1990 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MAY 30, 1990

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

9925 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Meech Lake accord. Mr. Gabelmann –– 9925

Prevention of drug wars. Mr. Davidson –– 9926

Resignation of Social Services minister. Mr. Clark –– 9926

Mr. Rose

Ministerial Statement

Tsitika Valley timber harvesting. Hon. Mr. Richmond –– 9927

Mr. Gabelmann

First Peoples' Heritage, Language and Culture Act (Bill 23). Second reading.

(Hon. Mr. Weisgerber)

Hon. Mr. Weisgerber –– 9928

Mr. G. Hanson –– 9929

Mr. Serwa –– 9933

Mr. Barnes –– 9936

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 9937

Mr. Zirnhelt –– 9939

Mr. Bruce –– 9940

Mr. Miller –– 9941

Ms. Edwards –– 9943

Mr. Cashore –– 9943

Mr. G. Janssen –– 9944

Mr. Rabbitt –– 9946

Hon. Mr. Weisgerber –– 9946

First Peoples' Heritage, Language and Culture Act (Bill 23). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Weisgerber) –– 9947

Third reading

Sustainable Environment Fund Act (Bill 16). Second reading.

(Hon. Mr. Reynolds)

Hon. Mr. Reynolds –– 9947

Mr. Cashore –– 9949

Mr. Miller –– 9952

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

Mr. Speaker, visiting us today from Toronto is Mr. Jerzy Palasz, the

consul general of the Polish People's Republic. He is accompanied by

Mr. Janusz Antecki, who is the vice-consul of the Polish People's

Republic. I would like this House to make them very welcome.

HON. J. JANSEN :

Mr. Speaker, in the House today from the sunny and warm community of

Chilliwack are Dick and Lisa Van Maren. Would you please welcome them.

MR. VANT :

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to welcome today no less than 60 grades

5 to 7 students from Horse Lake Elementary School. This is just east of

100 Mile House in the great Cariboo constituency. Accompanying them are

several adults, including Mr. French, Mr. Graves and their school bus

driver, Norm Collick. I know the House would like to give them a very

warm welcome.

MR. ROSE : Mr. Speaker, old friends and

colleagues of mine, Mr. and Mrs. Ken Swalwell, are in the gallery

today. The Swalwells are here visiting the Legislature, and I'd just

like to say that they've been extremely active in volunteer work in the

mental health field. I think the community owes them a lot for their

efforts. I would ask everybody to welcome them.

MR. PELTON :

Mr. Speaker and hon. members, I've been asked to introduce two ladies

from the Victoria area to the House this afternoon: Mrs. Lois Austin

and Mrs. Alma Paquette. I would ask you to make them a warm welcome,

please.

MR. REID : Mr. Speaker, every community needs

dedicated, hard-working people, and I have with me today in the House

representing the White Rock Elks two very qualified and dedicated

people from White Rock, Jack Naylor and his wife Irene. Would the House

make them a special welcome.

MR. CHALMERS : It's

known, Mr. Speaker, that there's only one place sunnier and warmer than

the community of Chilliwack, and that of course is Kelowna. I ask my

colleagues to help make welcome Mr. Gordie Ivans and his wife Beverly,

who are orchardists in the Rutland area and are here visiting the House

today. I'd like to make them welcome.

MR. RABBITT : Mr. Speaker, my wife today has brought two old friends

and supporters to visit the House and watch question period — former residents

of Yale-Lillooet, now residents in the Premier's riding. I would like the

House to give both Bob and Gloria Wood a very warm welcome.

MR. SPEAKER : Additional people from Chilliwack?

HON. J. JANSEN :

No, this is not from Chilliwack. This is a special person who has come

back from a serious heart operation. Hubert Beyer is back in our midst

and I'm sure will continue to give the good criticism to us that we

have been receiving in the past, now with a much healthier outlook.

Would you please make him welcome.

MR. SPEAKER : Of course, the Chair has no knowledge of his presence or of any of his colleagues'.

Oral Questions

MEECH LAKE ACCORD

MR. GABELMANN :

My question is to the Premier. On Monday night the Premier warned that

failure to pass the Meech Lake accord could cause irreparable damage to

Canada, suggesting that separatism could again rear its ugly head.

Yesterday the Finance minister characterized the accord as "irrelevant"

and refused to rule out some form of sovereignty-association for B.C.,

no matter what happens to Meech.

Mr. Premier, was your

reference to "separatism rearing its ugly head" a reference to Quebec

or to the Finance minister and other members of the government?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

If the member wants to know exactly what it was the Minister of Finance

may have said, he should ask the Minister of Finance. If his question

to me is whether there will be damage to the country and considerable

results that we might regret very much as Canadians and British

Columbians, the answer is that I fear there could be. I think it's only

fair we talk about these things.

I'm very pleased, hon.

member, that for the first time in all of these many months the

opposition has a question with respect to this constitutional change

which is extremely important to the nation at this time. I have

wondered for many months why neither the Leader of the Opposition nor

anyone on the NDP side ever took sufficient interest in this

constitutional reform to as much as ask one question.

Where

is your interest in this country? I'm sure you must believe this to be

a great nation and that we ought to work together to keep and fight for

unity. I'm very disappointed that for all of these many months the NDP

has never once asked. I can expect that from the Leader of the

Opposition — he's never here — but you've never asked a question about the Meech Lake accord.

MR. GABELMANN :

All of us in this province and in this House appreciate the tone the

Premier adopted on Monday night. I want that to be clear and on the

record. I appreciate that.

What I want to ask the Premier is: does he think the comments being made publicly by the Minister of

[ Page 9926 ]

Finance

are doing anything whatsoever to help this country reach some kind of

an accord or constitutional development? Does he think the minister's

comments are appropriate and worthy of being made by a member of the

executive council?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : On numerous

occasions I heard the Minister of Finance speak about the issues that

affect every Canadian today. Perhaps, because of all of the

constitutional debate, they have not been talked about as much as they

ought to have been for many months now.

I made reference to

this in my address on Monday evening. There are many people out there

who are extremely concerned about 15 percent mortgages and what this

will do to them and their family in maintaining a home. There are many

young people looking to buy a first home who obviously won't have the

ability or the capability to when we are faced with 15 percent interest

rates.

The Minister of Finance has similarly expressed

concern about the high interest rate and what it is doing to small

business in this province and elsewhere in the country and how it's

encouraging a number of industries to look to the U.S. for locating or

expanding.

The

Minister of Finance has talked about the value of the dollar — the

overvaluation of the dollar relative to the American dollar — and

the impact of this and how, in fact, the high value of the Canadian

dollar has in good part negated the many benefits that we would expect

to flow from free trade.

The Minister of Finance has also

reiterated his concern about the GST and the impact of it when it comes

into effect in 1991, if they proceed on their present course.

agree with the Minister of Finance on all of those concerns. They are

matters of concern to every British Columbian and every Canadian, and

they need to be talked about.

MR. GABELMANN : Unlike

members on that side of the House, members on this side of the House

worked actively in the last federal election to make sure we wouldn't

have a government in Ottawa that would bring in the GST, high interest

rates and a free trade deal.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of

Finance has been talking aloud in various quarters about separatist

options for British Columbia, refusing to disavow some form of

sovereignty association for this province. Does the Premier feel that

that kind of comment by a senior member of his administration is useful

and productive in helping this country try to reach an agreement by

June 23?

[2:15]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Certainly I appreciate the comment made by the member about how they

vote at the national level. I can't say the same thing for all Social

Credit members, because they may support different parties federally

depending on how they view the candidate in their riding or the

particular issues. They do not blindly follow, as the New Democrats in

this Legislature have to somehow blindly follow the dictates of their

party in Ottawa. I realize that difference, and I'm proud that we have

this difference. It's a strength that I would encourage.

Again,

I know that the member is starting from a wrong premise, but that's to

be expected sometimes. However, if the question is whether we should be

looking towards constitutional change that might give some

consideration to how we more effectively manage this country when it

comes to fiscal matters or economic initiatives, then I say: "Minister

of Finance of British Columbia, you keep taking the lead in this

country and seek whatever change is best for the citizens of this

province, every province and the country as a whole. Congratulations."

MR. GABELMANN :

A final question: will you send a message, Mr. Premier, to the rest of

this country that that option does not include sovereignty-association

for British Columbia?

MR. SPEAKER : The question is out of order.

PREVENTION OF DRUG WARS

MR. DAVIDSON :

My question is to the Attorney-General. In view of the increasing

number of drive-by shootings and other gun-related incidents which

appear centred on organized, drug-related gang activity, could the

Attorney advise whether he has been in contact with his federal

counterpart to take steps to arrest this problem, and would he consider

hosting a national symposium on gang-related crime to offer solutions

to innocent British Columbians?

HON. MR. SMITH : The

question of the extent to which we have an increase in violence

relating to gang activity is indeed being examined at a number of

levels. Particularly, the Attorneys-General across Canada have been

examining a number of facets of the issue. When we meet, in three weeks

I believe, we will be looking at issues of gang activity and issues

surrounding the Young Offenders Act. We will also be looking at gun

control, which itself bears on the issue. In addition, Attorneys from

western Canada and the western United States will be examining those

issues, directly and indirectly, here in British Columbia in the latter

part of June, because there is a lot of transjurisdictional impact on

the question.

With respect to the national symposium,

frankly I haven't considered it, but it is something that I would be

happy to look at and see if it's worthy of pursuing, and I will get

back to the member in due time.

MR. SPEAKER : The question is taken on notice.

RESIGNATION OF

SOCIAL SERVICES MINISTER

MR. CLARK :

A question to the Premier. Now that the former Minister of Social

Services and Housing has done the honourable thing and resigned, will he

[ Page 9927 ]

— as

was done in the matter of the former Minister of Tourism — table

in the House, or direct this Minister of Finance to table in the House,

the comptroller-general's report on the matter?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

I am sure.... No, I guess I'm not. But I should try to make the member

aware, in fairness to any that might have been mentioned in the

report — not having seen the report, I can't say what or who it is —

that I think he should really consider it's also honourable and fair

that we allow a process to take its course, and that we should not play

politics with the future and the lives of people.

MR. CLARK :

A supplementary to the Premier. The former minister raised a number of

questions and said he hoped the matter would be resolved soon. The

Premier has now indicated that he hopes there is a process in place.

Will the Premier advise the House who will be conducting the inquiry in

this matter?

If the Premier would like some clarification:

I would like to know what process is in place to deal with the many

questions raised by the former minister in his press conference a few

minutes ago, and how this matter will be resolved.

The

minister claims that he hopes it will be resolved soon. The Premier has

referred to a process. Will he enlighten the House as to who is doing

the inquiry and what process is taking place?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

It never fails to surprise me that the line of questioning from the New

Democrats.... Whatever the process, I don't believe it's proper that it

be driven by a Premier, a government, an opposition or any member. I

don't think any politician should drive that process, nor should you be

looking to a politician for the process to be driven in that fashion.

MR. CLARK :

A supplementary to the Premier. If it is important enough for a

minister of the Crown to resign and for the Premier to say that there

is a process in place, surely it's important enough for the Premier in

this House to inform the members of the public and the members of this

House what process is in place to bring a resolution to this matter.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

There's one thing we can say about the former Minister of Social

Services: he was honourable. He chose the course; he was not driven by

some process devised through this side of the House or, hopefully, that

side of the House.

MR. ROSE : Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand why, on a matter of such importance — to cause a minister to resign —

the Premier would not inform the House not of the details of what

caused the minister to resign at this point, because of reasons the

Premier has already mentioned, but to show the House and the province

that there is a process for an inquiry as to whether or not the

minister is guilty of any conflict of interest, or whatever caused him

to resign.

I think that's in the public interest. The

public has a right to know, without knowing the details. We want to

know the process, the investigation and who's going to do it.

MR. SPEAKER :

Before proceeding with the Premier, I must ask the opposition House

Leader to recall the fact that we're in question period. This has to be

phrased in the manner of a question and not as a speech.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. Matters must be put forward as a question.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Mr. Speaker, the process assumes that it won't be done politically. I

can only accept that the former Minister of Social Services took the

action he did because he believed it to be parliamentary tradition. I

am sure that the former minister felt terribly uncomfortable, and I'm

saddened by the decision he had to make and decided to make.

Mr.

Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the opposition House Leader

that he and members on the other side are saddened by the decision. I

accept that, and I would hope that you will treat the matter with

dignity then and certainly allow the process to take its course.

Ministerial Statement

TSITIKA VALLEY TIMBER HARVESTING

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

I rise today to advise this House and all British Columbians of a

decision regarding timber harvesting in the Tsitika Valley, which is

located on the east coast of Vancouver Island between Port McNeill and

Campbell River.

Members of this House may be aware from

media coverage that proposed logging in the lower portion of the valley

has prompted concerns over impact on other resource values in that

area. Of particular concern are the killer whales which inhabit Robson

Bight and which are attracting increasing numbers of recreationists and

tourists. The whale behaviour at the rubbing beaches is the centre of

attraction.

The Forest Service considered those concerns as

part of its technical review of the harvesting plan. In addition, I

held a public meeting in Port McNeill to hear the views of the public

about the resources of the area and how they should be addressed in the

harvesting plan.

Five main themes emerged from those

meetings and from British Columbians who have written.

(1) There is

strong local support for continuation of logging under the terms of the

1978 cabinet-approved Tsitika watershed integrated resource plan.

(2) The Tsitika follow-up committee, established to ensure that integrated

management objectives of the plan are met, is well-respected and viewed

as performing an effective service.

(3) Road access into the lower

[ Page 9928 ]

Tsitika

could bring increased tourist pressure on the Robson Bight area with

possible impact on the whales and their habitat.

(4) The visual

landscape as viewed from the ocean could be impacted by logging

openings.

(5) If siltation occurs from the road construction and

logging in the lower reaches of the valley, it might impact on killer

whale habitat and the ecosystems of the ecological reserve in the

Tsitika estuary.

I am satisfied that provisions are now in

place to deal effectively with each of the concerns. I have therefore

given approval to continue logging in the lower Tsitika Valley under a

revised development plan and subject to a number of special

considerations.

(1) Logging will be deferred on a block

near Robson Bight ecological reserve until a public access study is

completed. Road construction to this block is also deferred.

(2) Harvesting will proceed on the other blocks located farther away from Robson Bight.

(3) Before harvesting will proceed on any area visible from the water, a

review of landscape options must be completed to ensure that the visual

impact is minimized.

(4) We will be requiring a sign and

gate near Catherine Creek and along the Naka Creek road to restrict

public access pending development of an access management plan. These

actions will give the recently formed federal-provincial Johnstone

Strait killer whale committee sufficient time to complete its study of

public impact on whales.

(5) The Tsitika follow-up

committee will be undertaking a study to address the level of situation

which may result from timber-harvesting activities.

The

Tsitika follow-up committee has recently been expanded to ensure

greater public representation from the tourism sector. The committee

now includes representatives of the Forest Service and other government

agencies, outdoor recreation and tourism groups, the forest industry,

the IWA and the public. The Tsitika follow-up committee will hold

public information sessions this October to review plans and get public

input. Meetings will be held in Port McNeill, Campbell River, Nanaimo,

Victoria and Vancouver.

Through these measures, I am

confident that integrated resource management of the Tsitika Valley

will continue to maintain a balanced response to the diverse public

interest in the area. Through the actions of the Tsitika follow-up

committee, we will remain attuned to the new issues and changing public

values.

MR. GABELMANN : First of all, I would just

like to say thank you to the minister for providing me with an advance

copy of the ministerial statement. It's much appreciated; it makes it

easier.

[2:30]

Secondly, I would like to say that if we logged in coastal British

Columbia as well and as effectively everywhere as we do in the Tsitika

Valley, we would have far fewer problems in this province. The process

established in the Tsitika has been a partially public process, and it

has been a good one. The logging that takes place in that watershed has

been effective and, in my view, environmentally friendly.

The

minister referred in his statement to the follow-up committee and its

expanded membership that took place some time ago. There is one glaring

omission from the membership of this particular committee, and that is

its representation from the native community. I would ask the minister

to pay serious attention to that and perhaps find a way to add local

native representation on the follow-up committee.

The other

issue relates to the general area below Catherine Creek, some of which

we think can be logged sensitively and environmentally appropriately.

In considering what is done below Catherine Creek and the areas that

are now deferred, I trust that serious consideration will be given to

expanding the current ecological reserve which is sitting at the mouth

of the river along the foreshore in front of the whale-rubbing beaches.

It may well be that an expanded ecological reserve would be a good

solution in that particular area.

In conclusion, I just

want to say that this process has been handled relatively well and I

appreciate the fact that the minister is now going to hold, through the

follow-up committee, additional meetings in various communities around

southern British Columbia. That is also a good move.

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

I have the honour to present a report from the former commissioner of

the Compensation Stabilization Act for the year 1989. This report

outlines outstanding compensation plans finalized after the publication

of the 1988 annual report.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND : I call second reading of Bill 23.

FIRST PEOPLES' HERITAGE,

LANGUAGE AND CULTURE ACT

HON. MR. WEISGERBER : I am pleased and proud to present Bill 23, First Peoples' Heritage, Language and Culture Act, for second reading debate.

The

purpose of this legislation is to establish a native advisory committee

and council to provide advice and to manage government and private

funding designed for the preservation and enhancement of native

heritage, language and culture in British Columbia. The legislation is

based on the principle that native people themselves should take the

leadership role in preserving their culture and languages but that

other sectors of society have a responsibility to share in the costs of

a cultural initiative that will benefit all British Columbians. The

goals of the initiative, as outlined in the

preamble to the

legislation, reflect the goals articulated by the original Native

Advisory Committee on Heritage, Language

[ Page 9929 ]

and Culture, which made its recommendations to government last fall.

Last

week I announced that over a five-year period the province would

contribute $10.7 million in support of those goals. The new advisory

committee outlined in this legislation will ensure that all major

tribal groups in the province have ongoing input into the initiative.

The nine-member council outlined in the legislation — the majority

of whose members will come from the new native advisory

committee —

will manage capital and operating funds of up to one-third of project

costs for the creation, maintenance and administration of native

cultural centres throughout the province. The remaining two-thirds of

the project funding will come from federal and private contributions,

as well as from bands and tribal councils. The council has been

established as a Crown agent to attract private donations which will be

eligible for federal tax credits for gifts to the Crown.

Sections

7 through 18 of the bill deal with the management and investment powers

of the council and with financial administration and accountability.

These sections also address the staffing and benefits for a small

secretariat to the council and advisory committee.

conclusion, Mr. Speaker, this legislation is an important step in

helping the first citizens of British Columbia ensure the survival of

their language and culture so that all people in the province may

benefit from that rich legacy.

MR. G. HANSON : I have two real thoughts at the moment. One is that I have to commend the minister for making a start —

seriously. This bill is a start. It's the first time that there has

been legislation in this province in this area. I have to give credit

where credit is due, that he is the minister who first brought this

into the House.

Now my other thought. As someone who, for

some period of time, has entertained the concept of trying to get this

province to do something, I would like to advise the House and you, Mr.

Speaker, about areas in which I think this is deficient. Not only is it

my role in opposition, but I firmly believe that this legislation falls

short in meeting the need and the crisis that exist and which you have

mentioned in your releases and so on.

Before I get into

that, I want to give a bit of background. British Columbia was occupied

and is occupied today by people who have rich cultures yet to be fully

realized, acknowledged and appreciated. They have governments yet to be

allowed to flourish in the way they did prior to European contact. The

history of contact with these rich nations or cultures — whatever you want to describe them as —

is not a happy bit of B.C. history; in fact, it's a very unhappy bit.

As MLAs acquaint themselves with it, as they read about it and know

about it firsthand.... Any minister, of whatever party, travelling and

meeting aboriginal people knows firsthand that the history of European

and Asian contact with the indigenous peoples of this province is

unhappy. It is yet a body of unfinished business that is going to be

dealt with over time — faster with certain political orientations and political wills than with others.

any event, we had approximately 28 distinct and diverse languages, some

Mandarin. They had their own world view, their own religion, their own

kinship, their own way of describing who they are, what they are, what

their value system is, what their government is and what their economy

is. And all of a sudden they were confronted with people who floated up

on the shore in boats, with technology they had never seen, diseases

they had never anticipated and forces they had never believed possible.

The

aboriginal people have always been a generous, welcoming and sharing

people. They had their own conflicts, as all societies do. But the

impact was to devastate their population with disease and to try and

impose, through governmental or church institutions, to try and force

them.... Really the underpinning was that they were viewed as

primitive, as children, as people whose culture and language had to be

suppressed. They had to be assimilated.

We know that they are proud people, committed to the retention of their culture

and language. Even until 1950, in reading a document put together by Robert

Levine and Freda Cooper, who are linguists.... Robert Levine is presently at

the University of B.C. He wrote a paper called "The Suppression of B.C.

Languages," and he interviewed people. I'm not going to mention their

names, because some of them are actually known to the legislators in this House.

I want to read you a short account — up until 1950 —

of the school experience of someone who has made major contributions to

our province in art and international diplomacy. He was interviewed by

the linguist Mr. Levine, and he said to this person: "Was there any

particular person who told you that you may not use your language?"

Again, I am talking about 1950; not 1850. He said: "No, no. I can't

remember anybody coming up to say that, but they seemed to be quite

disturbed when we used some of the language, bits of the language that

we may have picked up in our homes."

Mr. Levine: "At the time you were going to school, did this disturb you?"

He said: "Yeah. For the simple reason of boys 9, 10 and 11 years old being

punished, being in a sort of a push-up position for 20 minutes, an hour - that

kind of punishment."

Mr. Levine: "This was the type of punishment you had to endure?"

"Yes. As I said, there weren't many boys that I can remember who could

speak our language, but that's what disturbed me — the punishments. The

language wasn't spoken fluently; there would be one word used, but still

we got a cuff on the ear for it."

"Did

you tend to use the words or phrases less than you might have, or did

you go ahead and use them anyway?" "Well, we tended to stay away from

using it, because you know there were, say, 50 to 60 boys in the

school" — and this is a residential school,

[ Page 9930 ]

Mr. Speaker —

"junior and intermediate boys between the ages of six, 12 and 13, and

there were some boys who listened just for other boys to speak their

language, and if they were told on, boys were afraid of using just the

little that they knew."

Mr. Levine: "The boys who reported you — did they have any special reason

for doing it?" "No. I guess it was a kind of fear. Sometimes when

one boy was punished for having done something — it may not have been for speaking

or using words in our language — we were punished as a whole. Sixty boys were

sent to bed, or 40 boys were given two straps on each side, so there was a greater

amount of fear instilled. Sixty boys got to line up for one little fellow getting

wet walking up the river or something; 60 boys were given a whack each."

This

report is an account of the way the languages were suppressed by

government and by churches and so on. What we're seeing today is a step

to try and redress that. As I said in my opening remarks, the bill

falls short. It falls short because in the public financing of language

and education in our province.... In our colleges and schools,

languages are financed out of general revenue in educational budgets.

Portuguese, Spanish: languages of Europe and Asia are in our school

curriculum — fully funded, fully financed and fully supported.

[2:45]

If there is a crisis of aboriginal languages in British Columbia, as

the minister and I know there is.... When the average age of

speakership is over 60 years of age — say for straight Salish,

Bella Coola, Okanagan, Squamish, Masset Haida, just to name a

few — and

where, according to 1976 figures, the number of Haida speakers aged 50

to 60 years, including Skidegate and Masset Haida, was 100 to 150....

That number was reduced 14 years later. Sechelt, according to 1976

figures — 30 speakers, 50 to 60 years of age.

Interior languages are in much better condition: Chilcotin, Carrier, Babine — even

the Kwakwala language of the central coast, where they didn't

experience quite the same developmental pressure that the coast Salish

in the Vancouver or Victoria area have experienced.

objection to this bill is as follows: the province is putting up

one-third of the financing and asking others to match in. In the $10.7

million over five years, I'm not clear how much of that is new. Is it

absolutely all new money?

If it's all new money, I don't

think we should be wasting time seeking corporate or federal support to

try to save languages on the verge of extinction — on the basis of

corporate donations. The crisis exists, as we understand it. The

province should move in. Certainly if foundations, corporations,

interested parties or the federal government wish to commit themselves

to financially support the indigenous people and their culture and

language — as I think they should — all well and good.

objection is that the province has an obligation to the first citizens

of this province to afford them an opportunity to learn their own

languages, to develop the curriculum, to have control of their

languages, to introduce their languages in schools, colleges and

universities for native and non-native usage and to develop the kind of

programming that we see in Alaska and that we see developing in the

Yukon in the aboriginal indigenous language institute.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

The

Alaska experience is the model upon which I based the legislation that

I introduced in this House eight times in ten years. A fundamental

concern is control, and that the cabinet appoints these committees

based on the tribal council recommendations. It's essential that the

aboriginal people have control of their own language, what is salvaged,

what curriculum is developed, the programming and so on.

But

my fundamental concern.... And it seems so unfortunate, because given

the size of the provincial budget, the education budget and the funds

allocated for European languages, Asian languages and so on, surely to

goodness the first nations of this province could have primary support.

I don't want anything to impede the progress of getting to the salvage

work and the curriculum development work that is necessary.

One

doesn't have to be a minister or a critic to know that the elders are

continuously passing away. In other jurisdictions — and I've raised this in the House before — people

with the knowledge and the fluency of a language which exists nowhere

else in the world, like the Ainu, the indigenous people of the northern

Japanese islands, are regarded as national treasures. They are human

beings who are designated as treasures.

As you travel

through the first nations of British Columbia, you know that there are

elders in the communities along the west coast, in the interior and in

the north of this province who are revered to the point that they are

treasures in their own community. They are regarded as treasures of

their own people. When you go to one of their funerals, Mr. Speaker,

you know and see the reverence, the esteem and the regard those people

have for elders who understand who they are.

I've seen

native posters for language conferences that said: "Let our children

learn our languages so that our elders can tell us who we are." That is

the kind of thing that needs to be done. A youngster's language is

transmitted generation by generation. Because the indigenous people did

not have a written language, they had an oral tradition. Their

knowledge, their world, their cosmology, their values and their beliefs

were transmitted from grandmother to grandchild, from father to son,

etc.

The

fact of the matter is that even though this is the first time that a

bill of this nature has been introduced — to establish a committee

to find resources to save the languages — the

fundamental obligation of the province is ignored. Our primary

responsibility, because education is a provincial responsibility, is to

see that the first citizens are

[ Page 9931 ]

citizens-plus,

that they have a right to have their elders transmit their languages to

children and to have linguists trained within the nation, the culture,

the tribal group, the cultural unit to develop their language programs,

as is occurring in some places. But it's never had the full support and

embrace of the province, the full endorsement of the province, in the

way other language programs have.

I've seen, at the

University of Victoria, language programs of various languages in the

province come and go, because they were tacked on to some other

professor's responsibilities or some other linguist's responsibilities.

The money dried up. The language program collapsed, and that was it.

Mr.

Speaker, the biggest Indian band in the province of British Columbia is

the Cowichan Indian band in the Duncan area. Those Cowichan people

should have the right to learn Cowichan in early elementary school, in

pre-school, in day care, in child care, in college, in UVic, and so on.

They have a right.

One of the great accomplishments of

Eileen Dailly, former member of this House, was to grant a school

district for control of the Nass Valley for the Nisga'a people. That is

a success story. That is something that turned the corner for those

They do better in school. They're more confident. They know who they

are: they're Nisga'a.

In New Zealand the Maori people

started what they call "language nest," where children are nannied and

preschooled by Maori elders fluent in the language, even though the

parents of those children can't speak Maori. They lost it in the same

way the native people lost it here: through suppression in the

churches, by government, by policy, and so on. It's one of the great

injustices of our time.

Maori

is an official language in

New Zealand. The circumstances there are a bit different because Maori

is the language of all of the tribes of New Zealand. There are dialect

differences. But again, the population of New Zealand — of whites,

Asians, Europeans and Maori — is only as large as the population

of British Columbia.

But

that little country is leading the way. They are giving the opportunity

to Maori children to learn their language. They have an official

language commissioner in Maori languages. Those children who come

through the "language nest" go into elementary school.

The

statistics before were the same as they are here, with drop-out rate

and indifference because of learning in another language and another

culture. Those children that experienced Maori in the "language nest"

went on to the Maori school and learned all of the modern things in

Maori.

When they went on to high school and college, they did superior work because

they knew who they were. They knew they were Maori people. They were proud to

be Maori. They knew their culture. They knew who they were, and they did well

lawyers and scientists in New Zealand who are Maori, there's a tremendous

number.

There's

an emerging generation of indigenous people here; talented bright

people at the University of Victoria, at the University of British

Columbia, in law school, in the sciences. They're relatively few, but

there's an exploding desire for knowledge, for leadership, to provide

back into their own communities.

What I'm saying is that we

cannot lose another day. We want to get on with this. We can't sit and

wait while the committee struggles with corporations, the private

sector and federal bureaucrats to try and find money to match up with

the province's money to do what is required.

The crisis is

so great. Several languages are already extinct. They exist nowhere

else on this planet. It's not like a Portuguese person who goes to

school in East Vancouver, Vic west, James Bay or here in Victoria, and

knows that his grandparents or his great-grandparents live in Lisbon.

He can go to Portugal, and he knows his language is there, alive and

well.

Masset Haida exists on the Queen Charlottes, and a

little bit on the Alaska panhandle. A few people who speak it are

scattered in B.C. and some in Vancouver. But the number of elders who

are fluent and capable of transmitting Masset Haida to their

children — you can count them on your fingers. That alone should

illustrate the fact that the crisis demands action. It demands putting

money up front, on the table, and going for the foundations and

corporations, and asking them: "Would you like to participate in

something really worthwhile, something really valuable for the world

community?"

As our planet gets smaller, these cultures and

languages become global treasures. They are of interest to people

around the world, and not just to academics, not just to linguists and

anthropologists. The indigenous people of the world are in a

renaissance. Everywhere in the world they are saying that they got run

over by colonial steamrollers, whether they were German, British,

French, Belgian or whatever. "We are discovering who we are. We're

finding it's quite wonderful. We're finding out that we are valuable,

important people, and that our languages can adapt to current

circumstances."

[3:00]

There are people who used to think that Indian languages were

outmoded languages that referred to something off in the past. There

isn't a part of a fishing boat that doesn't have an Indian name —

Salish name if it's in Salish territory. There isn't a part of a

computer that can't be.... These are totally modern languages which are

totally adapted to any modern high-tech science— physics, mathematics or whatever.

asked in the bill that I proposed that other things be done, beyond a

committee. I asked that the institute.... I'm not talking about one

particular place. It could be in 28 places; it could be in seven

places. It was up to the council of aboriginal people — a board of majority control.

[ Page 9932 ]

should have its primary object the maintenance and revitalization of

the aboriginal languages of British Columbia, an object that will be

pursued through classroom-oriented studies of aboriginal languages,

based on the study of literacy materials, including written alphabets,

programmed language lessons, dictionaries and bodies of texts for

reading, and the development and dissemination of literature written in

the aboriginal languages of British Columbia.

The institute

should ensure that all material developed under these programs is made

available to any interested individuals or groups upon request to

assist in the training of British Columbia aboriginal language

speakers to work as teachers and aides in bilingual classrooms. The

institute would also engage in other linguistic work for the benefit of

native communities in British Columbia, such as the translation of

important documents.

It is, however, emphasized that the

institute's primary objective as stated above takes priority over all

other goals, including those of academically oriented institutes. Of

course, the ability to hire staff.... The central feature was to have

aboriginal control. The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. in consultation

with the native people of B.C. would appoint directors, the majority of

whom would be native people, one of whom to be designated as

chairperson.

Even this bill that I introduced could have

included such things as interaction with word-processing, with

computers, with tapes, with audiovisual, using the highest-tech tools

that could assist children to sit in front of a.... I recently heard of

a program where you could have an eagle come on a screen, and then

there would be the sound of the word, the phonetic translation. Through

the use of various linguistic tools and so on, the child could interact

with the computer to learn a vocabulary. That sort of thing certainly

could be done. It does not really cost a lot of money.

Also there are linguists around —

maybe I shouldn't mention names.... There are elders who are well

qualified. All they really need is some travelling money, their tape

recorder and the ability to go and sit in Tofino for a week or a month

and work with elders and children, to show elders how to transcribe

their own language or get a young student able to sit down with the

tape recorder, learning how to hear the sounds, how to make the

transcriptions, how to document the place-names, the plants, the

systems of kinship, government and law, and so on.

It is a

big job, and time has been wasted. Since this building was built, a lot

of time has been wasted. A lot of bad decisions have been made by

governments and by churches; and they are trying to make up, to catch

up, because they understand what terrible mistakes they made.

I'd like to ask the minister to consider amendments at committee stage

to change the funding of this, to put the primary responsibility on the province,

with the added ability of the province to establish a system and the legal framework

to take funds from interested groups and donors — foundations, philanthropists,

whatever — globally; to help, but not to impede the need to get on with this

job, by looking for matching money — one-third from the province, two-thirds

from Armor All or somebody. It doesn't seem fair; it doesn't seem right.

Let's give them the same funding, support, recognition and esteem that we

give other languages, other cultures and other people.

There was a tremendous little

article in Saturday Review

on the Seabird people up in the Fraser Valley and what they're trying

to do with their language, and what they're trying to do at the

Tsartlip School in Saanich and at Alkali Lake. But it's hard when you

have a small population base that has lots of other priority problems

and things to deal with. Mr. Speaker, the indigenous people understand

the importance of their language in preserving their culture, their

identity and so on. But their language and culture are also linked to

the land and to an economic base that they don't have. They're talking

about trying to have a future where not only would their language

flourish, be respected and be understood within their own communities,

but they would also be able to communicate within their own territory

and have some sense of belonging.

When aboriginal people are confronted with the pressures that confront them —

the concerns about their children, their mortality rate, their life

expectancy, their suicide rate, the disease and the problems they

experience — they all hinge on the fact that they don't have an

economic base. They don't have a future that is clearly defined and

that they — and we — know about. And they want to share in this province.

think I and the minister know that the people of British Columbia would

have greater satisfaction in having more understanding of British

Columbia from an aboriginal perspective and more understanding what

this province.... That minister is from the northeast. He knows the

people in the Treaty 8 area: the Slave, the Beaver, the Sekani, the

Kaska.... If the local non-native community had a greater understanding

of those cultures and of how they saw British Columbia prior to its

being "British Columbia," and of the resources, the plants, the

animals, the way they looked at place names, their kinship, how they

adapted to the environment, their economy, how they related to adjacent

cultures and languages....

Those communities in the North and South Peace, those non-native people —

their whole perception of British Columbia would change. Their whole

perception of British Columbia would be richer, because they would have

both. They would have the contact perspective, which is new British

Columbia — brand new, just arrived when granddad got here —

and then they would have the perspective of people who had been here

for thousands and thousands of years. Wouldn't it be odd if a Haida

person, as they often joke, took a trip to London, walked up to the

east London docks and kind of discovered London, and put up a

totem-pole and declared their sovereignty over the place?

[ Page 9933 ]

Mr.

Speaker, we've got a lot of catch-up to do. We have to build a new

relationship with indigenous people, a new partnership. It's got to be

based on fairness; it's got to be based on recognition of their

aboriginal title. We have to sit down with them and talk about how we

proceed and how we share in the province in the future. They want to

share with us. They want to see a future for their children. They don't

want to see our children or their children in the courts in Vancouver,

Smithers or Ottawa 25 years from now talking about whether they existed

or whether they were here or whether they were a distinct culture or

whether they had any rights. We know, since '73, that they do have

rights, and we're going to find out pretty soon on the Sparrow case

that they've got plenty of rights. We're going to find out from the

appeals and so on through the courts about some unfinished business in

this country, and particularly in this province, that has to be

addressed. It won't go away.

Mr. Speaker, there are now 27

or so cultures in this province that have their language, culture,

aspirations and desires, and they don't have time to hustle money to

protect their language. They don't have money to go from boardroom to

boardroom. Manny Jules is a busy person. He's a capable person. He

doesn't have the time to go from boardroom to boardroom to ask for

money to help save the Shuswap language. Neither do Bill Wilson, George

Watts or Ed John — a list as long as your arm. They don't have the

time to go to the boardrooms or wander around the corridors of Ottawa

to try and find money to support this institute. This institute should

be something that this Legislature does on behalf of British Columbians

to support indigenous people. But they're busy.

On the one

hand I have applauded the minister for doing something that has not

been done before. It is a start. But it could have been a big start. I

don't know whether you just don't have the votes in the cabinet,

whether there is just not enough support around that table to just do

it. I don't know why.

When you look at this paper, you see

the faces of these kids. They want to know about their culture. They

can only do it through their language, and they can only do it by

having the opportunity to sit down with their elders and learn.

[3:15]

ask the minister to reconsider the funding portion of the bill. We're

going to support it in second reading, but I ask him to reconsider the

one-third sharing commitment, to go back to his caucus, to say to the

minister from Kamloops who occupies that seat.... That member knows

that Chief Manny Jules of the Kamloops band hasn't got time to chase

money for this bill. But Manny Jules has a commitment. I just use him

symbolically as someone who I know made a contribution to that

committee, a person who would be on that committee no matter what party

was in power in this House. Say to that Attorney-General (Hon. Mr.

Smith) or to your colleagues around the table: "Look, after hearing

what was said, the words said in this Legislature on second reading,

let us give this institute the financial equivalent of a couple of

kilometres of highway construction. Let us give that money up front.

Let us put that money in there and start the salvage program right now."

see that that minister is not in his place, but he's in this House. He

knows that Manny Jules is an important, busy native leader. But the

bill that we are debating provides for one-third funding to save

languages, to save the Kamloops language, and two thirds is off in

never-never land in Ottawa or off in some boardroom. I am asking the

Attorney-General, who is about to take his seat, to support his

colleague and change the funding in this bill to 100 percent, just the

same as Italian, Cantonese, Mandarin, Portuguese, Spanish, Russian,

of British Columbia — status, non-status, Metis — is 188,000.

If you had 188,000 Albanians in east Vancouver, they would have

language programs at the school. Why can't they have it? Why can't the

Cowichan, the Straits Salish, and the Kwawkewlth people — the Kwakwala language —

have the same provincial support that Albanians living in east

Vancouver would have if they had 188,000? Mr. Speaker, I know you

support me on this.

I think I've said what I was going to

say. I'm hoping the minister will reconsider, and I'm hoping that his

colleagues.... I see he's talking to the Minister of Transportation and

Highways (Hon. Mrs. Johnston). I think the equivalent of one gravel pit

in this province would provide all the funds necessary for the

revitalization of the indigenous languages from the coast Tlingit on

the Yukon border down to the Kootenay, way over to the Slave and Beaver

in the minister's area, and right down to the people on the southern

tip of Vancouver Island who speak Klallum, Straits Salish, Saanich and

so on. Mr. Speaker, it's not a lot of money. We passed an interim

supply bill here that would choke a horse — that huge multibillion

dollar thing we did. Here we have $10.7 million over five years,

two-thirds to be matched against the provincial money. I ask for

reconsideration and thank the House for the time.

MR. SERWA :

I am exceedingly pleased to speak on second reading of Bill 23,

entitled the First Peoples' Heritage, Language and Culture Act. I'm

pleased to rise to speak in support of the philosophy and principles of

this bill.

In the course of my speech, I will try to set

the record straight on a number of issues that the first member for

Victoria (Mr. G. Hanson), who I know is very committed to the concept

of native languages.... But I will say this, that through the course of

this presentation and having worked very closely with the group that

made the report, the Native Advisory Committee on Heritage, Language

and Culture.... I had the honour to chair that particular committee,

Mr. Speaker. There are a number of things that have been said that the

committee has covered and covered in their way with a great deal of

sensitivity and pride.

[ Page 9934 ]

The

purpose of the committee and the purpose of this legislation goes far

beyond simply the establishment of the opportunity to preserve and

protect native languages. Specifically, it does state: "...preserve and

enhance native heritage, language and culture in British Columbia." As

I go through a summation of the committee report, you will find that

all aspects — heritage, language and culture in the native

community — are integral to each other; they are not separable.

British

Columbia, when you look at the native community, is very diverse. We

have probably 27 to 30 different languages. In fact, of the 11 families

of native languages that exist in Canada today, seven are unique to

British Columbia. Two are also shared by the northeastern corner of

British Columbia with the rest of Canada. So of the 11 families of

native languages, we have nine of them in British Columbia itself.

The

ruggedness and nature of the topography of the land of this beautiful

province created the barriers which enabled the development of such a

variety of diverse cultures. At the time of initial contact,

approximately one-third of Canada's native population resided in

British Columbia. So it has a very rich cultural history.

Basically,

history is a lesson to learn from. If we had the opportunity to do it

again with the lessons we've learned from history, there is no doubt in

my mind that things would be done differently. But if we dwell on the

"ifs" - and I heard the first member for Victoria state a number of

situations— no change is possible; it's an impossibility and a futile

approach. This is a very important issue, and I think that what we're

focusing on — and what the minister is focusing on in the

presentation of this bill — is now and next time. Those are the

important things.

Certainly we'll....

MR. G. JANSSEN : Give it more money.

MR. SERWA : Hon. member, I'll discuss the funding from the status of the advisory committee which — for the member's knowledge —

was made up of native elders throughout British Columbia and native

professionals, including Chief Manny Jules of the Kamloops band.

The

first member for Victoria stated that the province has a

responsibility, and it is very clear that the province has a serious

commitment and recognizes that responsibility. In the throne speech of

1987 the Premier announced a commitment to establish the native

heritage centres, in cooperation with the native community and the

private sector, to reflect and preserve the culture and language of the

first peoples of this province. That was the beginning of the

committee, and certainly that type of commitment was carried on to the

advisory committee and drove the direction of our work.

The

native people, though, do not want to lose control. They do not want to

lose their responsibility for preserving their language, culture and

heritage. That was made abundantly clear in all the centres and all the

areas where we talked to native people throughout the province.

Some

two years ago I attended the Aboriginal Languages 2000 conference in

North Vancouver. I met and spoke with a large number of individuals

there. The first member for Victoria was also at that meeting. The

sense of pride of those individuals was very clear to me — and not

simply coming from elders. It wasn't simply a conference monopolized by

elders in the native community; there was a great diversity of ages

there. But there was a very strong enthusiasm by all of those people,

and a strong and sincere wish to continue to preserve, protect and

enhance the profile of their own native languages from within the

community.

Yes, they would like assistance from the

province, and I believe this is the province's step in the right

direction. This is a milestone in legislation. I believe that this

proposed legislation exceeds the realistic expectations that we could

have achieved, and I am very pleased that it has been tabled.

The

mandate and terms of reference of this committee were relatively broad,

but the committee viewed its mandate as a positive step towards the

urgent need to support traditional native culture in British Columbia.

It was made very clear — and the members of that committee would like me to stress this —

that they do not view this initiative as a substitute for the need to

address native culture, heritage and language as part of the native

land claim issue. That should mitigate some of the concerns of the

first member for Victoria.

The committee determined that in

order to accurately reflect the goals of British Columbia's first

citizens, their heritage, culture and language must be viewed from the

broadest perspective possible and, as I said earlier, as entirely

inseparable. Language is the soul of any culture and the primary means

by which culture is accumulated, shared and passed on from generation

to generation.

The native language was oral. The spoken

word was the tradition of communication. It is clear that unless the

young people can understand the language, it is not possible for the

elders to tell them who they are. And it is very necessary to know who

you are in order to have the pride in this very proud and gentle

people. They must know who they are.

The advisory committee

did not presume to speak for all native people in the province, but it

feels confident in stating that the major and ongoing loss of native

languages has profound implications for all first citizens and their

sense of wholeness, heritage and community. This loss is shared by all

British Columbians.

The crucial role played by culture in

the demise or recovery and stabilization of individuals and communities

has been demonstrated throughout time and is indisputable. Return to

culture for native people brings with it feelings of self-worth derived

from a knowledge that the strengths and virtues of Canada's first

peoples are very worthy of that deep sense of pride and the recognition

in that.

[3:30]

[ Page 9935 ]

spoke two years ago at the Stein Valley festival, and had the

opportunity to take a helicopter ride with Chief Ruby Dunstan and a

young drummer to the very peaks of the mountains above the Stein, to

the headwaters above the glaciers and above the glacier lakes. It was

there that I recognized the tremendous force of native culture on

native people. In the holistic sense — and it is a holistic culture — the spiritual plays a very great part.

In the Stein Valley, for example, they've established areas where young people — young people from Vancouver —

can go and find out who they are, re-establish their ties and bonds and

understand for perhaps the first time the elements of their heritage.

It transforms those young people.

We've had a tremendous

migration from remote areas of the province to areas such as Vancouver.

At the present time, fully half of the native population in British

Columbia is in Vancouver.

Heritage, language and culture

are inseparable. Language provides the most tangible means of

addressing the whole. The committee felt very strongly that its

recommendations were designed to preserve and uphold the entire native

culture. The desired goals of the committee were, firstly, to preserve

and enhance native language and culture values for the native

community; and secondly, to extend the understanding and sharing of

knowledge of the native community to the non-native community. The

third goal of the initiative to establish these centres was to heighten

the appreciation and acceptance of the wealth of cultural diversity

among all British Columbians.

The committee met many times

over the period of eight months that was necessary to put these

recommendations forward. They met in various areas of the province: in

the far north, in the coastal areas and at Alert Bay. We met at the

K'san native cultural centre near Hazelton. We were at the Shuswap

cultural centre in Kamloops and the U'Mista in Alert Bay. Members of

the committee went as far as Woodlands cultural centre in Ontario.

There

were many challenges. Certainly the committee recognized the importance

that equitable access to these centres and to this initiative must

transpire throughout the province. Representation on the committee that

would be set up had to be representative of all seven major linguistic

groups.

The committee was prudent in recommending the use

of existing resources wherever possible and the identification of key

target groups. It is very interesting that words such as "culture" and

"cultural" have dramatically different meanings to the native

community. Culture, to the native community, can be best described as

the way we would perhaps use the word "environment" — and culture is everything around us.

The committee felt that in viewing the challenge as broadly as possible, we

would be able to meet the goal of perpetuating, revitalizing and protecting

all aspects of native culture in British Columbia. They were very emphatic that

any and all centres recognized under this initiative must be native-owned and

native-operated.

Ongoing

core funding for operating costs, commensurate with high-quality

programs, must be available. There was a considerable commitment on the

part of the native communities we were at to share in that particular

funding. As a matter of fact, one of the points that was brought

forward in the recommendation was that there was a desire for

diverse sources of funding, to ensure that we didn't just depend on one

source, since if that dried up, all of the recommendations and good

things that were possible would be defeated. So the native people were

well aware that they would make a contribution to the cost of the

operation of the centre or centres, and that the corporate sector could

also be utilized to contribute to the centre or centres throughout

British Columbia — as well as provincial and federal commitments and contributions.

The

committee was well aware and understood that funds were needed urgently

to ensure the survival of British Columbia's aboriginal languages. As

the first member for Victoria (Mr. G. Hanson) said, many are perilously

close to extinction. There are some languages which are really at risk,

and work is needed immediately. That was certainly a very strong

recommendation of the committee.

The committee recommended

that enabling legislation be brought forward, and what we're seeing

here today, of course, is that legislation. It was felt that it was

exceedingly important, as any other form of initiative would be

precarious in its nature. This legislation, Bill 23, provides formal

recognition and continuity for long-term support in this venture.

The

committee felt that there should be a minimum of 27 native cultural

centres throughout the province. Depending on the geographic area that

a specific people has occupied, there may be a requirement for more.

A permanent native heritage centres board — and this legislation establishes that —

was necessary to oversee the implementation of these centres and to

highlight and bring focus to the work of the centres throughout the

province. There were recommendations put forward for the makeup of that

board and to ensure that the native community would be very strongly

represented on the board. Recommendations to establish an advisory body

were made, to facilitate communication between all of the various

boards of the native cultural centres throughout the province.

The

mandate of the centres, the committee felt, should cover all of these

areas: research in aboriginal languages and the development of native

language curriculum and materials.

I might say that a

number of centres are already up and running in the province of British

Columbia. One that we had visited.... I know there are many others in

the lower mainland, but exceptional is the work that the Shuswap people

are doing in Kamloops. They've written several books, and they have

their own printing facilities. They have done a great deal of work in

this area.

[ Page 9936 ]

Another

area that goes beyond the scope of the private member's bill that the

first member for Victoria has presented over the years was the

recognition of the necessity for preserving key ceremonial objects. At

the U'Mista centre at Alert Bay, I had the pleasure of looking at a

video. It showed native-owned fishing vessels coming into Alert Bay for

the official opening of the centre. It also showed key ceremonial items

that had been seized some time ago being given back to the people

there, and the tears of joy streaming down the faces of many of the

people. These ceremonial objects had been taken when the potlatch

ceremonies were illegal. That returned a very important part of the

cultural heritage and legacy to the people.

The promotion

of quality arts and crafts development seemed very important, along

with the preservation and promotion of native history and traditional

values through educational material.

The native people are

very aware, Mr. Speaker, of the need of the individual bands to utilize

native language to a much greater degree. It is not something that can

be imposed on the people; it's something that has to come from within.

It's recognized that the drivers have to be from within the bands, from

the native people themselves.

There's no question that on

band business, at council meetings, at special events such as field

days, the specific native language should be utilized. They recognize

that they've got a lot of work to do in that area. It has to become

more of a working language to ensure its retention and widespread use,

especially among the young people.

Each community centre

has to operate at the community level. As I said earlier, it was

clearly understood that these centres have to be native-owned and

-operated centres, utilizing existing facilities as much as possible.

The

commitment for capital and ongoing operational expenses, as I have

said, is exceedingly important. The recommendation was for funding

comparable to that for existing provincial cultural institutions.

That's a commitment they respectfully requested the province of British

Columbia to make.

They also said, specifically, that

supplementary funding should come from the other sources that I've

already mentioned: the federal government, private corporations,

foundations and native organizations. Those were the recommendations of

the advisory committee.

There's no question that a broad

and diverse funding base is required and is critical to the success of

this initiative. With that financial support from those various

sources, we will have a stable, ongoing initiative that is independent

of a single funding source drying up. There's no question that the

commitment has to be firm and ongoing. Like the matters concerning the

environment, the time is now. We do not have a great deal of time, so

I'm exceedingly pleased that this legislation has been brought forward

at this particular moment in time.

Mr. Speaker, I have gone

on for quite a while, and think there are other individuals who would

like to speak on the philosophy and principles of this very important

bill, which is a real milestone and a very positive step for the

government of British Columbia.

The committee unanimously

agrees that the British Columbia government's commitment to establish a

means of preserving and upholding native culture is both timely and

deeply meaningful. The committee members are unanimous in the view that

the resolution of the underlying issues of aboriginal land claims and

the constitutional entrenchment of Indian peoples' rights is paramount

in the preservation of Indian culture.

The committee

welcomes this initiative as an opportunity for native people to

preserve and demonstrate cultural values and traditions and thereby

continue to participate with pride and dignity within native

communities in the larger society. The advisory committee is confident

that implementation of its recommendations will lead to a meaningful,

well-designed initiative of which all British Columbians can be proud.

Mr.

Speaker, I am very pleased to have spoken on this very important piece

of legislation. I'm very proud to have worked with an outstanding group

of native people — native elders and professionals — and to

have been given the opportunity for a profound insight into the

challenges of a people who are suffering under the cultural shock of a

dominant civilization encroaching upon theirs. There's no question that

the government of the province of British Columbia recognizes that fact

and is striving to make the necessary accommodation — through this

initiative and also through Ministry of Education initiatives — to

encourage the retention, preservation and protection of native

languages.

DEPUTY SPEAKER :

Just before we continue with second reading on Bill 23, the member for

Surrey-White Rock-Cloverdale (Mr. Reid) seeks leave to make an

introduction. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. REID :

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity. I have a group of 90

students from George Greenaway Elementary School in Cloverdale in the

precincts. They have been in and out. Because of the size of the group,

they've been in on different debates. On behalf of my colleague the

member for Surrey-Newton (Hon. Mrs. Johnston), who has some of these

constituents in her riding, and on behalf of my riding, I welcome

Gordon McCallum and the 90 students from George Greenaway Elementary

School to the precincts today.

[3:45]

MR. BARNES :

Mr. Speaker, I first want to congratulate the minister. It's very clear

from the comments made so far by the members that this is a time of

celebration in the Legislature.

This bill is a culmination

of some pretty dedicated and determined effort on behalf of the critic

on this side of the House, the first member for Victoria (Mr.

[ Page 9937 ]

Hanson). As long as I can remember, he has been striving to draw

attention to the erosion of the native culture, their languages, their

communities and their status in society. He has done this without fail

for so long and with such commitment, passion and concern, and I'm sure

those of us who were fortunate enough to hear his remarks were

considerably enlightened with respect to the issues associated with

this bill.

Regrettably, I can't speak with such authority

as the member. I say that with sincerity, because I think that I should

be able to speak with at least a pretty impressive amount of knowledge

about this issue and these concerns. It reveals a lack of priority in

the order of things in the business that takes place in this

Legislature and in our communities.

Clearly, serious

injustices have been done with respect to recognizing aboriginal

cultures, the people and the need for taking their rightful place in

society. I suppose we learn by our mistakes, and this is a reflection

on what can happen when there is determination and commitment, because

we have reached a stage that, quite frankly, I didn't think we would

see in my tenure in the House. This bill is indeed a first step, as our

critic stated, but it's only a first step.

I'm not going to

get into the details of the funding, except to say that this program

could still be at risk. If it turns out that one-third is about all

that is going to be raised — if there isn't a proper response from

the community, if the feds don't participate as they should, and there

just isn't the ability to raise the 100 percent of the dollars that's

required to make these institutions really effective and

successful — I have some misgivings about the financial

arrangement that the government has set up and about the ability of

these various societies to manage.

The

other thing I wanted to say — to, I think, put things in

perspective —

is that right now we're talking about the evolution of our national

constitution and the kinds of amendments needed to bring Quebec into

Confederation. In fact, this House passed the Meech Lake accord just a

year ago, and the one member who was a native, the MLA for Atlin (Mr.

Guno), was quite outspoken with respect to the failure of that document

to address native concerns. Here we are — and it's most

interesting at this point in time — debating a bill which

addresses native concerns, although they aren't being addressed in that

particular accord.

think the time has come for us to realize that we can't overcome our

history unless we learn something from it. The past mistakes are going

to have to be addressed. We've done this in many ways: in trying to

recognize redress with respect to the mistreatment, abuse and

discrimination that Japanese Canadians experienced during the Second

World War; in our recent presentation of a plaque to recognize the

failure of this province and government to be humanitarian in 1914,

when Indo-Canadians were stranded on the Komagata Maru

for a couple of months; and I'm sure we will also be dealing with the

injustices that Chinese Canadians experienced in our early history with

the head tax.

But we're learning. We're realizing that we

have to correct the past. We have to build this nation on a sound base.

I'm encouraged, and I want to say that I'm sure this first step will

teach us that we have to do even more. We certainly are going to have

to teach what is necessary in order for people to coexist. It's

certainly not going to be good enough to simply talk about our

multicultural society and our diversity and to do piecemeal projects

that do not have a comprehensive, all-encompassing approach with

respect to the population's understanding of its responsibilities and

duties in order to coexist as a whole community.

It is with

these sentiments that I took my place, simply to say that I'm glad that

I was here today to listen and to hear the comments by members on both

sides of the House with respect to this matter. I believe it is a very

important first step. Clearly we've been very negligent with respect to

the native population. We should certainly try and address those

concerns with the same amount of diligence that we do any other list of

priorities we have in this Legislature, because there are many examples

of the consequences of this neglect and this failure to recognize the

needs of the native population.

Certainly in my

constituency there are some difficulties that can only be addressed by

enlightenment and understanding. I'm sure the Attorney-General (Hon.

Mr. Smith) has had these experiences as well. There are problems

because the established institutions that we have with respect to

street people and communications and values in the community do not

always apply to many of the native people who come to the big city and

have difficulty adjusting and integrating — being able to function

with values that conflict with those they are used to. In fact, there

have been some suggestions that what should happen is that native

people should have different services available to them in their

language, in their culture, with different approaches to solving their

adjustment requirements.

But

these are the kinds of things

where the experts can get into the details. I think that for many of us

some of these details are going to be beyond our ability to

grasp —

certainly to any great extent. Fundamentally we have to recognize our

responsibilities, and that's what I like about what we're doing here

today. We're recognizing the responsibility; we're recognizing the

neglect. This is a first step, but I hope that in the spirit of this

initiative, we will recognize that it is a very, very thin wedge in

terms of what really has to happen in order to fully recognize the

responsibilities to native people — the first peoples — who

in the past, it seems, have been the last ones to be considered.

HON. MR. SMITH :

I'm indeed privileged to be able to rise in this chamber today and

speak briefly in favour of Bill 23. In doing so, I want to say that

many have spoken on and about this issue for the last 20 years, and

maybe more, in this province. But as many have spoken during that

period of time, it has been this Minister of Native Affairs who has

acted. I don't think it should ever be thought that that is somehow

[ Page 9938 ]

accident. My experience in dealing with this minister on this bill has

been that while he's not long on talking, as are many of us who come to

this avocation of politics, he is indeed a very good listener. He not

only listens but also, and more importantly, he hears what he listens

to. Mr. Speaker, this bill is a product of that fact about that

individual and that process of listening and also hearing.

The issue that I want to focus on — and

there are many matters that are touched on by virtue of language, and

the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes), I think, referred

to some of them more eloquently than I could — is the question of

oral history with respect to the native community of British Columbia.

Oral history is not only a native treasure; it is in fact very much a

provincial treasure and indeed a national one as well, because the oral

history of the native community, to the extent that we can record it

for posterity, is indeed the only history that we can record in British

Columbia for that period of time. The oral history is in fact British

Columbia's history, and it is therefore important to all of us, not

only members of the native community but everyone in this province and

indeed this nation, to have recorded that history about who we are as a

province, from whence we have come, and the way in which our province

has been developed over a long period of time.

We made some

bold attempts many years ago to begin that process, and the experience

and the model that was looked at in terms of the peoples of the

Kitwancool is one that I hope this institution might consider

examining. That was a joint effort of the archaeological division of

what is now the provincial museum and the community to bring together

the resources that were necessary to record and put on record the

history and the traditions and the systems of government that have been

in place in the Kitwancool area. I hope that model can be and will be

revisited in terms of what is possible under this bill before us.

[4:00]

I want it put on record, on behalf of the native community in

Kamloops, that they are very supportive of the thrust of this

legislation. I have had an opportunity over the last three years that I

have been privileged to serve for Kamloops to have discussions with

Chief Jules and with Chief Ignace, as well as Chief Matthew, on these

matters and on matters touching on them — the importance of being

able to develop recognition of the contribution our native communities

have made to the history of our province, particularly as is the case

in the Kamloops community, coming out of the experience of the old

Indian school located on reserve No. 1 of the Kamloops band. That, of

course, was a model of exactly the opposite of what we hope to achieve

here. Language was used at that school not as something that you

cherished, supported, advanced and took as a way of expression to

develop interest and pride in your own culture, but in some sense as a

weapon, I suppose, and — to use the word used by all — to

colonize people who didn't want to be colonized at that time.

think that the centre being developed in Kamloops, which Chief Jules,

his band and others have been working towards, is being supported by

the community at large, the city of Kamloops, the business community,

interested groups in the area, members of the Shuswap nation, people

who are involved with native groups, and particularly the work that has

been undertaken by the Minister of Native Affairs so that these things

will work together.

What is being envisaged there — the vision that Chief Jules has for that centre —

is a place where the cultural development of the native community can

be focused; a place where conferences can be held; a place where people

involved in government and others can come together and develop a

centre of excellence, if you like, which can focus specifically on

matters pertaining to culture, language, government and heritage, and

be a point of focus not only for the native community but for all

members of the nation of Canada.

Their vision is very

large. Because of what has been undertaken here, and because of the

support that has been shown for that vision by the Minister of Native

Affairs, I know that in the not-too-distant future Chief Jules and I

will be able to make some very important announcements about what is

going to happen there and the kind of support that is going to be there.

know he is concerned that the formulas we develop to support the

initiatives that are going to be taken there and through this

legislation be developed in such a way that they also assist the

community to be able to lever, if you like, the support that should be

coming — and, I think, that will be coming — from Canada, to

make their proper contribution to the initiatives and developments that

are taking place, and to the kind of progressive, visionary, prideful

and thoughtful reflection on what can and should be done by way of

recapturing and expressing the history and the heritage that are

available, not only for the native community but for all the people of

British Columbia.

As I said at the outset, I am privileged

to be able to stand in support of this very important legislation,

which I believe will enable us to capture, not only on behalf of the

native community, the culture, language and heritage that they want to

bring forward, redevelop and make known to everyone — and that

they want to use themselves, in a way, to support their aspirations in

other areas.... As well, through this vehicle we will be able to know

something of ourselves, because, after all, much of the history indeed,

in terms of time, most of the history— of British Columbia was, and could only be, recorded orally.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Before we proceed, the first member for Okanagan South seeks leave to make an introduction. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

[ Page 9939 ]

MR. SERWA :

On behalf of the second member for Okanagan South (Mr. Chalmers) and

myself, I would like to introduce to the House a group of 60 grade 7

students from Westbank Elementary School, near Kelowna. They are

accompanied by teachers George Waldo — who also is the well-respected mayor of Peachland —

and Wayne Lawrence; and parents Robert Luciw, Bonnee Jensen, Valerie

Williams and Charlenee Jones. Would the House please make them welcome.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MR. ZIRNHELT :

I am very pleased to be able to enter this debate. I would like to

recognize the many initiatives and actions taken in years gone by by

the first speaker in this debate, who introduced a private member's

bill and, I think, spurred on the government to act on this.

would like to start by saying that when the first member for Okanagan

South (Mr. Serwa) spoke, he mentioned that language is not separate

from culture and went on later to say that the native people define

culture as including the environment in which people work. Most of my

comments today will relate to that.

I believe that we

cannot preserve language without preserving the environment. But I also

believe that we are looking at a self-conscious evolution of culture,

because we have changed the environment in which we all live, and we

therefore need to change the culture so that we can adapt appropriately

and find a secure future for people.

I think it's important

to recognize that native people at the present time.... I can use the

example of the Cariboo-Chilcotin, where I'm from. We have some

inconsistencies in government policy. We have some ministers on the

other side listening and taking action that is supportive of culturally

driven activities, and then we have other members who are bashing those

same people that we're trying to support. That creates a real problem

and a crisis of confidence for this government In their dealing with

native people.

We have to recognize that cultural diversity

is as important as ecological diversity, and the two of them are

essential to this continuing evolution of culture which we need to

adapt to the changing environment. This concept of language institutes

and the preservation of native languages is critical to it, but we

can't have language without the ambient environment, which is really

important. Nor can we institutionalize the maintenance and the

development of language into schools and institutions. We have to

preserve the very living environment and the living activities, which

means preserving traditional cultural and economic activities in their

original environs.

The change that is taking place in the

environment is taking place faster than the native people can adapt. I

am quite sure that the people in the Chilcotin can't invent names for

the new places they see after the large clearcuts as fast as the

clearcuts themselves are proceeding. It's a critical problem. I think

that's what's driving the present crisis in the Chilcotin.

disturbs me when we hear people talking about a few militant Indians

who are causing a problem and drawing maps around their territories. It

seems to me to be important in preserving culture that you have a line

on a map that shows where that culture evolved, and that you define

those resources that were important to contributing to the definition

and the evolution of those cultures and the languages that go with them.

Those same chiefs that are standing there —

some of the same people who were taken down and sat on by the clergymen

and the lay people who ran the residential schools and cut off their

braids.... I am surprised that there is a lack of militancy on their

part when you look at the humiliation that they suffered.

grew up beside one of those residential schools and would see the

children running across the field trying to get away, spending two days

in the bush trying to get home, only to be turned around by their

parents because their parents feared the punishment they would bring

upon themselves if they didn't send them back to school.

have to realize that there Is a lot of making up to do with respect to

preserving the integrity of culture if we want to preserve the

language. I would urge this government to move faster and to realize

that we have to take a holistic approach and not dissociate language,

schools, cultural activities and justice activities from the

environment itself.

I would like to point out that there

was established in the Cariboo-Chilcotin an industrial training centre.

It shows you how far we've come. The centre was to train people to be

forest workers. But it wasn't based in any community. It was an

artificial construct set In the middle of a military reserve. Those

cultural activities were, needless to say, shell-shocked by the very

surroundings in which they were set up.

That goes on to

this day. There exists a military reserve right in the middle of the

homeland of one of the bands, one of these militant leaders that one

member on the other side referred to the other day. That person is

standing up for the preservation of the environment — the watershed, the berries, the trees, the game habitat —

from the activities of the federal military, and he's not getting any

support from the provincial government. Without preserving that, he

cannot preserve an environment in which his language can flourish.

lay the blame here on the federal government. I think the province has

to start, wherever it can, pushing back on some of these specifics

where there is no question that the responsibility lies on the backs of

the federal government.

I think members opposite have got

to restrain themselves from being critical of some of these activities

which are seen as political or as economic blackmail or whatever. Those

people see some of their activities as the only things they can do to

preserve their culture and their language, because nothing else has

worked to this point.

In our constituency there exist a number of native schools which are doing an excellent job of introduc-

[ Page 9940 ]

ing

language. But as I said earlier, language can't take place just in the

schools. You have to have the teaching of language taking place outside

the schools. Some of these schools - Canim Lake, Alkali Lake, the one

at Ulkatcho at Anahim Lake, and Kluskus — are totally controlled

by the people. The school at Ulkatcho is only a kindergarten to grade

1. It's a non-graded one, but they are introducing keeping the language

in there. They are finding that their students go to the schools and

double problem.

We see that we don't have the resources

available to the school districts to deal with the remedial situation

we have to deal with in these school districts. I think this raises the

next point. I hope that through this legislation and the activities of

the provincial government there is sufficient effort at coordination

among the bands' activities, tribal council activities, school district

activities and the first people's advisory committee which will be set

up here. It's really critical that the coordination takes place so

there's an efficient expenditure of funds to develop the materials

needed for the transmission of culture and language. I don't think that

coordination takes place. It's one of the problems government has. But

I hope there's a mandate for this organization to work in that

direction.

Finally, I'd like to say that in this province I

think we have the equivalent of the constitutional crisis that's going

on with Quebec right now. Other members have spoken or alluded to this,

but I think Quebec — when it became part of Confederation —

was guaranteed language and religious freedom and rights. That's the

very aspect of Meech Lake that is causing most of the crisis. The

notion of distinct cultures is really important. The province of

British Columbia has to rewrite the original social contract upon which

the people work together to develop culturally and share this great

land.

I noted that the second member for Kamloops (Hon. Mr.

Smith) talked about a time when people were unwillingly colonized. That

same phenomenon exists today. The activities of the Ministry of Forests

and the companies licensed under that ministry amount to intrusion or

colonization. These people actually see the Forest Service as an

extension of the colonial force. That colonizing is still going on, and

the government would do well to realize that and not just to jet in and

out of some of these areas where this is going on. Maybe they should

spend enough time there to identify with the crisis of culture that's

going on there.

I predict that the next constitutional

crisis for British Columbia will be precisely that of reintegrating the

native culture and institutions with those of us who are descendants of

Europeans and other nationalities.

[4:15]

In

summary, the lack of control over their own economy, their own environment

and their own social processes has led to a crisis in the culture. Unless we're

extremely supportive in all ways — holistically — of all activities that affect

culture and language, we are just going to be creating museum pieces.

we enter this era of redesigning culture to suit our needs, we should

do it as equals and recognize that behind all culture lies some sense

of sovereignty, and that the sovereignty for native people comes from

the earth. Sovereignty for us comes from the Crown. Those sovereignties

are two solitudes.

MR. BRUCE : I too am pleased to be

able to join in this debate. Mr. Minister, I think you should be very

pleased with yourself, in that it's really quite remarkable that this

piece of legislation you've brought into the House today has — surprisingly to many —

inspired so much debate rather than what was actually thought would be

the case. Every once in a while, a piece of legislation comes to the

House which some might class as shining-light legislation.

don't think it's a question of sitting here chortling and saying how

wonderful everything is right down to the homes and the life of the

Indian people in British Columbia. I believe this is a historical piece

of legislation for the province of British Columbia.

Mr.

Minister, you should be congratulated, as well as the first member for

Okanagan South, who was instrumental in working with you through the

advisory committee, and all those who were part of that. Also, concerns

have been expressed by the first member for Victoria (Mr. G. Hanson)

over periods of our history here in the province of British Columbia.

the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) mentioned, It's no surprise that

you as a minister have brought this forward. I've had you to my

community; I've had you speak with the Indian people in my community.

I've seen your commitment and desire to move ahead with improving the

life and the lot of the Indian people of this province. I know they too

have seen that.

It's

a piece of legislation that

exemplifies that every once in a while we find, within the

Canadian spirit, that compassionate side. Certainly there are black

times in our history. But there are also times where we can look upon

it as food for the heart, if you like, in knowing that mankind

understands — certainly Canadians do anyway — from time to

time the rights of minorities and the reasons why it's so important to

protect the rights of minorities.

Bringing

forward this legislation in an effort to protect and enhance the

heritage, language and culture of the Indian people would make the late

elder Abel Joe of the Cowichan band sing from the heavens. Abel was a

very small man, but he was very large in stature in the life of the

Cowichans. He passed away last year. I mentioned at his funeral that if

Abel was a bird, he would have sung like an eagle — not that eagles sing very sweetly — in

that strength and commitment for himself and his people in maintaining

and enhancing his language and his culture. But I think today he would

be very pleased. I don't think he would be beating the drum for Social

Credit, but I think he would be beating the drum for the Indian people

of British Columbia and, really, for all the people of British Columbia.

[ Page 9941 ]

It's

not just this piece of legislation that we're debating here today with

respect to heritage, language and culture; we're talking about concerns

that many members have expressed about the Indian people of this

province. Let's make no small bones about it. There is bigotry; there

is racial prejudice in all of our communities, as it relates to Indian

people. All of us, regardless of what political stripe or what party we

may be part of, have got to do better in trying to eliminate that

prejudice, that racial bigotry.

I'm

pleased to see some of the developments taking place in my own

community. In respect to the Native Heritage Centre —

which is well on its way to being a first-class facility, from the

standpoint of economic development and enhancement for the Indian

people in our community and also social and cultural enhancement —

they took the initiative of inviting, through the Ministry of Advanced

Education, the location of Malaspina College on Indian lands to be the

first plank in the development of their heritage cultural centre there

on the banks of the Cowichan River. It was in working with the

government that it was first put in place, and I was pleased to see it

happen. Then followed, through the efforts of other ministries —

and of the now Speaker, who was the minister responsible — the

development of the second phase, the actual cultural and heritage

centre on site.

But

you know, it has been mentioned in respect to this legislation that

perhaps the funding is not enough, that perhaps the one-third portion

being provided and suggested should be two-thirds or, in fact, 100

percent. That's not what I find and not what I hear from the people in

my community. They said to me, in the development of their

centre — and by golly, I would encourage all who are here to come

up and take a look, because it is first class — that

they didn't want to walk around looking for a provincial or federal

government handout or corporate sponsors or what-have-you to put the

dollars in place to make this all happen. They wanted to make it happen

because it had the makings of the right mix of culture and heritage and

the ability to provide the economic drive to be able to turn itself and

be self-sustaining.

That's not to say we're not looking for

some financial assistance in the development of the centre, but it was

clearly said to me: "Listen, for too long there has been this

suggestion that all the Indian people are looking for is a handout from

white men or from government, federal or provincial." That's not what

they're looking for. They're looking for recognition by the people of

this province and this country as full and complete citizens of this

country and this province. That isn't brought about by simple handouts;

it's brought about by their own self-determination and the self-respect

which comes from that.

Believe me, I'm finding within my area — in which there's not only the Cowichans but a number of other bands —

a renewed spirit within themselves. It's pride in being Indian. It's

time that we understood that as well. They want to share and take

part

in our society, the non-native society. But they also want to share

what they have to offer from their culture and their heritage.

people have mentioned here in the House today, it's only been a short

time, really, when one looks at the whole evolution of society, that

there has been this coexistence of white man — or non-native — and

native. I suppose we might be stretching it somewhat to actually call

it coexistence, but I believe that today, with the introduction of this

legislation, it is a signal that there are, in fact, changes taking

place and that perhaps we can at some time in the future turn and say

to one another that there truly is a fair and equal coexistence between

the first citizens — the Indian people of this province and country — and all those of us who are non-natives.

a country, we truly are a nation of nations. I think it is exemplified

by what takes place within the Indian community. Although there are

examples — as mentioned by the second member for Cariboo — of

problems in resource management, concern is being expressed. The

willingness, the desire or the demand of some of those Indian people

for equal rights to that resource.... Although that is all there, there

is also now the recognition by government, by this Legislature, that we

have to move In different ways than we have in the past.

a nation of nations, both with what's happening in the federal sense

with Meech Lake and with what's happening in part by legislation being

presented here today, I think we're starting to see the capacity of

Canada as a people of many cultures and heritages, and we understand.

Sometimes it's a little bit hard to see that we as Canadians understand

one another, and to see the need and desire to protect our own culture

and heritage while at the same time trying to coexist in this country.

think in Bill 23, by what you're bringing forward here, Mr. Minister,

you're showing all of us that in fact we do understand. It may take

some more prodding; it will take a lot more work. But today truly is

one of those days when we're having legislation brought to this House

which I would consider to be shining-light legislation. I would like to

congratulate you personally for bringing that forward, because it

hasn't happened to this point.

You have brought it forward

through a conciliatory and advisory capacity, dealing with the peoples

and the Indian nations of this province, and I congratulate you for

doing that. I think that it is a landmark piece of legislation for all

of us in this Legislature, and I'm sure it will only be good fruit that

is brought forward from this legislation in the future.

MR. MILLER :

At the outset I would like to say that I think this House and the

people who will benefit by this bill owe a vote of thanks to the first

member for Victoria (Mr. G. Hanson). I don't think it should go

unnoticed in this debate that he, for ten years now, has proposed a

private member's bill in this Legislature, and for ten years the

government has refused to achieve the objectives contained in this

bill. I think that the first member for Victoria really

[ Page 9942 ]

and truly is the author of the bill that we're debating today.

take all the comments that have been made today in the spirit in which

they have been made: that there is some recognition that this is a move

in a direction that's overdue; that there is something very significant

about language and culture that needs to be recognized. People need to

be able to retain those aspects of their language and culture, because

it gives them as people a sense of identity, a sense of place in this

world, which is all too often a world where people don't have that.

They tend to lose that quite often.

[4:30]

But let's not kid ourselves. The bill does not deal with the

fundamental unresolved issue that is of paramount interest to the

Indian people of British Columbia, and that is the coming to grips with

and resolution of the aboriginal title question, an issue that has

remained unresolved and unattended to for a long period of time.

Smithers I very briefly sat in on the Gitksan case in the Supreme Court

of British Columbia, which currently has been concluded and awaits

decision by the Chief Justice. I'm very aware that oral history played

a very prominent

part in the position as outlined by the Gitksan

nation, in terms of registering their historic ownership or right and

title to land area that is the subject of the claim. With respect to

the comments by the Attorney-General, I'm also aware that this

government has spent in the courts....

MR. SPEAKER :

Order, please. Second reading of the bill is the principle, and matters

which are still before the courts and have not yet been dispatched by

the courts are areas in which we should tread very carefully. I don't

wish to restrict the member in his comments, but the outcome of that

particular case has not yet been determined, and therefore it's

inappropriate to discuss it during second reading. There's lots more

scope in this bill, if the member wouldn't mind. Please proceed.

MR. MILLER :

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I didn't wish to do that. I was simply

responding to the remarks made by the Attorney-General with respect to

oral history. I think that I'm fairly safe in just dealing with oral

history. I won't refer to the case.

But there have been

other cases before the courts In British Columbia where the province

has been the party which objected to specific claims made by native

Indian groups — whether they be bands or tribal councils. Many of

those claims were based on their oral history, yet we found the

province in court making arguments that their oral history was of no

substance. I think it's worth pointing that out in the context of this

debate.

Leaving that subject, I also think it gives us an

opportunity to reflect on the current national debate. Certainly the

speakers that I've heard on this bill have, by their comments at least,

tended to understand the need for that language and cultural identity

being retained. I think there is a parallel in Canada with respect to

the current debate on national unity.

As I see the debate

in its simplest form, people in Quebec are saying that people in the

culture and language. There have been some incidents that I think were

unfortunate. In eastern Canada people were videotaped walking over the

flag of the province of Quebec. That has tended to be inflammatory and

has tended to reinforce the notion among people in Quebec that there is

a degree of intolerance in other parts of Canada. Certainly even the

simple jokes told by the Premier some years ago about French on the

cornflakes box tended to— I don't want to overblow the point —

denigrate the importance of keeping the understanding that we are, at

least in the broad national sense, a bilingual country. So there are

some parallels that could be drawn.

The understanding from

both sides of the House towards the thrust of this bill would lead me

to conclude that we could quite easily achieve that national consensus

as well. I think it's important.

In my constituency, in

that vast area of coastal northwestern British Columbia, I am

privileged to have three very significant Indian nations - the Halda,

the Tsimshian and the Nisga'a — all of whom had a very highly

evolved culture. I noted, for example, that when the Haida were in

Paris, France, with their canoe, Lootaas ,

the French anthropologist Levi-Strauss made some comparisons between

the Haida culture and many ancient Greek cultures. There's a parallel

between them in terms of the state of their advancement.

We're

pleased that the bill has been brought forward and that some efforts

will be made to maintain this culture. But I want to say that I don't

think it's enough. I don't think culture, and particularly language,

can be preserved in a museum. Without the ability to practise it,

language can fall out of use. I know that the band councils and the

tribal councils in my constituency are most anxious to develop living

language programs in the school system but have had difficulty pursuing

that. They have achieved some very modest levels in some of the primary

grades, where elders from the tribal council are employed by the school

board to teach the language. It's a living language. I think that's

really something that needs to be accelerated.

I would hope

that we will have in place a progressive program, so that not only do

we have the institute in terms of the history, culture and language,

but the language is a living language. I think it's particularly

important and valuable to young people, who need to have that sense of

identity. I think it's necessary for those young people to understand

their language and to have a sense of place. They will be much better

for it, and we will be much better for it.

I look forward to the day — as outlined by the New Democratic Premier in the Yukon —

when we can actually deal in this House with the question of aboriginal

rights and title. Not because it's a good thing to do or because we

have a guilty conscience —

[ Page 9943 ]

that's

not why we should proceed. We should proceed, as Tony Penikett has

said, because it is morally right and we must do it. The day we start

to deal with that will be the day we will see a lot of the tensions and

the problems of this province eased.

MS. EDWARDS :

Mr. Speaker, I represent a riding that carries the name of an Indian

people. It's a very distinct nation and has a very distinct language.

The Kootenay may be the oldest continuous residential group in Canada.

An archaeologist who has done extensive study of that people says that

it very easily might be possible — not the oldest group ever to

have been in the country, but the oldest group to have maintained

residence in the same area. They were not nomadic like some of the

other groups that may have been here earlier that moved from place to

place, moving out of the way of the ice and so on. It is something of

which we in the Kootenay are very proud, to think of this particular

item that makes the people and the area very distinct, because the

people, of course, cannot be separated from the area in which they live.

It's

a small group of people but very rich in language and heritage, a

people who consider the preservation of their language extremely

important. They have tried over many years, certainly many that I can

remember, to conserve their language, to be sure that the language will

be kept and be spoken and will be there for their history and the

culture that they so much value and that we so much value.

wanted to say, Mr. Speaker, as we look at this bill, for which I do

congratulate the minister, because it makes a very positive step in the

right direction.... When the people of the Kootenay previously made

some extensive and significant initiatives into preserving their

language, not only the Kootenay people but those of us who were

non-Kootenay in the area learned a lot and developed a very strong

pride and new sense of what the people were, what their culture meant

and how we related to the area in which we lived.

Unfortunately,

in one of the initiatives that I remember in particular, where there

was an attempt to transcribe the language and learn some new letters

and actually do a major project, the expert who did that had been

brought in from the United States. That's unfortunate, but it probably

reflected the fact that we have not developed the resources to do that

kind of work within Canada and British Columbia.

There

are

only approximately 100 speakers of the language of Kootenay left,

according to reports that I have read. But the people are continuing to

speak the language, and that ability to do so represents a very growing

assurance of the people, as they work within the non-native society—

the overwhelmingly white society — in which they operate.

who came to this province after the Kootenay people and the other

native people in the province were here owe these Canadians the benefit

of very serious protection, maintenance and enhancement of language and

culture. I mentioned the word "serious" because I believe the bill,

which looks to doing a job, does not seem to have the necessary muscle.

It doesn't seem to say where we're going to get the money so that we

can do the job that needs to be done to save the languages in time. The

language is going very, very fast, and we haven't time to sit and do

things slowly.

If any of the processes we adopt are good,

they certainly should be done quickly. We shouldn't have to wait around

to have an advisory council, a corporation, a culture council and an

advisory committee, all of which are there to search out money from

other sources.

The major deficit with this bill — to use a very carefully chosen word —

is that it doesn't have enough money to assure that the work that needs

to be done is going to be done. It's not good enough to go to the

native people in this province — as the news releases around the issuing of the bill said would happen —

and say: "You raise two-thirds of the money, and we will put in

one-third when you have raised that two-thirds." It puts a great

stumbling block in the way of the people who need right now to preserve

their languages, which are so closely connected with their culture and

with their land claims, as has been pointed out by previous speakers.

These

issues are all closely related. They're all cut from the same cloth. We

can't let them depend on federal funding. Certainly the British

Columbia government wouldn't like to do that, I'm sure, having made

recommendations that the federal government cut its expenditures to

various places. It seems not to have objected too strongly to federal

cuts to B.C. native cultural activities.

These things being

so, the major issue around the bill is that it be given another bit of

muscle, the very thing that it needs — the motive power — to

go ahead and get the work done. That's what I haven't seen in it. We

need native organizations who have already put a lot of their own money

into cultural support and enhancement and preservation activities. They

need to know that the province as a whole is willing to put the money

there to have happen the things that the bill says it wants to have

happen. If the money is there, it means we can buy the time we need

before the language and cultural values that we want this bill for have

disappeared.

So congratulations, Mr. Minister. We want you

to take another step as well. Congratulations, too, on having followed

up the initiative of the first member for Victoria, who has worked for

many years on this bill; I would like to recognize that he has done so.

It's a good start, and let's go further.

[4:45]

MR. CASHORE :

I want to add my word of appreciation to the minister for bringing in

this bill and also to my colleague the first member for Victoria for

the way in which he has carried the issue of native languages forward

year after year in the form of the private member's bills which he has

introduced and reintroduced in this House. They are based on his long

life of work as an anthropologist, but also his work in a very deep and

personal way as

[ Page 9944 ]

he came more and more to appreciate the values that he saw needed to be protected.

is a good day when we can come together in the House and begin to move

in this direction. I, too, share the concern that has been expressed

with regard to the time-line and how we are going to be able to make

sure that the funds to be provided will be accessed. There is

uncertainty with regard to the federal government's share and the

private sector's share, and it would seem that this very good idea may

not bear fruit if that money is not forthcoming. Therefore I join in

urging the minister to find ways that this legislation and this policy

can be strengthened so that we do not waste any more days in which we

see the erosion of this part of native people's culture and the

potential loss of their language.

I just want to say very

briefly that I lived in the native Indian community of Port Simpson,

which is north of Prince Rupert; it's in the riding of my colleague the

member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller). It's an isolated community with

a population of about 1,200 people, and it was one of the traditional

Methodist missions of the church. The famous Thomas Crosby had been

there on behalf of the Anglican church. In the year 1863 the Rev.

Thomas Crosby went there and established a mission in proximity to the

Hudson's Bay fort located there.

When I went there, I held

in my hands the baptismal certificate book of the first people to be

baptized there, going back as far as the early 1860s. That book is now

in the archives. It was interesting to read some of the information in

that book — and particularly in another book which contained the burial information of people who died in that community.

One

thing I noticed was that very often when somebody died, the cause was

"a wasting illness." You saw that many deaths took place in a short

period of time — as we would realize, flu epidemics and smallpox —

and the way in which those illnesses that our ancestors imported into

the reality of these people's lives was so tragic a part of that

history. Anything that starts to set the balance, even at this late

date, has to be affirmed.

I became very much aware of how

the children of that community were not speaking the language; and of

families where for a portion of their lives the adults had to leave the

community to go to places like the Coqualeetza school at Chilliwack or

other residential schools, and had been away for many long periods; and

of how this had destroyed the self-determination that is so important

if people are to have fulfilment and to fully participate in having

control over their future and over a culture which is dynamic. To be

culture, culture is not in a museum; it is a living, breathing

organism. That dynamism is facilitated by the opportunity of people to

have their language and spirituality affirmed.

I was

thinking of the slogan that says: "Give a man a fish and you feed him

for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." The

irony is that in this case we could go a step further and say that it

was the native people who taught our ancestors to fish and to survive

when they came to this land. We certainly have much catching up to do

in terms of redirecting the balance.

I wanted to point out

that it is with some regret that I realize that my colleague the member

for Atlin (Mr. Guno) will not be in this Legislature following the next

election; I regret that very much. On the day when he gave his first

speech in the House, his mother was sitting in the gallery. We had not

really met yet, although I was sitting in the seat next to him. He said

a few words in Sim'algax, which to the native people of that area is

the real language. When he sat down, I was able to congratulate him in

a few words from his own language. He was quite shocked that this white

man, whom he had just met, was congratulating him in his own language.

want to conclude by pointing out that the United Church of Canada, of

which I am a minister — and which comes through the heritage of the

Methodist, Presbyterian and Congregational Churches — at its general

council, which met in Sudbury in 1986, through the moderator, the Rt.

Rev. Robert Smith, issued an apology on behalf of the church. That

apology was that the church, throughout the years, had failed to

recognize the inherent spirituality of native people and to recognize

the richness of their culture. I will just add at this time that it was

a significant act on behalf of that denomination, and I believe it has

also happened on behalf of other denominations.

It's only

when we learn to respect the richness of the cultural traditions and

the spirituality of all of the first people of this province and of

this land will we be truly able to benefit from that which they are

ready to contribute to enrich the fabric of our society.

MR. G. JANSSEN :

I'm glad to see that the government of the day has finally sought to

bring forth a bill such as this in the House. We are dealing with a

lost society, for when people lose their language, their culture

follows very quickly, because they're unable to communicate anymore.

Right after that, they lose their heritage.

The first

member for Victoria quoted some statistics on the number of people who

could stil