its negotiations. So I'll turn it over to whoever is next in terms of questions and thank the minister.

[ Page 11425 ]

There are two or three concerns -- two in particular -- that I have. They are basically themes that go through the whole of the chapter on fisheries. To help the minister understand our concerns with the chapter, I wanted to touch on those.

The first one is the whole complexity of the chapter. The whole agreement is complex to begin with, but I find that the fisheries chapter in particular is a difficult one to absorb and understand and get some sense of how it will actually operate in the implementation stage. Not being a lawyer or a fisherman adds some difficulty to the goal of trying to understand it. It seems to me that the fisheries chapter sets up a very complex, complicated, detailed bureaucracy. It does so because of a number of elements in the chapter, but I think it does so unnecessarily. I think that in the end, everyone will suffer for it, including the fish, the participants in the industry and the governments that are involved in implementing the chapter. I say this having had some discussions with civil servants, for example, in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and in the Ministry of Fisheries. They have indicated to me that in their view also, the chapter is very, very complex and will be very difficult to implement.

Part of the problem, I think, is that the proposed agreement introduces some additional players on the government side. It introduces the Nisga'a government as an additional player that actually holds all of the fishing rights. It introduces some other players, like the Nisga'a fisheries conservation trust. And it introduces some very complex bureaucratic processes, whereby the Nisga'a government, the federal government and the provincial government interact -- including the element of a joint management committee which is comprised of a number of those governments. It makes it very, very complex.

[1645]

I think it's this differentiation into all of these different avenues of access that is going to create tremendous difficulty in administering this whole chapter. I note that the select standing committee also identified this concern. The select standing committee, in the very first sentence, says: "The committee found the fisheries component of the agreement-in-principle, and the issue in general, to be complex." I think we need to take this in the context of a very complex industry to begin with -- the very complex ecological and biological issues involved in the fishery. We overlay that with a very complex bureaucratic structure.

So I wonder if the minister would comment on how he sees this chapter from that perspective -- the whole issue of complexity and the bureaucracy of actually implementing it. I ask that question because it's part of the theme that is behind a lot of my concerns on the individual sections.

Hon. G. Wilson: First of all, I appreciate the member welcoming me to this new portfolio and to this side of the House. I know that as a member who was formerly a member of this particular political party, he might have some insight into how I'm faring.

Let me say also that I appreciate the recap of the debate to date and his concerns about how complex it is to manage the fishery. Fisheries management is, in fact, a complex issue. I don't necessarily share the member's concern that this agreement is that complex. I think it's fairly straightforward and does provide some definition.

Interjection.

Hon. G. Wilson: Oolichans, member, that's where we're at in the debate. I'm not going to go back and start to rediscuss this chapter from the beginning. I've had a chance to read your comments in Hansard. I think the last species we were talking about was oolichans, so maybe we can get down to talking about oolichans. They're very, very important to the Nisga'a people.

J. van Dongen: I can appreciate the minister's interest in getting onto the specific sections, but I think that it's important to consider the overall themes. In the intervening period that we've had, I've run into other opinions that simply confirm the concern about the complexity of the agreement. For example, a lawyer who was writing in Westcoast Fisherman and who specializes in native fisheries issues was very concerned. I think it does warrant some general discussion of these issues with the new minister -- as opposed to the old one.

[1650]

I think that it's important to address this issue before we get into the specifics. I'm asking the minister to comment on the conclusion of this panel that was done by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

[ Page 11426 ]

I take the member's concerns about the west coast fishery seriously. It's one that I have spoken out on many, many times. I am also extremely concerned at declining fish stocks, as I know the Minister of Fisheries is. There is a great deal of effort and energy being put into maintaining fish resources, in order to provide opportunities for those who live in coastal communities.

But I don't think that going back into reports that are of a general nature with respect to fisheries management is going to be particularly productive in this debate. I'd be happy to do it in the estimates, when we get into estimates debate and we talk about aboriginal fish strategy and the whole notion of what the province may be facing with respect to the implementation of that federal program. All of that, I think, is an acceptable debate in estimates.

At this particular point let me say that what this agreement does is bring the Nisga'a into the mainstream management strategy. It provides economic opportunities for the Nisga'a on the Nass. They, of course, through their fish wheel technology, have been well involved in the process of enhancement and fish development.

I think that there is much to be said for the work the Nisga'a have been doing in the fishery. I have had a chance to go up and visit those fish wheels to look firsthand and take a firsthand opportunity to see what they are doing there. It's an impressive investment that they have made, and I think that we can take some comfort in the notion that the Nisga'a are doing their part in the rebuilding of the stocks generally, and more particularly on the Nass River.

Having said that, I think we now need to come back to where we should be, which is oolichans.

J. van Dongen: One of the aspects of the agreement that I think adds to the bureaucracy and the complexity that I'm talking about is the fact that the fishing rights are held by the Nisga'a government, as opposed to being held by individual fishermen. This adds a number of additional dimensions to the administration of this chapter. I think there are other concerns about the manner in which those fishing rights are held; I know that the minister has commented on that in the past. I think it's something that I want to introduce here, because it is a concern in terms of the productivity and the administration of the fishery.

[1655]

"Fair enough, but what obligations will the federal or provincial government have with respect to the protection of individual rights of aboriginal people who may not wish to be governed by a tribal collective chief and council model. My concern was, and is, that the discriminatory powers of the state, well practised under the Indian Act, may well be transferred directly to a new set of elites within the aboriginal community."

Hon. G. Wilson: Well, first of all, I think the concern that I expressed there was a legitimate one. In 1996, I think that those words needed to be injected into the debate, because it gave opportunity for a more broad explanation of exactly how models were going to take place in 1999.

We have made great progress. The member will know that first nations manage collectively and that in the provision of this agreement there were a number of revisions. First of all, the fisheries section is appended to the treaty, which I think is something that has given some members of the Fisheries Survival Coalition, who this member is quoting in their documentation and material, some comfort -- although I recognize that some members of that organization simply do not wish to have treaties, period, so I don't think we'll ever fully satisfy their concerns.

But let me say that the member needs to bring his head into 1999, not 1996, because a lot has changed. Quoting from a book I wrote in 1996 -- actually 1995, published in 1996 -- is not going to get us very far, because the rest of us are living in 1999, member. That's three years that have gone by. So don't go back, talking about what was there in 1996. This is 1999; this is a modern treaty. Try to get your head into the modern world.

The Chair: I'll remind the member that we are discussing Bill 51 section 8 and to please keep your comments and questions relevant to the discussion at hand. Continue, member.

J. van Dongen: Thank you, hon. Chair. Well, despite the protests of the minister, I don't think it's inappropriate to be raising these issues. They have a direct application to all of the sections in the chapter. I think it behooves us, when we have a new minister, to at least canvass these issues. I want the minister and the members of this House to understand the source of my concerns about the fisheries chapter.

I'll move to the third element that I want to raise, and that is the element of the special commercial aboriginal fishery established by this fisheries chapter. Again, I raise it because it not only raises issues of inequity and inequality, but it also adds substantially to the cost of administering the chapter.

I say this very seriously, and I want to assure the minister that I am not here representing the interests of one particular group. I observed in my own community the impacts of the federal aboriginal fisheries strategy, which is exactly parallel, in terms of its impacts, to the 17 percent allocation under section 13 of this chapter. I raise the issue from a very serious concern about the chapter -- inequality, complexity and further potential conflict. We lose both ways when we set up a discriminatory section in this manner.

[1700]

[ Page 11427 ]

"What will result from this practice is the creation of a new class of citizen who will enjoy exclusive benefits provided by virtue of his or her membership within a particular first nation, as well as all of the benefits provided a non-aboriginal Canadian.

"The obvious conflict that can arise from this practice is at the root of my concern. Whenever a country openly discriminates, there are problems. When a country openly legislates such discrimination, the country itself is in peril."

Hon. G. Wilson: I'm sorry if the member opposite is reading 1996 and thinking that that is applicable today. It didn't happen, member. What my concerns were and the voices that I expressed -- and even in public debate with Chief Gosnell and others around the AIP. . . . We got out of that; we moved; we moved ahead. We evolved, member, in the debate, in the discussion. What I was concerned about didn't happen. We're not there.

I know that there are some people who don't want to hear that, because they're trying to put up an objection. But in fact there is no constitutional entrenchment. This is appended to the treaty; the agreement on harvest is appended to the treaty. There is no constitutional entrenchment. I know that's the substance of the issue that the members opposite are trying to take to court in their attempt to try and block treaty-making in British Columbia, but the truth is that it isn't there. So let's get off what I was concerned about in 1996, and let's get down to what is actually happening in 1999, because the rest of us have evolved, member. We are now living in the modern day.

M. de Jong: I'm just going to inject myself briefly.

Let's talk about 1999. Let's talk about February 12, 1999, because that's the day that the minister, in his ministerial capacity, appeared on a radio show and said the following: "The aboriginal people, because of the court ruling on Sparrow, have a full fish and ceremonial fishery. Put in that treaty was a commercial share in an appended agreement. Now, I don't believe that's the right thing to do, I'll tell you right now."

You've got the comments that the member for Abbotsford is trying to canvass with the minister -- where he articulated some very serious concerns in 1996 -- which the member has tried to present to him in as fair a manner as possible. The minister is trying desperately to distance himself from those comments. "That was then, this is now. We've evolved, we've changed, we've dealt with it." He wants to pretend he never made those comments. On February 12, 1999, he said, "I don't believe that's the right thing to do," when he was dealing with the fisheries. So I don't think it is at all improper, in spite of the minister's protestations, for the member for Abbotsford to try and ascertain just what this minister's -- and now, presumably, this government's -- attitude is with respect to the aboriginal fishing strategy -- and more particularly, of course, the provisions of this treaty.

[1705]

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, members.

Hon. G. Wilson: . . .and think that nothing has changed by 1999. I would also remind the members opposite that there are three parties to a treaty negotiation, one of which is the federal government, who has the authority over fish. So let's not go back and visit old ground here, because this has been debated in committee up until now.

I'm not talking about what the member may have talked about in February. There are three parties at the table. One is the federal government. The federal government has some very directed ideas, as your friends in the Fisheries Survival Coalition will tell you, about how we manage fisheries.

The fact is that we have a treaty that is now, I believe, going to provide economic opportunity for people on the Nass. It is going to provide us an opportunity to move forward and give certainty with respect to the management of the fish resource. It is going to give opportunity for aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities as that resource is enhanced. Let's get on with doing it.

Oolichans, member. That's where we're at; let's talk about them.

M. de Jong: All in good time. Let's jump ahead to February 12, 1999, when the minister said: "Put in that treaty was a commercial share in an appended agreement." He was asked about this treaty, and his response was: "Now, I don't believe that's the right thing to do. . . ." Well, then, what is the right thing to do? If the minister had concerns on February 12 -- and apparently he did -- with respect to the chapter we are dealing with now. . . . What are those concerns? He hints at them. He wants to tantalize us. He wants to have it both ways. He wants to say, on the one hand, when the audience is one group of people: "Yes, I have concerns." Then he comes here and says: "I have no concerns." Well, what was he referring to on February 12, 1999?

Hon. G. Wilson: I think that the debate is quickly slipping to the banal. I mean, the member opposite says. . . . Talk about changing your mind! This is the member who stood up and said he didn't believe the Nisga'a should go to a referendum and then frequently goes. . . . He is now on about it. He suggested, in fact, that fair negotiation at the table is the route to go, and his name is on a writ in court to try and prevent it. I mean, it really is a bit much to try and take from this member any kind of comment about changing opinions or changing minds.

My position with respect to the commercial fishery is well recorded. What my particular personal opinion was on the matter at the table at that time is irrelevant, because I wasn't there. We have a treaty that is agreed to by three parties: the federal government, the provincial government and the Nisga'a. The text of that agreement is here. Whether I person

[ Page 11428 ]

The Chair: The minister has clearly stated his opinion on the previous discussions on the book. I will caution the members to now address their remarks and their questions to Bill 51, chapter 8, "Fisheries."

M. de Jong: I want to ask the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs whether he acknowledges having said on February 12, 1999, in response to a question relating to chapter 8 of the treaty we are debating as part of Bill 51, "I don't believe that's the right thing to do, I'll tell you right now" -- that he disagreed and had concerns relating to these very provisions that we are debating. Will he confirm having made that statement?

[1710]

The Chair: And I will again mention that the minister has stated his position and the discussion now is becoming rather repetitious. I will ask again that the member continue on with the chapter at hand, and that's on fisheries -- on Bill 51.

M. de Jong: With the greatest respect, I've asked the minister -- who was the minister on February 12 and who indicated on that date that he had serious concerns about the provisions of the bill we're dealing with -- to expand on those concerns. Is the Chair -- and I'm seeking guidance from the Chair -- somehow suggesting that questions of that sort are out of order in this debate? Is that what the Chair is suggesting?

The Chair: The Chair has said that the minister has in fact discussed that question, which you have posed to the minister numerous times. I would ask that you continue on with your questions on chapter 8, "Fisheries," in Bill 51. The minister has in fact clarified his position.

M. de Jong: We are in the process of debating a bill that in chapter 8 deals with the fishery. We are attempting to ascertain whether that represents a workable model for fishery management -- whether there are weaknesses, what the strengths of it are. The minister -- in his ministerial capacity, I presume -- indicated that he was possessing serious concerns. I'm asking him to expand on what those concerns might be.

Hon. G. Wilson: It's a workable model.

M. de Jong: Then what was the minister referring to on February 12 when he said that he didn't believe it was the right thing to do?

Hon. G. Wilson: I think that each of us might have liked to have arrived at a final set of language through a different course. I think the path that I would have chosen at the time is irrelevant to this debate, because what we're dealing with is the language of the treaty, not what I may or may not have wished to have pursued.

M. de Jong: If we are assessing, then, the workability of this model, what does the minister believe represents the limitations to the workability of that model? Or is that something that should remain a mystery?

Hon. G. Wilson: Well, right now the biggest limitation to the workability of this model is the inability of the opposition to come down and debate this particular treaty. If the member would like to get down to talking about it in detail, I suggest that he talk about oolichans, which is, I think, where we are in the debate.

M. de Jong: It is -- with the greatest respect -- difficult and probably of limited value to engage in debate when the minister responsible would take one position on February 12 and a month and a half later apparently try to discard that position as if it didn't exist. If that is the position that this minister and this government appear to be content to take, then I think, unfortunately, that the remainder of this debate is going to be of limited value. But I think my colleague from Abbotsford probably had some more questions relative to the workability of this fishery model that he would like to put to the minister -- who, again, apparently shared those concerns only a few short weeks ago.

[1715]

The minister gave me the impression that the definition of incidental harvest was essentially bycatch. When I read the section and put that in context of the section, I'm just not sure that it's the definition intended. Richard Keevil, the lawyer with Campney Murphy, also had difficulty with the answer given. I wonder if the minister and his advisers could take a look at the definition of incidental harvest and be sure that, in the context that the definition is used in 12(b), the answer given was the correct one.

Hon. G. Wilson: Not having the Hansard immediately available to me, I'd be happy to get staff to pull up Hansard to review it and give it to me, so we can move on talking about hooligans -- sorry, oolichans. I was confused with the members opposite for a moment. If I can get on with oolichans, then perhaps as soon as I have that Hansard information in front of me, I'll give you an accurate assessment of what it says.

J. van Dongen: The minister has his advisers there. It's not a complicated question. It's in the definitions of the agreement. I will read the minister, from Hansard, the answer that the previous minister gave: "An incidental harvest means that if you are fishing for, let's say, sockeye, and when you bring in

[ Page 11429 ]

I said to the minister in response: "So the minister is classifying an incidental harvest as what's commonly known as bycatch." The minister didn't make any further comments on it. But this isn't a difficult concept. I would hope that the minister could respond to this issue, and we will move onto the chapter that the minister's referring to.

Hon. G. Wilson: As the member points out, it's not a difficult issue. That's what an incidental harvest is. So let's move on.

J. van Dongen: If we could look at the wording, then, of section 12, is the minister saying that the decision of whether or not the minister -- this would be the federal minister -- permits any directed harvest of a particular species involves calculating the escapement and then adding to that the bycatch, to determine whether or not he would allow a directed harvest? What does bycatch have to do with ensuring proper levels of escapement for a particular species of fish? I'm just really concerned that it's not what incidental harvest means.

Hon. G. Wilson: This has been thoroughly canvassed in the past. I think it would set a rather unfortunate precedent if we're going to start to go back and redebate this entire section or indeed the entire treaty. I'm sure that if the member opposite has some concerns with respect to that matter, the matter can be dealt with for him. Frankly, for somebody who's trying to deal with a simple concept, I wonder why he's trying to make that concept so complicated. It's pretty straightforward.

J. van Dongen: If the minister is confident that incidental harvest means bycatch, I would simply ask him to have his lawyers check that and maybe give me a letter in writing to that effect. I don't see the logic of section 12, particularly 12(b), if incidental harvest is defined as bycatch. I know the minister would love to get on to the next section -- and we will, immediately after this -- but I just don't see the logic of that definition. I'll simply ask the minister to commit that he have his lawyers and his fisheries specialists check it and write me a letter confirming what the definition of incidental harvest is.

[1720]

J. van Dongen: I accept the minister's briefing. As the minister will note in Hansard, the issue was raised, and I'm simply revisiting the issue because I was concerned about the answer. I was asking for a legal opinion or whatever, just to have a very definitive answer to the question. That's really what I'm looking for.

I'd like to turn now to section 64 of the chapter, and we'll deal with sections 64 to 66, which is entitled "Intertidal Bivalves." I want to confirm with the minister that the Nisga'a citizens have the right to harvest intertidal bivalves for domestic purposes only. In canvassing that issue, I wanted to confirm that the province has jurisdiction over the lands where Nisga'a or other people would harvest shellfish generally. Could the minister confirm that?

Hon. G. Wilson: The answer is yes and yes.

J. van Dongen: If the Nisga'a, under this agreement, have simply a limitation on the purposes for which they can harvest intertidal bivalves, under the general laws do they have the opportunity to participate in a fishery, for commercial purposes, of intertidal bivalves?

Hon. G. Wilson: No.

J. van Dongen: So the minister is confirming that they would apply, just like any other citizen, through the appropriate government agency for a foreshore lease and whatever licence they required, to harvest intertidal bivalves for commercial purposes.

Hon. G. Wilson: If there were any commercial fishery north of Cape Caution, that's what they'd do.

J. van Dongen: Could the minister confirm that if they had an interest in making that kind of application, they would pay the same fees and go through the same referral process as any other citizen?

Hon. G. Wilson: Well, there is no commercial bivalve fishery north of Cape Caution, so this is a purely spurious set of questions. If there were -- somehow -- the answer would be yes. But I see no relevance to the question, since there isn't.

[1725]

Hon. G. Wilson: Yes.

J. van Dongen: If they made such an application, all of the same rules and regulations would apply to their operation as apply to any other aquaculture operation in British Columbia?

Hon. G. Wilson: Yes.

J. van Dongen: I'd now like to turn to section 72 of the chapter. I want to ask a question again about the aspect of this section which authorizes the Nisga'a government to make laws in respect of sale specifically -- as opposed to section 32, where it sets out the authority to make laws on a whole range of issues. I'm wondering about the purpose of this section and

[ Page 11430 ]

Hon. G. Wilson: Well, that's a question that would be better put to the Nisga'a than to me. But it really doesn't matter, because if you read section 3. . . . In the event of a conflict with federal or provincial laws of general application, the federal law or provincial law will prevail. So whatever the Nisga'a choose to do is for the Nisga'a to choose to do. Maybe you should ask the Nisga'a. They're up there.

G. Plant: My colleague has graciously allowed me to rise for a moment, because there were one or two things I wanted to ask about intertidal bivalves before we passed over them. The treaty provision in respect of oolichans is expressed in terms of a right recognized as vesting in the Nisga'a nation. The treaty provisions in respect of intertidal bivalves are expressed as rights that adhere to Nisga'a citizens. I mean, I can understand the logic behind vesting the Nisga'a nation with the right to harvest in respect of oolichans, because the provision talks about the total harvest of oolichans. I suppose, then, it's up to the Nisga'a nation to make decisions about who gets to exercise those rights. But what is the logic behind in one case saying that the right is a right of the Nisga'a nation and in the other, I guess, taking the time to go to the level of detail of saying that it's actually the Nisga'a citizens who have the right to harvest intertidal bivalves for domestic purposes?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think that if the hon. member looks at section 1 of the chapter on fisheries, that question becomes clearer, or the answer becomes clearer. It's the Nisga'a citizens that have the right to harvest fish and aquatic plants in accordance with this agreement, subject to subsections (a) and (b). I think that that section, then, informs this entire chapter.

G. Plant: That may explain why it is that Nisga'a citizens have the right to harvest intertidal bivalves. That is why that's expressed that way. But then it doesn't explain why it's the Nisga'a nation that has the right in respect of oolichan. In one case, the right is expressly vested in the nation. That's paragraph 62. In the other, it is expressly vested in Nisga'a citizens. I know that there are other vesting provisions, if you will, in this chapter. It's the distinction -- or the contrast, if you will -- between paragraphs 62 and 64 that caught my eye. I'm sure there's a perfectly straightforward explanation for why that distinction is there, and I hope that either the Attorney General or the minister can share it with me.

[1730]

G. Plant: The right to harvest intertidal bivalves is circumscribed territorially. There are maps in appendix I that delineate portions of the Nass area. Forgive me for asking what is really a question that I should probably have asked for a briefing on, but are there intertidal bivalves anywhere in the Nass area other than in the areas described as appendix I?

Hon. G. Wilson: Yes.

G. Plant: One of the perspectives from which I'm examining this provision is the question of whether it achieves any certainty, having in mind the idea that in some respects the treaty is to be defended as a mechanism by which the uncertainty of aboriginal rights is exchanged for the certainty of treaty rights. I suppose the debate here would be some uncertainty around what particular aboriginal rights the Nisga'a may have in respect of bivalves, and where they may be able to exercise them. That's exchanged for the certainty of an express right to harvest, defined territorially. We could discuss whether that's a reasonable exchange.

But then there's this issue of the scope of the right to harvest for domestic purposes. That may be just a translation of an existing aboriginal right, but it does strike me that it doesn't achieve much certainty, because the definition of "domestic purposes" is language familiar to the lawyers who argue about these things. It's pretty broad language; I think it's not, by any means, completely, exhaustively understood yet. I wonder if the minister has a response to the suggestion that there may in fact not be much certainty here. I recognize that we may perhaps not be dealing with the heart of the treaty; we're dealing with a relatively discrete issue. Is the minister of the view that we really have actually achieved any certainty here with these provisions in respect of intertidal bivalves?

Hon. G. Wilson: Yes, I think we have achieved certainty, and I would point out that this was, in large measure, written this way on the advice of third parties. I think we've attempted to accommodate third-party concerns, and I think it does provide the certainty that you require.

J. van Dongen: I'd now like to turn to section 74. Section 74 says: ". . .fish harvested under this Agreement or the Harvest Agreement that are transported outside Nisga'a Lands for the purpose of trade or barter be identified. . . ." The concern I have here is that if we take a look at section 33, it first of all talks about the fact that Nisga'a cannot sell their fish when there are no directed harvests of other Canadian fish, yet they still have the opportunity to trade and barter.

My concern is: will this agreement or the law created by the Nisga'a government in respect of sale of fish be enforceable outside of Nisga'a lands? If you have a situation where Nisga'a cannot sell fish because Canadian fishermen cannot sell fish -- they haven't had a directed harvest -- it's possible that fish could be traded with other native bands and end up in circulation throughout British Columbia. So the question is: will the law and the agreement be enforceable? Will this section be enforceable outside Nisga'a lands?

[1735]

J. van Dongen: If I could just ask the minister, then, to comment on section 95 and describe what it says.

Hon. G. Wilson: I'm delighted we're making such swift progress, to be at section 95 already. It says: "Nisga'a laws made in accordance with this Chapter may be enforced by persons authorized to enforce federal, provincial, or Nisga'a laws in respect of fish and aquatic plants in British Columbia."

[ Page 11431 ]

Hon. G. Wilson: It makes it pretty clear. It says: ". . .enforced by persons authorized to enforce federal, provincial, or Nisga'a laws. . . ." So they'll be enforced by those people -- conservation officers, DFO officers or anybody else who's empowered to enforce federal, provincial or Nisga'a laws.

J. van Dongen: I don't accept the minister's answer, because it's not up to DFO conservation officers to enforce the law with respect to the sale of fish. I'm asking the minister to contemplate fish being traded to another first nation, entering into the commercial fish market at some other point. I ask the minister: what will prevent a second band from selling the fish, contrary to the intent of section 33? What will prevent that from happening? I just don't see how that is workable.

Hon. G. Wilson: I'm sure that the member's comment will come as a great deal of relief to those people currently facing charges by DFO officers, who are enforcing the law on the sale of fish. So I don't know where the member is getting his information from. But laws of general application apply. If there is an illegal sale of fish, it'll be enforced by officers who are empowered to enforce the law. I don't know why that's such a strange concept. That's what happens in a democracy. We pass laws, and we have officers who enforce them. If people break them, they get charged. It's kind of the way it works.

J. van Dongen: Well, how will these fish be identified? How will they be identified as fish that should not be sold?

Hon. G. Wilson: Under section 74(a) it talks about fish harvested and transported outside of Nisga'a land that will be identified as fish for trade or barter.

The member must be fully aware that in any form of prosecution for illegal sale of fish, the onus of proof obviously is upon the law officers to prove its origin and the place of sale and to document their case, like they would with anybody else. I don't know why that should be so strange. Throughout the history of British Columbia, there have been many instances where such activities have taken place, and the officers who are pressing charges obviously have evidence to suggest that illegal sales of fish are occurring. The normal course of evidence-gathering and prosecution would apply, just like with anybody else. There's nothing nefarious here -- nothing different, nothing strange.

[1740]

Hon. G. Wilson: I confess that I'm a little puzzled at what the member is trying to imply. It almost sounds like the implication is that there's an underlying assumption that somehow first nations people, the Nisga'a, are going to be lawbreakers. There's no reason to suggest that people who are harvesting fish in a legal way are going to break the law. There's no reason to identify it so that we can do a forensic audit of each fish that's caught. If there is evidence that is brought to bear to suggest that there is an act that is illegal taking place, then the same course of evidence-gathering and the same level of prosecution would apply -- as it would with anybody else. I mean, you don't hear a call for any other fish to be identified in British Columbia as to where it's caught. Why would we start now to try and somehow mark the Nass -- unless the member opposite is trying to imply that the Nisga'a are inherently dishonest and that we can't trust them with a fishery? I think that is really offensive, if that's what he is implying, because we don't mark any other fish caught in British Columbia.

J. van Dongen: I take exception to the minister's response; that is not what I am implying. I'm not implying dishonesty by the Nisga'a -- or anybody else, for that matter. I'm looking for an administrative system that results in the intent of this chapter being carried out. I'm concerned that other Canadian fishermen, who have not had the opportunity to fish in particular situations, will have confidence in the agreement -- will have confidence in the system we have. That's what I'm concerned about.

I mean, these sections -- sections 33 and 74 and sections 9 and 95, as the minister has mentioned -- all kick in when there has been a directed harvest by the Nisga'a and there has not been a directed harvest by other Canadian commercial fishermen. I'm concerned that it'll be a source of significant conflict, if it appears to non-native fishermen that the trade and barter section of this agreement becomes an outlet for surplus fish -- or fish that are surplus to domestic requirements -- for the Nisga'a.

That's why I'm asking the question, and I would hope that the minister responds to the question in the spirit in which it's asked. We want to be able to be sure that everyone has confidence in this agreement, including Canadian commercial fishermen.

Hon. G. Wilson: That's not to suggest, of course, that there aren't Nisga'a who are Canadian commercial fishermen, because there are.

Let me make an attempt at answering the question. The question that the member raises is a critical issue with respect to peace and harmony and an adequate management system for the fishery generally. I am well aware of the concerns that the member is raising, because they are raised, by and large, by the Fisheries Survival Coalition and also by some other commercial fishers who see their livelihood threatened. They see their way of life threatened. They see the opportunity for them to continue to be able to earn a living as commercial fishermen very much on the ebb in British Columbia because of declining stocks. I'm well aware -- critically aware and highly sympathetic -- of those people who demand that we do something to protect the fish stocks, to be able to protect the integrity of the fishery. I'm with them there, and I will do everything I can to make sure that we do rebuild those stocks. But because there is a declining fishery, because there is an opportunity for Nisga'a to be able to access a portional harvest of the Nass Valley. . . . That is no reason to suggest that somehow we have to put in a highly complicated and rather

[ Page 11432 ]

[1745]

So there are two different issues. Those people who worry for their livelihoods in the commercial industry -- I hear what they say. And I am prepared to commit my time and energy to make sure that we maintain those stocks. But because there is a decline in fishery, because that way of life is threatened -- largely as a result of federal programs, not provincial programs -- I'm suggesting that we don't unduly take out that concern on first nations people. They were not responsible for the decline in fish stocks, and neither will they be responsible for the continued decline. In fact, if you look at the Nisga'as' record on the Nass, they will be more responsible for enhancement of fish, expanding the fish stocks and providing greater opportunity for both non-aboriginal and aboriginal people. That's the spirit we have to go at this agreement with -- one where we cooperate together to make sure that there are fish for every British Columbian who needs or wishes to go to fish. That's where we need to go to -- not squabbling over a declining stock.

J. van Dongen: Well, I certainly agree with the minister that we need a cooperative effort in dealing with the fish that are available and in expanding the number of fish that are available for everybody. From that perspective, I will leave section 74 on this note -- I am concerned about the whole structure of section 74, particularly as it relates to section 9. As I said, the proof will be in the pudding, I suppose, but there has to be confidence from all fishermen in the implementation of these rules.

Turning to section 75, this section talks about the parties to the agreement setting up operational guidelines, including principles, procedures and guidelines. I wonder if the minister could describe what the scope is of this particular document -- what is included in these operational guidelines.

Hon. G. Wilson: The short answer is that the guidelines will facilitate the orderly management of the Nisga'a fisheries. But anticipating that the short answer won't satisfy the member, I direct the member's attention to the rather extensive table of contents within the Nisga'a fisheries working group documents, which suggests that management goals and objectives will be there, a joint fisheries management committee will be there, and so on. It is a long and exhaustive list that the member might want to turn his attention to, all of which I think speaks exactly to what I was just referring to -- that is, a cooperative effort in the reestablishment and building of Nass fish stocks to benefit everybody.

J. van Dongen: Will non-Nisga'a fishermen and other stakeholders participate in the process of developing those guidelines?

Hon. G. Wilson: Well, to the extent that all of this material is tabled at TNAC, third-party interests are already actively working to provide advice and direction. I hope that satisfies the member.

[1750]

Hon. G. Wilson: I think there are two things. First of all, it needs to be pointed out that the fisheries operational guidelines are outside of the final agreement. But I'd be happy to make sure that a copy of this material and any other material that the member may have issues or concern with is made available. I don't think anybody is attempting to stop meaningful input. In fact, the broader the base of input, I think, the better the regulations. I think everybody would be in agreement that this needs to be done.

J. van Dongen: So is the minister saying that if, say, other commercial fishermen or other stakeholders had an interest in this process, they could be kept informed of the stages of it and make input through the various stages of the development of these operational guidelines? Is the minister making that commitment?

Hon. G. Wilson: Absolutely. The northern fishing plan , as a functional part of this, will also be open for full review. There's no intention here to try to block input. On the contrary, there's an attempt to try and have a better management than we've had in the past, when we've left it up to the DFO, which hasn't been exactly skilled at making sure that the fishery is maintained. So this is good news for British Columbia in the sense that it broadens the base of involvement. I think it gives opportunity for anybody with solid, sound ideas on fishery management to be able to make sure that those ideas are advanced.

J. van Dongen: I thank the minister for that commitment that other stakeholders could participate. I think that's important to building the trust between the Nisga'a people and this process and other stakeholders.

I want to ask a question with respect to section 76, which speaks about the Nisga'a fisheries operational guidelines -- particularly, section (c) ". . .does not create legal obligations." It seems to me that the types of provisions that would be contemplated as part of those operational guidelines should possibly have the force of law. Now, I'm not familiar with the details of the kinds of guidelines that would be developed. But certainly within the ministries, such as the Department of

[ Page 11433 ]

Hon. G. Wilson: I don't know of anywhere that fisheries guidelines have the force of law. Maybe the member could give me an example of where they do. The fisheries guidelines are specific scientific guidelines with respect to the development of a fisheries plan. The plan has the force of law. But the guidelines that are used in the development of the plan. . . . I'm not aware of anywhere that those guidelines have the force of law. I'm not sure how that would work, even.

J. van Dongen: I just have one more question, and this is with respect to the minister's answer. He may be right. But certainly when I see the operations of various ministries, policies established by civil servants under certain legislation can have the force of law. I'm not familiar with the kind of provisions that would be in these operational agreements or guidelines, but it may be appropriate that some of them do have the force of law -- if, in fact, the plans that are developed become legal documents. That in itself, I think, partially answers my question. Maybe the minister has further comments on that.

[1755]

Noting the time, I would suggest that the committee 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. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:57 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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