Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

[ Page 11763 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: We had a ceremony in the rotunda today, a very sombre and dignified ceremony in memory of those who perished in the Holocaust. In connection with that, I'll be making a ministerial statement after the introductions.

At this time I want to acknowledge those survivors of the Holocaust who have been able to be with us today in the gallery: Rita Akselrod, Susan Bluman, Marie Doduck, Dr. Ernest Forrai, Klara Forrai, Jack Gardner, Dr. Peter Gary, Leon Kahn, Rysha Kraskin, Dr. Robert Krell, Leo Lowy, Jocy Lowy, Eric Peter Parker, Ada Parker and Vera Slymovics.

As well, I would like to acknowledge the presence in the gallery of representatives of several organizations: Zena Simces, Canadian Jewish Congress; Bob Willmot, Jewish Federation of Greater Vancouver; Michael Peters, Jewish Federation of Victoria and Vancouver Island; Dr. Robert Krell, Vancouver Holocaust Centre Society for Education and Remembrance; Dr. Richard Kool, Victoria Holocaust Remembrance and Education Society; and Steven Feldman, Temple Emanu-El of Victoria. Would the House please make them welcome.

M. de Jong: There are several members of this House more closely identified with the Sikh religion than I, but I had the good fortune last week of being at Anandpur Sahib, where the celebrations relating to the 300th anniversary of the Khalsa are taking place. The highlight of those celebrations is occurring today in Anandpur Sahib. On behalf of the caucus and, I think, of all the members, I want to acknowledge that event and those celebrations and the joy they are bringing to Sikhs all over the world.

Hon. I. Waddell: I note in the House a former member of this House who is here also to mark the solemn occasion with respect to the Holocaust, which the Attorney General spoke of. I'd like to personally welcome him because he was the previous member for Vancouver-Fraserview. I notice that on his lapel he's also got an Order of Canada pin. I won't tell you his middle names. He's got a few middle names. One is Singh, and he's got other middle names. Would the House please welcome our friend and former colleague in this House, the former member for Vancouver-Fraserview, Bernie Simpson.

R. Neufeld: It's not often -- in fact, this is the first time -- that I've been able to rise in the House and introduce someone that I know. Like I say, it's so seldom that I get to introduce anyone that the member for Abbotsford is allowing me to introduce these people who happen to live in his constituency. His name is Herb Heppner and hers is Kay Heppner, and they're with Herb's sister Rose from Saskatoon. Just to show you that Mennonite blood travels far and wide, actually Kay is a cousin of my dad's and a cousin of the mother of the member for Kamloops. I would like to welcome to the House Herb and Kay Hepner and his sister Rose.

Hon. P. Ramsey: We're joined in the gallery today by a social studies teacher who has made Holocaust remembrance an integral part of his work in the classroom over the years and also in his work as president of the BCTF. Would the House please welcome Kit Krieger.

S. Orcherton: Joining us in the gallery today are 87 members of the B.C. Professional Firefighters Association. These are men and women who devote their working lives to ensuring the safety of British Columbians. They've been meeting all day today with MLAs from both sides of the House regarding increased training issues and initiatives, and they're here in Victoria today -- all 87 -- attending a legislative conference on behalf of their organization. They're led by their president, Mr. Bob Brett, and I also note in the gallery two old friends of mine, Mr. Ed Pakos and Mr. Terry Ritchie. I'd ask the House to make all of these members of the B.C. Professional Firefighters Association very welcome to these chambers.

G. Farrell-Collins: I would like to second the comments of the member for Victoria-Hillside in welcoming the firefighters from across the province of British Columbia. It's that time of year again, and you're always welcome here. It's good to see you again, and we'd like to extend our welcome and greetings from this side of the House.

[1415]

The Speaker: Members, members, come to order.

Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Speaker, I have three introductions. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: All right, simmer down everybody.

Hon. D. Miller: First of all, I'd like to introduce an individual I recently hired to be my constituency assistant: Sue Staehli, from Prince Rupert.

As well, in the Legislature today are two people who are playing an important role in advanced education in northwestern B.C.: Michael Hill, the president of Northwest Community College; but particularly Deanna Nyce, the representative of what's called Wilp Wilxo'oskwhl Nisga'a, which is a post-secondary institute that the Nisga'a have started. They will graduate their first graduates this year from a post-secondary institution. They understand that if they're going to change the nature of their economy and provide new opportunities, education is the key. They will soon be joining the Advanced Education Council of B.C. I would ask the House to give a warm welcome to all three people.

R. Thorpe: I would like to introduce three guests visiting from Penticton today: Wayne McKenzie, Graham Gowe and Randy Wilkes. They're all members of Local 1399 of the Penticton Fire Fighters. I ask the House to make them welcome.

Hon. G. Clark: Yesterday, along with my wife and kids, I had the privilege to visit the motor vessel Global Mariner. The Global Mariner is a ship that was purchased by the International Transport Workers Federation, which is a group of affiliated unions from around the world. The Global Mariner has been stationed and berthed at Canada Place in Vancouver for people to visit. Over 10,000 largely Vancouver residents have visited the Global Mariner.

The International Transport Workers Federation has a representative here. People may be familiar with them,

[ Page 11764 ]

S. Hawkins: Visiting the Legislature today are two people from my riding. Mr. Sandy Dore is a very well respected teacher and human rights advocate. Our community's very, very proud of his anti-racism involvement with workshops and activities not only in the school system but also across the province, especially in our riding. With him, as well, is his wife Lee Claremont, who is a renowned first nations contemporary artist. She's in Victoria attending a B.C. Festival of the Arts event this week, where she's mentoring first nations youth participants. I ask the Legislature to please make them welcome.

Hon. A. Petter: I see in the gallery a number of familiar faces of people attending the Advanced Education Council of British Columbia meetings in Victoria. These are representatives from colleges, institutes and university colleges from around the province. They were kind enough to host some of us this morning at a very informative and worthwhile presentation. I hope that we can give them an informative and worthwhile presentation in the next few minutes. I'd ask the House to join me in making them very welcome.

J. Sawicki: Today I would like to introduce two of the Burnaby firefighters that are here. They are members of the executive of Local 323: Joe Robertson, who is the secretary, and John McQuade, who is the treasurer. In making the firefighters welcome today, I would ask the House to thank them not only for keeping our communities safe but for the tremendous work they do in fundraising for so many worthwhile causes in all of our neighbourhoods. Would the House join me in making them welcome.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Joining us today in the House are Robin D. and Robin J. Webb from Horsefly. Mr. Webb is down here to receive his 25-year service award -- he's been with the Ministry of Forests -- along with another 150 people. Would you please make them welcome.

E. Walsh: It gives me great pleasure to introduce to the House three constituents of mine. Along with my colleagues from Prince George-Mount Robson and Peace River North -- and as another member who really doesn't get up very often to introduce people to the House -- I am doubly pleased to introduce Ron Sauve, Clayton Murrell and Ole Hansen. This is Clayton's first visit to the parliament buildings. I would ask the House to please make them all welcome.

Hon. C. Evans: I'd like to introduce a couple of friends of mine: Bob Slade from the Nelson Fire Fighters and Richard Melnick from Trail. And listen, you guys: I think I may be the last one. When the bell rings after this, don't respond unless somebody gets hurt.

F. Randall: I also would like to introduce two members of Fire Fighters Local 323 from Burnaby: Randy Delmonico, who is the president, and Mike Hurly, who is the vice-president. Would the House please make them welcome.

[1420]

E. Gillespie: This morning I had the pleasure of meeting with three firefighters from Campbell River. On my own behalf and on behalf of the member for North Island, I would like to ask members to join me in welcoming Reid Wharton, Ken Dawson and Les Ready to the Legislature.

The Speaker: It's one of those unusual occasions when the Chair has someone to introduce. In the gallery today is a very special guest who was a longtime Law Clerk in the House of Commons in Ottawa and a well-known parliamentarian. Would you please welcome Mr. Joseph Maingot and his wife Simone, who have joined us today.

Ministerial Statements

HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL DAY

During the Holocaust six million Jewish men, women and children were murdered. Atrocities were also committed against others targeted for racial and religious reasons, against people with physical and mental disabilities and against those targeted because of their sexual orientation. The establishment of Holocaust Memorial Day provides an opportunity for all of us to reflect on and educate ourselves about the enduring lessons of the Holocaust.

The events currently unfolding in the Balkans, as well as in other parts of the world, should serve to remind us that the conditions that led to the state-sponsored systematic annihilation of six million Jews by Nazis are never very far away.

Unfortunately, there are still some individuals and groups in our society who resent diversity and embrace a philosophy of exclusion. They continue to spread their poisonous messages of racism, hatred and religious intolerance. This government is committed to protecting British Columbians from hate, racism and violence. We are committed to promoting tolerance, diversity, respect and equity in our communities.

I ask all of my colleagues in the House today to take a moment to remember the victims of the Holocaust and their descendants. I ask them to also remember and reflect on the enduring lessons of the Holocaust as we observe a moment of silence after the opposition leader has responded to my statement.

G. Campbell: There are few things that are more difficult for us to face than the Holocaust, because it is simply beyond

[ Page 11765 ]

[1425]

The Speaker: Members, let us all rise for a moment of remembrance.

Thank you very much. I recognize the hon. Minister Responsible for the Public Service with another statement.

KHALSA TERCENTENARY

Today Sikhs throughout the world are celebrating the Khalsa tricentennial. Indeed, it is a tribute to the culture that Sikhs are found all over the world today practising their religion and paying homage to their culture. The greatest challenge facing Sikhs outside of India is their desire to preserve their culture and pass on the cultural values, religions and traditions to their children. That challenge is as great here in British Columbia as it is in other places outside of India.

There is no doubt in my mind that the Sikh culture and religion will continue to thrive and flourish over the next 300 years, much as it has over the past 300. That's because of the determination and the desire on the part of Sikhs to never give in. The determination to never give in came to be deeply rooted in the Sikh psyche even in adversity, when they were exhorted to remain in buoyant spirits -- chardi kalaa, as the community often says. With it came the conviction that destiny was in their hands. At the end of each congressional prayer comes the chant raj Khalsa, which means "the Khalsa will rule." No one will be able to resist them -- that is, those of the Sikh faith. Those who confront them will be routed, and those who seek their protection will be saved.

With that short comment and a little bit of history about the Sikh religion, I am sure that all members in the House will join me today in extending best wishes to the Sikh community here in British Columbia and throughout the world.

S. Hawkins: I want to thank the Minister Responsible for the Public Service for those comments, and I want to mirror some of the congratulations that he's offered to the Sikh community. As an immigrant to this country and as someone who was born in India and later raised here, I've seen quite a difference in the two communities, from what I remember as a child growing up in India and then growing up in Saskatchewan and then coming to Vancouver, which has the secondlargest Sikh community in the world. It is a credit to Sikhs, who came here 100 years ago, to keep the community, the culture and the religion alive here.

[1430]

This is a very, very special year for the Khalsa; it's the birth of the Khalsa. I don't think I've seen an event like this discussed so many times in the Legislature. We did private members' statements and congratulations. Lots of members are going to events in their community, and I would commend them on doing that and would encourage other members to go and learn more about the culture and the religion. With that, I want to say congratulations to my Sikh brothers and sisters, not only in this province but around the world.

Oral Questions

DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION TO NDP CAUCUS

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, the question has not been stated.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. Members, come to order.

G. Campbell: Can the Premier tell us why it is okay to disclose confidential information about an investigation to the NDP caucus but necessary to keep it hidden from the public?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

G. Campbell: At the same time that the Premier is arguing that the public's right to know should be trampled on. . . . At the very same time that he's doing that, he is secretly briefing the NDP caucus about an investigation that is underway.

My question is to the Attorney General. Will the Attorney General confirm that it was simply wrong for the Premier to give a private briefing to the NDP caucus while, at the same time, he was not prepared to give that information to the public, who were paying his bills?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. . . .

[ Page 11766 ]

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, these questions have nothing to do with the portfolios of the people asked.

The Speaker: Next question, the Leader of the Official Opposition.

G. Campbell: I want to be very clear. This question is to the Attorney General, who felt it was necessary to absent himself from a secret caucus meeting because the Premier was going to make a presentation of confidential information that was already under investigation. The Attorney General decided to absent himself, as I understand it, from that caucus meeting.

My question to the Attorney General is: will the Attorney General agree that it's simply wrong for the Premier's publicly funded lawyer to be giving secret briefings to the NDP caucus while, at the same time, he is arguing that information should be kept hidden from the public?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, firstly it must be recognized that it was not a secret meeting. Secondly, the Attorney General appropriately absents himself from meetings that he feels might be inappropriate for the Attorney General, in his unique role, to attend. Thirdly, with respect to the questions relating to the lawyer, there is government policy. The Minister of Finance has already answered questions with respect to that. That lawyer would be paid in accordance with that policy.

[1435]

BACKGROUND OF NBI CASINO APPLICANTS

My question is to the minister for gambling. Can he tell us why on earth he gave the green light for a casino licence to the North Burnaby Inn when it had close connections to convicted illegal gamblers?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The member seems to be concerned about facts, so let's deal with fact No. 1. There was no casino licence issued to anybody. There was no temporary licence issued to anybody. There was no conditional licence issued to anybody. There was no interim licence issued to anybody. In short, there was no licence issued at all.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Second, let's deal with the facts. The applications. . . .

The Speaker: Minister, I ask you to be very, very quick.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The proposals were received and reviewed by an independent body consisting of members of the Gaming Commission, the B.C. Lottery Corporation, the gaming audit and investigation office and outside consultants. They did evaluations on all the applications.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Richmond-Steveston.

G. Plant: For weeks this minister has been running as far and as fast as he can away from the fact that he gave approval in principle -- that is, virtually a done deal -- to the NBI casino application.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, such interruptions are of no help to anyone. I cannot hear the question.

G. Plant: The minister gave the green light to the North Burnaby Inn without even waiting for the gaming audit and investigation office to complete its work in respect of that application. Will the minister tell us why he even granted approval in principle to the North Burnaby Inn before completing the bare-minimum criminal-record checks?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Hon. Speaker, I'd like to correct something again that the hon. member says. He says that approval in principle was given. Conditional approval in principle was given, dependent. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. M. Farnworth: . . .on them getting zoning approval from the city of Burnaby. That is a long ways away from being a licence; it is not even close to being a licence. Then, if once they got that zoning approval, they would still have had to go and conclude a negotiated agreement with the B.C. Lottery Corporation.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. . . .

Hon. M. Farnworth: They would still have had to conclude the GAIO investigation, as would have every other application on their way to getting a licence, on their way to getting a final approval. And they also would have had to have gotten all the environmental, regulatory and necessary local government permits and approvals. Approval in principle or conditional approval in principle are a long way from becoming a licence.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order, please.

C. Clark: Hon. Speaker, page 13 of the gaming registration package asks applicants to state whether they have ever been associated with anyone who is connected in any way with illegal gaming. Can the minister tell us how the applicants for the North Burnaby Inn answered that question?

[1440]

[ Page 11767 ]

Hon. M. Farnworth: Under the proposal call, applicants were required to submit their application and to have it discussed and treated and looked at and evaluated by an independent body. This independent body was made up of the gaming policy secretariat, the Gaming Commission. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. M. Farnworth: . . .the B.C. Lottery Corporation and outside auditors, who were Coopers and Lybrand Ltd. What happens then is that the evaluation is scored, and there are a series of scores done. The scores then come to me.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, the question was heard.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I find it interesting, hon. Speaker. The opposition ask a question, but they don't want to wait for the answer. I've been giving them an answer, but unfortunately, they don't want to listen to it because it's very detailed and very precise -- which is why they're constantly making allegations.

The fact of the matter is that those results are then forwarded to me. It's on that basis that we make a decision, and part of that is that there has to be an independent audit by the gaming audit and investigation office. They are doing their work. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister, the answer is getting longer and longer. It's time to finish; it's time to conclude, please.

Hon. M. Farnworth: . . .and when the investigation is completed, a report comes to me. Then we can make the final decision on a licence.

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

C. Clark: Precise and detailed are not two words I would use to describe any of the minister's answers on this question. The question is this: because the gaming registration package would have been filled out by the applicant before the minister granted approval in principle, either they would have revealed their connection, which should have raised a red flag for the minister, or they would have lied about it -- and the minister should have been able to find that out. Will the minister tell us when it was that he first learned that the applicants for the North Burnaby casino application had a longstanding business connection with someone who had been tried and convicted of illegal gambling?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Hon. Speaker, you know, I listened to the hon. member. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. . . .

Hon. M. Farnworth: The investigation into the background of the applicant is done by the gaming audit and investigation office. They are an independent body; they are at arm's length from my ministry. It would be completely inappropriate for me to (1) interfere in their investigation and (2) make inquiries into their investigations.

The second point I'd like to make is that there is an investigation underway -- okay? There is an investigation underway by the RCMP. There's information that we can release, and at some point, when I am able to release further information, I will be able to do that.

PAYMENT FOR PREMIER'S HOME RENOVATION

The Speaker: The question is out of order. It has nothing to do with the Premier's responsibilities.

M. de Jong: If this is, as the Premier would have us believe, a matter that falls entirely outside of his responsibilities as Premier of the province, then the question that British Columbians have is: why the heck are they paying the bills for the lawyers that have been hired to defend him?

[1445]

The Speaker: Members. . . .

I recognize the Government House Leader.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I have said this before, but I'd like to reiterate it so that we can actually have a decent debate around this. It is the policy that people who are faced with issues in the course of the performance of their duties are provided with legal counsel. That is up until the point that there is wrongdoing, and that is exactly what the policy is. The policy is being applied fairly and equitably not only amongst all jurisdictions, from the public service point of view, but also within the private sector as well, hon. Speaker.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

G. Farrell-Collins: Well, now we know that the lawyer has been hired by taxpayers' money and clearly, according to the Government House Leader, it falls within the public duties of the Premier of British Columbia. So my question is to the Premier of British Columbia: did he or did he not pay the full amount for the construction of that deck, including labour?

Hon. G. Clark: I'm reminded, actually, of my predecessor in this chamber, the Hon. Alex Macdonald, whom I

[ Page 11768 ]

I have said publicly, and I'll say repeatedly, that there is a full investigation into this matter. I have nothing to worry about. We have nothing to worry about. The policy with respect to lawyers being paid is the same now as it has been for ten or 20 years in British Columbia and the same in every province in Canada. If you want to talk about that, we'll do what we did today, which is announce 1,000 more nurses in British Columbia and significant investments in the health care system. We will get on with governing in British Columbia on the issues that people really care about -- rather than the mud they want to sling across the way.

The Speaker: The bell ends question period.

Tabling Documents

Orders of the Day

NISGA'A FINAL AGREEMENT ACT
(continued)

On the schedule, chapter 7 (continued).

[1450]

I am wondering, then, if the minister could tell us whether, under that concept, charging tolls or doing something of that sort might slow the traffic down, or information giving, would be considered impeding, or whether that would be a possibility under this particular agreement.

Hon. G. Wilson: They are not permitted to do that. That would be an impediment.

D. Symons: The reason I ask that is because some of that has been used, I guess, as a method of protest to the fact that aboriginal land claims haven't been going ahead and so forth in the past. So I was wondering if it could continue under this act.

I wonder if we might take a look at section 8. It talks about ownership of the Nisga'a Highway. I notice that in section 8 it says, "British Columbia owns the Nisga'a Highway corridor," etc., whereas when we look at the secondary roads it talks about the right-of-way and doesn't mention the word "owns." There's a distinction, then, between the Nisga'a Highway per se and the other secondary roads that will remain in the provincial jurisdiction. Is that true?

Hon. G. Wilson: I think the member is correct. We actually own the land under the Nisga'a Highway, whereas we have a right-of-way on secondary roads.

D. Symons: The minister told me earlier in this discussion that 47 kilometres of what is going to be the Nisga'a Highway already exist. That's roughly half of the length of Nisga'a Highway, or the highway-to-be. Can you give me an idea of whether those 47 kilometres will have to be upgraded or rebuilt, or will it just be incorporated as is? Or does there have to be a fair amount of work to bring it up to the highway standards that you'll want for that particular stretch of the road? That's for the portion that already exists.

Hon. G. Wilson: Well, insofar as it was built as a logging road, there would have to be some upgrading to bring it up to highway standards.

D. Symons: When we're talking about the Nisga'a Highway, will that be a two-lane or a four-lane highway or road? Will it be gravel, seal-coated or paved? What will be the finished condition of that particular road when it's built?

Hon. G. Wilson: I'm advised that at this time it's two-lane, and it will be paved.

D. Symons: Will this highway, when it's completed, only go to the borders of the Nisga'a. . . ? When talking about the Nisga'a Highway, is it only from the borders of Nisga'a lands? Will that continue on and connect into Highway 37, or down to Cranberry Junction? Will it go down to Terrace? What will be the finished product that joins into the rest of the province?

[1455]

D. Symons: I gather, though, that the road from Terrace up to the Nisga'a lands is probably not in better shape than the roads that you're going to have to upgrade within the Nisga'a lands. So will that road also be part of this upgrading, to make at least the highway that goes to Nisga'a lands as good as the highway that will be in Nisga'a lands?

Hon. G. Wilson: I'm advised that this will continue the upgrade from what was built in the eighties, which is a two-lane, paved highway. That will just continue through into Nisga'a land.

G. Plant: I want to ask some questions about the issue of ownership first. Obviously the intention of paragraph 8 is that the Crown will own the Nisga'a Highway corridor, within the terms set out in this chapter, forever.

Hon. G. Wilson: Yes, subject to realignments and things that might change.

G. Plant: The ownership of the Nisga'a Highway that's expressed here in paragraph 8 isn't just a statement of owner-

[ Page 11769 ]

Does the Crown consider that it owns, or will own, the Nisga'a Highway free and clear in fee simple, the highest estate known to the law and land? Or does it take the view that its ownership is in some respect conditional -- the condition being the requirement that it use those lands as a public highway, as expressed in paragraph 8?

Hon. G. Wilson: It is Crown land, and it is used as a corridor for highway and public access, if that's what the member's asking.

G. Plant: There have been and continue to be disputes among and between the owners of, say, statutory rights of way and the Crown in various places where. . . . Say a railway company has the right to use a particular parcel of land for railway purposes, and that's done for a hundred years or so, then the land is no longer used for railway purposes. What happens then is that people end up looking at the terms of the original grant and trying to decide whether the railway company still owns the land or whether it loses the land, because the terms of the grant essentially limited the ability of the owner to continue to own it only for so long as it was being used for railway purposes.

Again, mindful of the fact that we can't prevent or predict here what people might argue about 50 or 100 years from now, it would be nice to avoid that general problem. It would certainly be good to know what the Crown's position is now: that is, does it consider that it really owns this land outright? It's made a promise that it's going to continue to use it as a public highway, but that promise is not a condition around -- or a way that could be used to undermine -- the character of its ownership.

[1500]

G. Plant: The highway corridor is defined by reference to schedule A. I think I've been on this road, and I think part of it goes through what is or will become Nisga'a Memorial Lava Bed Park. I guess the question is: how much of this corridor is actually on Nisga'a lands? Is any of the defined corridor what we would refer to as Crown lands that are neither Nisga'a lands nor within the park?

Hon. G. Wilson: None of it is on Nisga'a lands is the answer, I think.

G. Plant: Is any of it outside Nisga'a Memorial Lava Bed Park?

Hon. G. Wilson: Yes.

G. Plant: So the highway corridor. . . . What does the agreement say -- if anything, I suppose -- about parts of what are now the roads within Nisga'a lands? Is none of that within the so-called Nisga'a Highway corridor? It's way too open-ended. I guess I'm trying to figure out. . . . The minister's last answer has set me back a bit. I thought that the corridor was largely the part of the highway that went into and traversed part of Nisga'a lands, but the minister says it's not Nisga'a lands. I hope we're not just being clever about the distinction between what is defined to be Nisga'a lands and what is defined to be the corridor. Maybe that's the key. Is that what the minister meant in answering my last question?

Hon. G. Wilson: I think that is the key, because the highway goes through Nisga'a land, but it isn't Nisga'a land.

G. Plant: The minister is explaining, in effect, the operation of the agreement. That is, this parcel that is the highway corridor -- as a line on a map, as a place on the surface of the Earth -- is, by virtue of this chapter, defined not to be Nisga'a lands, because it is instead the Nisga'a Highway corridor. But as a practical matter, portions of that corridor will be surrounded by what becomes Nisga'a land. Is that a more accurate description than my last attempt?

Hon. G. Wilson: Yes, that's correct.

[1505]

I gather, from what the minister was saying earlier, that roughly half the Nisga'a Highway exists in one form or another, but certainly it will have to be upgraded -- new roadbed put in to bring it up to highway standards. And the other half, I guess, will be new highway and will have to be totally built. Can the minister give us a pretty good ballpark guess -- or I hope it's better than that -- of what this particular Nisga'a Highway portion of this agreement is going to cost?

Hon. G. Wilson: I'm advised that it will be $41 million for the upgrade, and for the new section to Kincolith it's $30 million.

D. Symons: So we have $71 million in capital costs for putting in the Nisga'a Highway. I'm wondering, then, if the minister might give me an idea of what the maintenance costs have been, traditionally, on the roads that will be maintained by the province. They end up now being part of this Nisga'a agreement, but we will be maintaining them as part of our provincial responsibility. What were those maintenance costs historically?

Hon. G. Wilson: It's about $1 million. And yes, because it's provincial highway, we'd obviously want to continue to maintain it.

D. Symons: So we're dealing with a continuing cost of $1 million per year and $71 million. . . . Now, I know the Island Highway was built to much more rigid standards, but I'm finding that that $71 million figure seems to be fairly low for

[ Page 11770 ]

I'm wondering if the minister might then. . . . If we can skip ahead a little bit here and take a look at the next section, I want to ask a question. Section 15 deals with the highway alignment. Basically, how many kilometres of this Nisga'a Highway will go through fee simple lands that are not part of the Nisga'a lands? I'm sure it must go through lands that other people have in fee simple.

Hon. G. Wilson: I can't give the member a definitive number of kilometres, but it's not much -- which probably isn't a satisfactory answer. But I will try to get a better read on that.

D. Symons: Then the question is: if they're going through some lands that are owned by somebody in fee simple, will the province then be expropriating that portion of the land that they'll need for the right-of-way for the highway through those lands?

Hon. G. Wilson: It's unlikely that there would be any direct expropriation, but certainly we would work out some amicable relationship between Highways and private land owners to try to accommodate the existing right-of-way. Keep in mind that the highway corridor is there.

D. Symons: Is the corridor for the full highway there, or simply for those portions that currently exist?

Hon. G. Wilson: I am advised that the corridor is predominantly there. There may be some widening of some sections of this in order to maximize the width, and that might actually impact marginally on private land. For the most part, it's already established.

M. de Jong: I just want to make sure that we all understand this and, in particular, that I understand this correctly. The two figures that we've heard today are $41 million and $31 million. I think what I've heard the minister say is that the $41 million relates to the upgrade of the existing highway, and that would be the highway from Terrace in to New Aiyansh. Is that correct?

[1510]

M. de Jong: That's fine. Even the minister would agree, however, that they are liabilities that the government has assumed as a result of the negotiations that took place.

Let's talk about the second figure, the $31 million. That is for construction of a new highway. Is that the highway out to Kincolith? Is that the new construction we're talking about?

Hon. G. Wilson: Just a couple of things to go on the record here. It's $30 million, not $31 million. The $1 million was what was asked by the member for Richmond Centre with respect to annual maintenance costs. So it's $30 million, and it is apportioned between the federal government and the province. It is not part of the treaty. The commitment to highway upgrading and construction in fact happened during an administration several removed from this one, so it's not as a product of this treaty. It's an obligation that is longstanding that the government is now finally honouring.

M. de Jong: The Premier is here, and he may be the person best able to answer this. I have a very distinct recollection of comments being attributed to him in the days immediately following the announcement that a draft treaty had been agreed upon that a portion of these costs represented something called a "deal sweetener." The deal sweetener allowed for the affixing of signatures. If I'm mistaken about that, the Premier can correct us, but I have a distinct recollection of highways-related costs being discussed in the days immediately following the announcement of this draft treaty.

Hon. G. Clark: Well, I'm pleased to answer. I just can, first of all, only reiterate what the minister said, which is that this was a commitment made by previous governments in the 1980s, actually, that there would be a highway upgrade prior to the conclusion of negotiations. It didn't happen at that time, and part of it was done under the previous Mike Harcourt administration. Part of the highway was constructed, as I understand it, as well as a bridge across Gitwinksihlkw.

But it was a source of some contention with the Nisga'a people. In fact, I was at a dinner, as I recall -- looking at some of my friends in the gallery -- where, prior to the final negotiation, this was a key concern for the Nisga'a: that there be a paving of the highway. At the end of the day, there was an agreement to proceed on a timetable to complete that highway to finally live up to the commitment made in the 1980s by government, and the federal government agreed to contribute.

[1515]

M. de Jong: I think the first thing I want to try and do is ascertain what we're talking about in terms of the roads here. There is the road that most people who have been to the Nass Valley have travelled, which is from Terrace into New Aiyansh. It continues on up to Cranberry Junction, and a portion of that has been upgraded. I don't think many people who have travelled that road would argue that it is not in need of some upgrade. Our discussion here is about the costs associated with that -- what part that played in the negotiations, and how those costs have been calculated.

The other component to this, as I understand it, relates to the road out to Kincolith, which is one of the few communities in the province that remains inaccessible by road. Maybe I can ask this question: what is the provincial liability, or what portion of the cost associated with the road to Kincolith has the province assumed?

Hon. G. Wilson: I was remiss not to introduce Mr. Dan Doyle, who has joined us and who advises me by way of

[ Page 11771 ]

M. de Jong: What information, what documentation is the provincial government relying upon when it presents that figure of $30 million and therefore its share at $17 million? Had the cost of construction been calculated prior to the announcement last year that the government was going to contribute to the cost of construction of that road?

Hon. G. Wilson: I'm advised that we've been surveying, resurveying and resurveying again since 1981, so we've got a pretty accurate estimate of what it's going to cost.

M. de Jong: And is the government in a position to release the survey documentation that it's relying upon, the cost analysis that it bases its figures on with respect to the cost of that road?

Hon. G. Wilson: I'm told that all of the costing and information is available and that an invitation is extended to the members opposite if they'd like to sit down with Highways personnel to go through it. They'd be happy to walk you through it, keeping in mind that this is not part of the treaty.

M. de Jong: If I'm a member of the Nisga'a nation and I'm listening to the minister emphasize, first, that construction of this road is not something guaranteed by virtue of this treaty and, second, that it is a longstanding promise that dates back to at least the early 1980s, my question might be: what assurance do I have that this is going to take place? Maybe the assurance the minister can offer is a signed agreement -- a signed contract or tendering documents. What have we got that suggests that anything different exists today that didn't exist in 1982 or 1983?

[1520]

M. de Jong: What form does that agreement take? I hear "agreement," and I hear "not part of the treaty." But taxpayers, who are ultimately going to be contributing to the cost of construction, want to see something a little more substantial than simply: "We have an agreement." What is that agreement? When the minister says that provincial taxpayers are on the hook for $17 million, is that a percentage of the anticipated cost? We've heard cost estimates from this government before. Quite frankly, I think people are looking for something a little more substantial than the minister's assurances that we have agreement. What form does that agreement take?

Hon. G. Wilson: Like any other agreement with respect to the construction of highways that either go through or impact on land that, up until this treaty takes effect, is federal land, there is an agreement that is established with respect to -- I would point out -- a longstanding commitment by the federal government to help finance construction of a road. That road is now part of an agreement that is signed between the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority and the Nisga'a nation, represented by the Nisga'a tribal council.

The detail of that agreement is, essentially, to do as we have said: to complete the environmental assessment work and the design work in order to build a road through to Kincolith. The costing has been done. The federal government has agreed to its share, the province has agreed to its share and the Nisga'a tribal council to its share. So it's a tripartite agreement that is signed, and the highway should get underway quite outside and quite separate and apart from the detail of this treaty.

M. de Jong: The first thing that comes to mind is the costing formula that may or may not exist within that document. Is it capped insofar as the provincial liability is concerned? Or is it open-ended? I'll then ask the minister to give us some indication as to the time line that is contemplated with respect to construction.

Hon. G. Wilson: The provincial portion is capped.

M. de Jong: At what amount?

Hon. G. Wilson: At $17 million.

M. de Jong: Turning to the question of the timetable, does the memorandum of understanding set out a specific timetable for work to commence and be completed by?

Hon. G. Wilson: There is a timetable which, of course, includes environmental assessment. Once that is concluded, it's anticipated that it will go directly to tender, which will probably be in the fall of this year.

M. de Jong: Maybe one of the ways to expedite this somewhat is to see the document -- which I don't think was included in the material, but I could be mistaken -- that I received from the ministry. When is work scheduled to begin?

Hon. G. Clark: From my recollection of the discussions, this fall, I believe, work is scheduled to begin. The part to Kincolith is a difficult piece, and paving the part that's gravel is a fairly straightforward piece. It's a phased project. I'm not sure how certain the timetable is, but when we were looking at it, it was about a three-year project, beginning this fall.

M. de Jong: Here's part of the difficulty that I'm having. On the one hand, I'm being told that the cost aspect of this is fixed and firm and that the agreement is solid to that extent. It's still unclear to me, though, based on some of the other information I'm hearing, as to whether or not what we have here is a firm, enforceable contract, versus a memorandum of

[ Page 11772 ]

[1525]

Hon. G. Wilson: I don't know how the division of labour takes place with members opposite, but this project was announced in a press release on March 15, 1999. It was outlined very specifically and included both the minister responsible, the Minister of Transportation, as well as the member for North Coast, the Minister of Energy and Mines. There was a detailed discussion at that point as to the costs and associated activities around this highway.

I'm prepared to advise the members opposite that there is indeed a contract. It sits between the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority and the Nisga'a nation, represented by the Nisga'a tribal council. The apportionment of payment is agreed to between the province, the federal government and the Nisga'a tribal council.

Probably the reason that the members opposite didn't get it in their FOI is because it has nothing to do with the treaty; it is a separate agreement on highways. My guess is that the member for Richmond Centre knows about it, and if not, maybe you guys should keep up with what's in the paper, because it's been in the public domain since March 15, 1999. There's nothing new or different or exciting about it. It is simply an agreement to construct a road.

The Chair: Members, perhaps we could return to the treaty itself.

M. de Jong: I could digress and remind the minister that the government he now sits as a member of has issued a myriad of press releases assigning costs to any number of projects, the vast majority of which have come nowhere near the targets projected. So if the minister is asking me to rely upon a press release and take that home as comfort for what a particular project or commitment his government has entered into, I'm sorry; I'm inclined to be a little more skeptical. I'm inclined to be as skeptical as he was just a few short months ago when he sat on this side of the House.

I haven't seen the agreement referred to, and if the minister is saying that he's prepared to table it, then maybe that's a good start, and we can start there.

Hon. G. Wilson: Well, I'm shocked by the comments of the member opposite, who I thought used the Vancouver Province as his primary source of research when it comes to. . . .

But I'm happy for you to have a copy of the agreement. There's nothing secret about it, if you want to take a look at it. I think Mr. Doyle advised me that the member for Richmond Centre is more than welcome to sit down with staff from the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, and he'll talk to you about time lines.

I'm also advised that we've already got the federal money in our pocket, which is good. It means that at least we can press on with that. I think maybe we'll leave that there and move on to the agreement.

D. Symons: Just one question on that topic. You mentioned earlier that your figure is capped at $17 million. I assume that all the previous conversation has been taking place over the $30 million for the new portion of the highway. If we take a look -- and the member just made reference to some highway projects that haven't matched the projected costs -- at the Lions Gate Bridge project, I think there was somewhere around $70 million allocated for that particular project. The bids came in closer to $100 million once it went out for bids.

So what happens in the event that you find, when you go out for bids, that indeed it's going to cost more than the $30 million on that portion of the highway? Does it mean that you just do a portion of it, if you've got it capped? Or are you going to do the whole project and put some more money into it? Or do you go to the feds or to the Nisga'a? Where do you get the remainder of the money if it turns out that you have been estimating on the low side and the bids turn out to be higher than you expected?

[1530]

D. Symons: I'm assuming, then, that the $41 million that's for the upgraded remainder of the highway is totally the province's responsibility, and the province is picking up that. Also, while I'm at it -- so you only have to bounce up once -- is there a timetable for that particular. . . ? When will that upgrade begin, and when do you expect to have that upgrade completed?

Hon. G. Wilson: The member is correct in the number; it's $41 million and it's over seven years.

D. Symons: The next section is one that I found -- I won't say amusing -- interesting: "British Columbia will consider the extension of the Nisga'a Highway from Nass Camp to connect with Highway 37, in accordance with provincial priorities. . . . " That "will consider" and "in accordance with provincial priorities" does not sound to me to be too firm a commitment. It does say: ". . .and having regard to British Columbia's long term goal of completing that extension." I'm just curious, with something as wishy-washy as that statement in there, how you managed to get that by the Nisga'a people. It isn't really a commitment as such. It's sort of wishful thinking.

Hon. G. Wilson: I would have thought that if we had given a firm commitment, we would have been chastised for spending too much money. I think that the government. . . .

Interjection.

[ Page 11773 ]

The issue here is that the Nisga'a are well aware of the fiscal restraints on government. They're also, however, well aware that if they don't keep this in the planning hopper, any chance of getting that extension is gone. What this does, essentially, is flag it as a potential development project. It's one that is clearly still in the planning hopper and one that won't be forgotten, because we have a constant reminder under section 16. That's what it's there for.

D. Symons: On that same topic, I'm wondering if you might give me an idea of the length that that extension will be -- how many kilometres -- and what the estimated cost for that particular portion will be.

Hon. G. Wilson: I'm advised that we're talking about approximately 20 kilometres, but depending on when we construct it. . . . Of course, the costs will vary as construction costs go up. I don't think that work has been done.

An Hon. Member: In today's dollars?

Hon. G. Wilson: I don't have a figure in today's dollars, because I don't think it's been properly surveyed or properly costed. If I were to guess at a figure, you'd want me to give you some documentation substantiating that, which I don't have, so I'm not going to guess.

D. Symons: I want to skip ahead to section 25, because here it says: "British Columbia may not without the written consent of the Nisga'a Nation assign or transfer any of its interest in any secondary provincial road right of way area except for an assignment to. . . ." And then I find section 25(b) interesting: ". . .to a lender as security for a borrowing by British Columbia."

So it seems that you can go to the Nisga'a nation and say: "The province is a little hard up for money" -- maybe we've got a little bit of a deficit this year that we want to handle -- "and we're going to end up borrowing some money against your highway." I just find that interesting.

Has the British Columbia government gone out and used a highway as security for borrowing in the past? I'm curious if that's happened. Do you intend to do this, or do you want to leave that in here as a loophole for some reason in the future?

[1535]

D. Symons: Then, like most other highway capital projects in this province, this is all being done through the TFA, which is borrowed money, which means that our children and grandchildren will be paying off what we're doing today. . .

Hon. G. Clark: Enjoying the road, too.

D. Symons: . . .and possibly enjoying the road, as the Premier added in there.

Okay, I can see the purpose of that, then. I had the idea that possibly the government was going to start mortgaging its roads as a way of meeting its deficit problems. This does not seem to be the case, then; it's just the way the government is currently doing money -- out of future years' pockets.

If we can take a look at section 26, it indicates that B.C. "will indemnify and save harmless the Nisga'a Nation" in regard to the provincial roads. I'm wondering if that will apply to car accidents on the road in the event that there is ice or snow on the road or some shoulder has given way. Will the province then be responsible? Potholes and all the myriad of things that can go wrong on a highway. . . . It seems now that the government will hold the bag for any liabilities on those. Is that true?

Hon. G. Wilson: I'm advised that this is exactly the same as it is on any other road in the province. The idea for the section here is because the Nisga'a, as the landowner underneath the road, shouldn't be held liable for what happens on the road.

D. Symons: Prior to this treaty, I believe, the government had the ability to expropriate up to 5 percent of aboriginal reserves -- I'll use the term "reserve" there, because it was that -- for road purposes. I'm wondering: will that right of expropriation still exist with this Nisga'a agreement, or is the government now limited forever to the right-of-way maximum as stated in section 1, which is at 800 hectares? Also, the minister did mention that we could purchase, I gather, land in the future if we wanted to, if the Nisga'a nation was so inclined to sell that land to us.

Hon. G. Wilson: The answer to the member's question is no. I'd refer him back to the section on rights-of-way in general, which puts out the 2,800 maximum.

D. Symons: I'll skip a few pages here. I'm just looking at section 42, which harkens back to section 6 that we dealt with a while ago and talks about consultation with regard to traffic regulation. I'm not quite sure how much traffic may be travelling on this highway, but I suspect that it won't be quite the same as Highway 1 on the lower mainland. It says: ". . .British Columbia will consult with the Nisga'a Nation or that Nisga'a Village with respect to regulation of traffic and transportation. . . ." I assume, then, that the province is retaining the right, but as the proper way to do things, you're going to be consulting with the people regarding that. Is that true?

Hon. G. Wilson: It's just as we would in any other settled area or municipality. We negotiate what the speed limits should be, and so on. It would happen in exactly the same manner.

[1540]

[ Page 11774 ]

D. Symons: Section 47: "British Columbia will administer the Nisga'a Highway and secondary provincial roads, including closing, abandoning, and maintaining them. . . ." I understand all of that. Does this then include -- and this goes back to something you asked before -- the administration, the traffic control, the limits and the enforcement? I guess we got into the enforcement. Since the Nisga'a Highway is provincial property per se, will the Nisga'a Highway be patrolled by RCMP, or will it be patrolled by some native police force that may be set up?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It will be the RCMP, unless we agree otherwise that the Nisga'a police could do it.

M. de Jong: I'm looking at sections 44 and 45 of the chapter, and I think they have to be read together. One of the concerns, however, relates to the jurisdiction the province is surrendering insofar as regulating activities that take place on adjoining lands. I can think of an example as it relates to highway signage.

My understanding, from reading the agreement, is that British Columbia, in fact, surrenders all of its jurisdiction in that respect, and therefore there would be a different set of rules applicable to a provincial highway running through Nisga'a lands. Am I reading those two sections correctly? If I'm not, maybe the minister can explain why.

Hon. G. Wilson: I think it's only to the extent that it's reasonably required to protect the safety of users of the Nisga'a Highway.

M. de Jong: Many of the minister's answers have been helpful, but I'm afraid that that one doesn't help me at all. When he says it's only insofar as it affects the safety of the usage of the highway. I'm trying, for example, to better understand how the province's authority to regulate -- and I use the example of signage, which is something that the province enforces in communities right across the province -- is limited by the provisions of this agreement. My understanding is that it's limited severely, insofar as Nisga'a would have absolute jurisdiction to regulate activities along adjacent land -- including signage, for example. But if I'm wrong, I want the minister to tell me that I'm wrong.

Hon. G. Wilson: I think you're right, except to the extent that the activity may impact on highway safety. I think you need to read section 43 to see that that's clearly covered there.

M. de Jong: That is a little more helpful. The argument would go like this, from the province's point of view. You, the Nisga'a nation, have jurisdiction to regulate activities on adjacent lands. It is, however, our -- that is, the province's -- opinion that to allow signage in the way that you presume to, impacts on the safety of the highway. Therefore we are claiming that as a part of our continuing jurisdiction with respect to the regulation of this highway. Is that a logical way for this argument to flow?

[1545]

M. de Jong: Aside from the example we've been dealing with, which is signage, the only other land usages that I can think of would relate to matters that would logically fall within the zoning requirements. Is safety the one limiting factor here that limits an otherwise absolute Nisga'a jurisdiction?

Hon. G. Wilson: That and the integrity of the highway, obviously -- if anything was going to restrict it. I think it is spelled out fairly clearly with respect to section 43(a)(i), (ii) and (iii).

D. Symons: In section 51. . . . We talked about maintenance and so forth before, and I'm trying to meld a few of these topics together. A moment ago, I was asking about the Nisga'a Highway. We retain the ownership of that whole corridor, whereas with all the secondary roads -- and there are twice as many secondary roads, in kilometres, as there is Nisga'a Highway -- we have the right-of-way; we do not own the roadway.

My question on the enforcement goes for those particular highways. Will the RCMP, or will it possibly be, as of this agreement. . . ? The Attorney General mentioned before that with agreement with them, it would be the RCMP or something else. In this case, on all those other secondary roads. . . . Will it be the Nisga'a nation that will be enforcing regulations along those, or will the RCMP be the enforcement agency?

Hon. G. Wilson: It's the same answer as the Attorney General gave earlier.

D. Symons: My question is related to or is concerned about the area of maintenance of the roads, because indeed what goes on the road and how the road is used can dramatically affect the cost of maintaining that road. If people are driving on it with loads during the seasonal thaw that is currently going on up in that area, the road could be destroyed very, very quickly, and the province is on the hook for the maintenance of these roads. I'm trying to clear up the fact that since we could. . . . If the roads aren't properly policed and the people who are using those roads aren't required to maintain all of the regulations throughout the province to save the roads from destruction, we're going to be in serious trouble. We've got an open-ended agreement, if that's the case. What I think we want here, then, is the assurance that indeed the same rules and regulations and the same degree of enforcement will be put on any roads that the province is going to be responsible for the maintenance and care of. So with that, can the minister give the assurance that those same rules and amount of enforcement will take place on the Nisga'a lands as they will anywhere else in the province?

Hon. G. Wilson: Because we are responsible for the maintenance, that is also why we are responsible for the management of that road. It is anticipated, given the upgrade of the Nisga'a Highway, that in fact the maintenance costs may well go down. As you upgrade a highway, as you seal it

[ Page 11775 ]

[1550]

When we look in section 52, which talks about existing gravel pits, I note that the province will retain the right to use existing gravel pits that are there for highway purposes. Normally, I believe, the province in the past got a royalty -- from private owners, anyway -- on every yard of gravel taken out. Will the province, then, be getting royalties from gravel taken from these pits?

Hon. G. Wilson: I'm advised that there isn't a royalty per se. There is an internal ministry charge against the pit. Maybe the member might be a little bit more specific with respect to what he means by royalty.

D. Symons: I believe, even when people have a gravel pit, that they pay a fee or whatever you want to call it -- I forget the exact term that's used -- to the government for each yard of material that's taken from that particular site. Is that not correct?

Hon. G. Wilson: I think that now I see where the member is coming from. We don't pay them, and they don't pay us. They own the gravel.

D. Symons: Just a very few questions left here. That covers that one, then.

This is going on into the future. I'm concerned here in reference to the part on private roads in section 65: "On the effective date, the Nisga'a Nation will grant private road rights of way for the private roads listed in Appendix C-1, Part 3." Will this changeover not effect any change to the existing conditions relating to these roads? In other words, will whatever agreement was made with the province beforehand carry over and be the agreement that the Nisga'a will inherit, so to speak?

Hon. G. Wilson: I'm advised there are no private road easements now.

D. Symons: There are no private roads going into. . . ? Okay.

In the event that on one side or the other of Nisga'a lands -- and I can see some various places on the maps where this could be possible -- a mine is discovered that's worthy of mining in an environmentally responsible way and people want access to that through the Nisga'a lands -- and let's suppose that the Nisga'a nation decides that they don't care to have a roadway through there. . . . Is there any other avenue of recourse for someone to go to other than the Nisga'a Lisims? Is that going to be the final authority on the decision of whether some resource that might involve going through Nisga'a lands can be accessed?

Hon. G. Wilson: Well, I can't say with certainty that that may not be the case, depending on where such an operation may actually be located. But there have certainly been provisions undertaken to make sure that there is a network of roads that provide access to lands beyond. The anticipation is that such an issue will not arise.

D. Symons: Now, when I understand this network of roads. . . . Are you meaning a network that will cross through Nisga'a land, or will there be a network of roads that will give access to areas on opposite sides of Nisga'a land? When you're talking about those, is it something that will avoid Nisga'a land or include it? From what we said earlier, you're basically going to have to purchase corridors through the Nisga'a land if you're going to put the network on Nisga'a property.

[1555]

D. Symons: I guess just a final question. Much of what we discussed. . . . I assume almost all those answers carry over for utilities right-of-way as well. There are some unique features with utilities that we haven't covered with highways. I'm curious whether hydro, phone lines and so forth fall under pretty well the same jurisdiction. They'll have a certain corridor that will be a right-of-way given to them. I suspect that hydro often follows highways. But in the event that it doesn't, will they have a corridor that will be guaranteed as long as they're using that corridor for highway purposes?

Hon. G. Wilson: It is generally the same, although I think the agreement is that we will try to use highway rights-of-way for those access corridors.

D. Symons: I thank the minister and his staff for the answers on that particular section of this agreement. Thank you very much.

On the schedule, chapter 11.

M. de Jong: I think we're about set to move to chapter 11.

Let me just say generally that we've had some discussion earlier in this debate about the manner in which self-government has been crafted, the model of self-government that exists. We've had an exchange of opinions with the minister's predecessor about the significance of that model from a constitutional point of view. I think that's something that my colleague the critic for the Attorney General will want to pursue now and in the days to come, with respect to the specifics of what is included in the chapter and the breakdown of the assignment of jurisdictions.

We heard the present minister a few short weeks ago, when he sat on this side of the House, offer his opinion on what this model of self-government represents. The first section, where the treaty says that the Nisga'a have the right to self-government, means something to me and to many British Columbians, insofar as the constitutional significance of that recognition is concerned. We've heard the government,

[ Page 11776 ]

This is his chance, however, to articulate on the record, from his position as minister responsible, why it is that those who would describe this as a third order of government or a new constitutional order of government are incorrect. I think it would be worthwhile for us to begin there, at least.

[1600]

[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think we've had this debate before. We don't need to rehash the principles that we've discussed earlier.

It's very important to remember this is a treaty that's been negotiated, and this was the agreement all three parties arrived at after due deliberation and negotiations. Obviously, implicit in the constitution is the authority to enter into arrangements such as the one we've entered into here.

M. de Jong: I know that the Attorney General isn't going to let the discussion descend -- or ascend -- into a legal argument of the sort that is likely to be heard before the courts. I don't think, in fairness, that there is any doubt that the governments of Canada and British Columbia have the authority under the constitution to do what is contemplated here. I don't think that's at issue.

I think what is very much at issue is whether they have gone about it correctly from a constitutional point of view. I don't want to leave an incorrect impression that members of the opposition are of the view that it is impossible for us, as a society in Canada, to do just about anything we want, from a constitutional point of view, in terms of creating governments and bestowing constitutional protection on them. Clearly that's something that is within our capability.

The question is: have we done it correctly? If we presume to amend the constitution, there is a mechanism, a series of formulas, by which we can do that. The question is: does the mere declaration within a document such as this -- an important document, a constitutional document -- qualify? Does that meet the requirements of one of those amending formulas? I have my opinion on that matter; the Attorney General has his.

I think it's a fair question to ask either the Attorney General or the minister responsible to provide some manner of explanation, some assurance, to British Columbians that the governments, the parties to this agreement, have followed that procedure and have adhered to the formulas or the tests that are set out in our constitution.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I remember this debate, both in a very important question period that is still sort of etched in my memory. . . . This was the very question, in that question period, that the Leader of the Opposition was asking the Attorney General. I answered those questions then, and our position remains unchanged. This does not amount to a constitutional amendment. We have followed the appropriate procedures based on the appropriate authority granted to the two governments. This treaty has been entered into upon due deliberation.

[1605]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I thought, actually, that in debate on the general provisions, we did all of that. We laid out the arguments, heard the arguments from the opposition and gave the responses that we felt were appropriate. Those arguments haven't changed, I notice, and the answers haven't changed. Nor should they, because they were given very appropriately and correctly in the first place.

The treaty as negotiated falls within the four corners of the authority that has been granted both to the provincial government and to the federal government, implicit in the constitution.

M. de Jong: Let me ask a general question relating to the overall model of self-government here. It is something that I'm sure the Attorney General has heard, the previous minister has heard, the present minister has heard. . . . When the notion of Nisga'a government and the model of Nisga'a government is discussed by people who don't spend all of their waking hours studying this document, who rely on summaries from government, from the Nisga'a, from the opposition . . . . One of the comments that I have heard from just about every source -- people who support the agreement, people who don't support the agreement, people who are indifferent. . . . When they come to this section, when they come to better understand the model of self-government, the comment is: "My God! That's a lot of government. That's a lot of government for a relatively small population. That's a lot of bureaucracy, and that's a lot of money."

Now, I think you could make the philosophical argument that says it's no one's business but the Nisga'a's. I think that that is a valid argument if the reply is also that that's the Nisga'a's responsibility; they're going to be covering the cost. But we know that's not the case, and we know that the government's own estimates are that ten years from now, the majority of the cost associated with the operation of this model of self-government will still be borne by non-Nisga'a taxpayers. So in agreeing to this extensive model of governance, we are told that the government of British Columbia had a notion of what the cost associated with it was going to be.

[ Page 11777 ]

[1610]

If the hon. member wants to deal with the issue of costs -- fiscal issues and those issues -- at some point, maybe we can get the Minister of Finance here to answer those questions. But I'm prepared to deal with the issues around governance and how that is to proceed. The issue of costs has been raised before, and I have provided an appropriate response.

M. de Jong: Well, I'm not sure that what I was asking from the Attorney General was a detailed accounting, although that is certainly relevant information that, through the course of this debate, we have tried to elicit from the government. But I think the question is more philosophical in nature -- that is: when we are dealing with a relatively small population. . . . And yes, populations can grow, and yes, one hopes that there will be economic development in the Nass Valley and that Nisga'a who are presently living off reserve will relocate back to the Nass Valley, back to Nisga'a lands. But notwithstanding all of those facts, all of those hopes and desires, we see in this agreement provision being made for four or five different governments -- village governments, central governments, national governments -- for a population that I think at present totals, in the Nass Valley, in the neighbourhood of 2,500.

There is a part of me that says that doesn't make a lot of sense. That doesn't make economic sense, and it doesn't make functional sense from a governance point of view. I don't for a minute believe that the Nisga'a people, who have endured obscenely high unemployment rates, are going to be any better off ultimately if that unemployment rate drops because everyone is working for Nisga'a government. I don't believe that for a moment, and I hope that the Attorney General doesn't believe it. People who approach me and say: "Gee, it seems to be that what's driving this is a desire to make sure. . . ." If you follow this through logically, everyone's going to have a job. They'll all be working for various levels of government. That is the question that arises in many people's minds when you contemplate the various levels of government for, as I say, a relatively -- genuinely -- small population in the Nass Valley.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I beg to differ with the basic thrust in the argument of the hon. member. Nisga'a government structures essentially reflect, to a great extent, the present organization of Nisga'a, which consists of the Nisga'a tribal council and four band councils. You would now have Nisga'a Lisims government for village governments. They already have a health board and a school board. I think it's appropriate that we keep this discussion in the context of what we are replacing. When you look at what we're replacing, what we're replacing it with doesn't seem out of the ordinary.

[1615]

I notice that my suggestion that there is no analogy has excited some interest on the other side. Maybe the minister could explain what he sees as being the analogue between Nisga'a urban village locals, which will exist, and the institutions that now exist that are officially recognized in the Nass Valley as being official ways in which people who don't live on the reserves can be elected to serve as members of the band council.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that they currently have urban locals. There is a representative of all of those urban locals on the tribal council. I think that that essentially mirrors what we are doing under the new structures.

G. Plant: That's helpful, then.

My colleague was exploring an issue that, as he said, was a philosophical issue -- surprising as that notion might be. I actually think that it's important that we at least get some sense of what the government's philosophical orientation is around these issues as well as keep the practical context in mind, as the Attorney General has asked us to do. I guess what I want to do is re-ask part of my colleague's question again, because I do think that it's legitimate to ask the question whether we in society at large are already overgoverned, to look at governments as they exist and where they exist in relation to issues like fiscal liability and fiscal capacity and ask the question whether this is the right time and the right place to, essentially, create new institutions of government, which will be the result of this treaty. To have the government stand up and say that this is the position of government, that what this treaty does in terms of creating Nisga'a government, in terms of providing mechanisms for its funding -- the details of which we will look at later -- not only represents a legitimate response to the personal or communal aspirations of the Nisga'a, but is right for British Columbia now and will be right for British Columbia going forward. . . .

[ Page 11778 ]

[1620]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Chair, it's absolutely the right thing to do. We should have done it decades ago. We're doing it now. It's late, but it's better than never. It's important that we do this. It's also important that we not belittle the institutions that the Nisga'a agreed upon with the federal government and the provincial government. They saw those institutions as the best way of governing themselves internally. If one wants to engage in a larger debate about too much government, then perhaps we should have been paying attention to that 30 or 20 or ten years ago.

Why is it that in the context of treaty-making, a people who have had no rights essentially, because they have agreed upon certain institutions to govern themselves -- and the federal and provincial governments have agreed, after due deliberation, that they should have those institutions that they are entitled to. . . ? Why is it that suddenly we are now throwing roadblocks out that somehow, philosophically, this is not an appropriate thing to do? It is absolutely the appropriate thing to do. It is decades too late. We had better proceed.

G. Plant: Is the government's position, therefore, that fiscal and economic issues are completely and entirely irrelevant? That's certainly the suggestion that I see as being a pretty strong message in what the Attorney General has just said.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Fiscal issues are important. They are not irrelevant. When you are making treaties, fiscal issues are one part of making those treaties. That's one aspect of it. You have to see this whole treaty in the total context in which it's being agreed upon. One may not like one aspect of this treaty; one may not like another aspect of it. There are several people that might not like certain other things in the treaty. But it's important to look at the whole treaty and the historical and constitutional contexts in which it's being done. In Delgamuukw, the court has essentially said: "Go back and deal with these issues. Governments, don't come back to court."

G. Plant: Well, a moment ago I thought I heard the Attorney General fairly clearly describe fiscal issues as roadblocks, erected by people, in the way of the aspirations of the Nisga'a represented by this agreement. I want to be absolutely clear about this. I want to make sure that I understand the minister and that it is his position that fiscal considerations are in fact not a roadblock. They are legitimate. They are a part of the overall context, as he emphasizes.

[1625]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm somewhat disappointed that we're actually redoing second reading. However, be that as it may, I didn't say that fiscal considerations are a roadblock. I may have been referring to the philosophical confusion that the hon. member may have been talking about. I think fiscal considerations are appropriate, but fiscal considerations aren't the only considerations that we make when we enter into treaties.

G. Plant: I appreciate the clarification. The minister referred to second reading debate. I thought his reference was timely, because I recall that the minister himself began his contribution to second reading debate by pointing out that committee stage debate would, in fact, involve what he described as "just and correct answers" to all of the questions that had been raised in second reading debate.

The one that we've been discussing for the last five minutes is actually a question that was raised in second reading debate. I think it's entirely appropriate that it be canvassed again here. I think that fiscal considerations, frankly, are as legitimate a part of the context of this debate as they are a part of the context of any debate around any social and economic initiative undertaken by government. We would be foolish to ignore them. As Members of the Legislative Assembly, accountable to taxpayers and voters. . . . If we ignore them, we ignore them at our peril. I think the minister's clarification is helpful.

I also want to come back to another thing the minister said a few minutes ago. He used the word "belittle" in the context of describing Nisga'a government institutions, almost as if to suggest that some of our comments were an attempt to belittle Nisga'a government institutions. I want to assure the minister that I suspect that at the end of the day, we actually disagree with each other the other way on that issue. I actually think that it's important that we examine Nisga'a government institutions, as they will be created in this treaty when it's implemented, by giving them the fullest possible significance -- the significance that they will attract and acquire once they enjoy the protection of the statutes enacted here and in Ottawa and also the protection of section 35. That will certainly be my perspective when we look at the institutions of self-government in chapter 11.

I want to move from that, although others may continue to have introductory questions. I want to ask a question that I suppose probably goes without saying. In section 1 of chapter

[ Page 11779 ]

The questioning of what is and what is not a law has excited philosophers and scholars for hundreds of years, and no doubt it excites the Attorney General as much as it excites me. We're not going to, I think. . . . I don't intend to explore all of the nuances of that debate; but laws, I guess, are more than practices, habits, customs and those things. Laws are special things. Laws are the things that we make here when we enact legislation. Laws are things which one institution of government has the power to make, and by and large, their application does not depend on consent. That is, if I'm on the receiving end of a law, I usually don't have the opportunity to say: "Well, actually, I don't particularly like that law; I choose not to be bound by it." In that respect, laws are different from the rules that members of a voluntary association might create for themselves when they get together and say: "Look, here are the rules that we're going to follow." Everyone in the association says: "Fine, I agree to be bound by those rules, and there will be consequences if they're broken."

[1630]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The answer is yes, but let me qualify. . . . The term "law" is defined in the definitions, and it includes federal, British Columbia and Nisga'a legislation -- acts, ordinances, regulations and other things. And it goes on to say that it doesn't include some other things.

But the lawmaking ability and the authority should be understood in the context of what authority is granted to them in this agreement. Their laws -- Nisga'a laws -- in a sense cannot be comparable to British Columbia laws or federal laws. Their laws can only be considered in the context of the limited authority that's granted to them to make laws.

G. Plant: Well, I acknowledge that Nisga'a lawmaking authority will derive from the final agreement, the treaty. And presumably the implementation of the treaty by federal and provincial legislation, from the perspective of the federal and provincial governments, is a relevant consideration there also.

I also acknowledge the obvious: Nisga'a lawmaking authority is set out here in terms that -- at first blush, anyway -- look to be complex and comprehensive and carefully circumscribed. Just to give one example, there are a host of situations where the relationship between the laws made by Nisga'a government and laws made by federal and provincial governments is expressed. In some cases where there is a conflict, Nisga'a laws prevail; in other cases, federal or provincial laws prevail. So the treaty goes to some lengths to circumscribe, if you will, Nisga'a lawmaking authority.

Having said that, what else, then, about Nisga'a law is not comparable to federal or provincial law? What else distinguishes Nisga'a law in force and effect from federal or provincial law? In that respect, I am mindful of the fact that, certainly, the definition of law in the definitions chapter does not seek to draw any such distinction.

[1635]

G. Plant: I think that the minister agrees in the most general way with my very general comments about, shall we say, the distinction between laws which are not consensually based from other things that might be -- that is, Nisga'a citizens who will be subject to laws validly made by Nisga'a government institutions within the scope of their authority will be subject to those laws in the same way as the minister and I are subject to the laws of British Columbia, in the sense that we don't have the option available to us to say: "I choose not to be governed by that law." If the law applies, then the law applies.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

J. Weisgerber: I'm delighted to have an opportunity to rise before we get too far into the specifics of this debate. It seems to me that since we last visited this issue of self-government. . . . Some of you may know that the major objection that I have to this treaty is in fact around this section of the treaty. Since we last had an opportunity to have any discussion on this, we not only have had a change in minister but the new territory of Nunavut has been officially put into place. It occurred to me that we now have in this country three territorial governments, each with a population of somewhere between 25,000 and 35,000 people -- each about the size of a small British Columbia town, in terms of population -- and each of which has all of the structures of a provincial government and many of the costs that go along with that.

As I listen to the debate, I think it is important for us to talk about the costs associated with this Nisga'a government and what that's going to mean for British Columbians and for Canadians -- and not only the one time that a Nisga'a government is put in place but whenever this model is implemented again across British Columbia. Without any fear of contradiction, I will suggest that within a decade, every aboriginal community in Canada will be self-governed, using either the Nisga'a model or the Sechelt model. So these costs are very real in terms of their application to the 2,500 or 3,000 Nisga'a who live in the valley and who will be directly affected by this government. But every aboriginal person living on what are now known as reserve lands in Canada will, I believe, ultimately fall under a similar style of government.

There was a good deal of pomp and ceremony around the creation of another northern government and very little opportunity to talk about the associated costs. The Attorney General said rather passionately that somehow we were just waking up to the fact that these aboriginal government costs

[ Page 11780 ]

[1640]

The minister or the Attorney General said that for the next couple of years -- or the next five years or so -- the commitments of the government would be $30-odd million from Ottawa and a million or so from British Columbia. That represents $10,000 per annum per person on reserve for self-government.

If we then assume that the Nisga'a family is like most families across this country, with about 3.5 people in it. . . . It's always amusing to think of who the 0.5 is. But nevertheless, the average family in British Columbia and Canada is about 3.5 people -- perhaps as high as four in the Nisga'a community. That would mean that every family in British Columbia, on an equivalent basis, would have to pay $40,000 a year in property taxes. What we're talking about is local government funded not by local taxpayers but by senior-government taxpayers.

I hope the minister, or somebody, is going to jump up and say: "No, no, no. There's a much broader range of services that we're providing." That's a fair debate, and we'll get into that. But what we're talking about is local government being funded by Canadian and British Columbian taxpayers to the tune of $10,000 a person per year. I would suggest that that is a reason for some consideration. I suggest that it's a reason for us to think about the extent of local government and whether that's affordable, not only for the Nisga'a but for Canadians and aboriginals across this country.

The minister also suggested: "Look, this is just the same amount of money we've been spending all along. So don't get excited about it." But I would suggest to you that there is a significant and fundamental change taking place. Up until the signing of this treaty, the federal and provincial governments had the prerogative to decide on the level of funding they were going to provide. That was an administrative decision by those people in the province and in Ottawa. This treaty changes that from an arbitrary or administrative decision to an obligation.

I've been through the treaty two or three times; actually, I've been through it several more than that. I've been through the treaty on a number of occasions, and I haven't seen the numbers that the Attorney General refers to. I haven't seen any reference to a limit of $1.2 million by the province or $30.9 million from Ottawa. I would suggest that what we're embarking on, here, is a constitutional and treaty obligation on the two levels of government to fund Nisga'a self-government. If there are controls that would oblige the Nisga'a to look elsewhere if they overspend their budget, then I would certainly be very much interested in hearing what kind of mechanisms those are and how the various governments intend to bring some degree of fiscal discipline to this self-government process.

[1645]

The only point I would make is that I would, perhaps in the time between now and when we get to that chapter. . . . I don't know if the member has made available to himself -- and if not, I'm happy to make it available to the member -- the "Financial and Economic Analysis of Treaty Settlements in British Columbia," prepared by Grant Thornton Management Consultants. They're an independent consulting team. What I asked, when I became minister, was to have not only the total cost of treaty-making costed out but also to have tied into that study a detailed breakdown and analysis of Nisga'a with respect to those fiscal costs. That's available, it's released, and it's public information. I think that to date, there has been nobody of any credible source challenge these numbers. So I would strongly urge that the member perhaps look at that, and I'm happy to spend a bit of time -- if we need to when we get to chapter 15, which talks about the fiscal arrangement, fiscal management, and speaks specifically to the questions the member raises -- to get into a bit of a discussion around that.

The only other thing I would say, with respect to those dollars, is that it's also important for us to keep on the record the fact that this is not an agreement between the government of British Columbia and the Nisga'a people; it also includes the federal government. With respect to federal transfer dollars into the province of British Columbia, there is a substantial sum of money, which is currently being expended by the federal government, that will now be directed specifically into the communities that the member refers to. That's no small amount of money.

That is a significant transfer, a net gain, to the province of British Columbia -- something that I think will do two things. One is that it will provide a level of capacity to first nations to be able to generate wealth within their own communities so that they can, like any other tax-paying community in British Columbia, pay taxes and therefore fund and maintain moneys toward the maintenance of their own government. Secondly, it will also provide significant economic opportunity for first nations and non-first nations alike, which improves the overall economy and therefore gives a greater degree of economic opportunity and economic certainty within the province.

I don't want to dismiss what the member is raising. I think that's a very valuable discussion. I think it's one that the people of British Columbia deserve to have dealt with in more detail. I just think the appropriate place to do it is in chapter 15.

J. Weisgerber: I certainly will take the opportunity, in chapter 15, to come back and visit those issues. That's an offer, and that's a fair observation. I think, though -- to carry on a bit with the minister's comments -- that there are really two sources of federal money. One is the cash settlement that flows into the Nisga'a economy -- and, arguably, the provincial economy and the local northwest economy -- as a result of the

[ Page 11781 ]

Before I do leave this and move into the item-by-item debate. . . . I regret that the Attorney General has left. The Attorney General on this occasion and on other occasions has made reference to the historical and legal obligations that we as Canadians have to self-government. There -- the Attorney General returns. The Attorney General, apparently appearing quite passionate at that moment, spoke about the failure of previous governments to deal with the historical and legal obligations to provide local self-government. I had to question. . . . I had to think to myself: was this historical obligation something that he sees as having been in place for decades? If that's the case, why or how in the world did the federal government and the Yukon first nations miss the obligation entirely? How did they go through an entire treaty negotiation process missing out on their historical and legal rights and obligations with respect to self-government?

[1650]

I don't think whether or not aboriginal self-government is the right thing to do is the question. I quite honestly believe that aboriginal people, like other Canadians, are entitled to local government, to participation in federal and provincial governments. I also happen to believe that all of us, as Canadians, are entitled to any amount of government that we're prepared to pay for. Again, the only limit on the actions of the federal government is the willingness or the unwillingness of taxpayers to support it. The only limit in this House on the actions of this government or any other government that sits over there is the willingness of the taxpayers to fund that spending. And I would suggest that the same thing happens in the city of Vancouver and the city of Dawson Creek and the village of Pouce Coupe. But it doesn't apply where this aboriginal self-government is in place, and I believe that that is a fundamental link that's missing.

There has to be a direct connection with the size and the scope of government and the willingness of taxpayers to fund it, or I believe it is doomed. I know that this is sounding an awful lot like a second reading speech, but it is something that I believe is pivotal to this whole agreement. I would be delighted to hear a response from the Attorney General or the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, those comments are in the nature of second reading debate. I wouldn't respond to all of them, except to clarify that when I mentioned historical obligations, I was not referring to self-government in particular. I was referring generally to the issue of treaties, which has been unresolved for some time. We've known that.

M. de Jong: We have a collection of sections that refer to the recognition of Nisga'a Lisims government, Nisga'a village governments. Let me, in that collection of sections, focus on the use of the words "intergovernmental relations." We have pursued the Attorney General at other times about how one could best characterize the model of self-government that exists here -- whether it is something new, whether it is something contemplated by the constitution and how it is, if at all, distinguishable from other forms of local government.

[1655]

It's an interesting term and, as I say, to many people signifies the creation of something different and unique here. The Attorney General may differ in his interpretation or explanation as to why the term is applicable, why the term is used, and I'm interested in hearing that explanation.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member started with the following question: does the use of this term offer a clue to self-government? The answer is no, because that term, intergovernmental, is used in its most literal sense, and therefore it should not attract anything more than that.

M. de Jong: I said something further, and maybe I was incorrect. The Attorney General, I'm sure, will happily correct me if that is the case. We don't, to my knowledge, use the term intergovernmental in any other statutory provision when we describe the relationship that exists between a municipal government and the province or a regional government and the province. If we do, I'm not aware of the context within which we use that term.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm sure that when councillors and mayors are talking about relations between the provincial government and the federal government, they employ, in its literal sense, the term "intergovernmental relations." It should not carry any meaning other than its literal meaning in this context. The issues around self-government are defined in the sections following sections 2, 3 and 4 -- and others.

M. de Jong: Not to belabour the point, but I'll try one more time. It is, I think, a question of defining status, of

[ Page 11782 ]

[1700]

M. de Jong: That's helpful insofar as determining what the provincial government's intentions might be. I'm not sure it's as helpful in addressing the concern that I've identified -- or laying to rest that concern -- based on, as I say, how that term has come to be used historically in this country. I think there are other questions relating to that, and I'll let other members have their opportunity.

I will, though, ask this question with respect to another section that appears in that collection of 2, 3 and 4, and that is the implication that Nisga'a government jurisdiction and authority is going to evolve. I think that at some point we have to address what the parties to this agreement mean when they talk about an evolving jurisdiction and place that section in the context of an agreement that is being touted by its proponents as enshrining the concepts of certainty and finality.

Those three terms -- the one and the two latter, in particular -- seem somewhat inconsistent for those who, on the one hand, are being asked to look to this agreement as a definitive enumeration of the powers that Nisga'a government will enjoy, versus a section within the document that says: "But changes are contemplated, or an evolution of how those powers will manifest themselves is contemplated." I think now is the opportunity for the Attorney General to address that.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Obviously, pursuant to the negotiated treaty -- as is evidenced in this document that is before us -- this is an exhaustive enumeration of the powers and obligations of the Nisga'a government as agreed upon by the three parties; therefore there should be no uncertainty on that score. Paragraph 4 refers not to the jurisdiction and authority evolving over time, but it refers to the exercise of Nisga'a jurisdiction and authority evolving over time. The jurisdiction and authority are as they are embedded in this document. The Nisga'a may draw on some of the powers and use some powers now and some later, and maybe some never. And that's what the term "evolve" refers to.

M. de Jong: Well, does it refer to something more than that? Does it refer, for example. . . ? I understand the distinction the Attorney General is making between the granting of jurisdiction and the exercise of that jurisdiction. He says that the one is firmly and conclusively set out in the agreement but that the practical operation of that jurisdiction will change over time as these things become clear. But does it refer also to -- when we talked earlier about the 50 or 60 areas where consultation will take place between the provincial government and Nisga'a government -- the manner in which that consultation must be conducted? Does it refer to the interrelationship between the levels of government? Is that part of the evolving process, recognizing that -- I think even the government acknowledged sometime earlier in this debate -- those consultative requirements place an additional burden. . . ? Now, the government says it's a minimal burden; the opposition says it may not be as minimal as the government would have us believe. But is that part of the evolution that is contemplated under section 4?

[1705]

M. de Jong: So it's the Attorney General's submission to the committee, then, that section 4 relates exclusively to the authority of Nisga'a central government, or Nisga'a government, to draw down on the powers and jurisdictions that are provided to it in this agreement -- specifically where this agreement says Nisga'a government has the option of. . . . This section articulates nothing more than the Nisga'a may. . . . As the Nisga'a decide to draw down on those powers, that is the evolution that is contemplated here; that is the change that's contemplated.

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

G. Plant: So why is the clause here? The reason for the question is because I would have thought that all of the authority in terms of that outcome would already exist elsewhere in the treaty, in particular in chapter 11, where Nisga'a lawmaking powers are generally expressed in permissive terms -- that is, for example, in paragraph 41: "Nisga'a Lisims Government may make laws to preserve, promote, and develop Nisga'a culture and Nisga'a language," and so on. So I think that that already implies that Nisga'a government has a choice: it can choose from time to time to make those laws; it can choose not to make them. Given that relatively obvious observation, my concern is that someone is going to come along and say that section 4 does mean something else. And I guess I have an additional concern, because if section 4 was intended to deal with the idea that my colleague and the Attorney General were developing between them -- which is the idea that Nisga'a government may draw down powers, may choose to draw down different sets of powers over time. . . . I would have thought, for example, that the possibility exists that Nisga'a government may draw down some powers and then, after a period of time, may choose to no longer make laws in relation to that particular area. In essence, whatever the opposite of draw-down is would take place, and the lawmaking authority in respect to those matters might go back to the province or the federal government.

[ Page 11783 ]

[1710]

Frankly, I've always thought that this is potentially one of the most problematic clauses in the whole agreement. It contains within it the express contemplation that something which we thought was relatively certain is going to change over time. I know that the minister's first answer to that suggestion was to say: "Yes, but it's not jurisdiction and authority that will change; it's the exercise of jurisdiction and authority." But I think that the two can easily get confused.

It may be that an attempt to confuse them would in fact be rejected, and it may be that I have more concern than I need to. But the way in which something is done -- that is, the exercise of something -- can often be entirely determinative of the substance that we're talking about. The exercise of Nisga'a government jurisdiction and authority could change in ways that I think are beyond the simple explanation given by the minister; that this is nothing more or less than the expression of the reality of Nisga'a government powers; that the Nisga'a government can draw down some powers and revoke that exercise of authority from time to time, as they see fit.

I'm hoping that the minister, having heard my expression of concerns, will address them. I look forward to his response.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I suppose we are into the definition of "change" or "evolve." I never thought that evolve meant that you go in one direction and not back in the direction that you came from, so I'm having some difficulty with the distinction the hon. member is trying to draw between change and evolve.

I'm very clear and the government is very, very clear on this issue that nothing in this treaty -- whether in this paragraph or any other paragraph -- enhances or diminishes the powers that have been enumerated for the Nisga'a government.

G. Plant: So all that is meant by this paragraph is the point that the minister made earlier: that the Nisga'a government may choose, from time to time, to exercise the powers that are granted to it permissively -- or not to; that choice, one way or the other, is what is meant from this government's perspective by paragraph 4 and what is essentially empowered or permitted by paragraph 4.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes. Paragraph 4 simply recognizes all of those permissive sections or paragraphs.

G. Plant: I want to ask a question that is general in nature, but it relates to the discussion that took place between the member for Matsqui and the Attorney General before we got to section 4. There was a discussion about what "intergovernmental" meant in some contexts and others. I think we were getting close to that word "municipal," and so I want to get closer. The government has spent a lot of money telling the taxpayers of British Columbia what they think this treaty is about. One of the messages that the government has repeated from time to time -- in fact, over and over and over again, it seemed to me at one point -- is the message that Nisga'a government is municipal-style government. What does the government mean by that?

[1715]

I want to make sure that we don't descend into attributing some meaning to this treaty by using terms that have no legal meaning. The term "municipal government" per se doesn't have a legal meaning. In this treaty, the word "treaty" in itself wouldn't have a legal meaning other than what's in the constitution, but this particular agreement has a specific meaning. There is a very specific description of the government institutions that it envisages for the Nisga'a government. I want to keep those things separate and apart so that we can actually clearly debate this and not something else.

G. Plant: The minister's answer is at least interesting. I've been here on and off -- mostly off but occasionally on -- since something like the middle of January, and I've lost track of the number of times the Attorney General has, in the most persuasive way possible, told me that we're not in a courtroom. We're not arguing about legal concepts; we're arguing about an agreement. Now maybe we've decided to take a somewhat different approach.

The vast majority of British Columbians are not lawyers. To the extent that they have not given up following this whole issue over the last weeks and months, the vast majority of British Columbians have been trying to make sense of what this is all about. The government went out of its way to spend millions of dollars to try to, some would say, explain. Others might, if they were intemperate, suggest that the appropriate descriptor would be to bamboozle British Columbians into some kind of understanding or explanation about what this treaty is supposed to be about.

I think the statements that were made in that context were made by government, either legitimately in order to inform British Columbians, or because the government was engaged in a sales campaign. In any event, irrespective of the nature of the campaign, the government said to the people of British Columbia time and time again: "Nisga'a government is municipal-style government." That's the phrase -- not municipal government, as the Attorney General was saying earlier, but rather municipal-style government.

I want to tell the Attorney General, so he's not under any misapprehension here, that I've had conversations with dozens upon dozens of British Columbians who have said to

[ Page 11784 ]

[1720]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I tried to outline the reasons why I think, in the context of the legal issues that we're discussing, it's not helpful to draw that comparison. That is not to say that Nisga'a government doesn't have similarities or differences vis-à-vis municipal government. I think it's important that the statement the government has made stand. It is a municipal-style government. If one imports that description into the legal context, one is likely to confuse the issues. I'm trying to keep this debate on the legal issues, because these are legal issues.

I do not disagree with the government's description, in the political context, to convey a sense of where -- what kinds of powers -- this government might sit in the context of a municipal government. I think we should distinguish that from the debate that we're having. We're having a debate about the exact, very precise nature of this government, the jurisdiction and the authority, not a general description that can be applicable to this particular government.

G. Plant: The Attorney General, I think, had a choice. He could have said: "The government's statement was wrong. Nisga'a government is not municipal-style government." As I understand the Attorney General, he said that that's a correct political statement -- not a legal statement, a correct political statement. In what respect, politically speaking, is Nisga'a government municipal-style?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: What paragraph does that question relate to?

G. Plant: All of chapter 11.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'll respond to a specific question with respect to the paragraph we're dealing with.

G. Plant: I'm referring to paragraph 1. It says: "The Nisga'a Nation has the right to self-government, and the authority to make laws, as set out in this Agreement." The position of the government of British Columbia is that Nisga'a self-government is municipal-style self-government. How and in what respect is that description correct?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: As we go through the numerous paragraphs, if the hon. member has the desire to do that, it would become clear how it's different and how it's similar.

G. Plant: Is the minister simply refusing to tell us now? I understand that the minister is uncomfortable with the extraordinarily duplicitous description of the Nisga'a government as municipal-style. I mean, I can understand why the minister would have read that government advertising and thought to himself: "That is not true. I know this treaty; I read this treaty. It would be egregious to describe Nisga'a government as municipal-style self-government."

It seems to me an entirely legitimate question. Maybe I'm wrong; maybe the minister actually passionately believes that's a correct description. But it doesn't seem to me, with respect, to be my job to figure out which clauses in this agreement might be the clauses that add up on the municipal-style side of the equation and which clauses in the agreement are not on the municipal-style side of the equation. The question is pretty straightforward right now. Section 1 of the chapter says that the Nisga'a nation has the right to self-government. The government defends this agreement in the court of public opinion on the basis of the proposition, which it makes at taxpayers' expense, that Nisga'a nation self-government is municipal-style self-government. That is the way this government defends section 1 to the people of British Columbia. I ask the minister, then, if he will explain to me how and in what respect that description is correct.

[1725]

Many of the areas of the Nisga'a legislative authority are similar to those of a municipality. That's why the government says in the literature that the government that's envisaged in the treaty is municipal-style government. Then the hon. member would say: "Well, there are some differences." Yes, there are. But here are some similar powers: the corporate powers of the Nisga'a nation and Nisga'a village governments and local governments are virtually the same as a result of the passage of Bill 51.

The Nisga'a have broader regulatory powers in areas which are central to their identity, such as citizenship, ownership of cultural property, marriage, child care, intoxicants and the like. Apart from intoxicants and gaming, the other areas are not the ones local governments would likely want to regulate. The Nisga'a also have broader powers with respect to land use planning and regulations because of the nature of the treaty. With respect to service powers, these powers are parallel to those of local government, except that the Nisga'a have extensive powers in social policy -- i.e., social services, health, education, child and family services -- because of the cultural issues involved.

If the hon. member wants a description of the self-government chapter in a nutshell, there are many other areas I could go over. But let's get on with debating the actual paragraphs, so that we stop scoring perhaps political points and get on with debating the actual paragraphs in the treaty.

G. Plant: I am looking forward to the detailed, substantive debate on this chapter as much as the Attorney General is. But it seems to me that the forest is at least as important as the trees, and that's why it's important to deal with these issues. It may be that in this particular case the people who designed

[ Page 11785 ]

M. de Jong: What we are talking about here is the cost of the treaty. We've already established that the cost of the treaty includes the treaty implementation costs, which were for the ads and the promotional material that the government undertook.

I have no more interest than my colleague in belabouring this point. In fact, I will confess to the Attorney General that my return from his ancestral homeland leaves me a little bit on the fatigued side.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: You don't have a tan that matches mine.

M. de Jong: He's correct; my tan doesn't match his own. But that relates to a whole bunch of matters.

With all seriousness, we spent a lot of time in this debate talking about an information campaign that the government undertook -- a campaign that we were, six or seven months ago, assured would cost X number of dollars, and we only discovered during this debate that those costs had escalated and inflated five-, six-, seven- or eightfold.

[1730]

The Attorney General, with the greatest respect. . . . This is something that I know he has had to deal with over the last number of weeks: his dual role as the province's chief legal officer versus his position within the cabinet. But I don't think he can use that excuse here. Is the Attorney General suggesting, as I thought I heard him say, that the use of the term "municipal" or "municipal-style" was inaccurate? He has, I think, said that it is inaccurate from a purely legal point of view -- that it does not accurately describe the legal essence of what is enshrined within this document. If I'm putting incorrectly words into the Attorney General's mouth, then let him say so. But I thought I clearly heard him say that to use the word "municipal" or "municipal-style" would be inaccurate from a purely legal point of view.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The thrust of my remarks was that the term "municipal-style" is not a legal term. Therefore when we're discussing legal issues, let's stick to the paragraphs that we're dealing with. If you are engaging in a political debate here, I'm happy to answer the questions in a political way, but then let's not waste the time of the committee.

M. de Jong: We seem to be flipping and flopping back and forth here. When one of us on this side of the House asked a very legal question about whether a particular right is an inherent right or a negotiated right, we were told: "Those are legal issues, those are issues that are before the courts, those are issues that we have dealt with as a function of negotiations, and they're of no relevance." Those legal issues are no longer of any relevance.

The Attorney General shakes his head, but we've beat our heads against that tree of argument many times now. It's frustrating that when we are confronted with the kind of statement we just heard from the Attorney General about a differentiation between a legal statement and a political statement on something as fundamental as this, he attempts to sidestep the issue. What else was there in that information campaign that falls within the description that the Attorney General offers today as an excuse for what the government had to say about the style of self-government?

Maybe I should ask the Attorney General this: doesn't he believe that British Columbians deserved information from his government that was accurate legally? Isn't that information they deserved? And if the use of the term "municipal-style" wasn't legally accurate, how can he defend its use unless he's saying that British Columbians didn't require legally accurate information? I think that's a relevant, pertinent and fair question.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think the hon. member is appropriately frustrated, because he's really frustrating himself. I think it's appropriate that we remember we're discussing a treaty. There is not one reference to municipal government in this treaty. This is a government that would be recognized as a result of a treaty negotiated amongst the three parties.

[1735]

Now, if the hon. members want me to pass judgment on a difference of opinion that occurs in a public debate, I'm unable to do that. That's not my function. My function here is to debate this treaty and the paragraphs of this treaty. If we want to talk about what the similarities are and what the differences are between a municipal government -- an actual municipal government -- and this, then that's a separate task. We can do that; I don't have a problem. But if we want to talk about these paragraphs, which is what I would prefer, I would be happy to carry on.

M. de Jong: Well, I only want the Attorney General to be happy, so let us recognize that there is a difference of opinion.

Let's talk about section 5 for a moment. The section defines or attempts to define a Nisga'a nation and a Nisga'a village and to apply to them the status of "a natural person" and all that that implies insofar as the law is concerned. There is a body of corporate law and societal law, of course, that defines the significance of that. But I'd like to ask the Attorney General: in spite of what appears in the section, the assignment of those rights, powers and privileges is slightly different. There are exceptions. There are exceptions that differentiate "Nisga'a nation" and "Nisga'a village government" from other entities that attract the definition of "a natural

[ Page 11786 ]

One that comes to mind relates to, for example, the exemption that exists with respect to the seizure, the exigibility, of assets that he and I would otherwise find ourselves vulnerable to but from which the treaty exempts the two entities referred to in section 5. Are there other exceptions, and if there are, what are they?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think some of those exceptions are obviously referred to in the paragraphs starting around 130 onwards. And some of those exceptions apply to municipalities as well, because municipalities don't have all of the powers of natural persons at law. I think it might be useful to go through paragraphs and then, when we come to the other sections, look at them as the limitations.

[1740]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think that it's appropriate to say that they have the powers and the capacity of natural persons with the exception of some limits that might be placed on those powers in the paragraphs that might follow. This is a bald statement of their powers, and then you move on to other paragraphs later on that might indicate what the limits are on those powers.

G. Abbott: In relation to paragraph 6, under "Legal Status and Capacity," the Nisga'a constitution. . . . This agreement did not lay out the specifics of relationships within a Nisga'a village, between Nisga'a villages or between a Nisga'a village and the Nisga'a nation. Where an issue came into play that was not specifically accounted for in any of those constitutions or laws or agreements, would the British Columbia Municipal Act have any application?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: No, this is the treaty.

M. de Jong: Well, dealing with sections 7 and 8, then. . . . This is something we did refer to when we were talking about the use of the term "intergovernmental" earlier in the chapter. Sections 7 and 8 speak to the relationship that will exist -- or I suppose will exist -- between the Nisga'a government and the various village governments. Is there any circumstance that the Attorney General can point us to or that is contemplated by the agreement that would see the Crown in the province of British Columbia dealing directly with village governments? I know there are a couple of examples where consultation may extend to the village government, but in a broader sense, does the agreement impose any legal obligation on the part of the province to deal with village governments on substantive issues?

[1745]

Hon. Chair, I'm told that that might be. . . . It's a very legalistic answer; I think it doesn't really address the issue the hon. member is talking about. This may actually fall outside of the question raised by the member, but in the event of a conflict between a Nisga'a law under paragraph 110, which concerns intoxicants. . . . If there is a conflict between the provincial law and a village regulation with respect to intoxicants, that relationship might come into existence to talk about that.

M. de Jong: Under those circumstances, then, the obligation would fall upon the province to deal directly with the village government. In so doing, does the provincial government violate any of the more general provisions that require it to deal exclusively with Nisga'a central government?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: If the hon. member looks at the general provision -- which is, I believe, paragraph 3 -- it simply says: "Except as may otherwise be agreed to by the relevant Parties. . . ." If it has been agreed to either in the context of the treaty -- which I'm not really aware of specifically -- or otherwise, one deals with the Nisga'a Lisims government. But if it's been agreed to either in the treaty or otherwise, then it can be dealt with directly.

M. de Jong: I would propose to move on to section 9. I don't think there are any other members that have questions for the sections prior to that.

I guess I have a general question. The Attorney General is going to roll his eyes as I return to the use of the term "symbolism" and symbols associated with this treaty. The word "constitution" as the heading to section 9 is conspicuous by its presence, and it implies many things to many people. If we return to the mini-debate we had a few moments ago, when we talk about local government -- leave the word "municipal" out, because we've had that exchange. . . . When we talk about local government, which I think most people understand this section to be about, they are puzzled by the presence of the word constitution and the need to have what, in this case, will be the Nisga'a constitution. I know there are all sorts of legitimate reasons that the government can offer in terms of protections. Part of the debate about this chapter is going to be whether those objectives are met by virtue of how this section is constructed and how the objectives set out in this particular section are dealt with.

Nonetheless, I'd like to hear from the Attorney General the government's explanation for how this somehow doesn't distinguish this local government from all of the other local governments that exist in British Columbia -- it is compelled by its enabling document, which in this case is not a provincial statute but a constitutional document, to have its own constitution -- and how he defends what I've heard from other members of the government, although not the Attorney General in this case, that somehow that is not a significant facet of this agreement. I think it is significant, both legally and symbolically, that we would have a constitutional requirement that a local government have a constitution.

[1750]

[ Page 11787 ]

M. de Jong: Let me try this with respect to the philosophical question. On this side of the House, we, and those who have expressed some concerns about the content of the treaty, are often met with the criticism: "You" -- meaning those who are opposed to the treaty -- "are unable to distance yourself from historical attempts to be paternalistic with respect to aboriginal peoples. You want to tell them how they must govern themselves." I have heard aboriginal people say to me that for some of them -- not all of them -- this represents an ongoing attempt to do just that. It represents an attempt by the broader society to dictate both what and how Nisga'a aboriginal people must govern themselves.

I know the other side of that argument, as well, and think some of those questions can be addressed, but that is a feeling that exists amongst many aboriginal people.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I don't mean to be rhetorical, but this is the product of years of negotiation freely entered into by the Nisga'a and the federal and provincial governments. This has been agreed upon. Opinions always differ on what it means. With all due respect to those who may think that it's paternalistic, I disagree. It's been freely entered into by the Nisga'a after several years of negotiations.

With that comment, hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

[1755]

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

Hon. D. Lovick moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:55 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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