1998/99 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 36th Parliament
HANSARD
(Hansard)
Afternoon
Volume 14, Number 2
[ Page 11725 ]
The House met at 2:08 p.m.Prayers.
S. Hawkins: It gives me great pleasure to introduce three visitors in the gallery today. We have from my riding of Okanagan West: Dr. Katy Bindon, who's the president of Okanagan University College; Mr. Ian Wickett, who's the Okanagan University College board chair; and Mr. Allan Coyle, who's the Okanagan University College public relations director. I ask the House to please join me in making them welcome.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Today in the members' gallery we have a very special visitor from South Africa. His Excellency Billy Modise is the respected and popular High Commissioner for South Africa. He has been posted in Canada since 1995. Of course, one of the highlights of his stay in Canada -- and one of the highlights for us -- was President Nelson Mandela's visit to Canada in 1998. He's returning home to South Africa, and I would ask the House to please make him welcome.
J. Weisbeck: I have two introductions today. The first one is Jesse Leger. He's a grade 11 student from Kelowna. On January 25 a fatal accident occurred on Highway 97 near Jesse's home, and Jesse took it upon himself to gather 400 signatures on a petition. So Jesse's here today to witness the presentation of his petition. Would the House please make him welcome.
It is also my pleasure to introduce six political science students from Camosun College. They're visiting here as part of their political science 106 class. We have Colin Swan, Christie Desrosier, Isis Mathison, Nassim Zoraik, Brock Worobel and Anne Wicks. Would the House please make them welcome.
Hon. G. Wilson: This morning a large delegation has come down from northern British Columbia. There are four from the Gitsegukla Economic Development Corp. with us here in the chamber today. I wish the House to welcome Andrew Davis, Audrey Lindquist, Rod Johnson and Bernadette Mclean. Would the House please make them welcome.
Hon. L. Boone: Really, I don't very often get an opportunity to introduce somebody, but today this person has sworn my colleague from Prince George North to secrecy. She did not want to be introduced. But she didn't swear me to secrecy, so I would like the House to please welcome Hazel Ramsey, the better half of my colleague from Prince George North.
V. Anderson: I'd ask the House to join me in welcoming Norman Dunsmore, one of my most upstanding relatives from Yellow Grass, Saskatchewan, who is here to enjoy our climate and a wedding and to get an education today in the Legislature.
Hon. C. Evans: Joining us here today from the Columbia Power Corporation offices in Castlegar are Audrey Repin, community relations director, and Wally Penner, director of almost everything else. Would the House please make them welcome.
B. Goodacre: The delegation from the Gitsegukla Economic Development Corp. mentioned earlier is, of course, from Bulkley Valley-Stikine. I'm sure everybody in the House is aware of the location of the community of Gitsegukla. Also in that delegation are: Vince Jackson, Lily Jackson, Ralph Johnson, Gertie Watson, Robert Harvey, Rod Sampere and his mother Violet and her daughter-in-law, who's Violet as well. Could the House please make them welcome, for coming this great distance to visit the ministers of the Crown.
LOBBYING FOR CASINO LICENCES
G. Campbell: My question is for the Deputy Premier. The opposition has obtained a confidential ministerial briefing document on the lobbying practices of gaming licence applicants in the province. It says: "All applicants were advised on September 4, 1997, that they would risk having their proposals declared null and void if they lobbied government members -- in particular, cabinet ministers." In light of that policy, can the Deputy Premier explain why the government apparently saw nothing whatsoever wrong with the lobbying efforts of the North Burnaby Inn, when in fact the North Burnaby Inn seems to have been rewarded rather than penalized for those efforts?[1415]
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order!
Hon. D. Miller: Without agreeing with the contention, hon. Speaker, I will take the question on notice for the appropriate minister.
The Speaker: First supplementary, Leader of the Official
Interjection.
The Speaker: No supplementary; I'm sorry. It will be a different question.
G. Campbell: I have a new question, hon. Speaker. It is apparent now -- and the Premier has admitted -- that a year after that briefing, Mr. Pilarinos, one of the applicants for the licence for the North Burnaby Inn, was actually talking to the Premier with regard to his application. The Premier recommended that this applicant go and talk to the minister responsible, in spite of the fact that the Premier, all members of the cabinet and all members of the government surely would have known that lobbying was prohibited. Indeed, it would have required
[ Page 11726 ]
Hon. D. Miller: There has been, since this affair first ensued, a propensity on the part of the opposition to make allegations but to never follow through. I would suggest that if the Leader of the Opposition has allegations to make, he make them to the appropriate authorities, whether they be those that regulate the activities of members, or others -- but follow through rather than simply make allegations.The Speaker: Leader of the Official Opposition, first supplementary.
G. Campbell: Far from being an allegation, this is simply asking the Deputy Premier to make an explanation of exactly what took place. The Premier himself said on March 9 and 10 that he referred Mr. Pilarinos to the minister responsible, Mr. Farnworth.
The Speaker: You can't name ministers. I'm sorry, you can't name names.
G. Campbell: Sorry -- to the minister responsible for gaming. I don't recall his name; I know that he is responsible for gaming, however. The Premier said he referred him to that minister. That is in direct contravention of the very guidelines which we were told were in place. Can the minister explain why the Premier would act in contravention of the government's own guidelines?
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please, members.
Hon. D. Miller: I repeat: I think the Leader of the Opposition is being quite silly.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members
Hon. D. Miller: I think he's doing it because he thinks there is some publicity value with respect to current events that are going to happen today, hon. Speaker. But I would repeat -- and it seems to me that this is fundamentally important -- that it seems to me that it's easy to make allegations. The weight of allegations seems to stick. Yet there's very little thought given to the harm that that might do to individuals, whether it's their reputation or their family's. It's very easy. And we've seen a recurring history over the last three years, where the opposition has been completely reckless with respect to the kinds of allegations that they make.
The Speaker: Minister, wind up.
Hon. D. Miller: If they have specifics, if they have reason to believe that they have specific complaints that have merit, then why won't they go to the appropriate officials and have them pursued?
[1420]
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members, order.
C. Clark: According to this briefing note -- which was written for the Deputy Premier when he was the minister responsible, by the way -- lobbying of ministers was banned explicitly in June 1998, yet Brad Zubyk, the NDP's number one lobbyist, was setting up meetings with the Minister Responsible for the Public Service to discuss the casino riverboat application in December 1998, according to the minister's own admission. Can the Minister Responsible for the Public Service tell us what Brad Zubyk was doing setting up meetings for casino applicants, when lobbying was explicitly banned?
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, I would have thought that the member opposite would have learned from last week that you don't make allegations without foundation. She did it last week, and she's doing it again today. Let me be clear: at no point
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members
Hon. M. Sihota:
The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
C. Clark: So the minister differentiates, apparently, between meeting with people -- having secret discussions with them, not telling anybody what they're about -- and lobbying. We'll just have to trust him. We'll just have to trust and believe that he's not being lobbied. Well, thank you very much. That's why the government put guidelines in place, and we expect that this minister, like every other minister of the Crown, would abide by them. Can the minister tell us if he was aware of this ban, if anyone bothered to tell him of this ban, or if he just didn't feel like living up to the requirements of the ban -- ignoring it and meeting with lobbyists no matter what he was told by the minister responsible?
Hon. M. Sihota: There's no doubt in my mind
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members
Hon. M. Sihota:
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members
Hon. M. Sihota: Let me make this abundantly clear.
Interjections.
[ Page 11727 ]
The Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. M. Sihota: All of us on this side of the House are getting a little tired of members of the opposition getting up every day on the other side of the floor and making
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members
Hon. M. Sihota:
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. The Chair will not recognize the next questioner without order in the chamber.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members
S. Hawkins: Casino applicants were told explicitly that government MLAs were not to be lobbied. It was forbidden. Yet Chief Sophie Pierre, who won approval for the Casino of the Rockies, stated bluntly that she was astute enough to use her political connections for something she really believes in. My question is to the Deputy Premier. Will he tell this House which government members Chief Sophie Pierre lobbied to get approval for the Casino of the Rockies?
Hon. D. Miller: I know Chief Sophie Pierre well, and I know that she has been a tireless worker to try to develop the economy in the region where she and her band live. She is to be applauded for all of those efforts, because without her, perhaps the opportunity for a destination resort and for employment and the new tourism opportunities in the Kootenays would not be there. I don't know why that member is choosing once again, in the pattern established by her leader -- and unfortunately picked up by every member of the Liberal caucus -- mudslinging
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members
First supplementary, the member for Okanagan West.
S. Hawkins: This Deputy Premier asked for a specific example, and I gave it to him. According to Chief Sophie Pierre, it was absolutely essential to use political connections to get a casino licence. I put it to the Deputy Premier again: which government MLAs, which government staff and which ministers of the Crown did Chief Sophie lobby to get approval for the Casino of the Rockies?
[1425]
Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Speaker, I'd suggest that the member either stop reading newspapers altogether or, alternatively, start reading them more -- plus do a bit more research.
We've had a recurring pattern of these kinds of questions containing innuendo. For all I know
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members
Hon. D. Miller:
Interjections.
The Speaker: Come to order, members.
G. Plant: The briefing note to the government is pretty clear. It says that proponents for casino licences would "risk having their proposals declared null and void if they lobbied government members -- in particular, cabinet ministers." Not my words -- this is government policy. It's actually in the Deputy Premier's briefing book.
So my question to the Deputy Premier is this: is he aware whether there were
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, order.
G. Plant:
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order!
Hon. D. Miller: No, hon. Speaker, but I am aware that the Great Canadian Casino Co. made a significant donation to the Liberal Party. I am aware that Jacee Schaefer said, when she was asked -- and it was quoted in the newspaper; I haven't used it before -- that the Leader of the Opposition made a commitment to her that if they got elected last time, they would bring in wholesale gambling. I am aware that that's been published in the newspaper. Maybe we ought to throw that into the mix as well.
The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Richmond-Steveston,
G. Plant: Well, I detect a certain reluctance to answer any of these questions, and I'm not surprised. But there is plenty of evidence that notwithstanding the clearest possible prohibition on any lobbying in relation to the proposals for casinos,
[ Page 11728 ]
there was lobbying. There was lobbying to this government by and on behalf of people who wanted licences from this government.My question to the Deputy Premier is this: why wasn't every single one of these applications stamped "null and void" and "return to sender" and sent back to where they belong?
Hon. D. Miller: I understand why the question is being raised today. There are some other issues -- the potential releasing of the warrants and those kinds of questions. I think that in typical opposition fashion, if they stand up and ask a series of questions that really have no substance but they appear to be throwing mud
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members
Hon. D. Miller:
The Speaker: Finish up.
Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Speaker, I want to repeat what I think is a very important message. If any member of this assembly
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members
Hon. D. Miller:
We've had this smear for 15 minutes today. It's typical of the kind of smear and innuendo we get from the Liberal opposition, and I don't think, at the end of the day, that it's what British Columbians want, and I don't think it will serve this Liberal opposition very well at all in terms of moving forward.
[1430]
The Speaker: The bell ends question period.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: With us today from Wilps Gim-staloxs is Vernon Milton, who is also the chief spokesman for the Gitsegukla Economic Development Corp., who met with us today. With him and members of his house are Rod Johnson, Bernadette Mclean, Selma Milton, Vern Darrel Milton and Ray Jones. These are people who come from the general area of Hazelton -- as we know the area. Please welcome them to the House today.
The Speaker: I recognize the hon. member for Okanagan East.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members will come to order. The Chair has recognized the member for Okanagan East, and so will the members.
J. Weisbeck: I have a petition of 400 signatures, asking for improvement to a dangerous stretch of Highway 97 near Duck Lake.
I. Chong: I have two petitions today. The first petition is from citizens representing the southern Vancouver Island area. It requests that this government revoke or rescind the order-in-council permitting the proposed aerial spraying for the gypsy moth. The petitioners are opposed to this aerial spraying program as they are concerned about environmental and health issues. It is signed by 3,982 citizens.
The second petition requests that this government enact legislation at the earliest opportunity to prevent the spraying of citizens of British Columbia with certain bacteria and chemical pesticides. Again, the petitioners are concerned about health and environmental issues. It is signed by 1,056 citizens representing the lower mainland area.
STATEMENT ON CLOSURE
Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, I rise as Government House Leader to announce that the government will proceed under standing order 46 if Bill 51, the Nisga'a Final Agreement Act, has not passed all of its stages by 6 p.m. on April 22. In order to have this proceed smoothly, I welcome input from all members of the House, including the Opposition House Leader, on how much debate over the next days is required and whether extended hours of sitting are needed. By April 22, the Nisga'a Final Agreement Act will have received unprecedented time of debate, but we do welcome any input from anyone in the House about how we can proceed in an orderly fashion.The Speaker: Thank you, Government House Leader.
I recognize the Opposition House Leader for a brief comment.
G. Farrell-Collins: Yes, thank you, hon. Speaker.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order!
[ Page 11729 ]
G. Farrell-Collins: The Nisga'a final agreement was signed last summer. It could have been brought to this House in September; it wasn't. It could have been brought to this House in October; it wasn't. It could have been brought to this House in November; it wasn't.Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. Order, members.
G. Farrell-Collins: It was brought to this House on the last day of November and debated in second reading in December. We had an agreement to bring this House back on January 26. The government moved that forward without notice to the opposition. We did come back to this House for what at that time was urgent business of the government. They had to move on with it; they had to move ahead. And because of the virtual collapse of this government in scandal, the government was required
Interjections.
The Speaker: On the point. On the topic, please.
G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you, hon. Speaker; I will. The government was required to abandon the Legislature, in an unprecedented move, in order to give the new minister
The Speaker: Hon. member, that's
G. Farrell-Collins:
Interjections.
G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, can we have some order in this House so that I can complete my comments?
The Speaker: Finish up your brief remarks, please.
G. Farrell-Collins: We were told that the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs required two weeks to get himself up to speed. The government adjourned for two and a half months. All of a sudden there's some political agenda, and the government needs to move forward on this. There are innumerable bills that have taken far longer in committee stage -- not to mention two labour bills. Never has the government introduced closure on those items.
Clearly this government has a political agenda to try and cover up for their fiascos, their scandals and their lack of ability to govern. That's why they're invoking closure and refusing the people of British Columbia the right to hear this debate on a groundbreaking treaty.
[1435]
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
NISGA'A FINAL AGREEMENT ACT
(continued)
On the schedule, chapter 9 (continued).
M. Coell: The last time we were dealing with this issue we had just finished item 10: "Canada and British Columbia will not require Nisga'a citizens: (a) to have federal or provincial licences; or (b) to pay fees, charges, or royalties
[1440]
Hon. G. Wilson: We are having a little difficulty in understanding the member's question. If the member is referring to the provincial fund for the Nass wildlife area, then that's contributory. The Nisga'a nation may contribute to that fund -- if that's the fund that the member is referring to. The contributions made by licensed hunters throughout British Columbia, the application of the provincial fund to the Nass wildlife area and the performance of similar wildlife management activities by Nisga'a Lisims government are all functional parts of that fund.
M. Coell: What I'm looking for is: are there other funds -- and I can think of a number of funds that the provincial government has -- that Nisga'a citizens will be able to access for funds to come to that area?
Hon. G. Wilson: The Nisga'a will be eligible, like any other British Columbian, to access any other funds if they qualify.
M. Coell: What are the qualifications? What I'm interested in is: if they're not paying fees, charges or royalties from those licences
Hon. G. Wilson: They may be but not without negotiation. That would be something they would have to negotiate into. They are certainly not automatically eligible by the terms of this agreement.
M. Coell: I wonder if the minister could expand on what he just said. I think that what I'm looking for here is
Hon. G. Wilson: I hear what the member is saying. Section 11 talks about funds to which the Nisga'a nation make a contribution. That is what this section deals with. There is nothing within the treaty that makes them automatically eligible for any other additional funds. That's not to say that they would necessarily be ineligible if they chose at some later date
[ Page 11730 ]
to work out a negotiation to contribute and therefore have access to those funds. But that's not what's intended by this section.
M. Coell: It may not be intended through the section, but I think that once enacted, there is a legitimacy for the Nisga'a to access those funds, whether they pay into them or not. That's the clarification I'm seeking on No. 10 and No. 11. If someone, through their hunting licences or provincial licences of any kind, is building up a fund, then that fund is used for management or conservation. Usually it's used, again, by those who pay into the system, and if it's not
[1445]
Hon. G. Wilson: I'm really quite confused. I don't mean to be unclear in my response; I'm just not clear exactly what the member is getting at.
The Nisga'a have entitlements. They may, through contributions to provincial funds dedicated to wildlife conservation, become eligible with respect to those funds should they have conservation projects or habitat protection projects -- or whatever they may wish to do. Those funds are spelled out in section 11. They have entitlements. They don't have licences to hunt. So I'm not quite sure what the member is getting at here. This is a conservation fund.
M. Coell: I don't think the minister is confused. I think the way he described it is what I was looking for. This is a stand-alone fund. This is not in any way restricting Nisga'a citizens from using other government funds. They're eligible to use other government funds, whether they have payment through licences or regulations. That's what I understand and what the minister has just clarified.
Hon. G. Wilson: Right; that's correct. Because they have entitlements, they don't pay into licence funds and those sorts of things. That's precisely why we put in this section, which allows the Nisga'a nation to make those contributions for eligibility for conservation and habitat protection.
G. Plant: I want to go back to paragraph 10 for a moment. The last sentence in paragraph 10 says: "This paragraph does not restrict Canada's ability to require licences for the use and possession of firearms under federal laws on the same basis as applies to other aboriginal people of Canada." I want to explore an issue for just a moment, but I also want to offer what I understand to be the answer to the issue and then have the minister comment on whether or not my understanding is right.
From time to time the courts have been presented with cases -- they may include hunting charges -- in which an aboriginal person has been charged with an offence in relation to hunting -- or the offence may be an offence against firearms legislation. There has been an argument made that the particular use of a firearm by an aboriginal person in particular circumstances is an exercise of section 35 rights. We don't need to pursue the issue exhaustively. It's out there. Courts, I think, have gone in a number of different directions, according to the context on that issue.
My question has to do with the level of certainty that exists around this last sentence in paragraph 10. To say that federal laws in relation to firearms apply on the same basis to the Nisga'a as they apply to other aboriginal people of Canada may be a sentence that says that if other aboriginal people can in some circumstances establish exemptions on the basis of aboriginal or treaty rights, then the same exemptions may be applied to the Nisga'a. My hope is that that's not so, because I think that would be to import an unnecessary level of uncertainty.
My sense is that the reason that that is not so is because of the provisions in the general provisions chapter which say that the agreement exhaustively sets out section 35 rights. So the position of the province is that there is really no section 35 argument imported into this last sentence of paragraph 10. Federal legislation, federal laws, with respect to firearms and the use and possession of firearms and licensing will simply apply to the Nisga'a to the same extent as they expressly apply -- or don't apply -- to other aboriginal people. Is that a correct analysis of the provision? If it's not, I invite the minister to correct me.
Hon. G. Wilson: That is a correct assessment.
[1450]
M. Coell: If we could move on to "Harvesting Under Other Laws and Agreements," I just have one question. I have some trouble understanding why this particular one would be necessary. Wouldn't Nisga'a citizens outside Nisga'a lands be treated in every way the same as all Canadians and British Columbians?
Hon. G. Wilson: Well, that is what subparagraph (a) deals with. They are subject to the laws of general application, federal and provincial.
M. Coell: I guess my point is that if Nisga'a people are to be treated as Canadians, this would be unnecessary, because we would all follow the same laws anyway -- off Nisga'a lands. I find it interesting that something saying that they'll be treated equally is in the document. It should be presumed that all Canadians would be treated equally.
Hon. G. Wilson: With the height of debate around Nisga'a and with so many of the inaccurate misquotes and misstatements that are already attributed to it, I think the member opposite could understand that all of the language that gives greater certainty to the intent of the treaty is a welcome addition. It spells out clearly, for those who may somehow believe that there is some other set of rights -- as per the comments that were being made by the member for Richmond-Steveston -- that the laws of general application apply to the Nisga'a off Nisga'a land. This line, I think, gives us that comfort and certainty.
G. Plant: I want to draw a distinction, and the minister can tell me after I've asked the question whether in fact the problem with my question is the original distinction. Let me draw a distinction between the Nass wildlife area and, for want of a better term, the rest of Canada. Outside the Nass wildlife area, it's entirely conceivable that someone who is a Nisga'a citizen might go to Alberta for some hunting of animals or migratory birds. When they do so, they will do so in accordance with ordinary federal and provincial laws, as though -- to borrow from my colleague from Saanich North -- in that context they were in fact just the same in the eyes of the law as other Canadian citizens. Is that correct -- dealing
[ Page 11731 ]
now, first of all, with the rest of Canada, outside the Nass wildlife area? I'll deal with inside the Nass wildlife area in a moment.Hon. G. Wilson: Yes, the Nisga'a who travel outside the Nass wildlife area are Canadians like any others.
G. Plant: The treaty creates certain wildlife entitlements and assigns those entitlements to particular places. My question is this: in addition to the wildlife entitlements that might exist within the Nass wildlife area, does the treaty contemplate the possibility that Nisga'a citizens might make application to conduct harvesting within the wildlife area in accordance with ordinary federal and provincial laws? That is, they might then have the possibility of qualifying for permits and licences to conduct hunting activities to obtain wildlife over and above the entitlements prescribed in the treaty, assuming that they can comply with the ordinary federal and provincial laws. Is that correct?
Hon. G. Wilson: Yes, that's correct.
G. Plant: I guess the distinction sought to be drawn here is between that which is the negotiated compromise of the aboriginal hunting rights of the Nisga'a people, which is reflected in the wildlife entitlements, and the ordinary rights that the Nisga'a would have -- as they have them today in some respects, subject to the laws around aboriginal and treaty rights -- to carry on harvesting wildlife or migratory birds throughout Canada, including within the Nass wildlife area. So the treaty kind of makes this distinction or creates these two classes, if you will, of Nisga'a potential entitlements.
[1455]
Hon. G. Wilson: I think the distinction that needs to be made is that we have negotiated a treaty right to hunt and that the Nass wildlife area is the traditional area for Nisga'a access as well as for management right to the resource.
M. Coell: If we could move on to the Nass wildlife area.
G. Plant: Actually, may I have one more on this?
M. Coell: My colleague would like to finish up on item 12, so I'll just
G. Plant: I apologize to my colleague for not having communicated my intention clearly.
Section 12(b) contemplates agreements in accordance with laws of general application that may be made between some emanation of the Nisga'a, on the one hand, and other aboriginal people, on the other. What kinds of agreement are contemplated by that clause? Are there any examples of such agreements in place now?
Hon. G. Wilson: I'm advised that this is a look to the future to contemplate what other agreements may bring forward and that the MOU between the Nisga'a and Tsimshian is one example of such an agreement.
G. Plant: What's unclear to me is how
Hon. G. Wilson: The laws of general application are federal, provincial and Nisga'a. But if the Nisga'a enter into some memorandum of understanding with the Tsimshian, whatever that understanding or arrangement is would still have to comply with federal and provincial law.
G. Plant: In that case, it may well be that it's Nisga'a wildlife laws that constitute the laws of general application under which such a memorandum of understanding might eventually become the kind of agreement contemplated by paragraph 12(b).
Hon. G. Wilson: Well, that is possible, but if that were true, they would still have to be consistent with federal and provincial laws.
G. Plant: Yeah. I wasn't intending to suggest the contrary.
Paragraph 12(c) says that the agreement doesn't preclude Nisga'a citizens from harvesting wildlife or migratory birds throughout Canada in accordance with any arrangements between other aboriginal people in Canada or British Columbia. Now, this chapter has a relatively comprehensive management regime, which we'll look at in the fullness of time -- all carefully set out, I suppose you could say, in the treaty. I can imagine the possibility that over time, Canada and British Columbia will negotiate other treaties with other first nations where there are hunting entitlements within the Nass wildlife area.
[1500]
I would hate to see 12(c) as kind of a back door through which governments could end up creating those management regimes without the need of the kind of care that is taken in respect of the provisions in this chapter. I'm sure that's not the intention; I'm sure the intention here is really permissive and is, as much as anything, to ensure that Nisga'a citizens will have the power to eventually participate in such arrangements if they come into existence. Is that correct?
Hon. G. Wilson: Well, if they can negotiate, that's right. Nisga'a citizens should have the right to be able to set out those understandings. As the member has pointed out, we would be as reluctant to enter into backdoor agreements -- or see them entered into. That's certainly not the intention of this section.
M. Coell: If we could move on to the section on the Nass wildlife area, section 13
Hon. G. Wilson: Just before we do that -- and I appreciate the indulgence of the member -- there was a question asked last week by, I believe, the member for Shuswap. If I could just read in the answer now
The timber supply impact on the Nass wildlife management area under the treaty is estimated to be zero. The provi-
[ Page 11732 ]
sions of the Nisga'a treaty respecting wildlife will not affect the chief forester's mandate to determine AACs. The land contained within the Nass wildlife management area, excluding Nisga'a lands, is estimated to contribute about 860,000 cubic metres per year to the local management units. The area touches five timber supply areas -- North Coast, Nass, Kalum, Cranberry and Kispiox -- and TFL 1. So that is the answer to that question.M. Coell: For the third time I'll try and move on, but there seems to be a desire to stay in this area, the Nass wildlife area. It says that British Columbia and the Nisga'a nation may alter the boundaries. I wonder why -- in most of this treaty, it's British Columbia and the Nisga'a nation and Canada to alter this treaty -- in this instance there are just the two partners.
Hon. G. Wilson: Wildlife management is a provincial jurisdiction, and the province is obviously reluctant to have the federal government involve itself in anything that's our exclusive jurisdiction. Therefore the Nisga'a and British Columbia, most appropriately, will make those decisions.
M. Coell: Then I'm assuming that anything that would affect Canada and the laws of Canada would not be affected by this section, which I am pleased to hear.
I'm wondering if the minister could tell me what types of negotiations the government envisions for altering the wildlife area. What types of negotiations between British Columbia and the Nisga'a nation would take place that would allow altering the boundaries of the wildlife area?
Hon. G. Wilson: We don't have sort of a plan of attack, because the idea of this section is to simply give enough flexibility if migratory patterns alter or if populations diminish in one area and expand in others. In the course of proper wildlife management, there needs to be flexibility to make sure that those boundaries adequately reflect how those populations are changing. So that's all that it's really intended to do. It's to simply allow the parties to agree that should migratory routes change or should there be population alteration or particular habitat issues and concerns, those boundaries could be moved to accommodate those issues.
[1505]
M. Coell: The reason I want to highlight this -- I think we touched on it with forestry the last time we were in committee stage -- is that if the boundaries change, that could affect Crown land outside the wildlife area or private properties in the future. I just wonder how the province is going to deal with that issue if it affects the rights of other British Columbians on other pieces of property. I don't see
Hon. G. Wilson: The member is correct; there may be ramifications. But there are provincial statutes in place that deal with those issues. So should those problems arise, provincial law will apply. It's not as though this treaty is going to alter provincial law on Crown land.
M. Coell: Do the minister and the government see forms of compensation for people who may have tenures or licences on Crown land that would be affected by this? How would that potentially figure into the negotiations?
Hon. G. Wilson: The answer to that is no, because it
M. Coell: I'm pleased to hear that, and I think that clarifies for people who could be affected in the future. I know that there are a number of cases. Using this as a template throughout the province, I suspect that this type of addition to most treaties would be in place. So I think that this probably has more ramifications the lower you get in the province and with more people that could be affected by alterations to treaties and boundaries.
I would like to move to section 16, but my colleague from Richmond-Steveston wishes to ask a question.
G. Plant: Let me paint a scenario which I'm sure everyone hopes would never be the case. The scenario, though, is that the exercise of the wildlife entitlements, as conferred under this chapter, results over time in the exhaustion of a species within the Nass wildlife area. So from some source or other there is pressure brought to bear on the government to agree to alter the boundaries of the Nass wildlife area, in order to ensure that the species entitlement levels can be maintained.
I'm sure the minister would be of the view that this would be an inappropriate use of section 13, unless the change in species levels occurred as a result of climatological factors or things that everyone would agree are beyond human control. But if there was overhunting, for example, or if it was established that the levels that are prescribed for here turn out to amount to overhunting, then what is the minister's view about the extent to which section 13 should then come into play to allow the wildlife area boundaries to be changed?
Hon. G. Wilson: I would imagine that our position
G. Plant: Some have looked at the Nass wildlife area -- the dimensions of the area -- from the perspective of whether it bears a reasonable relationship to the lands within which the Nisga'a could establish aboriginal rights or title. That is an analysis which we don't need to go into here. There are obviously going to be a variety of different points of view on that question. If you did hold that view, if you were someone who held the view that the Nass wildlife area was a reasonable compromise of not just the extent but the location of Nisga'a rights in respect of hunting, then moving the wildlife area becomes a difficult thing to do -- moving the boundaries on the basis of that kind of principle.
[1510]
I'm interested in what the minister would say if faced with that argument. Put more simply, you can't change the boundaries of the wildlife area without engaging once again in the whole debate about whether or not this new place is really much closer to the heart of Gitanyow or Gitxsan territory, for example. How does the minister foresee that analysis proceeding?
[ Page 11733 ]
Hon. G. Wilson: A couple of points to note, in response to the member's question. First of all, the wildlife area constitutes about two-thirds of the Nisga'a claimed traditional territory. The boundaries were obviously debated and hotly discussed and have been agreed to in this treaty. That's what they anticipate will be the boundaries.There could be a whole host of considerations that would have to be taken into account, should changes be required. I wouldn't want to speculate at this stage on what all of them would be, but I think that the intention is to work within the boundaries outlined in this agreement. However, this sentence simply allows for some possibility for some flexibility on that boundary, should that be required for management reasons.
M. Coell: If we could move to "Designated species," starting at 15 through to 20
Hon. G. Wilson: I guess the short answer is that the Nisga'a asked for those three species because they play an important role in Nisga'a culture, predominantly as a traditional food source. And there is very little population data and information with respect to those species. But the short answer is that they had requested those species.
M. Coell: Let me just share this thought with the minister. I don't disagree with the designation of those species. I think that under the circumstances
I think that under treaty and under this chapter, what happens is that the ability of the provincial or Canadian government to designate a species a protected species, even if it isn't endangered, is lost, in that the Nisga'a and/or any other treaties that are formed in this right would basically have the right to veto a designation for a protected species. I just wonder if the minister can comment on that aspect of this portion.
[1515]
Hon. G. Wilson: The questions that the member poses are important questions, but they are also a little bit hypothetical, so it's difficult for us to give an accurate answer without misinterpreting. I don't want to misinterpret what the language of the agreement says.
The Nisga'a's right is subject to conservation, so there is clearly a conservation intention throughout this entire chapter. I don't believe that the Nisga'a or the non-Nisga'a want to push a population beyond its ability to be sustained, so I'm sure that there will be due consideration given to that. Now, within this, there is also an opportunity for designated wildlife species other than the initial designation species under section 17, so the minister can act. But the treaty provides an opportunity for Nisga'a, with the caveat that there is a conservation consideration that must be taken into account.
M. Coell: I appreciate that. The example I would like to draw to the minister's attention is the potential of the province or Canada to designate something a protected species, like bald eagles or seagulls. There are a number of people who would like to see grizzly bears a protected species. My understanding of this treaty would be that once it is signed, the provincial government and the federal government would not be able to protect that species in any way; it would be up to the Nisga'a.
Hon. G. Wilson: If we have a conservation concern, we could put the allowable harvest on the designated species at zero. So that provision is there. Now, clearly there is an entitlement aspect of this treaty that one seeks to honour. But there is a conservation concern. Throughout the entire chapter, the protection and maintenance of that species is there.
Except that we're trying to stick to the text of this, I'm tempted to know where the members opposite are on designation of endangered species -- whether they would support the province coming in with endangered species legislation. I just wonder if there has been a policy decision taken over on that side on the matter of designating certain species as protected species. I'd be curious to know.
Interjection.
M. Coell: As my colleague says, it's unlikely that we're going to get an opportunity to get that in depth, because of the closure that the government has put on this bill.
I'll try and be a little clearer for the minister. I had this discussion with Chief Gosnell, and he simply said that -- and I'll paraphrase him -- we'd have to come and speak with the Nisga'a nation if Canada or British Columbia wanted to designate a species as protected. That wouldn't necessarily mean they were endangered in any way. It would just mean that the people of British Columbia or Canada wanted to protect a species. I use the eagle as one that is not endangered but is protected. So that is what I want to highlight for the minister. I don't know whether he has any comments on that.
Hon. G. Wilson: We're not in disagreement on that; that's correct. Maybe I could for the record, with respect to entitlements, look at the estimated population numbers of grizzly bear. I know that's an issue of concern, as we heard earlier on in the House today from some people who live in urban British Columbia. The population estimate for the Nass wildlife area is about 570. The population adjustment for the environmental considerations would be 350. Therefore the annual total allowable harvest, based on the harvest rate of 4 percent, would be 14 bears. Problem bears harvested per year and deducted from the total annual allowable harvest are estimated to be four. The adjusted total annual allowable harvest is ten, which puts the Nisga'a allocation, which is 40 percent of that, at four bears. So we're not looking at the wholesale slaughter of grizzly bears, by any stretch of the imagination.
[1520]
M. Coell: I appreciate that. The one thing I wanted to point out in this section is that we lose some control over provincewide opportunities to protect species, whether they're endangered or not. I think that's a given. As I said
[ Page 11734 ]
yesterday, this chapter really goes to the heart of what native claims to do with land and wildlife are. With that, I'll turn it over to my colleague from Richmond-Steveston.Hon. G. Wilson: I would argue that we have more control under treaties than we do with respect to first nations, because the province now has a direct role to play, with respect to those allocations. We could get into a debate on that, but it is probably not a useful and constructive use of our time.
G. Plant: The minister makes a point that is relevant to the point that I want to make before asking a question. I guess you could say that this chapter will be the test of the truth of the minister's statement -- that is, whether wildlife management will have more certainty about it within the Nass wildlife area as a result of the treaty provisions than it does now in a regime where the Nisga'a have aboriginal rights and there are issues about who has control, who can make decisions and the levels of harvest. I think this is an interesting attempt, if you will, to take that uncertainty and translate it into a process that, hopefully, will produce more certainty.
But some of the basic tensions are not removed -- the basic tension between conservation, on the one hand, and available levels of harvest. There is no substantive answer to those tensions, but what we'll see over time
Let me come to the point that I want to ask about, which is really a point that kind of merges together 15 all the way through 20. That has to do with the designation of species. There are three species that the minister is required to designate as initial designated species, and the minister has given an explanation, in response to my colleague's question, about why those three were chosen. Then there is a process in which the minister is empowered to designate additional species. But it seems that there the criteria -- the public policy issue, if you will -- is: is there a risk to that species such that there needs to be a total allowable harvest? Only then is there a possibility that the species will become designated. So the determining factor -- at the risk of oversimplification -- in respect of the designation of additional species is really a conservation factor. Is that a fair approach to these provisions?
Hon. G. Wilson: I think that is correct. It is a conservation measure that's based on information, and it ensures that we get information with respect to wildlife management in that area. I think that conservation is going to be the key.
G. Plant: Are there now species under consideration for designation? The negotiations with respect to the three initially designated species have obviously been going on for awhile. Does the province already have other species in mind for these provisions as we move forward into the next weeks and months?
[1525]
Hon. G. Wilson: No.
M. Coell: I'd like to move to paragraph 16 to have some discussion around the wildlife committee -- how it's set up and how it will function. Does the minister see this as a committee paid by the government? Or are the Nisga'a people paying this committee? How is it going to function? If I can use a broad question, how does he see this committee functioning?
Hon. G. Wilson: At the risk of sounding a little cheeky, maybe I could suggest that we might just move to section 45 and discuss it in detail under the section that deals with the wildlife committee. I think that is the appropriate place to discuss it. It spells out in some detail, under section 45, how the committee is established, what its functions are and what its duties are. Section 46 carries on, so maybe we could just jump right to 45.
M. Coell: If it's not bad enough to invoke closure, then the minister seems to want to hurry through these
What I'm concerned about is two things with regard to 16 through 20. One is the effectiveness of the committee in determining species allocation and species designated. In the beginning, the minister said that the three species were designated because of studies showing that they were somewhat endangered and needed to be managed. How is this committee going to function with respect to the designation of more species, as my colleague has pointed out? I want to be assured, before we get to 44 or 45, that this committee will function and know how it's going to be supported by the Nisga'a nation and this particular government.
Hon. G. Wilson: I should just correct the member. I don't think that the member misunderstands, but in his question there was an ambiguity. The moose, grizzly bear and mountain goat are not designated because they're endangered. They're designated because the Nisga'a wanted them, and we wanted certainty on those species. That's point one.
Point two is that the wildlife committee has powers to recommend. That's not the committee that designates; it's the committee that recommends whether or not a wildlife species should be or continue to be a designated species. In case there's some concern that this committee is now going to be the primary committee for designation, that's not the case.
M. Coell: Neither the Nisga'a government nor British Columbia may request the committee to recommend whether a wildlife species should be or continue to be designated. I think I heard the minister say that the Nisga'a people wanted initial designation on three species which they see as fragile and important -- possibly not endangered, but in need of management. That's what I'm trying to get clear in my mind. What resources does this section give this committee to make recommendations for designations? I just see setting up a committee and saying that they'll make designations on 17 through 20. How is that going to actually work?
Hon. G. Wilson: I think the member opposite would agree that
But let me say, hon. Chair, that I think what the hon. member is looking for is the costing. We're looking at about $100,000 over five years; that's roughly what's anticipated with respect to the costing on that committee.
[ Page 11735 ]
[1530]M. Coell: Is that cost going to fund the committee to do its research? Is that provincial government money to fund the research of this committee?
Hon. G. Wilson: It funds two of the four members on the committee. The Nisga'a obviously have their costs as well.
M. Coell: Can the minister tell me how those two people will be selected? Do you have a process in place by which they're going to
Hon. G. Wilson: Maybe I could just read to the member what section 46 says. That's why I think it's better discussed under that chapter. It says: "The Wildlife Committee has up to nine members. The Nisga'a Nation and British Columbia will each appoint an equal number of members, to a maximum of four each, and Canada will appoint one member, to represent them on the Wildlife Committee." What I've just mentioned with respect to the costing, which I think is where the member was coming from
M. Coell: So that I can be clear, the province will spend $100,000 to fund a portion of this committee, the Canadian government will spend some money to fund this committee, and the Nisga'a will fund the people on the committee. What I'm looking for is: where is this committee going to get the research that will enable it to do what 17 through 20 say? Are they going to be drawing on provincial government ministerial employees, federal government
Hon. G. Wilson: Also two of the members will be
M. Coell: I can see that the government is obviously in a hurry to move this along, but I can assure you that I'm not prolonging this debate. I wish to get some answers on the record.
With that, I will move on to "Entitlements and Allocations" -- 23.
G. Plant: I guess the first point about paragraph 23 is its general purpose, which is to say that although there are processes created in this chapter which will lead to species being designated and allocations being established and allowable harvests being determined, those processes, generally speaking, are going to require a little bit of time to work their way out. In the meantime, therefore, section 23 essentially says that from and after the effective date, Nisga'a citizens are going to have harvesting rights, in respect of those species, for domestic purposes even if none of those other things -- like designation, allocation and allowable harvests -- have been determined. Is that a relatively correct summary of paragraph 23?
Hon. G. Wilson: Yes, that is an accurate summary.
[1535]
G. Plant: The point being, I suppose -- among other things -- to ensure that Nisga'a rights are not held in limbo pending the carrying out of these processes.
The right to harvest is expressed to be for domestic purposes. Domestic is a word that also appears in the "Fisheries" chapter, and it has a special definition way back in chapter 1, the "Definitions" section. The definition of "domestic purposes" is
Hon. G. Wilson: It is a shorthand. I will just make sure that I understood the member correctly. It's their treaty rights that are not held in limbo. I think we need to clarify that. When he was referring to Nisga'a rights
G. Plant: It seems to me that in this context, the more important public policy objective is to focus on what is a sustainable level of harvest from a conservation perspective rather than to argue about what's being done -- whether the animal in question is being used for food, social or ceremonial purposes. I can, therefore, speaking as a lawyer on this one occasion, express my agreement with the minister that that's a discussion and a debate which I actually hope this process may resolve rather than contribute to. But it was in that spirit that I was hoping we weren't, with this clause, creating a new, fourth category of something called domestic purposes. And that's why I am at least grateful for the minister's statement of government policy and the government's position on this.
What, though, in this context, does it mean to say that the entitlement in paragraph 23 is subject to section 70?
Hon. G. Wilson: The reference is with respect to the sale of goods.
G. Plant: The distinction, I suppose, is between the harvest and sale, although that may not be the appropriate distinction. I suppose, having harvested a particular animal or bird, it could be consumed, it could be used in a ceremony, it could be traded, it could be sold. When we're talking about sale, the objective of the treaty is to have a special provision, which is that the sale of wildlife or wildlife parts harvested
[ Page 11736 ]
under the agreement has to be in accordance with federal-provincial laws of general application as well as any Nisga'a law in respect of that particular wildlife. The objective here is just to, I suppose, carve out that particular area. Is that right?Hon. G. Wilson: That's correct. And the provincial law will prevail in the case of a conflict.
M. Coell: Moving through to 28. There are a couple of areas, when we run through 28 to the arbitration section, 34, where there just seem to me to be some inconsistencies. In 28 it says that if the minister designates a species after the effective date, there must be an attempt to negotiate and reach an agreement on a Nisga'a wildlife allocation. I'm just wondering what role the wildlife committee would be seen to play in a statement like that. It would appear that the committee would have to make a recommendation to the minister and to the Nisga'a nation on the designation of another species. That seems to be inconsistent with the previous statements about a committee making recommendations.
[1540]
Hon. G. Wilson: I think the member raises an interesting point, but I would refer the member back to section 16. The operative words there are "may request." It says: "Nisga'a Lisims Government or British Columbia may request the Wildlife Committee to recommend whether a wildlife species should be, or continue to be
When we come to the member's questions on 28
M. Coell: Maybe I'll explain why I think there's an inconsistency here. The minister, I suspect, will only be acting on recommendations from the wildlife committee, which has the minister's own staff and appointees on it. And the committee, from my understanding of it, is going to try and work on a consensual model, as well, because of their numbers. So it appears that the minister wouldn't be just designating a species without all that information having been debated at the committee level and agreement, probably, at the committee level to recommend it to the minister. So it seems to be either not needed or inconsistent with the other sections that the minister has quoted.
Hon. G. Wilson: Well, I think the general intention is that there is this consensual kind of approach and that that's what is necessary. But the treaty doesn't bind the hands of the minister; the minister may still act. Who knows -- from time to time a minister may not listen. Far be it from me to suggest that that might happen, but that is possible. The minister may act outside of the recommendations; that is here. There is nothing in this treaty that binds the hands of a minister to act. The members opposite, I think, would appreciate -- given the fact that you have all of this being consistent with laws of general application, provincial and federal -- that the minister must reserve the right to be able to act.
M. Coell: What I hear the minister saying is that if there is a disagreement, the minister may act. But then you're going to have to go to the arbitration process if there is a disagreement with the wildlife committee, the Nisga'a nation and the minister. If the minister could clarify that process for me, I would appreciate it.
Hon. G. Wilson: The minister will have to negotiate with the Nisga'a nation, not the wildlife committee, and it's only with respect to their allocation that that negotiation will take place. Presumably the minister is going to be responsive and receptive to information coming from the wildlife committee. I think that all this does is clearly define where the final lines are with respect to responsibility and allocation. The minister may act, and if he or she does, there has to be negotiation with the Nisga'a nation on the allocation of wildlife. He doesn't have to work with the wildlife committee.
[1545]
M. Coell: I think that clarifies it for me. It's probably a littler stronger hand that the government has than it appears to have in the first two sections we spoke of. The minister outlined that there is a final decision, albeit it may go to arbitration at some point. Is that correct?
Hon. G. Wilson: For the allocation, yes, that's correct.
G. Plant: I want to ask a question in relation to paragraph 29, which is connected to paragraph 33. Essentially the issue here is the dispute resolution process in the event that there is disagreement about wildlife allocations. This kind of dispute would eventually be determined by arbitration under the dispute resolution chapter. One of the issues when you have that kind of process in place and you're trying to get a sense of whether that process will create certainty or not is to see if there is some basis, some framework of principles, within which an arbitrator will operate in order to make a decision, particularly when, I guess, you're in the category of disputes that are sometimes called interest disputes or interest arbitrations.
In paragraph 29, there's a list of types of information that could exist in respect of the issue under dispute. The list includes the status of the species, conservation requirements, current and past Nisga'a harvest for domestic purposes, and so on. That's expressed in paragraph 29 as being information that should be taken into account. It also occurs to me that it could be the basis for establishing some principles that might guide an arbitration by an arbitrator under paragraph 33. Frankly, I think it would be helpful if it were. Does the minister have that view? If not, I invite him to express the contrary view.
Hon. G. Wilson: Yes, I would agree with that summary. I think that's probably quite correct.
M. Coell: With regard to section 29 as well, there is information that is expected to be presented to the minister. I wonder if the minister could outline to me where that information is coming from -- the status of the species, conserva-
[ Page 11737 ]
tion requirements, the current and past harvests for domestic purposes and the effect on the species of harvesting by others. Where is the committee going to get that information from?
Hon. G. Wilson: The information would come from within line ministries, the provincial record, as well as from the Nisga'a themselves, who have a long history of
M. Coell: There isn't a section in this chapter where outside information could be received and used by the committee. I'm thinking of non-government organizations, environmental groups, guide-outfitters -- other than the person who's on it. Someone may have a differing opinion. I just wonder about the openness of this committee in gathering this information. We all know that there are lots of people out there with ideas and thoughts, and there isn't anywhere in this where this committee is seen to be open to that information. The minister may not be able to comment on that, but I'd be interested in his thoughts.
Hon. G. Wilson: I think that the committee has a representative from the Wildlife Federation on it, and from the guide-outfitters. Both are very well respected and fairly large and active organizations in British Columbia, who do not rely, I would suspect -- I can't say I'm sure -- on government data to give them information with respect to their industry and to the wildlife figures.
I would pose to the member opposite that if that becomes a concern, those are two areas where outside information can very much come into the committee. I would think that the Wildlife Federation in particular would be most anxious to broaden its collection of information, to make sure that the committee is making sensible recommendations. It has a pretty good track record in the province for taking on these issues. I doubt that they would want poorly gathered information to be the basis upon which decisions of this import are made.
[1550]
M. Coell: I would agree with the minister. What I am hoping to hear, either here or elsewhere, is that the committee is not a closed-door committee and that other opinions will be considered, whether or not they're ones generated from government as well as the wildlife associations and guide-outfitters' operations, which -- I agree with the minister -- bring valuable ideas to the table. Nothing would be worse than to see this committee become sort of bureaucratic and closed-door. We all know that the ability of this committee to do some good work is there. I want to make sure it's open.
The minister is nodding his head, so obviously he agrees that this committee should be open. I don't know where in this chapter this kind of openness is mentioned and whether the minister wants to comment on that or not.
Hon. G. Wilson: Given that I'm currently surrounded by bureaucrats, I would hardly make anything but a positive statement about their contribution to the province.
Under section 45(k), I think, it talks about the need for "communicating with other management advisory bodies on matters of mutual interest." Clearly the point that the member raises is a valid point -- that this committee should be open. I believe that is the intention. I think that the spirit in which this treaty has been negotiated is to make sure that those who have an interest have that interest heard and respected.
M. Coell: I'm pleased to hear the minister say that, because I think the strength of this particular chapter in the future will be in openness with the whole community, from the environmental movement through to the members of the minister's staff. I know the bureaucrats sitting with you, and I have the utmost respect for the three of them. You're in a position, of course, where if you did say anything that wasn't positive, they may stop giving you the help that you need at this point.
With that, if I can, I'll move to the section "Review of Nisga'a Wildlife Allocations of the Initial Designated Species." The review within 15 years of the effective date will review a number of the initial designated species. Is there a process set up to review those species on a yearly basis? If there is or isn't, what does the government suspect the review will be in 15 years?
Hon. G. Wilson: No, there is no annual process. This is the process spelled out that suggests it's once within 15 years of the effective date. But it also says: "
M. Coell: I think my colleague from Richmond-Steveston made some comments about the potential of disease and effects that would not be from hunting. They may be environmental, changes to the climate, changes with regard to diseases of animals that may, within 15 years, substantially change one or more of those populations -- hopefully, they won't. That's why I ask: is there something by the year that the province could use for revisiting this section?
[1555]
Hon. G. Wilson: I think we have to remain focused on the fact that what this refers to is the allocation, not the actual harvest. Clearly, on an annual basis, if a catastrophic incident were to occur where some kind of disease was to wipe out a species or greatly reduce its population, those harvest levels would be affected. But the Nisga'a allocation is determined on this 15-year basis.
M. Coell: I wonder if the minister could identify for me the role that the wildlife committee would play in this review. I guess what I'm trying to get at is that I would like to know that there is an ongoing review by the Nisga'a and the government -- that if there is a problem, it's identified quickly. If that's the case, we can move on.
Hon. G. Wilson: Again, I want to make sure that the member opposite is not confusing harvest and allocation.
I see that he's shaking his head that he's not confused on that, and that's great. Then I would refer him to section 45(b), where that provision is allowed.
M. Coell: I realize that the minister wants to move on. I think you've answered my question. I'll just state it again. What I'm looking for is that there's an ongoing review; you
[ Page 11738 ]
don't wait for five years or 15 years. If the allocation needs review, it can be reviewed on a yearly basis. From what the minister said previously, I think that's the case -- that the minister has some abilities over and above the abilities that we have spoken of here.Hon. G. Wilson: I want the member to know that I'm prepared to take as much time as we need to get this thing right. I'm really not trying to rush this through.
I think that in order to properly answer the question, the member might reflect back on the formula by which the allocation is made. Part of that formula is to total that allowable harvest. Those harvest levels will change. There will be an annual review of what those total allowable harvests will be. The percentage of that is fixed as the allocation, so that the total number harvested will change as a result of a fluctuation in numbers of species. So the member's concern is actually addressed there, because, yes, there will be an ongoing review of the total annual harvest -- annual being yearly. It is taken care of there.
But the formula doesn't change. What this is referring to, with respect to the designation, is the allocation, the formula. It doesn't alter. So the percentage stays the same. But the percentage of what amount? The amount changes. Therefore the percentage, by virtue of a change in the amount, might mean that there's a reduced harvest. I don't know if that made it any clearer.
M. Coell: I thank the minister for that. That is a lot clearer than the three or four paragraphs that we were looking at.
I think that in a lot of British Columbians' minds, they want to assure themselves that the treaty actually enhances and protects species. I think that's what we're trying to get at here. It's to get on the record that either the treaty does do that or it doesn't. I think, from the minister's last response to me, that indeed the chance of mistakes is less with this treaty than at present. What I say is a mistake is overharvesting, for whatever reason. Also, the potential of enhancing species is made clearer, I think, with what the minister has just said. I don't think the minister needs to comment on that, but if he wishes to, I'll give him the opportunity.
[1600]
If we can move on to the "Arbitration" section. I guess it's always the hope, when you set up dispute resolution and arbitration chapters, that you won't need to use them. That's probably not always going to be the case. The arbitration process will obviously cost some money. Is there a formula that the government has agreed
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'd refer the hon. member to chapter 19, paragraph 43 and onwards. It essentially says that each party would bear its own costs.
M. Coell: I thank the Attorney General for that, and I suspect that there isn't a dollar figure for
Hon. U. Dosanjh: No estimates.
M. Coell: The party requesting the review of the wildlife allocation to be designated
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Obviously the minister at the time would consider those issues, based on the science that's available at that time. This section is pretty simple. Obviously, if a party is requesting a review of the allocation of a designated species, that party has the onus of establishing that it should be varied. I mean, that's a normal process for evidentiary issues.
M. Coell: I appreciate the Attorney General's comments. What I'm getting at is
[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]
[1605]
Hon. G. Wilson: Again, so that there's no confusion with respect to where the allocation comes from, I think the question that the member is asking is whether, if one of the parties proposes a change, the onus is upon them to present the information or documentation that would support that change.
M. Coell: I understand that. I guess what I'm trying to underline here -- and I won't belabour it -- is that I hope this section doesn't need to be used. This section, to me, goes against what the chapter about wildlife is. It's a joint consensual development of managing and sustaining wildlife. This sort of is: if it doesn't work, then we have arbitration. I'm just pointing out that I hope this section doesn't need to be used and that other avenues for differences can be found.
With that, I think we can move on to wildlife management, and I'll turn it over to the member for Richmond-Steveston.
G. Plant: Paragraph 35 is straightforward: "Subject to this Agreement, the Minister is responsible for wildlife." Then paragraph 36 imposes an obligation on the minister to manage all wildlife harvesting within the Nass wildlife area in a par
[ Page 11739 ]
ticular way, and the words used are: "I find myself in the situation that I find myself in all too often, where I'm sure there's a clause that answers this question. I don't know where I'd find the provision which expressly establishes harvest objectives. If the minister's search, like mine, is a search in vain, then perhaps the minister could explain what is intended by or encompassed by "harvest objectives." Where do we get them from?
Hon. G. Wilson: While there's nothing that's definitive in the treaty, I think that what's intended is that in the annual management plan, there will be objectives set out. That would be what this would refer to.
G. Plant: One argument might be that the chapter has to be read as a whole and that when one reads the chapter as a whole, one discerns certain broad objectives like the objective of conservation. That's what is meant here, which is conceivably different from the minister's suggestion that we'll find objectives stated as part of the annual plan. The minister's suggestion would be a more concrete location, if you will, for a statement of objectives. I want to give the minister a chance to answer the question again, given the other possibility that I've just canvassed.
Hon. G. Wilson: I agree. That was only one example cited in section 55, under "Annual Management Plans." It sets out pretty precisely what it is that would be included. That was example, I think. The member is quite correct; there's going to have to be a review of the matter on the whole.
[1610]
G. Plant: One of the concerns raised -- or that raises itself -- when you have an expression of, I guess, a mandatory duty, as paragraph 36 has, is whether the duty or the obligation is conferred upon the minister with sufficient clarity that the minister will know how to do his or her job. That was the context within which I asked those questions. Clearly there are some basic objectives that are expressed in this chapter -- around conservation, for example, and around recognizing Nisga'a wildlife entitlements to certain species. I suppose whether it goes beyond that or not is a matter of potential debate.
But over and above that question, I want to raise the question of whether the minister's management obligation here is expressed in a way that isn't really ultimately almost circular, because the minister sets the total allowable harvest. Presumably the minister has all the powers that the minister has in respect of harvest objectives. I mean, at one reading, it looks as though the minister is simply being told to do what he has decided he will do. That, I hope, is reading paragraph 36 too narrowly. Perhaps the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs -- a different minister than the minister that will be responsible under this paragraph -- could explain what paragraph 36 really is intended to do here.
Hon. G. Wilson: I'm hoping to be specific in my answer to the member's question. I think that clearly the minister will manage the wildlife harvesting area within the Nass within the context of this whole chapter. I don't think there is any one specific section of this chapter that you can pull out. I think sections 1 and 2 give a general statement with respect to the communal nature of Nisga'a harvesting for domestic purposes, traditional seasons for Nisga'a harvest, and so on. There is a formula that's established with respect to the Nisga'a allocation. Part of that is an annual harvest limit, which the minister clearly has some right to have a say in.
Coming back to the question from the member for Saanich North and the Islands, I think the minister obviously has to reserve the right on the final management. But this section says that notwithstanding that protection for the minister and the Crown -- and therefore the people -- there is an obligation in this treaty that the management of Nisga'a lands will respect the general provisions of this chapter of this treaty. I think that's what this is attempting to ensure.
G. Plant: The minister's explanation is helpful. Let me pick one
Hon. G. Wilson: Yes, hon. Chair, I think that is accurate. I tend to state it more in the positive. But if one states it more in the negative, one could argue that this is a restriction with respect to the limits of the ministerial power to protect Nisga'a. That is correct.
[1615]
G. Plant: I want to move on to paragraph 37, which is on Nisga'a Lisims government lawmaking authority. The rights that the entitlements, if you will
I'm looking at paragraph 37(a), which speaks of Nisga'a lawmaking power in respect of "the distribution among Nisga'a citizens of Nisga'a wildlife entitlements." I just thought for a moment that there conceivably was the possibility of a conflict here, where Nisga'a citizens might argue that the rights that have been conferred upon them are in some way not being properly recognized by the Nisga'a Lisims government. But I suspect that that interpretation is not consistent with the chapter as a whole and that this is really -- I'm speaking of 37(a) -- just a provision that ensures that Nisga'a Lisims government can make laws about distributing wildlife entitlements among Nisga'a citizens as it may see fit to do so.
Assuming that I'm correct there, can the minister explain what
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Chair, I don't think it would be wise to speculate as to what those laws might look like. They
[ Page 11740 ]
obviously have to be consistent with this agreement, but the hon. member's guess would be as good as mine in the context of the agreement.G. Plant: Well, let me make another guess. One possibility is that the Nisga'a will take the conception of traditional territories, which is a part of their history and their present, if you will -- their past and their present -- and may choose to give expression to those traditions and laws that are part of their society in terms that would allocate hunting rights. I can imagine the possibility that there may be some allocation or creation of areas of hunting where particular clans could conceivably have different rights. Whether the Nisga'a choose to do that would, presumably, be a matter for the Nisga'a. My question for the government is whether the government considers that sort of arrangement to be within the scope of Nisga'a lawmaking authority as conferred under this provision.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: That kind of lawmaking authority may well be provided for within the four corners of this agreement. But obviously it has to be subject to this agreement, as well as to the Charter of Rights and other laws of general application. I believe that in the context of that, the hon. member's speculation might be appropriate.
G. Plant: I appreciate the Attorney General's concern to ensure that there are the appropriate qualifiers placed around the discussion.
I want to ask about section 37(b). Then I think my colleague may have some questions. Section 37(b) gives Nisga'a Lisims government the ability to make laws in respect of "the establishment and administration of licensing requirements for the harvest of wildlife and migratory birds under the Nisga'a wildlife entitlements." Does this contemplate or permit a licensing scheme that would include the Nisga'a Lisims government possibly charging fees for hunting licences to Nisga'a citizens? Is that within the scope of section 37(b)?
[1620]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.
M. Coell: Following on that, would it be up to the Nisga'a government to pay for the administration of those laws?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.
M. Coell: Has there been any thought given to duplication, whereas we're covering one set of administration, and Nisga'a has the ability, in this chapter, to make new laws? The minister may just say: "We've considered it, and we'll deal with it as it comes up." But to me, there is a potential of some duplication over administration through the Ministry of Environment and the laws that Nisga'a may make. If there has been some recognition of that, I suspect that there isn't any way to tell whether there would be duplication until the Nisga'a actually start to produce some of the laws which we would regard
Hon. G. Wilson: I'm having a hard time imagining where that could happen. Maybe if the member has an example, he might give me an example of how that could happen.
M. Coell: I would think potential licensing would be an area. I guess I'm more comforted knowing that whatever laws the Nisga'a produce around this, they will be paying for them. It won't be an addition to the provincial government. That aspect would reduce the chances for duplication, I would think.
With regard to (d), "the methods, timing, and locations of the harvest of species of wildlife not included in the annual management plan," I wonder if the minister could outline what species are seen to be there.
Hon. G. Wilson: That would be non-designated species, if the parties agreed.
M. Coell: That would be all other species, in other words.
Hon. G. Wilson: It could be, if the parties agree.
M. Coell: My understanding is that the Nisga'a government would have the ability to make rules governing those species. If that's the case, it's all other species?
Hon. G. Wilson: Yes, it would be all other species -- right.
M. Coell: Going down to (f), "the trade or barter of wildlife and migratory birds harvested by Nisga'a citizens," again my colleague from Richmond-Steveston has asked what the laws will look like. Does the provincial government have any input into those potential laws, or is that strictly Nisga'a government's authority?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: No.
G. Plant: I want to look at section 37 (e), "the designation and documentation of persons who harvest wildlife and migratory birds under the Nisga'a wildlife entitlements." I wasn't here when the debate on this chapter began, but I'm not sure that there was any discussion of paragraph 9, in particular, of this chapter: "The Nisga'a Nation may not dispose of Nisga'a wildlife entitlements." Putting to one side, for a moment, the issue of trade, barter and sale, we're talking about the activity of hunting, the activity of harvesting. One can imagine the possibility in some other world where a licence is granted by a licensing agency to harvest wildlife, and there may be a market in those licences. The licence may be assignable; the licence may be used as a basis for someone delegating the actual activity of hunting.
[1625]
So to move from a less hypothetical world into the world of this treaty, there is the possibility, which must have occurred to the parties negotiating it
Hon. G. Wilson: That is correct, and your colleague the member for Saanich North and the Islands did an exemplary
[ Page 11741 ]
job on section 9 and asked these questions. The member can rest comfortably that he did an outstanding job as opposition critic on that.M. Coell: I'm not sure I really appreciate that resounding endorsement, but I'll take it in good humour.
If we could go to 41, I have a couple of questions with regard to the laws that require harvested meat that is transported outside of Nisga'a lands
Hon. G. Wilson: This section requires that the Nisga'a must make laws with respect to the transportation of wildlife.
M. Coell: I'm probably asking the wrong person; I should probably be asking Chief Gosnell this question. But to my understanding, they have informal laws now -- and probably laws that go back many years -- with regard to bartering and trading wildlife. What I'm seeking assurance on is that this isn't expanding that to be a commercial industry. What it is, is recognizing a long history of barter and trade with regard to harvested wildlife.
Hon. G. Wilson: The Nisga'a have a treaty right to trade and barter. What this section says is that we want them to make laws with respect to that. I would just refer the member to the "Trade, Barter and Sale of Wildlife" provisions -- sections 68 through 70. Under 70
M. Coell: Was this -- and this may clarify it -- something that the British Columbia and Canadian governments asked for, or something the Nisga'a wanted?
Hon. G. Wilson: British Columbia asked for it, but the parties all agreed to it, obviously.
M. Coell: I think that clarifies that for me. It seems quite redundant that a history that may be verbal and not written, for the most part, would now need to be written and formalized, and I understand why that would take place.
When we move down to sections 42 and 43, the development and carrying out of programs for hunters in relation to conservation and safety, and the costs of these programs
[1630]
Hon. G. Wilson: The Nisga'a government.
M. Coell: The programs that are envisioned in these two sections
Hon. G. Wilson: Well, they have to be comparable to the training programs that are carried out under our law, so I would assume there'd be some discussion with respect to that.
M. Coell: This brings me back to my comments on a potential duplication. It brings me back to the comments I made on the potential of duplication of programs. The minister asked me for an example. This would probably be one of the ones that I had looked at. Are we going to be producing training for everything from safety through to conservation at the provincial level? And are the Nisga'a going to be producing the same program themselves? That's one of the areas I have some concerns with.
Hon. G. Wilson: Well, this is specifically to address that problem. The idea of this is to make sure we do not have duplication. Now, there's nothing to prevent the Nisga'a from contracting those services, should they
M. Coell: That, to me, would say that if the Nisga'a are doing a good job of those programs, we could actually contract with them -- that the role could be reversed. If they're able to do that, then the province could contract anyone in that area to actually take courses from the Nisga'a nation.
Hon. G. Wilson: Yes, that's quite correct. There'd be nothing at all to prohibit that.
G. Plant: If that were to occur, would the province then be obliged under paragraph 42, in effect, to recognize the successful completion of those programs as a prerequisite to obtaining hunting licences and related permits outside the Nass wildlife area? That is, could those programs be used, in effect, as my colleague has suggested, to train people to hunt anywhere in British Columbia?
Hon. G. Wilson: Theoretically, yes, that would be the case.
M. Coell: I would just say that this, to me
If we can move on to the wildlife committee itself and its structure, under section 45, the list of what that committee will do and how its role will be managed is quite extensive. The minister said that we had a budget of $100,000 a year for our portion of that committee. Is there a time frame for review of that amount of money? It strikes me that with the fairly exhaustive list you're asking the committee to do, you're going to be relying on many other employees of the provincial government and the federal government to provide information, and I suspect that the cost of that information hasn't been worked into the $100,000 a year. So I guess my first question is: with the budget we have, is that an ongoing budget? And how, if at all, will it be reviewed in the future?
[1635]
Hon. G. Wilson: I need to clarify. It's $100,000 over five years to fund two of the four Nisga'a. The rest of the cost is a cost to government, managed or carried through line ministries -- and the ministerial input into that in terms of appointment. So there's no additional set-aside outside of the $100,000, which is set there for five years for two of the four Nisga'a on that committee.
[ Page 11742 ]
But with respect to the question specifically, there is no question that there is going to need to be a wide body of information that will be drawn on to make this committee function and function well. Our contribution to that will be ongoing, as it is now in many parts of British Columbia. I would suggest that there is no shortage of others who are interested in wildlife management and hunting and in recreational uses, be it backpacking or other kinds of recreational uses, and who would very much like to put information into the decision-making process. I don't think there will be any shortage of people with vested interests or of knowledgable individuals who would be prepared to come forward with relevant information with respect to management of wildlife in this area.M. Coell: That is my hope: that it'll be a very open committee that may even have public hearings for input from others rather than just government, be it federal or provincial.
The minister stated that $100,000 over five years to fund two of the committee members
Interjection.
M. Coell: The Nisga'a committee members. I guess that
In some respects
Hon. G. Wilson: Well, the cost obviously is going to be greater than the $100,000 over five years; that is correct. But there is no new cost, ostensibly, or I don't think we've estimated any substantially new moneys, because as the member correctly points out, management regimes are already underway in the province. Within the general course of governing, the province is already actively involved in trying to develop population statistics and data and so on. So I can't tell you what the actual cost would be. I don't think it would be helpful for me to guess at it. But I think that through the estimates process, through the ministries that are involved, one might be able to establish how that might work.
I might also point out, just by way of trying to assist the member with respect to how this will work, that sections 52 and 53, when we get to those sections, will also demonstrate how we might
M. Coell: In looking at the list of obligations this committee has to report back to the provincial government and to the Nisga'a government, I would say that it is quite exhaustive. I would also say that the bottom line is that they also have the ability to add to their task. If items come forward that weren't identified in this list, there is the ability to place them on the list. I wonder if the minister could outline for me how that would happen.
[1640]
Hon. G. Wilson: Well, that's true, and it would be based on our agreement.
M. Coell: The process of the committee is attempting to not be one-sided but to work in conjunction with one another. Does this committee have to have agreement of both the provincial and the Nisga'a government in order to add a task to this? If one party can't add a task without the agreement of the other, how is an arbitration made to add something to this list of tasks?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The answer is in paragraph 45(l). In the dispute resolution process, you wouldn't go to arbitration unless you do that by agreement.
M. Coell: In (l), the carrying out of activities agreed to by the Nisga'a nation and British Columbia, as the case may be
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The parties would have to agree. That's the only way.
M. Coell: In some respects that's a shame, because a lot of ideas come forward by one party. They have to push that idea for quite a time before the other parties see the benefit to it. That is a potential for disagreement that doesn't, to me, go with the tone of the chapter. I just bring that forward for the minister's future thoughts.
The committee has up to nine members. I wonder if there is any limitation on what the pay would be for each one of those members. Are they going to be paid on a per diem basis, on a yearly basis or whatever?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The representatives of the provincial government would be line staff, and it's for the other parties, then, to deal with their appointments.
M. Coell: We would see that the line staff from the ministries would continue to get their pay. We would cover their travel. That's one of the things that I see that
[ Page 11743 ]
ver, who has to travel there. So the $100,000 that is spread over five years[1645]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.
M. Coell: This isn't a question; it's more of a comment for the minister. That may mean that there is quite a difference in who is paid what to be on that committee -- that there will be a lot of varying degrees of payment for individuals doing somewhat the same job. I don't know whether that is an issue worth considering by the government or whether they're just going to leave that to the Nisga'a people for their consideration.
G. Plant: There's a document that we've referred to from time to time that is a publication of the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs and is called "Nisga'a Final Agreement: Costs and Attributed Values." It's got a list of costs that is all on one page, and under the heading "Payments to Nisga'a: Fiscal financing agreement," it indicates that program support payable to the Nisga'a government is an amount that is attached to or ascribed to the province of British Columbia of $100,000. My understanding is that that is the amount that has been the subject of discussion over the past few minutes with respect to the wildlife committee. Is that correct?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.
M. Coell: If I can move on to 48, we're talking about consensus. Again, if the wildlife committee doesn't reach consensus -- and this is following my last question -- they "will submit the recommendations or advice of each Party's representative." I just wonder what becomes of that. Where is the ability to make the decision? You can have a disagreement, you can share your thoughts with one another, but if you're at an impasse, where do you go?
Hon. G. Wilson: The answer to that is in the review of recommendations, which is covered off in sections 59, 60 and 61.
[W. Hartley in the chair.]
M. Coell: The minister always seems to want to jump ahead. The reason I bring this forward is that we spoke briefly earlier about the minister having the last hand in wildlife allocations. It would be my thought that this again is inconsistent with the statements that we're looking for consensus and the committee is going to make recommendations or seek advice of their partners. Again, if arbitration isn't used, does the minister have the last say here? This is what I'm getting at.
Hon. G. Wilson: It's not that I'm trying to jump ahead; I'm just trying to be helpful to the member opposite. If it isn't by consensus, then that's covered off under section 63, where "the Minister receives, from the Wildlife Committee, more than one recommendation that is consistent with this Agreement, in respect of an annual management plan, or any amendment to an annual management plan, the Minister will approve the recommendation that, in the Minister's opinion, best takes into account the matters set out in paragraph 59." It's not that I'm trying to jump ahead; I'm just trying to direct the member opposite to where the answers to his questions lie in the text of this agreement.
G. Plant: Paragraph 50 talks about consultation. The general thrust of the paragraph is that consultation with respect to regulations or policies that would significantly affect wildlife management or harvesting within the Nass wildlife area will take place through the wildlife committee. So the committee is the vehicle through which that kind of consultation will take place. There's an obligation on the provincial and federal governments, I suppose, to undertake to use the committee for that purpose.
[1650]
What I'm a little less than completely clear about is the relationship between British Columbia or Canada
Hon. G. Wilson: That is correct, but with the distinction that the federal role only goes to their interest in fisheries, and not freshwater fish. Sorry -- yes, freshwater fish.
Interjection.
Hon. G. Wilson: My understanding is that for migratory birds, the federal government opted not to be part of the committee.
M. Coell: I probably just need some reassuring comments from the minister with regard to section 52: "
Hon. G. Wilson: Just the region as a whole. It has nothing to do with regional government.
M. Coell: With regard to watersheds -- there are many in this area and also that abut this area -- I would be interested in hearing what level of government would have input into watershed management. What I'm looking for is the relationship of watersheds to wildlife. The protection of wildlife may mean that you cannot log in a watershed for a variety of reasons. Will the committee have the ability to make recommendations that would change what goes on in a watershed because of the relationship to the wildlife within that watershed?
Hon. G. Wilson: That's a good and complicated question, and one to which there is no straight answer for a number of reasons. There are issues that relate to habitat and
[ Page 11744 ]
watershed management that need to be worked out with respect to interests that have downstream-benefits consequences -- licences on watersheds and so on. It's a complicated issue, so I can't give the member a definitive answer except to go back and muse, as I'm sure the member will have, on the time when we were in regional government -- recognizing how difficult it was within regional government to recognize how we protect the watersheds that affect the communities. I think the member opposite and I sat on the AVIM many times talking about watershed management, trying to deal with that.It's a complicated issue, but the proposition in this particular treaty is that there is an acknowledgment with respect to the management that it will have to deal with the regional management consequences and also watershed issues. So it is one that needs to continue to be discussed to work out. They will have to find resolution to specific issues as they arise.
[1655]
M. Coell: The reason I bring this issue forward is that in using this chapter as a template for other treaties, I suspect that similar wording would be put in other treaties. Potentially, in southern British Columbia that would have more effect than it will on the Nass Valley and the Nisga'a people. I think that, for the most part, this will probably have positive protection for watersheds.
What I'm looking at is the potential for conflict in other areas where you have a smaller land-based treaty, where you have more people involved in the watershed and maybe even living arrangements as well as tenure of animal or timber licences. I think that in some respects what I want to highlight is the potential for a very powerful decision coming from a recommendation from this committee, which would change forever what would happen in a particular watershed.
Hon. G. Wilson: Well, the member's point is well made, and that's why this is not a template. That's why the kind of approach that the member speaks of is being taken in other treaties at other tables. The Sechelt, for example -- who we hope are to put their signature on an AIP in the latter part of this week -- have gone to a broader approach. There is already integration with local government on other issues of concern. I think the concern that the member raises is one that's appreciated, and that's the reason that this is not being used as a template.
M. Coell: I appreciate those comments.
If we could move now to the annual management plans, I have touched on this subject a little bit, when we were looking at the 15-year review and the five-year review as well. So I am pleased to see that this is spelled out in the agreement. I would be interested to hear the minister's comments on the availability of these plans to the public. Many of the plans for the Ministry of Environment in the past are public documents. Will these continue to be public documents?
Hon. G. Wilson: The intention is that they will be public.
M. Coell: I'll make this as a comment or a recommendation. In the development of management plans, it would appear that sort of a public hearing process that would allow opinions from anyone who's concerned to be part of the committee process would be helpful. I don't know how that public hearing process could be put into place. I don't know whether the minister has any thoughts on that.
Hon. G. Wilson: Well, I think that would be helpful. I think the committee would be well advised of the member's comments. Certainly when they get functioning, hopefully they will be, because I think those are valuable suggestions.
M. Coell: One of the things
[1700]
What I'm suggesting is that some process where people have input into the system, where the decisions are made, may help somehow to get a consensus around how we protect and enhance species within the province. I think that in some respects you see it as a small part of the province up in the north, but it may have an opportunity to have quite an effect on the general attitudes towards species protection and enhancement in the province.
Hon. G. Wilson: Well, I certainly don't think that this will hurt the process. I think that it will probably provide a vehicle in the Nass for much more intensive wildlife management than might otherwise be there. So I think that this treaty goes a long way to helping to facilitate the kind of issues that the member raises.
But the member still hasn't told me whether or not the members opposite are in favour of bringing in legislation for the protection of species -- endangered-species legislation. Maybe now is a good time. Are the members opposite ready for us to protect species like the spotted owl and others? Shall we bring in laws that
M. Coell: I appreciate those comments. I remember a year ago having an opportunity to debate this issue with the minister, who was then the leader of a different party. He had some views that he shared. Now I suspect that they're not the views that the present government shares. I'd be interested in hearing his comments, as well. Undoubtedly we'll have an opportunity to share thoughts on endangered species legislation in the near future, and we may not be too far apart.
The Nisga'a government is to forward proposed annual management plans to the wildlife committee on a timely basis. One of the things I've noticed, being in this chamber, is that annual reports generally don't come on a timely basis. They're two or three years out of date. I just wonder whether there have been any discussions and what will keep the process on time.
Hon. G. Wilson: Well, the member's point, with respect to annual reports tabled in the House, actually has my concurrence. I think they should come in a more timely way. But what will move this along is the desire to hunt, because in
[ Page 11745 ]
order for them to go out, they're going to have to have those plans in place. So I think you'll find that that will stimulate the process considerably.M. Coell: I would hope so, but I don't see any guarantees in here, other than the moneys -- the $100,000. But the guarantee is that this money will continue to be brought forward in any event. And as I say, it may not be an issue that concerns the minister. I only mention it because I've sat in this House for three years and have seen 1995 annual reports appear in 1999. So I only flag it as a potential problem that I didn't see a solution to.
Hon. G. Wilson: I would think that section 47, where it says the wildlife committee will meet as often as necessary to carry out its responsibilities, coupled with an angry hunter, would be incentive enough to get it done.
M. Coell: Okay.
If I could go down to 62. The minister has the final authority in this section, but I don't see anything other than the ability to rubber-stamp. Is that correct?
Hon. G. Wilson: Well, it has to be consistent with the agreement. It isn't just a question of rubber-stamping. The provision here says: "If an annual management plan, or any amendment of the annual management plan, recommended by the Wildlife Committee or its members is consistent with this Agreement" -- I think that's kind of key -- "the Minister will approve
[1705]
M. Coell: I agree with what the minister has said. When I read that the first time, I thought to myself that in other aspects of this chapter, the minister actually has a decision-making authority. This is basically a process authority where, if it fits all of the constraints of the agreement, then it has the government's stamp of approval.
If we can move on to "Trade, Barter and Sale of Wildlife," 68 through 70, I have a number of questions. I may have covered some of those questions the other day, with regard to international trade with regard to animal parts, and I would like to get some assurances and some clarification from the government on the position with regard to the trade, barter and sale of wildlife. As I say, I recognize the long history of trade and barter with aboriginal peoples. I recognize and understand the need and the desire to have this in the bill. What I want to assure myself of is that the expansion of barter or trade of animal parts isn't here. I would be interested in hearing the minister's thoughts on just that -- whether this is exclusive enough to keep
Hon. G. Wilson: Well, I believe it is, and I think that it's in all our interests to make sure that it is. Section 68 talks about trade and barter -- the sale or barter of wildlife. This is outlined in section 70, which says very clearly that it must be in accordance with federal and provincial laws of general application and with any Nisga'a law in respect of sale of wildlife. I think the intention there is to allow the normal cultural practice to take place but not to commence a trade in animal parts, which is not intended in this agreement and in fact, I would say, is prohibited by this agreement.
M. Coell: Thank you for those comments.
Again, I mention this because I suspect that sections like this will be in other treaties. They could be in other treaties that overlap federal and national borders. I just wonder whether the trade to other countries will have an effect on the potential growth of trade and barter of animals. If I can just expand on that, in many respects and in many first nations they do overlap borders, as we know, in southern British Columbia and Alberta. I'd be interested in knowing how those overlaps could be affected by this section. I realize that I'm probably stretching my envelope here by dealing with something that is not in the treaty. I think that it has a lot to do with this treaty's impact on future discussions.
Hon. G. Wilson: Quite contrary to stretching the envelope, the member opposite has put his finger on a very important issue, which is the reason that paragraph 69 is written the way that it is. It sets out the fact that Canadian federal law will apply. We're well aware of those overlaps, and so for that reason, 69 makes it very clear with respect to the protection of federal law.
[1710]
G. Plant: Trapping. The provisions beginning with paragraph 71 use the term "trapline." Trapline can refer to something that is a trail up a creek somewhere with some traps on it, or it could be a term that is intended to refer exclusively to traplines registered under the laws of British Columbia. Is the reference to traplines in paragraph 71 and following intended to be a reference to registered traplines only, or is it a reference to all traplines that may exist in the area that's the subject of those clauses?
Hon. G. Wilson: It refers to registered traplines only.
G. Plant: Paragraph 72 deals with the situation where you have a "holder of a trapline within the Nass Wildlife Area [who] agrees to transfer the trapline to the Nisga'a Nation, a Nisga'a Institution, or a Nisga'a Corporation." Is paragraph 72 intended to apply to traplines held by non-Nisga'a, or would it also apply to traplines that are currently registered -- if there are any -- to individual Nisga'a citizens?
Hon. G. Wilson: Both.
G. Plant: Paragraph 73 talks about what happens "if a trapline that is wholly or partially on Nisga'a Lands becomes vacant." First of all, the circumstances by which it would become vacant are described as abandonment or operation of law. In my experience learning something about traplines in a part of British Columbia that's not too far away from the bottom half of the Nass River, a trapline could be, in the view of its holder, unused for 30 or 40 years because of market conditions or other reasons and yet, in the view of its holder, not be a trapline that's abandoned. Does abandonment have a technical meaning in this context, or is it just a word that's going to be interpreted as the case to apply it arises?
Hon. G. Wilson: Well, I think we need to make two points. Abandonment would be determined by the Ministry
[ Page 11746 ]
of Environment -- as to whether or not it was abandoned. I think that we're dealing here with those traplines that are either wholly or partially on Nisga'a lands.
G. Plant: Well, let's put that
Hon. G. Wilson: Well, the answer is that there are none right now, because any have already been transferred as part of the treaty.
G. Plant: Well, that's helpful. The minister says that it would be the Minister of Environment who would determine the issue of abandonment. Is there some statutory power conferred on the minister now to make that determination generally, or is this something that just simply flows by implication from the treaty?
Hon. G. Wilson: I'm going to take that question on notice, if I may, and just make sure that we check the statutes. We believe there is, but I want to be certain there is before I say there is.
[1715]
G. Plant: I appreciate that. I look forward to getting the answer.
I want to go back to paragraph 72, which talks about the holders of traplines within the Nass wildlife area and the process for transferring them if the holders of those traplines agree to transfer them. I'm interested in the practical context of this one also. Are there some traplines that meet this description where these agreements are already in place? I assume that some progress has been made towards this end, as part of the negotiation process relating to the treaty.
Hon. G. Wilson: At this time there are not, but it provides for it in the future.
G. Plant: Conceivably, then, there are a number of registered traplines within the Nass wildlife area -- some held by Nisga'a and perhaps some held by non-Nisga'a. After the implementation or the effective date, the question of whether these transfers will take place is, I guess, more a matter of if, as and when the situation arises, rather than something that the governments have set as a policy objective to try to achieve.
Hon. G. Wilson: Yes, that's correct.
G. Plant: I knew I was creating a problem with the way I asked that. I was intending to create an alternative. One alternative would be proactive government policy to try to achieve these transfers -- possibly in the interests of ensuring that a larger share of actual wildlife harvesting, including trapping within the Nass wildlife area, was happening and being done by Nisga'a. You could have that as a positive objective.
The other approach would be to regard paragraph 72 as an enabling clause which would deal with situations if, as and when they arise over time. If I've succeeded in drawing a distinction between the two different policy objectives this time, could the minister tell me what he thinks paragraph 72 is about?
Hon. G. Wilson: It is an enabling clause, so the member is correct in that scenario.
G. Plant: But does the government see it as a task that it sets for itself to positively and consciously go out to seek these transfers? Or is it something that's going to happen or not happen as the holders of these traplines wish it to happen?
Hon. G. Wilson: I think the latter is the case. I don't think the government is going to go out and seek it.
G. Plant: Paragraph 75 says: "British Columbia will not register any new traplines within Nisga'a Lands without the consent of the Nisga'a Nation." Can the minister give an indication of approximately how many registered traplines now exist either partially or wholly within Nisga'a lands?
Hon. G. Wilson: There are 80.
G. Plant: Registered traplines on Nisga'a lands?
Hon. G. Wilson: There are, within Nisga'a lands and the Nass wildlife area.
G. Plant: I appreciate the clarification. Given the provisions of paragraph 75
[1720]
Hon. G. Wilson: No. It only refers to the Nisga'a lands.
G. Plant: Then, just to try perhaps one more time, does the minister have a figure for how many registered traplines are currently on or within Nisga'a lands -- the smaller area?
Hon. G. Wilson: I don't have that number, but I'm sure we can get that for you. I'd be happy to give it to you.
G. Plant: I appreciate that offer, and I accept it. I should indicate that I don't need the precise number -- if it's a question of talking about half a dozen or two dozen or something. My guess is that it's likely to be in the order of half a dozen or so, but that is just a guess.
I want to ask some questions about 78 and 79. Paragraph 78 says that trapping on Nisga'a lands is regulated in the same manner as trapping is regulated on fee simple land in British Columbia, subject to paragraph 79. And then paragraph 79 sets out specific provisions where there is trapping on traplines held by an individual on Nisga'a lands. The question is: does "individual" in that context include Nisga'a citizens as well as non-Nisga'a citizens?
Hon. G. Wilson: The answer is yes.
M. Coell: I'll just outline a couple of thoughts, and then I have a couple of questions with regard to trapping. From this chapter in the schedule, it appears that there is a large number of Nisga'a citizens who have traplines outside Nisga'a lands
[ Page 11747 ]
but within the wildlife area. It also seems that there aren't a lot of non-Nisga'a traplines within the Nisga'a lands that are not owned by Nisga'a citizens. I just wonder whether the minister could clarify that for me.Hon. G. Wilson: There is one.
I wonder if might just clarify for the member for Richmond-Steveston with respect to the abandonment of traplines. It is covered by regulation under the Wildlife Act -- the Wildlife Act commercial activities regulation 3.14 -- and reads as follows:
"(1) No person shall continue to hold a registered trapline unless he or she (a) renews his or her licence, (b) carries on active trapping on his or her registered trapline to the satisfaction of the regional manager, (c) obtains permission from the regional manager to temporarily discontinue the use of his or her registered trapline for a period not exceeding 2 years, or (d) uses or causes the use of his or her trapline by a licensed trapper or a person exempted from holding a licence.
"(2) Where a person fails to comply with subsection (1), the regional manager shall cancel the registration of his or her trapline."
So the correct answer is
G. Plant: Although the word "abandonment" is not used in that regulation, I take it that the government's view is that if those circumstances arise in which the minister has the power that was just read to us, broadly speaking, that constitutes abandonment from the perspective of the government. Is that a fair statement?
Hon. G. Wilson: I would think that's correct. And I would just point out that there are 37 traplines either partially or wholly on Nisga'a land.
M. Coell: It would appear to me that this section, the "Trapping" section, differs from other sections in that the provincial government is still going to be the lawmaker when it comes to traplines in and on the Nisga'a wildlife area. I would think that there would be a desire for the Nisga'a nation to have some control themselves without input from the province on traplines. I think that if anything goes back literally hundreds, if not thousands, of years, it would be individuals' traplines. I wonder if the minister could clarify for me: is there a desire from the government that in the future the traplines remain in Nisga'a hands rather than be administered or approved for non-Nisga'a citizens?
[1725]
Hon. G. Wilson: I think that the appropriate answer to the member is covered under section 77 in this section here, which suggests that we'll negotiate and attempt to reach agreement with respect to the Nisga'a Lisims government's authority for management. I wouldn't want to speculate on future governments and what they may or may not undertake to do.
M. Coell: I understand what the minister is saying. I'm just coming from the position that I would think that the Nisga'a would want more control, if not total control, of what goes on, on their land. I see this particular section as probably not meeting that desire. I may be wrong about that, but it appears to me that the government is still going to be heavily involved in the issuance and management of traplines. In some instances, they will have to have Nisga'a agreement, but being in the position to agree may not be what the desire is. If the minister doesn't understand me, I'll elaborate.
Hon. G. Wilson: Far be it for me to comment on what the Nisga'a's desire may or may not be. I wouldn't want to speculate on that. There are two distinguished members from the Nisga'a nation observing this debate. Maybe you'd better ask them. I realize you can't do it in this context, but I don't think it would be appropriate for me to try and speculate on what the Nisga'a's desire may or may not be.
M. Coell: I guess the reason I want to pursue this just a bit further is that when you look at the members of the Nisga'a community, you have traplines in the area outside Nisga'a lands but in the wildlife area. That is significant. I would think that they would probably wish to continue doing that and wouldn't want the government in any way to make decisions that would go against the traplines that are now in place continuing to belong to Nisga'a citizens. In my own mind, I guess what I'm trying to see is that something that is historical will remain historical and that something that is working now for Nisga'a people will continue to work for Nisga'a people. I say that because they don't have the control, in this section of the document, that they would need to guarantee for themselves that that would happen.
Hon. G. Wilson: That's why they've agreed to the language of this treaty. Clearly they would not have agreed to the language of this treaty if they didn't believe that it met their needs.
M. Coell: I understand that. I understand also that this is something that in the past may have had more relevance than it does now. But I'm not so sure it always will. Why I bring it up is its potential for the future and for changes that come in the future.
[1730]
If we can go on to the guiding section, which is 81, again, this section may not have a lot of changes to what's already taking place on Nisga'a lands. I again believe that there is a great deal of potential for job creation for the Nisga'a people in guiding in the future -- and guiding in more respects than hunting or fishing. I am thinking more of the "ecotourism" that may be a benefit to job creation in the Nass Valley.
I wonder if the minister would outline for me the government's view of Nisga'a control of guiding. What I'm looking at is comparing the trapping and barter section to the guiding section. Is there something that the government will do to ensure that guiding
Hon. G. Wilson: We all agree with that comment, and that's why the language under sections 81 and 83 provides that opportunity. I think that all of us are looking forward to a very positive development there.
[ Page 11748 ]
M. Coell: I appreciate those comments.I think that -- and this is from my perspective in going through this chapter -- one of the real potentials for job creation is in this chapter. It may not be seen to be by other ministries. But to me, the potential for tourism and guiding is really there.
I think that we may have wanted to do more to outline some of the possibilities. I think we did in the previous chapter, looking at the wildlife committee and its roles and what it will do; I think we've covered that quite thoroughly. In this section, I think there could have been some additions. That may sound strange coming from this side of the Legislature. But I think that there was potential here -- there probably still is -- for government to be involved in this area. So I'd be interested in hearing the minister's comments on that.
Hon. G. Wilson: I'm delighted to hear members opposite extol the virtues of the treaty, even if it is only within this section.
But we did do more. We had the commercial recreation tenure; it's set out under section 83 -- schedule D. So I think that there is a real opportunity available. The member makes a valid comment with respect to how this treaty is going to help advance -- at least on this front and, I think, on many others -- the ability for the Nisga'a to be able to engage in this activity.
M. Coell: With regard to guiding, I'll just make one comment. Then, I believe, my colleague from Richmond-Steveston has a couple more comments on guiding.
One of the areas that we briefly touched on was the division in British Columbia between rural and urban treatment of wildlife. I think that -- as we looked at the public hearings in the wildlife section and the openness that, I suspect, will happen -- this is another area that could help bring a consensus to many parts of the province. You're not necessarily just dealing with guiding people from the Nass Valley through the Nass Valley; you might be dealing with people from Vancouver or Surrey or wherever. There is some potential. So I'm pleased to hear the minister's comments.
I'll turn it over to my colleague from Richmond-Steveston.
[1735]
G. Plant: I'm looking at paragraphs 83 and thereafter. Paragraph 83 says that British Columbia will issue an angling-guide licence to the Nisga'a nation for certain watercourses outside of Nisga'a lands. In fact, the list of those watercourses includes the Bowser River, the Bell-Irving River, the Kiteen River, the Meziadin River and the Nass River -- quite a lot of water and a rather large area of British Columbia.
I was trying to get the answer to this question out of the Wildlife Act, but I don't have it; perhaps the minister does. Is an angling-guide licence an exclusive or non-exclusive right or permit? That is, is it open to the province to issue angling-guide licences to others in respect of watercourses outside of Nisga'a lands? Do others already hold such licences? In effect, is the Nisga'a nation just going to become one among a number of presumably commercial parties attempting to market a business that has shared non-exclusive angling-guiding rights on these rivers?
Hon. G. Wilson: It is non-exclusive, and yes, others hold that.
G. Plant: For the sake of completeness, is there a cost here when the province issues an angling-guide licence? If the province were to issue an angling-guide licence for an area including the watersheds in the Nass River, which is a big area, would there be a fee charged in relation to it that is significant or not?
Hon. G. Wilson: It would be whatever fees are applicable. There would be nothing additional to those existing costs.
G. Plant: I recognize that the responsible officials may not be here. But I assume that the fees for these licences are not going to be in the tens of thousands of dollars; they're more likely to be, at the most, in the hundreds of dollars. Is that the kind of area that we're talking about?
Hon. G. Wilson: Yes, that's correct.
G. Plant: I have a technical question about paragraph 84(a). British Columbia is here agreeing that it will not "issue any new angling guide licences that apply to watercourses within Nisga'a Lands." Is that intended to describe watercourses that are wholly within Nisga'a lands, or does it apply to any watercourse which is partially within Nisga'a lands? The Nass River would be an example of the latter, in which case there might be a significant impact.
Hon. G. Wilson: It could be wholly or partially. Most of them are partially in Nisga'a lands.
G. Plant: In practical terms, has the province undertaken an obligation, after it issues an angling-guide licence to the Nisga'a nation for the Nass River watershed, to refuse to issue any new angling-guide licences to the Nass River watershed?
Hon. G. Wilson: I wonder if the member might repeat that question. I'm sorry.
G. Plant: In practical terms, has the government here restricted its ability to issue any new angling-guide licences to the Nass River watershed? I'm looking at 84(a), and I want to have the government explain the ambit of that restriction.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: It's our view that we're not limiting ourselves.
[1740]
G. Plant: Paragraph 85 poses a consultation obligation on British Columbia when there is a "proposed transfer, or change in terms and conditions, of an existing angling guide licence that applies to watercourses within Nisga'a Lands." Can the minister give us a ballpark figure of how many such licences now exist?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Approximately ten to 15.
M. Coell: If we can turn now to migratory birds and the wildlife entitlement
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Chair, let me correct my answer to the previous question: I'm told there are 53.
M. Coell: My colleague may have another question with regard to that, but I'd like to move on to migratory birds. He may come back to that if need be.
[ Page 11749 ]
Let me preface my remarks. This is obviously very similar to the other sections that we dealt with in regard to trapping and wildlife management, with regard to trade, barter and sale. I wonder if the minister can clarify for me: are any significant differences between this section and the other sections that we've dealt with earlier in the discussion? I'm looking at the wildlife management areas.Hon. U. Dosanjh: I believe it's essentially the same, with the exception of paragraphs 93 and 94 being different.
M. Coell: In looking at the reverse of my previous discussions, where we were talking about bartering and exchange outside Nisga'a lands, the one question I would have is: is the importation of by-products, including, as the minister pointed out, down and other products that could be used for cultural purposes
Hon. U. Dosanjh: This is obviously what has been agreed to, given these negotiations. I think that would be the answer.
M. Coell: The Attorney General is basically saying that the three parties are happy with this. Again, I see some potentials there. I think we are all aware of the history of migratory birds and their relation to the Nisga'a people. But when I read this -- and let me share this with the minister -- it's not necessarily a recognition of the past. There are opportunities recognized, for the future, for the importation of by-products and possibly the development of jobs. I see it as very similar, and I'm not going to spend any time dealing with it because of the similarities to the other sections, other than to say that I think it's a little bit more than a recognition of historical practices.
The management
[1745]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: That would be between Canada and the Nisga'a. Of course, they will set that timetable.
G. Plant: I want to rise, because -- among other things -- I think it's important to draw a distinction between the rest of the wildlife entitlements, where there's been considerable concern given to the Nass wildlife area, and the migratory bird entitlements, where the area in question is actually larger. It's the whole Nass area.
Then I'll sort of repeat my colleague's question. Paragraph 95 imposes an obligation on Canada, and, yes, it does not impose an obligation on British Columbia. When paragraph 95 speaks of "the harvest by aboriginal people of migratory birds within the Nass Area," is that intended to include, for example, harvest by Nisga'a? Or are the aboriginal people that are the subject of paragraph 95 intended to be non-Nisga'a? Does the minister have some insight into that?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: It would include the Nisga'a.
G. Plant: So Canada, then, has assumed in the treaty a specific consultation obligation with the Nisga'a in respect of the management of migratory bird harvests by a range of aboriginal communities or nations. I suppose that, over time, we'll see whether that arrangement is effective to achieve whatever purposes it's intended to have.
I want to make a comment about 96. Again, this is an obligation on Canada. Even though we're here in the provincial Legislature, I wouldn't want the moment to pass without making an observation that, over time, the assumption by Canada of obligations to consult with first nations in respect of the formulation of federal policy in relation to international agreements may prove to be significant. Obviously if this is a unique situation, then that comment would have very little force. And obviously the particular obligation here is specifically tied to migratory birds and their habitat within the Nass area.
I think it is interesting -- from a parliamentary sovereignty perspective, I suppose, if nothing else -- to see that Canada has agreed, in what amounts to a constitutional obligation, to consult with the Nisga'a nation in respect of some aspects of international relations. That's really a comment rather than a question.
[1750]
M. Coell: With regard to paragraph 97, it's one of those statements that kind of jump out at you. I'll explain where I'm coming from. "The Parties may negotiate agreements for purposes of managing habitat critical for conservation of migratory birds or endangered species." We covered this a couple of times during the discussion of this chapter, in that the effects of habitat and the protection of ecosystems may have significant effects on the people who border those ecosystems or have tenures or licences on those ecosystems. It's a simple, one-sentence statement that could have dramatic effects on people other than the Nisga'a who abut them, be they other first nations groups or individuals -- or Crown land. I wonder if the minister could comment on that.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: This is obviously a permissive section. Once the parties do decide to negotiate, they will take many issues into account.
G. Plant: The clause that we're looking at is concerned with habitat. I know that there are places up and down the coast of British Columbia that are famous for being locations where there is in fact habitat that is critical for conservation of migratory birds or endangered species. Can the minister indicate whether there are, either within Nisga'a lands or within the wildlife area, any such areas? Does the government already have in mind particular places where there are critical habitat needs and concerns?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: No.
M. Coell: I don't have any further questions on chapter 9. I would just comment on the schedules that we have. I would imagine that this schedule was worked out as part of the negotiations. I would hope -- and the minister can just assure me of that -- that the percentages and the allocations that are in schedule A used scientific research or that the ministry staff were involved in that -- that these numbers weren't just picked out of the air and that they were actually worked on with ministry staff at both the federal and the provincial levels, as well as the Nisga'a.
[ Page 11750 ]
Hon. G. Wilson: That's correct. We were advised by regional staff.M. Coell: I will just wind up by thanking the minister and staff for comments. As I said at the beginning of this, there are many areas of this treaty that we differ on and have varying degrees of difference. This is an area of the treaty that I think touches the historical actions of the Nisga'a, and I wish them well with the implementation of the wildlife management aspects of this treaty.
Hon. G. Wilson: I think it's been a very productive debate; I hope that the tenor of the balance of this debate can be as productive. I appreciate the member opposite for not only some insightful questions but also some good suggestions that I think should be taken into account when the committee gets set up. I've made note of them; I think those are useful suggestions.
Noting the hour, hon. Chair, I move that we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
[1755]
Hon. G. Wilson moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 5:56 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright © 1999: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada