1998 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 36th 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)

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1998

Afternoon

Volume 12, Number 25

[ Page 11001 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Hon. G. Clark: It gives me great pleasure today to introduce a number of faith leaders from across British Columbia who are in the gallery today. They represent the diverse group of well over a hundred spiritual leaders who delivered a statement just a couple of weeks ago in support of the Nisga'a treaty and of bringing justice and reconciliation to all aboriginal people. It's most appropriate that they're here today to join us as we celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

With the indulgence of the House, I'd like to introduce, first, the members of the subcommittee who wrote the statement of behalf of the much larger faith leaders' groups: Aziz Khaki from the Council of Muslim Communities of Canada, Bella Tata of the Zoroastrian community of British Columbia and Deirdre Kelly from the Catholic diocese of Victoria. I'd also like to acknowledge the man who wrote the original statement that became the basis for the faith leaders' community statement. That's Bishop John Hannen of the diocese of Caledonia, who's an Anglican bishop and an adopted Nisga'a himself.

Also in the gallery are local signatories to this important statement, including Rev. Dr. Russell Brown, St. Michael's Anglican Church; Waldemar Braul, the Aboriginal Rights Coalition; the Venerable James Cowan, Anglican diocese of British Columbia; Rev. Michael Hemmings, Christ Church Cathedral; Rev. Canon David McKay, St. Mary the Virgin; the Venerable Logan McMenamie, Church of St. George the Martyr; Rev. Dr. Harold Munn, St. John the Divine; Gaye Sharpe, Pilgrim United Church; Rev. Peter Shurvin, chaplain, Royal Jubilee Hospital; Rev. Glenn Simm, St.

Paul's Anglican Church; the Right Reverend Robert Smith, First United Street Ministry and past moderator of the United Church of Canada; Rev. Andrew Twiddy, St. Matthias Church; the Very Reverend John Wright, Christ Church Cathedral; Sr. Mary Zarowny, the Sisters of St. Ann.

As Premier, and on behalf of the government side, I'd like to thank you again for your statement of support for the Nisga'a agreement and land claims negotiations. You've shown leadership and courage, and offered us guidance and wisdom. I ask the House to welcome and thank the distinguished faith leaders who have joined us in the gallery today and those from across the province for their support of the Nisga'a treaty.

L. Reid: I see in the gallery today Mr. Tony Toth, who is here representing the British Columbia Road Builders Association. I would ask the House to please make him welcome.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: We have in the gallery His Worship Wayne McGrath, the mayor of Vernon. Would the House please make him welcome.

A. Sanders: Mr. McGrath is indeed in the gallery, and he's accompanied by Blake Kimura, who's the city administrator for Vernon. As the MLA for Vernon, I certainly welcome them both.

Hon. L. Boone: In the gallery today are two extremely important people. One person keeps my office on the straight and narrow, helps me to be on time and keeps me stable -- that's my constituency assistant, Irma Van Helvoirt. The other keeps my home life stable and keeps me on time, as well -- and I, hopefully, keep him on time -- and that's my partner, my favourite man in the world, Mr. Fred Bagg. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. C. McGregor: I too would join in welcoming some important people in my life into the House today. It's always important to recognize staff who work with you. I'd like to acknowledge the support that I get from Paula McRae, who is my executive assistant in Kamloops, who is really my right-hand person -- she really represents me well in my absence due to my duties as Minister of Environment -- as well as from Christine Skrepetz, who is my ministerial assistant here in the House and offers me the same service in Victoria. And a new staff person, Chris Houghton, will be joining my staff in the new year. Would the House please make them all welcome.

D. Symons: I see in the gallery someone that could strike fear in the hearts of MLAs in this area. He's the gentleman that looks into our accounts and how we handle our private affairs: H.A.D. Oliver, the conflict-of-interest commissioner. Would we please make him welcome.

Hon. H. Lali: I would also like to join the member from across the way in welcoming Mr. Tony Toth of the B.C. Road Builders Association. In addition, I would also like to introduce a couple of people who make sure that I stay on time in the constituency. That's my constituency assistant, Millie Mitchell, and my executive assistant, Keith Simmonds. Would the House please make all three welcome.

T. Stevenson: I too would like to join in welcoming the faith leaders, but most particularly a longtime friend, the Right Reverend Robert Smith. Bob Smith has been a friend of mine for many years, and I'm glad to see him here today. I hope the House would make him particularly welcome.

Hon. M. Farnworth: In the gallery today is someone very important to me -- that is, my executive assistant, Gwen Ranger, formerly my constituency assistant. She has been doing the job now for almost 20 years, and I am her third MLA. She is one of the first assistants, I think, who wrote the book on what it means to be a constituency assistant. So would the House please make her most welcome.

Hon. M. Sihota: I know that the Premier has already done this, but as he is a good, close personal friend and someone who I admire for the work that he has done, I would also like to welcome Aziz Khaki to the chamber today. Would all members please give him a warm welcome.

H. Giesbrecht: I would also like to recognize a constituent and a loyal supporter, someone who basically does all the work in the office when I'm away. Essentially, I've always said that I work for her as much as anyone else in the constituency. So would the House please welcome my constituency assistant, Gail Murray.

The Speaker: I'm just going to say, to close off introductions, that if there are any in the gallery who haven't been named, welcome to all of you.

[ Page 11002 ]

Ministerial Statement

FIFTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF UNITED NATIONS

UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Hon. G. Clark: Fifty years ago today the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It's important that we remember this historic accomplishment and recognize the continuing efforts to bring justice to all people worldwide. The strong desire for peace in the aftermath of World War II and the shocking reality of the human atrocities committed during the course of the war galvanized a diversity of nations to unite under a common cause.

The United Nations Secretariat, under the direction of Canadian John Humphrey, drafted the initial 400-page document that guided the deliberations of the UN Commission on Human Rights, the body entrusted with the task of developing the declaration. It took two years, but despite conflicting views on particular issues, the 18 member-states on the commission eventually completed a final Universal Declaration of Human Rights on December 10, 1948.

It recognizes that "the inherent dignity . . . of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world." Among other things, it states that we all have the right to life, liberty and the security of the person, the right to an adequate standard of living, and the right to freedom of opinion and expression. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has been translated into more than 200 languages and stands as a powerful motivating force behind efforts all across the globe to bring justice to disadvantaged groups in our society.

[2:15]

We don't have to look abroad, however, to see the ideals embodied in the declaration at work. Here in British Columbia we've been working to achieve justice for all our citizens. That commitment is perhaps best articulated by the faith leaders from around British Columbia, some of whom are here with us today. Three weeks ago they all signed a statement of support for the Nisga'a treaty and for settling claims in general.

On this historic day, I would like to recognize the commitment and courage of the faith leaders who have made this important contribution toward achieving justice and equality for all aboriginal people. Like the Universal Declaration of 50 years ago today, the faith leaders' statement reflects the effort of a diversity of leaders. It articulates a genuine acknowledgment of the past injustices that aboriginal people have faced and the determination to set things right through the treaty negotiation process.

In a few moments I would like to read the statement from the faith leaders on the important occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But before I do, I think it is important to acknowledge the unity achieved by the leaders representing diverse communities. I understand -- or at least they tell me -- that it is very rare in Canada, maybe even unprecedented, for so many faiths to join together to work towards a common goal.

The idea of a statement in support of the Nisga'a treaty was first raised by a subgroup of faith leaders attending a meeting on June 15, 1998. As members may be aware, I've been meeting with the leaders of British Columbia's spiritual communities for about two years now, and we've discussed a host of ethical, moral and social issues that face our province today. Believing that the significance of the Nisga'a treaty should not be lost amidst the ongoing discussions on other issues, the subgroup volunteered to draft a statement of support that could be endorsed by other leaders.

Brought together by a common goal, over 100 faith leaders, representing close to 20 different faith communities from across our province, have signed the statement so far.

The unity of their support for resolving land claims demonstrates courage and dedication and reflects the principles embodied in the UN Declaration of Human Rights. I'd like to congratulate the faith leaders who have participated in this achievement. You have united under a common cause towards the goal of bringing justice to all aboriginal people. This was a difficult and important challenge, and your efforts to address injustice are testimony to your skills and abilities as leaders in your communities.

Your accomplishment shows all of us that 50 years after the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, we can take pride in our achievements but still remain vigilant that there is more work to be done.

I'd like to now read the faith leaders' statement into the record.

"We, the undersigned, believe that it is common to our religious and spiritual traditions that:

"there is a universal destiny of the goods of the earth, where land is a gift to us all, not for us to exploit but to care for. We know from our experience of aboriginal spirituality that aboriginal people see themselves as inseparable from the soil from which they came and that they consider themselves as part of the land that has been entrusted to them to care for, to use and to share;

"there must be reconciliation and respect between neighbours;

"where there has been injustice and inequity, there must be justice and reconciliation.

"We affirm that the process of negotiation is the best means for resolving land claims issues, reconciling communities with each other and restoring dignity to those who have suffered injustices. We endorse the general principles of the Nisga'a final agreement as a result of good-faith negotiation between three parties, and we believe that ratification of the treaty would be in the best interests of British Columbians and Canadians.

"We believe that the ratification process should be preceded by a public dialogue based on respect and information-sharing which leads to mutual understanding and reconciliation.

"We commit ourselves and our communities to such a dialogue and encourage all British Columbians to join us on this journey of understanding and reconciliation."

Just as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has motivated people for the past 50 years, I hope that the statement from the faith leaders will provide us with wisdom and a commitment to bring justice to aboriginal people and, in fact, to all British Columbians. Again, many thanks for this significant statement of support for bringing justice to aboriginal people in British Columbia. I look forward to our further discussions in the future as we continue to work together to address the moral, ethical and social challenges facing our province.

On a personal note, for over 12 years now, I've been involved in many processes as a politician, and I must say that my engagement with spiritual leaders from all around the province has been one that has been very rewarding for me. I hope that for them it has been part of a journey where we try to work together -- where governments are part of the solution, but where truly, at the end of the day, people have to make a difference in their communities. You have shown great leadership, in my judgment, on this very important question. Thank you.

The Speaker: I recognize in response the hon. member for Richmond-Steveston.

[ Page 11003 ]

G. Plant: I am, frankly, honoured to have an opportunity to rise in this chamber today on the fiftieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and to speak, as the opposition critic for human rights, on this declaration and what it means to us here today in British Columbia, in December 1998, engaged in the business which is before us in this chamber.

The origin of the declaration and the unspeakable horror that produced the declaration were, I think, enormous, cataclysmic events in human history. For 50 years the declaration has been a beacon for all those who are committed to justice, wherever they may be -- justice around the world, justice here at home. Fifty years ago there was much work to be done around the world to advance the causes and the principles that are embodied in this declaration. There was also much work to be done here in British Columbia.

Fifty years on, there is still much work to be done around the world to advance the principles expressed in the declaration, and there is still much work to be done here in British Columbia.

The declaration is universal. It speaks to the possibility that there are common values shared by all humanity, and it gives expression to those values. It speaks about democracy; it speaks about equality. It speaks about how fundamental it is to all societies that we have universal suffrage -- that all people subject to governments on the face of the earth have the ability to vote for or against those governments. The declaration is universal. It speaks to those principles in Cambodia; it speaks to those principles in Switzerland; and it speaks to those principles in the Nass Valley in British Columbia.

And I am constantly informed by the power of those principles when I think of the business that is before us in the form of the Nisga'a final agreement.

I am also honoured, frankly, to have the opportunity to stand and speak today in the presence of the faith leaders of British Columbia. I admire and respect the work they have done to come together to try and find what it is that unites them rather than separates them, and to see if they can express a voice on behalf of those in British Columbia who have faith in the cause of justice, the cause of equality, as expressed in the Universal Declaration.

The declaration provides for me and, frankly, for all of us in the opposition and, I'm sure, for all of those in the government -- a framework which speaks to the need for justice for the Nisga'a, as it speaks to the need for justice for all British Columbians. It provides a framework which legitimizes and supports treaty-making, and we support that. It creates and provides a framework which inspires the need for a Nisga'a final agreement, and we support that.

But it does not answer all of the questions that it is our duty, here in this Legislature, to ask about the Nisga'a final agreement.

You know, one of the things that the Universal Declaration does is that it protects our right here in this chamber to debate freely those issues and to disagree with each other about those issues -- to recognize that values, even though universal, may conflict; that rights, even though universal, do not always work together in harmony, and that in order to solve the real and practical problems that face human societies and communities, we in this chamber have a duty to strike a balance sometimes among those rights and values.

Frankly, those of us on this side of the chamber who have read the Universal Declaration and share all of its principles have examined the Nisga'a final agreement, and we have a different opinion about whether or not it in fact gives proper effect to all of the values and principles that are expressed in the declaration and that are part of our common culture as Canadians -- Nisga'a or non-Nisga'a.

We have all of those questions before us in this chamber. I'm sure that to the extent they're able to, the faith leaders are following that debate with interest and that they will continue to do so in the days to come, as the debate continues. I agree with the Premier: there is much that needs to be done. I, on behalf of all the members of the opposition, pledge our continuing commitment to ensure that the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are given the fullest, fairest possible reality here in British Columbia for all British Columbians today, tomorrow and for generations to come.

G. Wilson: I rise to seek leave to respond to the ministerial statement.

Leave granted.

G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, it's a privilege to be able to stand on this fiftieth anniversary of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights to make comment with respect to this ministerial statement. It is equally a privilege to do so in the presence of the faith leaders of British Columbia, who, I believe, have shown courage and leadership on matters of human rights over the years.

The matter of a human right is an inherent right. It is not one that can be granted, not one that can be debated and not one that can be conditional. If we are to stand up and put forward a proposition that all of us in British Columbia are equal, then we must start from the premise that those inherent human rights are rights that run with us as individuals and that run with us as a result of our heritage, our history, our traditions, our culture, our customs and that which makes us unique in British Columbia.

I have had in my years the opportunity to travel and live in many parts of the world. I have seen many communities and societies in which human rights have been abridged, where individuals have been kept subservient under fascist governments, under colonial governments, under governments that have denied the right of individuals to a simple opportunity for free expression.

I've always prided myself that as a Canadian, we don't do it that way in Canada. It is regrettable and lamentable, however, that our history tells us otherwise, because as a white Canadian -- albeit a Canadian who has had six generations in this country -- I am nevertheless a product of a colonial period, a colonial time in which a foreign government dominated over this land. Therefore I have to say that as a white Canadian, it is often easy to slip into the language of paternalism, the language that says that we must look to our vision and through our laws and through our constitution and through our government.

We will, through the benevolence of our system in society, grant to those who have had generations upon generations upon generations on this land . . . . We will grant to them a human right, an individual right, an aboriginal right or a right to governance.

[2:30]

Hon. Speaker, there can be nothing more hollow, nothing more tragic, nothing more dishonest than to stand in this chamber and say that we agree with treaty-making, we agree with equality, we agree with human rights but . . . given the day to stand and speak, and to stand up and vote for it, we will deny it and deny it again. That is the height of dishonesty; it is the height, in my judgment, of wrong . . . .

At this time of human rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, I think all of us must recognize that

[ Page 11004 ]

there is an inalienable right to be able to live with dignity and pride, to be able to advance our culture, our systems and our traditions, and note within our history that many peoples have not had that opportunity. Whether it was through the Komagata Maru incident and the time that we turned back people of Indo-Canadian ancestry, whether it was the time of internment of Japanese Canadians, whether it was the kind of discrimination that was practised even till very recently for Chinese Canadians, who were unable to be able to live in the estates of the British Properties . . . .

All of those were discriminatory laws in practice. As those who champion human rights, we must say: an end to it. With "our" aboriginal people, we have a chance -- a unique opportunity -- not to speak to it but to actually act to end the discrimination, to actually stand up, and to make sure that we can demonstrate that we are prepared to make our actions count for our words.

Let me close with one thought that causes me serious concern. On this fiftieth anniversary of human rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Canada, I am shocked and I am greatly disturbed that in this province, on our streets in Vancouver in 1998, we can have people who seek to stand in protest on our streets, advanced on by large members of the police force with bludgeons, who are hitting them, pushing them back and causing great grief. The right to free assembly and the right to freedom of speech are the most necessary of human rights. They are the most fundamental of rights.

We have to ask ourselves: where are we going in this country? What are we doing in this country, if this becomes something that is seen on our televisions, on our streets -- something that is not the Canadian way and is not something that we should practise and certainly not something that we should condone?

I'm pleased to stand up on this day and to give you this statement on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

I recognize the member for Peace River South.

J. Weisgerber: I too seek leave to respond to the statement.

Leave granted.

J. Weisgerber: Madam Speaker, it certainly is a pleasure and an honour and another momentous moment to respond and speak to this issue of human rights and, particularly, the church leaders' support for the Nisga'a treaty. I think it's tremendously important in this Legislature, where one could argue that in early days both legislators such as ourselves and church leaders such as those assembled here probably played the greatest role of any individuals British Columbia in subjecting aboriginal people to different treatment.

I mean that not as a criticism of church leaders but simply as an affirmation of our history. I think it's in that context that I want to look at the declaration by those leaders and respond to it in this assembly.

Certainly there should be no question in anybody's mind that aboriginal people in this province have been treated badly, that they have been treated not only as second-class citizens but as third- or fourth- or fifth-class citizens. There is equally no question, in my mind at least, that we need to resolve land claims and that we need to resolve land claims by way of treaty-making. As a matter of fact, I take some pride in having played a very small role in bringing British Columbia to that decision.

But to then suggest that we must adopt every item and clause of an agreement negotiated or we are somehow less than honest, less than forthright -- less than good British Columbians -- offends me. It offends me deeply.

Everybody has their own vision of justice. Just because you've got one extra MLA and you happen to sit on that side of the House, that doesn't make your vision of justice any better than mine. Nevertheless . . . .

Interjections.

J. Weisgerber: Immediately we move into heckle mode, and I guess one can only look at the source.

Madam Speaker, let me keep this on the level that I think it deserves to be treated at, and that is that we need to resolve these issues. Where better to debate the appropriateness of the clauses of a treaty than in the Legislature? What better place for us to disagree?

Finally, I want to say, as I've said before, that those of us who are busily patting ourselves on the back -- believing that the signing of a treaty or a land claims agreement is somehow going to miraculously change the living conditions of aboriginal people in this province -- had better take a drive into the Peace River country, where there has been a treaty for 100 years. They had better take a drive through the Prairies.

I would urge them to stop in communities like Hobbema, where aboriginal people got 160 acres of land that turned out to be incredibly rich in subsurface resources, so money isn't a major issue. Look at the living conditions in those communities, and I believe you can come back to this House with a decision that you have very much only started a process that is much more complex and much more difficult than those making the brave statements across the way would lead us to believe.

G. Farrell-Collins: On another matter, hon. Speaker, I ask that perhaps the House, our Legislature, would send condolences to the family of Shaughnessy Cohen, the Member of Parliament for Windsor-St. Clair. She made her mark -- quite pronounced -- in the House of Commons in Ottawa, chaired numerous very important and significant committees and was known for her vigour, her youthfulness and her exuberance. She passed away on the floor of the House of Commons yesterday. Hon. Speaker, I would just ask that you, on our behalf, send our condolences to her family.

The Speaker: I am very happy to do that on behalf of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.

Oral Questions

PLACEMENT OF FOSTER CHILDREN

L. Reid: In the past we have seen numerous examples of inappropriate foster care placement by the Ministry for Children and Families. Today the children's commissioner has revealed yet another tragic story. A 16-year-old died last year, after spending his life in ten different foster homes, four of which had allegations of physical and sexual abuse lodged against them. Will the minister tell us why her ministry is continuing to place children in foster homes which are inappropriate and often dangerous?

Hon. L. Boone: Hon. Speaker, you know, this is probably the most difficult job that I have, which is to review the very

[ Page 11005 ]

serious cases -- the deaths of the children -- that are brought through the children's commissioner's reports. Anybody who reads those reports can't help but be moved by the situations and ask themselves: "How did this happen? How, in today's society, are children dying?" It's a very serious situation. But we have been making massive changes in the ministry. We will continue to make those changes. We have introduced a number of different situations -- risk assessment tools, training for foster parents, training for social workers -- and we will continue to refine and make our system better as we do.

Hon. Speaker, I am not going to pretend that we can ever stop all the deaths of children out there. It is something that I don't think anybody over there . . . . And if you were in my situation, hon. member, you'd be saying the same thing. We have a responsibility as a society, I have a responsibility as the minister and the children's commissioner has a responsibility to try and ensure the safety of children. We must all work very hard to do that, and I certainly make my commitment to do that within this ministry.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister. First supplementary, the member for Richmond East.

L. Reid: Certainly I don't believe that the minister's response is adequate. And I can tell you that the reports that I have now read are riddled with inadequacies, serious deficiencies in care, missed opportunities to provide. This child lived his life in a situation that was not in his best interests. Three years after the Gove report, this ministry is still placing children at risk. Why?

Hon. L. Boone: You know, three years later this opposition is still trying to make politics out of the very, very difficult situation of children who are dying. This is a terrible situation. The foster parents that we have, have received training and continue to receive training. Our social workers continue to receive training. We have introduced a risk assessment tool that is now touted as one of the best in the nation. We are doing everything we can to make sure that children are not placed into inadequate situations.

But we're not dealing with a science here; we're dealing with human beings who have to make human assessments. This is not a job where people can expect that they're not going to make the wrong decisions sometimes. Those things happen. We will do everything within our power to give our staff the necessary assessment tools to make sure that they make the right decisions, but we can't guarantee that there won't be some wrong judgments made there.

FUNDING IN BABY MOLLY CASE

C. Clark: The minister would like to lead us to believe that she has fixed all the problems in her ministry. It was just a year ago that her ministry . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members . . . .

C. Clark: If the minister would like to listen . . . .

The Speaker: Members, I can't hear. The Chair can't hear the question. Members, come to order.

C. Clark: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

It was just a year ago that this ministry signed an agreement with the Engbrecht family to provide for Baby Molly's care for the rest of her life. The minister will remember that the children's commission, when it investigated the case, found that the ministry was to blame for inadequately managing Baby Molly's foster placement. And now this ministry has the gall to try and yank some of the funding that they've provided for Baby Molly's care. How can the minister credibly claim that she's doing everything in her power to fix the problems in her ministry when she won't even live up to the obligations that she made a year ago to Baby Molly's family?

Hon. L. Boone: I'm not sure what the member is talking about. I will have to look into that and find what exactly she is referring to.

However, I have never said . . . . Obviously the member listens as well as she did last year, because I have never said that I've fixed all the problems. I said far from that. I said that we are living in a situation . . . . This is very much a human issue. We are human beings; we are dealing with human beings. My staff are human beings. They make value judgments and decisions all the time, and sometimes those decision are wrong.

I have told my staff over and over again that if they follow the procedures -- if they do the best job they can -- and they make the wrong judgment, I will back them up on that, because I recognize that not one of us in this House can say that we've never made a mistake. I don't expect that to happen, but for you to say that I've ever pretended that we've fixed all the problems is an outright untruth, hon. member.

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

[2:45]

C. Clark: I would say this, hon. Speaker. If the minister wants us to believe that she is fixing the problems in her ministry, she'd better first convince us that she knows what's going on in her ministry. With Baby Molly's family, they have been receiving threatening letters from this ministry for three months -- threatening to yank their funding. A commitment that this ministry and this government made to them, a firm commitment . . . . They sent a letter -- and it was just three days ago -- where they said that the level of support they're receiving may not continue and that they should "plan accordingly." Pay attention, hon. minister.

This minister should stand today . . . . If she is serious about doing everything in her power to fix the problems in her ministry, she should stand today, keep her commitment, live up to what she said she was going to do and guarantee Baby Molly's family that her ministry won't yank the funding that they promised to provide for them.

Hon. L. Boone: Hon. Speaker, you must know that ministers are not going to stand here and make decisions that are based on a question from the opposition.

On a regular basis, funding is assessed for different families and different programs, based on their needs. For us to say that we are not going to reassess various families' funding at different times would be absolutely ridiculous, because those things do in fact happen on an ongoing basis. We have a responsibility to the public to make sure that our dollars are spent as best we can, and we will continue to do that.

COST OF BUY B.C. PROGRAM

F. Gingell: Hon. Speaker, I would ask that the Minister of Agriculture inform this House of how much money the government is spending on the Buy B.C. program.

[ Page 11006 ]

Hon. C. Evans: I'd be happy to get that precise number and share it with the member or table it in the House.

SALE OF B.C.PRODUCTS ON B.C. FERRIES

F. Gingell: Well, the minister always speaks glowingly about the Buy B.C. program and the commitment that this government has to it. Therefore I ask the minister responsible for B.C. Ferries to please explain to the Minister of Agriculture and all the farmers in British Columbia why the sale of B.C. fruit juices like Sun-Rype is banned on B.C. ferries.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order, please.

Hon. D. Miller: I can understand, hon. Speaker, that some beverages might be banned, but for the life of me I can't understand why apple juice -- or apple juice made by a particular producer . . . . Nor do I acknowledge that is the case. But I certainly will investigate that. Of course, as the member knows, right now -- whether there's a ban or not -- you couldn't buy any brand. [Laughter.]

PRIORITY OF REGISTERING SEX OFFENDERS

J. Weisgerber: My question is for the Attorney General.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

J. Weisgerber: At a recent meeting of Justice ministers, a federal-provincial report recommended against the creation of a national registry for convicted sex offenders. The report says that a national database could not hope to provide a comprehensive list of potentially dangerous individuals, because many have bargained down to non-sexual charges and others have been charged but not convicted.

Incredibly, these same ministers have started physical registration of legal firearms under Bill C-68, effective December 1. Can the minister tell us why he and his colleagues believe that it is more important to register legally owned sporting rifles than it is to register convicted sexual predators who are moving back into our communities?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: With respect to the firearms, it's federal criminal legislation that the Attorney General of the province doesn't have the choice to not enforce. The police in this province will enforce it as long as the federal government makes it the law, although we may do so reluctantly.

However, on the issue of the national registry for sex offenders, the member knows my position. I was the one that raised the issue of the need for a national registry for sex offenders and the need to eliminate pardons for sex offenders. The federal government and many of my other colleagues have not lived up to that need, and I will continue to press them to do that.

The Speaker: The member for Peace River South, first supplementary.

J. Weisgerber: The Attorney General is indeed on record. The Attorney General is on record as saying that he would consider going it alone with a provincial sex-offenders registry if Ottawa failed to provide a national registry. The Attorney General knows that's a position that I've campaigned on for a number of years. Has the minister decided, in the face of that report, to establish a provincial registry so that individuals and families can know when convicted, dangerous sexual predators move into their neighbourhoods?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: A very, very good question. Ontario said that they are thinking about doing a registry in Ontario. If another major province in the country goes ahead, we will go ahead in British Columbia to do the same and hook up with each other and forget about the federal government -- although it's their responsibility. They're not living up to it.

FOREST RECREATION CAMPING FEES

M. de Jong: On Tuesday the Forests minister was forced to admit his plan to quietly suck millions of dollars out of the pockets of British Columbians who only want to access B.C.'s forestry recreational sites. He was forced to confess that his government's so-called new way of doing business is nothing more than more hidden taxes and more hidden fees. But my question for him today is: will the Forests minister confirm that instead of cancelling those rec site fees, what he's actually done is embark upon a witch-hunt at the highest levels of his ministry to discover who had the audacity to tell the public the truth about what he wants to do in terms of raising fees on recreational sites?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: From the height of my office, I haven't conducted any witch-hunt.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order, please.

M. de Jong: I thought I heard the Forests minister say he wasn't trying to ascertain who told the public the truth. You know, the problem is that he should have consulted with his own ministerial official Carl Withler, whose e-mails to Mr. Jean, who is the gentleman we were talking about a few days ago, confirm that that's just what's happened. "The whole incident is under a thorough investigation at the ministerial level," according to this Forests ministry official.

Interesting that the e-mail also says: "Don't worry about the Boundary forest region in respect to this matter. [The minister] could best send his bloodhounds a little closer to home." So there's a little advice from Mr. Jean.

My question is this: why is the minister more interested in ferreting out those officials within his ministry who have some intention of telling the public the truth than in ending these hideous recreational site fees that are sucking money out of British Columbians' pockets?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: If we followed the tax cuts that those people over there want, we'd shut down the whole Forests ministry.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members!

[ Page 11007 ]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I don't know where that member gets his information, but I actually found out . . . .

Interjections.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The first I knew that there was a draft regulation in the hands of officials and llama trail operators was when I got it from one of the members in my own caucus.

The Speaker: Thank you, members. That ends question period.

Ministerial Statement

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO

BUSINESS SUMMIT RECOMMENDATIONS

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, yesterday's report of the B.C. Business Summit contained some recommendations worthy of consideration and others that cause grave concern to nurses, teachers, ambulance paramedics, conservation officers and thousands of others working in the public service around the clock to deliver vital public services to British Columbians. Because the Leader of the Opposition advocates many of these changes, and has in the past, and continues to urge dramatic cuts in the spending available for these services, I want to make the government's views on these matters clear.

Our education system and our health care system are two things that we take pride in here in British Columbia. They make this province one of the best places in the world to live. Education is about more than schools, books and computers, important as those are. A quality education system requires the skills and commitment of trained teachers. That is why our government is committed to hiring more than 1,000 teachers to reduce class size in the early years. I want to take this opportunity to make it abundantly clear that under no circumstances will this government waver from that commitment.

Access to health care services is equally fundamental. It is a basic right of all British Columbians to have equal access to medical care on the basis of need, not on social status or family income. The keyword in my statement is care. Hospitals don't deliver services; nurses, doctors, paramedics and a host of other health care workers deliver care. That's why we're committed to hiring more than 1,000 more nurses -- because we're determined to maintain the quality of care. I want to take this opportunity, as well, to make it abundantly clear that this government has every intention of fulfilling the Premier's commitment to hire 1,000 new nurses in British Columbia.

The cuts advocated by the members opposite, the Liberal Party, at the business summit would eliminate our ability to hire those nurses and teachers. One billion dollars in cuts would mean the entire elimination of the Ministry of Forests, the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture, the Ministry of Fisheries, plus the Ministry of Employment and Investment. I do not believe, nor does this government believe, that the public will support such radical reductions.

The proposal to contract out the operation of schools and privatize hospitals and universities is an extreme recommendation, which could save money only by attacking the wages of the very people we count on to make our health and education systems the best possible.

On this side of the House, unlike the side opposite, we value the contributions made by our correctional officers, our environmental officials, our home support workers and our paramedics, teachers, nurses and administration clerks. We recognize that they often provide vital services under some very difficult and tough conditions, and this government has no intention of abandoning those workers or jeopardizing their future or the future of their families.

We welcome the opportunity to work with the business community to strengthen our economy. But today I want to assure the people who deliver public services in this province that we understand the contribution they make to our well-being. We as a government will reject solutions that seek to strengthen the economy by weakening health, education and vital public services.

The Speaker: In response to the ministerial statement, I recognize the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain.

C. Clark: The Minister Responsible for the Public Service proves again that he doesn't have to be in cabinet for long to demonstrate that the facts don't have to be correct for them to be stated in this House.

[3:00]

But he is right, and I would agree with him, on this: the business summit did make some good suggestions. They did come up with some good ideas, some that we on this side of the House can support and some, I'm pleased to hear, that they on that side of the House have apparently decided -- late-in-the-day believers -- they can support as well.

But I'll tell you this. There is one thing that the minister gets terribly, terribly wrong. The thing he gets wrong is the fact that somehow the suggestions that the official opposition makes are the ideas that are going to damage our ability to pay for health care and education. The thing that is damaging our ability to pay for health care and education in this province is this government. It is the very fact that this government has driven our economy into the ground.

They have put so many people out of work that fewer and fewer people are paying taxes, and there is less revenue coming into government, so we are less able to provide for health care and education in British Columbia. That's what the Minister Responsible for the Public Service misses.

The essential ingredient in protecting those important services is to get British Columbians back to work, whether they're in the public sector or in the private sector. That's the essential ingredient, and that's what the minister has missed today. The first thing that we on this side of the House will do to get that happening is to make a dramatic cut in personal income taxes. It's the first thing we will do to put more money into British Columbians' pockets. We know that if we put money back into people's pockets, they'll go out there and spend it in the economy.

And -- guess what -- they'll give it to government, so that we can improve our health care and education systems. That's what they'll do with that money.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members . . . .

C. Clark: The minister's got it wrong. We on this side of the House are standing up for British Columbians. We're standing up for working people; we're standing up for parents and students; we're standing up for the elderly and ill

[ Page 11008 ]

and infirm in this province. It's this side of the House that cares about those issues, not the government on that side of the House.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Well, we've seen a bit of a new twist to ministerial statements today.

Members will come to order. I recognize the hon. member for Okanagan-Penticton.

Petitions

R. Thorpe: I rise to present a petition signed by 454 citizens of Glenmore, British Columbia, seeking action by this Legislative Assembly on a matter regarding liquor licensing policy.

Tabling Documents

Hon. M. Farnworth: I have the pleasure to present the 1996-97 annual report of the Ministry of Employment and Investment.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call second reading debate of Bill 51.

NIS G A'A FINAL AGREEMENT ACT

(second reading continued)

J. van Dongen: Thank you, hon. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak today in this second reading debate on Bill 51, Nisga'a Final Agreement Act. Like all members of this Legislature, I consider it a privilege and responsibility to add my comments on behalf of my constituents of Abbotsford but also of all the citizens of British Columbia.

It appears that British Columbians are alive to the fact that this Nisga'a final agreement is actually moving forward to reality. For some it is considered a very good thing, but for many it is a source of serious concern. I want to begin by recognizing the hard work that has gone into bringing the negotiations to this stage. To the Nisga'a people, I commend them and their leaders for their patience, persistence and dedication to negotiation as the route to resolve this serious historical conflict.

I want to acknowledge the years of work by all the negotiators, those acting for the Nisga'a and the two levels of government, both federal and provincial. Most often, if one is not directly involved in the actual process, we underestimate the complexity and difficulties involved and the efforts made to reach solutions.

I will go so far as to acknowledge that even within the government there exist sincerely held beliefs and honest commitment on this issue, culminating with the tabling of this Bill 51 in the Legislature on November 30. In making this recognition, however, I believe that there are notable exceptions, as exemplified by certain government actions in seeking the ratification of this agreement. It has been interesting to observe aboriginal policy and actions by this government and how they have evolved since the NDP took power in October '91. The Premier now has a new-found interest in the Nisga'a agreement and native land claims, since his federal fish war fizzled into public oblivion.

I want to follow up on a comment made by the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs in his submission to this House on Tuesday of last week. To paraphrase his comments, he said that ultimately MLAs should be guided by their own judgment, which is the essence of our democratically elected parliamentary system. My personal decision relies on both my experiences over the years and my own assessment of a broad range of expert opinion, as well as my best assessment of the real views of British Columbians, including the Nisga'a people and other, non-Nisga'a native peoples.

I want to assure everyone, but most importantly the Nisga'a people and their supporters, that I absolutely do not form my opinions exclusively on what the majority thinks.

My comments today and my beliefs on this issue are significantly influenced by my experiences in small business and my 15 years as a director in a very large business, which is also a farmer-owned cooperative, a form of organization built on democratic principles. A lot of my comments today will be in the first person, which I apologize for, in one sense. Yet I feel it is necessary and appropriate to illustrate my points as to why I believe what I do.

Each of us, whether we do it consciously or not, throughout our life develops our own personal set of principles, criteria and experiences, which we draw on to evaluate difficult decisions such as the one we as members of this House are facing today in Bill 51.

With an agreement and an issue as complex as this one, there are endless critiques and alternatives that could be raised. It has been important in my own review of this issue to focus on the critical, relevant issues and not to sweat the small stuff. As a business person, I have done numerous deals, contracts and various negotiations. From an early point in my career, it has been important to focus on the big picture, and I intend to do that here. The relevance of the details is in how they illustrate or contribute to the big picture.

Accordingly, I want to focus on aspects of the Nisga'a final agreement that I regard as particularly troublesome, some to the point of being deal-breakers for me personally -- first of all, the costs of the treaty. I want to deal separately with the up-front costs of the deal and the ongoing operating costs of maintaining and servicing the agreement.

The one-time costs are in cash and land: $350 million in cash and about 2,000 square kilometres of land, conservatively estimated by government at a value of $106 million. The money will be paid out over 15 years by the federal and provincial governments.

Some of the costs include: $190 million in capital costs, $10 million for fish conservation along the Nass River, $11.5 million for the Nisga'a to buy a share of the existing commercial fishery, $30 million to set up local government, $30 million of federal money for training while the Nisga'a become self-governing, $36 million of provincial money collected for stumpage fees on Nisga'a lands, $41 million for road improvements. In addition there will be payments to third parties, such as forestry and mining companies, who have claims within the Nisga'a territory.

There will also be continued federal payments of $24 million per year for social services that are currently paid under the Indian Act. These are unquestionably significant front-end costs to the treaty which are rightly of concern to many people -- all of it borrowed money on top of what is already record national and provincial debt.

The front-end cost is an issue; however, I am not so concerned about the cash cost -- that it is a deal-breaker. I have concerns, yes, but my other concerns are much more serious in the long term. I would go so far as to say that I would even be prepared to recommend to a skeptical public

[ Page 11009 ]

that we offer to trade off cash, if necessary and if possible, to get the changes that I believe are essential to make this proposed agreement acceptable.

The creation of a third order of government. Clearly the creation of a third order of government in this final agreement is something which I cannot and will not support. Let us be unequivocally clear. The government structure proposed in the Nisga'a final agreement is not the same as any municipal government anywhere in this province or in this country. Further, it is questionable to say that it is municipal-like.

In a province where many people rightfully feel that we already have too many levels of government, we certainly should not be contemplating another unique level and form of government in addition to what is already in place. The concept of a third order of government has been aggressively pushed for years by native leaders and was part of the Charlottetown accord, which was soundly rejected by the people of B.C. and of Canada.

In the proposed structure of Nisga'a government, the Nisga'a will have a central government, four village governments and three urban locals in Terrace, Prince Rupert and Vancouver. As proposed, this third order of government is unnecessary, it is inequitable and it carries with it a very high operating cost. A lot of it will be borne by all taxpayers, not just the Nisga'a people themselves. It is not a delegated authority from the federal and provincial governments. It is not the same and it should be.

Unlike any municipal government, the Nisga'a government will have paramount law-making power in at least 14 areas, meaning that some Nisga'a laws will legally prevail over federal or provincial laws in the event of an inconsistency or a conflict.

There are no practical arguments to be made on this issue, only emotional ones. These arrangements will be troublesome and expensive to manage in perpetuity. What makes this aspect of the final agreement most troubling is that by the act of accepting this agreement, this third order of government is locked in constitutionally, which means that the provincial and federal governments can never modify it without the express agreement of the Nisga'a government. This provision, as well as a number of other discriminatory provisions, becomes cast into constitutional concrete through the ratification of this treaty.

As such, it is wrong. It discriminates between native and non-native, it discriminates unnecessarily, and it does so at great ongoing cost to all taxpayers.

In closing my comments on this issue, I want to relate a quote attributed to Jack Ebbels, the lead provincial negotiator: "[The Nisga'a government, if the treaty is approved,] would be municipal-like . . . but the big difference is that municipalities are creatures of the provincial government and could be gone with

an act of the Legislature. This is a treaty right to self-government, and it cannot be altered unilaterally. It can only be changed by agreement of all three parties."

The right to vote by non-Nisga'a living in the Nass Valley. Non-native citizens living in the Nass Valley will not be allowed to vote or to run for office in Nisga'a village governments or in the Nisga'a Lisims government. If the final agreement is allowed to retain such a provision, as it now does, then I can only conclude that the cure is as detrimental and negative as the original ailment. It is hard to believe that as we engage in an exercise of trying to reconcile historical injustices, we will discriminate against certain Canadian citizens in the manner proposed in this agreement.

[3:15]

The issues of certainty and finality have been debated at length, both in the technical-legal sense and generally. However, there are at least 50 areas in the treaty where ongoing consultation will be required or where B.C. and the Nisga'a nation will negotiate and attempt to reach further agreements. There is also a clause that will allow the Nisga'a to renegotiate for more favourable tax treatment if any other first nation in the northwest strikes a better deal in the future. This is not finality.

New uncertainty and bureaucracy will also be created in the areas of fish and wildlife management, as I will detail later. Overlapping claims by neighbouring first nations have not been resolved, and at least one is currently the subject of a legal action.

A recent legal opinion developed for the Union of B.C. Municipalities refers to what it called "reopeners" in its analysis of certainty and finality of the Nisga'a final agreement. The paper listed a number of issues in the final agreement and the various subsidiary documents that can be and will be reopened for further negotiation at various times in the future. Many of these issues become increasingly critical in the context of another 50 treaties in British Columbia. The position that this agreement will be viewed as a template has been acknowledged by virtually everyone.

The principle in this agreement will be viewed as a right by every other native band in negotiations, and it is not an accident that others are now trying to speed up their negotiations.

I want to make some comments about the unnecessarily and unbelievably complex bureaucratic and expensive design of the agreement. I will be the first to say that issues in agreements like this can be complicated. However, if the elected people in government with financial accountability to their electorate do not deliver aggressive, focused instructions to their negotiators to seek a simple, uncomplicated agreement, then it will not happen. Both federal and provincial governments have failed all taxpayers on this count, including the Nisga'a people themselves.

What is especially tragic is that the huge, ongoing costs of complying with this agreement are the direct result of the inequities and wrongheaded discrimination that are entrenched in this deal and that will be entrenched constitutionally.

We are setting ourselves up for a serious double whammy. Not only will we perpetuate fundamental permanent inequities, we will be doing so at great ongoing cost to all taxpayers, which is so unnecessary if we are prepared to treat everyone equally. It should be a clear signal to people when even members in the legal profession question the fundamental inequities and the associated costs of implementing this proposed agreement. I categorically reject the view that it cannot or should not be much simpler than it is. I reject the attitude: "This is the way it is.

The world is a complicated place, and if the lawyers say it should be 252 pages, then so be it." Our governments have failed all of us on this count.

I know from direct personal experience that simple agreements are often the best agreements. People say it can't be done, but I say it can be done and it should be done. Who in this chamber or in this province needs or wants more complexity in their lives? Who in government today -- elected or public servant -- needs more detailed and complex law, regulations and contracts to manage and to implement? My question to both levels of government is: what have you done to simplify this agreement into something which is less bureaucratic and which is affordable and equitable to all citizens and taxpayers?

I want to address the serious issue of the ongoing annual cost to service and maintain this agreement. The federal negotiator estimates that after 15 years, all Canadian taxpayers will continue to pay for 75 percent of the cost of the Nisga'a

[ Page 11010 ]

government. The initial fiscal financing agreement provides for annual transfers of $32.1 million to the Nisga'a government for the next five years. This $32.1 million could also be increased, upon application by the Nisga'a, to pay for additional governance functions that they are entitled to exercise under the treaty. The financing agreements will be negotiated every five years. The $32.1 million is only one part of the ongoing costs. It represents the cash commitment of the two governments under the contract.

The other relatively unseen and unheard-of costs will be the actual continued cash outlay for bureaucrats, lawyers, consultants, negotiators and advisory boards and committees to service this agreement on an ongoing basis. As an illustration of the undesirable complexity I'm talking about, I refer people to

chapter 8 of the final agreement, dealing with fisheries. Under this agreement, the Nisga'a will have access to Nass River salmon under a number of sections.

Under the final agreement, the Nisga'a will be guaranteed an allocation of 17 percent of the total allowable catch. Sections 21 to 27 set up a separate Nisga'a harvest agreement, which will entitle the Nisga'a to an additional 9 percent of the total allowable catch under a number of different conditions and processes. Under

section 28, if the federal minister considers that there is a surplus to spawning requirements, the Nisga'a could be given additional harvest opportunities.

Under sections 35 and 36 of

chapter 8, the Nisga'a will have a right to harvest the portion of the total allowable catch that results from improved Nisga'a enhancement initiatives, in proportion to their cost contribution. Think about the practical reality of how to calculate that one, not just one time but every year for the life of the agreement -- which cannot be changed unilaterally by either level of senior government.

Finally, under

chapter 8 --

section 111 and

schedule G -- the Nisga'a will be given funding of $11.5 million to buy boats and licences in the general commercial fishery. The funding will be half from the federal government and half from the province.

My purpose is not in any way to question the Nisga'a's right to access salmon or other species in the Nass River. However, I say to people: read the fisheries

chapter as one example, as well as the subsidiary harvest agreement. Ask yourself how this is going to work in a practical way as we go down the road. I'm certainly not saying that the agreement is not in plain language; I feel it is in plain language.

My concern is that we are setting up a bureaucracy that will have no end and that will generate, on an ongoing basis, a myriad of rules, calculations, processes, consultations and decisions. The native legal industry will be ungainfully employed for years and years into the future. These arrangements will be, without question, an ongoing source of conflicts and expense. The commercial fishing sector in this province already, by everyone's admission, suffers grievously from intergovernmental conflict, overlap and tension.

Now we are proposing to introduce into this mix another level of governance in the fishing sector, operating under a unique set of rules set out in the agreement. I ask people to consider what the impact will be on the cost to the taxpayer to manage and support the fishing industry, when current levels of public expenditure are already rightfully being questioned.

The next aspect I want to address is the inequities and inequalities that will be entrenched constitutionally through the ratification of this agreement. Under the final agreement, the Nisga'a will have a constitutionally protected exclusive commercial fishing entitlement of 17 percent of the total allowable catch. This will be a special commercial salmon-harvesting right that is distinct from the right of any other commercial fishermen. This provision is needlessly and unfairly discriminatory to all other B.C. fishermen.

It is one of a number of examples where ethnicity will be a basis for constitutionally protected discrimination between two groups of citizens who should have equal rights. The implications for fisheries management are equally serious and have already been mentioned.

Taxation. If the Nisga'a agreement becomes a reality, there will be more tax parity than there is now. But there are certain existing taxes that the Nisga'a will not pay at any time in the future. For example, they will not pay stumpage fees to the province. Yet the Nisga'a will have the right to apply to Forest Renewal B.C. for forest enhancement funding.

I have already mentioned the fundamental inequity of taking away the right of non-Nisga'a residents to vote. Many of these inequities are forever, and many will have constitutional status under this treaty. Many of these inequities are blatantly obvious and fundamental in a democratic country that claims to treat each person equally.

Hon. Speaker, I've tried to summarize some of my major concerns about the proposed agreement. I believe that the views I have expressed are consistent with those sincerely held by a significant number of B.C. citizens. It is an undisputed fact that the injustice imposed on the Nisga'a by the rest of Canada must be reconciled. I agree completely with the position that treaty negotiation is the avenue of choice to achieve reconciliation.

It is my observation, however, that when a group of people are oppressed and have been so for a long time there is a tendency for the pendulum to swing the other way. I think that we as politicians very often delude ourselves in our quest to make the world seem fair and equal. We do so for all the right reasons. I believe, however, that we also have to be honest with ourselves. Even though the quest for fairness must go on, there is a limit to what is realistically achievable in any particular situation.

I am not persuaded by the argument that this injustice has gone on so long that, problems or not, the Nisga'a final agreement must be signed immediately. I can assure Chief Joseph Gosnell that I have done the soul-searching that he asked me to do. I did it long before he asked me to do it, and I have continued to revisit the issues over and over again.

I want to comment now on the need for a referendum on this significant decision for British Columbia. Again I want to reference the comments made by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs in this second reading debate, which I will paraphrase as follows. He said that after an MLA has done all the consultations, study and investigations they believe are necessary -- I will now quote the minister -- "the MLA will ultimately rely on her or his judgment." I absolutely agree with the minister on that point. I agree that we as MLAs should consider a wide variety of input to check and temper our own judgments.

I will illustrate my unequivocal support of a referendum on this matter, however, by comparing my current elected responsibility -- and the minister's elected responsibility -- to my experience as an elected director on the board of a large cooperative. Cooperatives by design, purpose and intent clearly strive to be democratic organizations. In the case of the Fraser Valley Milk Producers Cooperative Association, the elected board of directors had the job, as the minister said, of using their judgment on all aspects of their legal, moral and fiduciary responsibilities to the members.

[ Page 11011 ]

But the co-op also had a rule that if the board wanted to do a major expansion, incur a major capital expenditure or merge with another cooperative, they had to seek the membership's approval through a secret ballot at a special general meeting. The governing rule was that if the board was intending to incur a certain level of debt, it had to go to the membership for a vote. The board of directors often chafed under the discipline imposed by this rule. It required the board to be accountable before a major decision was implemented so the members had a say in the future of the co-op before major things happened. It required the elected directors to explain the rationale for their proposal.

In 1992 our board had negotiated a potential merger with two similar dairy cooperatives in Alberta. The Alberta cooperatives would collectively outweigh the influence of the B.C. co-op in the new entity. There were difficult market and financial reasons for making this unprecedented proposal to the membership. One of the Alberta co-ops was in financial difficulty. If the proposed deal was done, it would be irreversible; there would be no turning back. The nature of our B.C. cooperative, which was founded in 1917, would be changed forever.

Many producers were openly hostile to the idea, but we as a board focused on the facts. We presented the relevant facts as we knew them -- the upsides, the downsides, the strengths and the weaknesses. I will always remember chairing a meeting in Enderby, where the most vocal questioner and critic came to me afterwards and thanked us for not trying to sell him on the deal by using rhetoric and for never once saying to him: "Trust us." He thanked us for answering difficult questions factually and allowing him to make up his own mind. It was a lesson for the rest of my life.

The vote was 91 percent in favour of doing the deal -- a deal, as I said, that many members had great concerns about. The figure of 91 percent is not one to sneeze at. It was the highest percentage that I'd seen at any special general meeting in 15 years.

[3:30]

This government was elected by 39 percent of the voters in British Columbia in the 1996 general election. As such, this government's mandate was bestowed by significantly less than half of the people who voted in that election. And current polls suggest that the government's public support today is a lot less than 39 percent.

There is the argument put forth that if a referendum were to be allowed on this issue, the majority would simply steamroll a no vote for their own selfish purposes. I reject this argument. I reject it because I have a strong belief in the workings of a true democracy. I have a belief in the collective wisdom, intelligence and decency of the members of our democracy in B.C. and Canada. Give our citizens the opportunity and the responsibility to rise to the challenge of doing the right thing, and I believe they will do so.

Part of the responsibility would be for all of us as elected representatives to present the facts as we see them, the pros and cons, in a balanced and even-handed manner. Sadly, this has not happened with the government's $5 million media campaign. And sadly, the government has not had the confidence to date to place their faith in the collective goodwill and wisdom of our citizens. A referendum on the principles of the Nisga'a template is not only a good thing to do; it is the right thing to do. People want to have a say on this serious issue, and they are entitled to do so.

I want to close with a few quotations from a recent open letter by Cyril Shelford. He has written a couple of books. I've watched him over the years -- a humble man, a former Minister of Agriculture, a former MLA for the ridings of Omineca and then Skeena for a total of 24 years. He is someone who has lived and worked with native people for most of his life.

[R. Kasper in the chair.]

On certainty and finality, he says: " . . . so-called certainty won't happen until well into the next century, after all the other 50 claims have been settled." On economic self-sufficiency, he had this to say:

"Unfortunately, more than half the reserves in Canada are in isolated areas where nothing could make them self-sufficient, no matter what government is in power or under their system of self-government. All the many studies I've read haven't pointed this out to the natives, which leaves them thinking it is possible, which is totally unfair."

He continues on to say:

"It should have been pointed out in every report that even with self-government, it's not possible without major taxpayer's support forever . . . . Yet it seems that both levels of government and the Treaty Commission are more than anxious to continue down the same road that failed in the past."

The government has attempted to embarrass anyone who is not prepared to jump on their bandwagon. They have not focused on the facts of the actual agreement. They are hard-selling the agreement on the basis of emotion: feelings of guilt for the wrongs of the past. They do not consider that they do not have the moral authority to proceed on this very significant decision, given the very low level of political support they currently have.

I have made many decisions in my lifetime. Many were made very quickly, and some took a long time. One rule I've always set for myself is that I would not get stampeded or intimidated into a decision, and I intend to apply that rule in this situation. Accordingly, I personally do not agree with the Nisga'a final agreement proposed in Bill 51. Therefore, for the reasons given, I will be voting against it.

Thank you, hon. Speaker, for the opportunity to express my views.

B. McKinnon: I'm honoured to rise and speak to the Nisga'a agreement. This is an extremely important time not only for the Nisga'a but for all first nations people and all people of British Columbia.

It is an awesome task that has been given to me as a legislator of this province. My colleague from Vancouver-Langara said it so humbly: it is a decision which may have a profound effect on all peoples of this province and in our country; it is a "sacred responsibility which is both a privilege and a burden." It is one of the most important challenges that we in government face today: the challenge to reconcile the legal rights of the first nations people with the sovereignty of the Crown and of our common rights, values and principles as British Columbians and as Canadians. I do not take this responsibility lightly, as members of the opposite side would have everyone believe.

As members of the opposition, it is our duty to the people of British Columbia to give them the true facts of the legislation before us. The NDP spent five million taxpayer dollars to try and sell the people their version of the treaty, which contains some half-truths and ignores important details that the people of this province should know. The NDP have taken the Nisga'a treaty to a political level that is self-serving and that they feel will take them into an election.

The Premier says: "It's my deal, and it's a done deal. There will be no changes, no amendments and no referen-

[ Page 11012 ]

dum." That's NDP democracy at its best. The people are fed up, tired of the games this government is playing with their lives, their jobs and the economy of this province. They are not fooled by this government's antics and are crying out for an election before everything they hold sacred in this province is taken from them.

The Premier and members of this government have told us repeatedly that this agreement is to be a template for all other agreements that are still in the making. If this is so, then we must look at this agreement and see if it will fit in with all the other 50 or so agreements yet to be ratified. We should be asking ourselves: would this agreement work in the urban centres of the province? Would we all be able to live with an agreement such as this in Vancouver, Surrey, Victoria? The Nisga'a template will affect us all, whether we live on Nisga'a land or in the urban areas of this province.

We need to do it right the first time, not just for the Nisga'a but for all first nations people who are looking for a fair settlement in the future.

I believe in treaties, as does everyone on this side of the House. Treaties should be negotiated with openness, not behind closed doors. Treaties should include the interests of all British Columbians and should also include the values of fairness, equality, certainty and finality. I believe that we need to get rid of reserves, get rid of the Indian Act and get rid of the poverty and suffering of our first nations people, which has gone on for too long. I believe that if we don't all start from an equal footing and have equal rights, we will not succeed in the goals we set for ourselves in this country.

The opposition has been calling for improvements on the Nisga'a template since the agreement-in-principle was first announced. What we are trying to do here today is get this government to listen -- not only to what we in the opposition have been saying all along but to what the people of this province are saying. All British Columbians want to resolve the uncertainty about aboriginal rights and titles. The people of this province are continually fed half-truths by this government, and they have become very skeptical and frustrated about accepting anything this government tells them as believable.

This treaty before us today is being imposed on British Columbians without their consent, without them having an opportunity to agree or disagree. It is a shame that this government doesn't have the courage to ask the people, rather than dictate to them.

Hon. Speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition said in his speech: "This treaty is not a prescription for greater equality. It will replace existing inequities with new inequities." The minority report recommendations put forward by the all-party Aboriginal Affairs committee were completely ignored by this government. Why have committees? Why waste taxpayers' money? These are questions that need to be asked if governments have no intention of listening to what these committees have to say.

This is not a treaty on the road to reconciliation; it is not a treaty of the people. It is a treaty of the NDP telling everyone how it's going to be. We have only one taxpayer, whether it's for federal, provincial or municipal government. These 50 to 60 treaties in British Columbia are going to cost us provincially and federally. We have not even begun to take in the cost of treaties across Canada. The people of this province will have to live with the impact that this settlement will have on our fisheries and our Crown lands.

This treaty denies non-aboriginal residents the right to vote and run for office -- the most basic of all democratic rights. The Nisga'a will have a government that cannot be considered merely a municipal-like government. What the Nisga'a will be getting is a government that is not recognized by our Canadian constitution. Municipal governments are established by a provincial Legislature, delegating certain limited and local powers to the municipal body that it creates. The point is that whatever powers the Legislature delegates to a municipality, it can retrieve at any time in the future.

It can even abolish the very municipality it created. The form of the Nisga'a central government proposed under this agreement fails to meet the test of any criteria for municipal governments. The powers given to the Nisga'a by the province under the treaty are not delegated to it but are, in fact, forever irretrievable. This agreement prevents non-Nisga'as living on Nisga'a land from voting in their elections, even though these same people will be subject to Nisga'a laws and will have to pay Nisga'a taxes.

The Charlottetown accord was soundly defeated in a referendum. Canadians at that time were then given a choice. By British Columbia law, if anything changes our constitution, it must be put to a vote by the people of this province, and this why we are calling for a referendum on that point.

A workable solution has to be found, which is equal and fair to all Canadians and British Columbians alike. The Nisga'a have negotiated in good faith, and for them a treaty is long overdue. Being long overdue is not a reason to give the Nisga'a a treaty that does not make them equal in every respect. We have a duty to try and improve the Nisga'a template, if possible. There are many positives in this treaty, but there are also many questions that still need answers. Will this government answer any of the questions that need answers? Will they make any effort to change the inequities of this treaty? Hon.

Speaker, the answer is no to both questions. Desmond Tutu once said: "My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together." Let us here today be human together with the Nisga'a.

[3:45]

Hon. Speaker, here's the Nisga'a treaty. I've had this copy for quite some time now. There are 252 pages in this treaty. Here is the part of the treaty that I agree with; here is the

part I don't. I do not agree with 27 pages of the treaty.

The Premier has brought Bill 51 to this House and chosen to attach the treaty only as a

schedule to the bill and deny us anything except general debate. I cannot vote for all of these sections that I favour; I cannot vote against the ones I don't. I am denied the opportunity in this House to do anything other than vote for or against Bill 51. And that's not good enough.

This is the blueprint for all other treaties; the Premier has told us so -- 50 or 60 yet to come. It's just not good enough. It's not good enough for me; it's not good enough for the aboriginal people whose treaties will follow; it's not good enough for my constituents. But it must be good for somebody. Could it be the Premier? If Nisga'a is good for B.C., then

[ Page 11013 ]

Mr. Premier should tell the truth for once -- not $5 million worth of messages to buy the taxpayer with propaganda, not deceptive ads on every B.C. radio and television station, newspaper and magazine.

Deputy Speaker: The Chair recognizes the Deputy Premier on a point of order.

Hon. D. Miller: I would ask the member to withdraw the comments she just made with respect to truth-telling. I think they offend the rules.

Deputy Speaker: I would ask the hon. member to withdraw the remark.

A. Sanders: I'd be happy to, if it offends the Deputy Premier.

Hon. D. Miller: No, it offends the House.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, order.

Hon. member, I would advise that it is an unconditional withdrawal.

A. Sanders: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I withdraw the remark.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you.

A. Sanders: If Nisga'a is good for B.C., then the Premier should tell us the truth, not $5 million in messages to buy the taxpayer with propaganda, not deceptive ads on every B.C. radio and television station, newspaper and magazine, day in and day out -- half-truths spun into a sugar pill for taxpayer consumption.

British Columbians resent being misled, being duped. Tell us the truth, the whole story. We are adults. Give us all of the information, and let us decide what's good and what's not good about Bill 51, about the Nisga'a final agreement. Nowhere in NDP advertisements were British Columbians more misled than in the description of Nisga'a self-government. Taxpayer-financed ads were deliberately inaccurate if they said the Nisga'a people will "govern themselves in a way comparable to municipal government." Not true. Nisga'a government is not a municipal-style government; it's not even close.

Let's look at the facts and let British Columbians judge for themselves. Municipal governments are established by a provincial Legislature delegating certain limited or local powers to the municipality. These powers are retrievable at any time in the future. The powers given under Nisga'a government are irretrievable; the powers have irrevocable status. Once signed, the treaty casts these powers in constitutional concrete -- galvanized. This kind of government has never existed in any other land claim in Canada. No other aboriginal group in Canada has a government of this kind. Why Nisga'a?

Municipal governments do not have sacred power. Nisga'a government, with its sacred power, does, and therefore it is not municipal government. Municipal governments are given powers over local issues such as taxation of property, waste disposal, business and trade licences and land use planning. These governments are empowered to enforce penalties if municipal laws are violated. The powers given to Nisga'a government go far beyond such local matters. Nisga'a government will have 14 areas of shared constitutional authority where Nisga'a laws supersede federal and provincial law.

The Nisga'a can make laws in education, higher education, professions, trades, health services, children and families, wildlife . . . . The list goes on.

Nisga'a government is not municipal government, as the Premier's ads would tell us. In fact, it is in a category never before seen in this country. Under true municipal government, all adult residents have the fundamental right to run for municipal office and to vote in their municipal elections. This most basic right of all Canadians will be revoked for any non-Nisga'a living on treaty lands, even though these individuals are subject to Nisga'a law and are potentially subject to Nisga'a property tax. These individuals do not have the fundamental right of democracy.

Never did I expect to see, in any Canadian province -- especially British Columbia -- that an individual would be denied this basic right. Nisga'a government is not municipal government. Why did the Premier not tell us the truth? Why did he not give us all of the facts so that we could judge for ourselves? What do we know that we support in Nisga'a, and what do we know that we do not, when the facts are not before us? Why can we not have any say when all British Columbians' futures are at stake? It's the least we could expect from a treaty made behind closed doors.

I support aboriginal self-government. I support aboriginal communities, like all other communities, having the ability to govern their own affairs. I support the goal of truly municipal-style government for aboriginal peoples, not an aboriginal government that has irretrievable powers and special status under the constitution to be set up as a third order of government in Canada. I support an aboriginal government that has all municipal powers and where provincial and federal laws are legally supreme. I accept nothing less.

Another flaw in governance under the Nisga'a treaty is that the provincial government will be constitutionally obligated to consult with the Nisga'a before changing any provincial law which may affect their laws. This will create the same sort of uncertainty that now exists in relation to consultation on land use decisions. Just imagine if every first nation had its own Forest Practices Code or Environmental Assessment Act, like the Nisga'a will have. Before the provincial government can change its laws -- for example, to reduce red tape and costs -- it would have to consult with dozens of aboriginal governments. It's a recipe for bureaucracy, higher costs and, ultimately, fewer jobs.

How much will the Nisga'a government cost taxpayers? Contributions from the federal and provincial governments will be increased to $32.1 million a year and will be adjusted for inflation, population and any extra functions Nisga'a government assumes. The federal government estimates that even after 15 years, taxpayers will contribute at least 75 percent to the Nisga'a government costs. Dependency on taxpayer funding is increased under the Nisga'a final agreement, not decreased.

As a template for 60 more treaties to come, the Nisga'a model of self-government must be rejected. It is wrong to entrench special status for any government under the constitution that accords rights on the basis of ancestry and culture. Democracy is the best system of government the world has ever known. It may not be perfect, but it is the best. We can and we must work to achieve justice for the Nisga'a without

[ Page 11014 ]

violating basic democratic principles or creating an untried model of government that will only divide British Columbians. Equality must be the goal. It has not always been present for our citizens. It is something we must strive for; it is something we must fight for. It is something that must never be extinguished for any Canadian citizen, no matter who they are, no matter where they live.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It is a great debate, it is a great subject, and it feels great to be standing here supporting the first modern-day treaty in British Columbia. I want to go back into some of my own personal experiences, because that's probably why I'm standing here today.

This summer, after the agreement was reached and it was out and we were at home for a summer break, I was sitting around a campfire with a group of young adults. Most of them were loggers and working in the logging industry. They asked about the Nisga'a deal, and they asked all the hard questions. In the end they asked: "Is this the right deal, and is this the right time?" I told them that after a lot of soul-searching and a lot of work on this treaty from my position in cabinet, it was the right deal and it was the right time.

I didn't know what to expect. Because they were loggers, I thought we might get a bit of a reaction. But you know, they looked at me -- and we're talking here now about young men in their late twenties and thirties . . . . One of them, who was the leader in the debate, really, looked at me and said: "I sure hope you're going to move forward with this, because if you don't, our generation won't forgive your generation." They don't want to deal with it a generation from now; they want to deal with this question now. It's that kind of understanding that moves me to really explain my position and support on this treaty.

Previous B.C. governments really didn't get on with the deal. They got a start. The Socreds got a start in the last year of their mandate, and it was honourable to get that start, but there was an awful lot of energy spent getting them there.

When I grew up, I grew up in the shadow of what past governments had -- the fear and ignorance that they had -- doing what they thought was best for B.C. aboriginal people. I remember young children running away from gated communities -- residential schools. I remember people running across the field. You'd look out across the hay field in the morning and see someone running. At first you might think it would be an animal, but no, it was a person. A young Indian child was trying to get home, trying to escape the oppression of the residential school.

My mother and father would tell me that the conditions weren't great there. They didn't understand, I think. They didn't pressure me, but in growing up in that era and asking those questions . . . . I've gone back to my parents to ask why they didn't fight against the residential schools. My mother taught there, in a collegial way, with some of the other lay teachers for a very, very short time, and my grandfather and my father hired aboriginal people. As a family, we were prepared to accept them as equal, but somehow there was something bigger that we couldn't get our heads around. Somehow they were there.

There was some kind of institutional oppression, some kind of barrier. In fact, as I came to learn later, it was a barrier of law. We had put aboriginal people on reserves, denied them their rights and somehow expected them to live some other way than the way they were living.

I respect some of those young leaders who ran away from that school. I remember one in particular, who told me that he ran and was protected by his own family when he got to where the family was involved in a haying operation. This fellow, who is now or has been a chief, begged his father to allow him to stay home and not have to go back to the Indian residential school. Fortunately, his father agreed to protect him, and he never went back to those schools.

[4:00]

I was growing up in the sixties, and I was a student of government and current affairs. I was interested in what was going on around me, but it was not until the fourth year in university . . . . This is not coming out of high school; this is not in elementary school -- say what you will about how much I knew. It was in the fourth year that Bill Wilson -- many of you know that Wilson went on to lead the Summit -- told me in a political science class that there hadn't been treaties in British Columbia.

I thought, as an aware student, that I'd been aware of what was going on formally in government relations and in the general constitution of the country. I remember that day -- I remember where we were sitting and what room we were sitting in -- because the light finally went on for me. I decided that I had to pay more attention as a citizen of this country.

Then I watched the Calder case, and I watched the aboriginal people organize to reject and shut down the Indian Affairs department -- in some cases, successfully; in our area, unsuccessfully. I watched for a year while the Department of Indian Affairs divided and conquered the members of the tribal council and reopened their offices and kept the same kind of oppression going on. I remember when Chief George Manuel wrote a book called The Fourth World , where he tried to show that the two cultures could work together.

I remember out of frustration, after watching and trying -- through the Cariboo regional district that I was a director of -- to get the provincial government into land claims negotiations, because there were road blockades going on in the Nazko country . . . . In fact, our regional district set up probably the first land claims committee that any regional district ever had. It tried to make the relations between the local level of government and the aboriginal governments better. That committee existed for quite a while, and it helped to educate the directors, but we failed to get attention. Perhaps it wouldn't happen today, but in those days there was no more attention paid to it.

A decade has passed since that time. I realized that the only way to get some movement was probably to go out and get involved in provincial politics, because the issues were not being dealt with. Mike Harcourt and the NDP said they would get on with it, and I ran. Here we are nine years later, after incredible effort on the part of the Nisga'a and others and the provincial government and many of the third parties, finally realizing a first deal.

In the Chilcotin, relations have been tense since 1864, when a road was being built and the Chilcotins killed a crew of roadbuilders. That has been called the Chilcotin War. They were killed because the white people who were coming up and building a road into the Chilcotin were raping the first nations women who were associated with the first nations workers. They were feeding the workers from the first nations only scraps, and above all, they threatened them with smallpox. The leaders at the time felt that they had no other recourse, so a raiding party went out, and unfortunately a number of people were killed.

What happened after that was that the chiefs were persuaded to give themselves up and to go and attend treaty talks in Quesnel. Instead, they found that they were taken and

[ Page 11015 ]

put in jail. And in what's since been called the mistrial, they were hanged -- five chiefs and a 16-year-old son of one of the chiefs who went along and would not be parted from his father.

To this day, the Tsilhqot'in are still looking for the graves of those hanged chiefs up in Quesnel somewhere. It's quite probable that the hospital is sitting on them. They're using very sophisticated means to try to find those, because it's very important to the peace of mind of those people that they find those leaders.

But I think -- I know -- they went underground. There were no more overt skirmishes, and that was probably the most violent incident between white and aboriginal people. But it was a different way of handling things. That was how they felt they could best handle it -- a people who'd had very little contact with white people.

Further south in the Secwepemc country, the chiefs got together. They brought some of the Chilcotin together, but there were southern Carriers and others from the area that I represent along with the member for Cariboo North. In 1910 a number of these chiefs met with Wilfrid Laurier. The chiefs said -- and this is their statement about their situation at the time:

"We never asked them [the white man] to come here, but nonetheless, we treated them kindly and hospitably and helped them all we could. They had made themselves as if they were our guests. We treated them as such, and then waited to see what they would do. They [the whites] commenced to take up pieces of land here and there. They told us they wanted only to use those pieces of land for a few years and then hand them back to us in an improved condition. Meanwhile, they would give us some of the products they raised, for the loan of our land. Thus they commenced to enter our houses or live on our ranches.

"With us, when a person enters our house he becomes our guest, and we must treat him hospitably as long as he shows no hostile intentions. At the same time, we expect him to return to us equal treatment for what he receives. Some of our chiefs said: 'These people wish to be partners with us in our country. We must, therefore, be the same as brothers to them and live as one family. We will share equally in everything -- half and half in land, water and timber, etc. What is ours will be theirs, and what is theirs will be ours. We will help each other to be great and good.'

"They have stolen our lands and everything on them and continue to use the same for their purposes. They treat us as less than children and allow us no say in anything. They say the Indians know nothing and own nothing; yet their power and wealth have come from our belongings. The Queen's law, which we believed guaranteed us our rights, the B.C. government has trampled underfoot. This is how our guests have treated us, the brothers we received hospitably in our house.

"We have no grudge against the white race as a whole, not against the settlers. But we want to have equal chance, with them, of making a living. We welcomed them to this country, and it is not, in most cases, their fault. They have taken up and improved and paid for their lands in good faith. It is their government which is to blame, by heaping up injustice upon us. But it also is their duty to see that their government does right by us and gives us a square deal.

"We condemn the whole policy of the B.C. government towards the Indian tribes of this country as utterly unjust, shameful and blundering in every way. We denounce the same as being the main cause of the unsatisfactory condition of Indian affairs in this country and of animosity and friction with the whites."

The whites did not listen. McKenna-McBride later went on . . . . In 1914 they recommended taking away 47,000 acres of good land, generally speaking -- to be taken from the Indians -- and about 80,000 acres of poor land to be given in their place. However, the Indians continued to be good citizens.

They fought for the country. I've got quotes here of chiefs who came back and reported to a royal commission or to the 1926 House of Commons special committee. They reported -- coming back, just wanting the rights of full citizens -- but were being told that they had to give up their status; they could no longer be Indian if they wanted to become full citizens of the country. In most cases, they went back to their reserves. Some of them lost lives; some of them lost limbs. The same thing happened after the Second World War. Mr.

Rosette of Canoe Creek, for example, lost his Indian status because he had been away overseas for five years. The rule was that if you were gone for five years, you lost your status. He only got it back seven or eight years ago.

This racism that's been endemic in the years past still exists; the attitude still persists. I just go back to one of the columns I read recently. On December 4, Barbara Yaffe in the Sun wrote: "Critics of the Nisga'a treaty predict separate, racially based communities will pockmark B.C.'s landscape once all aboriginal negotiations are completed." I hope that her comments -- with her allusion to smallpox, the great scourge of first nations when the white man arrived -- displays poor judgment and not a deeper underlying feeling.

But despite this long-running tradition of institutionalized racism, the Indians have remained patient and cooperative. The Nisga'a, in their patience, were finally able to come to the Bar of this House -- the House that they were barred from for over 100 years.

In that same spirit, closer to home, is an example from the southern Carrier people. They are the majority in the west Chilcotin area around Anahim Lake, and they created a land use planning table. They actually offered it to be an experiment; it was one of the pilots under the CORE process. It started when the people decided that they would work together and sort out their problems. It wasn't a treaty but a land use deal. As a result, many years later, now we have them working together and sharing equally as partners in a sawmill out there. It's a wonderful success story about how people can work together if they have the process and the will to work.

When that Anahim round table reported out, Chief Cassidy Sill came down to Victoria. There was no great celebration here, but there was an announcement in the Cariboo. He came into my office, because it was a moment too important to pass up. He wanted to make it a special moment and wanted me to know something. So he came in and said: "We used to have a name in our language for the white man after he came into the Anahim Lake area. It was a name in Carrier that said 'they who are above us.' " He looked at me and said: "We have a new name for the white man, now we've got this deal settled, and the name is 'they who are our equal,' at the same level as we are."

In all my years of all the stuff in politics you have to put up with, it's moments like that which make it worthwhile. I remember where I was sitting when he made that point to me, and I've quoted it since. So that's the promise and the reality of treaty agreements. Once they're negotiated with the involvement of the people of the local area, we come up not with a divided community, but a community that has gotten rid of fear and disrespect and has entered into a new era of trust. They've gotten rid of the environment of uncertainty, and they can move into the environment of justice.

I want to credit some of the first nations and the chiefs in our area for their patience. They come from Canoe Creek, and

[ Page 11016 ]

they come from the Williams Lake band. They come from Soda Creek, from the Chilcotin and from the South Carrier. Some of these are the Secwepemc -- they're the Shuswap people -- and some of them have local names like the Esketemc from Alkali Lake, and others are from the Williams Lake band and Soda Creek, who don't use names formally. From the Chilcotin there are the Esdilagh, who are the Alexandria people; the Tl'esqox, who are the Toosey people; the Tl'etinqox'tin, who are the Anaham people; the Tsi Del Del, who are the people from the Alexis Creek band; and there's the Xeni Gwetin, who are the Nemaiah people.

The South Carrier people in the area are the Lhoosk'us Dene, with the Kluskus band; the Ndazkho are the Nazko people -- virtually the same name; there's the Lhtako, the Red Bluff people who live near Quesnel; and the Ulkatcho, who live near Anahim Lake and came originally from what we know as Ulkatcho Lake.

The Cariboo people have for a long time, when they've had to face this issue when there were problems of confrontations, demanded that the government step in and do something. There's a lot of talk about whether or not we have a mandate to vote for this treaty or a mandate to settle this treaty. I feel very sincerely that we have a mandate, because for ten years I've been talking to people about what it takes, what the conditions of an agreement will be -- and is that acceptable? And when put to people, my experience is that they will support us.

Back in 1990 -- it was in May -- there was a huge rally at Williams Lake. There had been a road blockage, and there were logging trucks blocking the highway and thousands of people in the streets in front of city hall. They were concerned about a blockade off the main road where the military had been confronted by the Toosey band, and the banner headline in the Williams Lake Tribune that came out of that said: "Provincial Inactivity Targeted at Rally." They were concerned that we hadn't settled land claims. They were concerned that we hadn't dealt with the legitimate aspirations of the first nations people in the area.

It reports the resolutions that were put by the organizers to the thousands of people who were assembled, and they said: "Deal with land claims and resource management issues in the forests. Immediately send in mediators agreeable to both sides, or failing that, set up a tribunal of representatives from the province, the natives and the third person. Begin work immediately to bring the parties to talk and discuss detailed proposals and resolve the impasse. Have both sides agree with an outcome of mediation."

There was a four-point proposal made and received at the time in support of the local MP, who was a Conservative. I supported it at the time, and I believe it had the support even then from Neil Vant, who was then on the government side.

The rally was sponsored by a Save Our Jobs committee. It was a group of union and non-union groups -- people concerned about their jobs in the area. I spoke at that rally, and I joined my constituents, demanding that we settle land claims. It was for the good of the economy and for the quality of life in British Columbia.

I said then, and I will repeat it again here today: "It is very misleading for anyone to suggest that by refusing to accept the concept of Indian title, the government is somehow looking after the interests of the rest of us, or that this refusal will have the slightest beneficial effect on the outcome. The courts speak in terms of Indian title, not something else, and only an ostrich would maintain that semantics will make any difference."

[4:15]

As usual, the Socred government stalled in dealing with aboriginal concerns. Only under immense pressure did they initiate the Treaty Commission process, and now, as I said earlier, we do finally have a first agreement, even though it isn't a Treaty Commission agreement.

The public pressure was immense. We had editorial after editorial in the Free Press . For example, in 100 Mile House they said: "Provincial MLAs must get off their collective seats, stop passing the buck onto the feds" -- as they like to address their federal counterparts -- "and be the catalysts themselves in solving the problems." I think I took that direction because there was great fear in that town that there wouldn't be resolution.

The Williams Lake Tribune was blunter. It said: "In the interests of Williams Lake and area, the governments had better step in, and soon. Let's not get to the point where the Chilcotin becomes another Oka." In fact, we went on to have a problem around Gustafsen Lake. We weren't fast enough to deal with the issues out there.

So my experience has been that when I asked for people comments around this, in engaging in the debate, many letters were written to the papers. Of all those letters, two called for a referendum, ten were against the agreement, and the large majority -- 38 -- were in favour of the treaty.

I've worked hard to consult with my constituents this fall. There were many, many meetings. I had meetings up in Cariboo North, in Quesnel. I met with faith leaders, social groups, high school students, university students, labour groups, forest industry representatives, environmentalists, first nations, municipalities, the regional districts. There's an extensive list. I've had several debates in which I challenged the MLA from Cariboo North to defend his position on the treaty. The debates elicited great interest in the community.

They were well attended, and I found, unalterably, that when we explained what was in the treaty, the opposition diminished considerably. After one very heated debate, when I asked the people there what the solutions were if this wasn't the solution, a person from Quesnel wrote to me and said: "I just wanted to drop you a note to say how impressed I was with your answers during the second televised Nisga'a debate.

Although I'm not a supporter of your government, I am a supporter of the Nisga'a deal, and I agree that if the naysayers have a better deal, then step forward." No one has stepped forward in my constituency, hon. Speaker.

If we think the courts are a solution, listen to the South Cariboo Labour Council president, who said, when he wrote to the paper:

"If you feel the judicial system is the way to go, just talk to anyone who has been through the courts. If they won, they won on a huge basis and someone else lost on a huge basis and gets to start all over again. If the settlement happened to be anywhere near a 50-50 split, there was so much damage done that neither side is on speaking terms."

We see the opposition changing position. We saw the member for Cariboo North, back on July 13, supporting it, saying that if we said no in a referendum, it would go through the courts and it would drag on for years and years. Now, of course, there's a different view when they think there's a political advantage in doing so.

But perhaps the biggest issue of a human nature that we have to deal with when we're dealing with treaties is the issue of fear. This came out when the Premier and I met with faith leaders in Williams Lake, and some of them told us that their congregations were afraid. They fear the uncertainty, the confrontations, the anger and, ultimately, often the violence that

[ Page 11017 ]

comes from poor relations. The aboriginal people fear that by the time land claims issues are resolved, there'll be nothing left in terms of resources. Workers fear that if the provincial government doesn't move on this, jobs will be lost. Logging companies fear that if the government doesn't step up, aboriginals will continue to hold up their operations and affect their bottom lines. Ranchers are concerned that they'll lose their grazing leases and water rights.

But the biggest fear on all sides is the loss of control over the land and the livelihoods that flow from that. I understand that concern, and I've taken the issues to the land claims advisory process; I've taken the issues to cabinet. I'm happy to say, as a landowner and as a former rancher and logger, that I am adamant that the way of life of the people I represent will remain intact. It won't be without some change, perhaps, but I'm also adamant that there will be fairness in dealing with people who might, unfortunately, be displaced through treaties.

But our original position, of course, is that there should be no displacement, and that will be our main objective in treaties in the central part of the interior. Of course, we have said that private land won't be on the table, but there may be land available to treaty participants if there are willing sellers and willing buyers. The cash component can be used to buy land and, with that, obtain water and grazing rights.

I approach this view of land as being important. It's part of the aboriginal culture; it's part of our culture. My background in the Cariboo goes back to 1928, and I now live on property that's been in my family for 55 years. I've lived there 25 years. Even that attachment is somehow . . . . While it's a while in many people's terms, it is nowhere near the 4,000 or 5,000 or 10,000 years of the aboriginal people who came down our valley, who stripped the birchbark off the trees to make canoes and baskets and who otherwise used the land. So I understand that feeling about the sense of place and about the fact that we have to have some kind of land as a component of the settlement.

I'd like to say a few words about the forestry provisions in the treaty. The Nisga'a, historically, had very little input and participation in the forest sector in their traditional territory. This has changed, though, in recent years. For example, the Nisga'a have established five contract companies. The interim protection measures agreement between B.C. and the Nisga'a, signed in 1996, gave the Nisga'a significant say in the forest management within their traditional territory.

That agreement laid out a formal process for consultation between B.C. and the Nisga'a, and the public knew about those arrangements and understood the arrangements. That agreement was amended in July '98 in order to enhance the Nisga'a's input into forest activities in the proposed Nisga'a settlement lands. B.C. recognized the need to ensure a smooth transition for the forest sector from a pre-treaty environment to a treaty environment.

The forestry component of the treaty is important because it helps define what will happen on Nisga'a lands. The land is probably the most important factor for the Nisga'a to develop a self-reliant, sustainable community. It is to the land that the aboriginal people have a defined right. Simple cash compensation, a notion promoted by the opposition, is not acceptable. We won't have deals.

With regard to the cost of the treaty with respect to forgone stumpage, we've estimated it at $36 million. As I've said, it is an estimate from a range. It was a negotiated amount, and that constitutes what will be given up in provincial revenue.

But certainty is an important part of what we achieve in treaties. We need treaties; the forest industry needs treaties. We need to put an end to road blockades and confrontation. After the treaty was signed, there was an area that had been blocked for over ten years, the Ishkseenickh valley. Now that valley is open for forest development and other developments. We have opened up land for development by the settlement of treaties.

The province fought hard at the treaty table for a nine-year transition period with respect to the forest resources. During the first five years the licensees presently on the Nisga'a land will continue to harvest under the transition provisions of the treaty. For the next nine years there will be a set allowable cut on the Nisga'a lands, which will go from 165,000 cubic metres in year one to 130,000 in year nine. The transition measures will ensure that the treaty won't destabilize our investment climate and the forest industry.

The opposition has suggested that the forest industry outside the Nisga'a settlement lands and in the Nass wildlife area will have created more uncertainty on those Crown lands. This just simply isn't true. The wildlife committee will have no mandate regarding land use and forestry. The committee will provide recommendations. It won't make decisions, and it won't have veto power. The provincial minister responsible for wildlife will make the final decisions. So it's hard to see how anything could be clearer.

It's been said that there weren't adequate consultations of third parties during the treaty negotiation process. There have been endless meetings with the local third parties -- over 400 meetings in the local area. If anyone didn't know what was going on, it was simply because they chose not to find out what was going on. In spite of inheriting a treaty process that had confidentiality guarantees, we found ways to put out the position papers to the people who'd be affected by the positions that were put forth.

Local licensees were extensively consulted through the local forest advisory committee and on an individual basis. Those consultations significantly influenced the outcome of the forest component of the treaty -- for example, access issues between Nisga'a lands and Crown lands and the grandparenting of operation permits into the transition period. Many people, a long list of people, were on the Nisga'a regional forest advisory committee. There was constant contact with the industry, right up to the day the forestry negotiations were completed.

We've entered a new component, and that is compensation for contractors and people who don't have legally compensable rights in the area. We've established some principles with the truck loggers. I'm proud to say that that will, as the known effects of the treaty . . . . As it's implemented and as it's made known, their issues will be dealt with. They accept that. The northwest logging community understands that; the truck loggers understand that. It's been said that there will be an overlap of forest practices. It's simply not true.

Each party that operates in that area will have one code, at one time, to work with. Indeed, Slocan Forest Products have said to us that they support the treaty.

Hon. Speaker, I understand that my time is up. I believe that we have in this treaty the makings of a new relationship between the aboriginal people and the people of British Columbia, from all walks of life, and that this treaty will pave the way for a positive future and a positive economy in the northwest.

P. Nettleton: Thank you, hon. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to this issue -- that is, the issue of the Nisga'a treaty. I should say that I'm somewhat humbled by the fact that I have this opportunity, given the calibre of debate and

[ Page 11018 ]

the impassioned pleas from both sides of this House -- pleas which cannot be, nor should be, easily dismissed. As I said, I find it a privilege; I'm also humbled by the calibre of the debate. Nevertheless, on this issue I have, as have other members, worked my way to some conclusions, some thoughts, with reference to the treaty before us -- a treaty on which we will all have to vote at some point.

I represent the riding of Prince George-Omineca. Again, I'm delighted and privileged to speak on behalf of the constituents of Prince George-Omineca and many of the communities outside of Prince George, including a number of first nations communities, to which I will make some reference in my comments.

At the outset, I would like to comment generally about the Nisga'a and other first nations. I should say that the Nisga'a and other first nations -- it's no secret; this has been discussed here in some detail -- have suffered at the hands of the first European colonists. They continue to suffer, as we, having brought our own version of civilization, convinced first nations that their world had passed away and that they could never make it in the world that we had brought. We have collectively been guilty of patronizing first nations.

It's no secret that we have fostered a dependency on ourselves which has served to undermine the pride and dignity of all first nations. It is my submission that we continue to be guilty of the waste of the talent and abilities of first nations and of the productivity to which they could attain and, hopefully, someday will attain. The treaty process is important. Again, I understand that I'm stating the obvious, but the treaty process is important and must succeed if we're to ever attempt to begin to address some of these concerns.

[4:30]

Hon. Speaker, I cannot, nor do I, purport to speak for the Nisga'a people, but it is my sense that British Columbians, specifically those who live in the northern half of this province, are feeling disenfranchised. They're feeling profoundly suspicious that if they are not given the opportunity to fully understand and input into the treaty process, whether by way of referendum or maybe some other means, then this treaty and others, which will, should and must follow -- but nevertheless will follow the pattern of this one -- will not work. It is not just the government of British Columbia and the leaders of the Nisga'a nation that must work to make any land claims agreement work;