1989 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, APRIL 18, 1989

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

6177 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

The Whistle Blower's Protection Act (Bill M208). Mr. Cashore

Introduction and first reading –– 6177

Oral Questions

Proposed minister of state for women. Ms. Marzari –– 6178

Television broadcasting of debates. Mr. Rose –– 6178

Funding for alcohol and drug treatment centres. Mrs. Boone –– 6178

Doman Industries Ltd. Mr. Williams –– 6179

Tabling Documents –– 6180

Residential Property Tax Increase Limitation Act, 1989 (Bill 17). Second reading

Hon. Mrs. Johnston –– 6180

Statutes Repeal Act, 1989 (Bill 2). Second reading

Hon. S.D. Smith –– 6181

Mr. Sihota –– 6182

Hon. S.D. Smith –– 6182

Provincial Symbols and Honours Act (Bill 4). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Reid –– 6182

Mr. Williams –– 6183

Mr. Rose –– 6183

Hon. Mr. Reid –– 6183

University Endowment Land Park Act (Bill 16). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Dirks –– 6184

Mr. G. Hanson –– 6185

On the amendment

Mr. Perry –– 6187

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 6191

Ms. Marzari –– 6193

Mr. Harcourt –– 6194

Mr. R. Fraser –– 6195

Ms. Smallwood –– 6195

Mr. Sihota –– 6196

Mr. Miller –– 6200

Hon. Mr. Weisgerber –– 6202

Mr. G. Janssen –– 6202

Tabling Documents –– 6205

Ministerial Statement

Electoral boundaries decision. Hon. S.D. Smith –– 6205

Mr. Sihota

TUESDAY, APRIL 18, 1989

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

HON. S. HAGEN: I am pleased to have on the floor of the House

today the Minister of Education for the Northwest Territories, the Hon.

Stephen Kakfwi. Earlier today Mr. Kakfwi and I signed an agreement

between the Northwest Territories and the province of British Columbia

which will deal with pooling our knowledge and resources in order to

improve access to education for people living in remote areas of our

province and of the territories. We will also be exchanging curriculum

and resource materials for adult education and apprenticeship courses.

Accompanying the minister today are his deputy up in the gallery, Joe

Handley, and his assistant, Lynda Sorensen. Would the House please join

me in bidding them all welcome.

Also today I have the pleasure of introducing a constituent of mine

from Parksville. I am pleased today that Howard Fowler has come down to

watch the proceedings in the House. He is a strong supporter and a good

constituent. Please help me make him welcome.

MR. ROSE: I take pleasure in introducing someone well known

to this House and to the whole province: the former Premier who's

sitting there in the back row in silence, but not quite a stranger to

this House. I earlier had an opportunity to ask him what I felt was a

crucial question. When he invited me to come back from the federal

House as an MP to sit in the provincial House, why was it that as soon

as I got here, he decided to leave it and go to Ottawa? So there he is:

Dave Barrett.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I also want to extend a welcome to the

former leader of the NDP and Premier of the province. It's nice to see

him there. As a matter of fact, I think I miss some of the debates we

had back then. But I realize as I look across, that there is one leader

missing. There is an intervening body, the first member for Vancouver

East (Mr. Williams), and then the former Premier. I notice he has more

hair than the rest of them, even though it's going a bit grey.

Obviously Ottawa is treating him well. We are appreciative of what you

are attempting to do for us in Ottawa, and we will continue to tell you

about some of the concerns we have here. We know you'll fight for the

people and the government of British Columbia in what we're attempting

to get from Ottawa and some of the considerations that we would like to

have at least viewed by the people in politics there. We thank you, and

we're happy to have you here today.

MR. KEMPF: In your gallery today, Mr. Speaker, are two groups of visitors.

First, from my own constituency of Omineca — in fact, from Burns Lake — Archie,

Viola, Marvin and Karen Strimbold; almost the whole Strimbold family here today.

Archie and his family are longtime loggers in the Burns Lake area who are now

ranching. Hopefully, some of that cow welfare will pay for their logging operations

of the past. In the gallery as well are Ken and Ronny Lane, prominent Victoria

business people. I would ask the House to make them all very welcome.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: It's my pleasure today to introduce, in

the members' gallery, two directors of Tillicum Haus native friendship

centre, Nanaimo: Mrs. Grace Nielsen, director of social services, and

Mr. Tony Schachtel, the executive director. Tillicum Haus is involved

in a very exciting undertaking, funded through the off-reserve drug and

alcohol awareness program, to increase the knowledge in the native

community with regard to fetal alcohol syndrome. Please join with me in

making them welcome today.

HON. MR. DIRKS: In the precincts today to listen to this

afternoon's proceedings is a lady who has worked very long and hard for

the community she loves. She is none other than the director of

electoral area A of the Greater Vancouver Regional District. Would the

House please give Iva Mann a warm welcome.

MR. PERRY: I would also like to welcome Iva Mann, someone who

has worked very hard for many years for the conservation of the

Endowment Lands regional park and who has served my community admirably

for probably longer than I've been alive.

I would also like to welcome some special guests in the Speaker's

gallery today, constituents of mine and the first member for

Vancouver–Point Grey (Ms. Marzari), from the Musqueam Indian band:

Delbert Guerin, George Guerin, Myrtle McKay, Susan Point, Marilyn

Point, Rose Point and Chris Robertson. We're very pleased to have them

there. Would the House please welcome them. I would also like to

welcome, if he's here in the House right now, Lewis Harvey, their

attorney from Davis and Co. of Vancouver.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I'd like to introduce to the House three

young gentlemen who are on holidays and decided to see how this place

works — or doesn't. One of them is from Kamloops and works for that

great television station up there, CFJC; that's Kevin Mills. Two

friends from out of province are visiting with him, John Molter and Jim

Zelinski, and I'd like the House to make them welcome.

Introduction of Bills

THE WHISTLE BLOWER'S PROTECTION ACT

Mr. Cashore presented a bill intituled The Whistle Blower's Protection Act.

MR. CASHORE: This act provides protection for workers who

report pollution violations by their employers, and also gives workers

the right to refuse to work in situations involving pollution

violations. A worker is protected from being dismissed, disciplined,

penalized, coerced or intimidated for complying with or seeking

enforcement of environmental

[ Page 6178 ]

legislation or giving information to the Ministry of Environment or

the appropriate ministry. Where a worker refuses to carry out work due

to pollution violations, a complaint and investigation procedure is set

out. The burden of proof that an employer did not dismiss, discipline,

penalize or intimidate an employee who reports a pollution violation or

refuses to work is on the employer.

[2:15]

Bill M208 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

Oral Questions

PROPOSED MINISTER OF STATE FOR WOMEN

MS. MARZARI: This is a question to the Premier, Mr. Speaker.

Can the Premier advise this House whether he has decided to follow

through on his plans to have a minister of state for women before the

end of this session?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The throne speech speaks for itself,

and we're making great progress on all of the proposals in the throne

speech, as we have done every year and will continue to do. I can

definitely assure the hon. member that we will be pursuing those things

that were mentioned in the throne speech. In the meantime, there are

many issues that we're dealing with on a daily basis right here.

MS. MARZARI: The Premier said last week that he may not be

appointing this minister of state for women until the end or maybe even

after this session is over. You can't be partially pregnant, Mr.

Premier. Is there going to be a minister of state for women while we're

sitting or not?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It will be a decision for the Premier

as to the timing of the establishment of the ministry. Obviously there

are things to be done in order to prepare for that event. And it will

be done properly. We won't, as is being suggested, rush into it

blindly, without having made proper preparation. So it will be done. I

can assure the member that we'll see through that commitment. As I

said, in the meantime we can talk about some of the suggestions that

you've been making here in the House.

TELEVISION BROADCASTING OF DEBATES

MR. ROSE: I'd like to address a question to the Premier, as

well, concerning throne speeches and promises therein. Two or three

years ago, in the first throne speech, there was television promised

for the House. That was a solemn promise. The board looked into the

matter and, I believe, made recommendations. Then I look in vote 1 of

this year's estimates; there's no budget item for the television. I

wonder when the Premier plans to introduce television in the House.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, the question period, as

the member is aware, is being broadcast live. We've certainly made some

considerable progress, and we're continuing to make progress. As the

member must be aware, we've been attempting to determine the best

system for the House, without having to break out the walls or set up

huge structures. We want to make sure that it's one that fits in with

the decor. Certainly, as well, we want to make sure that when we get a

price for whatever installation, it will be appropriate and reasonable,

and one we can defend with the people in the province. We're making

progress, and we're carrying on.

FUNDING FOR ALCOHOL AND DRUG

TREATMENT CENTRES

MRS. BOONE: A question to the Minister of Labour and Consumer

Affairs. Can the minister confirm that his ministry has decided to

change the basis of funding for residential alcohol and drug treatment

societies, thereby threatening the continued existence of residential

treatment in B.C.?

HON. L. HANSON: That's an interesting question. The

negotiations are going on right now with the various societies that are

providing service through contractual arrangements with the government.

In her suggestion that we're cutting back on spending, the member is

less than educated on what is actually happening. We're not cutting

back. As a matter of fact, in many instances we have provided much more

money than we have in the past.

The member is suggesting that we are currently in the process of

negotiating a fee-for-service basis as opposed to a total grant in

total dollars. In all cases, that is being negotiated honestly and

fairly with the societies. I think the end result will be a better

utilization of the public's funds and will, in fact, provide a better

service to the citizens of British Columbia than we have experienced in

the past.

MRS. BOONE: The minister's words were "cutting back." I

referred to the change in the basis of funding, and the minister has

confirmed that there is a change in the basis for funding.

Can the minister assure this House that Peak House, which is the

only alcohol and drug residential treatment centre for teenagers in

British Columbia, will not be forced to close its doors?

HON. L. HANSON: Again, that is an interesting question. Peak

House is a private society that has the jurisdiction of making their

own decisions. I can certainly assure the members opposite that the

provincial government's funding provision to that society is fair and

equitable and will at least match what is there from last year. As a

matter of fact, there is a fair increase. Again, those negotiations are

going on right at the moment. I know that Peak House has suggested

there is a shortage of funding, but that is not a fair assessment at

this point, because no finalization of that has been determined.

[ Page

6179 ]

During this negotiation period we have, in fact, offered Peak House

a continuation of the contract we had in place last year until these

negotiations are finalized.

MRS. BOONE: The minister states again a change in funding.

But Peak House is saying the change in funding is due to the change to

fee-for-service. If Peak House is not able to operate under the fee-for

service or to provide the service under the funding formula that the

ministry is changing right now, can the minister tell us how he will be

providing that service to the teenagers in this province, seeing that

Peak House is the only facility that does provide residential treatment

for teenagers? If Peak House is not able to remain in operation, where

will the teenagers of this province go, Mr. Minister?

HON. L. HANSON: Again, we are in the process of negotiating

with Peak House; we are not negotiating here in the House for next

year's budget. I assure the members opposite that the funding being

offered to Peak House and the negotiations going on are fair and

equitable, and that Peak House will be dealt with in a fair and

justified manner.

The services that Peak House is providing will be provided; whether

that will be through Peak House or through another organization remains

to be determined. Peak House is a society on their own. They will make

their own decision based on the funding we have negotiated with them.

My knowledge at this time is that an agreement is going to be reached.

Both parties feel very positive about it at this time, but negotiations

are still going on.

DOMAN INDUSTRIES LTD.

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Minister of Forests. It's now a week

since I asked the following question — "Did you meet with Doman

Industries to discuss their cut position?" — and you took the question

as notice. Could you advise us of an answer today?

HON. MR. PARKER: We will be tabling the answers to those questions in the very near future.

MR. WILLIAMS: Is it asking too much, Mr. Speaker, for him to read the provided answer?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

MR. WILLIAMS: It obviously is. I guess we might as well begin a new list, seeing as the lesson is completed for today.

The minister said he wasn't getting involved in this matter, when he

was freely discussing it out in the corridor. Is it not true that the

minister sent the letter regarding Doman's cutting rights? Wouldn't you

say, Mr. Minister, that that indeed was involvement?

HON. MR. PARKER: The discussions we had subsequent to the questioning

in the House were a result of further discussion with my staff. The discussions

I had in different parts of this building were after I'd had appropriate

advice from staff.

MR. WILLIAMS: I have trouble with that answer, but not as

much as the minister. In the last week, staff in the Ministry of

Forests said regarding the atrocious trespass that they "beat the

living hell out of the area." I quote Mr. Steve Schmidt, in effect, on

the area that was high-graded. Given this background, this further

confirmation from your staff, can you explain why you did not penalize

Doman Industries?

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Smith didn't address his correspondence

to me, so I'd have to take a look at the file and see what the

substance of that particular memo was. At that time, I would be happy

to return a reply to the House. I'll take that as notice.

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Minister of Forests, isn't it true that

Doman Industries, in fact, had the assets and ability to buy into

another pulp mill in the form of Western Forest Products, when they

were non-performing in terms of the mill promised with respect to the

mid-coast cut?

HON. MR. PARKER: It's public record that Doman is a partner in the Western Pulp Ltd. Partnership.

MR. WILLIAMS: Last Friday, Mr. Minister, you said to the

press: "You'll have to ask other people of the day, not me, regarding

the Doman Industries deal." But isn't it true that in November 1988 you

agreed to the change in the contract and created the golden loophole

clause that was big enough to drive a Doman Industries truck through in

terms of not requiring performance on the pulp mill?

HON. MR. PARKER: One thing Mr. Roger Stanyer, Mr. Jack Munro

and the IWA are happy about is that the Doman trucks are driving, have

been driving and have driven through the most difficult times that

we've experienced since the thirties, economically speaking. Doman

Industries did not shut down during the depression of the first part of

the eighties. It continued to operate; it did not lay off. The IWA

membership was most grateful for that. As a matter of fact, we have a

letter on record from the IWA thanking the government for not reducing

Doman's cut and making it possible for them to generate new jobs in

British Columbia. We understand that; we're working to that end. We

work for the betterment of British Columbia, not for one person's

vengeance.

MR. WILLIAMS: Given the litany of information in terms of

your staff's concern about non-performance, pathetic performance and

the rest of it, how on earth, before the people of British Columbia,

can you explain how you could have traded off the $300 million

obligation that Doman Industries had for less than $10 million? Can you

explain that, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. PARKER: The obligation in the contract was for the

equivalency of employment, and the thermal-mechanical mill proposed by

Doman Industries

[ Page 6180 ]

back when they achieved their licence indicated an employment level

of approximately 80 people. The establishment that Doman is creating at

Duke Point will employ all of that number and more. That's what we're

after: the equivalency of jobs, not the equivalency of dollars

invested. If you're buying the type of equipment that Doman is using at

Duke Point, it can be fabricated right here in British Columbia, for

the most part. If you are looking for a TMP mill, most refiners are

built in northern Europe, so all that money goes overseas. It's better

to see it right here in British Columbia creating jobs in British

Columbia. It's for the betterment of British Columbia, and how that

member cannot understand that is beyond me.

[2:30]

Hon. Mr. Savage tabled the annual report of the Ministry of

Agriculture and Fisheries for the period April 1, 1987 to March 31,

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 17.

RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY TAX INCREASE

LIMITATION ACT, 1989

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: The minister closes debate.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I am very pleased to take my place to

close debate on second reading of this bill, but prior to concluding my

remarks, I would like to make reference to some of the comments brought

forward by members opposite.

There was a comment made earlier by the second member for Vancouver

East (Mr. Clark): "The most fortunate receive the benefit. They're

asset-rich and cash-poor." I would like to suggest to that member and

others opposite that in the city of Vancouver alone, we are looking at

capping approximately 16,000 properties.

The second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) spoke up a couple of

weeks ago when I suggested that Vancouver should be looking at a

variable rate to address the inequities in pockets of the city. The

member asked why I wasn't working with the city of Vancouver to resolve

their dilemma. I would like to quote some comments he made:

"In light of the concern of those who have pronounced this plan

ridiculous" — the member was referring to my variable taxation

suggestion — "has the minister decided to abandon her erratic idea and

have meaningful discussions with Vancouver city council on real

alternatives?" Well, Hon. Second Member for Victoria, I would like to

tell you that we did work with the city of Vancouver, with the UBCM and

with several of the mayors on the lower mainland. Don't blink your

eyes....

MR. MILLER: Stop that right now.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Yes, stop it right now. We did work with

them and I want to tell you that Bill 17 represents these

deliberations. It seems that members opposite like to talk an awful lot

about local autonomy and giving local government a greater role in

decision-making, but when the chips are down — does it sound familiar,

hon. member? — and they are called upon to support local government,

they turn their backs on them.

I would like to refer to a couple of other comments made by the hon.

second member for Victoria. On April 17 in the afternoon in this House,

he said: "We believe local government has a far greater role to play in

decision-making in the province than it has today. Despite what this

government says about the minister-of-state system...." He goes on to

say: "We're answering the topics by suggesting that local government,

despite what this government says, have a greater role to play in

decision-making in the province." Then he goes on to say what they

would do if they were government.

Somewhere along the line — although these comments were just made on

April 17 — they've obviously already been forgotten. The Leader of the

Opposition and the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Perry):

I would like to ask what you will say to the seniors in some of these

communities, the young families, the middle-income workers who live in

the areas hardest hit by these high assessments. Will those people in

your city — the people you supposedly represent — accept your arguments

about being asset-rich and that they should further mortgage their

future to pay their property taxes?

Will you, Mr. Leader of the Opposition and the second member for

Vancouver–Point Grey, support a municipal income tax or a further 80

percent tax on profit when the property is resold in a short period of

time, even though the property may have to be sold by someone who,

through death or illness, is forced to relocate and sell? Is that what

we call flipping — because they have owned it for a short time?

There has been reference made by members opposite that this is a

political move. Well, I really can't understand any suggestion of its

being political or to help our friends. The majority of the MLAs in the

Vancouver city area are sitting on the opposite side of the House. What

is the suggestion that this is political? That's another problem I have.

I think it's very important that all members of this House realize

how this legislation will impact on the taxpayers in Vancouver. I am

going to give you some specific examples that were sent over to us by

the mayor of Vancouver to use for reference.

In the west end of Vancouver: 1988 taxes on a piece of property —

these go from average right up to the higher properties — were $7,165.

Without a cap they would be $7,756; with the cap, a little higher at

$7,918. I doubt if there is anybody on that side of the House who is

concerned about somebody paying those kinds of property taxes, who see

their taxes going up $150.

Property 2 in 1988: the taxes were $8,484; 1989 taxes without a cap, $11,815.87; with a cap, $11,627.

[ Page 6181 ]

We see there roughly a $200 difference. Property 3 in 1988.... Are you interested in this, Mr. Second Member for Victoria?

Interjection.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Could we please give you some information...?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I might remind the minister to

speak through the Chair, but I would advise other members to let the

minister finish her remarks.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I believe the information is important,

because this is the information that was drawn together by the city of

Vancouver in order that the council of the city of Vancouver, by

unanimous vote, request this legislation.

In Shaughnessy we have a piece of property that in 1988 paid taxes

of $2,744. Without the cap in 1989 they would be looking at $3,991;

with a cap they're still going to be looking at $3,075. In south

Granville we have a piece of property that in 1988 paid $2,195; 1989

without the cap, $3,130; with a cap, $2,411. In Grandview we have a

piece of property that in 1988 paid $403.26; in 1989 without a cap they

would see a small reduction to $378.24; with a cap, $386.12. These to

me are the important numbers. With the cap there's an $8 difference —

$378 to $386.

Property No. 8 in Grandview: taxes in 1988 were $437.38; 1989

without the cap, $403, a $34 reduction; with the cap, $412. So they're

going to see a $9 increase because of the cap. Fraserview: 1988 taxes,

$458.32; 1989 without the cap, $523; with the cap, $534, an $11

difference. Property No. 10, Fraserview again: 1988 taxes were $853.83;

without the cap in 1989 the taxes would be $853.06; with the cap,

$870.83, a $17 difference. The median property: 1988 taxes, $590.14;

without the cap in 1989 they would go to $592, a $2 difference; with

the cap they will go to $604, a $14 difference. So to me there seems

little to all the arguments put forward that we're more or less taking

from the poor to transfer to the rich.

If you look at the numbers that we're talking about, the legislation

is certainly not out of line. It's not taking unfair advantage of any

taxpayers in the province. I think we should remind ourselves once

again that this is permissive legislation. If any council in this

province feels the slightest bit uncomfortable about it, they are not

obliged to utilize it.

In summing up, I would like to say that we truly believe local

government has been elected by the people in their community to make

these localized types of decisions. We respect the fact that the local

elected members are honourable members and they are going to do the

best for their community. I believe we have a responsibility, when

requested by unanimous vote of the council of the largest community in

this province, to do whatever we can to assist them in resolving

concerns that they feel they have.

Accordingly, I now move second reading of the bill.

[2:45]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 31

Savage

Vant

Parker

Weisgerber

L. Hanson

Huberts

Dirks

Mercier

R. Fraser

Messmer

Rogers

Chalmers

Veitch

Reid

S. Hagen

Richmond

Vander Zalm

S.D. Smith

Ree

Davis

Johnston

Pelton

Loenen

McCarthy

Peterson

Bruce

Serwa

Long

Jacobsen

Davidson

B.R. Smith

NAYS — 23

G. Hanson

Barnes

Marzari

Rose

Harcourt

Gabelmann

Boone

D’Arcy

Clark

Blencoe

Edwards

Cashore

Barlee

Smallwood

Lovick

Williams

Sihota

Pullinger

Miller

A. Hagen

Perry

Jones

G.Janssen

Bill 17, Residential Property Tax Increase Limitation Act, 1989, read a second

time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the

next sitting of the House after today.

MR. SPEAKER: The Minister of Tourism seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, it's with a great deal of

pleasure that the House recognizes today, on your behalf, students from

West Vancouver Secondary School and their guests from the province of

Quebec. Would the House make these students and their guests especially

welcome.

Mr. Speaker, may I also recognize on your behalf students in the

precincts from Howe Sound Secondary School in Squamish. Would the House

also make these students welcome.

HON. MR. VEITCH: As House Leader, Mr. Speaker, I call second reading

of Bill 2.

STATUTES REPEAL ACT, 1989

HON. S.D. SMITH: In opening what I know will be a very brief

debate on this matter, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that the government

is committed, in addition to bringing in new and necessary pieces of

legislation, to revising and updating laws on a regular and periodic

basis. This bill is consistent with that commitment because it repeals

a number of statutes that are no longer required. Not only do we bring

in new laws, but from time to time we review those that we have and get

rid of those that are no longer needed.

[ Page 6182 ]

For several reasons, the statutes repealed by this bill are no

longer necessary. Some of the statutes are no longer required because

of the development of new programs; others because the concerns of the

statute are not dealt with by other laws. Some statutes were enacted

for specific purposes which have now been fulfilled.

Mr. Speaker, the statutes in this bill are in the fields of health

care, agriculture, transit service, school services and consumer

affairs.

The Health Science Centre (UBC) Act is repealed by this bill,

because the hospital authorized under that act is now governed by a new

society constituted for that purpose. The Tuberculosis Institution Act

is no longer necessary. The Hospital Insurance Act presently provides

the authority to pay for out-of-province treatment received by B.C.

residents. The Heroin Treatment Act is no longer required, as treatment

for heroin addicts is available through existing alcohol and drug

programs. The Margarine Act is no longer required, as its original

purpose was to ensure that margarine is clearly identified as such and

is never mixed with butter for retail use. This purpose is now met by

the Milk Industry Act of British Columbia and the Food and Drugs Act of

Canada. Three transit-related statutes are repealed, as they have been

replaced by the British Columbia Transit Act. The title of the Pyramid

Distribution Act is changed to the more descriptive Multilevel

Marketing Regulation Act.

Part 2 of the act, which deals with the

selling of distributorships rather than products, is no longer needed;

the competition act of Canada provides adequate regulation for those

sales.

Mr. Speaker, the provisions of this bill repeal outdated statutes

and are of a housekeeping nature, I assure you. In conclusion, I move

second reading of this bill.

MR. SIHOTA: Speaking to the Statutes Repeal Act, and the

repeal of statutes generally, I am going to make a couple of very quick

comments. The first is that not in the list is another piece of

legislation which we think ought to be in there, and that is the annex

to the Election Act. I understand that a short time ago the court

declared unconstitutional the....

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, this member has been around

this House long enough to know that he is completely and absolutely out

of order, and I would respectfully ask If you would declare him so.

MR. SPEAKER: The member knows that he cannot speak on what is not in the bill. Please continue.

MR. SIHOTA: Sorry, Mr. Speaker. I thought I could talk about what I thought should be in the bill, but if that's the case, then....

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: I can? I am taking direction from the

Speaker-to-be here. That's fair enough. I think we've made our point in

terms of the Election Act, and I'll have some questions to the minister

later on on the Pyramid Distribution Act.

MR. SPEAKER: Pursuant to standing orders, I advise the House that the minister closes debate.

HON. S.D. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Bill 2, Statutes Repeal Act, 1989, read a second time and referred

to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting

of the House after today.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I call second reading of Bill 4, Mr. Speaker.

PROVINCIAL SYMBOLS AND HONOURS ACT

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I would like the members on the

other side of the House to know that I came appropriately dressed with

a nice, bright tie, and I request the decorum of the other side of the

House while I go through this very symbolic presentation.

As it states in the title, the two distinct purposes of this act are

symbols and honours. First and most importantly is the creation of the

two new provincial honours. Excellence, distinction and rewarding of

achievement and recognition of selfless service is the purpose. The

government must take leadership, and these two purposes are to

recognize the recipients, and it inspires others.

Other than the Order of Dogwood, we have no dignified and formal way

for the government to recognize outstanding achievements of service in

the province. Since it was first awarded in 1966, there have been 13

recipients of the Order of Dogwood, but it has become obscure.

Therefore we are creating two distinct but complementary awards, the

orders of British Columbia's highest honour. Recipients are recommended

to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council by an advisory council, and

legislation states its purpose succinctly. It's for persons who have

served with the greatest distinction and excelled in any field of

endeavour benefiting the people of the province of British Columbia or

elsewhere.

The medal of good citizenship also proposed is awarded to those

persons who have acted in a particularly generous, kind or

self-sacrificing manner for the common good without expectation of

reward. We will ensure by promotion and advertising that the people of

British Columbia are aware they can submit names for consideration by

the advisory committee.

The legislation also consolidates, defines and describes all of

British Columbia's official symbols, and it updates the provincial coat

of arms and incorporates the emblem and the tartan. Moreover, it

protects our symbols from misuse and misrepresentation. We have a wide

range of symbols: a complete coat of arms, the provincial tartan, the

Pacific dog-

[ Page 6183 ]

wood flower, the western red cedar tree, the Steller's jay and the

jade emerald. These are beautiful symbols for a beautiful province, all

either granted by the monarch or adopted by convention, voted for or

selected as official symbols.

In

summary, this legislation gives our province a new sense of

identity and it recognizes our distinguished citizens in a very unique,

memorable and very appropriate way. I move second reading.

MR. WILLIAMS: I am pleased that the government has its sense

of priorities so correct. It's appropriate that the member for White

Rock should be the one who brings forth this very important

legislation. I think it's momentous, indeed, but I just don't think

you've gone far enough. I mean, when I think of the talent in the

government ranks and the kinds of actions of this administration, it

kind of draws the imagination out a little, and you....

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes. One almost chokes up.

I think you could consider other awards, like the order of Lennon —

John Lennon, that is — for those that are great singers, for example.

The member for Little Mountain who sang so much about Mr. Toigo last

year probably deserves the order of Lennon from the minister. I think

the range of opportunities here is almost boundless. For example, the

order of the dinosaur — I'm sure the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr.

Parker) might think about who might be the first recipient. I think the

Giordano pin for embroidering the truth would be an interesting award

as well.

I'll leave it at that, Mr. Speaker, before I'm out of order. I hope we can think of other important awards today.

[3:00]

MR. ROSE: First of all, I think this bill lends itself to

some satire. Not that I don't think the intentions are good; I can

think of all kinds of photo opportunities that will come with this

bill. We could make all kinds of presentations of one kind or another

with it. To recognize British Columbia citizens is a worthy endeavour,

in spite of the photo ops. I notice, though, that the Good Citizenship

award goes only to "particularly generous, kind or self-sacrificing"

citizens, so I don't imagine that any MLA or cabinet minister would be

eligible for that kind of award — only if he's not living.

I was thinking about the coat of arms, for instance. The current

coat of arms of Canada is the U.S. eagle rampant with the beaver in his

claws. I suppose for a British Columbia angle to that we could add a

Socred with his snout firmly in the public trough. That, I think, would

be very visually interesting.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: At the Premier's suggestion, alongside the Socred

with the snout in the public trough, we'll add the socialist with his

hand in the public purse.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Pocket — all right.

I was thinking, for instance, that the provincial flower might be

the bleeding heart and the provincial bird.... There's been no

legislation. We've had these little badges around for a long time.

Something that's done outside the House, as if it were official, before

it's done inside the House is not really good parliamentary practice.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I know it's in here now, but the badges were made a long time ago.

I was thinking the provincial bird could be the ostrich, or perhaps

even the unrequited plover, or the belted seersucker, or something like

that.

The provincial animal has been overlooked as well. I think there's a

little rodent called a mugwump that runs along fences, with his mug on

one side and his wump on the other.

At the moment we don't have a provincial tree.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: We're not talking about the one that fell on you.

[Laughter.] I was going to suggest that we might add the weeping

willow. That would be appropriate.

For all those people on the west side of Vancouver who are figuring

how to avoid their taxes, aided and abetted by this government, the

golden loophole award might be useful.

Finally, as the most outstanding award of all we could have the

Vander Zalm memorial award. That didn't seem to get much of a laugh.

MR. SPEAKER: As the member knows, he can't name a member in the House.

MR. ROSE: Oh, I'm sorry.

Anyway, those are my thoughts and suggestions. I wasn't going to

suggest the order of the garter snake or anything like that, because I

don't think that would be appropriate.

We wish this bill Godspeed, and I hope we don't have too many speeches like this to send it on its way.

HON. MR. REID: After all that stirring debate on the subject, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Bill 4, Provincial Symbols and Honours Act, read a second time and

referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the

next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I call second reading of Bill 16, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 6184 ]

UNIVERSITY ENDOWMENT LAND PARK ACT

HON. MR. DIRKS: I am pleased to rise and begin debate on

second reading of this bill. It allows for the transfer of land within

the University Endowment Lands from the Crown to the Greater Vancouver

Regional District.

This land is being transferred to enable the creation of a new

greater Vancouver regional park, which will be for the use and

enjoyment of all British Columbians. This new regional park comprises

some 2,000 acres. It will be the largest urban park in Canada, and one

of the largest in the world. By comparison, Mr. Speaker, Stanley Park

in Vancouver is 1,000 acres, Central Park in New York is 840 acres, and

that famous Hyde Park in London is 615 acres. So this is truly a large

urban park.

The new regional park, although large, is needed to better meet the

park needs of the Greater Vancouver Regional District. The present GVRD

standard is 6.68 hectares per 1,000 people. Yet the present area of

existing regional parkland in the lower mainland is three hectares per

1,000 people.

There is a shortage of regional parkland in the Burrard peninsula.

The only regional park in this peninsula established prior to this was

the 253-hectare Burnaby Lake Park, which provides 0.41 hectares per

1,000 people. There is no other opportunity to create a regional park

in the Burrard peninsula, the most heavily populated area of the

region. This transfer will resolve more than 80 years of discussion

about the use of these valuable lands situated in the Point Grey area

of the Burrard peninsula.

Referring to these lands as the University Endowment Lands is a bit

of a misnomer that has persisted through popular usage. The truth is

that the university has never held title to this property, other than

to use those lands specifically granted to UBC for the purpose of

operating a university. The name dates back to 1907, when the

University Endowment Act was given assent. This act gave the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council the authority to reserve up to two

million acres of Crown land. It was proposed at that time that the

proceeds from the disposal of this land by the province would be used

for the purpose of maintaining the university.

A time-period of three years was established for the province to

choose the land to be reserved. No choice was made in the first three

years, so the period was extended for another three years. There were

three extensions made, each requiring amending legislation, and no

final decision was made. During this period the provincial government

reserved 175 acres for a university site at Point Grey. This location

was confirmed by the British Columbia University Site Act of 1911.

The federal government held title to a large portion of land at Point Grey,

stemming back to the colonial admiralty reserve created about 1860. The province

obtained this land from the federal government in 1912, in exchange for land

in the interior of the province and permission for the federal government to

maintain several key military sites in Point Grey.

During this period the province abandoned the idea of a

two-million-acre land reserve pool for the support of the university.

It soon became clear that such income would be insufficient to support

the university, and the university became funded by direct cash grants

from the government.

A second land endowment scheme was substituted under the British

Columbia University Loan Act of 1920. This act allowed the provincial

government to survey, subdivide, undertake works and sell through

public auction approximately 3,000 acres of Crown land at Point Grey.

This act, cancelling the original two-million-acre reserve, was revised

again in 1923 to also allow for the lease of lands.

It was in 1925 that the University Endowment Lands Administration

Act established the structure by which the Endowment Lands were to be

administered and regulated. Subject to several amendments since, this

act has remained the governing document for the University Endowment

Lands.

Over time, because of the prime location of these lands, a variety

of proposals for use of this property have been considered. These have

ranged from housing and shopping developments to senior citizen and

student housing to a park. In fact, I understand that when the former

Nelson-Creston MLA was the Minister of Housing, he studied a community

development of Helsinki with a view to creating a similar model

community on the UEL.

The area was first proposed as a park in 1966 by the Greater

Vancouver Regional District. The GVRD has actively sought regional

parkland designation of the UEL since then. In 1976 a joint GVRD–city

of Vancouver report entitled "The University Endowment Lands: A Special

Kind of Regional Park" was prepared. Numerous reports followed,

including: a 1977 study by the provincial government that recommended

98 percent of the land become park; a 1980 GVRD park concept plan; and

most recently, a review requested by the Minister of State for Mainland

Southwest (Hon. Mr. Veitch) and prepared by the present Minister of

International Business and Immigration (Hon. J. Jansen) last year.

I would be remiss if I did not mention the dedication and commitment

of Iva Mann and the Regional Park Committee. This group, incorporated

as a benevolent society in 1972, has been working toward saving all of

the Endowment Lands as a major regional park since that time. It has a

board of 20 directors and a membership of over 1,000 people. They have

organized public meetings and press conferences and sponsored and

supervised job creation grants to upgrade trails in the proposed park.

They have literally contributed thousands of volunteer hours, rallying

various elements of the community in a constant effort to improve

access to the land.

Iva related to me just the other day how the Teamsters' Union hauled

many loads of gravel free of charge in order to raise the elevation of

trails through the low spots. Garbage collection companies made

containers available at no cost for cleanup drives.

[ Page 6185 ]

This has really been a cooperative effort between the community, the GVRD and UBC.

The park concept has had strong and growing support over the years.

Mention should also be made of the efforts over the years of members of

this government to see this concept come to fruition. My colleague the

hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture (Hon. Mrs.

Johnston) has been involved for a number of years in the management and

operation of these lands. Also worthy of mention for her hard work on

behalf of the park is our former MLA for Vancouver–Point Grey and now

federal Member of Parliament, the Hon. Kim Campbell.

There have been many other strong supporters over the years, and I

am certain they are delighted to see this bill before the House today.

By choosing to allow the transfer for the use of the park in

perpetuity, the government has accommodated the desires of the majority

of British Columbians. Dedication of the park on April 23 will be a

celebration for the whole province. It will not only mark the creation

of a new regional park but will signify this government's continued

commitment to the recreational needs of the people of British Columbia.

The proposed regional park has tremendous inherent natural and

recreational potential. Nowhere else in British Columbia is there an

equivalent combination of foreshore, riverfront and diverse forest. The

adjacent university, with its activities, gardens, cultural facilities

and staff resources, is an excellent complement to the park.

This area is unique for a new park in that it already has an

established visitorship and a pattern of use. Not only is it within an

hour's drive of 1.4 million British Columbians; it is serviced on all

sides by public transit. Five major roads cut through the area, and

there are 52 pedestrian entrances. Horseback riders, joggers,

mountain-bikers and walkers all share trails at this site. There are 58

kilometres of surfaced trails in the park.

[3:15]

These factors, combined with anticipated heavy year-round use and

the size of the park, will make it a challenge to operate. The GVRD has

an excellent record of administering its regional parks system. This

government is confident that the GVRD will be an effective manager of

the area and will provide the necessary improvements and regulation to

create a unique urban recreational environment that will be of lasting

value to the people of this province.

The transfer of the land will be subject to conditions that will

ensure the protection of this special environment and the necessary

requirements to continue to meet the needs of existing settlement. The

primary condition of the transfer is that the lands be used for park

purposes only.

The park will be unique in another way. An existing ecological

reserve of 90 hectares and Camosun Bog within the park boundary will be

transferred to the administration of the GVRD. This area will retain

its designation as an ecological reserve and will be administered in

accordance with the Ecological Reserve Act. This ecological reserve was

established in 1975 because of its special significance as a representative example

of coastal second-growth forest. Its proximity to the University of

British Columbia makes it of significant value as a research and

educational site. I understand that seven departments of the UBC

conduct research and teaching activities here.

Special recognition must be given, I believe, at this time to the

work contributed by Dr. Vladimir Krajina, former professor at UBC, with

respect to this important ecological reserve. His work and dedication

to create and maintain this ecological reserve were outstanding.

Retention of the reserve will provide a unique ecological and

educational dimension to the park.

This land transfer will mark the birth of a new regional park in

Vancouver. The size and special characteristics of the area alone are

worthy of note. But most important is the acknowledgement of the

special attachment and relationship that the people of Vancouver have

with this natural area. This area has long been considered a park in

all but deed. In fact, it was listed as a regional park in a GVRD

publication. Its natural beauty and tranquility have provided an oasis

within a rapidly expanding urban area.

With enactment of this legislation, the future of this land will be

protected as a natural area with the necessary management to ensure

that its unique qualities are preserved for the use and enjoyment of

future generations. While there is a long history in this province of

granting Crown land for public purposes, rarely does the opportunity

present itself to undertake a disposition that has the significance and

the potential lasting benefit of this transfer.

The creation of a new regional park is reason for celebration by all

British Columbians. This government is to be commended for its

commitment to resolving the long outstanding issues surrounding this

land and for actively pursuing this beneficial solution for the benefit

and enjoyment of all people of the province — a regional park, an

ecological reserve in perpetuity for the benefit of all British

Columbians.

I move second reading of Bill 16.

MR. SPEAKER: Before I recognize the first member for Victoria, the second member for Okanagan South seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. CHALMERS: On behalf of the Minister of International

Business and Immigration (Hon. J. Jansen), it's my pleasure to ask the

members of the Legislature to make welcome two visitors from the city

of Chilliwack, Isobel and Norman Brown. Would you please make them

welcome.

MR. G. HANSON: In rising to speak on Bill 16, I would like to

acknowledge the tremendous achievement of the people of British

Columbia who have worked to preserve these lands: namely, a couple of

members on this side of the House, the first and second members of

Vancouver–Point Grey (Ms. Marzari

[ Page 6186 ]

and Mr. Perry), who worked long and hard to protect these precious lands in the greater Vancouver area.

There is one concern that we do have, and I think it was obvious to

anyone listening to that minister's remarks. There was one group of

people not mentioned in his prepared text. There were people, there

were dates that he alluded to in 1860, colonial admiralties, dates of

1912 and so on, but the people that have been left out — it is a

concern that we wish to acknowledge on the floor of this House — are

the Salish people, the Musqueam people, who have lived in that region,

as they describe in their own words, since time immemorial.

I know that some of the members of this House are aware that their

history goes back 3,500 to 4,000 years that we know of in that

particular area, and anyone who surveyed the Supreme Court of Canada

decisions since the Calder case knows that there is a case-book of

evidence that this particular jurisdiction in North America seems to be

oblivious to. Those signals that are coming from courts indicate that

the aboriginal people of our country, of our province, do have rights.

They have rights that have not been extinguished in common law

practice, by treaty and by compensation.

There is unfinished business in this province that affects native

people, and all members of this House must be aware of those concerns.

After the Calder case in the mid-seventies, when the Supreme Court of

Canada split three in favour of aboriginal title, three against and one

on a technicality on the fiat — the ability to sue the Crown — the

was an understanding that past grievances exist and that the modern and

sophisticated approach to dealing with those grievances was to sit down

at a table and negotiate those claims.

I'd like to read into the record some remarks from the Coolican

report of 1985, which I think is very eloquent in the way it explains

in common language what the situation is: "Canada's history of

acquiring aboriginal title through land cession and purchase has

established the principle of compensating aboriginal peoples for the

cession of their lands, which is consistent with the common law

principle of compensation for expropriation." All members of the House

know that when lands are expropriated, compensation is expected. "The

continued application of the superseded-by-law concept results in the

denial to the aboriginal society of this well-established legal

principle. The application of this concept also results in a

non-compliance with the firmly established practice of the acquiring of

aboriginal title lands with aboriginal consent."

The Guerin case. I might make the aside that Delbert Guerin and

George Guerin, I believe, are in the gallery today because this is a

matter of concern to the councillors of the Musqueam people. This is a

historical day for their claims, because they have concerns that we are

hoping will be rectified through the course of this debate and through

the course of amendments which can occur, which will not prejudice

either side — native in terms of aboriginal claim, or the existing

government policy; in other words, an amendment that would allow for

the passage of this bill but at the same time not by precedent create a

situation where the Musqueam people, through a third party....

Interjections.

MR. G. HANSON: If you would listen to what I'm saying you could make a contribution to the history of this province.

I'll continue with the Coolican document:

"In the Guerin case, a justice of the Supreme Court

determined that this practice is firmly entrenched in the royal

proclamation of 1763 and that the Crown obligated itself to maintain

and observe the policy. Mr. Justice Dickson — now Chief Justice Dickson

— concluded that it is a responsibility that continues today in a

relation to reserve lands or unrecognized aboriginal title lands. The

superseded-bylaw concept should no longer be applied to exclude, from

the comprehensive claims process, those aboriginal societies that have

not been a party to a treaty or the subjects of extinguishment

legislation. Nor should it exclude those aboriginal societies that have

engaged in treaty relations, but that have not specifically dealt with

lands in those treaties. The proposed claims policy would enable the

parties to negotiate an agreement based on consent in accordance with

firmly established practice."

As I said initially, the Musqueam people were not consulted when

this park was proposed. The Musqueam people have a claim they are

advancing through to the Supreme Court of Canada that their rights have

not been extinguished by treaty, nor has compensation been paid. There

is some alarm that the ceding — the patenting — of lands to third

parties could jeopardize their claim. The Musqueam people and their

ancestors exercised jurisdiction and control over those lands and

resources of the lower Fraser River delta for thousands of years prior

to European contact. That is a well-acknowledged fact in all

jurisdictions of Canada outside British Columbia. The University

Endowment Lands have been and still are an integral part of Musqueam's

culture and land use. Musqueam has never sold or been compensated for

its interest in the land and resources within Musqueam traditional

territory. No government has entered into a treaty with Musqueam.

Musqueam has been attempting to have its rights and title recognized

for 100 years. All they are asking is that they have their day in the

Supreme Court of Canada for a decision to be made, unencumbered by a

decision made today on the floor of this House which may adversely

affect that process. They are not asking for this House to adjudicate

their claim. They are asking for their right to negotiate and have the

court of the land make the determination whether their aboriginal title

is in existence. Clearly there are a number of cases that point that

aboriginal titles still exist. In the Sparrow case, in terms of

aboriginal fishing rights, that determination will be made sometime

this fall.

B.C. is the only province in Canada which does not recognize aboriginal rights. Even the constitution

[ Page 6187 ]

of our country, in

section 35, recognizes and affirms aboriginal rights.

HON. S.D. SMITH: Read all of

section 35.

MR. G. HANSON: That's being determined by courts as well.

HON. S.D. SMITH: That's the whole point.

MR. G. HANSON: But that's for the courts to decide.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the member put his debate through the Chair.

MR. G. HANSON: Musqueam has been willing to enter into land

claims negotiations with B.C. and Canada for years. Musqueam is in a

position of preferring to enter into negotiation rather than

litigation. Neither B.C. nor the GVRD has done a heritage resource

impact assessment of the archaeological resources of the UEL, and

Musqueam has shown there are archaeological sites in the UEL.

[3:30]

Provincial and federal lack of political will to resolve aboriginal

issues has forced many Indian bands, including Musqueam, into courts.

B.C. is openly and adamantly opposing many legal cases brought to the

courts by native people. This opposition is costing the people of B.C.

millions of dollars. There is no substantive reason why B.C. and Canada

cannot enter into discussion with Musqueam. It's of concern because of

a policy, not a law, of the federal government arguing that third-party

transfer of lands — patenting of lands to third parties — in the

past...that indication was given to the Musqueam that their claim was

rejected by the comprehensive claims office in Ottawa.

The Musqueam people should be given the opportunity to proceed to

court, as they are doing, to make that determination, and should not

have their rights impeded by this House. The Musqueam people have a

claim that goes back millennia on those lands. All they are asking is

an amendment that nothing in this bill would prejudice any future

aboriginal title claim on that land, something that would not

discriminate either way.

To reiterate the main point, we celebrate the preservation of those

lands, but we don't feel it has to be done at the expense of the

Musqueam people's legitimate right to their day in court. Because a

total lack of consultation occurred with no reference to the Musqueam

people at all, I wish to move that the motion for second reading of

Bill 16 be amended by leaving out the word "now" and adding the words

"six months hence."

On the amendment.

MR. PERRY: It's a challenge but also an honour to speak to

the amendment from the first member for Victoria. When we look back to

this date, I think we will consider this to have been a debate of major

importance in the history of British Columbia. I know the legislative

history much less well than many, but to the best of my knowledge this

will be the first occasion on which the aboriginal land claim issue has

been seriously dealt with in the Legislative Assembly of British

Columbia. If I'm wrong, I will welcome any correction from members and

historians of the assembly.

We have in front of us the very challenging issue that the

government has laid before us, a bill to achieve a goal for which I

personally have worked hard for at least 20 years. My colleague the

first member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Ms. Marzari) has worked hard

since she was elected. Many hundreds, if not thousands, of citizens

have worked hard, and in a purpose for which those of us who have done

so rejoice. I have no hesitation in saying that I rejoice in the

overall intent of the bill to conserve the Endowment Lands as park for

the people of British Columbia.

Before going any further, I want to read into the record the names

of some of the individuals who have worked on the conservationists'

side in this issue and who have won this proposal for a park — the de

facto park which has existed for decades now; who have wrested it, may

I say, from successive governments of this province. I will submit the

names in writing to Hansard so that they are not forgotten in the

history of this province. Some of them have played more important roles

than others. One of them was introduced to us earlier today, and

although I can't see her, I know she has played a particularly

significant role over the years.

The names are: Ian Bain; Jim Bavis; Adrian Belshaw; Leslie Bohm; Dr.

Bert Brink; Dr. Lawrence Brown; former alderman of the city of

Vancouver May Brown; Prof. Frank Buck of the faculty of agriculture,

who originally laid out the plans for the UBC campus; Doug Cameron; Dr.

Sam and Meredith Coval; Jacquie Cronin; Maggie Cumming; Dr. Maria

Furstenwald; Elsie Guglick; Henry Hersog; Tom Hetherington; Ken Hewett,

Joy Hurren; Jacklyn Johnson; Bowie Keefer; Janet Land; Dr. Cort

MacKenzie; Marjery Maddigan; Iva Mann; Don McClure; Dr. and Mrs. Jim

and Evelyn Murray; Dr. Tom Nichols; Nora O'Grady; Dr. Dan Overmyer;

Bernice Ramsay; Hilda Thomas; Dr. George Volkoff, who last year, at the

hearings of the member for Chilliwack (Hon. J. Jansen), spoke

eloquently against the university's attempt to cannibalize the lands;

Judy Williams of the Wreck Beach committee, who in her own way has

fought for the conservation of Point Grey; Dr. Henry Esson Young, who

way back in December 1911 arranged for a trade of the six square miles

of military reserve in Point Grey for two million acres in the interior

desert of British Columbia.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I'd like to acknowledge some of the politicians who have had an

important recent role. Many others have played roles, positive and

negative, in the past. Recently, Mayor Gordon Campbell of the city of

Van-

[ Page 6188 ]

couver played an important role. The Vancouver city council has done

so; the Vancouver parks board; Mr. Rick Hankin of the GVRD; and some

organizations — the UEL Trailriders, the Save our Parkland Association,

the Sierra Club of Western Canada, the Vancouver Natural History

Society and the Federation of Mountain Clubs of British Columbia.

There are many more people undoubtedly not named in this list,

thousands who signed petitions and many others unknown to me or to the

members of the Endowment Lands Regional Park Committee who have worked

for this goal.

I think most of us in British Columbia recognize the merit of

preservation of the land as a park and rejoice in it. Let me then deal

with the difficult issue before us: why should there be any reservation

about this bill? Frankly, I think the government has more on its agenda

than meets the eye and that this bill represents, in its present

unamended form, an assault upon the legitimate aboriginal rights of the

native people of British Columbia and an assault upon the common sense

and decency of the people of British Columbia.

I wish to remind the government that in Canada, as opposed to some

other countries, we enjoy a system of responsible government in which

justice resides not only in our courts. Fortunately it ultimately

resides there, in some ways. But justice is intended to reside right in

this House. In responsible government, this House is the highest

servant of the people, and the people of British Columbia, in my view,

demand and expect justice from us. They expect a government dignified

enough to recognize that the people want fairness. They do not want to

see a repetition of the historical injustice committed in Canada to the

Japanese-Canadians, to the Chinese-Canadians, throughout our history to

the native Indians, to the Indo-Canadians and to many other ethnic

groups who did not have the virtue of being born with a white skin.

I spoke of this earlier in my remarks on April 5, and I'd like to

remind the House of them, at page 5883 of Hansard , where I said: "I am

aware of no principle of justice which suggests that the native people,

simply because they were here first, should not be entitled to fair

compensation for loss of what was indisputably their land." I think

that recognizes an even higher principle, that simply because they were

here first or because of the colour of their skin or their ethnic

practices they are not entitled to less justice than any of the rest of

us. I hope the Attorney-General (Hon. S.D. Smith) will take that into

consideration when he considers measures that we will propose

subsequently to deal with this injustice in the bill.

If I may, with the consent of the House, I would like to table a

document, the official claim of the Musqueam Indians to territories in

the lower mainland. The document is entitled "Musqueam Declaration."

It's dated Vancouver, June 10, 1976, and it's signed by Chief Delbert

V. Guerin, who is in the gallery today, and five councillors of the

Musqueam Indian band. With the permission of the House, I'd like to

table this and make it part of the official record of the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the House be prepared to grant leave to the hon. member to table the document?

On a point of order....

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member is probably

not aware, unless he's alluding to it or reading from the document in

the context of his address to the House, it would not be appropriate to

table it. But if he is....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. member was reading from the document which he wants to table with the House.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think leave was granted to table the document, and so we'll have it tabled.

MR. PERRY: I'd love to read from it, Mr. Speaker, but I will

respect the time of the House and simply table it as part of the record

and verbally make the arguments that I think are contained in it.

Let me simply refresh the House once again, since some members such

as the Premier and the Attorney-General were not, I believe, present

during my remarks during the budget debate. Let me refresh them on some

of the historical evidence I alluded to, at page 5883 of Hansard for

April 5, 1989. "Capt. George Vancouver's diary of June 1792 records his

meeting with what we now call the Musqueam Indians.... 'Here we were

met by about 50 Indians in their canoes who conducted themselves with

the greatest decorum and civility...."' And of Simon Fraser in his

diary, describing the village of Musqueam, at the mouth of the Fraser

River in 1808: "'The fort is 1,500 feet in length and 90 feet in

breadth."'

There is unequivocal historical evidence from the record of the

European explorers that the Musqueam lived in those territories. Let me

cite a little bit more of it, available in the library of our

Legislature, through the simple expedient of a note to the librarians

asking them for this information. In a book, The Salish People , the

local contribution of Charles Hill-Tout, volume 3, published by an

conducted amateur archaeological investigations, refers at page 11 to a

map published by the great German anthropologist Franz Boas; a map

published in 1887, which apparently is in the special collections

division of the UBC library, showing the boundary of the Squamish and

the Musqueam "as a skewer through the middle of the Vancouver

peninsula." In other words, they inhabited the territory we now call

Point Grey.

Let me show you some other historical evidence. A map entitled

the Whiteman Came," by Major J.S. Matthews, city archivist of

Vancouver, labelled "from information given verbally by

[ Page 6189 ]

aged Indians of the Squamish and Musqueam tribes in 1932, "shows

the territories of the Musqueam consistent with the map on the claim I

tabled a moment ago, and the name Ulksen for the Point Grey peninsula.

That's in a publication in our library, entitled "Before the

'Whitemans' Came: Some Indian Place Names of Vancouver, " at page 61.

Let me give you another reference to establish the authenticity of

this claim, from a book entitled Vancouver's Past , also in our

Legislative Library, at page 6: another map showing the Indian villages

and landmarks in the Vancouver area before the white man came,

including the name Ulksen for Point Grey.

[3:45]

Let me, with the consent of the House again, table these documents, since I've referred to them, for the record.

Leave not granted.

MR. PERRY: These documents are in the library of the

Legislature. They are public documents, and those who are more

interested in learning the historical facts will have access to them

through the public record.

There is archaeological evidence referred to in the book by Charles

Hill-Tout of an enormous midden at the site of the present Fraser Arms

in south Vancouver — well away from the sea at that time — indicating

that the native people had lived there for perhaps millennia before the

arrival of the Europeans.

Let me now turn to some of the legal problems raised by the Musqueam

band and by the courts of British Columbia. This is where I believe we

are seeing a historical confrontation between the law of Canada and the

principles of fundamental justice, as expressed in the courts of

British Columbia, and the arrogant pursuit of an ignorant policy by the

present government. This policy is calculated to pursue a historical

injustice which can only result in the squandering of the resources of

British Columbians in persistent and lengthy court battles until the

issue is resolved at the level of the Supreme Court. I think this is a

disgrace to our democratic system and warrants being labelled as such.

Let me turn to the arguments made by Mr. Justice Hutcheon, on

February 9th, 1989, in his Court of Appeal of British Columbia

judgment. I would request leave of the House to table this after I read

from it.

Mr. Justice Hutcheon wrote in that decision on page 3:

"The legal problem that lurks behind the conveyance of the

University Endowment Lands from the Crown to the GVRD is that once the conveyance

is granted,

section 23 of the Land Title Act may preclude any remedy of the

plaintiffs to obtain their claim to aboriginal title. That possibility, in my

mind, approaches irreparable harm, and for that reason, I think the appropriate

order is to direct that there be an order restraining the implementation of

the conveyance as proposed."

Subsequently, when that injunction was lifted by Mr. Justice Anderson on April 6 in chambers of the Court of Appeal of British

Columbia, he recognized that counsel for the Musqueam Indian band had contended

that registration of those lands with the GVRD might have the effect of extinguishing

the appellants' aboriginal claims.

Mr. Justice Anderson wrote in his judgment on page 3: "In my view,

such a contention would have little or no chance of acceptance by any

court." Perhaps so, but the concern of the Musqueam band is a

legitimate concern and having listened to them as their representative

as well as the representative of the rest of the people of my

constituency, I feel that I have to speak of their concern to this

House.

Let me tell you why some of this concern arises. In his verbal

discussion of his judgment in the open court, as reported in the

Vancouver Sun of April 6.... No transcript was kept in the

court record, so these were verbal comments heard only by witnesses in

the court and by the reporters from the media. Mr. Justice Anderson

argued that it would be "dishonourable" — those were his words — for

the provincial government to now argue that transfer of title from the

province and the Crown to the GVRD would extinguish any aboriginal land

claim to the endowment lands, if such a claim exists.

The words of Mr. Justice Anderson of the appeal court were that it

would be "dishonourable" to do so. He clearly invited the comments of

the lawyer representing the government of British Columbia to agree to

that, and the lawyer representing the province did not agree to do so.

When we raised these issues with the Attorney-General, the highest

law officer of British Columbia today, he also would not agree that it

would be dishonourable to argue this way. In fact, he pointed out to us

that those words are merely reported in the Vancouver Sun and not included in the official court judgment, therefore they have no meaning.

I submit that Mr. Justice Anderson would not be amused to think that

his words in court have no meaning. I think they are very meaningful,

and I think the people of British Columbia would agree with me on that.

With leave of the House, I would like to table those two judgments so that they are a permanent record of the House.

Leave not granted.

MR. PERRY: These documents are part of the public record of

British Columbia, and it was merely for the convenience of the House

that I offered to table them. I think it is disturbing that the

government would not want these to be a part of the record of the House.

Let me continue to explore some of the problems raised by the

Musqueam Indians and their lawyers — very distinguished lawyers, I

might add, one of whom is in court today on another side of a political

divide.

Some of their concerns. The federal government, under its current

comprehensive land claims policy of 1987, persists with the policy of a

former federal government dating back to 1977, subsequent to the

[ Page 6190 ]

filing of the Musqueam land claim, which I previously tabled. That

current federal policy is that the government recognizes the

plausibility of some native claims but will not negotiate claims to

aboriginal title where they have been extinguished by treaty or where

they have been "otherwise superseded by law." The concern, naturally

enough, of the Musqueam, which led to the court cases I've just

referred to, is that the bill transferring title from the Crown to the

GVRD will otherwise supersede by law the claim of the Musqueam Indians.

whether or not it should concur with the Musqueam claim; I am arguing

that the Musqueam are in the unique position that their claim to

aboriginal land, to which the historical and archaeological record

bears ample evidence, is unique in that it has not been accepted for

consideration by the federal government. Their primary concern is that

passage of this act in its unamended form would potentially extinguish

the possibility of their claim being accepted by federal governments

current or future.

Similarly, the act demonstrates once again the intention of the

provincial government in British Columbia not to deal meaningfully with

what I have previously referred to as the festering problem of

aboriginal land claims, which we on this side of the House feel must be

addressed by negotiation rather than exclusively through the courts.

I'd like to point out that I called on the Premier to consider this

— since the Premier is here today — in my speech in this House on April

5. I made a very simple suggestion to the Premier. I quote from page

5884 of Hansard : "If the Premier could see and hear what I had seen and

heard at Musqueam — and he can — perhaps he would begin that process of

reconciliation which ultimately is inevitable, rather than forestall it

further...."

I think what we're seeing in this bill is the further forestalling

of the inevitable process of granting the same justice to the native

people of this province that we expect for ourselves, the same we would

expect for the new owners of the Expo land site, were the government to

attempt to change the property status there in any way, and the same we

would expect to see for the current owner of the Terra Nova lands, were

the government to recognize the public will of that community and

restore those to the agricultural land reserve. We would expect the

government to negotiate fairly with the current owners of lands in the

same way it traditionally does with any landowners.

What we see here is a unique exception based solely on the fact that

the native Indians were here before the rest of us; solely on the fact,

perhaps, that they have different traditions, different genes,

different-coloured skin and that they're not "like us." But they are

like us, and they're entitled to the same justice as anyone else.

I could go on at great length developing the arguments that the

Musqueam have made in court and in public on many occasions chronicling

their attempt to achieve a fair recognition of their right even to file

a land claim. That's all they're claiming right now: the right to file

a legitimate land claim and have it recognized for consideration by

government. Right now they are in the unique position....

I see the Premier frowning. I don't think the Premier, when he is

familiar with the details of individual human beings' lives, is an

unfair person. He has demonstrated this frequently, that when he knows

the details of a personal situation, he has the capacity for justice

and fairness. I see him frowning as he listens to what I am saying,

because I think he is beginning to realize that perhaps the province

has been unfair in this case. Not perhaps, but definitely the province,

the federal government and the majority of Canadians have historically

suppressed the rights of the native Indians, and we have to face up to

that. We have to face up to the fact that in 1989 they are entitled to

the same justice as anyone else.

My colleague the first member for Victoria (Mr. G. Hanson) referred

to the arguments in the Coolican task force, appointed by the Mulroney

government in 1984 when it was elected, to review the issue of land

claims. The arguments stated at page 45 — I quote again because it is

so important: "The superseded-bylaw concept should no longer be applied

to exclude from the comprehensive claims process those aboriginal

societies that have not been a party to a treaty or the subject of

extinguishment legislation."

In other words, simply the fact that you happen to live in prime

real estate like Vancouver, or the forerunner of Vancouver, Ulksen, and

because people came and took the land away from you and built on it,

does not mean that you shouldn't be entitled to the same fair chance of

a claim as anyone else.

That's all the Coolican report called for, and that report was

rejected by the federal government, which went back to a "new" policy,

its 1987 comprehensive land claims policy. It retains the argument at

page 6 of the 1987 federal policy: "The basis for any comprehensive

land claims policy, therefore, is self-evident. It is the fulfilment of

the treaty process through the conclusion of land claims agreements

with aboriginal groups that continue to use and occupy traditional

lands and whose aboriginal title has not been dealt with by treaty or

superseded by law."

That is the current federal policy, and that's why the Musqueam band

is so upset. That's why they've gone to court and why the

Attorney-General (Hon. S.D. Smith) has spent so much of our taxpayers'

money fighting those cases in court and refusing....

I see he turns his back on me. He is not even gentleman enough to listen in this House to what I am saying to him.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, that is completely unacceptable, and I would have it withdrawn, please.

MR. PERRY: I apologize if I have offended the House.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, a simple apology will not do. This hon. member does not seem to have learned anything in this House in the time he

[ Page 6191 ]

has been here. He must completely and absolutely withdraw the statement.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the member withdraw it, please.

MR. PERRY: I am prepared to withdraw it. I am not sure which statement it was, but I withdraw it.

What I was attempting to say, and will say again, is that the

Attorney-General does not seem to understand or has, in my view,

deliberately ignored the arguments made in the Court of Appeal by the

Musqueam band, which amount to arguments for fundamental justice.

[4:00]

Let me tell you what we on this side of the House have attempted to

do to deal with this situation. Aside from informing ourselves about the

facts and the historical record, what has our response been? I argued

constructively, both in my election campaign and in this House. I've

reread my remarks to the Premier right now that it was time for a

historical reconciliation, that this situation should be viewed not as

a problem, not as an opportunity to put the official opposition in an

embarrassing situation or to play political games or tricks with those

of us who have worked much harder than the government for the

establishment of this park. In my view, this is exactly what the

government is doing: playing political tricks with this bill. They are

not interested in the preservation of the environment in British

Columbia I think that has been made painfully clear.

But what have we done to attempt to achieve a reasonable solution,

aside from speaking to the government and making those suggestions? We

arranged a meeting this morning for the Musqueam Indian band with the

Attorney-General, a meeting that was impossible for them to obtain for

years. No official of the government was willing to meet with them.

That has been repeatedly documented on the public record.

Interjections.

MR. PERRY: Order, please, Mr. Speaker.

MR. BLENCOE: On a point of order, the Attorney-General is accusing the member of lying. I think you should ask him to withdraw that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I do believe that the Attorney-General should withdraw that remark, please.

HON. S.D. SMITH: I am happy to withdraw whatever should

offend this House, but I must correct the record — on a point of order

myself. The suggestion and inference that people who wanted a meeting

with me required some intervention because of a refusal on my

part is

simply untrue, and I want the record to state that I was, in fact,

thanked by the chief of that band, who is sitting today in this

gallery, for taking that meeting on short notice. I must say that I

resent the remark by that member.

MR. PERRY: I think the Attorney-General's lack of — to be

very parliamentary — acquaintance with the facts is exemplified by the

fact that the chief of the Musqueam band was not in the meeting today.

He is thinking of a different person.

Let me just finish my point, Mr. Speaker, if I may....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I'm sorry, but your time has expired.

MR. PERRY: I'll continue my remarks tomorrow.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I just wanted to speak briefly on the

amendment. We've heard a great deal said by the second member for

Vancouver–Point Grey about native land claims. He has read from the

history that's available from the various libraries and showed us a

map. Though we've not seen this map, I assume it shows the extent of

the claim that has been made by the Musqueam people.

Frankly, I don't argue that process. If people wish to proceed with

a claim, there's a mechanism available. This has already been commenced

by some not only in this province but elsewhere too.

What we need to talk about is that this in some way is being used —

because the claim obviously, if there is such, could proceed in any

event — as a bit of a stall. We've heard the Leader of the Opposition

say immediately after the throne speech that he was concerned about

studies and delays. As a matter of fact, all we've heard from the NDP

for the last month is requests for studies, requests for task forces

and requests for commissions. Now we have hoists and delays. This is,

in effect, what they are attempting to do here.

Will it be six months, will it be six years, or will it be forever?

Those are the questions we have to ask. You start with six months. I

would suggest there is an attempt here to kill the park plan. We've

made a commitment to have a park for all of the people of the province.

We've made this commitment time and time again. We said we would

proceed with the park. We've already planned the announcement of it in

a way that all people might be proud and know that they are much a part

of this the largest urban park in the world.

Again now, in this Legislature today....

Interjection.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I've got meetings upstairs I should go

to as well. I realize perhaps we all have that, but I believe this is

sufficiently important that I want to stay here and get this message

out.

I'm sure that member, who was just recently elected in a

by-election, did not tell the people of his constituency only a few

weeks ago that he would be sitting in this House today supporting a

delay for the establishment of the park, a delay which could in fact

see no park at all.

MR. PERRY: On a point of order, the Premier knows perfectly well what I told the people in my

[ Page 6192 ]

campaign, and I ask him to withdraw that remark. It amounts to calling me a liar, Mr. Speaker, and I ask him to withdraw it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I'm sorry to advise you that that is not a point of order.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: This is important to the people not

only of Point Grey. I appreciate that I said things that I expected you

might have said or not have said in Point Grey during a by-election. I

wasn't there to hear what you said or didn't say. I said, however, that

you probably did not tell the people that you'd be sitting in this

House today seeking a delay for the establishment of this the greatest

urban park in the whole of the country. That's what I said, and I'll

say that again, because I feel shame for what I'm hearing from the

other side.

This is a park for which all people, regardless of their heritage,

regardless of where they're from or of what they're doing today —

whether they live in Dawson Creek, Prince Rupert, Penticton, Cranbrook

or Surrey or Coquitlam or Richmond — ought to be proud. They should be

pleased we are able to get on with this park. If I thought you were

serious, members of the opposition, in asking that some sort of delay

be given so a study could be done, I might say I'd like to know a

little bit more about this.

We've heard the Leader of the Opposition complaining about studies.

He didn't want task forces and commissions or delays. I can only assume

from that and from what else I've heard and from the remarks made by

the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey that this is some attempt to

kill what will be the greatest park in the whole of this province, in

the whole of this country, and I will fight that.

I want to see this park for our people. I want to see this park for

all of the people. It's not just for Point Grey, and it's not just for

a few people in Point Grey. It's not just for some people who belong to

a very distinguished and respected group in Point Grey or anywhere

else. This is for all of the people in the whole of the province, and

we on this side will not see a further delay in the establishment of

this park.

This park will be a reality whether the socialists today want it or

not. We've made a commitment for this park and this park is going to

come about, regardless of how many amendments you wish to present to

this House. We're going to have this great park.

I want to be there this weekend; I want to be there at the opening;

I want to stand proudly before these people. I want to tell these

people how it is we as a government, we as a party, members here,

fought for the establishment of this park and are proud to be a part of

it. I want to see if in fact these same members from Vancouver–Point

Grey will be there standing near the stage and if they'll tell the

people then that they attempted to delay the establishment of the park

six months, six years, forever. We'll not be a party to that. We are

going to be at an opening. No amendment will delay the establishment of

the greatest park in British Columbia.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would just remind hon. members before we

proceed that we are debating a hoist motion and that the debate should

be directed to whether or not this bill should be lifted and put aside

for six months.

MS. MARZARI: A hoist motion, the Premier should know, is a

technique that has been used over hundreds of years in a House where

the opposition wants to raise concerns. Okay?

How many months, how many years, how many decades? A good question

for all of us. I see Iva Mann sitting in the gallery, and I would like

to remember for a few minutes how many months, how many days, how many

years she has sat in that gallery thinking about this park. I'd like to

remember for a few minutes how many months, how many years, how many

decades — a decade and a half — we have had five or six studies and

have talked with the GVRD parks development branch about developing

this park. I want to talk about the dreams of thousands of people in

Point Grey, in Vancouver and in the greater Vancouver area who have

thought about the University Endowment Lands as a place to be

preserved, as a natural forest.

Mr. Member, I sat through a very eloquent speech by one of your

people — by a minister of your party — who talked at great length about

the nature of this park. I think that one of the reasons I stand in

this House today is that the person I replaced in Point Grey

systematically tried to prevent this park from going through. I dare

say that in '86 the election had a great deal to do with this park, and

that the people who have worked on it for 15 years very much pushed for

this park and in fact helped me achieve the place where I am sitting

now.

I have sat through many meetings where I have heard about the

government side of the House taking this park into cabinet meetings

time after time, having the plans signed by various ministers, and then

the plans emerging from the cabinet room without having the final

signature. I have heard that this has happened many times, over months,

over years.

So then, as I stand here today, having exposed as best I can

attempts by the university to develop that park, attempts by your

government not to sign it over previously.... I have worked with the

people from 1975, when I remember that Frank Low-Beer circled city hall

with a petition of 30,000 signatures, all the way through to a meeting

at Southlands school two springs ago where 1,500 people showed up on a

hot June night to express their desire that the UEL not be developed by

the university, by the province, by anyone. People want that park

intact. They want the UEL to remain an intact piece of forest in our

city of Vancouver.

I stand here feeling very proud of that accomplishment over the last decade and a half. But I must ask....

MR. WILLIAMS: It's a victory for Point Grey.

[ Page 6193 ]

MS. MARZARI: It is a victory. Why does the victory not smell

as sweet as it should? Why, then, the rancour in this House? Why, then,

the inability of your side of the House to even accept a tabled

document which exists in the library? Why the inability of this House

to accept for tabling decisions made by the courts of this land, of

this province? Why the rancour? Why the name-calling? Why does the

victory not smell as sweet as it should? This is from somebody who was

somewhat involved with the fight itself.

It has to do, I say to the Premier — who isn't there any longer —

with the days, the months, the years and, yes, the centuries that

another party has waited for justice. That is why the victory does not

smell sweet. This takes a lot of thinking about, especially for someone

who stands here knowing that she is here in this job because of that

particular park.

I told my children a bedtime story last night which I am about to tell you.

[4:15]

HON. MR. REID: Oh, no. No bedtime stories.

MS. MARZARI: Yes, I'm going to tell this story, and it has

something to do with why we have to think a bit more, why I think there

is a way around this problem, and why I think there is hope both for

the park, for the sweetness of victory and for the people who have

waited for centuries for justice.

I give thanks to a woman named Leona for giving me the idea for this story, although I don't think she knows she did.

Once upon a time there was a people who lived at the place where the

river joins the ocean. They lived happily there, and a young woman, who

lived happily in the family, decided that she would leave to make her

fortune and see the rest of the land. On her return to her place by the

ocean, she found that the land on which her family had lived for years

had been divided into three. She found that her family was living on

the smallest part of that land by the river, and a large part of the

land which her family had inhabited had been filled with tall buildings

and filled with a different kind of people. She found that the large

forest area that her family had used for many years had been parceled

off and called an endowment for someone other than her and her family.

She found that the rulers of this new land played games by tossing

issues of social importance back and forth to each other across a room

called a court. She found that in order to reclaim her land on behalf of

her family, she had to go to — I called it for my children's sake — an

ugly old gnome.

The ugly elf told her that in order to reclaim her land for her

family, she had to do three things: the three famous tasks that most

fairy stories seem to have enclosed within them. She had to do these

things: she and her people had to prove traditional use of that land.

"That's fine, I can handle that, " she said to the old elf. "I can

prove traditional use. I can prove that we have been there for many

thousands of years."

The second task was that she had to prove that there were no

treaties against that land, and that there was no law that would

supersede her claim to that land. "I can do that, " she said. "My

people and I have thought of this for many years. We know that there is

no treaty against our land. We never claimed it; we never gave it away.

We have no law that supersedes our claim to that land."

"Third, " said the old gnome, "and the third task is the hardest:

you must prove that the land has not been given away without your consent. You

must prove that the land has not been alienated. Then when you prove that to

us, we may consider your claim."

"Well, " she said, "it may be true that the part of our land

with the high-rise buildings on it has been alienated, but there are 2,000

acres of property still filled with virgin forest which we use. This land has

not been alienated." But even as she said these words, the elf turned and

gave away the land to a happy group of people who only wanted to save the trees

and save the forest.

The happy group of people had no knowledge of the thousands of years

that the young woman had lived on the land. But the elf, knowing that

he would firmly and irrefutably alienate the land, turned and handed it

away in the middle of the third task being accomplished by the people.

Both the friendly people who wanted to preserve the trees and the young

woman had good will in their hearts. Using the court — using the game —

they actually came to an agreement that the people who were using the

land as a park would not alienate the land. They made that agreement

using the court. But the old gnome decided no, he would not make that

claim. He would not claim that the land would not be alienated when

push came to shove.

So here we are three days before the grand party in the park — three

days before the park is about to be turned over. Many of the hundreds

of people who will be there will be happy. They will be victorious;

they will be feeling festive. They will not be aware that what is

happening in the process of that land being turned over happens in the

middle of the third task for a family of people who have been asking

for the reclamation of their family land for many years.

The situation that we find ourselves in today puts us in an

interesting bind. We basically want to say: "Yes, we want to preserve

the land; yes, absolutely. And the park may well be the way to go. The

park is something to be proud of, something we fought for."

At another level, not dissimilar to this story, the Musqueam have

been engaged in their tasks. Those tasks have been given to them over

the last 20 years by the courts and by governments. The courts have

told the Musqueam that they must fulfill certain requirements; the

federal government has told the Musqueam that they must fulfill certain

requirements. The Musqueam are trying to fulfill those requirements.

They are trying to say at this very moment that the UEL is their piece

of unalienated property which constitutes their claim to having a claim

in the first place.

[ Page 6194 ]

Other bands, other families across this country, have been given the

right to claim since '76. The Musqueam have not. This is an anomaly,

because the forest lands stand there. They do have the possibility of

making a comprehensive claim. This constitutes alienation. Here,

perhaps, is the golden ring in our story. Here, perhaps, is the way for

this government to deal with this situation in good faith. Here is the

possibility that would bring together with good will the parks

committee, the GVRD, the Musqueam and us. All that need be done is that

within this act we incorporate a clause that says that this land is

being handed over without prejudice to any land claim made by Musqueam.

That is the golden ring; that is the bit of opportunity; that is the

tiny window that exists.

Everyone has agreed. The GVRD has agreed that they will accept the

land without prejudice. The parks committee understands somewhat what

is going on and is sympathetic. The Musqueam understand that if it's

done without prejudice, they can proceed with their claim. All that

remains is simply for this government to say somewhere in the body of

this act that it's happening, that the transfer is taking place without

prejudice.

That is the reason I speak to the hoist motion. You don't have to

hold it up for six years; you don't have to hold it up for six months.

Six minutes will do to write in the appropriate words, and we will give

you the words. We will probably give you those words tomorrow when this

comes to committee stage.

I would ask the members of this House to consider this story. When I

finished the story last night, my six-year-old said: "Why can't they

start again?" It's a wonderful question from a six-year-old. Wouldn't

it be wonderful to start again? Wouldn't it be wonderful not to carry

this albatross of injustice around our necks?

We have the opportunity to start again simply by adopting a few

words that say that this bill happens without prejudice to the Musqueam

claim.

MR. HARCOURT: This park is a triumph to a number of people

like Iva Mann, who has been working for decades to bring about this

park, Bowie Keefer and many others whose names the member for

Vancouver–Point Grey very properly read into the record, because they

are the ones who brought about this park. It's a victory for the first

and second members for Vancouver-Point Grey (Ms. Marzari and Mr.

Perry), who fought for this park. They fought through elections, and

they won through those elections.

I heard from the Premier, who didn't want to stay around after his

auto-rant — that's two today. He talked about studies and delays, and

about that being what this side of the House is all about. I want to

tell him what this side of the House is all about on this issue: simple

justice. That simple justice can be carried out by the Attorney-General

(Hon. S.D. Smith) and by the Premier if they're concerned about it. We

don't see that a lot. If they would give a very simple undertaking that

the transfer of title from the people of British Columbia from the

Crown to the Greater Vancouver Regional District will not jeopardize

the legitimate claims of the Musqueam people.... That is all we are

saying today, Mr. Speaker.

We celebrate the fact that there's a park being put into

an act. It

simply confirms the park that was put together by the first member for

Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) and the New Democratic government in

1975, the Frank Buck Park. Eleven hundred acres were put aside as the

Frank Buck Park in memory of a very fine forester at the University of

British Columbia. The other 600 acres were put aside because the

university wanted to look at their requirements, and that study has

gone on and on. For 15 years this government has studied and delayed

the rest of that land becoming a park. You want to talk about delays;

we're talking about you making one simple amendment here in the next 30

seconds, and we could, after 15 years of delay by this government,

declare it a park unanimously.

I find it appalling that this government isn't able to do that very

simple gesture of justice for our friends visiting here from the

Vancouver Musqueam. Chief Campbell would have liked to be here, but

Chief Guerin, whom I've been dealing with for years, arranging the

servicing between our city, the Musqueam people and all the other

activities we carry out in the Point Grey area, as friends.... Chief

Campbell couldn't be here, but the rest of the band was ably

represented. They came to the Attorney-General and asked for simple

justice, a one-line amendment, an undertaking that the claims of the

Musqueam people would not be prejudiced by this act, and to hear an

auto-rant from the Premier and the disparaging remarks from a number of

other members of the government was indeed very discouraging.

Those who should be named should be ashamed of themselves for not

being able to give that very simple undertaking. I hope the

Attorney-General will be able to do that today and that we can give

unanimous approval to this bill.

[4:30]

I want to turn to the Attorney-General — who's busy reading Madam

Justice McLachlin's judgment, I'm sure, and who should follow it and

carry out the very fine work done by Mr. Justice Fisher. He should do

that and be interested in justice for a while.

Interjections.

MR. HARCOURT: Read it! More importantly, instead of just reading it,

why don't you bring about justice for the Musqueam people?

We gave the Attorney-General a guided tour of Point Grey in the

by-election. He came into the by-election, and he made the native issue

an issue and the Musqueam park an issue and tried to tie the two

together in a cynical way to aid his candidate, who used to go to high

school with me. He tried, in the way he moves these things around, to

make the native people and New Democrats cannon-fodder for his

electoral hopes in this by-election. Do you know

[ Page 6195 ]

what happened? Your candidate lost 12,000 votes with that kind of

performance by you. Any time the Attorney-General wants to visit

Vancouver and Point Grey, please be our guest as much as possible — the

Premier too, as much as possible.

Again, into the by-elections, that very cynical trying to tie this

park together with the legitimate aspirations of a small community, the

Musqueam community, was as disgraceful then as it is now. This bill

tries to inflame and divide natives from non-natives. We don't stand

for that. This party has never stood for that kind of division among

our people and never will. That kind of anti-aboriginal attitude and

actions we will never condone. We will never condone wasting $100

million of taxpayers' money on court cases.

You could do the simple thing and sit down and negotiate a fair

settlement with the aboriginal people of this province instead of

turning them into cannon-fodder for your own cynical political

purposes. It's not going to work in the general election, just like it

didn't work in the by-elections. I want to make that very clear to this

government: goodbye.

We are saying: "Bring in this undertaking. Bring in this amendment

today, and we will pass this bill unanimously. Do the right thing

instead of the cynical, bitter politics you've displayed so many times

by turning your back not just on us but on the aboriginal people of

this province, Mr. Attorney-General. You won't get away with it.

Justice will be done, and you'll be gone, and we will settle fairly on

behalf of all British Columbians.

We think it's about time you remembered the justice part of that

portfolio of yours and gave an undertaking right here in this

Legislature today that the transfer of title will not prejudice the

legitimate claims of the Musqueam people. Then do you know what would

happen? All of the people of British Columbia would be proud of that

park opening on April 23, and the Musqueam could be there. Natives and

non-natives could be there together in a celebration of what this

province could be, instead of what you're trying to turn it into.

Instead of dividing citizens against citizens and turning a fine act

into a cynical political issue, we could have made it a triumph for

everybody.

That's why we're putting this forward. It's very simple. It rests

with this government, with one simple undertaking here today, to turn

April 23 into a triumph not just for the Iva Manns and the Bowie

Keefers of the world, but for the Musqueam and all the citizens of

British Columbia.

MR. R. FRASER: I have listened with some interest — in fact,

great interest — to the propositions put forward by the opposition

party with respect to this park. Maybe there are reasons that I would

vote for a hoist motion of six months, six years or forever. It might

have something to do with who controls the park, not whether I want to

transfer it.

I remember being involved with a community organization in the early seventies

when the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams), when the NDP was government,

was planning to build housing on that land. Do you know what happened? There

was a huge outcry. They said: "No, don't build any housing out there."

Then there was a little reversal: "Maybe we won't do it." It wasn't

done, because people didn't want it to be done. They wanted a park out there.

I don't think the issue is actually between me and any particular

member over there. The issue is: what do you want on that site? Do you

want a park, or do you want a problem? That party over there wants to

compromise the park. They say: "If we can just put this one little

clause in on behalf of somebody, we might be able to transfer the title

out of park and into the band." What's the band going to do if the

title is acknowledged, for example? Would they build housing? Maybe

they would. Would the band log the park? Maybe they would. The real

answer is that if you want a park, leave the act the way it is. If you

want to compromise the park, then go ahead with that hoist motion and

the plan that group wants.

What this side of the House wants, what the residents of Vancouver

want and what the residents of British Columbia want is a designated

park with no encumbrances. I will vote against the hoist.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I rise to speak in support of the hoist

motion. I take exception to some of the comments of the previous

speakers; in particular, those made by the Premier. The Premier accuses

us of delay. I'd like to look at the situation of the Musqueam and

other native groups in this province.

Native groups in this province have waited more than 100 years to

see simple justice. We are asking for some consideration and

recognition of their needs. We're asking this government to sit down

and negotiate. We're asking that the government receive an amendment to

this legislation that very clearly says that this legislation does not

inhibit in any way the negotiation around land claims.

Take a look at the situation in this province: the government's

history and the history of native rights, and how those native rights

have been ignored. Beyond being ignored, they have been frustrated by a

government that says it will not become involved. In the last couple of

years, my involvement with environmental issues around the province has

been a tremendous opportunity to take a look at the situation of native

rights. It more or less culminated in a conference I attended at

Tin-Wis. That conference in the fall of this year had native people,

environmentalists, peace groups and justice groups sit down together

and talk about the crisis we face in this province because of a

government that is more interested in confrontation than in dealing

with the people's needs.

When those very different groups sat down and talked about the needs

of the province, talked about their concerns for preservation of land,

the values, the style of life, the quality of life in this province, it

was a tremendous sharing of interests. Native groups shared with the

rest of us some of their reality, what they face every day: the number

of teenage suicides,

[ Page 6196 ]

the poverty in their communities, their striving for education and

for equality. Many of their needs are being frustrated by a government

that says that they have no role in the negotiations. For many native

people, their well-being is tied to the land. That's a reality that

this government seems unwilling to recognize, and because of their

blindness, they are prepared to see the standard of living and

well-being of a whole group of people in this province deteriorate.

I look at a list that was just given to me, a brief that was

prepared as a presentation to the chiefs of British Columbia. This was

a list that outlined the litigation currently before the provincial

courts involving native peoples. The list is extensive, and it doesn't

even begin to deal with many cases before the courts dealing with

hunting and fishing claims. The list that I have here runs from the

sale of land, aboriginal title, breach of trust, the rights to reserve

ownership, and on and on. There are 100 court cases on this list, and

the report goes on to explain that there are at least 100 more civil

cases dealing with hunting and fishing.

This government, in saying that they have no place in negotiating,

or refusing to negotiate, has cost the native peoples of this province

a great deal in costs that I would suggest many of the tribes and

councils are unable to afford, tying up their energy and their time to

an extent that it detracts from other needed business.

[4:45]

About a year and a half ago, during the estimates for the Minister

of Environment, I brought a report to the attention of the Legislature

that outlined a marketing proposal, a strategy for the government, that

dealt with the issue of the park on South Moresby. The report suggested

that the government should put in place a strategy using Beban Logging

as the third party so that the government's policy on native land

claims could be at arm's length. It became very clear, through that

report, that the government's aim — behind closed doors — has been not

purely to stay out of the issue of land claims but, more importantly,

to frustrate.

I think it is because of the history of this government, because of

their actions in the past, that many people on this side are extremely

skeptical as to the government's intentions around the transferring of

the title of this land to the GVRD. The request that the members of the

opposition have made, to put a very simple clause in this bill assuring

people that the native people's claim to this land will not be

frustrated, is a very practical request. I would hope that the

government would see the wisdom of that — a government that at this

point in time is saying that they have turned over a new leaf, that

they no longer are confrontational and indeed that they care about the

environment.

As I was sharing with you, Mr. Speaker, the experience that I had at

Tin-Wis, it became very clear to all of those at the conference — the

environmentalists — that the only way we are going to get on with the

preservation of some of the values in our province, the only way the

confrontation that we have seen in the past will be ended, is if the

government recognizes some basic principles of justice and goes to the

table in a committed w ay to deal with this hundred years of frustration.

Through the last couple of years, in addition to working with many

community groups, I've met with different corporate groups. Those are

corporations in several resource industries, whether logging, mining or

fishing. Time and time again I have been struck by the consensus there

is in this province, the consensus within the corporate sector that

says that things have gotten to the point that they are so difficult

that we find it almost impossible to do business in this province

because we are constantly coming up against the issue of native land

claims. They too would like the government to deal with native land

claims, perhaps from a different perspective, but I think they too are

tiring of the confrontation.

With some pride and some commitment, I stand in support of the

motion put by the opposition in the hopes that I can make a public

statement in support of the rights of aboriginal people: to sit down at

the table, to bargain in good faith and to in some way receive and have

justice recognized to the plight of the families and the children

around this province, the aboriginal children who live in poverty

because of the policies of this government and the policies of previous

governments where Socreds have been all too willing to ignore the just

needs of these people.

Mr. Speaker, I will sit down now and hope that some others may be

able to convince the government that this very simple and

straightforward change to their legislation will meet all peoples'

needs. This is an opportunity for them to act in the interests of all

British Columbians rather than continuing their history of neglect and

confrontation, a history that I for one want to stand on record as

opposing.

MR. SIHOTA: I rise to speak on this matter, and I'm somewhat

disappointed to see that members of the government side feel so

defeated that they are not even prepared to enter into the debate as to

whether or not this legislation ought to be hoisted. I would encourage

them to come in. I see that the Attorney-General (Hon. S.D. Smith), who

took some heat from my good friend the Leader of the Opposition, can't

stand it in the kitchen and has now left for his office.

I want to make some lengthy comments, and I have some comments

reserved for the Attorney-General which I will hold back and reserve

until such time as he sees fit to come back in this House and listen to

what we are talking about, and maybe get a bit of an education in terms

of basic justice in native title in this province, because he seems to

be poorly equipped to deal with the issues.

I want to talk about some of the historical circumstances in this

province that bring us into this debate — a debate which, in my view,

focuses on the inadequacies of this government and the wrong of this

government in its failure to deal adequately with the native title

question.

This is legislation that goes beyond just simply dealing with a park. It brings into sharp focus before

[ Page 6197 ]

us the question of native title and the behaviour of the current

regime in terms of how it wishes to deal with the question of that

title.

I took the liberty a few minutes ago, knowing that we were going to

engage in this debate, to take a look at the Calder decision of the

Supreme Court of Canada, which is, of course, the pre-eminent decision

with respect to native title in Canada. I think most people who follow

these things — and I would trust that the Attorney-General knows this

as well — are well aware of the Calder decision and the significance of

that decision. That decision came perilously close to resolving the

matter of native title. Three chief justices of the Supreme Court went

one way, three went another and another, the seventh, dismissed the

action on technical grounds.

I think that was the court's own way of sending a signal to the

politicians that they would ask that the politicians take some

leadership in endeavouring to resolve these native title questions,

feeling appropriately, in my view, that it is a matter that is far more

germane in the political realm than it is in the judicial realm. Having

been given this signal by the courts, this government has chosen still

not to exercise the leadership which the courts have requested that it

engage in.

We are now seeing — and I don't want to belabour the point — the

frustration the courts are feeling from the lack of political action

and the absence of political will here in this province to deal with

the native title. We saw that, as I know my good friend from Prince

George knows, with respect to the McLeod Lake decision, where the court

is now beginning to take some leadership, saying, "Yes, you must

resolve these native title questions," and taking some leadership in

terms of defining some of those vested rights which our native

population has.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

We are seeing it also in the decision that I know my good friend the

second member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Perry) also referred to in

terms of the Musqueam decision. I want to come back to that Musqueam

decision in a few minutes.

While I was reading the Calder decision I was struck not so much by

the eloquence of the courts in laying out the parameters of debate on

native title as by some of the historical facts that I had not known

about. I want to share some of those. It brought home to me the fact

that this whole debate as to native title is not one that we've seen

during the sixties and the seventies, during the course of my

generation, but one that has been going on in this province for some

time.

I want to bring to the House's attention, as a method of

demonstrating to this government why it ought to hoist this bill and

deal with the native factor and the matter of native title in this

province, that in 1888 the government set up a royal commission to deal

with native title. I want to quote from the submission that was made at

that time; it's a lengthy quote, and I would ask for your indulgence in

this. I want to quote from what the representatives of the Nisga'as had

to say during the course of that 1888 hearing. I think it's germane not

only to the legislation before us, but particularly germane to why we

ought to be hoisting this legislation and dealing with the real issue

here, which is native title.

HON. MR. REE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I'm having a

great deal of difficulty relating the debate to the subject matter of

the bill and the hoist motion as such. I appreciate the member's

concerns, but I think he is way out of order in his debate at this

time. I would ask you to bring him to order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER