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)

MONDAY, DECEMBER 14, 1998

Afternoon

Volume 13, Number 1

[ Page 11027 ]

The House met at 2:09 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. M. Sihota: In the gallery today are 40 grade 4 and 5 students -- they're bright students -- from David Cameron Elementary School in Colwood, a school which recently went through some upgrades. I'm very happy to see them here, and I'm sure all the members are. Would all members please give Ms. Foster and the students a warm welcome.

G. Janssen: With us in the gallery today are some 50 grade 5 and 6 students with several adults and their teacher, Mr. D. Schubart, from Beaver Creek Elementary School in the beautiful Alberni valley. I ask the House to make them welcome.

S. Orcherton: Joining us in the gallery today are two very special friends of my family who were lifelong friends of my recently departed mother. They are Mr. and Mrs. Peressini, my Auntie Peggy and Uncle Perry. I'd ask the House to make them very welcome to these chambers.

J. Doyle: I'm pleased this afternoon to have three guests in the gallery. First of all, there's Eric Cable, president of Interact Wood Products, a growing value-added forest company in Golden. It's good to see Eric down here. He's down here for meetings with the ministers this afternoon. Accompanying Eric is Dr. Christian Schadendorf, who is his consultant, and also Jim Beattie, who is no stranger to this House. I'd like you to make them welcome.

J. Smallwood: I have the pleasure to introduce Enid O'Donoghue, who is visiting her daughter, the very capable executive director of our caucus. Enid is from Waterloo, and she is visiting here for Christmas. I'd like the House to make her welcome.

R. Neufeld: Many of you will know that it's very difficult for people to come down here from all the way up north, and I don't often get a chance to introduce anyone . . . .

Interjections.

R. Neufeld: Just a minute, folks.

We how have the legislative channel being broadcast in the community of Fort St. John. To all those people who are watching, I want to say "Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year" to each of them.

R. Thorpe: I rise in this House today to extend on behalf of the B.C. Liberal caucus our best wishes to those of the Jewish faith. As you may be aware, today is the first day of Hanukkah, and the celebration of lights will unite families in celebration throughout British Columbia. Happy Hanukkah, best wishes and shalom , shalom .

The Speaker: I would like to make an introduction from the chair. In the gallery joining us and me for the season is my sister Susan Mann, who is the recently retired president of York University and a historian of some note. Would the House please make her welcome.

Ministerial Statement

BANKING AND SMALL BUSINESS

Hon. I. Waddell: I rise to give a ministerial statement. Hon. Speaker, I applaud Finance minister Paul Martin's decision today to agree with the recommendations of the B.C. Task Force on Bank Mergers and reject the proposed mergers of four of Canada's largest banks to form two megabanks. This is a vitally important issue for British Columbians, consumers and small business alike, for between 1990 and 1997, B.C. saw higher growth in small businesses than anywhere else in Canada. The number of our small businesses grew by an average of 17,500 each year. That's 850,000 people employed in this sector.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members come to order.

Hon. I. Waddell: Therefore we must ensure that dramatic changes in financial services around the world unfold locally in a manner that promotes best practices and best interests of British Columbians, including small business and the communities in which they live and operate.

[2:15]

Last June, I appointed a B.C. task force to address their concerns about the proposed mergers. They held hearings in smaller communities throughout British Columbia. The people told them that they were worried about losing their jobs -- not only jobs in the banking sector but jobs in the small businesses which operate in the communities that have only one or two financial institutions. People were worried about the consequences of losing local banks that have traditionally served as anchor tenants in their community.

Small business was worried that the loans they need to grow would become increasingly hard to access. The B.C. task force rejected the mergers and made a total of 15 recommendations on improvements to financial services.

I met with Mr. Martin in September in Ottawa, and I told him that people in small B.C. towns must be listened to. You can't make changes like this in public policy without speaking to the people, as we did in B.C. I'm pleased to see that in Mr. Martin's statement today he reflects the language of our B.C. report. He speaks of economic power of the banks. He talks about how a test for bank mergers must be the public interest. He points out that our banking system is already the most concentrated in the world. And he says it's important that consumers and small businesses have the range of choices they need.

I hope that we together, including the banks, have learned from this year's debate on the mergers. So last week I met with the senior vice-presidents here in B.C. and challenged them to work with us in communities in trouble to help small business survive, diversify and grow.

Tabling Documents

Hon. I. Waddell: Hon. Speaker, I've given copies of this report, I believe, to members. But I'd like to officially table the task force report in the House. I'm proud to say that B.C. led the way in this vitally important national debate.

[ Page 11028 ]

Ministerial Statement

B.C. PARTICIPATION IN

FEDERAL FARM RELIEF PROGRAM

Hon. C. Evans: On Thursday of last week the federal government announced a $900 million addition to Canada's farm safety net. I was asked here at the Legislature by the Reform Party member and everywhere outside: "Will British Columbia participate?"

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. C. Evans: Hon. Speaker, the answer is that almost assuredly British Columbia will participate. My deputy is in Ottawa as we speak, negotiating the terms of the assistance with the other deputies from around Canada. It is my expectation that the terms will satisfy British Columbia and that British Columbia will be part of the program.

I'd like all members, especially rural members, to take down the number 1-888-576-FARM and give that number to your farming constituents. They can dial that number, and my staff will advise them, as the program rolls out, how it will be structured.

This morning there was an editorial in the Vancouver Province calling this program a handout and a bailout. The editorial asked why farmers don't diversify. The answer is -- and I want all members as well as anybody that might be watching to take note -- that farmers in British Columbia have diversified. We are growing over 200 different commodities. Bailouts in this province are dead, and subsidies and handouts are dead. This program is intended to be, as the B.C. program is intended to be, an incentive to diversify.

Canada has decided to duplicate what British Columbia is already doing and to provide a program that is a hedge against total price collapse or crop failure. At this moment the third-quarter cash receipts for British Columbia farm income are in, and we are up 3.7 percent over one year ago. However, at the same time we see worldwide total price collapse in apples, hogs and grain. You're supposed to have a safety-net system that drives diversity and growth in the industry while protecting individual sectors against total collapse.

I want to say thank you to the federal government for participating in the program that we are attempting to design. We've been ready for a year. Farmers, call that number, and we'll see how to make it work.

The Speaker: In response, I recognize the member for Shuswap.

G. Abbott: In the absence of our Agriculture critic, I'm happy to briefly respond to the Minister of Agriculture's comments. Although I'm not the critic, I have had some experience in farming for some years and appreciate this opportunity to speak briefly on this.

Certainly on this side of the House we would feel much more confident if we went beyond "almost assuredly" participating in this to "assuredly" participating in this. We hope that in the very near future, that conversion will be made. I think that as everyone knows, these are very, very difficult times for farmers in British Columbia and indeed other parts of Canada as well. Particularly in the hog and some horticulture sectors, things are very tough.

Among other things, farmers in British Columbia have had a very tough time in recent years, with high taxes and a lot of regulations that puzzle them and indeed pose expenses that really don't need to be there. So I do hope that the Minister of Agriculture, in concert with other provincial Agriculture ministers and the federal minister, is successful in getting this program on the road. I also hope that he will take a broad-range view of the problems confronting agriculture and deal with the tax and regulatory side, which is so important to British Columbia's farmers as well.

J. Weisgerber: I request leave to respond to the ministerial statement.

Leave granted.

J. Weisgerber: I did ask the minister last week about the province's participation in what was expected to be an announcement from Ottawa. At that time the minister said: "The money's here; we're ready to go; we're waiting." Today he says: "We're almost assuredly going to participate." That's often the sign of back-pedalling. I certainly hope that's not the direction the minister's going on this issue. He sounded far more confident last week about his participation than he does today.

But the reason I wanted to speak is that as genuinely well-intentioned as both the federal and the provincial programs are, I believe that in the case of British Columbia, at least, these programs have a serious flaw. They are designed to bring total farm income up to a level equal to the average for the three years preceding the year in which a calamity such as a loss of hog prices or grain prices occurs.

What the federal and provincial programs don't anticipate and don't provide for is a situation like we have in the Peace, where in 1996 we had a flood that prevented most farmers from harvesting any kind of a crop. The next year was exactly the same in terms of exceedingly wet weather and again a very bad harvest. The third year, you had poor prices. There really is no mechanism that anticipates that.

What the program says is: "Well, you had two rotten years preceding this one, so you're not entitled to be brought up beyond that very base level that you've set for yourself." So I hope that while the minister is reconsidering his involvement and almost assuredly going to participate in this program, he takes a serious look at the Peace region and the effect that this program won't have in the Peace.

When officials from the local newspaper contacted the minister's officials in Fort St. John, they were advised that the program would have little or no benefit for farmers in the Peace country. Those aren't my words; those aren't the farmers'. It's the staff in the Ministry of Agriculture in Fort St. John saying that this program will have little or no benefit for Peace River farmers. So I trust, while the minister is reassessing the program, that he might find a way to make it more meaningful for Peace River farmers.

Oral Questions

RECREATIONAL LEASEHOLD COSTS

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks has ordered that letters be sent out to owners of recreational properties throughout the province. Let me quote from the letter: "The purpose of this letter is to ascertain your interest in purchasing the . . . property you are presently leasing from the province. This letter is not an offer

[ Page 11029 ]

to purchase but simply seeks an expression of interest on your behalf to pursue this purchase opportunity . . . . A fee of $1,000 is required to cover a portion of . . . appraisal costs. If you do not proceed with the sale, these funds are non-refundable."

My question is to the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks. Will the minister confirm that she is asking these people, who have leased property from the province in good faith, to come up with $1,000 just to preserve their right of purchase?

Hon. C. McGregor: Hon. Speaker, not being familiar with the letter the member reads, I'll take his question on notice.

The Speaker: First supplementary, Leader of the Official Opposition -- not on the same topic.

G. Campbell: This is not quite on the same topic, but let me explain to you, hon. Speaker, what has taken place with recreational property leaseholders.

Their leasehold costs have gone up by over 500 percent since 1992. Hon. Speaker, if you look at Webster's dictionary, one of the things that Webster's dictionary will tell you is that when you obtain something from a person by intimidation . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, come to order. The leader will have a question in two seconds, I'm sure.

G. Campbell: Very quickly, hon. Speaker, as soon as I've explained what Webster's dictionary says.

When you obtain something from a person by intimidation or undue power, especially by gross overcharge, that's defined as extortion. My question to the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks is: if in fact someone is saying to you that you are going to pay your rents, but you now must come forward and come up with $1,000 without knowing the cost of a property . . . ? Would the minister tell me the difference between that policy direction and extortion?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, we'll get back to the opposition on that, so that clearly his hyperbolic thing about it being extortion is put in order. That's absolutely ridiculous. The government did create a new corporation called B.C. Assets and Land Corporation, which is bringing order, as has been asked for by the opposition for months, to the sale of Crown land and to the leasing of Crown land. We'd be happy to give all of the information to the opposition about how that's proceeding.

The Speaker: Leader of the Official Opposition, on a second supplementary.

G. Campbell: The minister is correct that it's the British Columbia Assets and Land Corporation which has been told by the government to do this, and I think it's important to understand what they've said. They've said to people: "Pay us $1,000. We won't tell you what the cost of the land is . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon members, the member has not indicated to whom his question will be addressed.

G. Campbell: . . . and you won't be able to know whether you can buy it or not, whether you can afford it or not. But we will take your $1,000, and it will not be refundable regardless of how you feel about it."

The government has said that it wants to carry out a new way of doing business. Is the new way of doing business to actually shake down renters from the Crown and ask them to pay a thousand bucks, regardless of what the cost of property may be in the province of British Columbia?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, we already did take the question on notice. But just let me review for the opposition what the opposition was saying in the spring legislative sitting. Every day they rose here and said: "You've got a backlog in the leasing of Crown land; you've got a backlog in the sale of land. You've got to bring some order to it." The B.C Assets and Land Corporation is doing exactly that. They're doing it in a way that involves the leaseholders.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members . . . .

Hon. J. MacPhail: They're doing it in a way that involves the people that want to buy Crown land . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members!

Hon. J. MacPhail: . . . and it's orderly, and it's in the public interest.

[2:30]

CROWN LAND LEASE POLICY

R. Neufeld: Well, it's not untypical of this government to try and continue to wrap everything in a way that they think is a new way of doing business. Well, hon. Speaker, it's not a new way of doing business. It's the same old thing: take as much as you can as often as you can. That's what this government does.

The Speaker: And your question?

R. Neufeld: A person by the name of Dan Roberts . . .

Interjection.

R. Neufeld: . . . owns land near Oliver -- just listen up, sir -- and he wants to bring in a power line. The Ministry of Lands has told him, by a letter, that processing the application fee will take up to two years -- two years to process an application for hydro. Is this the minister's view of a new way of doing business in British Columbia?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Just for the member's information, the B.C. Assets and Land Corporation reports to the Minister of Finance.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order!

Hon. J. MacPhail: If they're asking for a lease approval or tenure . . . . Perhaps he could be more specific. He didn't direct the question to . . . .

[ Page 11030 ]

M. de Jong: He wants to bring power to his house.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Okay -- fair enough. There is an overlap . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order, please. The minister is about to finish the answer.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, if the issue is Crown tenure or Crown lease, that question goes to the minister responsible for that. He didn't direct his question to anyone, but surely, I guess, he can if he wishes.

An Hon. Member: Listen!

Hon. J. MacPhail: Sorry, hon. Speaker. We were listening to the member.

The Speaker: I recognize the member for Peace River North for the first supplementary.

R. Neufeld: First supplemental. I'll start if off, just in case the Minister of Finance missed my remark to the Minister of Environment and Lands . . . . You stood up and defended her again. I know she's having problems, but six months ago she had big problems. The minister was confronted by her own report, which you talked about: 20,000 jobs were going by the wayside in British Columbia, $1 billion of investment, because your government -- that minister -- couldn't make a decision. She said she was going to fix it; the business summit says it hasn't been fixed.

And Dan Roberts in Oliver, who can't get electricity -- and it's that minister's responsibility -- knows it hasn't been fixed. Why doesn't this minister admit that nothing's been done, jobs are being lost and investment is being lost in British Columbia, and you're doing nothing . . .

The Speaker: Through the Chair.

R. Neufeld: . . . to stem the tide of that?

Hon. J. MacPhail: They refuse to listen to an answer. They keep reporting . . . . It's under the B.C. Assets and Land Corporation.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The backlog is disappearing at an extremely rapid rate. It's excellent news for all people out there who are trying to get access to Crown land. By March of this year it is anticipated that over two-thirds of the backlog will have disappeared completely, and all new applications will be processed. So if the hon. member would like, we can investigate this particular circumstance, but there is a new corporation in place. Its business is going along extremely well. All of the stakeholders are involved in this, and it's working.

FISHING RESORT LEASE PRICING

C. Clark: I have a question that the Environment minister can't avoid answering. The question is this. It relates to her promise that she made in June to the economic summit in Kamloops, in her hometown crowd, where she promised that she would freeze lease rates for fishing resorts. And now the B.C. Fishing Resorts and Outfitters Association tells us she is more than doubling the lease rates for fishing resorts in British Columbia. Can she tell us why it's taken her only six months to break her word and double the lease rates, when she promised that she would in fact freeze them?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order, please. I won't recognize the minister until you come to order.

Hon. C. McGregor: As my colleague the Minister of Finance has tried to indicate in several answers, the question of Crown land management -- that is, the tenure and sale of Crown lands -- is now the responsibility of the B.C. Assets and Land Corporation. However, the question the member opposite just asked is a policy question related to this ministry's continued responsibilities, and I'd be very happy to provide its answer.

If the member would at least get the facts right, then maybe we'd have something to talk about. If the member was in fact at that announcement -- I don't think she came to the interior for that announcement -- she would have heard at that time that the commercial recreation policy was announced without any price changes. In response to the concerns of the fish camp operators, I initiated a review of the pricing because of the concerns that had been raised. There was never any announcement to increase, and the member knows this well.

In fact, we understood the concerns that were raised by the fishing camp operators -- 14 in the central interior -- and agreed to engage in a thorough review. That consultant's report is not yet complete. I am expecting it in my office in January.

The Speaker: I recognize, for a first supplementary, the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

C. Clark: I'm not alone in not believing the government when it says it's going to freeze rates. Let me quote the fishing resort owners association, when they say that maybe the freeze the minister meant was the one where hell freezes over. Since she made that promise . . . . Over a hundred businesses will see their rates double. Will the Environment minister tell us -- and I'm going to put this question to her because the fishing resort owners have put it to us -- what other landlord in British Columbia would be allowed to get away with such atrocious behaviour toward its tenants?

Hon. C. McGregor: I find it absolutely offensive that that side of the House thinks nothing of standing up and making up a story as if it were true. In fact, the member opposite knows well what happened in Kamloops during that announcement, where we announced a review of the fishing camp operator pricing policy as a result of huge and significant increases. We recognized it at that time, because the value of those properties had increased significantly on the basis of market increases. Addressing the concerns that were raised, we said we would halt this discussion for fish camp operators in the 14 areas of the southern interior and engage in a review,

[ Page 11031 ]

and at that time we engaged a consultant. He has a report near completion. It will come to my office in January, and we will make decisions as a result of that consultation.

GPS MAPPING REGULATIONS

M. de Jong: All things in good time, Madam Speaker.

It seems like only yesterday that I heard the Finance minister declare her war on that mountain of red tape that seven years of NDP government has brought to British Columbia.

An Hon. Member: It's a historic occasion.

M. de Jong: Yes.

But I don't think she told the Environment minister. She couldn't have, and that's bad news, particularly if you're a company in B.C. involved in GPS resource mapping. I want to ask the Environment minister -- and I'll draw right from the letter that was sent to these people: will she confirm that her battle against red tape actually includes a new scheme of mandatory GPS certification by the MELP GRU unit, the RIC, the FCSN and the PSGUC?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. C. McGregor: Hon. Speaker, there are a variety of initiatives that our ministry is engaged in, particularly related to cost reductions in our ministry, as a result of some of the budget decisions we've taken over time. I think the member's question is in the context of that ongoing work, but I'll certainly follow up on his question and get the detailed answer to him as soon as possible.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call second reading of Bill 51.

NIS G A'A FINAL AGREEMENT ACT

(second reading continued)

Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, it's a pleasure to rise and speak in favour of this bill. I've been a member of this House for over 12 years -- some would say 12 long years.

An Hon. Member: About 12 years too long . . . .

Hon. G. Clark: And those are my friends, hon. Speaker. But I see a few of my old colleagues here: the member for Peace River South, the member from Prince Rupert, the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin. It's been 12 years as a member of this assembly. It is, of course, a privilege to sit here. It's a privilege to be in this chamber; it's a privilege which very few people get a chance to experience. In those 12 years, lots of decisions have been made by governments of different parties, with different leaders, and those decisions have big impacts -- as they do, of course, in everything we do here.

When you look back at history, would the province look different had W.A.C. Bennett not pursued the two-rivers policy? Would the province look different if the Bennett government had not built SkyTrain or Expo 86, or if the Barrett administration had not pursued agricultural land reserve protection -- or even the SeaBus or ICBC?

Governments make decisions every day, which impact on the shape of the province. But rarely in my 12 years -- in fact, never in my 12 years -- have I seen an issue like the one before us today, which is so significant in terms of the future direction of the province. And there, hon. Speaker, I think I agree with the opposition members on this. It is perhaps the only area where I agree with them when it comes to this issue. This is significant; this will impact on what the province looks like in the future.

This is a historic agreement which deserves attention and deserves the attention of all members of the House. I can think of no more significant issue in my 12 years in this chamber, and I suspect that many people who have been here that long feel the same way.

Two weeks ago today, I again had the privilege -- this time as Premier, of course -- to be on the steps of the Legislature, where we saw a tremendous sight: at least 200 Nisga'a people re-enacting, at least symbolically, the journey of 111 years ago. I stood on the Legislature steps and saw this scarlet ribbon of people dressed in button blankets, travelling up the street -- a very short journey this time -- and to the chamber.

It was, of course, very emotional for me and for many of the people who were there -- certainly the Nisga'a -- to stand on the steps of the Legislature and say to the Nisga'a people: "Welcome to British Columbia. Welcome to Canada." And to ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to open the big iron gates of the Legislative Assembly and symbolically invite them into this House, as they'd been turned away so many years ago . . . . To invite them in and to hear them chanting and hear those drums . . . . I can still hear them, with the Nisga'a elders speaking the names of those who'd gone before and passed away in this journey.

I thought: "This is it. We've come full circle from 111 years ago saying no, to today saying: 'Welcome. Come in.' "

After all those years of saying no and shutting them out, we are finally welcoming aboriginal people to our province. I think it was a significant moment in our history. I think it will go down in our history as one of those moments, not like the dams of the past or agricultural land reserves or other significant decisions of government, but more akin to some of the human rights issues which have been the subject of debate in this place. In 1917 it was the year that women were given the right to vote in British Columbia. In 1969 it was the passage of the first Human Rights Act.

In 1947, Chinese and Indo-Canadian people were given the right to vote or were returned the right to vote. In 1949 legislators returned the right to vote to aboriginal people and Japanese Canadians, both of those at the same time.

[2:45]

It was in that same year, 1949, that Frank Calder was first elected, and he sat on that side of the House in those days. Think about it. Frank Calder, who is now a respected Nisga'a elder, joined us in this House as we started this debate. In 1949 Frank Calder became the first aboriginal member of this Legislature and the first aboriginal member elected to a legislature anywhere in the Commonwealth. It was truly a proud moment in our history for the people of the Nisga'a nation and for all of us in British Columbia -- in fact in the

[ Page 11032 ]

Commonwealth -- when it was said and proven that an aboriginal person could sit in an elected legislature. In all the places -- New Zealand, Australia and other places -- where there are aboriginal people, they had never had an aboriginal person represented in their chambers. They do now, but we were the first, in British Columbia, in 1949.

At that time, aboriginal people were still not allowed to vote in the federal House; they couldn't vote until 1961. They weren't allowed to hire lawyers, when Frank Calder was elected, or even to raise money to pursue legitimate land claims. At that time, they weren't even allowed to dance without written permission from a bureaucrat in Ottawa. Their traditional dances were prohibited in 1949, when Frank Calder was elected to this chamber. But when Frank Calder was elected to this House in 1949, B.C.'s aboriginal people took the first modern step toward justice and equality.

In many ways, the aboriginal struggle for justice dates back to the very existence of our province. It was barely more than 20 years after the consolidation of two British colonies into the province of British Columbia that Frank Calder's grandmother, Chief Victoria Longarm, sent a delegation of Nisga'a chiefs here to the capital city. It was Frank Calder's grandmother, 111 years ago, who made the decision to dispatch a group of Nisga'a men to paddle down 1,000 kilometres to Victoria.

Charles Burton, Matthew Naas, Arthur Gurney, John Wesley -- those were four of the men recorded in the sessional papers in British Columbia in 1887, who travelled those thousand kilometres down from the Nass River valley to Victoria.

In February they took that journey in a canoe, down the coast of British Columbia -- surely today one of the most dangerous passages for any modern mariner. We can only imagine what it was like for the Nisga'a men, how they must have felt, how the promise of justice must have given them strength to make that journey. We can only imagine the disappointment, sadness and immense frustration they must have felt, arriving here after such a struggle only to be turned away.

The Nisga'a people 111 years ago were not only turned away by the government of the day; they were rejected, insulted and humiliated. Premier William Smithe told them that before the white men came, aboriginal people were "little better than wild animals that roved over the hills." He scoffed at their request for a treaty.

We know that at the time only 20 years had passed since Governor Douglas had negotiated 14 treaties on Vancouver Island. We know that it was a time of intense treaty-making all across the west, including in part of British Columbia, at that very time -- in the part east of the Rocky Mountains. In 1889, two years later, Treaty 8 was settled. So we know there was intense treaty-making taking place everywhere in Canada, except for most of British Columbia, at the very time the Nisga'a came here. We know that Governor Douglas had negotiated 14 small treaties here on Vancouver Island a few years prior to the Nisga'a coming down.

Still, the Premier of the day essentially lied to them; he told them it wasn't true. The Nisga'a people had been rebuffed, and they travelled all the way back to the Nass Valley in immense frustration, knowing full well that treaties were available to other aboriginal people in Canada but not to them. Still, for 111 years they never gave up their view or their struggle. Nor did they ever surrender their land to the province of British Columbia, to the Canadian government or to anybody.

Today I'd say that almost no one, not even the members opposite in this chamber, disputes the fact that we must negotiate treaties with first nations people in this province. They have suffered a grave injustice, one that was deliberately ignored by governments of all parties for over a century. Now we've brought it out into the light of day to deal with once and for all.

Let me say that this debate is not about the past. If you listen to the Nisga'a, you must agree that they don't dwell on this part of the past. They know about it; they understand it; they have lived with it. But they, as well as everybody else, know that the settlement of treaties is very much about the future. It's about what kind of province we want; it's about the British Columbia of the new millennium. It's about coming to terms with the past so that we can get on with building our future.

It's about reconciliation, about bringing British Columbians together so we can move forward into the new century of prosperity and social harmony, free from the divisions that for so long have held us back. This treaty is the first step in a long journey, the first step towards reconciliation and a brighter future for aboriginal people -- not just for the Nisga'a but for all aboriginal people in British Columbia.

This debate is one of the most important in our history, and I want to commend members on both sides of the House for conducting themselves with the dignity that an issue of such importance deserves. I have watched and listened to and read many of the statements being made in the chamber as we started second reading, and it's clear to me that most members have given this matter before them a great deal of thought. Obviously I'm partial to the speeches from the government side of the House. I think they have been amongst the best I have heard.

Having said that, I think there have been some speeches from the other side of the House which are clearly worthy of consideration and comment. Clearly all people in this House -- as I said at the beginning, I think -- come here with exactly the same objectives: to improve our province, to make sure that it works better and to try to find a way to seek justice for all people. We have different ways of getting there. We have different views, different beliefs, on how we should approach this question, but no one should question that all members of the House have the same goal in mind.

[ Page 11033 ]

Having said that, I have to say that I'm deeply disturbed about what I've heard from some members opposite. They say they believe in treaties; they say they understand the absolute necessity to reconcile with first nations. Yet when I hear some of the statements they've made in this House, I honestly have to question whether their sentiments are sincere. I have to question why they feel compelled to twist the facts of this treaty and why they're working so hard to scuttle the Nisga'a final agreement.

I have to question why they stand here in this chamber, day in and day out, and speak on this question from a substance which is simply not based on the treaty. The language they have used has, I think, been deliberate. In many cases it fans the flames of intolerance in this province, in a fashion which I don't comprehend. When you look at the language they have used and the substance of their critique of this treaty, I have to question whether they truly understand what this treaty means not just for the Nisga'a people but for the future of our province.

I wonder if they understand what it means, particularly for all aboriginal people in British Columbia.

Now, I have to admit -- and I've said this around the province in recent months -- that I too am a product of this province. While I did go to a small Catholic school in East Vancouver, I suspect that my education was no different than that of most British Columbians of my generation and beyond. When I got elected 12 years ago, I had no idea what it was like for first nations people. I had no idea of the complexity of the challenge that we face in our province when it comes to the shared history that we have.

The only aboriginal people I ever saw in my years of growing up were around Main and Hastings, and all I knew was that they were desperately poor. I never questioned why the people on the streets in the downtown east side were disproportionately aboriginal. I had no understanding of their history or, as I said, of our shared history in this province. It wasn't discussed in history or social studies classes. It wasn't discussed in the school yard, where there were no aboriginal people.

I honestly did not realize how far-reaching, how complicated and how deeply rooted in history the issues of our aboriginal people are.

This may be peculiar, I have to admit, to Vancouver or to urban British Columbia, as opposed to other parts of British Columbia. But I'm reminded of a famous author who wrote about the American history with black people in the south.

I remember that when asked -- because he grew up during this period and during the sixties and seventies, when many things changed for black people in the United States -- why it was that this issue took so long to be recognized, he said: "We used to say in the south, ' Because that's just the way it is.' " I think that for many of us in British Columbia -- good people, people who've gone before us in this chamber . . . . It's not a question of them being evil or deliberately designing to try to somehow shaft aboriginal people and not seek justice.

I think that for too long in British Columbia the answer has really been: "Very simple -- that's just the way it is in British Columbia, and that's just the way it has always been in British Columbia." I think that what this Nisga'a treaty attempts to do -- only for the Nisga'a, I grant you -- is say that that may be the way it is or the way it was, but it's not the way it should be.

[3:00]

Well, I have come to appreciate, as an MLA and as a cabinet minister and as the Premier, in travelling around this province and talking to aboriginal people and visiting their communities . . . . It's only been through that educational experience that I've realized that this very real problem existed and that it was up to us as leaders of the province to make sure that this problem was addressed. The members opposite say that they agree, that they know there's a problem and they want to address it. The Leader of the Opposition even said that they are sorry. But then they turn around and attack the treaty.

They misinterpret it; they misconstrue it. And worst of all, in my view, they're out there trying to misinform the public. They're out there -- cynically, I suggest -- trying to stir up fear without regard for the facts. They're out there trying to play politics with this issue.

I think it's time we set the record straight. The reality is that the members opposite do not want a treaty. They refuse to understand why we must have a treaty. They refuse to see how totally unacceptable conditions are in aboriginal communities. Despite the hollow apology offered by the Leader of the Opposition two weeks ago, they still refuse to acknowledge how terribly aboriginal people have been treated ever since the arrival of European settlers.

What I would like to do is put into context what it is that we're trying to accomplish and why it is that we're pursuing this course, and then I will attempt to deal with what I think are the opposition's specific arguments against this treaty.

The list of injustices is long when it comes to aboriginal people in this province. First, of course, were infectious diseases that decimated their population. Just for the record, between 1700 and 1865, British Columbia's first nations population declined from approximately 400,000 to 40,000 -- one-tenth their number. If you think about that, you'll understand that nine out of ten of their brothers and sisters disappeared.

When you think about that, you'll understand why aboriginal people, in many of the oral histories in our province, recall this time -- the time of European contact -- as the end of truly living and the beginning of simply surviving. They lost their land, the very foundation of their traditional way of life. Then there were laws that effectively silenced their voices. They couldn't vote; they couldn't fight back; they couldn't legally challenge the loss of their lands or their freedoms. To me, that's simply unimaginable, at least in the modern context.

If someone came and took away your home, relegated you to a room in the back or some remote corner of it, threatened to fine you or lock you up if you tried to get it back . . . . That was the reality for aboriginal people in this province right up until 1951.

Even their cultural and spiritual practices were outlawed. Until 1951, taking

part in a potlatch -- the central institution of the Nisga'a and many other first nations governments -- was punishable by up to six months in jail. The fine for dancing was $25 at a time when skilled tradesmen worked for less than a dollar an hour and a view lot in the Leader of the Opposition's riding cost $1,600. In other words, these were very serious penalties, evidence of a government working extremely hard to keep aboriginal people marginalized.

Ironically, these segregationist laws were advanced by a government whose stated goal was assimilation. For a long time, from the turn of the century to the 1970s, that was used to justify the policy of taking aboriginal children away from their families and placing them in residential schools. The official reason was to have these children "civilized and Christianized." The repercussions of that particular injustice are still being felt in many communities, as aboriginal people who were raised in institutions with no opportunity to learn to parent are judged to be inadequate parents.

If you listen to Joe Gosnell, he will talk about how difficult it is to be a parent today when you yourself were raised in an institution. And today aboriginal children are being taken away from their families in disproportionate numbers. The cycle continues.

[ Page 11034 ]

This is only one of the tragic legacies of the wrongs done to our aboriginal people. They existed, and they continue to exist to this day.

After more than a century of living in abject poverty, the life expectancy rate of an aboriginal person in British Columbia is 12 years shorter than the provincial average. In fact, the life expectancy rate of an aboriginal person in British Columbia is the same as it is in Guyana, South America. The infant mortality rates today are two times higher in British Columbia. When we say infant mortality rates, we know of the sorrow and suffering behind that dry, statistician's phrase.

We know that twice as many children of aboriginal people die before they reach their first birthday than do children of non-aboriginal people. For those who survive their first year, the outlook is quite poor. If we were to look at a B.C. community with 100,000 aboriginal children, here's what we'd see every single year. Four children would drown, six would die in car accidents, seven would die in fires, nine would die from other accidental causes -- particularly alcohol and drugs -- and as many as eight would take their own lives.

We know that the suicide rate for aboriginal teenage boys is eight times what it is for non-aboriginal teenagers, and for girls it is five times. We know that; those are the statistics. When children as young as nine are choosing to die, what does that say about our society? What does it say about the living conditions of aboriginal people?

When you say, "There must be something done about it," I say very simply: "We are doing something about it; it's called negotiating aboriginal land claim treaties."

Researchers, including the provincial health officer, have been looking at this question. I don't know how many people have read the last report of our provincial health officer.

Here's what he said: "Preliminary results suggest that youth suicide rates are lower for communities that have achieved self-governance, are involved in land claims negotiations, have cultural facilities and have control over local health and social services, such as health care, education, police and fire." The provincial health officer of British Columbia goes on to say that in the preliminary results "when all six of these 'cultural reconstruction' factors were present in a community, the youth suicide rate fell to zero" -- zero, hon. Speaker.

If that alone is not a powerful argument for treaties, then I don't know what is.

Clearly, negotiating land claim settlements can give aboriginal people a real opportunity to achieve self-reliance. It's not the grinding poverty that causes suicide rates; it is the lack of hope, the lack of a future -- the kind of future that land claim treaties are designed to fix. That is the issue that our provincial health officer and other researchers have found, and that is what this treaty is all about.

Hon. Speaker, this spirit of hope is at the heart of the recent statement by more than 100 faith leaders from across British Columbia, including Catholics, United Church members, Unitarians, Muslims, Baptists, Buddhists, Mennonites, Sikhs, Anglicans, Salvation Army, Zoroastrians. Their spokesperson for this unprecedented group of faith leaders was Rev. Dr. Phillip Hewett of the Unitarian Church, and he said: "It is rare indeed for such a broad range of spiritual leaders to unite with a single voice.

But we believe that the Nisga'a treaty is of such great significance that we have come together to support it publicly." Their public statement reads: " . . . where there has been injustice and inequality, there must be justice and reconciliation." That, in a sentence, is why we must implement the Nisga'a treaty.

The members opposite have rejected this as a reason for supporting the treaty. They refuse to see that there are ethical reasons for the treaties. They also refuse to hear the clear and simple message that has come to us in recent years from the courts across the land. Essentially the judges, at a variety of levels, have agreed on three fundamental points: (1) aboriginal people were here first; (2) their lands were taken away; and (3) that's illegal, in ours and almost any system of law.

True, it happened more than 100 years ago, but history has not erased the wrong, and we must deal with it. The days when federal laws protected the province from all of this are over. The prohibition against hiring lawyers for aboriginal people is gone. Aboriginal people are asserting their legal rights in court, and increasingly they are winning. If we don't settle these matters through negotiation, the courts will settle them for us, and there's no guarantee of what that will mean for any of us.

Unlike elected governments, courts are under no obligation to safeguard the interests of all British Columbians, as we have in the Nisga'a treaty. They are not obligated to protect the rights of non-aboriginal people, as we have in the Nisga'a treaty. These are safeguards we can only ensure through negotiations, and no less an authority than the Supreme Court of Canada has told our government and the federal government that we must negotiate. The message was clear when the high court handed down its landmark ruling on Delgamuukw almost one year ago exactly, in December of 1997.

It rejected the old contention that aboriginal title was extinguished when B.C. joined Confederation, and it signalled that it is prepared to rule that aboriginal peoples are entitled to exclusive use and occupation of their traditional lands, if they can prove that they occupied the lands at the time that Britain asserted its sovereignty.

We all know the Nisga'a people have that proof. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition, who has never been there, doesn't know that. But anybody who has been there, who has looked at the history, knows that the Nisga'a people have the proof of continuous occupancy of their land. Since Delgamuukw, we know that the judges are willing to back them up in court.

But I agree with the justices of the Supreme Court of Canada. Litigation is not the road we should take in British Columbia. Court cases are inherently adversarial; judges decide winners and losers, and there is always a loser. It's far better, surely, to sit down face to face across a table, to negotiate and compromise -- and to do it in good faith. That way, all the parties walk away as winners, as we have done with the Nisga'a treaty.

Not only that, but negotiation offers the only real hope for comprehensive resolutions. You just don't get them in court. You get a ruling on one question, and only one at a time. It could take literally thousands of court cases to reach the kind of final agreement before us in the House today, and British Columbians simply can't afford that.

We can't afford the costs, not just in legal fees but in lost investment and jobs, if B.C.'s land base continues to be under a cloud of economic uncertainty And think of the costs in terms of the divisions in our society, divisions which would only deepen with each successive court case. It's worth repeating: the province cannot afford to pay these costs. Instead, we must ratify the treaty before us now so that all British Columbians can realize its economic, social and other benefits.

Hon. Speaker, perhaps on this next point the members opposite might agree. They refuse to see the poverty and despair that are the legacy of 100 years of legislated dependency. They may refuse to obey or to hear the highest court in the land. But hopefully, one of these days the opposition will

[ Page 11035 ]

understand that British Columbia's future prosperity very much depends on resolving aboriginal land claims. According to KPMG, every dollar the province spends to settle these historic issues will bring in $3 in economic benefits. Those benefits will be shared by all.

[3:15]

They will include the savings from eliminating the Indian Act; it currently costs about $650 million a year, just in British Columbia, in terms of payments from Indian Affairs to aboriginal people in British Columbia. Surely this is a system which is broken. Surely $650 million in cash payments to keep people in poverty and dependency is unacceptable on purely economic terms -- terms, at least, that the opposition should respect. It's $650 million every year, more than enough to cover B.C.'s two largest hospitals' operating costs -- Vancouver General and St. Paul's -- and still have $90 million a year left over.

This is an enormous volume of payments going to aboriginal people to keep them in a situation which is clearly not acceptable to them or acceptable to anyone. Surely that's only one part of the benefit, but one part of the benefit is to reduce these enormous, debilitating payments that the federal government pays to aboriginal people in British Columbia.

Our overall growth will increase as aboriginal people and communities become self-reliant, create jobs, build business and stimulate investment. Of course, there's the inflow of cash from other parts of the country. It's one of the very few times in my experience when British Columbia will be the net beneficiary of money coming in from Ottawa -- over $200 million for the Nisga'a treaty alone, coming in from taxpayers outside of British Columbia. This money will benefit regions of our province that could really use some economic stimulus.

It's no accident that in the part of British Columbia where the Nisga'a live, the northwest, there is the strongest level of support from non-Nisga'a for this treaty.

The larger economic reason in favour of pursuing these treaties, however, involves the issue of certainty. Right now there are serious unanswered questions about who owns the land in British Columbia, and it's keeping away investors and the jobs they create. There is a mortgage on British Columbia, an unexpired mortgage, a lien on the land. If you were planning to start a mine or build a forest products mill, would you invest in a province where, for all you know, the courts could award ownership of the land to someone else? Of course you wouldn't.

Even if courts would not go that far, the uncertainty around the land base is clearly impacting on investment in British Columbia. You only have to go to Toronto, New York or London and talk to investment houses; one of the first questions they ask you is the question of aboriginal land claims.

Roslyn Kunin, who is an economist with the Laurier Institute -- and they've just released a book on this question -- says: "The future prosperity of British Columbia depends on the early conclusion of treaty settlements." All of us here know she's right, and I suspect the opposition knows she's right. We must get on with it in British Columbia and settle land claims early and expeditiously.

They complain about the cost, because ratifying the treaty is going to cost us. But any fair view of this would agree that the cost of settling is far less than the cost of maintaining the status quo. The total cash cost of the Nisga'a treaty works out to just over $1.60 a year for each British Columbian over 15 years. Ratifying this treaty will end segregation and end special status for the Nisga'a people. And it will send a clear and unmistakable signal to would-be investors that British Columbia is open for business and that we are going to solve the land claims question for aboriginal people in our province.

Hon. Speaker, there is no question that we must move forward and ratify this treaty, because we have to tackle the enormous problems that face our aboriginal people, because the courts have told us to, because it's essential for the province's economy and because the people of British Columbia have told us repeatedly to get on with it. So why are members opposite so strongly opposed? Why do they insist on hiding their beliefs by saying: "Oh yes, we believe in treaties; we just don't like the specifics of the Nisga'a a treaty"?

Frankly, I don't believe them when they say that -- when they try to convince the people of British Columbia that somehow they have a magic solution that couldn't be reached through more than 20 years of negotiation.

But let's take some time to consider the facts and to look at their arguments in opposition of the treaty. I've listened, and I've tried to study their case. I've listened to all their arguments. I've even read some of their speeches in Hansard .

As I understand it, and I stand corrected by members opposite, the opposition's number one argument -- and I find it hard to say with a straight face, because to me it is completely preposterous -- is that the treaty amends the constitution. Is it possible? Is it actually possible for a treaty to amend the constitution? The last time I looked, the only way to amend the constitution was through the amending formula, one that needs involvement from at least seven out of ten provinces -- something we could never do alone in British Columbia even if we wanted to. Hon.

Speaker, the treaty cannot amend the constitution. It's a fallacy; it's a specious argument. They know that. No treaty has ever amended the constitution; no treaty can amend the constitution.

If you look at page 14 of the Nisga'a agreement, the treaty, it says under

section 8 of the general provisions:

"This Agreement does not alter the Constitution of Canada, including:

a. the distribution of powers between Canada and British Columbia;

b. the identity of the Nisga'a Nation as an aboriginal people of Canada within the meaning of the Constitution Act, 1982; and

c. sections 25 and 35 of the Constitution . . . . "

Honest -- I don't know how it could be any clearer. The treaty does not amend the constitution of Canada; it cannot amend the constitution of Canada. All of the country's top constitutional experts know that's true; so does the Leader of the Opposition. He knows it, I know it, and every member of this House knows it: a treaty cannot amend the constitution.

So why are they, every one of them, standing up in this House and saying it amends the constitution, when they know that it cannot and does not? Why are they doing that? Why are they wasting our time and money? Why are they going to court to say it amends the constitution? I don't know what lawyer even put in their case that they said this amends the constitution, when any lawyer and any plain-speaking person know that this is impossible.

The Leader of the Opposition says it. He says it is making the argument that it amends the constitution because he wants a referendum on the treaty. But, you know, he's wrong about that as well. There is no way at all that his lawsuit could force a referendum, any more than the treaty could change the constitution. What could happen? Could part of the treaty be ruled invalid by the court? Maybe; maybe you're right. In their best possible case, it cannot amend the constitution, and it cannot force a referendum.

[ Page 11036 ]

Their best possible case is that part of the treaty be ruled invalid. We think that's not likely. All the constitutional experts in the country say that it is not going to happen. But let's say it is true that part of it is invalid. We wouldn't need a referendum to deal with that. That wouldn't amount to a change in the constitution. The whole opposition argument is completely ridiculous. If parts of the treaty were invalid, then we would fix it. The treaty says it doesn't amend the constitution; the Nisga'a agree that it doesn't amend the constitution; Canada agrees that it doesn't amend the constitution; British Columbia agrees that it doesn't amend the constitution. If a small

section of the treaty is ruled invalid, then we will amend it so that it is consistent with the constitution of Canada. That is what would happen, hon. Speaker.

Any credible person who thinks about this . . . . I'm not counting Rafe Mair or Mel Smith or the Leader of the Opposition or Bill Vander Zalm. Any honest person would not stand in this House and say that it amends the constitution when they know otherwise. And any credible person would not say that the courts could force a referendum, because they cannot and they will not. That is not the mandate of this treaty, and that's not the mandate of the court.

They know that no treaty reached in Canada has ever been put to a referendum for approval. It's time the members of the opposition told the truth about this issue. No treaty in this country has ever amended the constitution, including those protected under

section 35. They know full well that this treaty is no different than those.

The terms of ratification have been set since 1991, shortly after Bill Vander Zalm's Social Credit government first brought our province to the Nisga'a negotiations. I'll quote the member for Matsqui -- the opposition critic or used-to-be critic; I don't know -- who made this comment just three or four months ago. He said: " . . . it would be unfair at this point to inject the referendum card." That is the opposition critic. He was right then, and he's wrong now when he calls for a referendum.

It would be unfair, but that's just the beginning; that doesn't tell the whole story. Changing the rules now, at the eleventh hour, would leave the province open to legitimate charges of bargaining in bad faith. Now, that is a very serious charge, and taking that step would have extremely serious ramifications for all British Columbians. The real reason that critics are crying "referendum" is not because they want a referendum; it is not because they claim that this is a constitutional amendment. The real reason they're using those words is because they want to see this treaty scrapped. That's the truth.

Right now all the polls suggest that that wouldn't happen, that most British Columbians support this treaty. If there were a referendum, I have no question in my mind that this would pass in British Columbia. It's absolutely clear.

But ask yourself what would happen if the opposition were successful in killing the Nisga'a treaty. What would happen? What would it do? They would have you believe -- because this is the other half of their sophistry, the other part of their argument -- that this is what would happen: it's simply a case of going back to the bargaining table. Now, why on earth would the Nisga'a agree to that? They've negotiated patiently; some would say too patiently. For 111 years they have been working toward this day.

They have negotiated for 20 years with Canada and for seven years with British Columbia. They've negotiated with trust and honour and respect. They've rejected calls for civil disobedience, for roadblocks and other confrontational tactics. While they've been negotiating, other aboriginal people have taken their cases to court and have been winning. How do you think that looks from a Nisga'a perspective? Given the choice between ten or 20 or 30 more years of negotiation and a well-supported court case, which option do you think the Nisga'a would choose? I expect that they would take us to court, with all that that entails.

Think about the ramifications. I asked the members opposite to think about the ramifications of killing this treaty, of changing the rules now. It would say to all aboriginal people: "You cannot trust the government to negotiate with. Negotiations don't work. You're better off going to court or seeking some other path." Turning down this treaty will plunge the province into the chaos and confrontation of litigation, and they know that. Yet they have the temerity to stand here and deny it and to tell British Columbians that all we have to do is go back to the bargaining table. That is clearly not an option, and I say shame on them.

[3:30]

A vote in this House is what the parties agreed to from the beginning. It is the traditional democratic way to decide issues that transcend partisan politics, and it is the best way to ratify this treaty. Let's set aside the whole question of ratification for a minute, and let's go back to the substance -- or the so-called substance -- of the opposition's court case. We know it's not about the constitution. That's a joke; it can't be about the constitution. We know it's not about a referendum. That's a joke; the courts cannot order a referendum. It's not about that, so what else is it about?

They claim the treaty is unconstitutional because it gives the Nisga'a people self-government powers. This is the other theme we have heard. They say that as if the whole idea of aboriginal government is somehow new and foreign. Hon. Speaker, the Nisga'a people governed themselves effectively, by all accounts, for thousands of years before the arrival of European settlers. They followed a set of ancient laws called the ayuu k Nisga'a , governing issues of civil order, property ownership and social matters such as the distribution of wealth. Just as the Nisga'a lands were never sold or signed away in treaties, so too was their system of government never surrendered.

Just as we have a legal and moral duty to reconcile aboriginal rights to land with today's modern realities, so too must we reconcile existing laws with the modern reality of aboriginal self-government. That's what the treaty does. It strikes a fair and workable balance. It gives the Nisga'a authority to manage their own affairs within the framework of the constitution, the Charter of Rights and existing federal and provincial laws. The vast majority of Nisga'a powers will pertain to local matters and will affect only Nisga'a citizens -- just like municipal powers.

The only exceptions are in areas internal to their community, integral to their culture or necessary to manage their own lands and resources, and these exceptions are appropriate to the circumstances. The Nisga'a people live in a remote rural area. Their communities are largely self-contained, and for the first time since the Indian Act took effect, the Nisga'a will be landowners. In order to make use of that land and become more self-reliant, they need jurisdiction over land-based resources.

Similarly, the treaty gives them the right to manage their own affairs in areas directly affecting their culture, such as adoption, marriage, language and education. This is critically important to their efforts to rebuild the culture and heritage that are the very foundation of the Nisga'a community. Fur-

[ Page 11037 ]

thermore, despite what the opposition claims, these provisions are not necessarily transferable to any other first nation in treaty negotiations.

Hon. Speaker, before I go on, I want to take a moment to address an issue underlying much of the criticism we've heard about the Nisga'a treaty. They don't always come right out and say it, but critics would have you believe -- and I heard it this morning again on Rafe Mair -- that any powers given to the Nisga'a somehow take away power from non-Nisga'a citizens. That's wrong; it's not true. It's nonsense. It's worse, frankly; in my view, it's irresponsible and tantamount to scare-mongering.

Nisga'a government can only be exercised consistent with the constitution, the Charter of Rights and federal and provincial laws of general application. It doesn't affect the balance of power between the senior level of government, nor does it in any way reduce or infringe on federal or provincial powers. The members opposite like to make reference to the fact that in a number of limited cases, Nisga'a law may take precedence over federal or provincial laws in the event of a conflict. That's true, hon. Speaker, but as with many facts, it's meaningless unless placed in context.

To do that, we must first strip away the misinformation and fearmongering we've heard from some of the members opposite. For example, the Leader of the Official Opposition stood here one week ago and talked about "powers that can be used to enforce compliance with aboriginal customs, practices and traditions." What do you think he meant by that? What was he really trying to say when he said "powers that can be used to enforce compliance with aboriginal customs, practices and traditions"?

Here's what I heard. I heard a not-so-veiled suggestion that non-Nisga'a people will be forced to comply with Nisga'a traditions and customs. Clearly that is the intent of the language he used -- that the rights of the Nisga'a people to look after their own culture will somehow be translated into the enforcement of traditional ways on non-Nisga'a people. That is not just ludicrous. It is absolutely ludicrous, and anyone who disagrees with me should simply read the treaty.

The vast majority of Nisga'a laws will apply only to Nisga'a people on Nisga'a land. Those few that have some limited application outside the Nisga'a land are clearly and unequivocally non-coercive. In other words, no one -- no non-Nisga'a and no Nisga'a -- will ever be forced to comply with those laws. It's not in the treaty. Nisga'a people cannot use the treaty to enforce compliance of non-Nisga'a people in traditional areas where they have jurisdiction. It is unequivocal.

For them to say or to imply that non-Nisga'a people will be forced to adopt traditional Nisga'a ways is not only wrong, it is also shameful, because they are fearmongering. They know it is not true. A plain reading of the treaty documents it exhaustively. It is exhaustive in the treaty that non-Nisga'a people are not going to be coerced into following traditional Nisga'a ways.

Maybe the members opposite don't believe that the Nisga'a deserve the right to govern themselves, just as they don't believe that the Nisga'a should have the right to care for their own children or manage their own health care or harvest trees on their own land, on their own private property, without paying royalties to the province. Why would they pay royalties to the province for a resource that the province doesn't own? Why does the opposition find these concepts so hard to understand? We are transferring fee simple land and resources. They're not paying royalties to the province of British Columbia, because they own them -- for a change. It is clear.

They know that any laws the Nisga'a pass will have to meet federal and provincial standards. They know that federal and provincial laws will not be diminished in any way by the Nisga'a, and they know that it is in the Nisga'a people's own best interests to build a strong economy and to operate an effective health, education and social service system. Would the Nisga'a, having control of their education system, seek an education system that does not allow their children to go to university in British Columbia or anywhere in the world? Of course not.

They must meet or exceed provincial standards in all of these areas, not just because the treaty tells them to but because common sense tells you that that's what they want to do: to meet or exceed provincial standards.

Contrary to what the opposition says, the treaty does not create a new order of government. It does not in any way reduce the rights or the freedoms of people outside the Nisga'a community, and it will never force non-Nisga'a people to speak the Nisga'a language or practise Nisga'a customs.

I know that the members opposite don't want to hear this, even though they know it's true. They don't want to hear it, and they don't want the people of British Columbia to hear it, because the truth blows a hole right in their case. It blows their case right out of the water. Ever since we initialled this treaty, they've been trying to stir up fear. They've been making use of buzzwords and code words like "race-based" and "gated communities," like this was somehow akin to apartheid. They have talked about Yugoslavia.

They have been appealing to the very worst in human nature, in a cynical attempt to win votes from the far right of the political spectrum. That is what has been going on for months. Ever since Bill Vander Zalm showed up on the scene, this so-called Liberal Party has been pandering to the far Right on every issue, especially this issue. And it's unacceptable.

This treaty is about human lives. It's about bringing people together, not about dividing them. The members opposite know that their insinuations are wrong. The truth is: the Nisga'a treaty is all about equality. It's about property rights. It's about ending this system that the South African government studied when it devised the apartheid system. The Nisga'a treaty ends race-based government in British Columbia -- ends it by abolishing the Indian Act forever on Nisga'a lands. The Nisga'a treaty is the opposite of what they claim.

It is the opposite of segregation, the opposite of apartheid, the opposite of race-based government. It is about bringing people together and ending special privileges and special treatment. It's about integration into the Canadian economy; it's about welcoming into British Columbia.

It is the opposite of the words they use in this chamber, and I suspect they know that. They know that, but they deliberately choose to do so, because they know there is a constituency out there that wants to maintain the past. They know there's a constituency out there that they think they need to get elected. This is not about principles; this is not about justice. This is all about their cynical attempts to get votes from the far right of the political spectrum.

For generations, the Indian Act has set aboriginal people apart through a combination of reduced rights and, yes, special privileges. For example, status Indians on reserves are still today, in 1998, not allowed to own their own houses. They can't even change their will without permission from the federal Minister of Indian Affairs. At the same time, it's true that they are exempt from most taxes and from many British Columbia laws, including those that govern resource management and environmental protection.

[ Page 11038 ]

The Indian Act provides no significant rights for non-aboriginal people who live on reserves. Non-aboriginal people today who live on reserves in British Columbia can be taxed by band councils that they're not allowed to vote for. They're not protected by B.C. laws that govern areas such as employment standards and landlord-tenant relationships. They don't have to be consulted about decisions that affect them, and if they object to those decisions, they have no recourse.

In other words, the current inequalities in the Indian Act cut both ways. Aboriginal people do not have the rights that we have come to expect and take for granted, including the right to own a home and the right to make your will without permission from Ottawa. But similarly, non-aboriginal people living on reserve are also second-class citizens and do not have the rights that you do if you live off reserve. And, of course, many of the laws that we pass in this chamber do not apply on reserves, including laws that protect the environment. The inequality cuts both ways.

But the Nisga'a final agreement does away with all of them. It brings the Nisga'a into the mainstream of society. It makes them subject to the same laws as other British Columbians, including our tax laws, and it greatly enhances the rights of non-Nisga'a people living on Nisga'a land.

I think the Leader of the Opposition said in his speech that he is concerned about the non-Nisga'a people, that he cares and that he's looking out for their interests. But then he turns around and does everything he can to frighten them, to unsettle them and to make them think the treaty is somehow going to erode their rights.

[3:45]

Madam Speaker, I say again to the Leader of the Opposition: read the treaty and see what it says about non-Nisga'a rights. And then read the Indian Act and see what it says about non-Nisga'a living in the Nass Valley today. The Indian Act gives non-aboriginal people on reserves virtually no rights at all. The treaty is a huge improvement for non-aboriginal people living in the treaty area. It ensures that non-Nisga'a residents will be consulted about any Nisga'a government decision that affects them.

It ensures that they'll have the right to participate fully in any Nisga'a government institution that affects them, such as the school board or a hospital board. If they disagree with Nisga'a government decisions that affect them, they can appeal, using a review process built right into the treaty. If necessary, the process can go all the way to the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

The province, as well -- not just non-Nisga'a living on Nisga'a land -- now has the right under this treaty to seek justice and to ensure that it is consulted in decisions that affect them. It not only has the right to ensure that; it can go to the Supreme Court of British Columbia. The province can also use the treaty's dispute resolution process to intervene on behalf of non-Nisga'a citizens if it feels their rights have not been respected, and of course their rights will be protected under the Charter of Rights and the constitution.

This is a good example -- it might even be the best example -- of what we mean when we say that the treaty is fair and balanced and works for all British Columbians.

The Nisga'a people have fundamental rights that must be addressed. The treaty honours those rights, while maintaining the integrity of existing federal and provincial laws. It doesn't create, as critics say, a third order of government, and it doesn't take away anything from people outside the Nisga'a community. It represents the best possible balance of rights and interests for the benefit of all British Columbians. It provides the B.C. government, the Nisga'a people and the citizens of B.C. with legal certainty.

It gives the Nisga'a people the resources they need to build an economic base and end 100 years of dependency. Perhaps most importantly, in a province as culturally diverse as British Columbia, it brings people together. It helps us resolve an injustice that's gone on far too long: the mistreatment and segregation of aboriginal people.

Far from giving non-Nisga'a people fewer rights, far from this treaty giving something to the Nisga'a by taking something away from everybody else, it does the opposite yet again. It is a huge step forward and an improvement over the current Indian Act and the reserve system. It means that non-Nisga'a people's rights are respected in this treaty, and it gives them the right of appeal. Finally, it gives British Columbia the right to intervene. It is a very significant step towards reaching a workable balance between aboriginal rights and the rights of everybody else in our province. Hon.

Speaker, this is the great unfinished business of British Columbia. I for one am honoured to be a leader in this province today as we prepare to walk together -- all of us together -- down the road to reconciliation.

Some people have said -- I'm thinking particularly of the member for Peace River South, who said that just because he doesn't share our vision of justice, somehow he's no less committed to dealing with this issue . . . . I'm not sure I agree, because if this treaty is not passed . . . . I say through you, hon. Speaker, to that member: if this treaty is not passed, it's not simply a question of going back and negotiating something different. Too many compromises have been made, too much negotiation has gone on, too many years have gone by to simply say that we can defeat this treaty and somehow go back and negotiate something different.

My message to you -- to that member and to members of the opposition -- is really simple: keep attacking this treaty if you must, say that you could do a better job of negotiations -- perhaps you could -- and say that future negotiations should be different, but vote in favour of this treaty. This treaty is the sum total of the compromises that we -- Canada, British Columbia and the Nisga'a -- made to come to grips with this problem. This is the culmination of those negotiations which, by their nature, mean that compromises were made -- compromises which every member in this chamber probably has concerns about.

I respect your right to say that this treaty is not perfect, because of course you'd be right; it isn't. I respect your right to say that it could be better; I even respect your right to say that you could do a better job. But say that about future treaties. Say that about what you would do if you had the ability to negotiate treaties. Campaign in the next election -- up to the next election, through the next election and beyond -- on your view that treaties should look different, but do not vote against this treaty.

To do so is to send a signal to aboriginal people that no matter who the government is, they cannot make compromises to get a treaty, because those opposition politicians will seek to exploit that. Native people will again be denied the justice which has been denied to them for so long.

So I ask you, all you members of the opposition, to vote in favour of the treaty. If you must, keep your views about what could be improved; argue on another day about what could be done with future treaties. But honour the nature of this compromise and the way in which we've arrived at it, because if you should someday find yourselves in government -- God

[ Page 11039 ]

forbid, hon. Speaker -- and you choose to try to negotiate treaties, no one will believe you. No one will believe that you speak for the people of British Columbia. You will not have the power to make the compromises that you need to make to get a treaty if you're going to be second-guessed and campaigned against and if referendums are called for on these questions.

So if you have -- and I suspect you do -- honest and deep-seated views about elements of this treaty, I ask you to put them aside in the interest of progress on this important question. I know that at least the member for Peace River South agrees that progress must be made; he knows that progress must be made. He brought British Columbia to the table. He knows how difficult that is. I know that he's sitting there and saying that he would have done something differently, and perhaps he would have. Perhaps he would have got a treaty that looks different from this.

I suspect he wouldn't have, because of the nature of the two other parties at the table, but perhaps he would have. I say: make those political points, keep your views, make them again and again -- and outside this chamber -- but don't hold up this treaty to your view of what it should be. This treaty represents our best hope for moving forward on the question of aboriginal land claims, and you know that.

I started out by talking about the Nisga'a who were here at the Legislature two weeks ago. I talked about how that issue was very moving and how they came into the chamber. I didn't talk about it, but I could have talked about Joe Gosnell speaking at the Bar of the House and about his very powerful speech to all of us about this treaty. I do think that what I said a minute ago is true. I think that we are, quite literally, at a crossroads. We can't move back. We can't say, "Sorry, we want to go back and renegotiate," after all of this.

We can't say that for the Nisga'a, 111 years is not enough -- that they need more time. We have to ask ourselves: how do we move forward? What kind of province do we want for our children and for our future? Is it a place of conflict and confrontation? Is it a place, instead, of reconciliation?

This is not about guilt from the past; it's about hope and opportunity for the future. This treaty represents a real and rare opportunity to realize our vision for a better British Columbia, one that stands for all the world as a symbol of justice, peace and reconciliation. Whether they be faith leaders, whether they be aboriginal leaders or whether they be constitutional experts, everybody is watching this treaty. It is about hope and opportunity; it is a symbol.

Ratifying this treaty will finally answer the question that the Nisga'a people first put to Premier William Smithe in 1887, 111 years ago: when will British Columbia and Canada give them justice? For 111 years, the answer has been "Not yet." This year, I say, ratify this treaty. Let the answer to the Nisga'a be "Now."

G. Farrell-Collins: I am pleased to follow the Premier in this House today. I sympathize with him with his cold; I'm getting over one myself. Although I don't have nearly as long to speak, I hope I manage to have my voice hold up throughout my time.

I listened carefully to what the Premier had to say, and I listened very carefully to what every member of this House has had to say over the last two weeks. It's amazing, when you listen to what people say, how much we're saying the same things. I have heard almost every single member in this chamber stand up and talk about the incredible injustices that were perpetrated upon the Nisga'a people and other aboriginal people in British Columbia and across Canada. The Premier did a good job of itemizing them.

He talked about the Nisga'a people not having a right to vote, not having the right to speak their own language -- if you can imagine that -- not having the right to teach their own children in their own community, not having a right to dance, not having a right to be full citizens in their own province and your own country -- having lost their land, the basis upon which their culture and their people have lived for thousands of years. I agree with all of his feelings and many of his comments with regard to the Nisga'a people and the things that they have suffered since European settlers first came to this land.

But that doesn't mean that you need to sign this treaty. It doesn't mean that this treaty is the only treaty that will address the concerns that were raised by the Premier, the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Peace River South and others in this House. To recognize the past injustices and to make a yeoman's attempt to settle them with the land claims treaty, as is contained in the Nisga'a agreement, does not mean that this is the only way to go. The Premier's logic fails.

The Premier has said to us -- and he's made the argument here today -- that because we in the opposition and those people around this province who have concerns about this treaty have raised those concerns, therefore it follows that we don't want to settle land claims agreements and that we don't want to sign treaties. Nothing could be further from the truth. Nothing that any member in this chamber has said has led me to believe that at all.

The Premier says that because treaties would begin to solve the problems that exist in aboriginal communities across British Columbia, we don't want to solve those problems -- because we don't support the Nisga'a treaty. That logic, too, is false. That logic, too, fails the test. The Premier says that members of the opposition and people across this province who fail to support the Nisga'a treaty don't even want to recognize that those problems exist. That too is false; that too fails the test of logic.

[4:00]

The Premier made what I would call some extreme comments in characterizing those people in British Columbia who have raised legitimate concerns about the treaty -- concerns which he himself said recently were legitimate, and legitimate to be asking. Today he says something different. I reject those comments by the Premier. I reject them on behalf of my colleagues. I reject them on behalf of the people of British Columbia who have raised their concerns about this treaty. I reject them categorically. We in the opposition on this side of the House realize the injustices, and we'll strive to correct those injustices.

And just because we don't support 100 percent of the Nisga'a treaty does not mean that we are not in favour of negotiating treaties, signing treaties, settling land claim agreements and ensuring that aboriginal people resume their rightful place as citizens of British Columbia and of Canada.

The Premier also said . . . . I want to comment on it, because I think it was important. It was another failure in the logic of his comments today. He spoke quite eloquently about

[ Page 11040 ]

how, if this treaty isn't passed, there is absolutely no going back; it will be over. That will be it. There will be no negotiations after that. Moments later he said that if it is proven that elements of this treaty are not constitutional, it's very easy: the government will just go back and fix it. They'll negotiate it and fix it. You can't have it both ways. Either the treaty can be negotiated -- can be fixed, as the Premier put it in his terms -- or it cannot. I say that it can be, and it can be fixed for any number of reasons.

When I rise in this House today, I'm not going to repeat the comments that were made by members of the opposition over the last two weeks. Many of them spoke with, I think, extreme eloquence and also great detail not just about the concerns they have for this treaty but also about the things in this treaty that are good. I won't spend my time trying to add to what has been a very comprehensive discussion of those facts and issues. I will, however -- for the reasons stated by my colleagues -- not be supporting this treaty.

First I want to comment on the way the Premier has used this issue and the way government members have participated in the debate before this House. This treaty was signed toward the end of last session, and the Premier immediately stated that he would call a fall session of the Legislature to debate it. The timing of that session would normally have been in late September or early October, which would have allowed for it to be completed by sometime in November. It's no news to me that the government has a majority, and they could have easily moved the Nisga'a treaty through the House in that time.

But it soon became clear that the Premier of British Columbia had other plans, because the Premier had and continues to have a problem. The economy of British Columbia is crashing. People are losing their jobs by the thousands, and rural health care is in crisis. The pressure in the summer and the pressure now is beginning to build, and it's starting to build in his caucus for a plan, any plan, to fix those problems.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

The Premier's personal approval rating was and is at a record low for any Premier anywhere in Canada at any time in history -- a truly historic day in British Columbia. Rumours of his failing leadership abilities were being discussed openly in the media. Speculation as to who would succeed him has been whipped around the cabinet rooms and around the corridors of this building. He "had to act," to use the Premier's words, so he did. The problem was, once again, that he had no plan. He had no solution, for his strengths had always been action for action's sake.

Just as all style with no substance was a dangerous thing, people in British Columbia, in his caucus and in his cabinet are beginning to see that all action with no plan is just as dangerous.

The Premier was at risk of becoming just a variation on a theme. He was at risk of joining a trio of failed Premiers who never got the chance to be re-elected because their parties threw them out of office before the voters could. The Premier was like a California surfer lying 200 metres offshore, staring at the horizon and waiting for a wave, any wave, that he could ride to re-election and increased popularity. On the horizon loomed an issue that I had never heard this Premier speak of before. It was the Nisga'a treaty. He saw that wave, and he began paddling like crazy.

On the day the treaty was signed, the Premier blew into the Nass Valley, attached his name to it and called it his deal. Imagine that. After 30 years of negotiation, 111 years of waiting, the Premier called this his deal because he spent one afternoon in the Nass Valley and put his signature to it. From that day forward -- if you'll excuse me, hon. Speaker -- he called it a Glen Clark deal.

We have seen a desperate Premier try to use this treaty to raise his own personal popularity. He saw the polls and realized that if he could increase support for the treaty by soft-selling its benefits and calling any opponent to it extreme, thereby making people afraid to raise their concerns, he could increase his support level to well above his current level. After all, 35 percent is definitely better than 8 percent or 11 percent. If only he could distract the people of British Columbia from a crashing economy and a disintegrating health care system, he would prevail.

If only he could get his caucus to focus on how much they despised the opposition, they would forget how far down into the cavernous political pit he had led them. If they could fight the B.C. Liberals, they wouldn't have any energy left to fight him. He is a shrewd politician; have no doubt about it.

The Premier constantly tries to divide the opposition; he does everything he can. He finds any crack -- real or imagined -- and, using a hammer and a chisel, attempts to splinter, crack, fracture and separate his opponents. Today is no different. For him, this treaty has not been an attempt to unite British Columbians to support it. It was, instead, an attempt to splinter off groups of people -- interest groups, who he raised and itemized today; religious groups; community activists; business leaders; and members of other political parties -- who have been opposed to him and his leadership on so many other things.

Hon. Speaker, you don't have to take my word for it. We have seen it in action, when senior government officials were phoning chief executive officers of forest companies -- who were trying daily to keep themselves in business and their employees working -- and attempting to coerce them into publicly supporting the treaty. Those phone calls were linked with help from the government to support their business.

It was also evident, as members in this House have seen daily, when government members targeted one or more of us on the opposition side and called us out into the hallway for a little discussion about how we were feeling about the treaty and how we should be real Liberals and support the treaty.

The government didn't just do that, though. Every British Columbian in this province knows what they've done, because the government spent $5 million, taxpayers' dollars, to run a soft-focused, slow-motion, soft-sell TV, radio and print advertising campaign to try and convince British Columbians to support the treaty -- ads that contained virtually no information, no facts and no debate.

In fact, in the last few months the Premier hasn't missed one single opportunity to try and promote himself through this treaty. Indeed, the Premier's use of a daily deluge of photo ops and presentations was referred to by one columnist as "really starting to scrape the bottom of the . . . barrel as he wrings every political point he can from the treaty." One such photo op was referred to as "a token of political opportunism," adding: "[The Premier] has not missed any chance to showcase any person or event associated with the . . . cause."

But what hasn't been commented on in the media and in this House is the thousands of dollars in polling that the NDP has done on an almost nightly basis to determine if they're going up or down in popularity. People have been asked: "How do you feel about the treaty? How do you feel about the NDP? How do you feel about the government?" Most importantly: "How do you feel about the Premier?" These last few months have not been about selling a treaty; these last few

[ Page 11041 ]

months have been about selling one man. It wasn't $5 million to promote a treaty; it was $5 million to promote the man.

When the treaty was signed, the Premier could have called the House in September or October, as I said, to debate and pass it. He has a majority: he has 39 seats in a 75-seat House. Why did he feel it necessary to spend four months and $5 million to sell it? If he feels as passionately as he says he does about this, and if he always has, then why not pass it and why not pass it soon? In all reality, the only people that he needed to convince were the members of his own caucus, who in the years I've been here have yet to stand up to him and oppose him on any matter.

This was not an attempt to sell a treaty; it was an attempt to sell one man. Like many an autocrat before him, he whipped his caucus into a fever pitch and sent them into the House.

I know that many members of the NDP opposite have strong feelings on this issue. I've sat in this House for hours on end and in my office listening to them -- either here or on television. I know how strongly they feel about this issue. I know many of them have personal firsthand experiences of the plight of aboriginal people in this province, and I know many of them have spoken from the heart. They've spoken with great passion about the terrible way that aboriginal people have been treated in the past, and aboriginal people have been treated badly in the past -- terribly badly.

The speeches of the members of the government in most cases have ignored addressing those concerns raised by the opposition, by the public and indeed by other aboriginal people. For them, this has been a debate of passion, but only of passion. They have spoken from their hearts, but only from their hearts. If people have been paying attention carefully, they would know that we've gone to great lengths to highlight both the weaknesses and the strengths of the treaty.

Well, not one government member has raised one concern or even hinted that there could be any failings whatsoever in this treaty. For them, this treaty must be signed "because it is the right thing to do." Hon. Speaker, I believe they would have signed any treaty. Indeed, the plea from the Premier moments ago indicated that he wants 75 members to sign any treaty, regardless of concerns. They want to sign a treaty, any treaty, because to not do so would go against everything they feel. It would go against every emotional impulse, every passion that motivates them and against, in their minds and in the mind of the Premier, what separates them from us.

While many members of the NDP spoke with passion, many also spoke with derision. The constant heckles from across the way were borne by our members in silence for two weeks. Every comment by one of my colleagues was taken out of context, twisted into knots and hurled back at them. The Premier gave us a prime example of that today. This was never more evident than when the Leader of the Opposition used a quote that referred to gated communities. The government members howled in rage at what a terrible comment he had made. In fact, the Premier alluded to it today, in his speech. Hon.

Speaker, so furious were they in their rage that they, and indeed the Premier, didn't even recognize that the Leader of the Opposition was quoting the Premier. The Leader of the Opposition quoted the Premier, the leader of the government and the man who calls it his deal, for the Premier coined that phrase and first used it in a Vancouver Sun interview on July 30, five months ago. But so twisted had the logic of the members opposite become that the very words of their Premier, when used and quoted by someone else, became the subject of howls of rage and indeed comment by the Premier in his own speech here today.

[4:15]

Hon. Speaker, let me give you one more example. If I were to say about this treaty and the Nisga'a people -- and I hope you'll excuse me, but I'm quoting -- that "It's a collective. It's a communal right. It's not about individuals dividing it up and pissing it away by buying a truck or something," the opposition and the government side would be outraged. But the fact of the matter is that those very words were used by the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs on November 5 in the Nanaimo News Bulletin .

I understand how much the NDP want to correct past wrongs, to straighten the sword and rebalance the scales of justice, but we do, too, on this side. We want to do just that. As a country, Canada has much in its history to be proud of, but it isn't a history without shame. Many people who have called this land home have suffered unforgivable wrongs at the hands of others -- the Irish, the Sikhs, the Indo-Canadians, the Chinese, the Japanese -- and the aboriginal people have suffered more than most of them. But I reject the Premier's argument that we must sign this treaty just because it's there.

We must sign treaties that will work not just to correct the past but to build the future. We have to get it right.

I do fear what would happen if we don't ratify this treaty. I do fear that. But I fear far more what will happen when we do, because this treaty will become a legacy of inequality for generations to come for all those reasons raised by the opposition. That inequality will build resentment and long-term disharmony across this province for decades, if not centuries. I feel passionate about the need to settle land claims, but I won't let that passion make me do something that I know I'll live to regret. We cannot let the passion that we all feel prevail over reason.

While I respect the government members' strong feelings on this treaty, I urge them not to let their passion or desire cloud their judgment. I urge the members opposite not to set aside reason and climb on the bandwagon of passion. Most importantly, hon. Speaker, don't deride those who refuse to join you.

Hon. Speaker, in my seven years in this House, I must admit that I have never seen a debate quite like this one. I've never seen members afraid to go into the House and say what they believe, for fear of being taken out of context and unfairly labelled in the most extreme ways. Each and every member of our caucus has worked from a written text in their speeches, as I'm doing today -- something we decided to do early on, something we rarely do. Even at that, each and every speaker was and is subject to the outrageous character assassinations and misrepresentations by some of the members across the way. And the Premier, I must say, continued in that vein today.

I'm prepared to carry the load that's directed at me, myself, for I am still a relatively young person in this House, and a full one-fifth of my life has been spent here. But other than my actions and my words, I don't have a long career of public service as a record to ensure me against such attacks.

But let me tell you, when I see the member for Vancouver-Langara rise in this House -- an individual who has given of himself tirelessly and endlessly for the support of people of all ethnic backgrounds, an individual who has a career of public service that spans 50 years -- and I hear him being taunted, provoked and labelled an extremist by government members . . . . It makes my blood boil to see that, because this House works only when members are free to express their views.

This House works only when members can engage in reasoned debate that includes passion, yes, but passion anchored firmly on a sound support of reason. Members opposite have behaved as though they had some divine right

[ Page 11042 ]

to govern, as though only they were qualified to comment on this issue and only they saw the right way to settle this issue.

Like a majority of British Columbians, we believe that this treaty is a step in the right direction, to quote Angus Reid. But many, many British Columbians have serious concerns about how it's going to work in practice, and those concerns need to be raised. The people of British Columbia should never have to be afraid of raising those questions for fear of being labelled as extreme. What has B.C. become if people are no longer free to discuss an issue like this in an open way and debate it? How can we expect to learn from the inevitable and many successes and failures of the Nisga'a treaty if we aren't allowed to talk about them openly and fix the treaties that follow?

The government must know that this treaty is not perfect; no treaty can be. But let's make sure that we make the next one better and the one after that better yet. We owe that to ourselves, we owe it to the aboriginal people of this province and we owe it to all the generations of British Columbians who will follow us -- many of whom haven't even yet come to this province or this country.

I believe that by any and all means we must negotiate land claims and sign treaties, but let's make sure we get it right. If we don't, we'll spend the next hundred years like we spent the last hundred years: regretting our actions and attempting to correct past wrongs. I agree with the Premier: let's get on with it. But I disagree with the Premier. Let's make sure that when we do get on with it, we get it right.

Tabling Documents

Hon. I. Waddell: Hon. Speaker, I neglected to table a report after question period. I wonder if I might do it now. Can I have leave for that?

Leave granted.

Hon. I. Waddell: Hon. Speaker, I have the honour to present the British Columbia liquor distribution branch's annual report for 1997-98. I thought I'd table that just before Christmas.

J. Cashore: I ask for leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

J. Cashore: I'd like the House to acknowledge Dr. Frank Calder, whom the House is well familiar with, who is present for the proceedings this afternoon. Would the House please make him welcome.

G. Hogg: I join this debate, having accepted the challenges of this government to search my heart, to search my soul and to do what is right. I have read and reread this treaty and many analyses of it, and I have reviewed our sorry history with first nations peoples. I have listened to many articulate addresses, and I have listened to the opinions of hundreds of people in Surrey-White Rock.

Yesterday, December 13, marked the birthdate of Nostradamus. His famous Book of Prophecies, written in the mid-1500s, was worded so that one could interpret them as one wished. As a result, many people have read into his words the meaning which they wanted to have portrayed. The same process often occurs when we listen to others. We often hear what we want to hear, conveniently overlooking whatever else may have been said.

I cannot prevent this from happening, but I can tell you right from the outset what it is that I want you to hear. I want you to hear that I come to this debate with a sense of history and a sense of experience with some first nations people. Those experiences have forever enriched my understanding of myself and this world. And I want to settle treaty issues.

I want this province and this country to move into the future with good conscience and with pride -- pride because we have made decisions which will set in place the structures and the processes necessary to mediate differences; processes which are tolerant, which provide balance and equality, which are all preconditions for the people of this province to live and to prosper in harmony. I want you to know that I have struggled with this agreement and that part of that struggle involved reviewing it within the context of our past, our present and our wished-for future societies.

The easy thing today would be to support this bill -- easy but, I believe, wrong. It is easy -- it even feels good -- to be swept up in the timely waves of cultural experiences. It is comforting to feel the waves of emotional warmth and camaraderie which accompany the beat of the drums, the songs, the dances and the ceremony of the past weeks.

But it would not be easy for me to face myself either today or, more importantly, years from now, when those warm feelings of the past weeks will have faded as this template agreement casts its pall on the negotiations of thousands of first nations people yet to come to the table. Long after the words of Chief Gosnell have faded from our ears and long after the emotions of these past days have subsided, British Columbians will unavoidably be confronted with sober second thoughts. Reality will be there to greet us.

And if that reality -- the reality of this agreement -- is the enhancement of the way of life of one first nation at the expense of the recognized rights of other first nations and, indeed, perhaps of all British Columbians, then we will have set a difficult course for our future -- and, I believe, the wrong course.

I want to enhance the rights of first nations people in ways that enhance this province and the sense of identity which this province has. This process we are involved in must do more than ameliorate guilt and make us feel good. It must also do good, do right, not just for today but forever. Everyone must look at it with thought over emotion, with reason over reaction, with principle over passion and with substance over ceremony. As the fullness of these few weeks are drained and we are left with unfulfilled expectations, unfulfilled dreams, as the realities of this agreement and others based on it start to affect all the people of this province, some will wonder: what happened?

A treaty alone will not bring the structural and interactive changes which are necessary to correct the mistakes of our past. Examples of the failure of treaties to better the lives of first nations people abound, from the Northwest Territories to the United States. A future full of potential needs the structure, the foundation and most importantly the will of the people of this province to make it work. To provide that, people must feel included.

[4:30]

Diversity consultant Byron Kunisawa writes about what he calls systemic exclusions from societies. He refers to them as the result of designs of omission, designs which preclude the potential for a workable, dynamic society. He believes that systems or societies reflect the individuals who participate in

[ Page 11043 ]

setting the design criteria. His work suggests that our failure to actively involve the people of this province, either by referendum or by some other process which gives a sense of inclusion, dooms our efforts to failure. He states that the resolution of discrimination and ultimately of institutional racism will not be attained by using standard and current models. The cause of institutional bias is found in designs of omission and in organizational models which perpetuate limited cultural criteria for participation.

Therefore to adequately address this dilemma, we must initiate the development of designs for inclusion. Only then will equal opportunity finally have a chance to become a reality.

The following words on a document which hangs on my office wall, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights passed by the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1948, set a standard which I believe our treaties must reflect, standards which -- Kunisawa leads us to believe, with his criteria -- are necessary for participation. Articles 1 and 2 of the declaration read:

"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience, and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

"Everyone is entitled to the rights and freedoms set forth in this declaration without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction may be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty."

Article 21 states:

"

(1) Everyone has the right to take

part in the government of his country directly or through freely chosen representatives.

(2) Everyone has the right to equal access to public service in his country.

(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government. This will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections, which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures."

I do not believe that the full intents of these articles are reflected in the governance procedures of Bill 51, procedures which leave some residents out of the political process and leave many, in some cases, without votes.

My life has been enriched by my contact and interactions with people of many different cultures. From elementary school in White Rock through university, years of employment in the social services field, as a foster parent, as a coach, a volunteer and even as a politician, I have had the good fortune to learn a great deal from many others. I have found my contact with first nations people, and their culture, values, beliefs and spirituality to have been especially profound. I have worked and lived with first nations people and have learned from their passion for this world.

LaVerne and I have been foster parents to first nations youths. I have been invited to participate in many first nations ceremonies and celebrations, from sweat lodge to healing ceremonies, spiritual cleansings, rites of passage and burnings. I was deeply influenced by first nations spirituality while preparing and giving the eulogy for the son of the grand chief of the Semiahmoo nation.

I have learned a great deal about myself and my culture from the rich and vibrant culture of the people who have been severely injured by contact with an insensitive, unaware, European-based culture. We have much to apologize for; we have much to be ashamed of. We must take the steps necessary to empower the first nations people of British Columbia to become full and equal partners in this country. My heart, my mind and every thread of my existence want this to happen, and to happen quickly.

In 1954, Chief Seattle said: "The white man will never be alone. Let him be just and deal kindly with my people, for the dead are not altogether powerless." He contemplated our common destiny with the idealism of a skeptic when he said: "We may be brothers, after all. We shall see." And see we shall. I believe that we shall become, with the goodwill that exists . . . . And when we temper that goodwill with the balance and the structure necessary for all to find equality, then we shall be, as Chief Seattle said, brothers.

We shall then have the common base necessary for different cultures to harmoniously share a common land. I am thankful for this forum, for the opportunity to disagree and to know that diverse and divergent points of view can give strength to our system -- to know, as Voltaire said that we can detest what someone says and still defend to the death their right to say it.

Each of us has been shaped by the words and experiences that have engulfed us since our first moments of awareness. These words and experiences have also served to shape our understanding of ourselves as people who reside in this province and in this country. Canadian historian Maurice Careless has argued that we are people with what he calls limited identities, people who live with a number of competing loyalties. We are French Canadians, we are west-coast Canadians, and we are native Canadians.

We are often hyphenated, because our understanding of these words and the experiences which accompany them is internally generated. The meaning of our communication becomes defined by the response which that elicits, responses which often delineate us, based on geography and history.

Desmond Morton has stated that each of us tends to start the history of Canada from the moment of our arrival. The idea that we should respect the traditions and values that made Canada sufficiently attractive to draw immigrants begins to fade soon after the citizenship test. And for many of us born in Canada, the rites of passage are much more subtle. We may never consciously choose Canada or examine our country's history or heritage. Successive waves of immigrants have tried, like their predecessors, to make Canada more comfortable for them.

This often means making Canada more like the culture of their country of origin. In making Canada more comfortable, we can make it more tolerant. We can make it stronger through the cultural diversity, which brings with it the best of the experiences and traditions from around the world. It is here that we must take the limits off our identities and ensure that we continue to honour the values, history and traditions of the first nations -- the first Canadians -- while facilitating tolerant acceptance of other ways of life.

It has been said that institutions and organizations learn best by stories. I'm sure that each member of this House has stories -- stories detailing the mistreatment of first nations people, stories which cry out to us to change both the structure and the intent of the relations which we have forged with the first nations people of this province.

I am sure that each long-term resident of British Columbia also has stories, stories which give life and meaning to the statistics of our relationship -- statistics such as a first nations populations of some 400,000 in the 1700s and a mere 40,000 in the 1880s, statistics about poverty, statistics about crime and discrimination -- stories throughout this province, stories which personify and personalize the need for change, stories which cause us all shame and guilt.

I like most hold a dream -- a vision -- of a just province, a fair province, a province which recognizes and celebrates the

[ Page 11044 ]

strengths of its cultural diversity; a province which honours and respects its history and heritage; a province which accepts responsibility for its past; a province with compassion, with insight and faith in its people and its future. The pain and emotion of our past demand the type of changes which Chief Gosnell said will allow the Nisga'a people to become full participants in Canada -- changes which will give them a chance and which will let them stand responsible for themselves and for the outcome; changes which will make words like dignity, equality and respect the standard-bearers of our future.

Our past with its shame and our future with its hope both demand a commitment from the people of this province, a commitment to recognize and accept the wrongs of our past and a commitment to plan our future together, a commitment not based on the legal panderings of a government but a commitment that is entrenched in the moral consciousness of the people of this province. The test of our success in these matters will be found years from now when others ask whether or not this legislation had the vision, the compassion and the understanding of the people, past and present.

Will we be able to say that this template reached out, sought and found the principles which we needed to reflect the vision which we hold for British Columbia, principles which facilitate the settlement of land claims for all first nations people? Did we set a foundation of principles and of expectations which allowed the settlement of agreements within a framework that future aboriginal politicians could in good conscience take to their people? Or did we start with a level which was beyond the comfort level of this province and thus doom the future of further negotiations? The template will have been set. The agreement will establish the minimum level at which the bar can be set.

The people of British Columbia have a right, even a responsibility, to examine this agreement, to express their views. Malicious compliance by an informed populace could make any treaty the source of scorn, ridicule and ultimately failure. The systemic changes necessary to change the way we relate require awareness and commitment -- a commitment that cries out for greater opportunity and for participation in that process. The treaty has many compelling sections, and it has areas which I believe will make it most difficult for us to attain the vision of a fairly and justly governed province.

The certainty which could finalize many issues of contention is not contained in the proposed agreement. In fact, many uncertainties, from the consultation requirements to the wildlife management areas to the costs of land-reopeners -- remain topics of future discussion.

The equality provisions of our Charter are, I believe, challenged by this agreement. The mistakes of our past have been well documented, and to again legally create a society distinguished by its culture elevates the potential for the types of problems we have seen in the past. The Canadian -- indeed the democratic -- standard that allocates political rights based on residence is challenged by this agreement, which proposes political rights based on membership in a society. It mandates different levels of participation based on citizenship.

The form of governance and the constitutionally accommodated authority granted in