1998/99 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 36th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 21, 1999

Afternoon

Volume 14, Number 11

[ Page 11925 ]

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

Prayers.

L. Reid: In light of our recognition of volunteers, it gives me great pleasure today to welcome to the precinct of this building some individuals representing the Canadian Guide Dogs for the Blind here in Victoria. Joining us in the gallery today are Gerry Cafferky, who is accompanied by Ritchie, a golden retriever in training; Glenys Hughes; Bill Pyatt; and Steve Baird. Superb volunteers make an enormous contribution to the community.

I would invite the members of this Legislature to come out to Beaver Lake on Sunday, May 30, around 9:30 a.m., and see those animals in training, who one day will be seeing-eye dogs for British Columbians.

[1410]

Hon. L. Boone: It gives me great pleasure to introduce today two individuals in the gallery from the B.C. Foster Parents Federation: Kay Dahl, who is the president of that federation; and Joan Wenstob, who is the executive director. Would the House please make them welcome.

J. Weisbeck: Would the House please welcome two members from the Kelowna branch of the Canadian Home Builders Association: its president, Ray Wynsouw; and the president-elect, Mike Ohman.

W. Hartley: I have a couple of introductions to make today. Visiting us are a number of young people. There are 22 grade 5 students, along with ten adults and their teacher, Mr. Watts, from the Life Christian School in Tacoma, Washington. Would members please make them welcome.

Also in the precinct, and in my office earlier today for a visit, are Mohammed Rafiq and his wife Andun Rafiq. Mohammed is here to be honoured for serving 25 years with the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. They live in Surrey, and they're involved in a farming operation in Maple Ridge. Would members please make them welcome.

T. Nebbeling: I see a familiar face in the gallery again today. She is the mayor of Squamish, Corinne Lonsdale, who is in Victoria once again to fight on behalf of her community. She's dealing with some of the economic problems we face in Squamish. She's a fierce fighter, and I hope the House will make her really welcome.

S. Orcherton: Joining us in the gallery today is an individual who works very hard on behalf of working people in our community and greater Victoria. Joining us is Mr. Stu Shields, the president of Canadian Auto Workers Local 333, representing workers who operate the transit system in Victoria. He's here today after recently concluding positive negotiations in a settlement regarding the transit workers. I'd ask the House to make him very, very welcome to these chambers.

T. Stevenson: In the gallery today is my new constituency assistant. She's been with me for about six months now, and her name is Nafysa Lalani. I'm particularly pleased to have her join my staff, because she brings some unique experience. She's a young person who's been active in the Young New Democrats for many years, and she also comes from the Ismaili community. Of course, in my community there are many Ismailis as well as young people, and that's a help for me. I ask members to make her welcome.

Hon. I. Waddell: I ask the House to join with me in congratulating YVR -- that is, the Vancouver Airport -- its board chair, Graham Clarke, and CEO, Larry Berg, and their staff on the opening today of the new south terminal at the Vancouver International Airport. That terminal will take 157,000 people a year -- many of them tourists -- to the coast, to the interior and to the north of British Columbia, this Super, Natural province. I'd like the House to join with me in congratulating the people on this great opening today.

Oral Questions

RAIWIND POWER PROJECT

M. de Jong: It was a year ago that the minister responsible for Hydro stood in this House and told us that the Raiwind project in Pakistan was "proceeding and would come on stream shortly." Well, we're still waiting. Will the minister responsible for Hydro explain why he persists in telling British Columbians that they are going to see a healthy financial return on another failed NDP investment, when all of the available evidence suggests exactly the opposite?

[1415]

Hon. M. Farnworth: It's so nice to welcome the hon. member for Matsqui back from his trip to Pakistan. That opposition has stood in the House and criticized this project -- and that's fine -- because that's their role. I told them at that time that we were in discussions with SNC-Lavalin, our partners, about the issues in Pakistan surrounding the independent power production that was taking place.

I was telling of the problems that the government of Pakistan was causing and saying that what was happening was not unique to the project at Raiwind but was affecting all the power production plants in Pakistan, involving some of the world's largest companies, such as the Deutsche Bank, Toyota, Mitsubishi -- a whole host of companies that were experiencing problems because of the internal turmoil in Pakistan. We were at that time optimistic that those would be resolved. They have been working on those issues over the past year or so. They're closer to being resolved . . .

The Speaker: Minister . . . .

Hon. M. Farnworth: . . . today, but internal issues in Pakistan continue to play a significant role in what's happening there.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Matsqui.

M. de Jong: Madam Speaker, what the minister said a year ago and what he has said consistently is that British Columbians are going to see a healthy return on their investment, and that ain't going to happen. The problem is that everything the minister has said and continues to say is inconsistent with what you hear. When you talk to the water and

[ Page 11926 ]

power authority, when you talk to the independent power producers in Pakistan, and when you talk to SEPCOL, the company that owns the project, all of them will tell you that there is virtually no prospect of a power sale occurring before the year 2003, because Pakistan doesn't require the power. And I want to know from the minister why his government hasn't told British Columbians the truth about yet another NDP investment fiasco that's going to cost them upwards of $10 million.

Hon. M. Farnworth: One of the interesting things that that member forgets is that when he raised these questions before, we told him that we were not exposed to the tune of $10 million but that it was insured. He conveniently forgets to tell that.

On his trip to Pakistan, it also came to our attention that he spoke to the people in Pakistan. He spoke to business communities in Pakistan. Do you know what he told them? He said: "British Columbia is a great place to invest." So my question to the member for Matsqui is: is the . . .

The Speaker: Minister, no questions.

Hon. M. Farnworth: . . . message he gives the people in Pakistan, 10,000 miles away -- that B.C. is a great place to invest -- the truth, or is it the message that he likes to try and give the people here in British Columbia? Which is it?

The Speaker: Minister, thank you.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The fact of the matter is that this is a great province to invest in.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members . . . .

Second supplementary, the member for Matsqui.

M. de Jong: Actually, hon. Speaker, the minister almost gets it right. What I said to the people of Pakistan was that British Columbia was going to be a great place to invest after the next election.

You know, I listen to these NDPers, and it occurs to me that you'd have to be an NDPer to describe as successful a power project that hasn't generated one red cent of profit and is actually paying for the power they need to keep the lights on. So let me ask the minister this: this project that's now losing upwards of $80,000 (U.S.) per day . . . . There is now discussion that they are now negotiating for the sale of power directly to India, as a means of somehow salvaging this fiasco. Would the minister stand in the House today and provide British Columbians with an update on the status of those negotiations with India?

[1420]

Hon. M. Farnworth: First off, B.C. Hydro is not involved in negotiations. Second, the internal situation in Pakistan has been the cause of the problems around this project and every other independent power production project in Pakistan. Some of the world's largest firms have been involved. The people who are really taking the brunt of this are the government of Pakistan, because they're not going to get the foreign investment that they had hoped they would get in the future.

Hon. member, let's be clear. You stood up in Pakistan and said that British Columbia was and is a great place to invest.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

I recognize the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain.

C. Clark: You know, only the bright lights in the NDP on that side of the House would think that it was a good deal to build a power plant in the middle of nowhere for customers who don't need the power and then, if they did, couldn't afford to pay for it.

Now, here we've got a minister who has gambled $10 million of taxpayers' money on a shady deal that's losing $80,000 a day. Can the minister explain for us how he expects taxpayers to make money on a deal that's losing more money every single day than even the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin can charge in expenses over the course of a whole year?

Hon. M. Farnworth: You know, hon. Speaker, the hon. member says that we're gambling. Well, the only gambling that has taken place in this province took place at the Liberal convention on the weekend, where the take at the Grand Casino in Kelowna was up 120 percent over the weekend before. That's the only gambling that took place.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order.

I recognize for a first supplementary the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain.

C. Clark: That's further proof, I guess, that if you give the NDP enough extension cord, they'll hang the taxpayer out to dry -- right? That's what happened in Raiwind. We've got a project that's losing $80,000 a day of taxpayers' money, and this minister said that taxpayers wouldn't be on the hook for a penny. If he is so confident that taxpayers are going to come out of this ahead, will he guarantee for us today that taxpayers won't lose one red cent on this ill-conceived, politically driven pet project of the Premier?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Hydro has been working with SNC-Lavalin to ensure that taxpayers' interests in this province are represented. That's why I stated earlier that the $10 million that the opposition likes to talk about has been insured. We have been ensuring that our interests are protected.

The fact of the matter is that there are discussions currently underway with the government of Pakistan, as there are with every other major industrial company that's involved in the independent power production plants in Pakistan. The fact of the matter is that there is a lot of work being done. We have been very happy with the role played, for example, by Canada's embassy in Pakistan, which has worked hard to represent the interests of British Columbia. So the right thing is being done right now.

REGULATION OF OVERWEIGHT VEHICLES

J. Weisgerber: My question is to the minister responsible for ICBC. On April 8 the minister wrote a letter to the editor of

[ Page 11927 ]

the Peace River Block Daily News to assure light truck owners that they were not being targeted by a crackdown on overweight vehicles. Indeed, that will be very good news to British Columbians, not only those in the Peace. I'm absolutely confident that those British Columbians will let the minister know if the motor vehicle branch staff or the RCMP are ignoring his wishes.

The letter goes on to refer to a regulation brought in in 1989 while I was in cabinet. The implication is that the minister is simply dealing with a regulation for which I was directly responsible. Can the minister confirm that the 1989 regulation was in fact an amendment that exempted vehicles manufactured before August 1989 and those licensed before June 30, 1990? Can the minister also confirm that these amendments are still in effect?

[1425]

Hon. D. Lovick: I've had numerous conversations with the member, and we have exchanged correspondence on this issue, but I don't think that dimension of the matter has been raised, so I can't confirm that. I would be happy to do that shortly.

I want, though, to pick up, if I might, on one point made in the question and just clarify that no, this minister cannot ensure that the RCMP do or do not enforce a regulation. Indeed, it would be inappropriate for me as a minister to try and assume that responsibility.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Peace River South.

J. Weisgerber: I'm disappointed with the minister insomuch as in the supplemental that I drafted, I had a line which suggested that this minister was a very thorough individual and would never sign a letter that he didn't understand the contents of. Foolish me! The letter also suggests and warns owners that overloaded trucks can result in higher business costs when inappropriate use results in invalid warranties or lack of insurance coverage. Can the minister advise British Columbia truck owners of circumstances in which ICBC might deny coverage because a truck exceeded the gross vehicle weight rating?

Hon. D. Lovick: I appreciate the direction of the questions; it's nice to have some substantive questions in the chamber for a change. I want to say that I think he's asking me, frankly, to engage in a bit of hypothetical thinking, and I'm reluctant to do that. I want to simply make this point: the legal advice that the corporation has been given, as reported to me, is that if indeed they do not enforce the regulation that is now in fact in place, then conceivably they could be subject to legal liabilities. Therefore they're proceeding cautiously.

Similarly, the other dimension of the question has to do with safety. If the story we are getting is that trucks are systematically and consistently overloaded, in some cases much beyond the warranty specifications and so forth . . . .

The Speaker: Minister, would you finish up, please?

Hon. D. Lovick: Madam Speaker, I am simply saying that we are conducting the policy we have for safety purposes and legal reasons.

RAIWIND POWER PROJECT

G. Plant: Back to Raiwind. The facts that the minister doesn't seem to want to acknowledge as true are that there's no market for the electricity in that project until at least the year 2003 and that every day the project is losing $80,000 (U.S.). Interest is accumulating, and the project lenders are getting nervous. British Columbians have an equity interest of nearly $10 million in this disaster. And you know what? I've just been told that in fact it's not fully insured. Will the minister for once turn off the Technicolor dream machine, stand up and admit that the $10 million that British Columbians have invested in this project is gone?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The only Technicolor dream machine is that member's memory or mind; he thinks he's somehow something more special than everybody else. I'll tell you that the answer to his question is no, it's not gone. The fact of the matter, as I told you once before . . .

The Speaker: Through the Chair.

Hon. M. Farnworth: . . . is that it's insured through the export development agency. So $6 million of that is insured.

The second point I'll make again is that there is a contract that is currently under negotiation.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

[1430]

Hon. M. Farnworth: Also tell the next point -- which he doesn't want to tell, which he refuses to tell; he likes to hide behind his "legal expertise" -- which is that the $80,000 is for the whole project; 10 percent is B.C. Hydro's share.

The fact of the matter is that we are working with our partners.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. M. Farnworth: We have been working with the Canadian embassy. We have been working with every other international to ensure that these things are protected.

The Speaker: The bell ends question period.

Orders of the Day

Motions on Notice

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Motion 62 standing in my name on the order paper.

TIME ALLOCATION ON BILL 51

The Speaker: I recognize the Premier.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members, come to order, please.

[ Page 11928 ]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Come to order, please. Come to order, all members.

Hon. G. Clark: It's my pleasure to rise and support the motion before us, hon. Speaker.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members.

Hon. G. Clark: I would like to spend some time talking about why we are moving this motion at this time. We have had, to date, 116 hours of debate on the Nisga'a treaty.

The Speaker: Mr. Premier . . . .

Hon. G. Clark: Oh, I apologize. Hon. Speaker, I move the motion on the order paper standing in the name of the hon. Minister of Finance.

[Be it resolved that further to the oral notice given by the Government House Leader on April 12, 1999, pursuant to Practice Recommendation No. 3, the following provisions shall, unless otherwise ordered, apply to the proceedings on Bill 51 intituled Nisga'a Final Agreement Act:

1. Proceedings in Committee of the Whole shall be brought to a conclusion by twelve o'clock noon on April 22, 1999, without any question being put save on the motion to report the Bill complete to the House, upon adoption of which all sections, schedules, amendments in the name of the Minister,

preambles and title of the Bill shall be deemed to have been adopted in Committee of the Whole;

2. For the purposes of Bill 51, the House shall proceed forthwith to Report Stage and Third Reading of Bill 51 as its first order of business for the afternoon sitting on April 22, 1999, immediately following Oral Questions;

3. Proceedings on Report Stage and Third Reading shall be brought to a conclusion by 6:00 p.m., April 22, 1999, and every question necessary for the disposal of Report Stage and Third Reading of Bill 51 then under consideration shall be put forthwith by the Speaker without further debate or amendment.

4. Save as provided herein, proceedings pursuant to this order shall not be subject to provisions of Standing Orders relating to times and days of sittings of the House.]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members.

Hon. G. Clark: It's my pleasure to rise and support this motion. We have spent 116 hours of debate on the Nisga'a treaty in this chamber -- more debate on the Nisga'a treaty than on any other bill in the history of British Columbia. The previous record for debate in this chamber on a bill was in 1998 for the Labour Code amendment, which took 108 hours of debate. For the Public Sector Restraint Act in 1983, the debate was 95-1/4 hours. The 1964 federal flag debate, which is often seen as a historic debate, the longest in the history of Canada, was 103 hours. And, to date, we have spent 116 hours of debate on the Nisga'a treaty.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, come to order. It's very difficult to hear what the debate is with all the interruptions. The interruptions are not appropriate.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members . . . .

Hon. G. Clark: This motion before us is, in effect, a time allocation for this bill. It is not closure in the normal sense of the word. It's important for the people of British Columbia to understand that. A closure motion . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members . . . . Premier, if you'd take your seat just for a moment, please.

I would like to draw attention to the fact that if . . . . Both sides expect to have their points heard in some silence and with some respect.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I beg your pardon, hon. members. The Chair has something to say here, and I expect respect for the Chair in this chamber. I caution the members again: all expect to be listened to in some silence and expect to extend the same courtesy to the others. There will be time for debate in this chamber. Contradictions and interruptions are not appreciated.

Hon. G. Clark: It's interesting to see the kind of spoiled-children attitude across the way.

Interjections.

Hon. G. Clark: Listen to them. I hope the people of British Columbia are watching and can hear the kind of contempt that the members opposite have. This is precisely why we have brought in time allocation on this bill, because they're not interested in a debate on the substance of the Nisga'a treaty. They're only interested in playing politics every single day in this chamber.

[1435]

Interjections.

Hon. G. Clark: Listen to them, hon. Speaker.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, this is not tolerable. I think we'll wait for a while. Time will be used in debate or in interruptions or in rulings from the Chair. But it would seem to me that this chamber would prefer some debate -- in which case, the rules of this chamber are parliamentary rules. Everyone in this chamber knows what they are. I encourage all members to recognize those rules. A motion is on the floor, and the motion is a duly put motion. I insist that there be some respect while it is being addressed.

Interjections.

[ Page 11929 ]

The Speaker: Members, members! The member for Delta South will cease and desist at this moment -- other members also.

Hon. G. Clark: It's interesting. Time allocation is used in Ottawa repeatedly -- three times this year alone. Closure in their friends' . . . . Ralph Klein in Alberta has used closure 15 times in the last 17 months.

We have debated the Nisga'a treaty in this chamber longer than any bill in the history of British Columbia. Ordinary closure -- which is, without notice, moving the cessation of debate -- is not what we are doing here. Some ten days ago, having already consumed record debate, we put this House on notice that we intended to pass this treaty at this time. When the motion was tabled in this House, the members opposite know that we said we would sit evenings, we would sit weekends and we would sit whenever they would like. But after a record amount of debate, we intend to pass the Nisga'a treaty, and that's what we're doing.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, it is impossible to hear any of the debate with all the interruptions.

Hon. G. Clark: Unlike an ordinary closure motion, which is not debatable, time allocation motions are themselves debatable and offer the opposition the opportunity to make their case on the record, instead of heckling like school kids. They have the opportunity to stand up in this House and make their case for the record.

Hon. Speaker, we have been as upfront as possible throughout this process, including putting this motion on the order paper. We have given notice. We have already debated a record amount of time. We've given notice of the time for when we intend to pass it. We offered cooperation with the opposition to sit as long as they wanted to debate this treaty, and they have chosen to reject that, because their real agenda is to play politics and oppose the Nisga'a treaty. Everybody in British Columbia knows that.

The Liberal Aboriginal Affairs critic said they would end negotiations right now with all aboriginal groups in this province, if they were to form the government. We know their agenda. Their agenda is to oppose the treaty process; their agenda is opposed to the Nisga'a treaty. Their agenda is to filibuster this treaty without debate, so that they can say to all of their friends out there that they are fighting this because they don't intend to conclude this treaty.

We have been more than reasonable, more than fair. I ask anyone on the other side, any British Columbian, to say that a record amount of time, 116 hours of debate to date, with offers for night sittings or weekend sittings or anything that's required to fully canvass this debate, is not fair and reasonable. The time has come and the time is now to pass this historic treaty.

Hon. Speaker, 111 years ago the Nisga'a came to this chamber; 111 years ago they met with then Premier Smithe. They sat down with the then Premier and said it was time to negotiate a land claim, as King George had already commanded. They sat down with the Premier of the day and asked him to sit down in good faith, with respect, and negotiate a land claim. They were turned away from this chamber 111 years ago.

[1440]

They have kept that dream alive, about moving to negotiate a treaty. They have kept that dream alive while the state took away their children and put them in residential schools. They have kept that dream alive while the government tried to assimilate and abolish aboriginal people. They have kept that dream alive through generations.

In 1971 they went to the Supreme Court of Canada to assert title to their traditional territories. They were successful in the 1970s in laying out a case which the modern land claims process is all about. That process is very simple. British Columbia is the only province in Canada where aboriginal people never signed treaties. They never gave away their rights; they never gave away their land. They never sat down and negotiated a treaty at all. Through 111 years, they have kept that dream alive. They have been patient.

After 1971 the federal government chose to sit down and negotiate with the Nisga'a. Still they could not get resolution, because those people, like those across the way . . . . They want to put their heads in the sand and deny aboriginal rights, deny the law of the country, deny the constitution of Canada. In 1991 that member over there -- who was then Aboriginal Affairs minister, the member for Peace River South -- and the then Premier Bill Vander Zalm made a very historic decision. That decision was for British Columbia to join the negotiations in 1991.

For eight years there have been intense negotiations; there have been intense debates. I challenge anyone across the way to say that this has not been discussed in British Columbia, that this has not been debated. It has been debated. You may not have heard, but the Nisga'a have been debating this issue for 111 years in this province. They have not wavered. They have done so with respect, without confrontation, without violence. They have done it consistently for 111 years.

For the last eight, we have been in intense negotiations. We had an agreement-in-principle before the last election. Interestingly, before the last election those members and that Leader of the Opposition said that they were in favour of the agreement-in-principle. But now, to seek votes and to play politics, they've changed their position. Now they're pandering to the worst elements in British Columbia: they're pandering to intolerance. That pandering to intolerance is shameful, and we see it every day in this chamber.

If there are any real Liberals across the way, any people who believe in social justice or compassion or aboriginal rights, they should stand up now and declare themselves, instead of pandering to the worst instincts in British Columbia.

[1445]

This treaty has been in the public realm for years; it has been in public debate for months. The agreement-in-principle was widely circulated. It was debated in the last election campaign. And in the last three years we have finally brought about a legal treaty. We brought it into this chamber in good faith. We said that we would debate every clause, and we gave ample time. But we underestimated -- I underestimated -- the depth to which the Liberal Party has sunk in this province. They're pandering to the voices of intolerance. They sit here every day in this House and filibuster this bill.

They have no intention of allowing this bill to pass. They're going to court to fight it, and they're standing in this chamber trying to kill time, trying to find room for their court case and playing politics with this issue.

[ Page 11930 ]

There were 111 years. After eight years with the provincial government at the table, after the last election, where this was a subject of debate . . . . And to give the Reform Party credit, they opposed it at that time. After all of that, in the last couple of years we've negotiated a legal treaty. It has been broadly circulated. Every British Columbian who wants a copy of that treaty can have a treaty, and they know that. We brought it into this chamber.

We underestimated their contempt for aboriginal people. We underestimated their contempt for the process. We underestimated the fact that they want to betray all of those negotiations now. They stood in this House day after day and filibustered. We have had ample time for debate: 116 hours. We have offered more time. We gave ten days' notice, and we said: "On everything that's important in this bill, we are open for debate and discussion, and we look forward to that debate and discussion." We said that we'd sit evenings; we said that we'd sit weekends.

We said that we'd sit whenever they wanted but that we intended to pass this treaty. After waiting 111 years, the Nisga'a people deserve better than what these Liberals are putting them through. After respectful negotiations, I say very clearly to the people of British Columbia: the time for talking is over. The time to pass this treaty is now. And I'm proud of it.

Hon. Speaker, I'd like to move some amendments to the notice of motion, which will allow for further votes on each

section of the bill. I move:

[That the motion be amended by deleting all of the words after "act" in line 3 and by substituting therefor the following:

1) At 10:00 a.m., April 22, 1999, during proceedings on Bill 51, the Chair of Committee of the Whole shall forthwith put the questions, seriatim, on sections 3 to 10 of the bill and thereafter put a single question to complete the committee stage, to dispose of all remaining sections, schedules, amendments in the name of the Minister, the

preamble, the title and the motion to report the Bill complete, such questions to be decided without amendment or debate

2) The House shall proceed to Report Stage and Third Reading of Bill 51 forthwith upon receipt of a report from the Committee of the Whole that the bill is complete.

3) Proceedings on Report Stage and Third Reading shall be brought to a conclusion by 5:45 p.m., April 22, 1999, and every question necessary for the disposal of Report Stage and Third Reading of Bill 51 then under consideration shall be put forthwith by the Speaker without further debate or amendment.

4) In proceedings on Bill 51, where a division is called, the Chair or the Speaker, as the case may be, shall put the question two minutes after the division has been called.

5) Save as otherwise provided, proceedings pursuant to this order shall not be subject to revisions of the Standing Orders relating to times and days of sittings of the House.]

[1450]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, the motion . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: The amendment has been put, and copies of it are available from the Chair.

I gather we have an introduction from the Minister of Advanced Education.

Hon. A. Petter: I seek leave to make an introduction, hon. Speaker.

Leave granted.

The Speaker: While the introduction is being made, perhaps the amendment could be circulated.

Hon. A. Petter: I am pleased to introduce some visitors today from my constituency of Saanich South. There are a number of students from a grade 11 and 12 class at St. Andrew's Regional High School who have just joined us for this very historic debate, together with their teacher, Mme. Weaver. I would like the House to join me in making them very, very welcome.

The Speaker: I recognize the member for Matsqui.

Interjections.

The Speaker: All members, come to order. I have recognized the member for Matsqui, and he now has the floor.

M. de Jong: An extraordinary motion and an extraordinary amendment to that motion. I am going to move that the House recess for 15 minutes so that we can review the document.

The Speaker: I'll acknowledge 15 minutes. We'll stand recessed for 15 minutes, and I'll ring the bells.

The House recessed from 2:52 p.m. to 3:07 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

On the amendment.

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, this debate started on November 30, 1998, and at that time we were led to believe by the Premier, by the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and by the House Leader that there would be a full and complete debate of this bill.

This amendment and this motion are the most menacing, autocratic, undemocratic assault on this place, the B.C. Legislature, in the history of the province of British Columbia. For the first time ever, hon. Speaker and all those members opposite, the people's elected representatives in this province will be denied the right to vote -- to even discuss, to ask questions or to vote -- on this important piece of legislation. For the first time in the history of the province of British Columbia, for the first time in the history of Canada, people will be prohibited from voting on each and every clause of a change of this nature.

Once this treaty is passed into law -- as a former Attorney General of this province has said, a former New Democrat who cared about the law, who cared about the Legislature, who cared about the role of elected representatives, the MLAs in this House . . . . As he pointed out, this law will be locked in constitutional concrete forever. This government wants to close down debate and close out discussion and close out the people of British Columbia, and that is wrong.

I'd just like the members to think back about why it was that we sought elected positions. Why is that we seek to

[ Page 11931 ]

represent the people in our ridings and our constituencies and our communities? It's because we believed at one point -- all of us in this House believed at one point; today, evidently, there are 35 of us who believe this -- that this was a place for debate, for discussion.

[1510]

This is the parliament of British Columbia. Parliament is about speaking; parliament is about discussion. It's about debating the specifics of every issue that comes before us, and it's about the opportunity to do that. Parliaments and legislatures are places where we should come to learn. It's a place where we should come to discover; it's a place where we should come to share and to build understanding amongst those of us in the House and those of us in the public. This government today says no to learning, no to understanding, no to discovery, no to debate and no to the people of British Columbia. That is wrong.

I had the opportunity of working and living in a place that didn't have a democracy. Let's think about what a democracy is. A democracy is about a place that respects the rights of individuals; it respects the rights of minorities. Yes, it believes in the rule of the majority, but it understands that part of that is to protect minorities and to understand that minority rights are equally important. That's one of the things that this Legislature has an obligation to protect. This Legislature has an obligation to protect and defend the rights of minorities against the tyranny of the majority.

Today this government has decided to shunt that aside, to forget about that and to do something for the first time in the history of the province: to close off debate and discussion. That is simply incorrect. There are many, many questions left to be asked with regard to this. Let's be very clear, as we look at these amendments and as we look at this move by the government, that there are many questions from many people in the province of British Columbia that remain to be asked.

There is no urgency here. The Premier was correct in this regard at least: it has been 111 years. It was wrong to slam the door on the Nisga'a. No one disagrees with that. Many of the things that we did to aboriginal people in Canada were wrong. That's why one of the things that we advocated on this side of the House was a simple, straightforward apology. It was something that British Columbians advocated; it was something that the standing committee advocated.

It is something that is not included in this treaty, and people in British Columbia have a right to know why the government is not willing to apologize to aboriginal people through treaties, as was recommended by the people of British Columbia.

So what's the hurry? This government knows, and the people of this province know, that this debate has been going forward. They understand that the questions that have been asked have been legitimate questions. The government's own representatives, their own ministers, have said that. What's the hurry? Well, it's clear what the hurry is. The hurry is this Premier's personal political agenda. The hurry may well be that caucus's agenda to get this Premier out the door of the Legislature as quickly as they can, but that is not a reason to close down debate.

It is not a reason to change the fundamental principles of this institution. This is just politics. Politics is always what has driven that side of the House, and that is wrong.

The public has been shut out of this debate from the start, and for the Premier or that group to think otherwise is wrong. The standing committee was established. We remember that. I remember that the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture was the Chair before he was elevated to his grand new position. We were supposed to go around . . . . I can recall being told in the election that the standing committee would go around . . . . The Premier himself said to people: "We're going to listen to British Columbians. We're going to understand them.

We're willing to change this" -- until the standing committee was appointed, until the election was over. Then what we were told was: "There will be no changes."

That standing committee was going around the province under false pretences, because the people were clearly being told . . . . This wasn't to listen; this wasn't to learn. This was to sell something. This was to tell people what they were going to get, because the Premier said that there would be no changes in this treaty. Then we were told: "Don't worry about the standing committee" -- that group of MLAs who spent their time going and speaking to . . . . "Don't worry about them, because we've set up the Treaty Negotiation Advisory Committee" -- 31 independent, non-partisan British Columbians there to explain what was taking place in the treaty

chapter by chapter, so that we could look at and understand what the impacts of various decisions were going to be. The undertaking was clear; it was crystal-clear. No treaty would be signed; nothing would be initialled until the Treaty Negotiation Advisory Committee had had the opportunity to review every single chapter.

[1515]

What did they get? They had six chapters before it was initialled. The minister knows that they had six chapters, and six chapters alone, before it was initialled. The Premier went back and said: "Oh, we're going to go and talk to them. We're going to go afterwards." The Treaty Negotiation Advisory Committee pointed out that once again, for the second time, the government had broken its word to the people of British Columbia.

Then we were told . . . . We all recall hearing this, and certainly many aboriginal communities remember hearing this: overlapping treaties would be resolved before we moved forward. The Premier makes his impassioned plea for the Nisga'a treaty. We know that the Tahltan are worried about it; we know that the Gitxsan are worried about it. We know from the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs that they're worried about it. They are predicting long-term litigation as a result of this. Throw it out.

Forget about them; forget about those other aboriginal communities, because they're not quite as important as this Premier's personal political agenda. Once again they misled the people of British Columbia. Once again they misled the aboriginal communities of British Columbia, as well as the non-aboriginal communities.

Then we were told, when this was introduced last July, that the government was going to have a non-partisan information program. It was going to cost $2.3 million. Then we found out that it wasn't going to be non-partisan after all; it was going to be political propaganda, pure and simple. When we came into this House, we found out it wasn't $2.3 million; it was $8 million of propaganda. As we've gone through this debate, what we've discovered is that many of the points in that propaganda program were not the truth. We found out that this in fact is not going to be a municipal form of government.

We found out in fact that the $490 million was not going to be enough to cover all of the costs of this agreement.

Then we were told by the Premier that there would be full debate, clause by clause. Every clause would be debated.

[ Page 11932 ]

The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, when this was introduced, said that every clause would be debated, every opportunity would be given to everyone. In fact, at one point the government said: "The timetable for this will be determined by the opposition, not by the government. The government won't ram anything through. The government will allow for full debate." Once again, they misled the people of British Columbia.

So they brought the House back at the end of November -- the last day of November. Then the government adjourned it. There was an agreement between House Leaders that we would meet at the end of January and meet right through, because this was an important matter of public concern that we should debate here in the Legislature. Then, again, the Government House Leader decided to break her word on that. So we came back earlier, because it was so important that we deal with this quickly. When that happened, what happened?

Ten days into the debate, the Premier and the Deputy Premier were not willing to stand here, answer questions and be held to account for their disastrous management of the Ferry Corporation. So they closed down the entire House, because of their personal politics.

Then we had a new Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. We were told that it would be two weeks before we were back in this House to debate this issue that's critical to the people of British Columbia -- two weeks. Two weeks expanded to ten weeks. Suddenly, the middle of February became the far end of March.

Now we have the government saying how critical this is, how critical the timing of this is. The only thing critical to this government is the timing of the resignation of that Premier. That's the only thing that anyone on that side of the House cares about.

Now we have a motion that drops the guillotine on democratic discussion, on our effective House rules, on the public's right to know exactly what's taking place with this treaty. It is a desecration of democracy. Every member on that side of the House should be ashamed of themselves for even thinking of supporting it.

These were the words of the Premier of British Columbia. Now, I understand that many people don't believe what this Premier says. But at times it is possible for people to rise up above the norm, and this should be one of them. This should be a time when people could count on the government, on the Premier, to deal with something that's supposedly so important and is telling us the truth. This is what he said on November 10: "It could take a few months to pass." We have not been debating this for a few months. The government closed this House down for a few months; that's what happened.

"It could take a few months . . . . We will give the opposition the chance to debate each and every clause." Secondly: "We will carry on to debate the sections of the legislation as long as it takes." That's not the Premier's political agenda; it's not the political agenda of the cabinet ministers who are looking for his leadership. It is the agenda of the people of British Columbia; it is the opposition's agenda to make sure that this is fully, diligently and wholesomely debated in this House so that we know what's taken place.

[1520]

The former Minister of Aboriginal Affairs stood in this House and said that he expected the committee stage debate would be very similar to the procedures used during budget estimates debates, with detailed examination of all aspects of the legislation and the final agreement.

Again the Premier said, in the summer of 1998, that they won't rush it through: "I'd like British Columbians to be involved in this debate." When the member for Matsqui said that he wanted to confirm with the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs "that the Nisga'a treaty will come to the Legislative Assembly of the province of British Columbia in its entirety and be subject to clause-by-clause debate in the assembly to the extent that members feel that is necessary," the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs said: "Yes, I am pleased to confirm that . . . . "

Well, I've got news for the government, hon. Speaker. There are 35 members of this House that want to debate this clause by clause on behalf of the people of British Columbia, and it is wrong and undemocratic for this government to close down debate. This Legislature is a place for debate. Let's all be very clear: where there are no questions, no answers and no discussion, there is no democracy.

What this government is doing is undermining and undercutting a precious institution in the province, and every member opposite has a responsibility to their constituents, the people of British Columbia, to maintain and in fact to work to restore the integrity of this institution, as opposed to undermining it.

We have discussed 11 of the 22 chapters of the treaty. This government is very clear that they do not expect questions to be asked on the administration of justice, on the Indian Act transition, on the cash costs and loan repayments. They're not interested in answering questions on the way transfer payments will work and on the ongoing costs to all taxpayers of the Nisga'a government. They're not interested in answering questions on the way taxation will be applied to the Nisga'a, on the return of cultural artifacts and on the designation of heritage sites.

They're not interested in answering questions on local and regional government relationships, on the incredibly complex process of dispute resolution, on the rules surrounding eligibility and ineligibility of enrolment, on how government can even be sure that the ratification process has worked properly and on the implementation process. This government is not willing to answer those questions in a fulsome manner; it is not willing to answer those questions in a forthright manner. In fact, what they are saying is that they want to close off discussion of all of those questions.

In addition, this government has decided that we do not have the right -- that the people of British Columbia do not have the right -- to ask questions on the side agreements on taxation, fiscal transfers and how the Nisga'a's own-source revenues will be factored into cost transfers. We won't be allowed to ask one question or even have a vote on 67 sections of this settlement legislation.

What I think is important for everyone to understand is that what happens in this assembly matters. I know there are days when people think: well, it's just another place. It's not. What happens here matters. Consider what we've learned in the discussions that we've had so far. The Attorney General has admitted that the Nisga'a government is not a municipal-style government, as the government has said it has been. He said: "The best I can say is that is a political description of Nisga'a government. It is not a legal description." It is not a municipal style of government.

[1525]

We've learned that the cost for highway upgrades will be $71 million -- not $41 million, as was initially explained by the government. We've learned that there's an additional $2 mil-

[ Page 11933 ]

lion in costs for the FRBC grants to the Nisga'a. We've learned that the government has quietly abandoned its commitment to adopt all 71 recommendations of the select standing committee -- another promise that has been broken. We've learned that the government has no idea of what the trees on the Nisga'a lands are really worth, because no timber cruise was ever done. The government has no idea -- none whatsoever -- of what the value of the mineral resource is likely to be, because no study has ever been carried out.

We've learned that the Nisga'a propaganda campaign, far from costing $2.3 million, cost $8 million to the taxpayers of British Columbia, and not one dime -- not one cent -- of the money for the Nisga'a treaty implementation office has been spent on treaty implementation. We've learned that the government agents have been misused to help the government snoop on local media coverage of the treaty. We've learned that the NDP has no idea about the cost of its sweeping new requirements for consultation. In fact, we know that the government has no idea how those consultative processes will work.

And we've learned that the NDP has quietly rejected its own policy of requiring that overlapping claims be settled.

What else isn't the government telling us? What else isn't the NDP telling the people of British Columbia? What else are we not going to learn about until it's too late? I'm surprised the government doesn't look at this as an opportunity to solve problems before they occur. This is a government that brings back pieces of legislation literally every session to improve on the massive mistakes it's made in legislation that it's introduced earlier. I can't remember a session when we haven't had to deal with amendments to the Forest Practices Code, in spite of the fact that the government said that they had it all right -- and there were 80 amendments when it was first brought in.

This government always thinks that it knows best. In fact, they think that government can do whatever it wants. The problem is that it's the rights of British Columbians that are damaged when anyone in government thinks that that can happen. What else isn't the government telling us? What else won't we know until it's too late to change it? How much will the Nisga'a government cost the B.C. taxpayers? We won't know, because we can't even ask the question. How will taxes be applied to the Nisga'a or to non-Nisga'a living on Nisga'a lands? We can't say for sure, because we haven't been able to ask the questions.

How will the dispute resolution process work? We don't know, and we're not allowed to ask questions.

Why else does this debate matter? This treaty is forever. It's done; it's finished. These debates are crucial. They're crucial to the purposeful

interpretation of what's taking place in the treaty; they're crucial to the courts. This government should know that the courts use debates in legislatures and in parliaments to determine what exactly was meant when things were said. They use it for amplification. Indeed, the courts have said that if you want to protect the interests of British Columbians and Canadians, it's important to have that full legislative debate.

The only reason that the case about whether or not this is constitutional is not before the courts today is because the courts actually thought there would be a full debate of all of the items in this legislation. I guess, hon. Speaker, we have to ask ourselves, when an elder like Frank Calder holds up a red flag to the government and says, "Be careful . . . . " When an elder like Frank Calder, a Nisga'a statesman, stands up and says to the government, "Do not impose closure," surely they can listen to someone like Frank Calder and say: "You're right. We will open this up. We will finish debate in an orderly and straightforward manner."

I think we have to ask ourselves today in this House: where, even, is the Treaty Commission today? The Treaty Commission has a responsibility to all the people of British Columbia as well. They should be protecting the people of British Columbia's right to a full, open and honest debate in this House, and I would expect to hear from them shortly with regard to this draconian, unjustified measure by this government.

[1530]

To wind up, I'd like to remind the government that there are many people in Canada who care about parliaments. There are many people who've stood up for the Parliament in the past. These are the words of Eugene Forsey. He used them in describing what took place during the closure of the pipeline debate. I think it's important to note that this bill that we're dealing with in this House is far more important than the pipeline debate. This is really changing -- for good -- the way that British Columbia works.

I understand that there are many people on that side of the House who think this is the right direction to go, and I appreciate hearing from them on why they think that's the case. But I think we have to understand that there are some people who don't appreciate that this is the right way to go. Most British Columbians, certainly on this side of the House, are in favour of treaties. We want to move forward together as a province. But there are many questions that people have to have answered.

This is what Eugene Forsey said:

"What the pipeline debate revealed, above all, was that the government and the presiding officers alike had simply no understanding of the basic principles of parliamentary government. They had no understanding that it rests on discussion. Their use of closure and their treatment of the bill in committee showed that . . . . They had no understanding that parliamentary government rests on the rule of law, that the government must not break the rules any more than any private member, that majorities are not enough, that they must be majorities acting within the rules."

I know that the people on the other side of the House will know this gentleman's name: Stanley Knowles. Stanley Knowles was a parliamentarian who fought the use of closure throughout the pipeline debate, and Stanley Knowles put it very clearly. The flagrant abuse of closure is "rule by majority, not rule by the rule book."

The government's abuse of closure in that debate and in this debate is significant, because this motion, this amendment, is even more abusive to this Legislature than you can imagine or than they ever would have imagined in the fifties. To use Eugene Forsey's words:

"[This government has] no understanding of the sacredness of an opposition, of the fact that the decisive difference between parliamentary democracy and 'people's democracy' is the existence of a freely functioning opposition, an opposition with the means of becoming the government, peacefully, decently and in order. [They have] no understanding of the sacredness of the office of Speaker. They saw him transformed from the servant and shield of the House into a creature and tool of the executive . . . . "

They showed no consciousness of the fact that it is the particular duty of every member of the House to protect this institution and proper debate.

The issue that we have before us today -- this motion and the amendments -- closes down the effective opportunity

[ Page 11934 ]

for either the opposition or the people of British Columbia to ask their questions and to get their answers. We slammed the door on the Nisga'a 111 years ago. It is wrong to slam the door on the public and their questions today.

Hon. Speaker, I want to simply close with this. The suggestion has been made by the Premier -- and the chortling from the benches opposite -- that we have not done a responsible job of asking questions. The fact of the matter is that the government's own representatives, the ministers of the Crown, have said on a number of occasions that the questions we have put forward are good questions. They may well be complicated questions, but they are good questions. "I think it's been a very productive debate," said a minister of the Crown.

"I appreciate the member opposite for not only some insightful questions but also some good suggestions . . . . " "I'm just trying to make sure we get that specific, because that's an interesting question." "I appreciate the questions that the members are raising." "It's an interesting question that the member opposite poses." "These are important issues that obviously need to be canvassed further."

That statement was made on Monday of this week. There are many more significant, substantial and important questions which must be asked in this House, which the people of British Columbia must be able to ask through this House.

[1535]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members.

G. Campbell: My question today . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, the Leader of the Opposition has the floor.

Proceed.

G. Campbell: My question today is simply to ask the members opposite: is there anyone left on that side of the bench, on that side of the House, that will stand up for democracy? Is there anyone left on that side of the House that will stand up for their constituents? Is there anyone left on that side of the House that will stand up and demand debate? Is there anyone left on that side of the House who understands that this is an important matter that must be fully debated and that questions must be clearly answered? Is there anyone left -- one person in the NDP -- who's willing to stand up to this dictatorial affront to this sacred place?

Is there anyone left who will stand on principle? The principle should be that open, honest public debate is critical in a democratic institution. Is there anyone left who will stand up for their constituents and stand against closure? Is there anyone left who will stand up to make sure that this does not become a day that lives on in the history of the province as a time when democracy was shattered, when rights were stolen, when the opportunity to move forward together was snatched away from the people of British Columbia? Is there anyone left on that side of the House?

Hon. D. Miller: One of the feelings I have -- and a great deal of pride with respect to the bill that we're debating -- is that, for the very first time, it is eliminating the paternalistic legislation that has governed aboriginal people in this province. For the very first time, it's a bill that's giving rights to the Nisga'a people. Since the Leader of the Opposition closed on the issue of granting of rights, it then strikes me as somewhat paradoxical that a bill that for the very first time starts to grant these rights is opposed so vehemently by the opposition.

I want to cover a couple of areas that are quite critical with respect to the issue at hand. I do note again that these are important questions. The Leader of the Opposition talked about not being able to ask questions and, to the best of my knowledge, has not taken the time to ask one single question.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members . . . .

Hon. D. Miller: Protect me, hon. Speaker. I need protection from these . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members . . . . Minister, take your seat. Members will take their seats. Members know the rules about interjections and interventions; they're not tolerated.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members . . . . There are ways of dealing with that kind of issue. Members have that opportunity.

Minister, continue.

Hon. D. Miller: Well, it's interesting that we're talking about rules. I heard a great to-do about this sacred chamber and the rules of this chamber. One of them is that when a member is speaking, that member ought to be afforded the opportunity to say what's on their mind. If the opposition disagrees, fair enough; they do have the opportunity to also speak. But with the great respect for rules and the impassioned speech that I heard from the Leader of the Opposition, you would have thought that the Liberal caucus opposite would want to respect the very rules that they are so concerned about.

But I was going to say . . .

[1540]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members . . . .

Hon. D. Miller: . . . that, to the best of my knowledge, the Leader of the Opposition has not participated in the committee stage of this bill, which is for asking those kinds of detailed questions.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members . . . .

[ Page 11935 ]

Hon. D. Miller: First of all, with respect to the issue of closure, it is a feature of every parliament: this parliament, the parliament of Alberta, the federal Parliament. And, as has been pointed out . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members.

Hon. D. Miller: . . . it is used probably far more in other provinces and at the federal level and in other countries than it has traditionally been used in British Columbia. But make no mistake about it: it is a feature of every single parliament. British Columbia is not unique. In fact, we are the same as Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec, Ontario, etc. They all have this same device in their rules. That's the first point.

The second point is this: this device has not historically been used a lot in British Columbia, but it has been used.

Interjections.

Hon. D. Miller: And I really go back to my plea: if the hon. people opposite respect the rules, then surely they ought to allow members to speak freely without this constant din.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members . . . .

Interjection.

The Speaker: The minister has taken his seat, but he will be resuming in a moment.

I wish to underline the rules about interruptions and the rules about letting a member . . . . That is one of the privileges of being here: you have the right to make your comments without undue interruption -- all right? Everyone has a chance. It is also the case that members have a chance to make their own speeches. I encourage all to take an opportunity to do that.

Hon. D. Miller: As I was saying, this device, commonly called closure, is one that is common to all parliaments -- the ones that we knew -- including what they call the Mother of Parliaments in Great Britain, and it is used regularly in those parliaments.

Is Mr. Klein, the Premier of Alberta, less of a democrat -- is he a dictator? -- for the fact that they have used closure in Alberta 15 times in the last 17 months? Is he somehow some ogre, some dictator in Alberta, because his party has used closure in their Legislature? I don't know that any member opposite would make that claim. Is the federal Liberal government dictatorial in terms of using closure at the federal level? I don't think any Canadian would make that statement; nor do I think members opposite would make that statement. It seems to me that there has been an excess of hyperbole with respect to what we are doing right now.

I think the more important question is being overlooked. Our leader said -- and I think it is important to repeat it -- that while we have the opposition decrying the opportunity to ask questions, that same opposition, without even having seen the level of detail in the Nisga'a agreement, went out publicly and said: "We will never, ever agree with the Nisga'a treaty." Not after exhaustive questioning but before they asked any questions, they said: "We will never, ever agree to this treaty."

There have been some inconsistencies in their position. I spoke about that when we had second reading on the Nisga'a treaty. I pointed out that various of their members . . . . The Leader of the Opposition, when he was the mayor of Vancouver, supported the Nisga'a negotiations, which he knew were leading to the Nisga'a treaty. That is a matter of public record. That was the position he took then; he's changed his position. We know that the member for Matsqui took a position, and not only in this House. He's on record in Hansard ; he's on record on the Ben Meisner program in Prince George.

We know that he said that there should not be a referendum with respect to this treaty. We know; that's a matter of public record. We also know that the member for Matsqui said this morning, on Ben Meisner's program: "There has to be a referendum." And they talk about honour; they make speeches about honour.

[1545]

I can go through, as I did in my second reading speech, and recite what I think is an atrocious history in this country. I pointed out in that speech that in 1866 legislators in Canada prohibited land exemption by native Indian people. I can point out, as I did, that in 1872 legislators -- Canadian parliamentarians sitting in a chamber like this -- voted to withdraw the right for aboriginal people to vote. They did that. I can point out many other instances where parliament sat, deliberated and passed legislation which, in all of our views and in hindsight, was appalling, atrocious and, quite frankly, racist.

The issue, in hindsight, was not the time they took to do it; it was what they did. When we look back, we don't say: "Oh, they only took 100 hours to debate withdrawing the right to vote or 50 hours to take away part of their reserves." That's not the issue. The issue is the treaty before us and dealing with aboriginal land claims in British Columbia. It's also, hon. Speaker, with respect . . . . I think I'm now one of the most senior members of this chamber. I have been here, along with some of my other colleagues, longer than many other members of this chamber. Over that 13-1/2 years . . . .

While I do occasionally get loud, I want to say that I have the utmost respect for this House, for this parliament and for the rules by which we conduct our business. I get frustrated by that, but I am also acutely aware that the issues are not fundamentally the rules. The issues are the real issues we're debating.

The Leader of the Opposition said several things that I think . . . . One in particular -- and I think he ought to take his own advice -- was that we ought to rise above the norm. I'll say that we have to rise above petty politics, and I sincerely wish that members of the opposition would heed the advice of their own leader. The other . . . . I think this is an important point, because we are talking about issues of time and rights. The Leader of the Opposition said that this debate started in November; this debate started 111 years ago.

As the MLA for the North Coast, I have known the Nisga'a people since the time of my first election and, subsequently, when the Nass Valley became part of my constituency. I have watched, over 14 years . . . . In fact, I'll go back even further, having done some work in the 1973-75 period with the Nisga'a as well, in terms of setting up their separate school district and those kinds of things. I have known these people personally for 20 or 30 years.

[ Page 11936 ]

The Nisga'a aboriginal leaders have been far more eloquent . . . . We all witnessed the event in the chamber here when we brought the bill before the House -- an event that inspired and really struck awe. The Nisga'a, in the rotunda, in a very moving ceremony -- of which Dr. Calder was a part -- went through this ceremony where they spoke the names of people who had died and who had worked all of their lives to try to advance the Nisga'a cause and the legitimacy of their land claim. I know Joe Gosnell, Ed Wright and Nelson Leeson. I count them as my friends.

I know what they have committed; they have committed their life. They have sacrificed their families and their personal lives. They have committed their lives to arrive at this stage, to get this bill. I would ask the members who are talking about time -- the time to debate the bill -- to also reflect on that issue of time and the time that those people, the Nisga'a people, have put into trying to seek simple justice -- the simple notion that there had to be a land claim agreement with the Nisga'a people because they had never ceded their territory.

[1550]

Surely we have to juxtapose those two issues of time. Surely the narrow view expressed by the Leader of the Opposition -- notwithstanding the fact that this bill has been debated in this House longer than any other bill in the history of this House . . . . Surely some consideration ought to be given by the members opposite to the question of time as it relates to the real lives of the Nisga'a people.

What we're doing -- and I note that . . . . I would hope that with the passage of time, there will be a reflection -- when we pass this legislation, when we conclude this treaty, when we joyously celebrate that event . . . . I would hope that in the future, long after I'm out of this chamber -- and there are new members here -- they will look back and reflect and say, with a sense of pride: "We did the right thing." I talked about the sense of pride that I felt as a member of this chamber, and I want to be able to talk to my grandchildren about that historic role. I wonder why members opposite don't want to have that same opportunity.

Our view, and the general view across the world, has changed dramatically. I want to close by citing two articles. I've been following with a great deal of interest the Globe and Mail 's publication . . . . Because of the end of the millennium, they've been publishing front-page articles from the Globe and Mail going back a number of years. Today's publication was from today's date in 1964.

I recall 1964. It was the year that I was, I think, 19 or something like that -- or 20. I was heading up north for the first time. I guess I was not particularly tuned in to world events, but it struck me . . . . I looked at a story today about the trial of Nelson Mandela, which was taking place in April of 1964 in South Africa. I saw some of the things that Mr. Mandela said at that time, and I understand more and more why he is such a great man on the world stage in terms of what he did. He broke the law to try to achieve justice for people in South Africa, and he did it knowing what he was doing.

I was struck by a view on that same page, which I'm sure nobody in this world would now agree with. But a scant 35 years ago, Garfield Weston, the head of the food chain George Weston Ltd. of Toronto, came back after touring South Africa to tell the British people that apartheid was misunderstood. This is a quote, and I don't say this other than to illustrate that I hope that not too many years will pass before members on the opposite side would reflect on the position they're taking today. Mr.

Weston said at that time -- and this is a terrible quote -- in lauding apartheid and telling about how the black people in South Africa were treated so well: "And believe me, every black pickaninny or black mammy can call on the government for solution to any social problems."

An Hon. Member: How many years ago?

Hon. D. Miller: I cite that, hon. Speaker, because quite often the passage of time allows us to reflect on what we're engaged in. I've made that plea before, and I'll make that plea again. This is probably the most important business that any legislator in this chamber will ever be engaged in -- probably the most important business. And to have it reduced to the pettiness that I've witnessed over the past number of weeks doesn't do us or this chamber any justice.

We are using a device that is used in every parliament of the land. We're not using it in a pre-emptive way. We're using it after the longest number of hours of debate of any bill that's ever been in this chamber. We're using it despite the protestations of the opposition. I've made the point that it's not really about debate; that's not the issue.

Why, then, would the opposition go out before we start a debate and say: "Under no circumstances would we ever agree with this bill"? Why did they proceed to launch a court case? They're being disingenuous.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: The act, I guess, is one . . . . Perhaps they pumped themselves up to do it. They don't do themselves any service by doing it.

If they reflect seriously, I know that some of those members over there actually do have a different opinion; I know that for a fact. I know that they're bound by the Whip that's on with respect to the Liberal caucus, notwithstanding that the Leader of the Opposition said -- in, I thought again, a disingenuous way -- that there would be free votes. If he were the Premier, there would be free votes. There are no free votes on that side of the House. I know that some of those members support this treaty, and I know they're muzzled by the Leader of the Opposition.

I think it's a pretty sad day. I hope there will be some reflection. I hope we move quickly to pass this bill, to get on with it. I know that my constituents want that to happen. I think the public wants that to happen. But most importantly, after 111 years, surely we can achieve that simple objective and do it very quickly.

[1555]

G. Farrell-Collins: I'd like that member who just spoke, when he talks about looking back over history, to go back and look at some of the things he said when he first came to this chamber, to go back and look at some of the comments he made in this House time and time again when he was in opposition, to go back and read himself, and to determine whether or not he's still the same person he was when he got here 13-1/2 years ago. I would hazard a guess that it's not the case.

The minister stands up and gives us a passionate speech about how the Nisga'a people have been seeking justice for 100 years. I didn't hear that minister stand up in February,

[ Page 11937 ]

when the government pulled the plug on this Legislature because he was so incompetent that he couldn't manage the Ferry Corporation. The government had to bail him out and shut down the Legislature. Where was the passion?

On February 1, I looked up to that corner of the chamber in the gallery, and there was Frank Calder, waiting -- as he'd been waiting, like the minister says, for 100 years with the Nisga'a people to pass the Nisga'a treaty. The Government House Leader stood up in this House and said that she was going to shut down the Legislature.

I was waiting, because I had heard the Deputy Premier's speech in second reading. I had heard how passionate he felt about the urgency to pass this treaty. I was waiting for the Deputy Premier to leap to his feet and make exactly the same speech he just made 30 second ago, but he didn't. He refused to, because he doesn't believe what he just said. He doesn't believe it. He knows that the reason the Nisga'a treaty wasn't passed in the fall was because his government had a political agenda around it.

Its agenda was not the urgent agenda they talk of now -- to bring it before the House, to have second reading, then to follow it with committee and have the Nisga'a treaty finished in the fall. Instead, the Deputy Premier sat in the caucus meetings and cabinet meetings with his colleagues and decided to put this treaty on the back burner.

Well, they first spent $2 million, then $3 million, then $5 million and then $7 million on an advertising campaign, focus groups, polling -- all paid by the taxpayer -- because the Premier of British Columbia was so low in the polls that he thought he could use the Nisga'a treaty as a means to resuscitate his political career. That's political opportunism, hon. Speaker; that's crass, petty politics. When they finally did call the House, in December, to debate the Nisga'a treaty . . . .

Five months later, when they finally did call the Legislature to get on with that urgent debate -- to get on with the justice which they say the Nisga'a people are waiting for and have been waiting for for 100 years and which is supposedly encapsulated in this treaty -- we did second reading and we adjourned. It was agreed that we'd come back in January and finish the committee stage -- a little belatedly, I might say, but that was the agreement.

[1600]

Instead, everybody hears on the radio that the Legislature's coming back. Contrary to the agreement to move this through in a timely manner and have it completed, the Premier, because of the desperate nature of his government at that time, decided to call the House earlier and move up the agenda -- different to what he'd agreed upon.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: I see that the Government House Leader doesn't understand the way government business is supposed to move through the Legislature. I understand that. I can't wait for her to engage in the debate and tell us how it is that the government's agenda in the Legislature has been derailed so incredibly badly, has been bungled in such an incompetent way that we're here today invoking the most draconian measure that the people of British Columbia have ever heard about in this Legislature.

That's not the responsibility of members on this side of the House; that's not even the responsibility of the members on that side of the House. That's the sole responsibility of the Government House Leader, who doesn't know how to manage the agenda of this House -- never has and never will.

Let's talk a little bit about what this is like. Let's talk a little bit about what's happening here today. I think it's important that people understand that. Let's talk about what the government is doing here today. The Deputy Premier stood in this House and said that what the government is doing is invoking closure, that it's a procedure that exists in every parliament in a parliamentary democracy and that it's everywhere -- everybody has it and everybody does it. Well, that is simply untrue. That is not what the government's doing. And I hope he knows it, after 13-1/2 years in this Legislature, but perhaps he doesn't.

Let's talk about what the government is actually doing here today. Let's talk a little bit about what closure actually is. Closure is when a debate on some item before the Legislature has reached a point where the government has decided that enough is enough and that it's going to invoke closure, it's going to call the debate and call the vote on the various sections in committee and follow that by a vote on third reading and move the piece of legislation through the House. Sometimes it's been done on second reading.

It's almost never, in this House, been done on committee stage, and it's certainly never been done the way the Deputy Premier says they're intending to do it here today. This isn't closure. There is nothing in the standing orders in the Legislature of British Columbia to deal with what the government is doing today, because it has never happened before.

What the government has done is reach out all the way across the Atlantic Ocean to the House of Commons in Great Britain and pull out a provision that has been used in the House of Commons in Great Britain off and on for the last 100 years. The government will say that it's done all the time. In fact, what the government is doing today is a time allocation motion. When a closure motion comes forward, it's put on the floor of the House, and a member of the government -- usually the Government House Leader -- stands up and moves that the debate be closed and that it be ended.

But that doesn't cause the debate to finish. There are two steps that have to happen. The Speaker or the Chair has to decide whether or not that invocation of closure is an abuse of the House, whether sufficient debate has taken place, whether the issues before the House have been thoroughly canvassed and whether the rights of individuals and the minority are being trampled upon. If the Speaker or the Chair decides . . . .

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: It's pretty pathetic, hon. Speaker, I'd say.

If the Speaker of the House decides that in fact the rights of the minority are being trampled upon or that the debate hasn't proceeded enough, then the Speaker has the right to say no. The Speaker, as the guardian of all members of this House, has the role of making sure that their rights are protected. If the Speaker decides that the rights of the minority are not being trampled upon, he or she may allow that vote on closure to take place. Then if that passes and the House expresses its will . . . . That vote passes, and the question is put, and we pass the

section that we're on at that time in the Legislature -- or second reading or third reading. That's what's supposed to happen.

[1605]

Then, if there's another section, the same thing has to happen on that section. Again the government has to stand up

[ Page 11938 ]

and call closure, and the Speaker has to decide. If he or she decides, then they can allow the vote or not allow the vote. If he or she allows the vote and that vote passes, then there's a vote on that section. At the very least, even if members of the Legislature don't have an opportunity to speak on a particular

section of the bill, as draconian as that might be -- and governments have fallen for doing just that -- at least their constituents have a right to read the record and see how their member voted on those sections. If nothing else, they have a right to see that vote in the record.

That's closure; that's what closure is. As draconian as that is, as bad and heavy-handed and sledgehammerish as that is, this government is going further. It has created a way to go further. It has found a way to be even more dictatorial. It has created a way in British Columbia that has never, ever, ever -- in a hundred and however many years of there being representative democracy in British Columbia, even before Confederation . . . . They've found a different way to go even further -- even more draconian, even more dictatorial. They're invoking time limits. They're invoking something that goes beyond that. They're invoking a guillotine motion.

I know that a guillotine motion has been used in other jurisdictions around the world. If you look around the Commonwealth, if you look at those jurisdictions and you see what they've actually done . . . . If you actually go and look at their order paper and their votes and proceedings and see what they've actually done, it's not what the government intends to do here today. Nobody in the British Commonwealth has ever had the gall to bring forward a motion like the one that's before the Legislature here today -- nobody.

Even if they do it the way they do it -- a guillotine motion -- in the House of Commons in Great Britain, they still clump together the votes, and you still have a chance to vote on a bunch of sections of the bill. You may not have debate, but you have a chance to vote on those sections. You have a chance to see it.

There is not one jurisdiction that I've been able to find -- or that anybody I know has been able to find -- where a motion like the one that was put before this House a couple of days ago exists -- not one. The former Speaker and former Minister of Aboriginal Affairs who is the current Minister of Labour says that it's done all over the Commonwealth. Well, in Great Britain in the House of Commons, when they do the guillotine motions, if you look at their order paper, you can find that in fact the reason they're doing them in the vast majority of the cases is to move legislation through by agreement.

In fact, the government side and the opposition side sit down and look at the time allocations, and they come to an assessment. They set an agenda, and it's agreed upon. It's not controversial. It's not even divided upon; they don't even vote on it. They just agree to do it. It goes on the order paper, and away it goes.

I can find not a single example in the British Commonwealth where the kind of motion that sits on our order paper has ever gone forward -- not one. I challenge anybody to go out and find one that is as draconian and restrictive and dictatorial as the piece of garbage that sits on our order paper in the form of the motion proposed by the Government House Leader. So the government has decided they're going to amend it. Maybe they realize that they had a problem.

Maybe they realize that they were the only group of people in the entire British Commonwealth in 800 years of parliamentary democracy to bring forward that kind of motion and to have the audacity to put it on the order paper. So they've gone and tried to move an amendment.

[1610]

The amendment does some good things, and it does some bad things. The good things are that it actually allows the members of the opposition to vote on seven sections of the bill -- seven sections of a 79-section bill. Well, hon. Speaker, that's nice, and we appreciate that. That's a good move. It's an improvement on what was there before. But in return for that, it takes away another two hours of debate in committee stage that was available to the members on Thursday. The old motion said that this dictatorial, draconian act was going to start to take place -- the guillotine would begin to fall -- at noon on Thursday.

Well, we all know that in the Legislature, we sit from ten to noon on Thursdays. So there were two hours, at least, for the members opposite to attempt to rush through whatever is left in the Nisga'a treaty in committee stage and to try and ask at least some questions on what was left over. But the amendment removes even that. So on the one hand, the government gives; on the other hand, it takes away. They just don't get it, hon. Speaker.

Let's talk about why we're in this situation here today, why the government has arrived at this particular predicament in front of us today. The Nisga'a treaty was introduced in a final form last August. It became public last July or August.

An Hon. Member: August 4.

G. Farrell-Collins: August 4. We could have come back in the fall, and we didn't. We could have come back . . . . We did come back in December to do second reading, and we came back in January. We were two weeks into committee stage, and the government pulled the plug on it. The government pulled the plug because the political heat was getting too much for the Premier to take. The Premier of British Columbia -- one man, one individual -- was getting some political heat. He stuck his tail between his legs, and he ran out of this House and took 75 members with him. The Nisga'a people just had to wait.

We were here in January; we were here in February. We could have been here in March to finish the debate on this, but no -- the government had another agenda. Its agenda was to cover up for the incompetence and the absolute scandal that is seeping from every pore of the government benches. They couldn't be here to answer the questions that were being asked by them, so instead they turned and ran.

I know we're going to hear other speeches from members of the government side today, saying that it's time to get on with it. It's time. The Nisga'a people have waited over 100 years for this treaty, and it's time to pass it. I know they're going to say that. Where were those people -- where were their voices -- in February? Where were their voices on February 1, when their Premier, their leader, pulled the plug on the Legislature and ran from the people of British Columbia? Where were they?

The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, who was in the House a little while ago, was sort of shouting across the chamber about the questions. I heard the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin shouting across that the questions that were being asked were terrible and that it was a waste of time. And I think the former Minister of Aboriginal Affairs had some other disparaging remark to make about the questions that

[ Page 11939 ]

were being asked on this side of the House. Well, hon. Speaker, that's what he says now. Let's look at what they said before.

On Thursday, April 1, the current Minister of Aboriginal Affairs said in response to a question regarding compensation of forest licence holders: "That's a good question." When he was asked the question, he said: "That's a good question." He didn't say: "That's a pathetic question," or "That's a ridiculous question," or "You're wasting time." He said: "That's a good question."

On April 12 -- 11 days later -- he said: "That's a good and complicated question . . . . " And he proceeded to answer it. He went on, and he said: "The questions that the member poses are important questions . . . . " "I think it's been a very productive debate . . . . I appreciate the member opposite for not only some insightful questions but also some good suggestions . . . . " That was not even a week ago -- not even a week ago.

[1615]

Then the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs went on to say: "I'm just trying to make sure we get that specific, because that's an interesting question." "I appreciate the question from the member." "It's an interesting question that the member opposite poses." And he went on: "These are important issues that obviously need to be canvassed further."

That was on Monday. Today's Wednesday. On Monday we had to canvass it further. On Wednesday we have to close the debate down. What happened in the intervening period? Was there another secret caucus meeting of the NDP? Was there another confession session, where the Premier came and told the members of his caucus what really went on with Dimitrios Pilarinos, the hunting knife, the deck and the casino? Was there another secret session of the caucus, where they decided whether or not to use the hunting knife?

Was there another session where the Premier acceded to the caucus's wish that his time was up -- the captain of the ship was going down with the ship and the members of his caucus wanted to throw him off the ship? Did they agree on a time frame? Is that what happened? Is that what happened between Monday and Wednesday? Was it the personal political agenda of the Premier that decided that this debate had to end? Where was it? Where was this transition?

Or maybe the Government House Leader didn't tell the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs on Monday that that afternoon she was going to put an item on the order paper that would close debate. Just before that, on April 2, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs said: "I'm not suggesting for a second that I will not allow a full debate." And he said he wasn't going to use closure. Only days before this draconian motion -- which is worse than closure -- was entered on the order paper, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs was telling British Columbians that he wasn't going to invoke closure. Did the Government House Leader tell the Aboriginal Affairs minister what was happening? I doubt it.

M. de Jong: Don't the leadership contestants share information?

G. Farrell-Collins: The member for Matsqui asks a legitimate question: whether or not the members opposite are sharing that information with each other, whether they know what's going to happen and whether they know if the debate's going forward.

I want to recall for some of the New Democrats what they're doing here today, so that they get a sense of how draconian and how unique it is -- how it's never been done before in the history of this parliament.

The former Minister of Aboriginal Affairs said: "Show me . . . . " I think he said it earlier on, and I apologize to him if I'm misquoting him; I'm trying to paraphrase. "Show me one British Columbian that believes that this has never been done before." Well, I'm one. Let me show this House what happened to another government that tried to invoke closure -- that tried to bring in the heavy-handed gavel, the heavy-handed sledgehammer, of closure -- mindful always that what this government is doing is worse than closure and has never been done before.

I want to go back . . . . The Leader of the Opposition quoted some of this earlier, but I want to quote for this House some of the other items that are in this very powerful essay that was written by Eugene Forsey, who was probably one of the foremost constitutional experts that this country has known. He was somebody, I think, that the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs referred to as "another leftie," although I don't know that he would necessarily be pleased with that. Let me quote from one of his books.

He's talking about the pipeline debate, a debate that brought down a government in the 1950s and banished them to opposition for some period of time. And that was just closure; this is worse. Let me show you what he said: "The bill ought to have been thoroughly debated. But it was not. It was rammed through by the repeated use of closure in circumstances absolutely unprecedented, and by repeated violations of both the letter and the spirit of the rules" -- an important distinction.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'll let the minister have his opportunity to quote the sections that he thinks are important.

Just so people will know, on the pipeline bill, closure was applied only four times -- in committee stage and through the various stages of the bill. What this government intends to do is wrap it all into one and close the debate down on the entire bill virtually all at once.

[1620]

He went on to say: "Parliamentary government is not just a matter of counting heads instead of breaking them. It's also a matter of using them." I think that's an important point. The member for Esquimalt-Metchosin was heard to say in the corridors today: "Why are we having this debate? We know the Liberals are against it and we're in favour of it" -- meaning the New Democrats. "Let's just get on with it. Why bother? We've already decided whose side who's on."

That's not what we do here. What we do here, particularly in committee stage, is not just determine whose side people are on. This isn't one five-year-long election campaign. This isn't a five-year-long slogan. What we do here is important work.

We examine bills and legislation by committee for a couple of reasons. First of all, we examine those bills in detail in committee so we can find out if there are problems in them, if they require amendment, if there's a better way and a simpler way of doing what it is that the government achieves, or whether or not the government knows what it wants to achieve and whether or not what's in the bill is actually going

[ Page 11940 ]

to do that. That's one of the reasons we debate in committee -- not just to find out whether you're for it or against it. We examine it in detail to determine what's in it and whether or not it's going to work. If that wasn't important, then we'd just have second reading, and then we could have a third reading and get on with it. There would be no committee stage. Clause-by-clause debate, clause-by-clause examination, and clause-by-clause evaluation, measurement and voting on sections of a bill is crucial to what we do here.

It's crucial for another reason. Once legislation is passed, inevitably almost all legislation, and certainly this piece of legislation, is going to end up before the courts in one form or another. It's the first modern-day treaty, and you just know it's going to end up before the courts at some time. When the courts try and interpret what's meant by legislation, they often go back and look at the debate that took place while the bill was being examined in committee, to determine what it was that the government meant by certain sections, what it meant by certain clauses. That is important work.

It is important to draw that out from cabinet ministers. It is important to get that debate back and forth so that in the future, people can look at it and understand what was meant and interpret it properly.

But there's probably an even more important reason why we need to debate this bill

section by section, clause by clause, and do it in a thorough and responsible manner. It's because it's the first of 60 modern-day treaties. Fifty or 60 treaties are going to follow this treaty. And those negotiations are going on right now, today, in dozens of locations across the province, in various areas with various groups of people, from the federal government to the provincial government representatives to aboriginal and first nations representatives right across the province. What we find out in this debate in committee stage has an impact on how those other treaties are going to be written.

Because you've got to know, when you're writing 50 or 60 treaties, that chances are -- maybe I'm wrong -- you might not get it perfect the first time. In fact, you might not get it perfect the first 15 times. You might not get it perfect at all or ever.

But does that mean we stop trying? Does that mean the government just signs a treaty, brings it into the House, and that's it -- done? "Are you against it or are you for it? It's all over. Let's go home." That's not what it's about. We are doing the people of British Columbia and future generations, aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike, a service by examining this treaty in detail, by making the questions, by asking the questions, by debating those questions so that people know where this treaty can be improved upon. That's an important job for us to do.

I've sat here and listened to the debate over the last little while. I agree with the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs when he says that it's been a good debate, that good suggestions have been offered, that good questions have been asked and that insightful questions have been asked. I agree with the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs.

[1625]

It's not just about whether we are for or against this treaty. It's also about what's in the treaty. It's also about what it means. It's also about how it's going to affect British Columbia forever, because once this treaty is passed, it will be encased in constitutional concrete. It will be terribly difficult to ever change it, so we had better get it right.

Hon. Speaker, with all due respect, I've sat here for eight years and watched this government pass legislation, and there hasn't been one piece of legislation that they've passed where they've had it perfect -- not one. Hundreds of bills have come through this House that the government has amended, that's it's changed, that it's improved upon. It's not just about a campaign slogan -- whether you're for or against the legislation. It's also about what's in it, and it's about how that debate is going to progress.

Hon. Speaker, I'm going to be speaking longer. I'll be our designated speaker on this, just so you know.

I want to come back to what Eugene Forsey had to say. He said:

"Parliamentary government is not just a matter of counting heads instead of breaking them. It is also a matter of using them. It is government by discussion, not just by majority vote. Parliament is not just a voting place. It is also, pre-eminently, essentially, a talking place, a parlement. 'Parliaments without parliamentary liberty,' said Pym, 'are but a fair and plausible way into bondage. Freedom of debate being once foreclosed, the essence of the liberty of parliament is withal dissolved.' "

Forsey went on to say:

"The immoderate use of closure" -- in the pipeline debate -- "was indeed a double violation of the constitution. The government's four closure motions broke no rules of the House."

I want people to listen to that, because it's important: the closure motions around the pipeline debate broke no rule of the House. But did that make them right? It certainly did not.

"They did something far worse: they violated the spirit which gives life to all our laws and all our rules, the unwritten conventions of moderation, self-restraint, decency, fair play, without which our whole system crumbles into ruins.

"What prevents the Parliament of Canada from getting an amendment to the constitution abolishing French as an official language? No law. What prevents any provincial legislature from prolonging its life indefinitely? No law. What prevents a government defeated in the House from refusing either to resign or go to the people? No law, just those unwritten conventions of the constitution."

"When the government did the same thing to the next two clauses, and then applied closure to all three, and three others as well, they made an almost complete mockery of the whole committee stage. It is hardly necessary to add that that stage is one of the most important stages. [It is] ' . . . the centre of the whole legislative action of the House of Commons.

It is in committee . . . that the fate of a bill is really decided; its ultimate form is there settled in the clash of parties and opinions or by the compromises made between them.' [Fulton says,] ' . . . by custom . . . wide-ranging question and answer are permitted.' 'That,' as Mr. Fleming said, 'is where we have the general discussion. That is where we get information . . . .

If you take away our rights . . . you deny to us and you deny to the Canadian people the opportunity to get that information without which . . . no self-respecting Canadian House of Commons can proceed.' It is in committee that members can ask questions and keep on asking questions till they force the government to admit either that it does not possess the information or will not divulge it."

That's what committee is about. It's not some political agenda -- that the Premier's got an appointment next week in New Aiyansh to deliver the treaty. That's not what committee is about. We don't just have these rules as long as they fit the government; and when they don't like them, they just trample upon them. Never before in British Columbia and never before in the Commonwealth -- in the world -- has the kind

[ Page 11941 ]

of motion that was put on the order paper and is now being attempted to be amended . . . . Never before has that type of motion come before any House. Never before has a government taken the action that this government is trying to take in order to rescue its political hide. If they really believed that this had to be finished tomorrow, then why weren't we here in February? Why weren't we here in March?

[1630]

The logic of their argument fails on that alone. This government will stand up and preach about principles and about how this treaty needs to move forward. They believe that, only so long as it doesn't interfere with their political agenda and only so long as it doesn't damage them to be in the Legislature answering questions. The minute that that becomes uncomfortable, the minute the Premier can't take the heat anymore, then the rules be damned. Eight hundred years of parliamentary democracy be damned. The government is going to do whatever it wants.

It's going to reach a long arm some 8,000 miles over to Great Britain and pull out a procedure that's designed to fit their chamber, their House and their processes, and weld it to British Columbia. It just doesn't fit. It is not a procedure that's required in this Legislature; it never was. And unless we go to some other form of arranging our business in this House, it never will.

We have talked repeatedly in this Legislature about a fixed parliamentary calendar, and the government has absolutely refused to move on it. In some of the other Houses that the government is referring to, where they use this type of motion, they have a fixed parliamentary calendar. Part of the arrangement on that is: we're going to sit on these days, and then we're going to be in our constituencies on these days. The government comes forward with an agenda, and they sit down . . . .

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: The reality is that the members of the government don't even talk to each other. The member opposite should come and talk to the member for Delta South, and she'll learn the truth about that answer.

In other Houses across the Commonwealth, they sit down, they have a fixed parliamentary calendar, and the government comes forward with its agenda. They allocate time to bills and legislation, and they make it work. For some reason, this government has gone out and . . . . Despite the fact that our model doesn't fit, they've taken this guillotine motion and tried to weld it to what we do here in British Columbia. There is a balance to be had. You don't just get in government to decide which rules you like and which rules you don't like, and get to do whatever you want. We know that's the government's philosophy.

The Minister of Forests said that being in government means that you can do anything you want. That's what the Minister of Forests said: "When you're government, you can do anything you want." Their actions today prove that they believe that.

I want to go back to the essay, because there's another quotation that I think is important -- particularly for former Speakers to pay attention to. Mr. Forsey goes on to say: " . . . the Speaker's words seem to imply that if the rules get seriously in the way of doing something the government wants done, no reasonable person can expect the government to follow them or the Speaker to enforce them, at any rate, after a certain point." The rules are there only as long as the government likes them. If they don't like the rules, they change them -- not with any consultation, debate or examination of the rules. If they don't like the rules, they change them.

We know that when the courts tell this government that it's broken the law, all the government does is change the law. That's exactly what they're trying to do here today -- exactly the same thing. Whenever the law becomes inconvenient for the New Democrats, the socialists, they just pull out the dictator's uniform and ram through a new law. Whenever the rules scare this government or don't fit with the Premier's political agenda, whenever he can't intimidate or browbeat or threaten or coerce or hold a gun to the head of somebody -- whether it's in this House or in the forest industry or in volunteer agencies -- he just changes the rules.

[1635]

If he can't get the construction people to agree to a union-only contract, he just threatens them. On the Island Highway, he threatened to take away their contracts to do maintenance. That's how he browbeat and coerced the people in the construction sector of this province to buy into the HCL.

I see the member for North Island laughing, because to him it's all a big joke. He's in government, and he can do whatever he wants. The fact that there are rules or laws . . . . They don't apply to him; they don't apply to the government. They just change the laws. I should ask my colleague the Attorney General critic how many times this government has found itself at the wrong end of the courts and has come back to this Legislature and changed the law -- not only changed it but changed it retroactively. That's exactly the motivation behind what they're doing with this motion and this amendment.

That's exactly what it is, and that's why their actions over the past years are so indicative of the motivation for this resolution.

The government only wants to follow the rules when they work for the government. When they cease to work for the government's agenda, they'll just create new rules. Never before in British Columbia has this type of motion ever come before this Legislature -- not even once. Hon. Speaker, do you know why? Do you know why they didn't just use regular closure, which is in our rule book -- standing order 46? The reason they didn't use closure is because they didn't want to have a vote on each section. It might take a day. It might actually take one more day to have a vote on every section. Gee, hon. Speaker, that's a really good reason to change the rules -- for one day.

They're afraid, or they can't handle it, or they're too tired to sit here and have a debate and to even have recorded votes. They're afraid to do that. If they had used the rules that exist in this book, in our rule book . . . . As draconian as closure can be when it is used improperly on bills that shouldn't have it . . . . As draconian as that is, if they'd used the rules that are in this book, it would have probably taken them about 17 hours to get their bill through. So we'd end up here at 5 o'clock in the morning on Friday, and they would have passed the bill using closure -- using the rules that are here.

That's about how long it would have taken. But that's too much to handle; they just can't handle that. I don't know. Maybe the Premier has got a speech somewhere, or maybe he has to testify somewhere, or maybe he has to meet with some police officers. I don't know where he has to be. Maybe he is meeting with his criminal defence attorney. I don't know. But there is some agenda that is driving this debate. There is some agenda that is driving the time frame here.

[ Page 11942 ]

So I ask the members opposite if they really think that they're doing the right thing. Do they really think that it's necessary to do what they're doing today, with this motion and this amendment, in order to move this forward? If they really think that, then I hope they all get up and speak to it. I hope members get up and speak to it, and I hope they've done their research. I hope they've gone out and tried to find a motion that looks like this. I hope they've gone around the Commonwealth and found a motion that looks like this -- not just a closure motion, because they are done, but a motion like this one.

But they haven't. They don't exist. There is no precedent for what this government is trying to do here -- not just in British Columbia, but no precedent for what they're trying to do in the British Commonwealth in its entirety. That is a disgrace. It's time that these people stood up and did the right thing -- followed the law for once, right or wrong. Whether they like it or not, the laws apply to all British Columbians, and that includes them.

[1640]

I've heard the members opposite say that the reason we have to do this today is because the opposition is threatening to obstruct the bill, that we've gone 116 hours -- the longest we've ever gone on a piece of legislation. It is true; I think it's the longest or second-longest debate that's happened in this House -- maybe the third-longest. But shouldn't it be? Has anybody seen the size of the bill? Has anybody seen the size of the treaty? Does everybody know what's in it? That's it.

Interjections.

G. Farrell-Collins: Actually, that's not all of it. The member is going to pass me more, just so they get a sense. That's what we're debating.

You bet we should spend some time on that! We should be spending a great deal of time on this piece of legislation, and if it takes as long as it takes, as the Government House Leader said, then that's what it should be. We have been moving through this bill in a responsible fashion. We've discovered things. And to be honest, there are some things that we thought were there that we found out weren't there. Isn't that amazing! We all learned something in that debate.

It is valuable because there are lots of questions out there about this treaty. I would think that the Nisga'a people, having waited -- I agree -- way too long for this to happen, would want non-aboriginal British Columbians to have an understanding of the treaty, at least to know why they agree with it or don't agree with. That's what this is about. Because you've got to live together at the end of the day, you should at least understand what the rules are, in order to live together.

So if it takes another week or two weeks, then that's what we should be doing. We should be doing that debate. We could have been finished by now; we could have been finished long before now, if the government had stuck to its agenda. But we didn't. They had problems; they delayed the House; they ran away from the Legislature. Now we're back here. Let's take the time that's required to do this job properly. The people of British Columbia deserve that right; the Nisga'a people deserve that right. The people of this province and our descendants deserve the right to make sure that this treaty is debated in detail, is examined in detail, so that people have a chance to know what's in it.

There's another quote here from Mr. Forsey. There's a couple more, and then I'm pretty much finished with what he has to say. The government seems upset that the opposition would raise questions, would demand accountability, would question the treaty, would probe it -- that somehow we would obstruct the treaty. Well, Mr. Forsey said: " . . . the opposition had threatened obstruction. So it had. It had a perfect right to threaten it, and it had a perfect right to engage in it. There is a widespread impression in Canada that obstruction is something new and vicious. It is neither." And we weren't even obstructing; we were asking legitimate questions.

I want to say one last thing, from Mr. Forsey -- my last quote here. Some of it the Leader of the Opposition mentioned earlier, but I want to read the whole thing into the record because I think it's important. It's insightful; it's indicative of what we're dealing with here today. He says:

"What the pipeline debate revealed, above all, was that the government and the presiding officers alike had simply no understanding of the basic principles of parliamentary government. They had no understanding that it rests on discussion . . . . They had no understanding that parliamentary government rests on the rule of law, that the government must not break the rules any more than any private member, that majorities are not enough, that they must be majorities acting within the rules.

The presiding officers repeatedly and flagrantly broke the rules; the government and its supporters to the last man" -- and I would add last women, to put it in context for today -- "almost invariably sustained them in so doing . . . .

"They had no understanding that parliamentary government rests on unwritten conventions of self-restraint and fair play, that if any one part of it uses all its legal power it can wreck the whole thing. All their conduct showed that.

"They had no understanding of the sacredness of an opposition, of the fact that the decisive difference between parliamentary democracy and 'people's democracy' is the existence of a freely functioning opposition, an opposition with the means of becoming the government, peacefully, decently and in order.

"They had no understanding of the sacredness of the office of Speaker. They saw him transformed from the servant and shield of the House into the creature and tool of the executive, without a syllable of protest, without so much as a sign even of uneasiness. They showed no consciousness of the fact that it is the Speaker's particular duty to protect the rights of the opposition. He must, of course, also protect the rights of the government, notably the right to get a decision after proper debate. But the government's rights are very seldom in danger, because it ordinarily has a majority.

It can look out for itself. The opposition cannot, because it ordinarily has not a majority. That is why it is the Speaker's duty to guard with the utmost care and vigilance even the more technical rights of the minority. Unless he does, the very fabric of free parliamentary institutions is in danger.

[1645]

"Last, but not least, the government and the presiding officers showed no understanding that obstruction is a necessary part of the parliamentary system. They were not even clear about the necessity of a device for ending obstruction when it has performed its function: they thought it was a device for preventing obstruction.

"The other thing that stood out, no less starkly, was the government's total inability to understand, or even believe in, this sense of outrage. They seem to have been genuinely unable to see any reason for it at all; genuinely surprised, puzzled, even hurt, by it."

I wonder if that rings true for any member on the other side of the House -- if any of what Mr. Forsey had to say about a far less draconian measure than what we see here today rings true. I wonder if any of them remember what the role of the opposition is. I wonder if any of them who were there remember what it is. They seem to have forgotten about it.

[ Page 11943 ]

This House -- I have said before, and I will say it again -- does not belong to any one person. More importantly, it doesn't belong to any one man. The Premier of this province has repeatedly used this chamber and this Legislature as his personal plaything. He calls it; he closes it. He yanks it; he tears at it. And it depends on his weekly agenda. It depends on the latest television clip. It depends on the crisis he was dealing with most recently. That is exactly what this Premier has done with this Legislature around this debate. That's exactly what has happened.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Everybody in British Columbia knows it, and the members opposite know it too. The reason they left here in February is because the Premier of the province couldn't manage a thing. It doesn't matter what Crown corporation he had or what policy issue he was dealing with. It doesn't matter whether it's gaming or whether it's B.C. Hydro or B.C. Ferries or whatever you want to call it. He's messed it up, and he doesn't have any answers left anymore. Just campaigning constantly isn't working any more. He's plunging from crisis to crisis, from event to event.

He's having to demand all sorts of creative energies, creative efforts, to try and get his agenda through, because he doesn't know how to do it the right way.

This House doesn't belong to him. I would say to members opposite: your party doesn't belong to him. It's time you stood up to him. It's time you stood up to the Premier of this province and told him that enough is enough. It's not just bad for this Legislature; it's bad for your party, and it's bad for the future of this province.

I want to say one last thing about this, because we are about to do something that is unprecedented. There are other countries in the Commonwealth, and other countries that used to be members of the Commonwealth that perhaps no longer are, where democracy is far more tenuous than it is here. They've been at it far less time than we have here. They have far fewer precedents on which to base their decisions. They're learning how a democracy works, and they're struggling to make it work. If we've got people in this province who would do what they're doing today, imagine what the people in their countries do.

Imagine the abuses that are taken with their parliaments. Imagine what they're going to do with a motion like this one.

[1650]

Imagine what they're going to do when their Premier, or their Prime Minister, gets himself in hot water, whether it's corruption, a violation of human rights or some other problem. You know what? He's going to go and ask his Government House Leader to start looking around to see what he can find. When he's got to get a piece of legislation through his or her parliament that the people of that country have a problem with, you know where he's going to go?

That Government House Leader is going to go off to the library or get on the Internet -- because it's available -- and they're going to look at Canada, that model of parliamentary democracy. They're going to click on British Columbia, and they're going to click on Orders of the Day .

On that order paper is going to be this motion, and they're going to know that it passed. They're going to take it to their House, and they're going to ram through something, whether it's a violation of human rights, some corrupt arrangement to finance a power plant, legislation to remove people's right to vote or legislation that would extend the mandate of a government