Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

[ Page 11789 ]

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

Prayers.

W. Hartley: Today in the gallery we have the president of the B.C. Agriculture Council. He's also the president of the B.C. Fruit Growers Association, a regional district director and a municipal council member. His name is Russell Husch, and it's a pleasure for me to meet with him today on agricultural issues. In support of the Buy B.C. program that we all support, Russell has some great stickers with him today saying "I Love B.C. Fruit." Please, everyone, let's give Russell a great welcome.

T. Nebbeling: As you know, we have a team of legislative assistants. The latest one that has joined us is Dave Beaton, who works with me. I see he is sitting in the gallery today, and I would like the House to make him feel very welcome.

B. Barisoff: I'd also like to acknowledge Russell Husch for the support and the work that he does in B.C. agriculture. On behalf of this side of the House, we acknowledge him also.

V. Anderson: Today in the House we'll have about 160 students from Sir Winston Churchill Secondary School coming through in two different sections. I would like to welcome them and their teacher, Mr. Williams, and wish them well as they listen. They had a question for me. When the students were here last year, they commented that we seemed to be very impolite to each other, and they wanted to know if we had improved. I said I was sure that we were even better now. Please make them welcome.

[1410]

Oral Questions

PAYMENT FOR PREMIER'S HOME RENOVATION

Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Speaker, these are issues, some of which are before the courts and some of which -- all of which, quite frankly -- are being investigated and looked at in one way or another. There will be a conclusion to those investigations. There are other questions that have not been posed publicly -- and perhaps they should have been -- with respect to the fact that it appears clear that the Liberal caucus know far more than the public about this issue and have failed either to admit that or to reveal what they do know. So perhaps the Leader of the Opposition might take that into consideration as he continues asking what I think are superfluous questions.

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

G. Campbell: I'd like to be very clear for the Deputy Premier. The fact of the matter is that the Liberal caucus did exactly what the Attorney General of the province of British Columbia recommended that we do. We forwarded information to the RCMP. The people of British Columbia are shelling out hundreds of dollars an hour for the Premier's criminal defence lawyer. Only the Premier can answer this question. The least the Premier can do is answer this simple, basic question: did he or did he not pay the full market value for all renovations on his home last year? Yes or no?

Hon. D. Miller: Well, I find it somewhat interesting -- and I think there ought to be some kind of rule that there's one process of judgment for all -- that the Leader of the Opposition is now making statements about what he did. He expects that everyone will accept that on face value, but when statements are made on this side, somehow there's some implication that the truth is not being told. Hon. Speaker, fair is fair. The Leader of the Opposition has never. . .

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. D. Miller: . . .come clean with respect to the involvement of the Liberal caucus in this affair.

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. D. Miller: They have never come clean, and I suspect they won't come clean.

The Speaker: Minister, take your seat, please.

Second supplementary, Leader of the Official Opposition.

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, how can we judge an answer to a question when we don't get the answer? The question is very straightforward. The fact is that the Deputy Premier doesn't have a clue about the answer to this question. The person who may know the answer to this question, who does know the answer to this question, is who it's directed to. The question is to the Premier; it is only to the Premier. Did he or did he not pay the full market value for the labour costs on his home renovations? Yes or no?

[1415]

Interjections.

[ Page 11790 ]

M. de Jong: What a pathetic spectacle, when the Premier of the province is prepared to have taxpayers foot the bill for his legal defence team and doesn't have the decency to stand up in this House and answer simple questions like those we just heard.

Was the Premier billed, and did he pay the labour costs associated with the construction of the deck on his home in Vancouver -- yes or no?

Hon. D. Miller: I can appreciate, as I said a couple of days ago. . . . I think I understand why the Liberal caucus are asking questions, why they're rolling around in the dirt. It's because they think there's some political gain.

I want to reiterate a point that's been made in this House, a point that I think is fundamental in terms of holding public office and the vagaries of public office. Anybody in this chamber, by virtue of the fact that they hold public office, can be embroiled in legal issues that require legal representation. There is a fundamental principle when that happens. When that happens, the province or the state covers those legal costs. It's a fair policy. It's a policy that applies in other parts of Canada; it's a policy that applies to the Premier and applies to other members of this chamber.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. D. Miller: And there is nothing wrong with that policy, hon. Speaker.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Matsqui.

M. de Jong: And presumably it's a policy that presumes that the Premier will have the courage to stand up and answer the questions, Madam Speaker. He hasn't got that courage.

This is the Premier who began by saying: "We see each other occasionally." Then the story became: "We vacation together." Then we learned that the Premier gives the gentleman gifts. British Columbians want to know if he paid for the labour. Or was there another gift involved here that the Premier just hasn't got around to telling us about yet?

Hon. D. Miller: The questioner, the member for Matsqui, is the person who settled a court suit out of court -- confidential -- that has never seen the light of day. So when the law suits his purpose, to keep matters confidential, he has no difficulty whatsoever. I suggest that there is some level of hypocrisy with respect to that member and the line of questioning that he's pursuing.

G. Farrell-Collins: The question to the Premier is a very simple one. To the Premier of the province of British Columbia, who had a very good friend who got an approval in principle for a multimillion-dollar casino licence: did or did not the Premier pay for the full value -- the full value -- of the labour on the renovations to his home -- yes or no? The people of British Columbia deserve an answer to that question.

[1420]

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. D. Miller: . . .that have no bearing whatsoever in terms of their public duties. In fact, there may be things. . .

The Speaker: Minister. . . .

Hon. D. Miller: . . .that they might not even want the public to know about, but this is not the place to ask those questions.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain.

G. Farrell-Collins: The Premier knows full well that this has ceased to be a private issue. When Mr. Pilarinos applied for a multimillion-dollar casino licence, it became a public issue. This wasn't just some friend of the Premier helping him out. What the people of British Columbia want to know is: when Mr. Pilarinos, who had an application before his government for a multimillion-dollar casino licence, did work on the Premier's private residence, did he pay the full cost of those renovations -- yes or no? The people of B.C. have a right to hear an answer to that question.

Hon. D. Miller: In due course, the processes that we have in place in this province will answer all of the questions that the public, I think, has a right to know the answers to. We'll answer all of those questions.

But it's also clear. . . . I hope those public processes also answer the questions that I posed today, and that increasingly, I am being asked. That is, what is the role of the Liberal caucus, which we know -- at least their representatives -- met two, three, four times with the police on this question? We know that they've received information. We know that the Leader of the Opposition says: "Trust me. I don't know what's in it." That's what he says. Why should we trust the Leader of the Opposition more than we would trust any other member in this chamber? That's the kind of question, I think, that people are looking forward to the answer to.

G. Plant: It's a simple question. You would think that if the answer were, "Yes, I paid the full market value for the labour for the renovation on my house," the Premier would stand up and give it. But he won't. Let me give him another chance -- you never know. So my question is to the Premier. Did he or did he not pay the full market cost for the renovation on his home, including the labour -- yes or no?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. D. Miller: I'm starting to feel as though I'm repeating myself. I know for a fact that the opposition are repeating

[ Page 11791 ]

There are questions that, it seems to me, have no bearing on public policy issues, and that is when they concern the private lives of members of this chamber. While the opposition persists in asking the same question on the basis that they think it has some bearing, I would caution them on that point.

I would remind people that there is a process in place. Questions will be resolved. There are legal proceedings in place. There will be an end to those processes. All of these issues will see the light of day. I think there might be some surprised people.

[1425]

G. Plant: The public business of British Columbia is being brought to a grinding halt because the Premier will not answer the questions that British Columbians are entitled to know the answers to. I wasn't there last week for true confessions; I wasn't there last week when the Premier and his lawyer came in and told their caucus members -- had a little true-confessions session with their caucus. Who knows how many people there know the answer to this question, in addition to the Premier?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, order, please. Members will come to order. Government-side members, please come to order. We haven't heard the question yet, which I know is imminent.

G. Plant: It's time for the Premier to come clean with British Columbians. Did he or did he not pay the full market value for the renovation done to his home -- yes or no?

The Speaker: I recognize the Premier.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. . . .

Hon. D. Miller: Order, order!

The Speaker: The minister will take his seat. The Chair is not going to recognize anyone. Order will come to this House. Both sides of the House will remember the rules of this House -- language usage in this House and interruptions in this House. I'm now going to ask the Premier to respond to the question.

Hon. G. Clark: As the members know, I've stated repeatedly that I paid every invoice that came to me with respect to the deck of my house. And the members may know -- and I read it in the Vancouver Sun, so it must be true. . . . They asked several contractors about the cost of this, having looked at the blueprints, and they were roughly comparable. I have nothing to worry about in that respect. I want members opposite to recognize that there are two processes in place dealing with this and all matters related to this. One is a process with respect to the RCMP, which troubles me greatly. I wish I could answer all of these questions and deal with it. And members know that I prefer to do that, both in this chamber and outside. All of that will be resolved, and I will be completely vindicated.

Secondly, there is a conflict-of-interest-commissioner investigation, which I requested. If the members opposite have any concerns at all with respect to benefits or declarations or what should happen, then they should go to the conflict-of-interest commissioner, who will do a full, exhaustive review. And I will be completely vindicated of that as well.

Finally, hon. Speaker, I want to say this: far from being paralyzed, this government was proud of announcing. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. . . .

Hon. G. Clark: . . .yesterday 1,000 more nurses for our health care system. We are proud of the completion of the tower at Vancouver General Hospital. We are proud of the investments in health care that we are making, and every day from now on during this session of the House, we will make investments in health and education, we'll ratify the Nisga'a treaty, and we'll get on with the kinds of things that we on this side. . .

The Speaker: Premier, thank you.

Hon. G. Clark: . . .of the House believe in, rather than muckraking, which the members opposite are attempting to engage in.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, the House will come to order. All members of the House will come to order.

Interjections.

[1430]

Ministerial Statement

PREPARATIONS FOR SNOWPACK FLOODING

[ Page 11792 ]

This morning I was joined by my colleague the Attorney General to announce more than $4 million in funding for 49 critical projects designed to strengthen dikes and riverbanks in high-risk areas across the province. These funds are going directly to local governments immediately, so that the work gets underway and can be completed in time for possible flooding in May and June.

The funded projects were all proposed by local governments, who were asked to identify projects which could be quickly and immediately done and which would provide an immediate safety net to protect lives and property from the risk of flooding. The selection was carried out by technical staff from my ministry, provincial emergency program staff and the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, based on the risk of flooding in the area, the benefits that the work would provide and the very tight time lines under which we are operating.

With this new flooding, the province has spent more than $11 million on flood prevention work throughout B.C. over the past three years. We've also been taking other steps to prepare for possible flooding this spring. We're working closely with local governments, dam owners and diking authorities, providing them with information and reminding them of their responsibilities to maintain dams, bridges and flood protection works. We've asked them to inspect their facilities to make sure that they're structurally sound, to withstand high river levels. As well, my ministry is doing helicopter reconnaissance to inspect critical dams to ensure their continuous safe operation. B.C. Hydro is examining its capability of increasing water storage in some reservoirs where river levels are high, to help reduce downstream flows which could contribute to flooding. The provincial emergency program is increasing inventory of sandbags and locating sand-filling machines in critical areas around the province.

Later this month, as we become more aware of possible flooding potential, PEP will be prepared to set up provincial field response centres in Nanaimo, Surrey, Kamloops, Prince George, Terrace and Nelson. As the flood risk increases, we will work with affected communities and will have funding available for emergency work requiring provincial support to prevent flood damage.

The province is also working closely with farmers and the food industry to ensure that they are prepared. This includes updating lists of storage facilities, truckers, feed suppliers and services that would be useful to the farm community and emergency officials if livestock evacuation or care is required.

Provincial staff are also continuing to monitor snowpacks and stream levels. Updates on snowpack conditions are also posted regularly on the Internet by the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks.

In addition, comprehensive information is being provided to the public on a wide range of flood-related issues, including local responsibility and community involvement, flood safety and floodproofing precautions for homeowners. Information on flood safety, snowpack levels and flooding potential will be provided, of course, to all constituency offices, government agents, local ministry offices and provincial and local news media.

As members are aware, detailed briefings on the current situation, on preparation measures being taken and on the province's flood protection plan have been arranged for all members of this House. I urge all members to take advantage of these opportunities, to assist them in keeping their constituents and local communities informed and prepared as government continues to monitor and act to prepare for possible flooding.

We will continue to take the steps that are needed to minimize property damage and economic loss and, above all, to ensure the safety and well-being of British Columbians and their families.

[1435]

A. Sanders: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

A. Sanders: In the gallery somewhere -- I can't see them -- are Debbie Hamilton and her son Eric from Vernon. I welcome them to Victoria.

V. Anderson: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

V. Anderson: I would like to ask the House to welcome the second group from Sir Winston Churchill Secondary School, who will be in the precincts now. I'm delighted to have them here to share in the discussions which will be forthcoming.

Hon. G. Clark: I'd like leave as well, if I could, hon. Speaker, to make just a brief thank-you on behalf of the members.

Leave granted.

Hon. G. Clark: I understand that today -- certainly in the cabinet room and I think throughout the Legislature -- samosas and sweets were given by a Sikh community in Vancouver, as a tercentenary. . . . Mr. Jarnail Bhandal, who's president of the Ross Street Temple, and Balwant Gill, who is president of the Guru Nanak Temple in the Surrey-Delta

[ Page 11793 ]

On behalf of all members of the House, perhaps we could send our appreciation for that gift and to once again, of course, celebrate the tercentenary. Perhaps I could be so bold as to suggest that both the Leader of the Opposition and I, with the Speaker's indulgence, sign a letter thanking them for that small token.

S. Hawkins: Hon. Speaker, I'm glad the Premier recognized the community for doing that. This side of the House enjoyed the goodies very much. I have to say that I did make the comment that I thought they weren't as good as my mom's, but that's just a personal opinion. We did enjoy them very much, and we would like to extend our thank-you as well.

Orders of the Day

[1440]

NISGA'A FINAL AGREEMENT ACT
(continued)

On the schedule, chapter 11 (continued).

M. de Jong: When we left off in chapter 11, we were dealing with section 9, I think -- the section dealing with the provision for a Nisga'a constitution. I guess the initial question that arises out of that. . . . The referendum has taken place. The section requires that the Nisga'a constitution be consistent with this agreement. The agreement is complicated; the constitution that will give birth to Nisga'a government and govern its activities is therefore necessarily complicated.

But the question is: has the government of British Columbia reviewed that document? Is it satisfied that the Nisga'a constitution is consistent with the agreement? Can the Attorney General, if he is the minister who's taking these questions, provide an explanation of the review process that has taken place thus far to ensure that section 9 of this treaty is complied with?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The answer is yes. It is consistent with this agreement, and that has been determined upon review of the constitution by a senior ministry lawyer.

M. de Jong: Can I ask the Attorney General: did that review exercise take place prior to the Nisga'a referendum or following?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Both.

M. de Jong: Can the Attorney General indicate at what point he and the government received notice from their officials that the constitution, as envisaged by this agreement, was consistent with the agreement pursuant to section 9?

[1445]

M. de Jong: I'm not sure who undertook the review process on behalf of government. Presumably that is the person from whom the Attorney General would have received that information.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It's the Ministry of Attorney General that undertook the review. I have received that assurance from the ministry -- several times, actually -- in briefings that I have had.

M. de Jong: So is it the position of the government, then, that the Nisga'a constitution complies entirely with the provisions of this agreement? Or did the Attorney General, in the course of receiving the information he has alluded to, also receive information that suggested that any provision of the Nisga'a agreement might run afoul of or might be of questionable validity when compared to the text of the draft treaty?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I have assured myself, from discussions with the ministry, that the appropriate due diligence has been done in reviewing the document, and I have been advised so. Based on my discussions, I'm of the view that the provision in paragraph 9 -- the first sentence -- is complied with and that the constitution is not inconsistent with this agreement.

M. de Jong: Did the Attorney General receive a written opinion to that effect?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Well, first of all, we know that the practice in the Attorney General ministry is that even if I'm relying on an opinion from within the ministry or outside of the ministry, those opinions are generally never referred to or released. I have assured myself, upon discussions with the ministry, that they have done due diligence, and I'm satisfied that this provision has been complied with.

M. de Jong: Well, I'm aware of what the public and the opposition are entitled to in terms of the release of opinions provided to the Attorney General. At this point, all I'm asking is whether a written opinion was prepared. I'm mindful, by the way, of the fact that the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs took pains to point out that the government was so concerned about the accuracy of the documentation that they didn't trust the translation into the French language that was taking place in Ottawa. That's how concerned the British Columbia government was that the document be accurate in every sense of the word. I'm not asking the minister necessarily to release the written opinion; I'm asking him if there was one prepared.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that no written legal opinion has been concluded. However, I have been verbally advised by the ministry -- several times, not just once -- that the document has been reviewed.

[1450]

[ Page 11794 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that the Nisga'a lawyer is aware of that fact. Obviously, once this legislation is passed and the federal legislation is passed, we're prepared to sign the agreement.

M. de Jong: Again, when the Attorney General indicates that the lawyer for the Nisga'a is aware of the fact, the question begs asking: was the government's position on this matter communicated orally or in writing? I guess the essence of these questions, of course, is that should this become an issue at some point in the future -- an issue that either the government or perhaps an individual challenging some provision of the Nisga'a constitution wishes to raise, as this agreement in fact contemplates -- it's important that we be clear on what the government's position is, what its understanding is and to what extent that position has been communicated to the other parties.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think that upon the passage of this legislation and the federal legislation -- once the agreement has been signed -- it will become clear to all that the Nisga'a constitution is consistent with this agreement. That's why we're prepared to sign the agreement and proceed.

G. Plant: I guess I'm just having a hard time connecting the enactment-ratification of the treaty by governments with the proposition that that constitutes evidence that the governments are of the view that the Nisga'a constitution is consistent with the agreement. The constitution is a document outside the agreement. Paragraph 9, of course, speaks prospectively, so it happens to be the case that there is now already a document which purports to be the Nisga'a constitution. But nothing in the fact that the governments are going to ratify the agreement is evidence that I would have thought would support the argument that the Nisga'a nation has complied with its obligation under paragraph 9.

Maybe it's just simply this. The public is taken to know the fact that the constitution of the Nisga'a nation has been prepared, exists and has been approved in accordance with the ratification chapter. The government of British Columbia knows those facts to exist. The logic then is that if the government of British Columbia had a problem with the Nisga'a constitution, it would withhold ratification of the treaty until such time as the constitution complied with the obligations in paragraph 9. I'm not sure that that would be acceptable logic, but I can't see any other logic supporting the Attorney General's statement.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Firstly, I've said several times, actually -- not just once -- that in our view, that constitution is consistent with this agreement. That is not a precondition to signing this. However, when you look at all of the processes that have been gone through, including the fact that the Attorney General is saying that the constitution is consistent. . . . We continue to proceed and sign this treaty. All of that simply means that everything is in order. Even if the constitution was not approved at this time, that would not be a hindrance to signing the agreement, because this particular paragraph imposes an obligation on the Nisga'a to have a constitution that's consistent with the agreement. And I'm not at all afraid that they would do otherwise.

[1455]

M. de Jong: I sense a government filibuster, hon. Chair.

The Chair: You have the floor, member.

M. de Jong: This provision, which lays out the framework -- those issues that must be dealt with within the Nisga'a constitution. . . . I suppose that as the drafters were looking at this, the debate was to what extent you were going to prescribe and dictate -- and I don't mean that in a pejorative way -- what was going to be in the constitution, versus the whole notion of self-government, which was to leave as much room as possible for the Nisga'a themselves to determine how that government was going to be shaped and what was going to be dealt with within the constitution.

One of the things that is very specific, however, is set out in 9(a). It lists, for lack of a better word, the levels of government that must exist, which must be set out in the Nisga'a constitution -- the central government versus the village governments. Regardless of how society in the Nass Valley evolves, grows or shrinks, those levels of government must always be there.

Already we have had the exchange. The Attorney General has heard my views, my concerns about overgovernment. That degree of government is enshrined forever more by virtue of how the drafters of this treaty have chosen to deal with that issue in 9(a). I'm curious to know the rationale behind that approach. The simple answer would be that other provisions of the treaty contemplate village government, and other provisions of the treaty discuss central government. Yet in this section we are compelling the Nisga'a, a relatively small population, to have what is, in my view -- as I've already identified to the Attorney General -- a degree of government that is ultimately unsustainable. But I've made my speech; the Attorney General can respond.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: In addition to the rationale that the hon. member has put forth -- with which, in fact, I agree -- this is by agreement. This is what the Nisga'a wanted; this is what British Columbia and the federal government agreed to as part of the negotiations. The Nisga'a saw fit to govern themselves with these two levels of government. If they require to have that changed, which is purely for their internal purposes, they could approach the provincial and federal governments to enter into negotiations to change this.

Interjection.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It will also -- if you look at subparagraph (f), as just pointed out to me -- "provide for the creation, continuation, amalgamation, dissolution, naming, or renaming of: (i) Nisga'a Villages on Nisga'a Lands, and (ii) Nisga'a Urban Locals." So there is some flexibility there.

[1500]

[ Page 11795 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think that those villages or village governments can go up or down in number, as the Nisga'a may choose. This is for their internal purposes. It's appropriate that they have that kind of flexibility.

M. de Jong: Well, maybe the Attorney General can help me with this. What are the funding implications with respect to the cost of Nisga'a central government, village government, if the decision is made by the Nisga'a to designate a new village? It might, by our standards, be a very small village. But are there funding implications associated with the costs of government that we know are going to be largely -- or a significant portion of those costs -- borne by the taxpayers outside of the Nass Valley?

Hon. G. Wilson: The answer is that there will be no funding implications, and that will be spelled out when we get into the fiscal chapter.

M. de Jong: Well, I think we will explore that issue at that point in terms of the formulas and how they operate. I'm not going to belabour the point, but surely the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs will agree that the addition of another local government has cost implications that become a factor when cost-sharing formulas are calculated and when funding agreements are renegotiated.

Hon. G. Wilson: I think that when we get into the chapter that deals with this, we'll see that any additional cost implications that may be there will be borne by the Nisga'a. It's their decision -- their cost -- if they should choose to do that.

M. de Jong: Sorry, I thought I heard the minister say that if there were any cost implications -- and I didn't hear everything he said, so I don't want to misspeak what the minister said -- they would be borne entirely by the Nisga'a. Is that what the minister said?

Hon. G. Wilson: Yes, that's correct, and we can explore that in detail in that fiscal relations chapter.

M. de Jong: We will explore it. I just want the record to show that I'm not sure I agree with the minister.

My colleague has some questions.

G. Plant: I understand that the agreement intends to create some flexibility around how many Nisga'a village governments can exist from time to time. There is even a definition of "Nisga'a village" back in the definitions section, although it identifies four villages and then speaks of additional villages. Paragraph 9(f) speaks of the possibility of dissolution of Nisga'a villages on Nisga'a lands, and as my colleague from Matsqui has pointed out, 9(a) requires the Nisga'a to have a constitution that will provide for Nisga'a village governments. From the government's perspective, do all of these provisions work together in a way that would permit the Nisga'a, if they saw it to be in their interests to do so, to dissolve all four of the existing village governments and simply run their affairs through the central government? Or is that overreaching the scope of the scheme here?

[1505]

G. Plant: I actually can't remember enough of my history of the Nass to say that I can agree with the minister's statement. I certainly know that in the Skeena within the last century, for example, there have been a number of new Gitxsan villages created for a variety of reasons. A century is actually a pretty reasonable time window to be looking at for the kind of commitments that are talked about here.

I agree with the minister that we are in the realm of speculation, but I think the context for the question was originally set by the concern about how much of this is going to entrench something that is perhaps inappropriately inflexible. So what the question looks for is the level of potential flexibility that's built into the treaty. If the minister's view is that, should the need arise, there is flexibility for the Nisga'a at the least both to increase the number of village governments and to reduce them, then that's an answer to the concern, at least in that particular context.

Hon. G. Wilson: Yes, I think that's true. Just to underscore the member's observation, I think that Kincolith was established some time around the turn of the century.

Interjection.

Hon. G. Wilson: Right, New Aiyansh -- exactly.

I think that there is flexibility there on both sides.

K. Krueger: In the interaction of the Nisga'a constitution and this draft agreement, noting that there's provision, of course, for authority to make laws and to enact those laws. . . . And there's subclause (c): ". . .assign to Nisga'a Lisims Government and Nisga'a Village Governments the rights, powers, privileges, and responsibilities under this Agreement that are not specifically assigned. . . " elsewhere. I'm wondering if the Nisga'a, anywhere within the interaction of these documents, are denied the authority to write a Nisga'a labour code.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The Nisga'a don't have the authority to write a labour code.

K. Krueger: In searching the documents, I've been unable to find how they are prevented from having that authority. There are frequent references to cultural areas and so on, which arguably could include issues such as the writing of a labour code. Certainly we can deal with those as we come to them, but it would be helpful if the Attorney General or the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs could direct me to the provisions that specifically prohibit the Nisga'a from having the authority to write a labour code or, for example, an employment standards act.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: If the hon. member goes to sections 64 to 67, it's paragraph 67 that deals with that issue.

[ Page 11796 ]

This is a topical issue for all of us, I think, but certainly in Kamloops, where the Kamloops Indian band has written its own labour code. The labour code prevents strikes by employees; it also prevents union dues collection, as I understand it. I couldn't see in this document any firm prohibition of actually writing law with regard to labour relations matters.

I'll accept the Attorney General's opinion for the moment. I'd like a comment from the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, if he'd like to give one. Perhaps we'll deal with the issue in a number of different areas as it comes up.

[1510]

This agreement does not provide the powers. In fact, I think, as the Attorney General has pointed out, that section 67 puts a bar of sorts against that. We're about to sign an AIP on Friday with the Sechelts. That also does not provide for it. In fact, they're unionized IWA. I don't think this is an issue that the member needs to have concern about with respect to Nisga'a.

M. de Jong: Just moving further through section 9, there are provisions. . . . I recognize that what we're dealing with here is the framework for the Nisga'a constitution. In a couple of these subsections -- and I'm looking now at subsection (k) -- the issue of Nisga'a governmental accountability is dealt with. This is an issue that has been the source of much public debate -- quite frankly, an issue that the opposition, myself included, has spent some degree of energy commenting upon.

It is the notion that the negotiators to this treaty sought -- by virtue of these provisions and others, and some of the definition sections and how those defined terms are utilized throughout the text of the agreement -- and chose very purposely, I think, to ensure that to the extent that there would be democratic accountability by Nisga'a government, it would be to Nisga'a citizens only. It won't surprise the Attorney General to know that there are people who are troubled by that notion, insofar as this is a part of British Columbia where non-Nisga'a citizens reside and may reside in the future.

There were some alternatives available to the drafters of the document, when they were dealing in general terms with the notion of democratic accountability, to seek the ratification of a constitution that would compel Nisga'a government to be accountable to people residing on Nisga'a lands or in the Nass Valley or subject to Nisga'a laws. Those were alternative approaches that would have precluded the possibility that democratic accountability would stop short of all the people residing in the area or subject to the laws being passed by the government that this constitution creates.

The drafters chose a different course, and I think they did it purposely. I think they did it for reasons that the Attorney General will articulate now. I think the Attorney General knows that it is an aspect of this treaty that troubles the opposition and people who see this as a fundamental departure from a principle that heretofore has been at the heart of Canadian democratic principles.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: With the utmost respect, I want to say to the hon. member that what the hon. member is engaging in now is a philosophical debate and is second reading debate. The hon. member isn't talking about the scope of the section. The hon. member wants to ask for reasons why the section has been limited the way it has been. I want to point out to the hon. member that there are other sections and paragraphs in this chapter that deal with relations with individuals who aren't Nisga'a citizens, for their participation in decisions that might affect them.

The rationale for doing what was done has been articulated many times both here inside the chamber and outside. That is that the Nisga'a agreement is concerned mainly with the preservation of Nisga'a heritage, Nisga'a culture, Nisga'a language and Nisga'a traditions on Nisga'a lands within the territory that's mentioned in this particular treaty. I think it's important that we view it in that context. This treaty is not aimed at excluding people who might be impacted by those decisions. That impact is taken into account through other sections, through other checks and balances in this treaty.

[1515]

G. Plant: That's a sort of circular definition.

M. de Jong: Yeah.

I think what has happened here is that a group of people have been excluded. A group of people who do not fall within the definition of Nisga'a citizen -- who may live in the area, who may live on Nisga'a lands, who may and will be subject to certain Nisga'a laws -- are excluded. The Attorney General can try to dismiss that as somehow being insignificant; I don't. In fairness to the Attorney General, I think he appreciates the differing philosophy, but I want to try again to compel the Attorney General to offer a better defence or explanation for why those people who have been excluded pursuant to this section and who will be excluded pursuant to this section should not feel aggrieved.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: This is a treaty that has been agreed upon, pursuant to due deliberation amongst the Nisga'a, the

[ Page 11797 ]

M. de Jong: Before I turn it over to my colleague, let me, to the extent I can, try to put the Attorney General's mind at ease. I'm not approaching this subject with a view, at this point at least, to garnering ammunition for some ongoing court challenge. In fact, that hadn't occurred to me until the Attorney General referred to it. Yes, that is part and parcel of what. . . . That is an aspect of an argument that is before the courts. But it relates -- insofar as the section we are discussing here -- to how this Attorney General and this government believe it is appropriate that a notion of governmental accountability would be limited to a specific group of people and exclude another group of people who will be subject, in part at least, to the jurisdiction of that government. That is what this constitution contemplates by virtue of how it is going to be created pursuant to section 9.

[1520]

G. Plant: I approach the issue from the same perspective as my colleague. I know that we're not going to resolve at least the philosophical issues, if that's the correct term, although I think they are in fact directly engaged by this provision.

I want to explore again, from just a slightly different perspective, what I see as the problem with the scope of the obligation imposed on the Nisga'a under paragraph 9(k). The Attorney General referred earlier in the discussion to other provisions in chapter 11, in the context of discussing the issue of relations between Nisga'a government and non-Nisga'a citizens. I think that reference is appropriate, in the sense that we're not going to understand the totality of that relationship without exploring those provisions. I guess that the most important of those provisions are in paragraphs 19 through 23. We'll get to them.

It could be argued that a government which is subject to the obligations that are set out in paragraphs 19 to 23, in respect of non-Nisga'a citizens, is a government that is democratically accountable to non-Nisga'a citizens. If that were an argument that was being made, then we could argue about whether or not rights of consultation are equivalent to voting rights on the scale of what does and does not count for democratic accountability. But if that were the argument, then it would be entirely consistent with draft paragraph (k) in a way that extended the obligation for democratic accountability to non-Nisga'a citizens, because that form of accountability would be, arguably, no more and no less than the form of accountability that arises under paragraphs 19 through 23.

But that's not how paragraph (k) is worded. Paragraph (k) expressly limits the obligation that Nisga'a government be democratically accountable to Nisga'a citizens. Therefore it has to be said that there is no obligation on Nisga'a government, under their constitution, to be democratically accountable to non-Nisga'a citizens. I think that this is wrong in principle. I also think that it is unnecessary to achieve even the government's public policy purposes in respect to this treaty -- which I don't agree with in a number of important respects. But even to achieve those purposes, I don't think it is necessary to exclude non-Nisga'a citizens from the scope of the obligation on the part of Nisga'a government to be democratically accountable.

[1525]

I would suggest that substantially all of the people who are non-Nisga'a citizens who will be caught in this gap are people to whom the government of British Columbia is now democratically accountable -- but will no longer be, at least in respect of those areas where Nisga'a government will have constitutional ability to make laws and to apply authority to non-Nisga'a citizens. So it seems to me that one question which is entirely legitimate in this context is: what is the basis upon which the government of British Columbia has, essentially, abandoned its accountability to those non-Nisga'a citizens who will be subject to Nisga'a lawmaking and decision-making authority?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: We don't think that's the result.

G. Plant: Now, it may be that the Attorney General and I are proceeding from different premises in one respect, and I can imagine what that difference is. It may be that the Attorney General is of the view that Nisga'a government will not have the power to make decisions that affect non-Nisga'a citizens. My own view is that Nisga'a government will have the power to make decisions that will affect non-Nisga'a citizens. Because we're talking about laws, we're talking about situations where non-Nisga'a citizens won't have the ability to opt out of that; neither will they be able to hold the institutions of the government of British Columbia to account for those matters. So I'm not sure how it is that the Attorney General says that they haven't abandoned those non-Nisga'a citizens, in the context that we're describing.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: This in no way diminishes the accountability of the government of British Columbia; obviously that is intact. Obviously this -- 9(k) -- is a minimum requirement. It doesn't place any limit on the government. The Nisga'a government itself may pass different rules or regulations with respect to qualifications of voters and who can become a Nisga'a citizen. Those are issues that they can deal with. To say that this excludes, for all time, the participation. . .is not true.

I just want to say, as I said earlier, that this is about Nisga'a culture, Nisga'a land, Nisga'a heritage and Nisga'a

[ Page 11798 ]

[1530]

G. Plant: To summarize the last part of what the Attorney General has said -- and if I'm summarizing it incorrectly, I'm sure that he'll correct me -- he's saying that protections that exist in respect of non-Nisga'a citizens aren't found in paragraph 9(k), but they're found in paragraphs 19 through 23. Is that correct?

The Chair: Could you repeat your question, member.

G. Plant: I wanted to restate the Attorney General's explanation of a moment ago and then invited him to correct me if I was wrong. I suggested that what the Attorney General was saying was that the comfort, if you will, or the protections that exist in respect of non-Nisga'a citizens are those found in paragraphs 19 through 23, not those found in paragraph 9(k).

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think those -- paragraphs 19 to 23 inclusive -- are the paragraphs. There are other paragraphs that we will come to that might not be as specific but do deal with these issues.

G. Plant: The Attorney General referred to the obligation in paragraph 9(k) as a minimum obligation. I believe that was what he intended to say -- that is, to imply that it would be open to the Nisga'a government to expand the zone of its protection. I know, for example, there's been some discussion about the possibility that the Nisga'a government would pass laws in respect of Nisga'a citizenship that might include persons who are not Nisga'a by descent -- people who live in Nisga'a lands -- and therefore those individuals might acquire some of the democratic rights that are extended to Nisga'a citizens. I assume that's the kind of thing that the Attorney General had in mind when he made that statement.

I want to ask a question, though, because there are at least a couple of ways that that result could be arrived at. The first is that the Nisga'a constitution could in fact go further than paragraph 9(k). The Nisga'a constitution could require that the Nisga'a government be democratically accountable to all persons who are subject to its authority, or it could provide that the Nisga'a government be democratically accountable within the limits of its authority to Nisga'a and non-Nisga'a citizens. I have briefly seen the Nisga'a constitution, but not for many weeks. So my question for the Attorney General is: is he able to say whether the Nisga'a constitution itself in fact expands the range of its protection along the lines that I talked about, or does it essentially track paragraph 9(k) exactly?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: There is the ability to make laws about qualifications of voters, and once made, we will know what they are. But there is still the ability to do that with the Nisga'a.

G. Plant: I know that there are requirements with respect to registers of laws and so on. Is the Nisga'a constitution a public document?

[1535]

G. Plant: The Attorney General will then have to forgive me for asking a question which I could get the answer to by getting out the constitution. I want to ask the Attorney General if he is able to look at the part of the constitution which complies with the requirement that is the subject of paragraph 9(k) in chapter 11 and if he is able to inform the House whether that part of the Nisga'a constitution simply tracks the language of 9(k) or goes further than 9(k).

I can help the Attorney General in one respect. We'll come back to the issue that he dealt with in his last answer in terms of whether the constitution permits Nisga'a government to make the laws that he has indicated. If I could impose on him just to clear up this one detail about the scope of the Nisga'a constitution in respect of paragraph 9(k), that would be very helpful.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'd be happy to give my colleague a copy of the constitution. I don't think it's possible for me to give a legal opinion here. I've given the general view of the Ministry of Attorney General that the constitution is consistent with this treaty.

G. Plant: One of these days in this debate, the Attorney General and I may actually be on the same page, in terms of (a) whether I'm asking him for a legal opinion or (b) whether he thinks it's his obligation to give one.

This is actually a really simple textual question. There are parts of the Nisga'a constitution -- at least, to the best of my recollection -- where the constitution does nothing more than simply repeat, word for word, the language in parts of paragraph 9. So the question is -- and I apologize that it's such an unintellectual question; it's actually not a legal question or a political question: is the language in the constitution itself exactly the same as paragraph 9(k), or is it something different?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm told that it may be slightly different.

G. Plant: Then we'll have to look at it and form our own opinions.

Just for the sake of completeness on the point I was pursuing, there is at least one other means by which Nisga'a government could expand the scope of democratic accountability, if you will. That would be by passing laws within its jurisdiction which define Nisga'a citizenship in a way that might expand the category of citizens to include people who are not of Nisga'a descent and by making laws with respect to the holding of elections and so on.

Assuming that's so -- if I'm wrong, the Attorney General will correct me -- the point that I think needs to be made is

[ Page 11799 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: True.

M. de Jong: Just on a similar point. . . . I'll jump ahead, and then my colleague from Langley has some questions for the Attorney General.

In subsection (o) of section 9, the obligation is imposed upon the Nisga'a to create a constitution to "recognize and protect rights and freedoms of Nisga'a citizens." The point, again, is a similar one. The government of British Columbia, for example, has obligations to protect the rights and freedoms of everyone, quite frankly. That obligation extends, to a certain extent, without regard for the notion of citizenship and extends to people who reside within the geographic boundaries of our province. Here again I want to know what the Attorney General thinks would be lost by extending the obligation that appears in subsection (o) to other people residing on Nisga'a lands. How does that limit or somehow impose an unworkable obligation on Nisga'a government via the Nisga'a constitution?

[1540]

M. de Jong: Well, at some point we'll get into a discussion about the application of the Charter to the Nisga'a government. Maybe I can ask the Attorney General this -- and I won't ask the question with a view to being cute or trying to trap the Attorney General: is there another example in Canada of a government that has jurisdiction over a specific geographic area whose obligation to protect rights and freedoms is limited to a subgrouping within that geographic region? At a minimum, can we determine to what extent this is a unique exercise in governance?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think the basic premise for the hon. member's question is that there might be another modern treaty somewhere that may have been negotiated along these lines and that might be different. I'm not aware of any modern treaty that has been negotiated the way this has been negotiated. This is the result of a treaty negotiated amongst three parties. Because it mainly deals with the rights and obligations of the Nisga'a government and Nisga'a citizens, the drafters of the treaty obviously felt that it was very important to make sure that the Nisga'a government lived up to its obligations and that they did protect the rights and freedoms of Nisga'a citizens over whom they have large jurisdiction. I think that's very important. No, I'm not aware of any other arrangement in Canada where this may be the case.

[1545]

So if I inadvertently misled the Attorney General or created the impression that I was merely referring to other sets of negotiations or that I had something in my back pocket that I was going to pull out and say: "Aha, here's an example. . . ." I don't. I also am unaware of any other jurisdiction in the entire country where we have established a two-tiered obligation. That, I say candidly, is the essence of one of the concerns that we on this side of the House have. This represents a significant departure from what we thought was a fundamental governing tenet of all governments in this country: that the obligation extends to all of the people that reside within the geographic area for which they have responsibility -- age and geographic location. Maybe, having offered that explanation, the Attorney General can respond. His answer may be the same, but I'll wait to hear.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I missed part of the question.

The Chair: Member, could you repeat your question.

M. de Jong: Well, having said that I'm not restricting the Attorney General to an analysis of other aboriginal treaty negotiations that have taken place, the question, in effect, is the same: is there another example in Canada of a government whose obligations to the people it is governing differs depending on something other than the age or residency of those people?

[1550]

M. de Jong: I think that's a valid point. Is it significant, in the Attorney General's mind, that the arrangement contemplated here -- the model for governance and the issues we've been discussing over the past few minutes -- would by virtue of their inclusion in this document acquire that air of constitutional permanence versus what exists under the present Sechelt arrangement?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think this sort of brings us full circle to the debate on general provisions when it first started. I think that every time we raise this issue, we'll come back to the very beginning of that debate. The government's position is that these are rights that are negotiated between the parties, and the constitution provides for the acquiring of these rights. Whether one wants to use the term "constitutionalized" or other terms, it really makes no difference. Our view is that these are rights that have been properly negotiated between the parties and agreed upon, and the constitution provides for that process.

M. de Jong: To return to a theme we explored yesterday -- and I intend to move on now -- I don't for a moment doubt

[ Page 11800 ]

My colleague from Langley has questions that relate specifically to how the constitution contemplated by section 9 will operate with respect to certain Nisga'a citizens, so I'll turn it over to her.

L. Stephens: The issue that I want to address is aboriginal women. During the second reading debate on Bill 51, I talked about the fact that I was troubled that I didn't see any equality provisions in the Nisga'a constitution, which we had all received a copy of. Neither do I find any language in Bill 51 that talks about equality rights for all members of the Nisga'a nation.

The government itself ordered a study to be done on aboriginal women and treaty-making in British Columbia." That particular study showed quite clearly that aboriginal women in British Columbia were very concerned about the treaty-making process and felt that in fact they had not had the opportunity to participate in those negotiations. I would like to start by asking the Attorney General whether or not aboriginal women were in fact at the table during the negotiations and whether or not they were in a position of decision-making. If so, in what manner did that take place?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I can certainly get that information, but it was obviously up to the Nisga'a to choose their representatives to negotiate this treaty. That is something the government couldn't dictate to them, nor should the government be able to dictate that to them. I think it's appropriate to remember that the Charter applies to the Nisga'a government and to the Nisga'a institutions, and therefore I'm confident that women's rights in law would be protected.

[1555]

One of the issues they have some serious problems with is the whole concept of aboriginal self-government. They've found that the largely male leadership of the band councils over the years has shown that women can't trust those male leaders when the interests of the women are at stake and when the band councils are making these decisions. I think it's well known and well documented throughout this province and other provinces, as well, that this is in fact the case. So when we talk about this Nisga'a treaty, which is the first modern-day treaty in British Columbia, I would like to have seen -- and certainly the aboriginal women would like to have seen -- some care taken to have their rights more entrenched, more protected, by the language of the treaty.

I hear the minister saying that it's up to the aboriginal governments themselves, the aboriginal bands themselves, to make sure that women are included. However, I think that the provincial and federal governments have a responsibility to make sure that they are protected as well. The Attorney General would perhaps like to answer whether or not women and children affected by the reinstatement provisions of Bill C-31 will be protected or whether they will continue to be rejected by their own bands. What kind of protection is there? If the Attorney General is saying that it's up to the aboriginal bands, that's just not sufficient at all.

Hon. G. Wilson: It's an interesting question that the member opposite poses. I can assure the member that at a number of side tables the Nisga'a selected women to negotiate, and those women provided, I think, a valuable contribution to the negotiation.

In the four or five times that I've had an opportunity to visit the Nass -- visit the Nisga'a -- I've never had any concern expressed. I wonder if the member might tell us when or where this perceived concern comes from -- from the Nisga'a women. Certainly I've only heard positive commentary about this agreement, and if the member has some specific examples to the contrary, perhaps she might outline them.

L. Stephens: I would refer the minister to the select standing committee report, which clearly shows the different contributions from different aboriginal groups of women around the province.

[1600]

L. Stephens: I beg to differ. We're talking about recognizing and protecting the rights and freedoms of Nisga'a citizens, and I think the minister would acknowledge that women are Nisga'a citizens as well. I'm simply asking: where in the Nisga'a constitution and in this piece of legislation does it specifically talk about protection for women and women's rights? As the minister well knows, or should know, the history of aboriginal women under aboriginal government is less than desirable. What I'm trying to do is find out from this government whether or not your government has protected the rights of aboriginal women -- in this particular case, Nisga'a women.

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

Hon. G. Wilson: If the member opposite has a copy of the constitution of the Nisga'a nation in front of her, I would refer. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. G. Wilson: Well, then perhaps she might want to get one and read chapter 2, which talks about rights. In chapter 2 it spells out very clearly that every Nisga'a citizen is protected; it is very clear. I find it odd, given the specificity of

[ Page 11801 ]

L. Stephens: Well, the fact of the matter is that aboriginal governments have not. Aboriginal bands have not protected their women and children. That is a fact, and it's a historical fact in this province. That includes the Nisga'a.

So what we're simply trying to do is get some answers to questions on whether or not women and children will be protected through this modern-day treaty and on whether or not they will be protected from the historical discriminatory practices of the bands in relation to membership. I'm sure the minister knows that if the bands have the ability to determine membership, they have the ability to reject aboriginal women -- women as in Bill C-31, which is the reinstatement of aboriginal women's rights. They have the ability to disregard those women and not allow them to receive their rights.

These are the issues that the aboriginal women are concerned about under the self-government. This is why they are so concerned about this particular treaty, because it is the first modern treaty in the province. It does give self-government to the bands. That is the problem. That is the issue -- that is, the assurance that the aboriginal women want that in fact they will be protected.

I hear the Attorney General talk about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We have had the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Aboriginal women are still going to court to apply for their rights. So I need to have something more than what the minister is offering as far as what we're talking about here -- some assurance that in fact somebody is going to be responsible for making sure that these women's rights are protected.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think I said earlier that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to Nisga'a government. Nisga'a government will no longer be a government dealt with under the Indian Act. There are eligibility and enrolment sections in this particular treaty, and there are other issues that deal with this question. I think it's important that we recognize that the Charter applies to these institutions. At the end of the day, if the Charter can't rectify those ills, then we're talking about a major problem; I think we're then talking about revisiting the Charter. But the Charter is the weapon of last resort. I want to assure the hon. member that the Charter does apply to the institutions and the government that's going to be created.

[1605]

I want to ask: does the provincial Human Rights Code apply on reserve lands under this treaty and under self-government?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: There might be instances where the federal human rights legislation might apply, but there would be instances where the provincial Human Rights Code would definitely apply. With the exception of that division, the human rights legislation generally would apply to Nisga'a.

L. Stephens: Under the treaty, will child support orders be enforceable on Nisga'a land?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Absolutely.

L. Stephens: Where does it say this? At the moment that does not apply. At the moment, with the federal provisions, an aboriginal woman can get an order of child support in the courts, but she cannot enforce it on reserve land.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think one of the things that the hon. member must recognize is that once the treaty comes into effect, these lands would no longer be reserve lands. They would be fee simple lands. One should look to paragraph 13 of "General Provisions," chapter 2. That deals with the application of federal and provincial laws to the Nisga'a nation, Nisga'a villages, Nisga'a institutions, Nisga'a corporations, Nisga'a citizens, Nisga'a lands and Nisga'a fee simple lands. That's a general provision, and obviously custody, access and maintenance laws are laws of general application. The hon. member's question has to be answered in the affirmative -- absolutely affirmative.

L. Stephens: Those kinds of issues around the safety of women, custody, maintenance, access and all of those kinds of things were, under the Indian Act, very difficult for aboriginal women to deal with. Under this treaty, those provincial and federal pieces of legislation that apply to those issues will now be covered under the treaty on aboriginal land, as it's now going to be called.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: On all of those issues that the hon. member has enumerated with respect to violence against women and issues such as that, the provincial laws would apply as they apply anywhere else in British Columbia.

L. Stephens: In the agreement, the aboriginal governments will be setting up their education, health and justice systems. Will it be up to this aboriginal self-government as to what form those will take, how they will be run and who will be part of those different organizations?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The Nisga'a already have a health board, an education board and the like. I didn't understand the thrust of the question.

L. Stephens: Who is responsible for monitoring what goes on there? Is the Nisga'a government responsible -- or does it have to report -- to the provincial government or the federal government? Who monitors what happens there -- whether in fact the citizens are receiving health care? Are they receiving the education and the justice issues? I guess what I'm asking is: what kind of accountability from the Nisga'a government is there for people who are living on aboriginal Nisga'a land?

[1610]

[ Page 11802 ]

L. Stephens: It is true: they have struggled for a long time to achieve self-government. I think people would agree, generally speaking, that some serious changes had to be made in the way that aboriginal issues were dealt with in the past. But now we are going on into the future, and there are going to be other treaties of this kind negotiated in this province. What we on this side of the House certainly want to know and have some comfort in is that what we purport to want to achieve is in fact achievable and that the systems are in place so that that would happen.

One thing that I've heard over and over is that there is no accountability from the band councils. Many people believe that with self-government, it's not going to change. The same people will be in the same positions of power in the band councils as they are now, and the same practices will continue.

What many people are asking and what I'm going to ask you today is: who is going to be making sure that the taxpayers' money that we're spending in this province -- and it is coming from the federal government -- is in fact going to those policies and services, which the taxpayers here are, in effect, paying for, to make sure that those Nisga'a citizens are accessing and have access to those programs in a fair and equitable way?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I thought I answered the hon. member's general question in the last answer I provided. Let me restate the position of the government: there has to be a measure of self-government. That's what's intended in this treaty. We have to assume that Nisga'a people and Nisga'a leadership will be accountable to the Nisga'a and will look after the needs of the Nisga'a people themselves, as the rest of the country and the jurisdictions -- be they municipal or others -- look after the needs of the people that they serve and govern.

I'm not going to make an assumption -- perhaps based on mismanaged affairs in another era -- that somehow our Nisga'a people are not going to be up to the task. They have been struggling to wrest control of their lives from us, from the shackles that we put them in. I'm going to -- and the people of British Columbia are going to -- give them credit for that and say to them: "Yes, you can manage your own affairs within the confines of this agreement that we arrived at."

L. Stephens: Many people would argue, too, that aboriginal women and men are struggling to throw off the shackles of some of their own people as well. This is what we're talking about. So my question is: does the provincial government believe that they have a responsibility to make sure that self-government and these treaties that they've negotiated do in fact serve all of the aboriginal people equitably?

[1615]

M. de Jong: Some of these questions around the notion of accountability fit well with the issue I'd like to explore. It relates specifically to subsection (l) of section 9, which we're dealing with as part of chapter 11. That is the whole notion of financial accountability. It is something that all governments wrestle with and something that most people assume to be a given: that it is one of the primary responsibilities of any government to be accountable for the funds it receives, be they from other governments or from the taxpayers or ratepayers whom they govern and to whom they owe that responsibility.

This particular section -- and I say this as much to remind myself of the context within which you have to have this discussion -- relates to the obligation that exists for the Nisga'a to have a constitutional requirement for a system of financial administration comparable to other governmental standards in Canada. My question to whichever minister is going to respond to this section is: has the province satisfied itself that this system of financial administration is presently in place?

Hon. G. Wilson: The answer is yes, and I would refer the member to chapter 9 of the constitution of the Nisga'a nation.

M. de Jong: I'm sorry, hon. Chair. I didn't hear the last part of the minister's comment.

Hon. G. Wilson: The answer is yes, they are required to put in place a constitution. The documentation of which is in chapter 9, if the member would like to read it.

M. de Jong: I'm sorry. I wasn't clear enough in posing my question, which did not relate specifically to the constitutional provisions but to whether, in practice, that administrative safeguard is in place.

Hon. G. Wilson: They'll have to enact that on day one of the treaty.

M. de Jong: I'm sure this is my fault for not communicating this properly. In practice, today, is the provincial government satisfied that the degree of financial safeguards contemplated by this section is in place and working in the Nass?

Hon. G. Wilson: I'm a little confused by the member's question. The treaty is not in place, therefore all of the requirements of the treaty are not yet in place. If the member's question is, "Do we have confidence in the capacity of the Nisga'a to be able to deliver on the terms of the treaty?" the answer to that question is yes.

M. de Jong: It seems to me that this section and how it operates to guide the creation of the Nisga'a constitution create a practical standard that Nisga'a government must meet. So maybe my question is something of a hypothetical one. If the requirement to meet this standard existed today -- and I understand the minister's response that it doesn't exist in law today. . . . If it existed today, is the province satisfied that Nisga'a government meets that standard?

[1620]

[ Page 11803 ]

M. de Jong: That's one question, and now I have the answer. So I don't need to ask that question. The question I'm asking is whether or not the province is satisfied today that a system of financial administration comparable to standards generally accepted for governments in Canada exists. As the government has taken pains to point out throughout this debate, there is a Nisga'a government today. The question is whether British Columbia is satisfied that a financial administration system comparable to other governments in Canada exists today.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: That's a bit of an unfair question, and I say this with the utmost respect. Currently the systems that the Nisga'a have in place are under the Indian Act. Once this treaty takes effect, those systems will have to change to meet the standards that are established by their constitution or this treaty -- and both.

I think it's important for us to recognize that the British Columbia government is not going to be policing each and every action of Nisga'a government. The Nisga'a government's actions have to be lawful; they have to live up to the legal obligations. It's not incumbent upon the government of British Columbia to ensure that each and every detail of this treaty is implemented forthwith and done appropriately. I think that is very paternalistic, if I might say. They will look after their needs; if they don't, they will be accountable to the people they serve. If they violate laws, they will be treated like anybody else.

M. de Jong: A bunch of questions emerge out of what the Attorney General had to say. Let me begin by saying this: I don't think anyone is suggesting that the province or the federal government assumes a role, post-treaty, of. . . .

Interjection.

The Chair: Through the Chair.

M. de Jong: Well, thanks, hon. Chair.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the two existing levels of government assume a policing role. But I think it is fair, where we know that a significant proportion of the revenues -- upon which the government contemplated in this section is going to operate -- is going to derive from those two levels of government, that there be some degree of confidence and that British Columbians be made aware of the basis upon which the government derives that confidence.

Now, I could ask the question whether in the past two or three years there have been investigations or audits that have revealed or disclosed inaccuracies or problems with respect to the system of financial management that presently exists in some quarters within Nisga'a government; maybe I'll ask that question. The government can reveal today the extent to which it is aware of whether or not those audits have taken place and whether or not it is aware of the extent to which they have revealed difficulties.

[1625]

Secondly, if we delve into this level of hypothetical. . . . Goodness knows, there might even be the odd British Columbian who doesn't think that this government is handling its finances very well. I doubt there are very many, but there may be a few. I think that when we drift off into this kind of discussion, we're well beyond the parameters of what is intended by this section.

There is an obligation under this treaty with respect to the Nisga'a. Once this treaty takes effect, British Columbia is fully confident that the Nisga'a will have the capacity to deliver on that obligation. I think that's all that the members opposite need to focus on. If we were not confident and if we believed that the language needed to be different, we would not have agreed upon the language that is currently before us.

M. de Jong: Well, I'm just asking the minister to disclose on what basis the government presumes to have that confidence. I'm asking him to refer back historically to whether or not there is evidence that supports that degree of confidence or whether or not there is evidence to suggest that perhaps that confidence is misplaced. I don't think, given the amount of money we're talking about here, that that is an unfair or unreasonable question.

Hon. G. Wilson: I don't know if the member opposite has ever travelled to the Nass or spent time in the Nass or has worked with. . . .

Interjection.

The Chair: Order, members.

Hon. G. Wilson: If the member opposite has been there, the member opposite will know that the Nisga'a have a long history of sound management with respect to the fishery, with respect to education and with respect to health. He would know that the Nisga'a, after spending years and years in negotiation with the federal government, have finally put together a treaty -- the first modern treaty in Canada -- which is a significant contribution to moving toward resolution of the treaty process generally.

I think that, quite frankly, the member's comments are bordering on the offensive -- to suggest that we should somehow sit back and make some kind of comment on the competency of the Nisga'a people to manage their own affairs. They believe they're ready to manage their own affairs. We certainly see all the evidence pointing to the fact that they are. The federal government believes they are. We put in place some obligations that they have adhered to and which we have adhered to and which the federal will adhere to upon completion of this treaty. So I don't know what prompts the member to suggest -- if all of these people over the course of time have come together and put together this treaty that provides the Nisga'a the capacity and ability to look after their own affairs

[ Page 11804 ]

M. de Jong: Why is it that every time, in a debate that is designed to focus on the details of the treaty, we do that and do so with respect to issues the government is apparently uncomfortable dealing with, the immediate response is that somehow we are questioning the integrity of the Nisga'a? What we are questioning, hon. Chair, is the accountability that will exist between Nisga'a government, its citizens and other governments, who assume a significant responsibility for funding that government. The minister stands up and says: "I'm confident." The opposition responds, "All right, explain it to us; give us something upon which you base that confidence," and the reply is: "How dare you ask that question!"

Well, if the minister detects a bit of skepticism on the part of the opposition when it comes to rating this government's ability to judge fiscal matters, then he's very astute. But let's not delve into that. In fairness, hon. Chair, I have tried to focus on a specific question, and it relates to whether or not and on what basis the government is satisfied. Now, the Attorney General said in his earlier response that there may have to be some changes made.

Again, I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I thought I heard him say that maybe some of the managerial structures that are presently in place with respect to Nisga'a government will have to change slightly to meet the standard that is demanded in this section. Fair enough. I think that's a fair answer. I think it's a fair follow-up question to say: all right, to the best of the minister's ability, what are those changes? Where are those shortcomings presently, and what needs to change in order to bring Nisga'a government in line with what is expected here?

[1630]

M. de Jong: Well, that is another feature of the debate that has been curious. Whenever we get to a point in it that the minister doesn't like dealing with, we are encouraged to move off it as quickly as possible.

Look, the section talks about financial accountability. The point that I was trying to get to throughout this discussion relates to the fact that it deals with financial accountability as between Nisga'a citizens and Nisga'a government at the village level and at the central government level. But it is silent on the issue -- on what I think is an equally important issue -- of accountability between Nisga'a government and the provincial and federal governments, except insofar as it imposes a financial administration standard. Maybe it is the position of the government that it falls outside the ambit of what should be here -- that this is exclusively, as the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs says, a matter for the Nisga'a. But I think there is a compelling argument to be made by the people who are going to be funding this government, or funding a significant proportion of the cost associated with this government, that there should be some notion of accountability to the sources of that funding built into the Nisga'a constitution. Now, if the ministers and the government disagree with that notion, maybe they'll say so, and people will have a clear understanding of what this government's view of accountability is insofar as the handling of provincial tax dollars is concerned.

Hon. G. Wilson: All of the concerns with respect to the accountability will be spelled out in the agreements that will be signed -- the fiscal financing agreements -- which are outlined in chapter 15 under "Fiscal Relations" in this particular document. If the member opposite would like to get into a discussion on that when we get there, I think it's perfectly appropriate. It doesn't fall into the Nisga'a constitution, 9(l); nor is it intended to. The reference there is back to what the Nisga'a constitution will say upon enactment, and that is found in chapter 9 of the draft.

M. de Jong: Let me just conclude on this topic by suggesting the following. First of all, I acknowledge that we are dealing with the provisions of the Nisga'a constitution. I also acknowledge that later in this agreement, we will be dealing specifically with financial arrangements as between governments -- Nisga'a government, provincial government and federal government. One of the reasons I'm exploring that issue here is because, as a result of briefings we've had with officials prior to this minister taking office, I'm not as confident as he is that those agreements preserve or create the degree of accountability that taxpayers are deserving of. I think I heard the minister spell out his position, which is that if accountability as between Nisga'a government, the provincial government and the federal government is an issue in the minister's mind, it's not an issue that should be dealt with. It should not be an obligation that is imposed upon the Nisga'a within their own constitution. If I'm misstating that fact, then maybe the minister will say so.

[1635]

G. Plant: I just want to pursue one aspect of the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs's reference to chapter 15 and fiscal financing agreements, not for the purpose of delving into the details of that but maybe just so that people who might want to see the debate that's just been held with this one little element of additional context. . . . It would be of some help to them.

We're obviously looking at chapter 11. Most of what's in chapter 11 is part of the treaty and therefore subject to all the considerations that the law applies to treaties. Fiscal financing agreements that will be negotiated from time to time will not themselves be part of the treaty. They are side agreements, and therefore they may not, for example, be subject to the same constitutional considerations that the treaty commitments will be subject to. Is that a fair statement?

Hon. G. Wilson: That's a fair statement.

G. Plant: I notice that paragraph 9(m) imposes on the Nisga'a nation an obligation to have a constitution that will

[ Page 11805 ]

Hon. G. Wilson: It sets out the latter. This is a public document, and I wonder if the members opposite actually have a copy. If not, we'd be happy to try and get them one.

G. Plant: I'd appreciate that. I actually can't find mine. To be even further honest, during my recent absence I was trying to find it on the web page for the Nisga'a nation, and my Internet searching skills are obviously deficient. Either that, or it's hiding in a place where I can't find it. So that would be very helpful.

I'm going to ask a question that may have been asked before. If so, the minister can tell me. The whole scheme of paragraphs 9 through 11 speaks about a document which is the Nisga'a constitution prospectively in a way, I guess -- certainly paragraph 9 speaks about the Nisga'a constitution prospectively. The fact is that there is a document called the Nisga'a constitution, which has some status in the eyes of the government and the eyes of the Nisga'a in relation to the obligations in paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 of chapter 11. Should we describe this document, the constitution, as a draft, as a sort of a constitution-in-principle? Or do we have, in effect, the actual Nisga'a constitution that will take effect and come into force on the effective date and that has been approved in accordance with the ratification chapter?

[1640]

G. Plant: When paragraph 9 says that the Nisga'a nation will have a Nisga'a constitution and that it will have certain things in it, is the intention there to ensure that over time, as the Nisga'a constitution may perhaps be changed or amended in accordance with the rules that permit that amendment as set out in the constitution, it will nonetheless always comply with these obligations set out in paragraph 9?

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

G. Plant: One last question, at least for my part, with respect to this section. Paragraph 9(s) says that the Nisga'a nation, the constitution, will "include other provisions, as determined by the Nisga'a Nation." Sometimes lawyers will look at a clause like that, and they'll call it a basket clause. Sometimes the question arises as to what's meant by that -- whether that kind of language is intended to open up whole new areas of consideration or whether it's really intended to deal with minor matters.

Now, the Nisga'a as a nation can obviously do more in their constitution, presumably, than is required by paragraph 9 -- the rest of paragraph 9. But what, from the government of British Columbia's perspective, was its objective in either insisting upon 9(s) or acceding to the request that 9(s) be there?

Hon. G. Wilson: I'm advised that our position, when this was to be included, was simply an acknowledgment that there may be other issues that the Nisga'a may choose to include in their constitution. I'm provided that there is an example with respect to a declaration of the Nisga'a nation, as one example, appended in the constitution. When we get you a copy, we'll let you copy that.

G. Plant: Then I'm able to move on to paragraph 12, the Nisga'a government structure. Let me ask this question. We've already talked a little bit about the fact that there may be changes over time in terms of the number or organization of village governments. Paragraph 13 says: "On the effective date, there are three Nisga'a Urban Locals, as set out in the Nisga'a Constitution. . . ." Then it defines them. Is there flexibility, also, with respect to issues like dissolution, amalgamation and addition of urban locals?

[1645]

G. Plant: There may be Nisga'a who reside outside the Nass and who don't live in either greater Vancouver, greater Terrace or greater Prince Rupert-Port Edward. What is their place within this scheme of Nisga'a government? How do they participate, if at all, in the institutions of Nisga'a government that presumably will have the power to make some decisions that affect them?

Hon. G. Wilson: That's covered under 14(a), which provides them the right to vote in general elections.

G. Plant: That's general elections for the Lisims government?

Hon. G. Wilson: Yes, but with the caveat that that's for the three members elected at large.

G. Plant: The Nisga'a constitution is required to deal with issues of democratic accountability but contemplates residency and other requirements. I take it, then, that it's possible to be, I suppose you could say, a non-resident Nisga'a -- that is, non-resident either on Nisga'a lands or in any of the three locations of the urban locals -- and that, at least as presently constituted, those individuals would still have the right or the franchise, if you will, to vote for the three at-large members of the Nisga'a Lisims government.

Hon. G. Wilson: Subject to the requirement set out, which could include a sort of general competency question, I think the answer to the member's question is yes. But there may be some subject-to clauses on it on an individual basis -- on a competency question or whatever. So there is a subject-to there.

G. Plant: Forgive me for asking this: what does the minister mean by competence? Competence in the sense of mental capacity and being of full age -- is that what the minister meant?

Hon. G. Wilson: Yes, that's the kind of thing I'm talking about.

[ Page 11806 ]

The issue of amending the constitution is dealt with in paragraph 9(r), and it's also dealt with in paragraph 11. Paragraph 9(r), as I understand it, is an enduring requirement that there be some provision for amendment in the Nisga'a constitution. But paragraph 11 is a more specific obligation that the amending procedure require that an amendment be approved by at least 70 percent of Nisga'a citizens voting in a referendum.

It goes on to say that is an initial obligation. Does that mean that at some point in time the Nisga'a could revise the amending procedure, so as to require that amendments be approved by some lesser or greater number of Nisga'a citizens? If so, what is the rationale behind that?

[1650]

G. Plant: But why is there a provision that contemplates the possibility that. . . ?

Interjection.

G. Plant: Oh, I see. I want to make sure that I understand the minister's answer. The minister is saying that virtually every constitution has an amending formula, which includes the possibility of amending the amending formula.

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

G. Plant: Obviously there are Nisga'a interests at issue here. But there are also provincial interests at issue here. What was the province's logic behind, I guess, agreeing to the possibility that the amending percentage might go up or down? To me, it seems hard to figure out why there has to be a specific requirement of at least 70 percent, recognizing that it could perhaps be changed a day after the effective date, because there's certainly no time limit, no time period set out here within which the Nisga'a must continue to have this 70 percent formula.

Hon. G. Wilson: I think the rationale -- if I can say it's a rationale -- for the province was that we didn't intend to freeze an amending formula that would be enshrined forever. We recognize that amending formulas may, from time to time, be amended, and we don't have a particular objection to that. Now, there's nothing in here that obliges that amending formula to be changed either; it just simply provides that opportunity.

G. Plant: An additional element of the amending procedure in paragraph 11 is that the process is a vote in a referendum. Could that aspect of the process be changed so that, for example, the constitution could be amended by some means other than a vote in a referendum?

Hon. G. Wilson: Yes, if they had the 70 percent the first time to do it, it could be.

G. Plant: So the possibility exists that there could be a referendum held on a question of whether to change the amending procedure so as to give the Nisga'a Lisims government the power to amend the constitution. That could take place, provided that that question was approved by at least 70 percent of Nisga'a citizens voting in a referendum.

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

G. Abbott: Further also to paragraph 11, in the general provisions section of the constitution of the Nisga'a nation section 61(3) reads: "A Nisga'a village may be created, amalgamated, altered or dissolved only by an amendment to this constitution adopted in accordance with subsection (1)." As I read it, subsection (1) would be all of the five steps, culminating in a Nisga'a-nationwide referendum in which 70 percent of the Nisga'a citizens voting would have to vote in the affirmative. Do I understand, then, that. . . ?

For example, as happens quite routinely in the province, a municipality grows to some extent, and they need to make an alteration to their corporate boundaries. Am I to understand that in order to do that, the village would have to go through this very cumbersome process to achieve that?

[1655]

G. Abbott: I do think it is important that we get this one right, because paragraph 61(3) clearly states: "A Nisga'a village may be created, amalgamated, altered or dissolved only by an amendment to this constitution. . . ." Those kinds of phrases would be used, in the context of municipal affairs in British Columbia, when referring to a boundary expansion, the amalgamation of two municipalities into one or the reduction in the size of a municipality, potentially, as well. All of those things would be fairly commonplace events that would occur sometimes with, sometimes without, the blessing of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. But it's not a complex process. So when we're using the terms "amalgamated," "altered," in the context of paragraph 61(3), are we referring to something other than those boundary adjustments that might occur in the context of municipal affairs in British Columbia?

Hon. G. Wilson: What that refers to is the changing of the legal entity. Now, in the changing of the legal entity, there may in fact be boundary alterations. But it's somewhat different than what, I think, the member has alluded to under the Municipal Act with respect to boundary redefinition or boundary changes. In respect to the Municipal Act and boundary changes now. . .often don't provide referenda for people who are going to be impacted by the change in boundary, in the way that our system works. So I think the member should not confuse what is intended here with respect to constitutional amendment, as opposed to what may be dealt with under the Nisga'a government section that deals predominantly with the Nisga'a Lisims government's authority over land or a change or alteration to village lands.

G. Abbott: I appreciate the response of the minister, and it is important to make that clarification. Clearly what would be intended here would be more substantive changes -- for

[ Page 11807 ]

Hon. G. Wilson: It's because the village is different, in the text of the treaty, from the village government. That's why. That's why I'm saying that I don't think the member should confuse what is intended here with respect to a village government as opposed to what may be structurally on the ground with respect to the change of village boundaries. They're two quite separate things.

M. de Jong: Dealing, then, with the three sections that fall under the heading "Nisga'a Government Structure," one of the recurring themes in this debate and in the debate generally has been the attempt that the drafters of the treaty have made -- or claimed to have made -- to amalgamate the traditional notions of Nisga'a governance with some of the more modern Western models for democratic government. So we see that objective being dealt with here by virtue of the provisions that call for representation by elected members. One of the questions that I have been asked and can't answer -- and I'm not sure that it's a particularly contentious issue -- is how Nisga'a government will operate, as between the council of elders that I think the Nisga'a constitution contemplates and the democratically elected government that is called for in these provisions -- how those two entities will function together to form the larger notion of Nisga'a governance.

[1700]

M. de Jong: Well, then, let's return to the preamble. If I was mistaken and that wasn't the objective -- to find a means of preserving the more traditional notions of governance, which have existed in the Nass Valley for some time, with the modern notion of democratic representation -- and if that wasn't what gave rise, at least on the province's part, to their position in negotiating the government structure as it's set out here, what was? Quite frankly, the minister's predecessor, I think, went to some length to impress upon me that this was one of the objectives.

Hon. G. Wilson: Clearly my predecessor did a fine job of impressing that upon the member opposite, and maybe we'll just leave it at that.

What is important -- the point I tried to make -- is that the council of elders, which is spelled out in the constitution, provides for the Nisga'a a way to interface between the Lisims government, which will ultimately have dealings with the province and the federal government, and their customary practice with respect to the traditions that they have. That's something that they've worked out, that they've put into their constitution and that works for them in their constitution.

I don't know whether it's particularly useful to go back. I wasn't too sure what the member was meaning when he talked about modernizing and moving to modern forms of government. This is the government that works for the Nisga'a; this is what they've negotiated. The province has confidence that this is a model that will work well with the provincial and federal regimes.

M. de Jong: Let's move, then, to the notion of the urban locals. The minister knows that. . . . I think he recently addressed a body that was concerned with representation. I don't think it was exclusively Nisga'a urban-based natives but a larger urban-based aboriginal group.

We're dealing with the Nisga'a treaty. There is concern that this attempt to bestow upon those individuals -- who, I believe, represent close to a majority of the Nisga'a -- to ensure their degree of representation and their interests, particularly with respect to the settlement funds, proceeds and legacy. . . . There has been a concern expressed, I think, to the minister, the government and members of the opposition that this model falls short of ensuring that their interests are going to be adequately protected.

The government, in agreeing to this treaty and this portion of the treaty, thinks otherwise, I presume. Again, the question would be: on what basis do they take that position?

[1705]

[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]

Hon. G. Wilson: Well, it's on the basis that the Nisga'a agreed to it and ratified it.

I would say that urban Nisga'a are far better off with the terms and conditions of this treaty than are many urban aboriginal people, who don't have the same opportunities afforded them, because there are no treaties impacting them. So I would say that one only has to spend a few hours in this ministry dealing with urban aboriginal people and their issues and conditions to see the enormous benefits that this treaty brings to the urban Nisga'a.

M. de Jong: Let me ask, then -- if those protections exist and are secure to the extent that the minister suggests they are -- what the response is to those who don't find themselves within one of the three urban locals that exist but are elsewhere in the province. The question, again, that has been asked of me by those individuals. . . . The statement -- I don't think it's really a question -- is: "This also represents our one kick at the can, in terms of the settlement. How can we be confident from this point forward that we will receive our fair share?" The answer could be: "You are a part of the Nisga'a collective, and you must abide by the will of the majority." Yet that concern is articulated by people who don't fall either on the Nisga'a lands or within one of the three urban locals.

Hon. G. Wilson: They still have the right to vote for one of the three at-large members. Plus they still have the right to make representation to government. They're not precluded because they're not a member of the three urban locals.

M. de Jong: I think the other thing that needs to be acknowledged, though, is that by virtue of an individual not

[ Page 11808 ]

I think I want to move on to the section -- unless one of my colleagues has something dealing with elections. . . . One of my colleagues does have a section 15. . . .

[1710]

I'm presuming that the dispute resolution mechanism in chapter 8 of the constitution may come into play here at times. Is there a clear understanding about the application of the dispute resolution mechanism with respect to what might be termed a deadlocked council -- which could occur on councils, given the even numbers?

Hon. G. Wilson: I'm tempted to say that. . . . My suspicion is that the Nisga'a get along better than we do, so they're not likely to have as many disputes, but I don't know. I think there's also an attempt to find consensus. It's a different approach and different model. I think that it's important to note that the dispute resolution that the member refers to doesn't speak to dispute at council level. The council will have their operating rules of order, whatever they may be, and there will be tie-breaking procedures to stop a deadlock -- if they vote. My understanding is that the Nisga'a prefer to move to consensus, but if they should operate under a particular prescribed set of rules, within those rules will be some mechanism to break a deadlock.

G. Abbott: That's fair enough. I would think that there's clearly an understanding here that when a structure is created where there is the possibility half the time of having an even number of councillors, it is based on a consensus model of decision-making. What I suspect may happen, based on the 17 years I spent on councils and regional district boards, is that occasionally differences of opinion will arise. And where you have even numbers, a deadlock could occur. But what I'm understanding here from the minister is that if and when those situations arise, the expectation is that those councils will develop their own mechanisms for resolving differences on council and that their differences of opinion will not be, for example, moved on to the council of elders or to any other body for determination.

Hon. G. Wilson: That's right, and that's spelled out in paragraph 43 of the constitution, where they do talk about simple majority being required at the Nisga'a village government. The member makes a point that if there is an even number, then to get a simple majority, you have to work a little harder, I guess, to get people on side. I think government by consensus isn't a bad plan, except that if it were in this forum, I don't think we'd ever get anything done. Nevertheless -- who knows? -- maybe the Nisga'a have a superior way of getting things accomplished.

G. Abbott: I hope it works out as well as that. Again, based on what I've seen in local government, frequently those differences of opinion do emerge.

Section 14 reads: "Nisga'a Lisims Government consists of the following members, as set out in the Nisga'a Constitution: (a) at least three officers elected by the Nisga'a Nation in a general election." Could the minister point out to me the section that would determine whether it's going to be three, four, five -- or what it may happen to be? Who has the authority to shift that number?

Hon. G. Wilson: Well, in general terms, it's section 38, and it's the Nisga'a Lisims government.

J. Weisgerber: That leads into some questions I'd like to ask on section 14. Also, I want to go back to section 13.

[1715]

The point that I want to make is that it seems to me that there is a real probability that the Nisga'a government will grow. And if indeed the costs associated with that Nisga'a government were those borne by Nisga'a citizens, I would have far less hesitation in leaving that up to the Nisga'a to decide. But the fact of the matter is that British Columbia and Canadian taxpayers are going to be the ones who pay for that government in large measure, and an overwhelming percentage of the costs of that government will not be borne by the Nisga'a in the foreseeable future.

So first of all, I want to clarify with the minister that in fact the provincial and federal governments don't take a role in limiting the number of representatives, with all of the associated travel costs, that are going to be elected either in a general election or in the urban locals. While I'm raising this point, I don't know whether there is a limit to the number of members in the individual village governments.

Hon. G. Wilson: I appreciate the question from the member. The size of the government. . . . I mean, this is what self-government is all about. The size of the government is largely going to be determined by the Nisga'a. There will certainly be additional costs associated with increased numbers of members. I mean, one only has to walk down the halls of this institution, and you can see photographs of this chamber with a much smaller number of desks and fewer representatives. There is even a commission out wandering around the province right now seeking to find ways of expanding the number of elected representatives here, and there is going to be an associated cost for that. So the Nisga'a will have a similar opportunity and a right, I suppose. I don't want to use that word. But they will certainly have an opportunity within their governance to determine how they are best represented.

Now, there's going to be a proportional amount of money that they're going to get for government. If they choose to

[ Page 11809 ]

While the member's point is correct that there will be increased costs, (1) those costs are going to be within a defined amount of money, and (2), I think that the opportunity to decide whether they wish to have larger or smaller numbers of elected members speaks to the very heart of self-government. That's what it's all about: making sure that they have adequate representation to carry out the programs that their government sees are in their best interests.

J. Weisgerber: That's got to be, at best, wishful thinking on the minister's part. Look, it's this government that the member so recently joined that has gone around for two years telling us that one of the great benefits of the Nisga'a agreement is the amount of federal money that comes into British Columbia as a result of it. The minister wants me to believe that the Nisga'a will say: "No, we must constrain the size of our government, because we pay one-zilltillionth of the total cost of our government through our own personal taxes, and therefore it's in our interests to keep government small and lean and mean."

[1720]

The number of members in this chamber will grow only to the extent that taxpayers are prepared to support it, and every time there's a consideration of more seats in this House, there is a public debate amongst those people who pay directly for the costs of maintaining members here. If we were paid by Ottawa, I suspect that there would be far less concern in British Columbia about the number of members sitting in Victoria. The fact of the matter is that we are directly a burden on the taxpayers of this province. The more of us there are, the greater the costs may be.

Now, I won't fall into the trap of saying, well, let's cut it down to 50 -- because we've been down that road and found that it wasn't a very good place to go. But nevertheless, I think it's fair to say that expansions to the provincial government have always been very carefully considered -- that governments agree at their peril to the expansion of the number of members, unless there's a really solid justification for it.

I think everybody knows the respect that I have for the Nisga'a. But I would argue that just as there's not that discipline in the Yukon or Nunavut or the Northwest Territories, there will not be in the Nisga'a and in other aboriginal governments developed on this model the kinds of discipline to constrain government costs. This is a recipe for overgovernance. We'll get into the whole fiscal issue in a later part of this debate.

But let me perhaps, having made those comments -- and if the minister wants to respond to them, I would be delighted -- also ask him whether or not. . . . As Nisga'a populations may shift, are there any constraints at all, any outside constraints, on the establishment of new urban locals? Are there limits as to how many people have to be in a community -- perhaps a new pulp mill or a new mining town in their area that might attract a lot of Nisga'a? Is there a sort of threshold number necessary before an urban local can be established?

Hon. G. Wilson: I always enjoy debating the hon. member on most issues and this one in particular.

The answer to that question is that it's up to the Nisga'a. They will, through their law, determine what the thresholds are for the establishment of urban locals; that's the answer.

But let me come back to the earlier commentary. I don't think the member should necessarily assume that there's going to be widespread growth of government in the Nass. Certainly if one looks at the extent to which the Nisga'a have managed through this treaty negotiation process to be able to keep focused on their goals or objectives, there's no evidence to suggest that it's a pattern of behaviour. So I don't think that's a very fair analogy.

I would say also that there's a five-year cap. Within five years, there's going to be a negotiation on costs. It's not as if there's going to be runaway spending.

Thirdly, I would say it's somewhat unfair to suggest that there should be any more constraint with respect to adequate representation for Nisga'a on Nisga'a land, to deal with Nisga'a law, than there are constraints on any municipality in this province -- those, frankly, don't raise sufficient moneys to deal with their own efforts, in many instances, and some have to borrow dollars -- or on this provincial government -- well, I'm not going to bite on that one -- or on any government. Let me just put it that way.

I think that it is in the interest of those who are elected to seek to find ways to make government as efficient as possible and to be as fiscally responsible and accountable as possible. I think all of us should focus on attempting to do that at every level. I don't anticipate that the Nisga'a will be any different than any of the rest of us in their objective and goal to do that.

[1725]

To think that somehow the Nisga'a are going to be so far above the kinds of activities that the rest of us have proven

[ Page 11810 ]

Do any of us really believe that the governments are going to renegotiate a dramatically new cost-sharing arrangement five years down the road? I don't think so. I think that what will happen -- and I hope to be around five years from now to find out; probably not around this place but somewhere -- is that we'll find that the argument will be that there has been an inflationary increase in costs, or the size of government has increased -- dah dah dah dah. . . . "Costs are up now, and, senior governments, we need more money." If they're treated a bit more kindly than municipalities are, they'll probably get it. I don't expect. . . . If the minister really expects that five years from now there will be any dramatic change in the proportions of government being paid for by the Nisga'a and by senior governments, I'd be happy to hear that.

The reality is -- and the minister raises this comparison with municipal governments -- that a fraction -- and, I might say, an ever-shrinking fraction -- of municipal revenues comes from the province. The number of councillors and the cost of the government is very clearly a function of those taxpayers having their eye on the spending of their local government. That kind of discipline is absolutely not in this document.

I would be so bold as to suggest that it's been the history of the federal government, with respect to their territories and other things, to have been very compliant in allowing this to happen. I don't speak in the federal House, so I have to raise these concerns here. I think they're very genuine concerns, and I can only raise them in the hope that someone will listen.

Hon. G. Wilson: Obviously the member raises important issues for consideration. I certainly want him to know that I always listen carefully to his concerns, because he's somebody who has a history in this field. In fact, he was the first Aboriginal Affairs minister of the province, and I think that's a distinction that he has.

[1730]

There are those who worry about the rising cost of government -- and I think it's a legitimate worry -- and the rising level of debt that might be associated with some governments. While those are all legitimate concerns, I don't share the pessimism that this member seems to have with respect to this particular treaty. Now, time will tell which of us is right, and in five years from now. . . . I thought the member was actually announcing his intention to run for office again, and I was going to applaud him for doing so, but then he backed off and said "maybe not here." Perhaps that's because he's not confident that the electorate will return him; I'm not sure. But five years from now, wherever we may be, I'm sure that we'll perhaps sit down and look at this again, and we'll see which of the two of us is right.

J. Weisgerber: I won't risk the wrath of the Chair by engaging in a debate on my possible electability.

Let me say again that this issue. . . . The point I want to finish here is that my sense is that what the senior governments have embarked upon by this constitutionalized government is an obligation to pay for the costs associated, to make affordable government. I would suggest to the minister that if the governments decided to withdraw funding from the Nisga'a or subsequent aboriginal governments created on this model, they would find that there was indeed an obligation to provide the necessary support.

You've created -- you being the three parties to this agreement -- a new, constitutionally established form of government that requires a funding mechanism. I think one of the fundamental differences between delegated governments, such as the Sechelt, and what we are embarking on with the Nisga'a is a difference between the ability of those governments to determine at what level they're going to fund it.

Let me say, finally, that in his opening remarks on this section, the minister described this model of government as something that works for the Nisga'a. The fact of the matter is that nobody knows whether or not this model of government is going to work for the Nisga'a. Obviously the Nisga'a think it will. Obviously the negotiators, with the very best of intentions for the other parties, think it's going to work. I think it's a huge leap to say that it does work, because we don't know whether it works or not. I would be interested in the minister. . . . The Attorney, unfortunately, is not here at the moment. I'd like to know whether anyone has examined whether or not the senior governments have the flexibility to reduce funding, given the constitutional elements of this deal.

[1735]

On the first point, I think that we'll just have to agree to disagree. The member and I have talked on many occasions, and I think we simply disagree on the assumptions that the member made in the opening comments. A number of years down the road I'm certain that -- I hope that -- we will have a chance to meet and see which of us is right and which of us is wrong.

G. Abbott: Returning to paragraph 14 and the question I raised earlier, I want to look at 14(b), which reads: ". . .the elected members of the Nisga'a Village Governments." Clearly what's intended here is that all of the members of each of the four village governments will also have automatic membership on the Nisga'a Lisims government. Is that correct?

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

G. Abbott: I would also assume, because there's no indication to the contrary, that the only way in which the

[ Page 11811 ]

Hon. G. Wilson: That's correct, based on the constitution as it's currently written. I wouldn't say in perpetuity, but as it's currently written, yes.

G. Abbott: Just for my information, then, because I don't know the population of the different village governments. . . . I presume the government may have some indication of what the number of elected members from Nisga'a village governments on the Nisga'a Lisims government would be at this time.

Hon. G. Wilson: We have that information, but neither of the two staff who are here have that information with them. I'll ask for it to be sent in, and I'll send it over.

G. Abbott: I'm always fascinated by how governments are structured, because frequently the way in which they are structured has some relationship to their ultimate success or the difficulties that they encounter in their operation.

We know that the structure of the Nisga'a Lisims government is clear with respect to 14(b). We'll know the number there. With respect to 14(a), "at least three officers elected by the Nisga'a Nation in a general election," we know from section 38 of the constitution -- and I assume the operative section is 38(1). . . . I'm embarrassed to say that I can't pronounce the name of the Nisga'a body that is involved here, but I understand from the definitions section that it is an assembly of the Nisga'a Lisims government that would make the determination of whether there would be three members elected at large or whether there would be four or five or any number that would be elected at large. Is that a fair reading of that?

Hon. G. Wilson: If I understand the question correctly, if you look at 36(a) of the Nisga'a constitution, you'll see that there are four that are enumerated now. If I understand your question, I think that is the right answer.

G. Abbott: Paragraph 36 is "Nisga'a Lisims Government Executive." Is the minister, then, suggesting that the number of officers elected by the Nisga'a nation in a general election is always going to be equal to the number of members on the Nisga'a Lisims government executive?

[1740]

G. Abbott: Again, the only way in which the number of officers elected by the Nisga'a nation in a general election would vary is if the Nisga'a assembly were to decide that the Nisga'a Lisims government executive should be expanded to include officers who are not currently listed in the constitution.

Hon. G. Wilson: That's correct. The Nisga'a assembly would decide.

G. Abbott: I'm pursuing this for a reason which will be very familiar to the minister as a former regional district representative, where on occasion, as I have seen, we find interesting alliances between, for example, the municipal directors and the rural directors on a board, and so on. There are shifting sands, certainly, in that regard, and it varies all the time. Where I'm getting to here is whether we are looking, at some point down the line, at political tensions that might result around the number of people that would be members of the Nisga'a Lisims government under these different categories.

In relation to 14 (c), which states that "at least one representative elected by the Nisga'a citizens of each Nisga'a Urban Local. . . ." In that case, is it an issue which can only be resolved by the Nisga'a assembly? Or are there other factors at work which could result in more than three representatives being elected from the total of the three urban locals?

Hon. G. Wilson: It is the assembly, and it's spelled out in 26(5) of the constitution.

G. Abbott: Given that paragraph 14 sets out the numbers for the different categories of representatives that will be a part of the Nisga'a Lisims government, was there ever any contemplation of a section which, for example, may have made provision for at least one representative from non-Nisga'as resident in the Nass Valley? Was there ever consideration given to that possibility?

Hon. G. Wilson: The member will know that I wasn't present at the table, so to be definitive on what was or wasn't discussed is difficult. My understanding and what I am told is that there was some discussion on a number of different models. This is the one that was agreed to by the three parties.

G. Abbott: The reason why I ask this question is that if one looks at different offices in different parts of the world, of course, there are all kinds of variations and permutations on styles and forms of representation. In the office of the American President, for example, only natural-born Americans can hold the office of President, but anyone -- regardless of whether they're born in America or not -- can vote for the office. I'm curious, particularly given that a provision which would provide at least one representative of non-Nisga'a residents would not affect the balance of power, so to speak, within the organization, but would round out or fulfil or at least come closer to what is the normally accepted model of democratic representation in the western world. Why would it not have been an acceptable way to deal with that?

[1745]

G. Abbott: I think the minister's right. We can pursue that particular theme at other points, as is appropriate. Before leaving the structural issues, though, I want to do this -- if only to get the minister to try to pronounce something that I

[ Page 11812 ]

Hon. G. Wilson: I'm not sure what the. . . ? Is the member referring to the Wilp Si'ayuukhl Nisga'a? Is that what he's talking about?

G. Abbott: Yes.

Hon. G. Wilson: I wonder if you could repeat the question, because I was trying to sort out which of the Nisga'a names I was to pronounce here.

G. Abbott: Hon. Chair, that was the assembly to which I was referring. My interest is, given that. . . . Obviously this body is going to be of critical importance for the Nisga'a Lisims government in terms of the government structure, if only because it may choose to expand the number of representatives from Nisga'a urban locals, which will have an impact on the discussions and the proceedings of the Nisga'a assembly. They can alter the size of the executive and thereby alter the number of officers that will be elected to the assembly by the Nisga'a nation in the general election. Obviously it's a critically important body, if only in terms of its ability to change those things. Again, what I'm curious about is: what are the form, structure and function of this assembly?

Hon. G. Wilson: The form and structure are set out in chapter 5 of the constitution. It deals with the provisions in terms of its authority, continuity and what it has to do with respect to officers of the Nisga'a Lisims government and so on. I'm not sure what more that isn't here or what issues that are here the member has questions on. If the member is a little bit more specific. . . . I think that it's spelled out fairly clearly in chapter 5 of the constitution.

[1750]

Hon. G. Wilson: Just in case the member opposite is not aware or is confused. . . . Now, I'm not suggesting you are. The people who are referred to in 31(2), as the member just said, are the people referred to in 14(a) and 14 (c), and they do have the authority to alter the numbers.

G. Abbott: There was no confusion. The point is that the people who will be responsible or empowered to change the numbers are also the same people that will be sitting on the body that will be changed by the first body.

Hon. G. Wilson: Yes, I think that's right. If I understand the member's question, that is correct.

G. Plant: Sections 16 and 17 deal with the subject of appeal and review of administrative decisions. Let me just summarize the gist of them. First is an obligation that the Nisga'a government will provide appropriate procedures for the appeal or review of administrative decisions of Nisga'a public institutions. Secondly, there is a statement with respect to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of British Columbia that includes the requirement that no application for judicial review may be brought to that court until all internal appeal procedures have been exhausted.

I guess I want to ask a question about how this is going to work. I note that the Nisga'a constitution repeats paragraph 16 pretty well word for word. So we could have a discussion about what constitutes an appropriate procedure for the appeal or review of an administrative decision. One of the issues that governments always face when they're creating administrative agencies -- boards, tribunals, decision-making authorities -- has to do with the grounds upon which someone who feels aggrieved by a decision of such an agency will be able to seek judicial review. In fact, governments can sometimes be quite creative in drafting very restrictive clauses in the enabling statute, to limit the ability of an affected citizen to seek review. Those are called privative clauses.

One could argue that a privative clause that totally excluded any real significant opportunity for judicial review would violate the spirit of these provisions in the treaty. It may be that this is a discussion which we'll have to continue tomorrow, because it does have one or two more aspects to it. But could the minister indicate what he sees as being the intention here in terms of that particular issue of privative clauses?

Hon. G. Wilson: I think that what the member should focus on is that this deals with the appeal and review of Nisga'a public institutions, such as health and education. . . . We're not talking about an appeal on governance. But I know this is a section that the Attorney specifically wanted to answer on, so, noting the hour, I would move the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

[1755]

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. D. Lovick: With that, I would call private members' statements, please.

Private Members' Statements

THE POWER TO HELP

[ Page 11813 ]

Businesses that supply Highland Valley Copper thrive. It was a real shock to the entire region and, I'm sure, to the MLAs for Kamloops and Yale-Lillooet -- the Ministers of Environment and of Transportation and Highways, respectively -- because the three of us have a large number of constituents who work for and depend on Highland Valley Copper. Indeed, there are people all down the Okanagan and throughout the province, including a number in Vancouver, who make their living because of Highland Valley Copper. It's a huge concern throughout the province. I received 31 letters, for example, from employees at a plant called Moly-Cop in Kamloops that manufactures steel grinding balls. Highland Valley Copper is their principal customer.

The Leader of the Opposition stood up and called for an emergency debate on the imminent closure of Highland Valley Copper, and I asked for that as well. The members for Kamloops and Yale-Lillooet didn't rise at that time, but I trust that they've been active since, behind the scenes and in cabinet, urging the government to do what it can to help out in this urgent situation. There was consternation in our region at the fact that the government argued that day, the day we asked for the emergency debate, that the situation did not meet the test of urgency. It certainly feels urgent to my constituents and to myself and, I believe, to the other MLAs I've mentioned as well.

Unbelievably, two months have passed already since that layoff notice was sent to the 1,046 employees and since that press release was sent out, and there has been no concrete action other than the appointment of people to conduct studies and of the job protection commissioner, to see what he can do. I was astonished to learn recently at Highland Valley Copper that there have been no visits to the mine by senior government people, not even by senior B.C. Hydro officials, even though Highland Valley Copper is the largest customer of B.C. Hydro in British Columbia.

I expected the government to act, frankly; I think everyone did. It should have acted by now. Obviously the NDP don't really accept that this is an urgent situation, but it is. Closure of Highland Valley Copper is only one month away, and this is no bluff. Layoff notices have gone out to all of those people.

[1800]

In the meantime the situation has become even more urgent, because there has been a further drop in copper prices.

When Highland Valley put out its layoff notices and its press release, it anticipated that it would lose $25 million if it stayed operating for all of 1999. At that time, copper prices were 65 cents per pound. Since then they've dropped to 62 cents per pound, and Highland Valley in fact lost $6 million in the month of March alone. The situation was urgent in January. It's even more urgent now; it's very pressing.

Highland Valley's marketing has been impacted. If the smelters and other customers who depend on them don't think that they're going to be in production -- and obviously they have every reason to expect that they won't be -- then they must shop elsewhere for their copper ore, and that's what they've been doing. Once Highland Valley loses a customer, if they do reopen eventually and go back into business, that customer is going to consider them at the bottom of the heap, as a supplier that wasn't able to deliver.

It's absolutely urgent that the government move. Since 1992 this government has taken $1.7 billion from British Columbians by way of the so-called Hydro dividend. The dividend is 205 percent greater today than it was before the NDP came to power in 1991. An additional $28 million is planned as a further siphon-off from customers in 1999, according to the budget that was recently tabled -- a further $28 million in so-called Hydro dividends. The government seems to be so deeply embroiled in its present scandals and difficulties that it isn't acting on this urgent matter, and it has to.

Another issue, of course, is taxes. Mr. Gary Livingstone of the Mining Association of B.C. recently spoke in Kamloops. He said that this government's message is: put your money back in your wallet; go spend your money elsewhere. The government continues to increase taxes while commodity prices and exploration shrink. According to a recently released association study, the province's mines have seen fixed taxes increase more than 260 percent from 1990 to 1998, for an average tax increase of more than $14 million, which include sales tax, water rental fees and licences, capital taxes and fuel taxes.

Why has the government not taken concrete action?

Interjection.

K. Krueger: I'm looking forward to the response of the member opposite, because indeed this is an urgent situation. The Minister of Human Resources keeps calling out that this is supposed to be non-partisan. Indeed, I think it's an urgent emergency situation for our economy -- certainly for the regional economy. To me, that is non-partisan. It is something we have to deal with, and I look forward to the member's response.

[1805]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, any comments made have to be made from one's seat -- even though those are not necessarily totally welcomed.

I recognize, in response, the hon. member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

[ Page 11814 ]

When this government was asked to save jobs at the Mount Polley mine in Williams Lake, we stepped in and found a solution. When this government was asked to help the community at Huckleberry mine in Houston, we stepped in and found a solution. When this government was asked to support workers and their families at Endako Mines at Fraser Lake, we stepped in and found a solution. This government and the minister are committed to supporting B.C. mining communities.

When workers at the Endako Mines in Fraser Lake faced job losses, the opposition could only point fingers and try to blame a drop in the world commodity prices on the government. Instead of trying to save those workers' jobs or contributing positive solutions, the member for Prince George-Omineca did nothing but slam the government for his own political gain. It's easy for the opposition to offer criticism, but it's up to us as government to step in and offer creative solutions in these difficult economic times. I challenge the member for Prince George-Omineca to defend his record of opposing the job protection measures of this government to the workers of Skeena Cellulose and of the Mount Polley, Huckleberry and Endako mines. I challenge him and his colleagues to join and work with the government to support B.C. workers and B.C. mines.

At Huckleberry, Mount Polley and, most recently, Endako, for example, property tax deferrals, risk-sharing on power rates and agreements with suppliers were among the keys to helping mines to stay open. Workers also agreed to deferrals or reductions in their salaries, wages and benefits. The hydro question is key; it was key to saving the other mines. We've got a surplus of hydroelectricity, and we're prepared to use it to create and maintain jobs.

The New Democratic Party government has also developed a comprehensive mining initiative, an initiative that streamlines regulations to help mining companies operate more efficiently. It offers incentives for mining exploration and development, ensures fair compensation for mineral tenures expropriated for parks, and guarantees the right to mine. In January we appointed Michael Farnsworth, a respected figure in the mining community, to the office of mining advocate, where he will promote our mining industry. Through processes such as land use planning and the treaty negotiation process, the New Democratic Party government is working to eliminate the single greatest disincentive to mining exploration and development -- that is, land use certainty.

The natural resource prices in the world certainly determine what happens to our natural resource industries. As I think we all know, the prices of copper, gold, pulp, lumber, coal, etc. -- all of these items -- are determined on the world markets. I know that I always watch the price of copper, and it's around 65 cents. Only about a year and a half ago, it was around $1.30, so there's been a substantial drop in the price of copper. The other point I just want to make is that our hydro power rates here in British Columbia are certainly amongst the lowest in North America.

I think the government has stepped in wherever it was possible to help out a mining company. If we see any kind of turnaround in the world markets with regard to prices, you'll see a substantial amount of activity in the mining industry. And I think the Mining Association -- I know Gary Livingstone's name was mentioned, and certainly he has been very. . . .

[1810]

K. Krueger: Indeed, as the member said, this government has the power to help. It certainly has the power to help in this situation. This government set up many of these costs, and the government has the power to reduce them. This is a plea for the government to come on board and do that. Everyone at Highland Valley Copper throughout our region is waiting for the government to show leadership. There are other people, I'm sure, who are going to do their part. The union and the suppliers intend to do their part.

Yes, a report has been written, but we need to see results. We need to see action. It's only a month away. Homes are on the market, or homes have been sold. Dozens of people have already left. It's an urgent situation. The sacrifices that other people are offering and have already made will be meaningless unless the government acts and acts soon, because there's a whole line of people thinking: "Unless the government is going to act and do something very concrete, there's no point in us acting."

The government refers to the hydro rates of the day. Indeed, we're really blessed with this renewable resource and B.C. Hydro and the tremendous legacy left for us by W.A.C. Bennett. The fact that we have very affordable power should be a huge competitive advantage for Highland Valley Copper and for all of B.C.'s industry. Frankly, they've been a very unselfish employer. They have repeatedly said that the help they need is what all industries -- indeed, all taxpayers and B.C. Hydro customers -- need: relief from taxation and relief from being overcharged in B.C. Hydro rates so that our economy can flourish again.

This is a call to action. Nobody wishes to press the bounds of the non-partisan rules of private members' statements, but it's a call to action. It's an urgent situation, and I appeal to this government to get moving on the solutions. Implement the solutions, cut the taxes for Highland Valley Copper and for other industries and taxpayers throughout British Columbia. Deal with the Hydro rate question. Obviously, if we lose Highland Valley Copper, we lose 100 percent of the biggest customer that B.C. Hydro has in this province -- $36 million a year. The water will still spill over the dam, but they won't be there to pay for the power.

I thank the member opposite for his response. I hope that he will use all the influence he has within the government to bring about an early package, an early solution to this urgent problem and also to the similar problems that taxpayers and businesses throughout British Columbia are struggling with.

[ Page 11815 ]

UNSUNG HEROES

Here, in part, is the note I received. This note refers to two young men, Kevin Brett and Chris Frampton. Kevin grew up in and went to high school in the Comox Valley and is now a graduate of Simon Fraser University. It says this: "Rescue night of March 30-31 successful. Twenty-five-year-old man, 15-year-old boy. Search for the lost people started late evening. Kevin heard the boy and descended the mountain. Rope-rappelled 300 feet. He contacted him at 5 a.m. and was pulled out. The boys, Kevin and Chris, were on the mountain for 18 hours. Dangerous work in the dark. Heroic action. Unsung heroes."

With a growing population, increased tourism and a greater popularity of high-risk outdoor activities, the number of search and rescue activities has almost doubled over the last ten years, from 350 incidents in 1989-90 to 678 incidents so far in 1998-99.

[1815]

After seven months of physically gruelling training, these individuals are able to engage in diving operations and in avalanche and air rescue. They also receive five years of extensive medical training. In performing their search and rescue operations, the technicians are required to traverse glaciers, rappel and hoist from aircraft and hike through dense forests, often in highly dangerous conditions.

Search and rescue in British Columbia is part of the provincial emergency program's emergency services. I'm here to speak today largely on the volunteer sector of the search and rescue program. The function of the provincial emergency program is to maintain the effective awareness, preparedness, response and recovery programs to reduce human and financial costs of emergencies and disasters. The emergency services budget for last year, 1998-99, was around $1 million. Just over half of that was allocated for search and rescue activities.

Volunteers are and will remain fundamental to the ongoing success of our search and rescue programs. More than 17,000 British Columbians volunteer their time and their expertise preparing for and responding to emergency situations. There are about 77 search and rescue teams and 4,700 volunteers, who respond whenever and wherever they're needed. These volunteers are on call 24 hours a day. They leave their families and their jobs to engage in search and rescue missions. In some cases, volunteers are responsible for enormous tracts of land. The Mackenzie search and rescue team covers an area only slightly smaller than New Brunswick.

Search and rescue volunteer teams are often the first emergency personnel on the scene. All of us in this House will remember last summer's fire in Salmon Arm. Eighteen search and rescue teams from across the province gathered in Salmon Arm to assist with the evacuation of that community. In 1997-98, of the 1,102 victims, 977 were located alive by search and rescue crews. In emergency situations, where time is of the essence, the quick response and skill of these volunteers saves lives. About two months ago, 24 members of Comox Valley Search and Rescue, in addition to the ski patrol on Mount Washington, located an overdue snowboarder on Mount Washington in my constituency.

All search and rescue volunteers give their energy and their time to undergo intense training, practice exercises and simulations to ensure that they're always fully prepared to respond effectively to many different emergency situations. In addition to ground search and rescue, the provincial emergency program trains volunteers in rope rescue, tracking, organized avalanche response and swift-water rescue.

Here in British Columbia, we are indeed fortunate to live in a natural environment of such beauty and diversity, where opportunities for outdoor support and recreation are among the best in the world. When venturing into the wilderness, of course, it's important for individuals to assume responsibility for their own safety and well-being by taking precautions. Those precautions would include informing others of your whereabouts, travelling in groups, bringing proper equipment and skiing or snowboarding within posted bounds.

But more than most people, search and rescue teams understand that despite all of those precautions, even very experienced outdoors persons can end up in a life-threatening situation. They know from firsthand experience that nature is unpredictable, powerful and, ultimately, unforgiving.

While working to save the lives of others, search and rescue technicians and volunteers put their own lives at risk. Indeed, sometimes they too become victims. In 1996, three Castlegar volunteers died when their plane crashed while they were performing a search operation. Others have narrowly escaped death while performing their duties. In addition to the great physical danger they experience, search and rescue workers also endure tremendous mental and emotional strain. Searching for missing persons. . . .

[1820]

E. Gillespie: I'd be happy to conclude my remarks shortly.

The Speaker: Yes, you will have a moment to do that in a few minutes.

I recognize, in response, the member for West Vancouver-Capilano.

J. Dalton: I'm very pleased that the member for Comox Valley has addressed this topic, because actually I had it in

[ Page 11816 ]

The member has correctly pointed out that we must all applaud the many volunteers in search and rescue around this province, who give so unselfishly of their time, money and family life and, of course, put themselves at risk, endeavouring to save those who've got themselves into predicaments.

I just want to cite, in response, two or three examples from the North Shore in particular because that's the one I would be most familiar with. The North Shore rescue team is so frequently called out these days that it's quite rare when you actually find them at home. In fact, Tim Jones, who is the team leader, is a good friend of mine. I've had occasion to call Tim, and I'm quite surprised when I actually find him on the phone, because usually he's up on Grouse or Cypress or Seymour, performing one of these many rescues.

Earlier this year, one of the articles out of the Vancouver Province mentioned that North Shore Rescue was probably on a record year. The record was set last year. The North Shore team was called out 68 times. I don't know what the number is for '99, but I'm sure that it's probably surpassed that or is very close to it.

All we need to do is watch the news or go through the media accounts of rescues, whether they be in the Comox area or on the North Shore. Just recently on Mount Seymour -- this is an article from March 30 -- a person was rescued. One very telling comment from the person rescued, who was an Australian in this case, was: "They saved my life. I'll never forget it." Well, of course, if your life is saved, you certainly would never forget it. But this person was certainly grateful for the effort that the volunteer people from the North Shore team put in.

Even more recently up on Mount Seymour -- this is just last weekend -- another snowboarder was rescued. It seemed, perhaps as an aside. . . . This isn't a knock on snowboarders, but they do seem to crop up in the news more than other people using the outdoors. Of course, with the record snowpack this year, perhaps that's predictable. This person, who was actually a 15-year-old North Vancouver boy, got lost while he was snowboarding up on Mount Seymour. Happily, they found him at about 5 a.m. last Saturday morning, April 10. So he had to spend an entire night -- plus, of course, the rescue team itself -- while waiting to be rescued -- happily, safely. There are many examples like that.

I just want to make a brief comment or two about funding, which of course has become another issue that's in the news these days. Not only do these volunteer organizations spend all their time on the mountains and elsewhere rescuing people, they also spend a great deal of their time raising money. The member did comment on the budget that the government provides. Needless to say, with so many rescue efforts and so many teams in the field, funding is always an issue. I do know, and I cite the North Shore as an example, that they do spend a great deal of their time -- and their friends and neighbours do as well -- in fundraising efforts for their endeavours.

[1825]

The Speaker: Hon. member, you will see that your light is now on. I thank you for your presentation.

J. Dalton: . . .but would have a site for them to train on.

The Speaker: With concluding remarks, I recognize the member for Comox Valley.

E. Gillespie: I thank the member opposite for his comments. I too am friends with a search and rescue technician, a volunteer. I commented to him when I was preparing these remarks and discussing the issue with him that it seems to me that every time I've been at his home, he's been called out either for training or to actually go on a search.

I think that what this points to more and more, especially when we look at the increased number of people who have been the subject of searches over the last ten years, are a couple of things. One is that, yes, we very heavily promote our wonderful outdoors and the back-country opportunities in this province, but we have to work just as hard to promote education around safety. This past year, the Comox Valley search and rescue team has educated about 1,000 students in the community in two programs. One is called Lost in the Woods, and the other is called Hug a Tree. These are programs that bring safety in the woods to the attention of children, making sure that they never go alone and that they let their parents know where they're going. Of course, in the Hug a Tree program the idea is to get close to a tree and stay there until they are found.

I just want to spend a moment, too, talking about who these people are -- these wonderful people who have such a huge commitment to their search and rescue activities, these search and rescue volunteers. Largely, they are people who love the outdoors, who thrive on a challenge and who have a commitment to serving their communities. They commit to weekly training, to living with a pager and being on call 24 hours a day, and to maintaining their personal preparation and their equipment.

My constituent concluded his note with the question: "Is there no recognition for this kind of thing?" Each year, the government presents volunteer awards to individuals in the provincial emergency program. This year, Comox Valley Search and Rescue celebrates 25 years of community service under the very able direction of Mr. Mike Fournier. I would finally, in concluding my remarks today, take this opportunity to recognize the bravery, sacrifice and dedication of all of those British Columbians who are involved in search and rescue operations and to extend to them my thanks for this extraordinary work.

[ Page 11817 ]

CARING FOR THE ELDERLY

It's a frightening prospect for many people on fixed incomes, who don't necessarily have relatives to help them, who can't necessarily care for themselves and who would be facing perhaps reinstitutionalization or institutionalization if they didn't get that help. That's a frightening prospect for anyone, particularly for an elderly person who's hoping to be able to spend the rest of their life in their home.

[1830]

The thing that people tell me when they call is that they can't understand the difference between the announcements they see in the newspaper and the reality of the cuts that they're feeling on the front lines of service. They can't understand how it is that the government, at the federal and provincial levels, is announcing more money for health care seemingly every day, and still they're experiencing cuts and the threat of more cuts every day. They wonder where that money's going. If indeed there is more money in the system, where is it going?

We saw some of the money that the government has committed for health care over the last term of the previous government go straight into creating a new level of bureaucracy at the regional level, without a concurrent cut in the bureaucracy in Victoria. So we ended up spending millions of dollars creating new civil service jobs, without that money getting to the patients' bedsides. That's one of the places we've seen the money go.

But the second question that people ask is: "Well, we understand that we have one of the most expensive, if not the most expensive, health care systems in our nation. So why is the health care system getting worse? Why are waiting lists getting longer? Why are home support services in our region being cut? Where's that money going?" Is there mismanagement in the system that we need to get under control, so that we can make sure that that money -- if it is indeed there -- gets down to the front line to care for the elderly?

The other issue in our region is the uncertainty that's created every day when elderly people don't know what services will be there for them next week or next month or next year. They don't know how to plan their lives, and they're worried that they will be facing reinstitutionalization. That's the uncertainty that's created every day for senior citizens when the health region is forced to send out letters saying they no longer have a budget to be able to fund home support, or when they see a headline in the Vancouver Province telling them that, well, even though they might be facing institutionalization, the institutions that might otherwise be there for them are being closed.

Dogwood Lodge in Burnaby is being closed, and that's a tragic loss. That facility has been there in Burnaby for 25 years, and it has met the needs of literally thousands of elderly residents. We have a waiting list of 585 elderly people for long term care in Burnaby. When the announcement of the closure of Dogwood Lodge was made, they calculated that at least 30 of those people were sitting taking up acute care beds in Royal Columbian Hospital and Burnaby Hospital -- beds that should surely have been going to serve patients who had acute care needs.

The system is getting backed up every day. So on the one hand, while you have an elderly person facing the uncertainty that comes with losing their home support service and wondering if they'll be institutionalized, the next problem that they have to overcome is wondering whether they can be institutionalized, whether there will even be space for them when the waiting lists for long term care have gotten so out of control.

That's the cruelest cut of all. The cruelest cut of all is to see the press releases, the announcements, the promises -- when the reality for elderly patients is uncertainty, confusion and a sense that they don't know what will be happening to them the next day. That's the cruelest cut of all. What I would urge this House today is to do some thinking, to adopt some measure of long-term planning for our health care system. We can't run this system day to day by press releases; we need to plan it on a long-term basis. We need to make sure those services are there for elderly people today and tomorrow. They paid for it, they worked for it, and they deserve it. [Applause.]

[1835]

I think it's interesting that our caucus selected me, the most elderly member of our caucus, to comment on this topic. The member for Burnaby-Edmonds hasn't disclosed his age, but I'm assuming I'm the eldest member. And to hear that this eloquent speech we just heard is from the youngest member of the Liberal caucus. . . . But anyway, I just want to pass along to that member that I thought I'd say something nice about her so that she would calm down a bit in her response to what I have to say. I just want her to take note. . . . As I say, calm down. Maybe, after the session tonight, pour yourself a glass of warm milk, have some cookies and read, learn and then really digest what I'm about to tell you.

The member has talked about health care dollars going to bureaucracy, when the opposite is actually the case. I hope that she's aware that our government has actually cut hundreds of middle-management jobs, to a tune of several million dollars. Actually, administration jobs have been cut, because the government, through the restructuring program that she referred to, has reduced the number of agencies -- fewer agencies and fewer employees working at the management level, therefore more dollars to deliver for health care needs.

No one has ever suggested that it's easy. The fact is that sometimes choices have to be made, given the difficulty of

[ Page 11818 ]

I think it's important to point out that the decision with regard to home care is a decision that has to do with the allocation of dollars that's carried out by the Simon Fraser health region. What it amounts to is more resources for the older person to stay in their home while receiving medical assistance. Sometimes choices have to be made. It supports medical home support. It is true that there's some very limited impact on housekeeping home support. When you have to make choices, that's the right kind of choice to make.

I know that a lot of seniors I work with support that kind of choice. I think of people like Belle and Dick Barbour, who I know are watching right now. These people have a very vibrant interest in what is going on in this House. Dick Barbour watches what's going on in this House virtually every hour that it operates, and he offers me very cogent comments and analysis on what's going on in here. I know that people like Dick and Belle Barbour and Al and Nellie Fulton, from Coquitlam, are people that do recognize, because of the frugality of the lives they've lived, that you have to make choices and you have to make the right choices. In a creative society, you make choices such as the ones that this government has made.

I think it behooves us to point out that Pharmacare funding has been increased by 13.4 percent in this health care budget. That's $64 million just for Pharmacare. There are other significant things that have happened in this budget that are dedicated to health care, and they impact on these senior citizens that this member is referring to. There's $359 million in funding to build, expand and improve hospitals and other health care facilities -- very significant -- and $21 million to increase the funds for 480 long term care beds.

Hon. Speaker, it's a matter of getting priorities right. The priorities are right with regard to health care and seniors in this budget.

[1840]

C. Clark: The point I'd like to make in response to the member's comments is this: the mystery that everyone who phones my office struggles with is how, in British Columbia, we can have the most expensive health care system in the country and still see service diminishing at the front lines. How is it that we can be paying more per patient than anywhere else and still have amongst the longest waiting lists and cuts to home support and see a real diminishment in services that affect real people's lives? The member opposite reads off a bunch of press releases, really -- again some quotes from press releases -- and I think made my point as well as I did, which is: yes, the press releases are there, but the reality for many people is very different. That is what I want to speak about today, because that's what I hear in my community office every day.

I want to make this final point too, if I can. That is that the government must not only manage the money that they have better, but when they make their choices about where they're going to spend that money, it's not good enough to say, "Well, we're going to create a whole new level of regional bureaucracy," without saying at the same time: "We're going to get rid of a whole other level of bureaucracy."

What they've done instead is they've duplicated the decision-making in the health care process and, in many cases, doubled the cost for the same kinds of decisions. It hasn't meant a better quality of care. With the scarce dollars that we have, it's incumbent on all of us to make sure that the quality of care we deliver is the best that we can, that every dollar that we spend on health care gets a maximum bang for the buck and that the patients of British Columbia get the benefits of the health care dollars -- not the politicians, not the political hacks and not the bureaucrats that they decide to create in order to fulfil their vision of British Columbia, which doesn't meet the realities of the needs of the people on the front line.

INVESTING IN PEOPLE

We all know that this government has made health and education the number one priority for the last eight years, ever since we were elected. It's not a secret that providing adequate resources for health care in the province is key to sustaining a healthy economy and a healthy society. That is why this year we've made a significant commitment to improve the health of our citizens by putting $2,000 per capita in spending for health care in the province.

This is more spending than any other province in Canada. In fact, according to StatsCan, this province spends $450 more per person than Alberta does and $200 more per person than Ontario does. If we did our calculations based on our population, this province spends $1.8 billion more than Alberta, in terms of per-capita spending, and about $800 million more than Ontario.

It doesn't take a genius to see that budgets could be balanced that way. Now, there are some people in this chamber who would prefer to balance their budget rather than spend in these two important areas of our society. The members across have already said many times that their main priority is to balance the budget. That would be at the expense of health care and education.

This year alone, health care funding in this province goes to $8 billion, which is nearly 40 percent of our provincial budget. It's an increase of $650 million over last year, creating jobs for 400 more nurses, opening up 480 more beds for acute care and, obviously, improving directly the care of patients.

[1845]

[ Page 11819 ]

Children in Burnaby will be among those children across the province who will benefit from a $28.5 million expansion of the Children's and Women's Health Centre of B.C. This includes an extension of the emergency department and five new clinics for specialized care. I must say that 8,901 children from Burnaby used specialized care at B.C.'s Children's and Women's Hospital in one year alone, in 1997. Obviously those children will benefit greatly from this expansion there.

Our quality health care is recognized in recent media reports and even in the Maclean's magazine annual report on health care across the country. All these reports put B.C. in the number one spot in terms of spending and in terms of quality delivered to patients.

I could say a lot more, but let me go on to education. As we all know, education is the cornerstone to a successful economy and a successful life. Our spending reflects the importance that education has in society. In fact, the core funding for our K-to-12 system this year alone has been increased by $45 million to ensure that services are maintained, that programs are maintained and that the essential needs of young children are taken care of. It means $143 more per student in this province. That's something that no other province can parallel.

Last year we hired 500 new teachers, to reduce class size and to provide classroom support. This year again we are providing enough funding to hire 300 new teachers, to continue the good programs that have been initiated in the schools.

I can't talk about education without mentioning the capital construction funds that we are injecting into the system this year. It is $341 million, which will see 13 new secondary schools and 103 renovations on the schools. My own constituents in Burnaby North will benefit from the $25 million funding of the Burnaby Mountain Secondary School, which will house 1,500 students. That will reduce pressure on enrolment into the secondary schools of Burnaby North and Alpha Secondary, therefore improving their learning environment.

Moving on to post-secondary education, we know that in this province the tuition fees have been frozen for a fourth year in a row. No other province has done that. We now have the second-lowest tuition fees in the country. Our commitment is to ensure that young people have access to post-secondary education at a reasonable rate. In fact, if we compare ourselves to Alberta, where the members seem to take us all the time, tuition fees in this province will be $1,300 lower than in Alberta. If we are compared to Ontario, it's about $2,000 lower than there.

With the funding we're putting into education this year, we are creating 2,900 new spaces for students in post-secondary education, and that includes 700 spots for students in the high-technology field.

The Speaker: Member, thank you very much. The red light is now on. You'll have an opportunity in a moment.

P. Calendino: Thank you, hon. Speaker. Time seems to fly. I had other things to say, but I will leave. . . .

[1850]

We realize a different vision with respect to the services. We believe that the dollars put into health care must reach the patient, that the dollars put into the education system must reach the student. We believe that there's a unique link that combines education and health.

I recently had the opportunity to listen to and review some of the work of Dr. Clyde Hertzman, a UBC researcher who has done a lot of work on longitudinal studies in Canada and other parts of the world with respect to the impact that health and education have upon each other. He found two very fascinating, very interesting facts in their research. Firstly, he found that there are physiological changes that occur in children as they begin to learn, changes which affect their physical health for life. Secondly and most interestingly, he found that educational level is the single most significant indicator of health status and longevity. They found that, in Canada, those people with the highest level of education live, on average, six years longer than those people with the lowest levels of education. In Japan and in some of the Scandinavian countries, they've been able to compress that gap to a mere three years. I think that we really must look at that, and we must realize the profound impact that these studies, these outcomes, have on both our education and our health policies.

Tending today to education and to health care in our children will undoubtedly have a significant impact on tomorrow. That's health care as it addresses and meets the patient and as it meets the student in the classroom. We must establish principles for a new economy that ties into that. We must have an economy that is based on the principles of human resource capitalism. If we do not, then any prosperity which we might currently have is destined, in fact, to vanish.

As the hon. member for Burnaby North made reference to the dollars moving into the system and to the impact that he felt that that was going to have, I feel that the work. . . . As we start to shift our economies and have an economy that will become more vibrant and more alive, we have to address that in a fashion which is going to allow us to be able to support and continue the growth and the demands of an educational system which will be able to reflect its outcome on our health care system. The choice that we have is high skills or low wages, and reflected in that is the outcome that our health will have. The focus and the direction which the hon. member has talked about and which this government has taken seems in many ways to be inconsistent with some of the suggestions of the research and clearly inconsistent with some of the focuses which we on this side think should be taken.

For our health, and indeed for our wealth, there must be a recognition that ultimately the one resource that we have to rely on is ourselves as individuals, ourselves as a province and ourselves as a country. And it is with our energy, with our intellect, with our confidence and with our ability to work for a common purpose that we'll be able to achieve that. That means, again, focusing those dollars in the most reasoned and effective fashion that we can -- dollars that go to the service

[ Page 11820 ]

The Speaker: With concluding remarks, I recognize the hon. member for Burnaby North.

P. Calendino: I thank the member opposite for the comments he has made. I have to disagree with him that we are inconsistent with the research in education and health care that is out there, although I agree with him that over here we are inconsistent with their position on health care and education. We tend to invest in those two areas. The other side has been saying for the last three years that they would cut $3 billion from the budget. I'm asking myself and people ask me: "Where would those cuts come from?" It's time, perhaps, that they let us know where those cuts would come from.

[1855]

The other side seems to disagree with this. I have to ask myself: are they, therefore, criticizing the health system and how it is managed in the areas? Are they criticizing the various schools on how they are delivering their programs? Perhaps the member opposite can go to the high schools and the elementary schools and let them know that they are not managing their dollars profitably. This province has consistently put in enough funding to make sure that programs are maintained and improved, both in education and in health care, and this government will continue to do so in the future.

If I have a little more time, hon. Speaker, I would also like to mention that this government, having invested in a lot in people in the health system and the education system, is also investing in youth in general. We have seen that, for the last few months, the youth unemployment rate in this province has dropped considerably month after month. In fact, in the last year, it dropped by about 5 percent, and I think that's a result of the huge investments this government has made in programs that assist youth in finding a career and in developing a focus for their future. This year as well, we are spending $34.5 million in those programs specifically to assist youth to find it easier in this province to find a job or to start a business on their own.

With that, hon. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to speak on this topic.

The Speaker: I thank all members who participated in private members' statements today, and I call on the Government House Leader.

Hon. J. Pullinger: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I too would like to thank all the members for their statements.

Hon. J. Pullinger moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:58 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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