Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

[ Page 11857 ]

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. I. Waddell: I have the pleasure to introduce to the House two young women who are in the gallery today. The first is Darcy Olsen. She's now my part-time constituency assistant. Her mother Sharon started as my constituency assistant 20 years ago when I was an MP, and Darcy was just this high. Now, of course, she's grown up and has part of that old job. The second woman I'd like to introduce is Jia Mei Yi, who has just immigrated to Canada from Beijing and has married a good friend of mine here. Her father worked in the same oil industry as Premier Zhu Rongji, whom she met at lunch this afternoon. So would the House please welcome Ms. Darcy Olsen and Ms. Jia Mei Yi.

V. Anderson: I'd like to welcome the members of the grade 11 class of Sir Winston Churchill Secondary School who were in the precinct today. I trust they had a good visit here and learned a great deal of history.

Also, I would ask the House to join me in welcoming the first staffer who launched us here when we were elected in '91 and who's in the gallery today: Paul McKivett.

[1410]

Introduction of Bills

PROBATE FEE ACT

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that the bill be read a first time now.

The Speaker: You can make a couple of minutes of comments.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I rise today to move first reading of Bill 55, Probate Fee Act, which confirms in law the longstanding practice in British Columbia of charging probate fees on estate settlements over $25,000. B.C. is the fourth province to announce intentions to enact this type of legislation. Ontario has enacted legislation to confirm its fees, and Newfoundland and Manitoba have announced their intentions to do likewise. This follows an October 1998 Supreme Court of Canada decision concerning the estate of Donald Eurig. The court ruled that Ontario's probate fee was unconstitutional and that existing probate fees must be set by legislation rather than regulation.

The legislation that I introduce today will bring B.C.'s probate fee policy in line with the Supreme Court rulings. British Columbians will not see an increase in probate fees or any change in the existing probate fee structure. This proposed legislation confirms all probate fees charged since 1988, when they were introduced by regulation. By protecting this revenue source, our government is in the position to continue to offer other court services, such as family court and child maintenance enforcement, at little or no cost. Hon. Speaker, I move first reading of Bill 55.

Bill 55 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

CASINO APPROVAL PROCESS

Hon. M. Farnworth: Recently, in the past month, there was a 30-day extension to the White Paper on gaming issues in the province of British Columbia. One of the things that I said that I think we need to do is look at how future licensing of casino applications should take place. During that time, we received over 150 different applications that deal with all the issues related to gaming, including the casino approval application. So right now we are taking the necessary time to review those presentations, and shortly we will come in with a response to the White Paper. That will deal with the casino licensing issue.

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

[1415]

Hon. M. Farnworth: As I said to the hon. member just a moment ago, we've undergone an extensive process of consultation that has resulted in over 150 submissions in terms of how gaming policy should take place in the province of British Columbia, and that includes many submissions on how a licensing process should take place. That will be forthcoming shortly.

What I find really disturbing is that the hon. member stands up in the House and asks these questions. Yet did he at

[ Page 11858 ]

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Not once, hon. Speaker.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Second supplementary, Leader of the Official Opposition.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Come to order. Members will come to order.

Member, continue.

G. Campbell: I have a positive and constructive suggestion for the minister responsible for gambling: stop the expansion of gambling today. There is only one plausible reason why this minister will not make public to the people of British Columbia every single bit of information that has led to his approvals-in-principle for gaming. There is only one possible reason, and that's because he knows it won't stand the acid test of public scrutiny. My question, again, to the minister: why doesn't he take his cue from other jurisdictions on the continent? Why doesn't he listen to the public of British Columbia and open up all of his decisions today and forever with regard to gaming?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The only acid, hon. Speaker, is the acid that comes from that hon. member's tongue. The only thing he needs to do is go and talk to the members of his caucus who came and talked to me and lobbied me about having casinos in their own ridings. Has he even spoken to those members? They come into my office to talk about casino applications.

The Speaker: Finish your comments.

Hon. M. Farnworth: We have a White Paper that was under discussion. We've received 150 submissions.

The Speaker: Minister, finish your comments.

Hon. M. Farnworth: From those will come forward the changes that need to take place for gaming to continue in a sound legal framework in this province.

S. Hawkins: The NDP's process in awarding casino licences has been shrouded in secrecy and rightly called into question, given the events of the past few months. In fact, this government didn't hold one single public hearing on the casino applications. My question is to the gambling minister: given the widespread public fears and concerns about the NDP's choices for casinos, will he stand up today and commit to a public review of every casino that received an approval-in-principle by his government?

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Just wait, hon. member. We had a great deal of public input -- over 150 submissions. We've heard from the UBCM, the charities, the industry and communities right across the province. We heard from Jacques Carpentier, who said the White Paper was moving in the right direction. The question I find interesting is that the member is saying that the process is secretive and should be opened up to public scrutiny, while she stood in estimates last year and lobbied on behalf of a casino in Kamloops.

[1420]

The Speaker: Order, members.

I recognize, on a first supplementary, the member for Okanagan West.

S. Hawkins: The minister can keep on throwing stones over here, but it's not going to stick. Produce the paper.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members will come to order.

Continue, member.

S. Hawkins: Virtually every jurisdiction in North America uses a public process in granting licences to casinos. They do that to shine the light on casino applicants, their backgrounds and their plans. You know what? As soon as an application is granted, they hold a public hearing, so that the public can see for themselves who's applying and then have an opportunity to raise their concerns.

I ask the gambling minister again: given what other jurisdictions do -- almost every jurisdiction across North America uses a public process -- why is this minister still supporting a secret process by his government?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I find it really interesting that this member is now suddenly concerned about the process regarding casino applications, because that is the same member who stood up in estimates and said to me: "Is there an investigation going on around a casino application. . .to move in Kelowna?" I said yes, there was. Well, she said to me: "Look, there's a solution. Why don't you implement it before the investigation is complete? We don't have to go through that." Those were her exact words. If she doesn't like it, she can go back and refresh herself by reading Hansard.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order.

G. Plant: In response to a question that I asked the gambling minister last Thursday, the minister stated: "There has been no change in the casino approval process in any way, shape or form." Oops! Unfortunately, the minister's answer is directly contrary to the facts. The casino RFP in fact said explicitly that cabinet would select the successful proposals. Won't the minister responsible for gambling stand up and admit that the responsible thing to do is open up the entire process to public scrutiny right here, right now?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The casino applications were scored by the same group of people. They were scored by representa-

[ Page 11859 ]

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

G. Plant: Only this minister in this government could design a process that would award conditional approval-in-something-like-principle for a gaming licence to a group of people associated with Internet porn sites, strip joints and illegal gambling convictions.

[1425]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I guess it's the same answers I gave him last week. The fact of the matter is that there is an investigation underway. There is a lot of information that I want to release. I can't release it at this time, but in the fullness of time it will be released. He will see that every application was treated in exactly the same way as every other application.

The real question is the change in attitude on that side of the House -- how all of a sudden he is so concerned about a secretive process. Yet the member from Kelowna is quite happy to skirt the process when it suits her needs, hon. Speaker.

The Speaker: I recognize the member. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order, please.

I recognize the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain.

C. Clark: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members.

C. Clark: Apparently every New Democrat in Burnaby knew that the North Burnaby Inn hosted illegal gaming. If there had been a public process, maybe the federal New Democrat MP could have come and told them what he knew about illegal gambling at the North Burnaby Inn. Given what has happened in this process in Burnaby, surely it is time for the minister to agree that we've got to drag this process out of the NDP's smoky back rooms and let the light of public scrutiny shine in.

Hon. M. Farnworth: You know, hon. Speaker, once again we see one statement in one section of the province by the Liberal opposition, and then there are other statements in other parts of the Liberal opposition when it suits their needs. They're asking these questions because of statements I made that are obviously in today's Vancouver Sun -- that is, there are changes coming to the way that gaming is regulated in this province. A key part of that is how licences are granted.

One of the things is that there is a White Paper with 150 submissions made. And guess what: as I said before, not one of them made one positive suggestion. Not one of them made one positive suggestion on changing the way that gaming is conducted in this province.

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

C. Clark: There have been nine approvals-in-principle granted by this government for casinos, and already four of them have collapsed for reasons including criminal allegations. If this process is clean, if it is honest, why is the minister so scared to expose it to the full light of public scrutiny?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The only thing that they seem to be exposing to public scrutiny is what they would do on this side of the House if they ever got here. They don't want to talk about how much they'd cut; they don't want to say which services they'd cut. They don't even want to talk about how they would deal with gaming. They were given the opportunity during the White Paper discussion, and not one of them made one constructive suggestion.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The bell ends question period. Members will come to order.

Tabling Documents

Ministerial Statement

PREVENTION OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN WEEK

[1430]

Throughout this week, women and men of all ages join together to acknowledge and support the very important

[ Page 11860 ]

We live in a society where one in three B.C. women were victims of assault by a spouse or partner and one in six were victims of a sexual attack by a date or boyfriend. We also live in a society where male violence against women accounts for almost half of all violent crime in Canada. The statistics are frightening. But numbers, no matter how large, don't begin to illustrate the pain and devastation that violence imparts on women the world over, each and every day. Violence against women exists in every community, every province and every state. It exists in literally every country around the world. Whether it's a woman dying at the hands of a mob in Afghanistan or a woman being murdered in suburban B.C., violence against women is a sad and horrific reality in our society.

Few would question that changing the pervasive attitudes, behaviours and conditions that allow violence to flourish is an enormous challenge. This government is committed to meeting that challenge, but we cannot do it alone. Through groundbreaking partnerships with organizations such as the B.C. Association of Broadcasters, and our new provincial print media campaign, we are finding new ways to challenge people to think about violence, about prevention and about what we can do to make a difference. Through programs such as A Safer Future for B.C. Women, we are supporting communities to develop and implement projects that meet their unique prevention needs. There are numerous exciting initiatives in schools, communities and workplaces around the province -- people working to stop violence before it happens. Those are just a couple of examples of how government is working with individuals, corporations and community groups to prevent violence against women.

But the reality, hon. Speaker, is that it's up to each and every one of us to take responsibility and to take action to prevent violence from occurring. Here in B.C., the move towards stopping the violence is led by an incredibly dedicated and tireless women's community. Little by little, more groups and organizations are recognizing their responsibility and lending their support. That's why provincial recognition of Prevention of Violence Against Women Week is so important. It offers all of us the opportunity to acknowledge those efforts and commit to taking action to educate ourselves and those around us and to contribute to the solutions.

I ask the members of the House to participate in this growing partnership in our province to live violence-free. We will be not only strengthening our communities but also making the lives of all people just a little better. The benefits to us and to our society are immeasurable.

The Speaker: I recognize, in reply, the hon. member for Langley.

L. Stephens: Hon. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the ministerial statement today. This is an important week, Prevention of Violence Against Women Week. It is an opportunity for all of us to be aware of this very serious problem of violence against women. It is true that each day we see in the media different reportings of women who have been murdered, women who have been injured or women who have simply disappeared from our communities around the province.

[1435]

So the members on this side of the House are committed to preventing violence against women, and that is why we have introduced a private member's bill for the last six years. Women in British Columbia expect more than just talk. Women in British Columbia expect more than this NDP government spending taxpayers' dollars on advertising. This government could do more to protect the women in this province from violence.

Orders of the Day

NISGA'A FINAL AGREEMENT ACT
(continued)

On the schedule, chapter 11 (continued).

[1440]

Reading from the Blues, hon. Chair, I was following a line of questioning to try to get at the meaning of this particular paragraph -- 68. We were having some discussion about the global nature of the responsibilities given in this particular paragraph. We were having some discussion about the exact meaning and application of these particular items.

I had suggested to the minister that I think I see some contradiction in jurisdiction in this particular paragraph as it relates to other jurisdictions, particularly those in education and perhaps in social services and perhaps even in other ministries.

The final thing that the minister had said was that basically -- to reread this statement: "At the request of any Party, the Parties will negotiate and attempt to reach agreements for Nisga'a Lisims Government delivery and administration of federal or provincial services or programs. . . . 'So this is not about education that the Nisga'a are going to impart or organize within Nisga'a lands, this is about federal or provincial programs."

A couple of questions earlier, the minister had suggested that this was about education programs, and I think that is a fairly reasonable summary of where we left off. Perhaps at this point I could just ask the minister if that is a fair summary of where we were at.

[ Page 11861 ]

K. Whittred: I would like to ask the minister about one or two of his statements, related to that particular paragraph, that were made the last day. One of them was that with respect to human resource development, the Nisga'a would have no lawmaking authority. I wonder if the minister would comment on that statement, please.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The statement is true.

K. Whittred: Perhaps we can discuss the definition, then, of what human resource development is, because this is where I was commenting on this particular section. Are education programs that develop skills not descriptive of human resource development?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Well, if they are educational programs, they are obviously educational programs and may be covered under some other sections as well.

I think one thing that needs to be understood about this section is that any party could actually say that any program may be human resource development. Then it's up to the parties to take a look at that and attempt to reach an agreement. They may disagree with each other on whether or not a particular issue is a human resource development issue. That's what I was trying to say the other day. There is no obligation to reach an agreement; there is an obligation to negotiate or attempt to negotiate an agreement. And if at the end of the day, that's not satisfactory to any of the parties, there'd be no agreement.

The hon. member is trying to skin this particular question in more than many ways. There isn't anything more in this particular issue than what I have said.

K. Whittred: Well, in response to the minister's comments, I begin to wonder why this particular paragraph is in there at all -- if I am to follow what the minister is saying. Therefore that is the reason I am pursuing this. It says in that paragraph that any party can reopen negotiation on the delivery and administration of a federal or provincial program that is intended to "(a) improve the employability or skill level of the labour force. . . . " I would ask the minister, then: can the minister give me an example of a program that does not fall within some other jurisdiction that is already defined in this agreement?

[1445]

G. Farrell-Collins: Clearly, if the new Minister of Aboriginal Affairs had gotten up to speed in the two weeks that the Premier said it was going to take, instead of the two months that it ended up taking, we would have had plenty of time to examine this treaty in some detail. For members on this side of the House to stand up and ask questions about the treaty and for the minister to find that somehow offensive is shocking, I think, given the times that he stood on this side of the House and stood up for days on end debating the minutiae of bills that had no import. The minister was talking about bogeymen in closets. For him to now stand up in this House and say to members on this side of the House that they shouldn't have the time to ask the questions on the areas that are important. . . .

Somehow, I thought this was an important treaty. It's the first modern treaty signed in British Columbia. It is huge; it's about three inches thick. There are huge implications from this treaty to be applied right across the treaty process as the years go by. If the new minister -- now that he's snug and comfortable in the cabinet room that he's been trying to get to for so long -- finds it offensive that members of the opposition would wish to ask questions about that, then I would say that it has taken him a shockingly little amount of time to change his principles from being on this side, when he was in opposition, to being on that side of the House, now that he's part of the NDP government.

If he finds it uncomfortable for members to ask questions, that's a problem he's just going to have to endure. It's one of the burdens of being in government. I would suggest that he answer the questions that are posed to him and get on with it, and we can move on.

The Chair: I recognize the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale. I'll also remind all members that we are discussing Bill 51 -- section 68, it looks like -- at this time. Member, continue.

K. Whittred: May I comment first of all, hon. Chair, that I do not share the minister's interpretation that this is a purely innocent paragraph that has absolutely nothing in it. I think another interpretation that can be put on this paragraph is that it is a very global paragraph that allows virtually anything to be on the table.

[1450]

I also find it somewhat amazing, given that the whole intent of this treaty is to create an environment where the Nisga'a people will be more independent -- more in charge of their own affairs -- that we have a situation where the minister tells us that the Nisga'a will have no lawmaking authority in the area of human resources. I find that in contradiction with a whole bunch of sections that relate to education and social services and which clearly overlap with this section. I don't think I can make my position much clearer than that. So I will ask, then, a more specific question: can the minister give me an example of a program that would fall within this paragraph?

[ Page 11862 ]

K. Whittred: Can I ask this, please? Would a program such as employment insurance fall within this paragraph?

Hon. G. Wilson: No.

K. Whittred: Could he explain why not?

Hon. G. Wilson: Because the language of section 68 doesn't permit it.

K. Whittred: I wonder if the minister could clarify that for me, because quite frankly, I would read this as employment insurance being a federal program that clearly is related to employment. It has many programs that are related to skill levels; it has many programs that are related to work experience. I would like to hear from the minister where I am misreading this paragraph.

Hon. G. Wilson: There is no change from the status quo. We have gone through this section. The language of this section is very specific. It is very clear. It does not permit for the running of EI. I've said that. All it simply does is suggest that at the request of any party, the parties will negotiate and attempt to reach agreements for Nisga'a Lisims government delivery and administration of federal or provincial services or programs intended to -- and it tells you exactly what they're intended to do -- improve the employability or skill levels of the labour force or create new employment or work experience opportunities. It's just not that complicated. It's very simple. The language is very clear. I really don't know how you can read anything more into it than what the language itself says.

K. Whittred: I will then ask this question in a negative way. When it comes to a program that is going to improve the skill level of the labour force or persons destined for the labour force. . . . Now, those two definitions include just about everybody other than retired persons. You are either in the labour force or you are destined for the labour force. So therefore that is a fairly global definition of persons who live in a society. Then we look at the nature of the program, and we have a program that is designed to improve the skill level.

[1455]

Hon. G. Wilson: Well, it's clear that you're not clear, because this is not a jurisdiction. What is also clear is that, as the member correctly points out, if it is a matter with respect to education, that is dealt with in a different section. This is not a jurisdiction to deliver EI programs or EI-related programs. As the section suggests, it is an opportunity for the Nisga'a to seek to deliver federal or provincial programs, if we should negotiate such a thing.

K. Whittred: Could the minister provide me with simply two or three examples of a program that would fall within this jurisdiction?

Hon. G. Wilson: I think that this has already been read into the record, but if it hasn't, let me read it into the record yet again: "Those programs and services could range from skills development and résumé preparation, job search and interview techniques, to training programs in a particular area of employment -- computer, machine tooling, tourism, hospitality. . . ." Those are the kinds of things.

K. Whittred: Yes, the minister is quite right that those things have been read into the record. I believe it was pointed out before that those are already within Nisga'a jurisdiction, so we get back to one of my original points. Why, then, would you have a paragraph that says this can be opened up?

Hon. G. Wilson: Hear me, hon. member. They are not already within Nisga'a jurisdiction. This provides an opportunity for the Nisga'a to negotiate an administration of those programs. They are our programs, which the Nisga'a will administrate.

K. Whittred: Could the minister give me an example of one of those programs that is not within the jurisdiction of either the current Education ministry or the current Ministry of Advanced Education? I will leave it at those two ministries.

Hon. G. Wilson: I am really at a loss to understand exactly where the member is going with this. We on this side have made it very clear, over and over again, that there is no jurisdictional contradiction, which I think the member has talked about. This does not provide a Nisga'a jurisdiction. What it simply says is that some programs -- and we have given you a list of a number of them -- may be, through negotiation, administered by Nisga'a. That's all it means.

Now, if those programs don't exist in some form or other, clearly the Nisga'a can't negotiate to administer them. So I'm not sure where the contradiction or complication in this comes in. It simply is a provision to allow for the Nisga'a to administrate existing programs -- so that we can, through negotiation, allow them that opportunity.

[1500]

If I understand what the minister has said in this section, if Nisga'a government develops curriculum and introduces some sort of skill training into their curriculum, but at some other time the province of B.C. introduces some kind of train-

[ Page 11863 ]

Hon. G. Wilson: In general terms, the answer is yes.

K. Whittred: I think that I have probably gone about as far as I can with that particular paragraph, hon. Chair, and I will turn this back to my colleague from Matsqui.

M. de Jong: The kind of training programs that are offered through Forest Renewal B.C., for example. . . . Insofar as it relates to retraining or re-entry into the job market, is that the kind of program for which the Nisga'a could assume the administrative responsibilities that this section relates to?

Hon. G. Wilson: They could negotiate it, if both parties thought that was wise.

M. de Jong: I don't want to belabour a topic that's been dealt with, but if we can speculate a little bit about how that negotiation might unfold, is it fair to say that in negotiating to assume that administrative responsibility, the Nisga'a government would be assuming responsibility for the costs associated with the administration of same?

Hon. G. Wilson: I would think that that certainly is one of the things that would be negotiated. If they're administering it, one would assume that there would be a negotiation for them to cover the cost.

M. de Jong: And those negotiations relating to those costs specifically would take place on a program-by-program basis, as opposed to being part of the broader cost-sharing negotiations that take place elsewhere in this document, which we haven't come to yet.

Hon. G. Wilson: Yes, that is correct.

M. de Jong: Can I ask the minister -- and this is difficult in the abstract; that's why I tried to relate it to a specific program -- what, in his mind and in the government's mind, the threshold or the test is for when it would make sense, from the provincial government's point of view, for the Nisga'a to be assuming administrative responsibilities for the kinds of programs that are covered by this section?

Hon. G. Wilson: The member is quite right: in the abstract, it's a bit difficult. One would assume that when the Nisga'a have capacity to do so, it would be a key component. Secondly, if it makes fiscal sense for them to do so and makes fiscal sense for us to have them do so, there would be a general agreement to have that proceed.

M. de Jong: I've heard enough during the course of this debate to come to the conclusion that on the issue of capacity, this provincial government is most likely to defer to the Nisga'a. If the Nisga'a come to the government and say, "We believe we now have the capacity to do this," my expectation is that this provincial government is inclined to defer to that opinion. So let's leave capacity aside for a moment and deal with the other criterion that the minister referred to, which was the question of cost-efficiency.

[1505]

Hon. G. Wilson: I'm advised that there is a pretty substantial subset of information with respect to the cost of running these programs already established through private contractors who contract to do these services. We have a reasonably solid analysis of success rates from various programs and how approaches are taken. I think that clearly the Nisga'a will want, as an end result of their taking on the administration of these programs, to demonstrate that they actually are making them more employable. I think that's their goal. It's unlikely that we would enter into an agreement that doesn't at least meet or match the test of those other existing programs, so that we can see that the cost associated with the training is actually going to be worth the jobs at the other end. I think that subset of information is well established and could certainly be used as a tool or guideline.

M. de Jong: That's helpful. What I take from that is that the government contemplates asking the Nisga'a to submit to the same type of test that a private contracting agency for some of these programs would be required to submit to in assuming responsibility for the administration of a program.

Hon. G. Wilson: I think the answer to that question is yes, and it is worth pointing out that they're already involved in this. They're already delivering services, so it's not as though this would be something that would be a new departure from what is already existing.

M. de Jong: I guess the final question, hopefully, that flows from all of that is: is the minister in a position -- or is he able and willing -- to say that except in extraordinary circumstances, the provincial government would not be inclined to even engage in negotiations under this section unless it were clear and understood that in having the Nisga'a assume administrative responsibility for the delivery of the kinds of programs that are contemplated here, there would be no additional costs accruing to the provincial government?

Hon. G. Wilson: I think that what this section does is commit us to negotiate. It doesn't commit us to sign an agreement that is not cost-efficient or cost-effective, and I doubt that we would do so.

[1510]

[ Page 11864 ]

Section 69 will allow the Nisga'a nation to make changes or make laws that apply to "the design, construction, maintenance, repair, and demolition of buildings, structures, and public works on Nisga'a Lands." First of all, when we talk about buildings, can the minister explain what that includes? Does that apply to commercial buildings? Does it apply to residential buildings or any form of construction?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: All buildings.

T. Nebbeling: Can the minister not say what he means by structures? If all buildings are within building structures, how do they differ?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think the words "structures" and "buildings" are sort of catch-alls. Structure could be anything; it could be a bridge.

T. Nebbeling: I'm not going to go far with this. It just looked odd to me to have these two different definitions.

One of the most comprehensive control mechanisms that this government has used over the past years is the Workers Compensation Board and inspections by Workers Compensation officers. How does the minister see, within this section, how the role of the Workers Compensation Board will continue to be -- not the benefit programs but the enforcement of the programs? How does the minister see that happen?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The Workers Compensation Act applies. They can't make changes, even indirectly, to that legislation.

T. Nebbeling: I'm not really looking for a legal certainty within the documents to ensure that Workers Compensation officials can go onto Nisga'a lands and have a legal mechanism to enforce Workers Compensation rules and regulations. I'm looking more at the practical side of how it would actually happen. I shouldn't question, maybe, but I have questions on how the Nisga'a nation will allow a non-Nisga'a or Nisga'a member, representing the Workers Compensation Board, in enforcing rules and regulations when it comes to building structures or public works.

I give an example to the minister. In the public works sector, if a hole has to be dug deeper than six feet, they have to put up shoring. If that doesn't happen, that's a violation of the Workers Compensation Board's rules and regulations, and a municipality or, in this particular case, a Nisga'a village would be penalized quite severely. How is that process going to happen? Is there going to be an arrangement where a non-Nisga'a member can come onto Nisga'a land and enforce these rules? Or is it. . . ?

[1515]

T. Nebbeling: Again, I'm not looking for a legal certainty; I'm looking for the practical side. So far, when I've been listening to the debate that has been going on, I've often wondered how what is legally a certainty. . . . I've wondered how in the real world this would happen and if indeed, at the end of the day, the people that will have an impact by the lack of enforcement -- how they're going to be protected. That's the reason I took on this line of questioning. When people approach me, often they have no doubt that legally, this document is sound and solid and the government has covered every angle that it had to do in order to make this treaty work. But very often these same people question if, in practicality, these rules are enforceable or will be acted upon. And if they're going to be acted upon, how will it work if indeed. . . ?

I gave an example where a violation took place in the public sector of a Nisga'a village. A Workers Compensation officer looked at it and declared it wrong. The Workers Compensation Board in Vancouver penalized for that infraction. How are we going to get the enforcement happening? The Nisga'a people have an appeal forum, no doubt, like another municipality would have. How far is the government going to go in enforcing that penalty, as they would do in a non-aboriginal community as well?

Hon. G. Wilson: I listened very carefully to the member's question so that we have the right answer. The answer is that the law will apply in exactly the same fashion and in exactly the same manner as it applies to anybody else in any other jurisdiction. I think that was the answer the Attorney General gave the last time. I would refer the member to part 21 of the Municipal Act, which I know he's familiar with. What we're dealing with here is very similar in general terms to part 21 of the Municipal Act.

If the member is suggesting that because we're dealing with the Nisga'a, an aboriginal authority, it would be somehow more difficult to access or to enforce or that there wouldn't be enforcement of the law, that's kind of getting close to the edge here. That is simply not the case. The Nisga'a will be bound by the law like anybody else will be. If they violate the law, they will be punished for violating the law like anybody else will be. There will be no distinctions, no differences made. One doesn't need to have people guarantee access for inspection on Nisga'a land, any more than you would on any other job site. So I'm not quite sure where the member's coming from in terms of his questions.

T. Nebbeling: One thing I've also noticed in listening during the procedure is that the minister often responded with: "I don't really understand what the comments or the questions from that side are all about." I think he shows a true lack of understanding of the whole Nisga'a deal, although he claims to be an expert. It is quite certain that there are many questions out there that should be answered. Yes, they are not legally driven, but they're practically driven. This is just one area where a fair number of comments have been made to me and to my colleagues, so I just bring them to you. For you, minister, to then immediately try to consider that as bringing this debate to an edge where I never wanted to go in the first place is not something I appreciate, quite frankly.

When we talk about laws in respect to design, can these laws, again, be different from laws that would apply to normal construction?

Hon. G. Wilson: There could be laws that are different. But if they are inconsistent with ours, ours will trump those laws.

[ Page 11865 ]

[1520]

Hon. G. Wilson: Let me try and give an example. If the Nisga'a were to say that no houses could be built except using 2-by-8 structure, and our code says 2-by-6 structure, their law would be fine.

T. Nebbeling: Could this also mean that certain motifs from the aboriginal community would be approved, even if they violate building codes -- within a design of a building?

Hon. G. Wilson: Perhaps if the member could give me a concrete example of what he's referring to, I'd have a better opportunity to answer.

T. Nebbeling: No, I'm just asking you the questions in the hope of getting some answers, because you claim to know everything.

The same law in respect of design -- would it apply on land within the Nisga'a nation but owned by non-Nisga'a individuals?

Hon. G. Wilson: Nisga'a jurisdiction only applies to Nisga'a land. It does not apply to non-Nisga'a land.

D. Symons: My question relates to some questions I asked back in chapter 7 that dealt with roads. The minister may remember. I was asking some questions then about who has jurisdiction over the roads, who has liability, and indeed, in the event of policing those roads, who might be doing that. We see that this comes up now in this chapter. Chapter 7 dealt with roads that were retained by the province. For the Nisga'a Highway and other roads that the province is retaining responsibility for, that was cleared up fairly well in that chapter.

We see now in sections 72 and 73 that we're dealing with roads now that are Nisga'a village roads or Nisga'a lands roads. Indeed, we find in 74 -- which the minister may reply to and pass that back to me in a moment -- that it does say that generally the provincial laws will prevail. I'm curious here. . . . If we look at this, because sections 72 and 73 make reference to "the laws that can be applied, the Nisga'a can bring. . . ." They relate to the same sort of powers that a municipality has for passing regulations on traffic within the community.

Municipalities can make laws and so forth regarding turns and speeds and so forth in the municipality, and those laws are enforced by the police. The fines for those laws revert to the Crown; as far as I understand, those fines will go back to the Crown. I'm curious here, in the collections of fines that may be imposed by the Nisga'a government in relation to the roads that they're responsible for, whether those fines will go to the Crown, as municipal fines for traffic transgressions do, or whether they will go back to the Nisga'a government. Indeed, we find later on -- in chapter 12, I believe -- that they set up Nisga'a police and Nisga'a courts. At least, they have the opportunity to do that. Again, will the fines levied by those organizations revert to the Crown, or will they stay with the Nisga'a nation?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Fines and the like will stay with the Nisga'a nation, subject perhaps to administrative fees that the courts might set or otherwise.

D. Symons: And related to that, if a person who's driving inappropriately on a road and causes some damage to the road or, indeed, if the road is damaged. . . . Let's put it a different way, because really if the road is in poor shape, quite often people now will turn to the Crown and say: "I'm going to sue the Crown, because that road had not been properly maintained." I can think of a few instances in my career as critic for Highways where that sort of thing has occurred, and the Crown has admitted liability for the condition of the highway.

[1525]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that individuals will have the same opportunity and the same ability to sue the Nisga'a nation as they have vis-à-vis municipalities. When we come to the justice chapter, we can deal with the issues as to where the claims might go.

D. Symons: I'm understanding from the minister that. . . . I don't want to pass up here if my angle on this doesn't come in chapter 12. I understand, then, that there is some further court of appeal beyond the Nisga'a court in the event that there's no resolution of it at that point -- in the mind of the person who's suing. Is that correct? And you are going to discuss that in chapter 12?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Negligence action is what the hon. member is talking about. They cannot be heard by Nisga'a court, except if they are within the small claims limit.

D. Jarvis: Talking about negligence, I guess this would fit in, perhaps. I've been looking for a section for this to fall into, and it's with regard to auto insurance and ICBC. As you're aware and from what I understand, aboriginals aren't required to carry any kind of insurance while ostensibly on their reserve lands. So one questions the fact and wants to know, if we're going to have about 300 kilometres of road going through Nisga'a territory, which belongs to British Columbia. . . . I'd like to know where the responsibility comes in when an accident occurs with a non-insured vehicle. At the same time, if you could qualify for me as to. . . . Is there going to be insurance carried by the Nisga'a -- or are they required to carry insurance in this instance? If the minister could mention a few things about that, I would appreciate it.

[ Page 11866 ]

D. Jarvis: So will all vehicles in Nisga'a territory, regardless of being aboriginal or non-aboriginal, be required to have B.C. licences and carry full compulsory insurance?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: All the laws of general application apply.

D. Jarvis: Well, as of now, in the Nisga'a lands they are not required to carry liability insurance or compulsory insurance. They are now going to be licensed in B.C. All vehicles in Nisga'a territory will be carrying British Columbia licences. Correspondingly, they will naturally carry full, compulsory insurance.

[1530]

D. Jarvis: Are you now referring to the fact that they are travelling on B.C. government roads or off of government roads?

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: Well, I'd like the minister, if possible, to come out and tell me -- through you, hon. Chair -- that all aboriginal vehicles and non-aboriginal vehicles inside of the Nisga'a territory, as it will be set up, will carry a British Columbia licence plate -- that it is compulsory for them to carry a British Columbia licence plate on their vehicle on public roads and/or Nisga'a roads?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

M. de Jong: Dealing now with the sections under the heading "Solemnization of Marriages," I just want to more or less confirm. . . .

G. Plant: As somebody who has never actually undertaken that. . . .

M. de Jong: I think we'll let the government side deal with the heckling, I would say to my colleagues. It is difficult for me to use the word "vow," but I will try, hon. Chair.

First of all, this is one of the sections where the Nisga'a are granted a jurisdiction that extends beyond territorial borders. Is that correct?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

M. de Jong: To state the obvious, then, a person covered by the designation that is applicable under these three sections is in a position, therefore, to officiate and solemnize a wedding anywhere in British Columbia.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

M. de Jong: The addendum to that sentence is that these three paragraphs combined bestow upon an individual so designated the authority to preside at, officiate and solemnize a marriage anywhere in British Columbia between anyone who otherwise qualifies to marry in British Columbia. Is that correct?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

M. de Jong: I guess the question that flows from that is: if I can ask the Attorney General to just briefly articulate the government's rationale for agreeing to the sections and its views on the necessity of creating a special designation pursuant to the terms of the treaty. . . . Why, in the government's mind, was that necessary?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that it was the desire of the Nisga'a to be able to appoint "marriage commissioners" to bring into play some of their cultural traditions. These rules aren't restrictive. Nobody is legally bound to be married by a marriage commissioner so designated by the Nisga'a Lisims government. I think it's appropriate that they are able to have marriage commissioners who may be able to marry other people who might want to marry in accordance with the cultural traditions of the Nisga'a.

[1535]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: We're not talking about capacity.

M. de Jong: When we talk about -- and now I'm quoting from section 75 -- "prescribing conditions under which individuals appointed. . .may solemnize marriages," how is that going to be different from what is presently contemplated under the Marriage Act? What are we referring to when we start talking about prescribing conditions -- which I presume would be unique conditions?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: These would obviously be conditions regarding ceremonies. I understand that within the Nisga'a nation, you can't marry if you belong to the same tribe. That might be one of their conditions, but you wouldn't be bound by it. You could walk out of Nisga'a lands and go to a marriage commissioner elsewhere and get married. It's only if you subject yourself to those conditions that you'd be able to be married by a particular marriage commissioner.

M. de Jong: Well, that is fascinating. That, however, to my mind goes to the issue of capacity. The recourse, the Attorney General says, is to go elsewhere. In the context of the example that's just been offered, however, I would have some obvious equality concerns under the relevant Charter provisions. I'm not sure the Attorney General anticipated questions around solemnization of marriage. If he wants to rethink that example, that's fine.

Interjections.

The Chair: Through the Chair, members.

[ Page 11867 ]

When I read this section, I thought about the ceremonial components. I thought about how Nisga'a might wish to redefine what constitutes a vow of marriage and how many witnesses would be required -- the procedural components to getting married. And the Attorney General can address those points. But I'm curious about the example he gave.

It seems to me, then, that we are bestowing on the Nisga'a the ability to make decisions around their citizens' capacity to be wed.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Obviously, at the end of the day, it would be up to a court of law to determine whether or not this particular condition, in the context of Nisga'a -- when you have an opportunity to be married outside of those couple of marriage commissioners the Nisga'a might have -- is a restriction on your Charter freedoms. Those are issues that the court might have to decide. If one wants to argue the issue of whether that goes to capacity or procedural issues, the hon. member may be right. If it bars you from marrying because of a cultural tradition, it may go to capacity, but if you have an outlet where you're allowed to go outside and marry according to general British Columbia procedures and come back and live on Nisga'a lands, I don't see that as a bar. But that's a debate we can have. It wouldn't be resolved here, but I understand the niceties of it.

[1540]

Interjection.

M. de Jong: Well, the Attorney General says no. But I'm not sure how he can be so certain about that and less certain about the example that he raised, quite frankly.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It would be more than a bit of a stretch to say that somehow any procedural conditions that might be attached on solemnization of marriages would deprive a Nisga'a citizen of the right to be a Nisga'a citizen that is guaranteed in their constitution. I find that a bit of a stretch -- in fact, more than a bit of a stretch.

G. Plant: Paragraph 75 says: "Nisga'a Lisims Government may make laws in respect of solemnization of marriages within British Columbia. . . ." Someone could imagine a law that marriages between Nisga'a citizens must take place in accordance with Nisga'a Lisims government laws made pursuant to this paragraph. That is, Nisga'a Lisims government may make a law that says these are the only rules that the Nisga'a can follow in respect of solemnization of marriages. Does the Attorney General have an opinion with respect to whether Nisga'a Lisims government's legislative authority would extend that far?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think the example that I gave perhaps might be cured by paragraph 76.

G. Plant: Paragraph 76, which the minister refers to, is the paragraph that deals with the reconciliation of conflict between Nisga'a law, on the one hand, and federal or provincial law. We've had a discussion about that issue from time to time, from the perspective of understanding what the government's conception of conflict is in other situations. What is it that constitutes a conflict?

Let me pose, hypothetically, a situation where a Nisga'a law in respect of the solemnization of marriages had a different age of consent than federal or provincial law in respect of marriage. Is it the Attorney General's view. . . ? I don't mean his view. What I'm asking for is the position of the government with respect to whether or not that would constitute a conflict within the meaning of paragraph 76.

[1545]

G. Plant: Earlier the minister referred to what is the Nisga'a traditional customary law around marital exogamy, which is not part of the law of Canada or British Columbia. So there is arguably a difference in Nisga'a law with respect to marriages, assuming that the Nisga'a make laws in which they enshrine traditional laws in respect of who can and cannot marry inside or outside clans, across houses and so on. I take it that the Attorney General is of the view that a difference or a distinction in respect of Nisga'a law in relation to that sort of issue would not constitute a conflict.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: If it goes to procedure, I think it wouldn't be a conflict. If it goes to capacity, as in the example that I gave earlier, that may be a conflict.

G. Plant: One of the questions that's been touched on by the Attorney General in the course of his answers is the issue of exclusivity versus concurrence. I don't see anything in paragraph 75 that precludes Nisga'a Lisims government from making laws in respect of the solemnization of marriages in terms which expressly indicate that marriages made otherwise than in accordance with these laws would not be recognized: that is, they could essentially impose a requirement that the only way to marry, in the eyes of Nisga'a Lisims government, is to follow Nisga'a Lisims government laws.

That seems to me to be at least open in the language of these three paragraphs, but I understand that the Attorney General's position is that there is concurrence: that is, Nisga'a citizens could choose to marry under the laws of British Columbia or Canada insofar as they apply. Can the Attorney General explain where he finds concurrence for the purposes of these provisions?

Let me just say that again: where he finds the restriction on Nisga'a Lisims government lawmaking power, as conferred in paragraph 75, that would ensure that concurrence is possible. . . .

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think that in itself is found in paragraph 76. If one takes the hon. member's argument to its logical conclusion, exactly what the hon. member has said would then apply to all British Columbians, because Nisga'a Lisims government has the right to make laws with respect to the solemnization of marriage within British Columbia. Using that logic, one could argue that they could oust the British Columbia jurisdiction -- which would be absolutely ludicrous to argue.

[ Page 11868 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Because 76 says that you can't. Paragraph 76 says that in the event of a conflict between Nisga'a law, under paragraph 75, and a federal or provincial law of general application. . . . Nobody could argue against the proposition that procedural requirements imposed or prescribed in the Marriage Act are a law of general application. If you impose conditions that are more onerous, which prevent people from marrying or create unreasonable steps that people might have to take to get married, they would be held to be invalid.

[1550]

Is it the view of the government of British Columbia that a marriage made pursuant to a valid law of Nisga'a Lisims government would have the same force and effect everywhere in the world as a marriage made pursuant to federal or provincial laws of general application?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: How is that so?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Chair, I think we're into a murky area. The questions the hon. members probably have raised in their legal actions -- and probably would raise. . . . I think that we're clearly in the realm of a legal question: whether or not the government of British Columbia can delegate its authority to Nisga'a government to appoint marriage commissioners and then recognize the validity of the marriages solemnized by those marriage commissioners. That's the question. I say that's a valid exercise of British Columbia's jurisdiction in the way it's crafted.

G. Plant: Before we got onto the issue of recognition, the Attorney General was talking about the question of conflict between the requirements of Nisga'a law and the requirements of federal-provincial law in respect of marriage. The Attorney General was talking about the possibility that the Nisga'a law may hypothetically be perhaps more onerous or restrictive than federal-provincial law.

I guess I want to conclude my participation in the debate around this by asking the Attorney General one more time whether all those issues related to capacity are in fact not the subject of 75 through 77. Paragraphs 75 through 77 are not about who can get married but rather about the procedure or the process under which the ceremony or the process of getting married takes place. So age restrictions, clan rules about who can and cannot get married. . . . In the broadest sense, those are all rules about who is allowed under the law to get married. I certainly didn't think that was the subject of 75 through 77. Before this debate I thought that 75 through 77 were really just about the process -- the wedding ceremony itself, for example.

I think that if you could describe those as waters, you could argue that what I've just said would be much clearer water than the waters would be if in fact we did throw in these issues about who can marry. So I'm wondering if at this point the Attorney General can. . . . We've gone through this stuff. What is the Attorney General's view with respect to the reach of these paragraphs?

[1555]

M. de Jong: Just a couple more questions on sections 75 to 77. When I read the sections, it prompted me to consult my notes about the consequential amendments that I thought might be flowing to the Marriage Act as a result. I don't think there are any. I found -- first of all, I might be wrong, but that's what my note told me -- that there are no consequential amendments to the Marriage Act. I was curious about whether the Attorney General felt that was necessary -- obviously the drafters of the legislation didn't -- in order to create this new designation of a marriage commissioner.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think I would refer the hon. member to subsection 3(2) of the bill. I believe that the reference to the Marriage Act in 77(b) takes care of that. That's why no consequential amendments are required.

M. de Jong: Just a couple more questions, then. The commissioner that is contemplated by these three sections would have to act in accordance with the British Columbia Marriage Act. Who will set the fees for what we are describing as Nisga'a marriages? Who will collect those revenues?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The Nisga'a would, subject to any restrictions there might be in the Marriage Act with respect to fees, and I don't believe there are any.

M. de Jong: I wonder how that would work. I know that the Marriage Act doesn't presently contemplate the payment of that nominal fee, which is part and parcel of registering a marriage, going to anyone but the provincial Crown. So how would that operate practically? That's especially if I can say this: what we've established here is that you've got an individual who has authority to conduct marriages anywhere in British Columbia with any British Columbian or anyone who qualifies to get married in B.C.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: First of all, one would have to get a licence from Vital Statistics to get married. One pays the fees there. Then one pays the fees to the marriage commissioner to get married. How they conduct themselves -- what Nisga'a prescribe as their fees -- would be up to Nisga'a.

[1600]

[ Page 11869 ]

M. de Jong: But this thing goes beyond simply designating an individual who can solemnize marriages. As part of these sections, Nisga'a is acquiring the authority to set fees. Is that correct?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm not familiar with all the regulations pursuant to the Marriage Act at this time. I don't know whether there is a fee prescribed; I don't think there is. I think marriage commissioners charge whatever they believe is appropriate and these marriage commissioners would be no different.

M. de Jong: Well, thanks. Maybe that's the answer -- the point being that the marriage commissioners so designated by this section may choose to charge a fee for their service, and that's their money. That's not money that the Nisga'a government is collecting.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Absolutely correct.

M. de Jong: The last point on this. . . . I think the answer probably lies in section 77, but I just want to be clear. We talk about the possible unique features of the ceremonial component of the marriage. The one thing, as I understand it from my reading of the section, that won't change is the obligation to keep written records of the ceremony. We have heard about oral histories and the oral component to aboriginal and Nisga'a culture. The question to the Attorney General is. . . . Nothing in this section takes away from the obligation that the commissioner so designated under this section would have to have all of the written, documented evidences about the ceremony and about the marriage that would exist anywhere else in British Columbia.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Correct.

G. Plant: This is a question that is not limited to these three provisions, but I've been wanting to ask it. The acquisition and the change of status within the Nisga'a nation, within the people of Nisga'a -- within their clans and their tribes and their houses -- is often a process that involves the holding of feasts. Again, I am nowhere near as familiar with Nisga'a traditional law around feasts as I am with other Tsimshian-speaking peoples, including the Gitxsan, but the feast process often involves the exchange of money or other gifts. That is, I believe, a pretty well established part of Nisga'a traditional culture. It's certainly very well established in other aboriginal cultures in the region.

One example of status may well be the solemnization of marriage. I don't think this agreement says anything specifically dealing with the question of the regulation of traditional practices, in the sense that there's no subchapter called "Nisga'a Lawmaking Power Around Feasts." But clearly the agreement does attempt to accommodate and recognize and give legal effect to some important aspects of Nisga'a culture. What does the government look to in terms of saying: "This is how the treaty deals with or leaves intact the question of feasts and the payment of money or gifts and the transfer of status, the acquisition of status, at feasts"? Is that something that's dealt with expressly in the treaty, or is it really a zone of autonomy for the Nisga'a that's left for them to deal with as they see fit?

[1605]

Hon. P. Priddy: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. P. Priddy: In the gallery today, there are some very honoured guests joining us that I'd like to introduce to the House and ask the House to welcome -- and one person who is actually still in my office but is part of this family. That is Mason Loh. Mason is a lawyer. He's also the chair of the College of Acupuncturists here in British Columbia. He's joined by his mother Ms. Carol Loh; his father Mr. Charles Loh, who's also, by the way, on the board of the B.C. Rehabilitation Foundation; and by a very, very special guest from China, Dr. Yan. Dr. Yan actually lectures all over the world. He lectures at Harvard, and he has done research with NIH. He actually has a medical degree but is also trained in traditional Chinese medicine. He is considered an expert all over the world in the complementary areas of Western medicine and traditional Chinese medicine. We are honoured to have such an expert with us, and I would ask the House if they could please make my friends welcome.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I don't believe that there is any express provision in the treaty, with the exception of perhaps paragraph 41 in the current chapter that we're dealing with, which deals with the ability to "make laws to preserve, promote and develop Nisga'a culture and Nisga'a language."

G. Plant: Let me look for just a minute at 41. I believe it has been discussed already. The first half of paragraph 41, which says, "Nisga'a Lisims Government may make laws to preserve, promote, and develop Nisga'a culture and Nisga'a language" is followed by some fairly specific examples of what I gather to be examples of legitimate Nisga'a government lawmaking authority under paragraph 41. It has always struck me, in reading paragraph 41, that there is a risk that the breadth of the first half might be unreasonably narrowed by the care with which the second half is expressed and that the first part of that clause is pretty broad -- and I believe it's intended to be so. I seek some clarification from the Attorney General in that respect.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member's interpretation is correct: it is intended to be broad. I think that if the hon. member looks at paragraph 58 of the general provisions, 58(b) says: "unless it is otherwise clear from the context, the use of the word `including' means `including, but not limited to. . . .' "

K. Whittred: I will be dealing at this time with sections 78 through to 81, the sections that deal with social services. Perhaps for the convenience of all of us these can be viewed as a whole, as one relates very much to the other, for the purpose of my questions.

[1610]

[ Page 11870 ]

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: What's included in social services is obviously nothing that is static -- our view of social services 30 years ago is different from what social services mean today -- and that's why it hasn't been defined. What's considered to be human resources could conceivably be part of social services, but it could be more than just that.

K. Whittred: I am to understand, then, that "social services" has not been defined. It is a fluid, ongoing thing that may change from time to time, which brings me to another problem that I have -- similar to a problem that I expressed under paragraph 68. Will the minister agree that this fluid description of social services would include things that we currently discuss within the Human Resources ministry, the Ministry for Children and Families, probably Education and probably Health? Would that be a fairly acceptable description?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think that Health and Education are specifically referred to, and therefore I don't think they would be included. But what's done by the Ministry for Children and Families and the Ministry of Human Resources -- yes.

K. Whittred: The reason I am pursuing this line of question is because I see what I consider to be a little bit of a potential minefield here. If we read ahead, we note that for those items in this treaty which fall under the heading of child and family services, where there is a conflict, Nisga'a law prevails. Under social services, where there is a conflict, federal and provincial laws prevail; under health, federal and provincial laws prevail; and under education, Nisga'a law prevails.

Using a specific example, I would like to ask you what this particular item would fall under: alcohol and drugs. Let's suppose that we have a particular definition of an individual, and there is a description of who qualifies for alcohol and drug treatment. That, within the current description of ministries, is a responsibility of Children and Families. Does that mean that within this treaty, this would be an example where, if conflict existed, Nisga'a law would prevail? Or would provincial or federal laws prevail?

[1615]

K. Whittred: I don't share the minister's belief that these things are not potential problems. Let me give you a second example that's related to, for example, the definition of disability. The definition of disability determines who is or is not eligible for social assistance. Let us suppose, again, that the Nisga'a determine, within their own jurisdiction, a definition of whose law prevails -- because we are now again crossing over, within what we deal with in this House, two different jurisdictions. Are we talking about whether it's provincial or whether it is Nisga'a?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It's pretty difficult to give legal opinions on the hypotheticals the hon. member is raising, but let me just give her a general answer. If you have the definition of disability in the context of health legislation the Nisga'a might do, our law would prevail if there is a problem. Similarly with social services; if they tried to deal with the definition of disability, our law would prevail.

K. Whittred: In a way, the minister just made a point for me. The illustration was perhaps not the best one, but the point that I'm trying to make is that there are such incredible numbers of crossovers between these various ministries. One depends upon the other. One of the things that I have certainly learned in my critic responsibility is the complexity of dealing with issues that cross over a variety of ministries.

The point that I'm trying to make here is that within the Ministry of Human Resources as it is structured provincially, you have an instance where the Ministry of Human Resources, which is a provincial institution, makes laws about eligibility, but in many cases these are then administered by other ministries, where the Nisga'a are going to assume paramountcy. I get back to the original question, which the minister really alluded to. What definition is going to be used here?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: If the hon. member is really looking for a specific answer, then she has to ask a very specific question. I'm not going to engage in answering a very general question. There could be all kinds of hypotheticals. There is no question that this is a complex treaty. I have already answered the question with respect to the definition of disability. If it occurs in the context of social services or health, our laws prevail.

There are specific ways that conflicts are dealt with. If the hon. member has a very specific question, I'd be happy to answer that very specific question, but I'm not going to give her a legal opinion on each and every hypothetical that she presents to me.

[1620]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think the hon. member would be well advised to look at paragraphs 89 to 93 inclusive and then also look at the definitions section of this treaty, where it defines "child and family service" on page. . . . Well, it's part of the definitions -- "child and family service." You'd have to look at what child and family service means in the context of this treaty. Then you'd have to look at what laws they pass pursuant to paragraphs 89 to 93 inclusive and then determine whether or not those laws are in conflict with or inconsistent with provincial laws. Only at that point would their laws prevail in this particular matter, which is child and family services, to the extent of the conflict or the inconsistency.

So it's not just a simple process of saying that this is a program for children and therefore this applies. You have to look at the definition of child and family services. You have to look at these provisions, paragraphs 89 to 93 in this chapter.

[ Page 11871 ]

K. Whittred: I thank the minister for his remarks, because I think that in that last set of remarks the minister really confirmed the point I was trying to make. That is, this is just an incredibly complex section that has been reduced to four little, tiny paragraphs that cover, if we're looking at just the provincial budget, roughly. . . . Probably 80 percent of the provincial budget falls within this jurisdiction that's covered within the next couple of pages. I do not think the treaty does a huge amount of justice in terms of making it very clear exactly how those particular problems are going to be solved.

All right. Getting back, then, to paragraph 78, it states: "Nisga'a Lisims Government may make laws in respect of the provision of social services by Nisga'a Government to Nisga'a citizens. . . ." Does that include Nisga'a citizens living off Nisga'a land?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

K. Whittred: If Nisga'a government is to make laws about social services for individuals who live off Nisga'a land, would the funds that are paid. . . ? Let us suppose someone is receiving income assistance. Would the funds that are paid come from the funds allocated to the Nisga'a, if they are administering it themselves, or would they come from the region where the person is living?

[1625]

K. Whittred: I wonder if the minister could tell me the degree of mobility that is anticipated. One of the most common concerns that we get regarding social assistance recipients is that they are more or less bound to the area where they live and that there is sometimes difficulty in moving from region to region. Would this also apply to Nisga'a? Or would there perhaps be greater mobility if this is being paid for by themselves?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The Nisga'a are as free as anybody else to be as mobile as they want to be.

K. Whittred: One of the things that we have been told repeatedly throughout this agreement is that it is a municipal style of government. I'm wondering if the minister can tell me: do other municipalities -- other than the Nisga'a -- have the right to negotiate separate income assistance or human resource agreements with the province?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: No, but they used to have those powers years ago.

K. Whittred: Under paragraph 79 -- this is the paragraph that states that federal or provincial law prevails to the extent of a conflict. . . . I was referring to paragraph 79, where it discusses that a federal or provincial law prevails to the extent of the conflict. In the case of work programs that are contracted with the Ministry of Advanced Education, would the Nisga'a law prevail if that was not consistent with the general provisions, seeing as education is paramount for Nisga'a law? I'm sorry, minister -- I worded that very awkwardly.

In education, the Nisga'a law is paramount. So let us suppose that they determine that the age for skill development programs is going to be 17, and the provincial law says it's 19. In that case, which law would be paramount?

[1630]

K. Whittred: What we're really saying here on these issues, which cross over a variety of ministries and which cross over a couple of jurisdictions in terms of paramountcy once this treaty is completed, is that we really don't know and that it will get down to the definition at the time. Somebody in the future is going to decide that yes, this law is more education than it is social services, therefore Nisga'a law will prevail; and someone else will decide at another time that no, this law is more social services, therefore provincial law will prevail. Is that roughly what I heard the minister say?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think that there is a history of evolution of the interpretation of laws and jurisdictions in this country. I'm sure all of that would be brought to bear on any analyzing that needs to be done on these issues. I'm not going to answer the hon. member's question in the kind of way it's been put forth. I don't believe that there would be the kind of uncertainty the hon. member is talking about, where someone might think law A belongs to education and someone else might come along who might think law A belongs to social services -- ten years later. Well, anything could happen. So, I mean, those kinds of questions are very difficult to answer.

K. Whittred: I'm pleased that the minister has observed that these are difficult to answer. They're difficult to ask, because this section, quite frankly, is really fraught with. . . . It's all going to happen in the future.

Moving on to paragraph 80, it states: "If Nisga'a Lisims Government makes laws under paragraph 78, at the request of any Party, the Parties will negotiate and attempt to reach agreements in respect of exchange of information, avoidance of double payments, and related matters." If I may say, the "and related matters" sounds a little like my filing system, which is mostly miscellaneous. I wonder if we could start by asking the minister exactly what is meant by related matters.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think the section speaks for itself. I would ask the hon. member to ask me a more specific question, and I'd be happy to answer it.

K. Whittred: Well, it's difficult. I mean what it says here is related matters. I think that to ask what related matters are

[ Page 11872 ]

[1635]

K. Whittred: In the future -- and we've heard how a lot of this is sort of just being left to, I guess, good management in the future -- what will the role be of the Ministry of Human Resources in negotiating agreements related to this particular section?

Hon. J. Pullinger: I would expect that the Ministry of Human Resources would be at the table, along with the funder, which is the federal government.

K. Whittred: I might say that I'm pleased that the Minister of Human Resources has joined us. I'm getting a little bit clearer picture of exactly what happens at the present time.

I'd like to go back, while the minister is here, and pursue a little bit more the question of Nisga'a living off of Nisga'a lands. Perhaps we could use the example of a Nisga'a family living somewhere in the lower mainland who are accessing services from the Ministry of Human Resources. First of all, does that family have a choice of whether or not they take their services as simply a citizen of B.C. or as a Nisga'a citizen? Do they have a choice of which they're going to access services through?

Hon. J. Pullinger: The status quo today is that the federal government provides funding on reserve lands for income assistance programs. In the case of the Nisga'a, they are delivered by the Nisga'a. If a Nisga'a lives off reserve lands, it is funded by the provincial government. That is the way it divides today.

What this does is say that the Nisga'a have the opportunity -- the right -- to provide that service for all their citizens on or off reserve, if they choose to. It doesn't, however, change the funding agreement, which will remain at the status quo. The funding for people who live on Nisga'a lands after the implementation of this treaty will continue to come from the federal government, as it does today. If they choose to spread that money more thinly and provide that service to other individuals who do not live on Nisga'a lands, they have the right to do that, but the funding formula doesn't change.

K. Whittred: Does the minister anticipate, when this agreement is concluded -- and then perhaps the question I asked previously has more relevance -- that individuals who are accessing services would have a choice? Let us suppose that the Nisga'a determine that they are going to look after these services themselves. Can someone living in the lower mainland then choose to access services provincially, or would they choose to have those services through the Nisga'a? I understand that the funding does not change.

[1640]

I can't anticipate what they're going to do. I can anticipate, I think, the next part of the question. I draw the member's attention to clause 80, the information-sharing agreements. It's precisely that kind of situation that this anticipates, plus all the normal criteria. Should the Nisga'a decide to do that, then we have a mechanism whereby we can ensure that an individual is in one program or the other but not both. We have an information-sharing potential here that would be part of that discussion, if they chose to do that.

K. Whittred: Am I to understand, then, that in the event that the Nisga'a would exercise their right, through this treaty, to set up their own human resources mechanisms for social services and were to -- let us take an example -- set up their own Healthy Kids program for Nisga'a citizens living outside of Nisga'a lands, or Nisga'a citizens living in the lower mainland. . . ? They could do that, but there would not be any additional funding. Is that correct?

Hon. J. Pullinger: These enabling clauses are about power -- rights that the Nisga'a government have. It's not the case that if they exercise their rights under this piece of the treaty -- i.e., to have their own Healthy Kids program off Nisga'a lands or to implement another program, for that matter. . . . There is no guarantee that funding will follow. There is no provision here. This simply lays out what their rights are with respect to their citizens. If they wanted to make changes to funding, obviously that would be an entirely separate issue. But there's no guarantee that funding will flow with any decision or exercise of their rights and powers that they engage in.

K. Whittred: The minister has stated that there's no guarantee that the funding would flow, but there's no guarantee that funding would not flow. There's no guarantee, either, that funding would not be increased. Is that also a correct statement?

Hon. J. Pullinger: I mean, it's highly speculative. We're talking about a decision not yet made and programs not yet in place. Also, we're talking about funding that would in all likelihood flow from the federal government, if it's dealing with individuals on Nisga'a lands. It's really impossible to answer a question that's based on the hypothesis of something that might happen in the future. Clearly any changes. . . . As with any municipality or other body where there's an overlap of programs or a shift from one to the other, there would have to be negotiation around funding. It's just a highly speculative question, and this is simply about their treaty rights and what they may do if they so choose.

K. Whittred: One of the things, I think, that worries this side of the House is precisely this speculative nature -- that

[ Page 11873 ]

[1645]

At present the federal government funds income assistance for the Nisga'a on Nisga'a land -- or right now on their reserve lands; what will become Nisga'a lands. The federal government will continue to fund. . . . The province funds income assistance for individuals who live outside reserve lands today and will continue to do so outside Nisga'a lands once the treaty is signed. So there is no change there, except with respect to the nature of the lands, as we know.

If in fact what the member said were to take place, what we would simply be doing is delivering to the same people -- the same constituent base -- through a different mechanism. In other words, even if we were. . . . I see no indication that the Nisga'a want to deliver income assistance off Nisga'a lands, but if that were to be the case, we'd be talking about funding that's flowing to individuals right now, today, that would simply flow through a different mechanism. I don't see any additional cost whatsoever involved in that; it would just simply be a different administrative structure to be negotiated. But beyond that, they have the right. . . . If they have their own funds, they can provide services to people off Nisga'a lands, should they choose. But that doesn't involve funding.

So there are two clear issues: one is their power under the treaty to provide a service to their own citizens wherever they are, should they choose to; the other one is the potential to make changes in the way existing services are delivered, which would be a subject of negotiation. But in either case, it doesn't involve additional funds.

K. Whittred: Thank you. Just for a moment, can we discuss the situation of non-Nisga'a people living on Nisga'a land? Is their status. . . ? Let me put it this way: if the Nisga'a choose to administer their own social services, who looks after social services for non-Nisga'a citizens?

Hon. G. Wilson: The Nisga'a laws only apply to Nisga'a. So the answer to your question is the province.

K. Whittred: So we have the possible scenario, then, where you will have two administrative bodies for human resources on Nisga'a lands. Is that a correct statement?

Hon. J. Pullinger: We have 138 offices around British Columbia today. The Nisga'a administer their own income support program today, and I don't anticipate any change in that.

K. Whittred: That is a useful answer, but it doesn't really answer the question. I understand that the Nisga'a administer their own social services; I also understand that there are a number of regional offices. If I am a citizen living on Nisga'a land, am not a Nisga'a citizen and am accessing social services, who looks after me? Is it the Nisga'a administration, or is it the regional office?

Hon. J. Pullinger: We would have the responsibility for providing income support for all of the non-Nisga'a citizens -- "we" being the province or the Ministry of Human Resources. If it were deemed necessary, advisable or beneficial, we could undertake an agreement with the Nisga'a government for them to provide those services to individuals who are non-Nisga'a living on Nisga'a lands -- if that were deemed to be the most effective and efficient way to provide those services to those individuals.

[1650]

Hon. G. Wilson: I wonder if the member might clarify the question, given that the Nisga'a are doing it right now.

K. Whittred: Well, the Nisga'a are administering their program now, but they have not actually assumed provision for lawmaking authority in this area. That's really the area that I'm speaking of.

Hon. G. Wilson: It's up to the Nisga'a to decide when they're going to pass a law dealing with this. It's not the fact that the treaty says they can do so or may do so. It's up to them to decide when they'll actually pass the law to do it.

K. Whittred: I think that pretty well concludes my questions on this area. If any of my colleagues have questions. . . .

G. Plant: We've pursued the issue of conflict from time to time -- that is, what happens in the event that a law made by the Nisga'a under their lawmaking authority conflicts with federal or provincial law. Each of the subject matters of lawmaking authority deals with that. I apologize if I'm duplicating a question that was asked by my colleague, but I want to pursue one aspect of a potential conflict.

One of the things that is a vexing issue for some people is the question of whether or not the entitlement to the provision of income assistance should be conditional on residency requirements. Certainly that's been a subject of some friction between the province and the federal government in recent years. I want to know how that issue works its way through this process.

For example, under paragraph 78, would it be open to Nisga'a Lisims government to impose residency requirements in respect of the provision of social services? And if it was, and if those residency requirements were different from the residency requirements that existed under federal or provincial law, would that constitute a conflict within the meaning of paragraph 79?

Hon. G. Wilson: I guess it would depend on what exactly the Nisga'a law says. But keep in mind that for the first five years there is an agreement to provide services as they exist now.

[ Page 11874 ]

[1655]

Hon. G. Wilson: Yes.

G. Plant: So after that time expires, then, depending on the particular way in which a rule around residency might be expressed, there is at least a potential for a set of rules about residency to be made by the Nisga'a and therefore the possibility of an argument about conflict that would engage the provisions of 78 through 81. The minister will obviously be as concerned as I am about ensuring that the various jurisdictions don't work in a way that would create a gap, such that someone might find themselves in a position where they're not eligible for income assistance because they are in some way captive or prisoner of a particular rule that creates that gap. That's kind of the context I have in mind in asking the question.

Hon. G. Wilson: I suppose one couldn't rule out that there may be some provision put in place with respect to residency. Clearly it is not the intention, as I think the member opposite suggested, to have anybody disqualified by virtue of that. I would say that the safeguard or protection, if I can use that, is that as long as we're funding the programs, we would obviously not be prepared to fund programs that would be deliberately non-inclusive or uninclusive.

G. Plant: In the ongoing or recurring business of negotiating fiscal financing agreements as they come up for renegotiation, is the minister saying that the province would have a continuing interest in ensuring that such laws as the Nisga'a may have made in respect of the provision of social services would not work so as to create an otherwise unnecessary gap or similar problem?

Hon. G. Wilson: Yes, I think that's true. I think it would also be true that the Nisga'a would obviously be trying to be as inclusive as possible with respect to their membership.

G. Plant: I think that's an important observation to make in this context.

On a second subject, I confess that I was not able to follow the explanation around funding -- at least not to the point where I feel I have a complete understanding of it. I know we're going to, hopefully, get to the fiscal financing arrangements when they arise in the context of the chapter in the treaty. But since we've had some discussion about funding here, there's one aspect of it that I am unclear about.

When I look at the fiscal financing agreement in respect of base-year funding amounts, there is a figure of just under $2.5 million for income assistance. I thought that was federal money. There is very little money for ongoing program obligations coming from the provincial government in respect of the category of fiscal financing. Here I'm dealing with -- whatever it is -- the $31 million, roughly, that is federal and the $1 million, plus a little bit, that is provincial. I don't think there is any component of that ongoing commitment by the province in the $1.2 million that relates to income assistance. The confusion I have relates to those observations and what I understood the minister was saying earlier about provincial funding for people of Nisga'a aboriginal descent who currently don't live on reserve.

[1700]

Hon. J. Pullinger: The status quo will remain. We as a province will continue to provide funding for Nisga'a living off Nisga'a lands. The federal government will continue to provide funding for Nisga'a living on Nisga'a lands.

G. Plant: The federal funding in respect of Nisga'a on Nisga'a lands is incorporated in the tables for base-year funding amounts that are part of the fiscal financing agreement, where the number is just under $2.5 million, with all sorts of careful adjustments and so on. Is that correct?

Hon. J. Pullinger: Yes, it is.

G. Plant: Does the province have a sense of what its ongoing fiscal obligations are to make income assistance payments to Nisga'a individuals who are outside what will become Nisga'a lands? Is there a dollar figure that can be attached to that? I should say, in asking the question, that I recognize that Nisga'a ancestry would probably not be something that would be asked about by the ministry in terms of determining income assistance requirements. So the answer may well be that the province doesn't know. But if the province does know, I'd be interested in the answer.

Hon. J. Pullinger: Race does not enter into eligibility at all. Therefore we don't keep any race-related stats.

G. Plant: So the basic principle is really nothing more or less than the basic principle that the minister has stated -- that after the treaty comes into effect, the province will continue to make income assistance payments to Nisga'a people who are outside Nisga'a lands, in accordance with the provincial laws of general application that apply in respect of income assistance for people within British Columbia.

Hon. J. Pullinger: The system actually is improved with this treaty, because at present we do not have the ability to enter into information-sharing agreements such as we have with other provinces, the federal government and other agencies. We will have that kind of ability under this treaty. So it will in fact be an improvement in services and certainly better for the system. The criterion really is that if you're receiving income assistance in one jurisdiction, you can't get it in the other, and that applies to provinces as well.

G. Plant: I suppose that. . . . The observation that occurs to me, anyway, is that the limit on the power of information-sharing agreements is that there may be people who are out there -- shall we say, first of all, not living on reserve -- who the system currently doesn't catch, because the system doesn't discriminate on the basis of race, and who may not be status

[ Page 11875 ]

[1705]

G. Plant: It sounds like the information-sharing agreements are primarily intended to identify and thereby avoid double payments.

Hon. J. Pullinger: That's correct.

C. Hansen: We'll move along to health services, sections 82 to 85 and 86 to 88, although I'll certainly be focusing mostly on 82 to 85. This agreement that is before us is truly profound in that it is groundbreaking in a way that's never happened before in Canada. We've certainly seen pilot projects where the administration of health care services has been devolved to individual aboriginal bands across Canada. I think the one in British Columbia that's of significance is family services for the Carrier-Sekani band near Prince George, although it was limited in its scope and is certainly nothing along the lines that's envisioned as a result of this agreement. I think the one devolution of responsibility from the federal government that probably has been labelled as the most significant up till now is with the Blood tribe in Alberta. But again, this too, in the Nisga'a agreement, goes far beyond that, so the ramifications are very significant.

I would certainly like to compliment the Nisga'a people for the directions they are going in, in terms of taking responsibility for health care services. There are organizations that I know have been negotiating with the Nisga'a Valley health board and the Nisga'a government up till now, and they've been very complimentary of the goals and the direction that the Nisga'a people are going in with regard to their health care. One of the comments that was made was that they have a very clear sense of what their health care should be and very clear goals for where they want their health care system to evolve to. So they are certainly to be commended for that.

There are areas that I certainly think we need a little bit more explanation of as to how health care will evolve and how the delivery of health care will change, perhaps, as a result of this agreement. I guess, perhaps to start, if I could get some sense from one of the ministers with regard specifically to section 85. . . . It says: "At the request of any Party, the Parties may negotiate and attempt to reach agreements. . . " -- for, essentially, the delivery of health services and programs. I'm just wondering if one of the ministers could give us some update on where we are at with the evolution of those agreements that have to be negotiated for this to become fully operational.

Hon. G. Wilson: Let me say that I don't necessarily share the member's view that this is altogether earthshattering. The Nisga'a have had their own health board for, I think, 12 years or 14 years or something like that. So this is nothing new to them. They have certainly been directly involved in providing a certain level of administrative services up until now -- and, to the member's point, they don't have to negotiate that.

C. Hansen: What is envisioned, as I read these sections, is a range of agreements that will allow for the delivery of health services, the provisions of funding, the administration of services that were not part of the previous agreements that were in place. I recognize, as the minister said, that they have had their own health board up till now. But what is going to happen is that the health board responsibilities are going to be transferred to the Lisims government, and you're going to wind up with a whole new range of services and responsibilities and obligations and funding arrangements that are going to evolve as a direct result of this agreement.

[1710]

Hon. P. Priddy: We already have. . . . By the way, I appreciate the earlier comments about the clarity of the health goals for the Nisga'a. One of the things we've learned over the years -- because they've had delegated responsibility much longer than some aboriginal peoples -- is that they have probably the best state of health care of aboriginal people in the province. So it's a very nice example of what happens when you are able to control your own destiny, if you will, in that respect.

We have an MOU, a memorandum of understanding, signed with the Nisga'a. We've just finished a joint agreement around MSP with the Nisga'a. While it will transfer from the health authority to the Nisga'a Lisims, it doesn't automatically. We will still continue to negotiate agreements, so it doesn't automatically mean that there will be, on day one, a large expansion of services. We would still continue to work that out by agreement.

C. Hansen: Certainly with some of these agreements. . . . In particular, the general practice services agreement that has been in place is something that I'd like to come to. Before I do that, I would like to get some sense of the change in where the federal dollars bounce on this thing. Up until now in British Columbia generally, health care for aboriginal British Columbians has been provided for by the federal government. Those funds have been directed to the provincial government, and then the provincial government has been responsible for the delivery of those health services.

As a result of the health accord that I understand was signed on December 8, 1998, these moneys from the federal government are now going to be transferred directly to the

[ Page 11876 ]

Hon. P. Priddy: Actually, while people are looking, I'll respond to the first part of the question, if that's all right with you. I just actually want to go back to the end of the last question you'd asked, hon. member, if I might. When new agreements are. . . . You know, I talked about the fact that we have an MSP agreement now, and so on. When additional agreements are negotiated, they really would be done with Finance under the financial framework. That's the first part.

Secondly, the dollar transfer -- people are still looking for the amount -- is for the non-insured or, if you will, extended benefit non-insured items. The Nisga'a people still have a CareCard. They're still covered by MSP. But the non-insured or extended benefits coverage is how the federal dollars are used. Sorry -- if you want to move on, we'll get the number for you.

This might help you, not with the number but. . . . The transfer agreement with Health Canada, or the health transfer program, includes things like community health nursing, community health representatives, mental health facility and maintenance, operation of the James Gosnell Memorial Health Centre at New Aiyansh, some environmental health services and so on.

[1715]

Hon. P. Priddy: The answer is yes.

C. Hansen: With regard to the number in terms of how much we're talking about for the non-insured services, I notice that there is, in the fiscal financing agreement in one of the schedules -- where they talk about the future transfers from the federal government and the provincial government -- a number coming from the federal government directly to the Nisga'a Lisims government of $7.5 million per year as the base year funding amount. Is that roughly the amount that we're talking about and that used to come to the provincial government and that will now go to the Nisga'a government in the future?

Hon. P. Priddy: Two things, I guess. I want to give part of the member's answer, and then I want to make a recommendation, if I might, quite respectfully. The amount that currently comes not to us but from the federal government directly to the Nisga'a is about $11,271,000. It goes directly from the federal government to the Nisga'a Valley health board.

I think that some of the questions that the member is asking -- and we'll certainly take guidance -- really fall under a fiscal financing discussion. So whether you want to have the whole fiscal financing discussion now or you want to move those on, I don't know. I was just looking for some guidance.

C. Hansen: In terms of the sections that are before us -- as to how those are funded -- I think it is directly relevant, so I didn't have a significant number of questions regarding the fiscal financing agreement. I had a few that I felt were appropriate at this time, if that's okay with the minister.

Specifically, when we talk about the provincial obligations -- and these are for the provision of physician and treatment services. . . . In the schedule that's attached it talks about the amount of $423,000, being the obligation of the provincial government, to be transferred to the Nisga'a Valley health board -- soon to be Nisga'a Lisims government -- as those responsibilities are transferred. In it, it talks about this being up to that amount. I'm wondering if the minister could tell us what is currently seen as the transfer and why there is a distinction in terms of the. . . . I guess my question is: why is there not a firm number? Why does it say "up to" that $430,000?

Hon. P. Priddy: The reason it says "up to" is that there was a period of time in which the people were unable to place a physician -- for about a six-month period of time -- and that allowed some latitude for people to be able to do that. Again, all of those negotiations will be wrapped into the fiscal framework.

[1720]

Hon. P. Priddy: The physician is on a contract.

C. Hansen: I guess that leads to a question with regard to non-Nisga'a citizens who would be seeking medical services on Nisga'a lands. Certainly in the provisions that we have before us is a requirement that as these agreements are negotiated, one of the objectives is to include a requirement that all Nisga'a citizens and individuals who are not Nisga'a citizens be treated equally in the provision of those health services and programs.

I'm wondering: is there a provision whereby the Nisga'a Valley health board is compensated, perhaps, for non-Nisga'a citizens who are treated by physicians contracted by that government? Or is it part of their obligations under the transfer of funds and the overall agreement?

Hon. P. Priddy: As with any community health board, the dollars are for all the citizens who reside in that geographic area.

C. Hansen: I want to run through a couple of fairly specific things, maybe just to give some sense of reassurance as to how this health service will be provided. With regard specifically to care providers, would they be subject to the same collective agreements as the rest of the province? Will they continue to negotiate through HEABC? Will there be a right of appeal for providers in the event of disputes or a ruling of the Nisga'a nation -- those types of issues? I'm just wondering if we're going to see any change from what we've seen up till now in that regard.

[ Page 11877 ]

C. Hansen: With regard to the disciplinary actions that may happen against care providers or employers for failure to live up to agreements -- whether or not they will be negotiating through or with the HEABC in British Columbia, I guess, in terms of whether or not they have a choice to opt in or out of provincial bodies of that nature, including disciplinary bodies and whether or not there are going to be any changes in that regard. . . .

Hon. P. Priddy: No, there will not be changes in that. The circumstances that occur presently, where people are responsible, and the bodies to whom they are responsible will stay the same.

C. Hansen: If I can just come back to the issue of funding. As the scope of insured health care potentially changes in the province, is there a provision that. . . ? When we talk about this amount being up to $423,000, is that in fact a capped amount? Or can we see future changes based on demographic or population changes or in fact the scope of coverage of the provincial health care plan? Is there a potential that it can actually increase beyond that number?

Hon. P. Priddy: Every five years, we renegotiate under the fiscal finance agreement.

C. Hansen: I want to ask specifically about the Pharmacare program. My understanding is that for all of the extended health services, they have contracted with Great-West Life Assurance for the provision of extended care, dental and drug costs and that type of thing. I'm wondering if, in terms of the scope of drugs that are covered. . . . The way it's worded right now, I understand, is that this falls under a federal listing of eligible drugs that would be covered under a program. Does the minister anticipate that they would be using that federal listing or a provincial listing as to what are deemed to be insured pharmaceuticals?

[1725]

C. Hansen: One of the agreements that would be covered under section 85 is an agreement that has been in place up till now that we've known as the Nisga'a Valley health board general practice services agreement. I'm wondering if the minister can tell us if that agreement has been renewed. Is there a new agreement that is now in place?

I know that we sought to get a copy of this agreement. It indicated that it was to be attached as a schedule to the fiscal financing agreement, but it was missing, actually, from that package. I gather that the copy that was sent to me is an old copy, and I'm wondering if the agreement has in fact been renewed very recently.

Hon. P. Priddy: We will get you a current copy if yours is not the current copy. My staff inform me that 1997 was the last time that it was renewed. It will, of course, be rolled into the fiscal finance agreement as well. Is there a date on yours? Okay. Is it '97? Okay. Then you have it.

C. Hansen: I'm wondering if the parties to the agreement have indicated a desire to renew that particular agreement upon expiration.

Hon. P. Priddy: I can't answer the question about whether both parties have indicated that. But if the Nisga'a wish to continue the agreement as it is now, then they will be able to do that. If they want to draw down power, then they will be able to do that as well. But that, again, would have to be part of the larger financial agreement.

C. Hansen: I guess the reason I'm zeroing in on this one particular issue is that, certainly if you read the wording, there is a potential that there would be a brand-new general services agreement developed under section 85. The one agreement that we now have before us -- the one that the minister referred to earlier -- is the copy that I have, but the expiry date on it is March 30. I'm wondering what agreement is now valid. What agreement are we operating under as of today?

Hon. P. Priddy: We're operating under the current agreement.

C. Hansen: So do I gather from the minister's response that that agreement is still in effect, even though it's now past the expiry date?

[1730]

C. Hansen: One of the clauses that I had some concern about specifically related to the general practice services agreement. If it ever gets to a point where it is terminated for any reason -- and one of the reasons it could be terminated is failure to renew it. . . . If for any reason it doesn't continue to apply, then basically any obligations by any of the parties -- whether it's the provincial government or the Nisga'a Lisims government -- cease.

One of the things we have before us is obligations that the Nisga'a government is assuming for the provision of health care. My reading of the agreement is that if the general practice services agreement terminates, then it in fact dissolves all of these obligations that are being taken on by the Nisga'a Lisims government.

I guess I'm surprised that in the absence of any kind of formalized process, the general practice services agreement would still be in effect today, given that we've gone past the expiry date. I'm just wondering if the minister could give us some assurance that in fact those obligations will be continued and that health care for people who live in that area is not being jeopardized by this process.

Hon. G. Wilson: In our view, the Nisga'a have accepted the obligations. These are important issues that obviously need to be canvassed further. But in deference to the Speaker, noting the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

[ Page 11878 ]

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

Points of Privilege
(Speaker's Rulings)

The Speaker: Hon. members, the Chair is now in a position to render a decision relating to several matters of privilege raised on March 29, 1999. Firstly, the Chair wishes to thank the hon. members raising the matters of privilege for their careful and well-researched presentations. In the same vein, the replies to the matters of privilege tabled by the Government House Leader have been of assistance to the Chair in arriving at its conclusions. The Chair has examined carefully the important issues raised, and apart from the material tabled by both sides of the House, the Chair has carefully considered the auditor general's report of February 1999 dealing with the review of the estimates process in British Columbia, and earlier decisions of the Speaker of the House delivered on July 15, 1996, and April 3, 1997.

The constituent elements of privilege have been described many times in this House, and for purposes of these decisions today, I refer hon. members to Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, twenty-second edition at page 65; and to Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia, third edition, at page 47. It is important to remember that in this context, the impropriety alleged must be established in the parliamentary sense, in that to establish a breach of privilege it must be demonstrated that the person or persons named deliberately misled the House.

The decision of July 15, 1996, dealt with substantially the same matters of privilege we are dealing with today. That decision examined the budgetary circumstances in detail and, based on the evidence presented at that time, concluded that the matter raised at that time did not fulfil the conditions of parliamentary privilege.

In the decision of the Chair on April 3, 1997, substantially the same matter was raised -- firstly, by the member for Delta South and, secondly, by the member for Matsqui. In both of these cases the members raising the matter of privilege stated that new material, which had recently become available, substantially affected the matter of privilege, and therefore the matter could be raised anew.

[1735]

So what is the new evidence or new factor that the hon. members rely upon today to revitalize the matter of privilege and establish a prima facie case that the current member for Saanich South, the former member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head and the Premier -- albeit on a slightly different ground -- are guilty of a breach of the ancient privileges of Parliament and in contempt of this House? It is clear that the report from the office of the auditor general of British Columbia of February 1999 intituled "A Review of the Estimates Process in British Columbia" is the foundation document. This report is hereinafter referred to as the Morfitt report.

The Chair has also examined the parliamentary authorities quoted in both the presentations on the matters of privilege and the replies thereto. The paramount question which the Chair must focus on is whether or not the Morfitt report provides sufficient evidence that one or more of the accused members deliberately misled the House by tabling documents which they knew to be "forged, falsified or fabricated. . .with intent to deceive" the House -- Erskine May, twenty-first edition, page 118.

I think it important here to provide members with two material quotations from the Morfitt report, appearing at page 139, as follows:

"In our review we have given consideration to circumstances that existed when Budget '96 was being developed. We believe no analysis of issues surrounding a budget is complete without a consideration of the important circumstances existing, because they could cause the government to act or make decisions, at least in part, on the basis of political imperatives. Such decisions may not necessarily be inappropriate, and many such decisions could simultaneously serve the public good and the political agenda of the government.

"Although the circumstances referred to in this report could have led to decisions being made, in whole or in part, on the basis of political imperatives, we have not attempted to determine motivation or intent regarding any budget decisions. We believe such determination is outside the scope of our review."

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

He goes on to conclude, at page 141, as follows:

"The government appears to have acted in reliance on legal advice suggesting it was not necessary to do so. Consequently, information on revenue and expenditure of the government from the beginning of the 1995-96 fiscal year to 'the most recent date practicable' was not made available when the estimates were tabled on June 26, 1996."

The Chair does not intend to examine the broad question of budgetary forecasting, as this was fully canvassed in the decision of July 15, 1996, and further examined in the decisions of April 3, 1997. Based on those decisions, the Chair

[ Page 11879 ]

[1740]

"The uncertainties inherent in estimating revenue are many. That is why it is necessary to build into the forecasting process as many checks and balances as possible and to subject the outcome of each state of the process to rigorous challenges. It is important to note that the final outcome each year is what the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations ultimately considers to be reasonable, based on existing information."

1. That the minister did not provide the House with a statement of revenue and expenditures required by section 11 of the Financial Administration Act. In response, the minister states that the obligation under the act only arises where the statement referred to is prepared and submitted to the minister, which was not the case here. It is further argued that the decision of the comptroller general not to prepare such a statement was based on legal advice obtained by Finance staff, and this appears to be confirmed by the findings of the Morfitt report at page 141.

2. The Leader of the Opposition states that the minister "misled this House with respect to the results of the '95-96 fiscal year and with respect to the estimates of the '96-97 fiscal year." The Morfitt report, in this regard, states at page 143: "The recommendation made to the minister by his deputy minister to reintroduce the April budget was based on the deputy's conclusion that the revenue forecast was still 'plausible and attainable.' "

Dealing with this same point, the minister states:

"It is important to recall that a budget is a plan based on forecast revenues and projected expenditures. In deciding to retable the April 1996 budget, I was satisfied that the plan was both plausible and attainable, and had I not believed that to be the case, I would not have proceeded with its reintroduction."

While the Morfitt report makes the point that insufficient information was provided by the government when the budgets were presented -- in particular with relation to the business risks being assumed -- the minister says, and Morfitt confirms, that the extent of the disclosure was consistent with the statutory requirements practised in British Columbia and other Canadian jurisdictions. It is one thing to urge statutory reform surrounding the budget process but quite another to suggest that budgetary documents filed in accordance with existing statutory requirements can be characterized as a deliberately misleading document or a document which can be described as "forged, falsified or fabricated." This, of course, the Morfitt report does not pretend to do.

Turning again to the passage in Maingot's book, which the Leader of the Official Opposition relies upon in his presentation, on examining that authority at pages 233 and 234, the Chair finds that the federal 1978 case referred to is distinguishable from the matter before this House today. Indeed Maingot, in commenting on the case, states that before the Speaker could find a prima facie case and permit a motion to be moved, there must be an admission by someone in authority that a member of the House of Commons was intentionally misled or an admission of facts that leads naturally to the conclusion that a member was intentionally misled. No such admissions can be found in the material filed or, in the Chair's opinion, can be extrapolated from the Morfitt report.

There is another long-established rule which binds not only the Chair but all members of this House, and that is the rule that requires all of us, in the absence of incontrovertible evidence, to accept the word of another hon. member. While it would clearly not be the sole determining factor in this matter, the Chair notes that the minister states in his reply to the matters raised: "In deciding to retable the April 1996 budget, I was satisfied that the plan was both plausible and attainable, and had I not believed that to be the case, I would have not proceeded with its reintroduction."

[1745]

That's the first of the statements. I have the next three as well.

I now wish to deal with the statement of privilege presented by the Opposition House Leader relating to the former member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head in her capacity as Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations. I note that the hon. member, in his submission, suggested that the budget in question was delivered to the House on April 28, 1996. The Journals of the House indicate that the budget was delivered, indeed, on April 30, 1996. In subsequent references, I've used that date.

In this matter of privilege, as in the previous one, I have carefully considered the submission by the hon. member and the reply as submitted by the Government House Leader. I have also examined the decisions of 1996 and 1997 relating to the same incident, together with the Morfitt report, the parliamentary authorities as quoted, as well as other parliamentary authorities.

While the budget document presented by then Minister Cull on April 30, 1996, was identical to the one presented by Minister Petter, one must examine the circumstances surrounding the tabling at that time.

The matter of privilege raised on March 25, 1997, by the hon. member for Matsqui and the decision of April 3, 1997, examined those circumstances, and at that time the Chair ruled that a prima facie case of privilege had not been established. What new circumstances intervened between then and

[ Page 11880 ]

Bearing in mind the general tenor of the report and its conceded aims and limitations, the Chair again must attempt to determine what new evidence, if any, can be found in the report to warrant the conclusion that the former Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations deliberately misled the House. In this case, as in the previous case, the Chair must direct its attention to evidence of impropriety in the parliamentary sense -- that is, a deliberate attempt to mislead the House. It should be noted that Parliament retains the right to punish offences which may have occurred in an earlier Parliament -- Erskine May, nineteenth edition, page 161; see also House of Commons Journals, November 9, 1978, and B.C. Journals, March 1, 1987, page 191.

In support of the hon. member's submission, he quotes from page 140 of the Morfitt report, as follows:

"If either the optimistic or most likely projections had been used for both revenue and expenditure, and if further revenue had not been included and expenditure not reduced, the result would have been a projected deficit of up to $256 million. Considering the information available to her, Minister Cull's decision to include in the revised forecast a revenue projection that was $156 million over and above the secretariat's optimistic forecast seems inappropriate."

"The revised forecast for 1995-96 reflected the Treasury Board secretariat's 'optimistic' projection of revenue, plus a further $156 million over and above the optimistic revenue forecast by the secretariat, an inclusion that was within the minister's prerogative" -- last words, my emphasis.

With regard to Minister Cull's budget, as well as Minister's Petter's budget, the Chair notes the overall conclusion in the Morfitt report: ". . .we found no action taken or decision made by senior people in government, elected or appointed, that was not permitted by such legislation and other authorities." In this case, as in the Petter case, the Chair finds that the 1978 case involving a federal minister of the Crown is distinguishable from the case under consideration. In the 1978 case, admittedly misleading information was given to the minister, and that information found its way into the House. No such parallel admission exists in the present case.

[1750]

"We believe serious inadequacies in the governance of the estimates process, as explained in chapter 2 of this report -- specifically relating to the attributes of accountability and openness -- has permitted Budget '96 to presented with crucial information missing. This clearly demonstrates the need for the reform we are recommending in chapter 2 of this report."

It is therefore the Chair's conclusion that the hon. House Leader's statement on the matter of privilege contains a complaint but falls short of meeting the standards as outlined in the authorities, which describe a deliberate misleading of the House with documents that may have been "forged, falsified or fabricated." Consequently this matter of privilege cannot succeed.

The third matter of privilege. I now wish to examine the matter of privilege raised by the hon. member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head. In the member's statement of the matter as filed, she alleges that the member for Saanich South stated that the former Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations chose an intermediate path in relation to estimating forestry revenues and further, in response to a question from the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain along the same vein, stated: "I don't have that information precisely, but my information is that the minister chose a mid-range option." The member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head suggests that the Morfitt report contradicts this statement and concludes that the member for Saanich South has deliberately misled the House.

In his reply to this allegation, the minister states that in his view, the quotations from Hansard of the particular day deal with forecasts of forest revenue and not total revenues. The minister states that he did not have any direct knowledge of Ms. Cull's decisions but was, in effect, "conveying my understanding of her decisions based on the information provided to me by ministry officials who accompanied me in the assembly." From the documents tabled and the understanding of the member for Saanich South at the time in question, it would appear that the advice he received from ministry officials indicated that indeed Minister Cull, as she then was, did pick a mid-range option in forecasting forest revenues. I refer all members to the document described as "Table 4: Comparison of Actual Forests."

Based on the material before me, it seems that the hon. member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head was relying on quotes from the Morfitt report relating to total revenues, whereas the remarks attributed to the hon. member for Saanich South related to forest revenues only. This is clearly a disagreement as to facts.

Under these circumstances and in light of the documentation filed, the hon. member's matter of privilege is based on a misconception and cannot succeed.

The fourth and final statement-of-privilege response is as follows. I now wish to deal with the statement of privilege raised in the House by the hon. member for Chilliwack. The exchange to which the member refers appears in the Hansard debates of the Legislative Assembly of August 13, 1996, at page 1923. I think it important in this matter to quote here the question and answer which form the foundation for the member's matter of privilege: "The question is: would Mr. Gunton have ever been authorized by the Premier to go to officials in the Ministry of Finance and have them change revenue projections in the budget-planning process?" Response from the Premier: "Of course not. The Minister of Finance makes the appropriate determination as to the various revenues that go in the budget -- the forecasts -- and that information, which

[ Page 11881 ]

The Chair must now consider the context of the Morfitt report as it bears on this question. It appears that in February 1996 a small and informal working group was formed, which was named the fiscal budget steering committee, composed of the Deputy Minister to the Premier, Mr. McArthur; the Deputy Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations, Ms. Eaton; and the Deputy Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks, Mr. Gunton. It further appears that a briefing note was prepared in late February by the Treasury Board secretariat, calculating the impact that various large commodity price increases would have on provincial revenues.

[1755]

The auditor general, at page 182, comments as follows: "These analyses were performed by Ms. Eaton's staff as requested. According to Ms. Eaton, both Mr. McArthur and Mr. Gunton were much closer to events relating to the commodity price for lumber than she was." Further, at page 182, the auditor general makes comment on this process:

"Developing scenarios to examine various what-if questions is a normal, acceptable procedure used by budget forecasters, though the expectation is that the basic assumptions used in each scenario will fall within a range of possibilities. In the analyses that Ms. Eaton was asked to prepare, many assumptions were used. The main ones, however -- those relating to the GDP and commodity prices -- were discussed often between the two active members of the fiscal budget steering committee, Ms. Eaton and Mr. Gunton, both of whom are economists and had similar involvement in the Treasury Board secretariat and budget preparation, at different times."

In another part of his statement, the hon. member states as follows: "Mr. Gunton was involved, yet the member says he wasn't." If that were the full case of the hon. member -- suggesting that the Premier denied Mr. Gunton's involvement -- he would indeed have a strong case, for Mr. Gunton was very much involved in the process. However, the member goes much further and is taking exception to the Premier's denial that he, the Premier, authorized Mr. Gunton to "change revenue projections in the budget planning process."

Nothing in the Morfitt report contravenes the Premier's denial. The Chair cannot find that the question and answer contained in the ably presented statement of privilege qualifies as a prima facie case.

I thank members for their patience.

Hon. G. Wilson moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:58 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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