Hansard -- Volume 19, Number 13 -- Wednesday, May 10, 2000

2000 Legislative Session: 4th 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, MAY 10, 2000

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 19, Number 13

[ Page 15481 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. G. Mann Brewin: I'm delighted to introduce to the House a group of 24 students from Glenlyon-Norfolk School in my riding of Victoria-Beacon Hill. They are accompanied by the director of the junior girls school, Charles Schneider; their teacher, Mrs. Heather Lapper; and one of the parents, Eloise Spitzer. These 24 girls are all members of their student council, and they are in the House today as representatives of their classes to study the democratic process at this level. Would you please join me in welcoming them all to our assembly today.

Hon. C. McGregor: It's my pleasure to introduce a couple of special visitors today. First, I'd like to re-welcome Steve Thorlakson, who's the mayor of Fort St. John and president of the UBCM -- the Union of B.C. Municipalities. Mr. Thorlakson has been instrumental in working with me and my ministry on an item that we'll be discussing at greater length after introductions today. Mr. Thorlakson is joined by Harriet Permut, a senior policy analyst with UBCM. Would the House please make them welcome.

C. Clark: I want to add a special introduction, along with the Minister for Children and Families, for the school group, which includes my cousin Emily Reid. I hope the House will make her especially welcome today.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Joining us today in the gallery are two good friends of mine from Quesnel, Steve and Carolyn Hilbert. Among other things, Steve Hilbert and I have been canoeing partners for a quarter of a century, going down the rivers of the central interior -- including last weekend, when we spent a delightful day on the Willow River. Even though he is responsible for overturning our canoe last Saturday and dumping me into the waters of the Willow, I bear him no ill will and will probably even go canoeing with him again. I'd ask the House to make them most welcome.

C. Hansen: There are 19 grade 11 students from Point Grey Secondary School that have made the journey across the waters from the continent this morning. They are accompanied by their teacher, Sue Bailey. I hope the House will make them welcome.

D. Streifel: The last time I stood in the House on an occasion like this, the member for Okanagan-Penticton sent me a note and said that my wife Linda deserves an award. I happen to agree. She's here with us again today. Would the House make her welcome, please.

T. Stevenson: In the House today are 20 college-level students in Canadian studies visiting from Western Washington University in Bellingham. They're here to place some emphasis on comparative government, parliamentary procedure and local government. Will the House please make them welcome.

[1410]

Introduction of Bills

LOCAL GOVERNMENT STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2000

Hon. C. McGregor presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Local Government Statutes Amendment Act, 2000.

Hon. C. McGregor: I move the bill be introduced and read for a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. McGregor: I'm pleased to present the Local Government Statutes Amendment Act, 2000. It was three years ago that this government made a commitment to recognize local government as an independent, responsible level of government through a protocol of recognition. Bill 14 is a part of our ongoing Municipal Act reform initiative, which is designed to modernize our system of local government to make it meet the needs of councils and communities across British Columbia. This bill substantially completes the legislative plan that the UBCM and the provincial government created.

Its key features are to give local government more autonomy and flexibility while ensuring that citizens are provided with appropriate opportunities to participate in local decision-making.

Specifically, Bill 14 includes changes such as amendments to provide more flexible land use planning models for local governments while enhancing public consultation. It enhances accountability measures for improvement districts, consolidates and clarifies the counterpetition process and changes the name of the Municipal Act to the Local Government Act. In addition, it includes significant changes for regional districts by providing broad service powers and regulatory powers.

It creates opportunities for greater flexibility in entering into service arrangements between member municipalities in electoral areas, based on local needs. It also enables dispute resolution among service partners. Another component of the bill amends the Islands Trust Act to encourage the retention of natural area values on private lands within the trust area, by linking a commitment to maintain significant natural areas to reduced property taxes.

I am very pleased that president Thorlakson has joined us in the House today for the introduction of this important legislation. I wish to thank him again and the UBCM executive, their staff and the many citizens who have participated in the important process of consultation on Municipal Act reform. Their efforts have made this legislation a model for modern governance.

Bill 14 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

PUBLIC SCHOOL PARENT AND

VOLUNTEER PROTECTION ACT

G. Campbell presented a bill intituled Public School Parent and Volunteer Protection Act.

G. Campbell: We all know that parental involvement is a critical ingredient to the education of any young person. It's

[ Page 15482 ]

important that we send a message to parents across the province that they are invited to be part of the public school system. We know that when parents are involved, children do better in school; they achieve higher results. We know that their behaviours are different. Their attitudes about the public education system generally and education are improved. It is important to note that parental involvement is a critical ingredient to making sure that our children have the education that they deserve.

This bill amends the School Act to state that a parent of a student attending school is entitled to provide volunteer services at the school, provided that those volunteer services will not result in the displacement of existing staff. The bill does not affect the role of existing support staff or in any way undermine the services that they provide. Rather, it guarantees the rights of parents as volunteers to participate in the public education and that those rights are fully protected. Our children are our future. Our obligation to them is to be sure that they get the best education possible.

[1415]

On behalf of students, parents, teachers, administrators and educators across British Columbia, I urge all members of the House to join me in passing this crucial legislation. I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

Bill M202 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

PROVINCIAL FORENSIC

PSYCHIATRIC SERVICES

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, the Chief Judge of the Provincial Court says that criminals are regularly being released into the community without psychiatric assessment. He says that judges have been warning the provincial government about this problem for ten years, and "it just seems to be getting worse." My question is to the Premier. If he and his government have known about this problem for ten years, why does it keep getting worse?

Hon. A. Petter: I have met with the Chief Judge and spoken with him since becoming Attorney General. In the course of those discussions, this issue was not raised. However, I have gone back and found that the issue was raised by the Chief Judge in 1997 on behalf of the judiciary. At that time there was a response from government to the Chief Judge, outlining some very substantial measures that were taken in response to the concerns he raised. An additional $3 million was added for incremental operating costs with respect to the forensic psychiatric services division.

A further $650,000 was added for incremental costs to retain 45 beds at Riverview, and the ministry also provided $500,000 to enhance response time for court assessments.

Again, notwithstanding times of restraint, resources have been added. Last year an additional $2.1 million was allocated to hire 30 liaison officers to assist in the coordination of forensic services.

So the short answer is yes, this has been a concern. It's a concern that has been addressed and has been communicated back to the Chief Judge. There are never enough resources to deal with all of the pressures in the system. But I can tell the Leader of the Opposition that those requests that are mandated through the Criminal Code are responded to within the mandated time. For those that are sought by defence counsel outside of the Criminal Code mandate, efforts are made to respond in a timely way. But the pressures are great, and government is adding resources because of that. Never will the resources be adequate to meet all of the pressures, but certainly the commitment has been there.

The Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition with a supplemental.

G. Campbell: Obviously the commitment has not been sufficient. The Chief Judge has told the government and has told the public that the matter continues to get worse. This surely cannot simply be a problem of resources, when you look at where this government has allocated its resources over the last few years. We need to be sure, and the public needs to be sure, that the appropriate resources are there both to provide for assessments and to provide for the proper psychiatric beds to make sure that this kind of activity is in fact improving, not getting worse.

For ten years we've been told, the Premier was told and the government has been told that this problem has been there; it has been getting worse. I would like to know from the Premier today what it is that he intends to do to ensure that the actions are taken -- not the words spoken, but the actions taken -- to help mitigate this problem for the future.

Hon. A. Petter: Too often, unfortunately, hon. Speaker, the follow-up questions indicate a disregard for the previous answer.

Actions have been taken, and actions continue to be taken in respect of the pressures within our court system. I think it's a little hard to take from the Leader of the Opposition, who talks continually about the need to cut costs of government and to engage in large tax cuts -- about the need to add services . . . . But the record here is quite clear. The record here is that this government has responded to the concerns raised by the Chief Judge and others. I don't want to pretend that the response is ever enough to meet all of the pressures.

The sad fact is that we have a large number of offenders in the system who suffer from mental disorders. But the resources have been increased to meet the needs as best we can, and we will continue to try to meet those needs going forward.

[1420]

G. Plant: The Attorney General talks about the action that the government claims it has taken. But the fact is that the problem is not remaining the same; it's not as though we are making progress. The evidence is that the problem is getting worse.

The Attorney General referred to conversations and communications with the Chief Judge of the Provincial Court. My understanding is that there was in fact correspondence between the Chief Judge and senior officials in the Ministry of Attorney General as far back as 1997 dealing with this problem and that the Attorney General has copies of this correspondence. I would ask if he will agree to table those docu-

[ Page 15483 ]

ments in the Legislature this afternoon in order that we can ensure that the public is properly informed of the extent of the problem.

Hon. A. Petter: In fact, the most recent correspondence on this particular matter, hon. Speaker, was in 1997, when the issue was raised and a response was provided to the Chief Judge, which outlined the steps that were taken. I'd be happy to table that correspondence for the benefit of the member.

It does demonstrate that very specific action was taken, resources were added to the system and an invitation was provided to the Chief Judge to continue to work on these issues. And we will continue to work on them. This is an issue in which I think -- I hope -- no party is trying to seek political gain. It is an issue in which we need to work on to try to provide the resources necessary.

The report I received from my ministry to date suggests that the resources are there when forensic reports are required pursuant to Criminal Code provisions. When they are sought by defence counsel on a less formal basis, then it's a matter of prioritizing resources and trying to deliver those resources in a way that meets the demands and the needs. Those are tough calls, but we've added resources to enable that to happen, and we will continue to try to meet those pressures.

The Speaker: The member for Richmond-Steveston has a supplemental.

G. Plant: But the orders and the decisions are being made by judges, and yet the resources are not in place to provide the reports in a timely way. So the question is: what has the government done? Maybe the government took action in 1997, and maybe the government has done nothing since 1997. The problem isn't getting better; it's not even as though the government is maintaining the status quo. The problem, we are told, is getting worse.

I also understand that the Attorney General is committed to conducting some sort of internal review or investigation into this matter. Knowing that something's going to happen inside the ministry is a step, but it's certainly not far enough.

Will the Attorney General commit to ensure that the work product of this review that he has committed to undertake and all of the supporting documents are in fact made public and that the review will be conducted in a timely way, so that the public interest -- the public interest in knowing whether the system of justice is doing its job -- is satisfied by openness and accountability?

Hon. A. Petter: I'm not sure what review the member is referring to. But I have certainly reviewed the matter myself, and I'm quite happy to report to him right now.

The letter that was sent to the Chief Judge in 1997 very clearly indicates -- and I'll quote from it -- what action was taken. Let me read from the letter from the deputy minister to the Chief Judge:

"As a consequence of this, the Ministry of Health committed resources in 1997-98 for the following program enhancements: (1) the opening of the new institute in April 1997, with a capacity of 180 beds -- the incremental operating costs are $3 million; (2) the retention of the 18 cottages at Riverview will allow for the full use of the remand ward of 45 beds -- the incremental cost is approximately $650,000; (3) additional psychiatric sessions, equating to 3.25 FTEs annualized, to facilitate an enhanced response time for assessments -- incremental cost approximately $500,000."

Furthermore, it is not correct to say that further resources have not been added since then. Last year the ministry increased services again. An additional $2.1 million was allocated to hire 30 liaison officers to assist in the coordination of forensic services. So there is the evidence; there is the demonstration. Action was taken in '97; action has been taken since. Despite the continued pressure from the opposition and others to cut government services, government services have been increased in this regard.

[1425]

The Speaker: The hon. member for Richmond-Steveston with a further supplemental question.

G. Plant: My question for the Attorney General is this: is Chief Judge Metzger right or wrong? The Chief Judge of the Provincial Court says that the problem is getting worse. The minister talks about the money that's being spent. The problem is getting worse. What is the Attorney's view on this? Is the problem -- the shortage of facilities and resources, the inability to deliver timely psychiatric assessment reports -- getting worse or getting better?

Hon. A. Petter: One point that the Chief Judge did make yesterday, which I think is something we should all keep in mind, is that we should not use these kinds of issues to try to pursue political gain in respect of court matters.

The fact is that the Chief Judge has a concern, which I think we all need to take seriously, about the increased presence in the court system of those who have mental illness and the need to deal with the pressure that places upon the court system. What is undeniable, however, is that this government has responded to that pressure by adding resources. The last time the Chief Judge raised this matter with the government, to my knowledge, a response was provided that showed that such resources were being provided. And even since then, resources have been provided again.

That seems to me to speak very loudly to the concern that this government has for the concerns of the Chief Judge and this government's share.

OUT-OF-PROVINCE

MEDICAL INSURANCE COVERAGE

J. Weisgerber: My question is for the Minister of Health. British Columbians travelling outside of this country routinely purchase additional medical insurance coverage. But very, very few British Columbians or Canadians believe it's necessary to purchase additional coverage for travel within Canada.

Very recently a constituent of mine had the misfortune to have a heart attack in the Yukon. He was taken to the Whitehorse General Hospital and then sent by air ambulance to Vancouver. He's since received a bill for $12,000 for the ambulance. Neither B.C. Medical nor Yukon Health will give him any assistance with that bill; they have in fact reinforced that the bill is his responsibility. Does the minister believe that a British Columbian travelling outside of this province should pay $12,000 to be flown back to Vancouver for treatment of a heart attack?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for his question, and I will take the question on notice, look into it and get back with a thorough explanation as to what's happened and any options that are available to us in terms of dealing with the case.

[ Page 15484 ]

The Speaker: The hon. member for Peace River South has a supplemental question.

J. Weisgerber: I'd like to try a new question with the minister.

The Speaker: Yes, it would be a new question.

J. Weisgerber: Listening to Allan Rock and listening to the government side of this House talk about health care and the Canada Health Act would cause one to believe that you could travel within this country without having to worry about purchasing health care coverage.

In a letter to me dated May 8, the ministry stated two things: "Any B.C. resident who has the misfortune to become ill or involved in an accident outside of the province and require ambulance transport should not expect any assistance." The letter goes on to say -- and this is a direct quote from the May 8 letter: "The purchase of out-of-province medical insurance coverage is recommended to all British Columbia residents who travel outside of our province for any reason." Does the minister believe that people travelling to Alberta for a weekend should stop at their travel agent's and pick up medical insurance before making the trip?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I'll resist the temptation to comment on Bill 11. But I will say that the member raises a very important point, and it is one that I have raised with Minister Rock and will raise again with Minister Rock, in terms of where we go in health care in this country, in the debate that is currently taking place. And that is: how do we deal with, for example, the issue around rural and northern communities not just here in British Columbia but in the provinces and territories right across the country?

We need to have a national strategy and approach to dealing with issues such as transportation and the ability to Medivac people where required, so that we can look at what is covered by the Canada Health Act and ensure that there's not a financial inconvenience for the people not only of this province but of the country.

I have raised the issue with Minister Rock, and I will be raising the issue with him again. It is very much an important part of what we're trying to do in addressing the pressures facing medicare.

[1430]

The Speaker: The hon. member for Peace River South has another question.

J. Weisgerber: The members across the way apparently have short memories. I heard a little titter of laughter at the reference to Alberta. Members might recall that two years ago, my friend from Peace River North raised the issue of an Alberta resident in Fort St. John who had the misfortune to have an accident and be required to fly to Edmonton for treatment. That lady received a $6,000 invoice for air transport. And guess what. Alberta picked up the tab for their citizen injured in British Columbia and flown to Edmonton.

Will the minister commit today to do as good as Ralph Klein and the Albertans do for their citizens and pay my constituent the $12,000 it cost him to get flown to Vancouver for health care?

The Speaker: Members, question period is over. I will ask the minister to give a very brief answer.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I've told the hon. member that I will look into the specific case. I have also told the hon. member that in terms of an overall strategy of how we deal with issues such as transportation in northern and rural communities not only in this province but in other provinces and territories, I have raised that with Minister Rock and will continue to raise that.

On a final note, hon. Speaker, I will stack up our health care system against Alberta's any day of the week.

The Speaker: The bell ends question period.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Tabling Documents

Hon. A. Petter: I seek leave to table a letter that was sent to Chief Judge Metzger on August 1, 1997, from the then deputy minister in the Ministry of Attorney General.

Leave granted.

Hon. J. Doyle: I ask leave to present reports.

Leave granted.

Hon. J. Doyle: I rise to table the annual report of Forest Renewal B.C. for the year 1998-99 and also the annual report of the Forest Practices Board for 1999.

Orders of the Day

Hon. D. Lovick: In the Douglas Fir Committee Room, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we shall be discussing and debating the estimates of the Ministry of Attorney General. In this chamber, I call second reading on Bill 10.

[1435]

McLEOD LAKE INDIAN BAND

TREATY No. 8 ADHESION

AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ACT

(second

reading)

Hon. D. Lovick: I rise today to move second reading of the McLeod Lake Indian Band Treaty No. 8 Adhesion and Settlement Agreement Act. That's rather a mouthful, and perhaps I ought to begin by simply explaining that title. The agreement settles a lawsuit by allowing the band to adhere to Treaty 8, the 100-year-old treaty from which the band members had hitherto been excluded. This agreement was ratified by the band, by British Columbia and by Canada and became effective on March 27, 2000.

The legislation we're introducing today is required to assist the province in implementing certain obligations which are set out in the agreement. In other words, the legislation is the mechanism for implementation in support of the agreement.

Treaty No. 8 is a historic treaty. It focuses on a land and monetary settlement. It is quite different from modern-day

[ Page 15485 ]

treaties such as the Nisga'a treaty or what was sketched out in the Sechelt agreement-in-principle. This adhesion settlement agreement includes a number of key elements that we believe will create a positive and stable climate for investment not only for the McLeod Lake Indian band but also for surrounding communities and for the forest sector.

Let me sketch out very briefly, if I might, the basic terms of the agreement. First, the terms include the transfer of approximately 19,180 hectares of Crown land from the province of B.C. to be held by Canada as reserve land. Note that it's an adhesion to an existing treaty and therefore reserve land. As stated in Treaty 8, eligible members of the McLeod Lake Indian band have an option, however. They have the option to select either 128 acres of reserve land or 160 acres -- a quarter

section -- of land in severalty, which would be held in fee simple. The band's reserve land entitlement will be reduced by 128 acres for each member who elects to receive land in severalty.

The surveying of lands intended for reserve use will begin this summer. The transfer of these lands will take place over three years. The band will receive $11.65 million from Canada to cover specified treaty benefits and negotiation costs. British Columbia will contribute $1 million for negotiation costs. British Columbia will also provide an estimated $25 million for stumpage fees on Crown lands that will become reserve lands. This payment is for stumpage fees, I should point out, that have been collected by the province since October 1995.

At that time, the lands were under injunction, and British Columbia was required to harvest trees due to a beetle infestation. Accordingly then, we are simply making payment for those lands, which were subsequently determined to be part of the McLeod Lake Indian band's territory.

I want to say something briefly about consultation, if I may. During negotiation of this agreement -- albeit we're talking about a 100-year-old treaty -- the province consulted with local government, with stakeholders and with communities -- a very significant consultation process. The band itself, moreover, carried out extensive consultation with other first nations, chambers of commerce, local clubs, industry representatives, trade unions and trappers. Local communities, forest companies and the band have expressed support for this agreement, because it provides land use certainty and economic stability for the region.

[1440]

I had the pleasure of attending the signing ceremony in McLeod Lake a week or so ago, and one of the things that was absolutely evident to anybody with eyes to see was the tremendous amount of support within the community for the agreement. I think that speaks very well of the consultation process.

I want to talk ever so briefly about the legislation part of the implementation. What exactly does the legislation do? As previously noted, the legislation before us today is part of the implementation of the agreement. The McLeod Lake Indian Band Treaty No. 8 Adhesion and Settlement Agreement Act is required to enable the province to fulfil its commitments in this agreement. It's an agreement that has been some 16 years in the making.

Specifically, the act does the following things. First, it authorizes cabinet to empower any ministry or provincial organization to deliver on its obligations under this agreement. Second, it authorizes ministers to implement the terms of the agreement. Next, it removes interests from provincial Crown land, which will become McLeod Lake Indian band reserve land. Next, it ensures that forestry operators continue to be responsible for cleanup and reparations to the land.

Next, it authorizes the province to enter into agreements with forestry operators and the McLeod Lake Indian band so that responsibility for fulfilment of standing silviculture obligations may be assumed by the McLeod Lake Indian band. Next, it next removes the obligation to deactivate forest roads, if the band wishes to retain the roads. Finally, it allows for the severalty lands to be conveyed by Crown grant, with the proviso that federal approval must be given for the lands to be alienated by the landholder.

I just conclude by offering a few observations, Mr. Speaker, obviously reserving my right to speak at greater length, perhaps at the end of the debate, in the event that there are issues raised that I feel I must respond to.

McLeod Lake treaty adhesion is an important part of our government's broad efforts to resolve outstanding claims and issues with first nations. This one is certainly unique, because as I say, it is an old treaty, and we're simply repairing a mistake that was made for reasons that are shrouded in some mystery, I think, as to why McLeod Lake Indian band was excluded in the first place. Bluntly put, McLeod Lake Indian band should have been part of the original Treaty No. 8; It wasn't. After some considerable time and struggle on the part of the band, we are finally at the point where we're repairing that historical wrong, and I for one think that's very good news.

The agreement and the legislation before us today, it seems to me, demonstrate very well that British Columbia does, indeed, have the ability to resolve outstanding claims and thereby achieve land use certainty in this province. Ultimately, of course, that's what the process of resolving land claims is. Of course it's about justice and about legal obligations, but one of the main drivers is also the fact that we believe -- and we think all the evidence supports the conclusion -- that resolving the issue of uncertainty hanging over the land base is absolutely crucial, absolutely essential, for the economic health of this province.

The McLeod Lake agreement, I think, is proof -- lest anybody still wants some -- that negotiation is still the preferable option. It's better than litigation, it's better than direct action and confrontation, and it ultimately will be productive of a solution that will be for the good of us all. Certainly I think the McLeod Indian Band Treaty No. 8 Adhesion and Settlement Agreement Act is a marvellous illustration of that very theme. That's why I'm extremely honoured today to move second reading of this bill.

[1445]

The band, the chief and the 387 members of the band have shown a lot of patience. It's taken a long time, and in fact it may have taken three or four years longer than it should have. We can explore that a little bit later. It's an interesting history, one that goes back over 100 years now to 1899 -- the

[ Page 15486 ]

signing, the execution of Treaty 8 and, as the minister points out, the exclusion, by virtue of whatever means that occurred, of the McLeod Lake band. Governments at both levels, federal and provincial, never got around to making the adhesion that this legislation gives effect to.

Of course, that had significant implications for the band. Their access to traditional lands was restricted, but they never got the compensation -- either land or money, the currency of the day -- that other bands who were signatories to Treaty 8 were provided with. They were placed, I think it is fair to say, at a dramatic disadvantage vis-à-vis not just all other Canadians but other aboriginal people in the area.

They tried. Not unlike many aboriginal groups seeking justice, they tried for years and years, through the sixties, seventies . . . . I think it was in the eighties when attempts to elicit the interests of federal and provincial governments to address the adhesion issue were unsuccessful. In '86 they resorted to the courts, after governments had repeatedly said no, and -- I think also of historical significance -- obtained the injunctive relief that the minister has alluded to, in terms of lands that they claim to be traditional territory and lands to which they believe they were entitled, pursuant to the terms of Treaty 8.

Well, you had the negotiations that gave rise to today's agreement and today's bill. I thought to myself, as I was thinking about those negotiations and how to describe what this deal was about, that I might resort to the words of the individual who I think has acted for the McLeod band since the litigation commenced, Mr. Andrew Schuck. We actually had an opportunity to hear from him when he addressed the select standing committee around Nisga'a back in December of 1996. It was an interesting presentation he made, and he summarized, I think fairly accurately, what those negotiations were about when he said:

[1450]

"To understand the claim, let me tell you what it's not about. The claim is not about self-government; it is not about a separate justice system; it is not about a separate educational system; it is not about seeking title to the northern half of the province, lock, stock and barrel; it is not about the comanagement of resources; it is not a claim for a percentage of fish, moose or beaver.

It's simply a claim to adhere to the treaty and to receive the benefits that we" -- meaning non-aboriginal Canadians -- "promised them when we extinguished their aboriginal title: 128 acres per band member -- in my client's case, 500,000 acres; and a cash component of $10 million, which is paid for exclusively by Canada pursuant to existing policy. And finality, of course, is achieved."

That's as accurate a

summary of what these negotiations were about as I can think of, Mr. Speaker.

There are two things I want to say that derive out of what lawyer Schuck said and also our visit to Mackenzie as a legislative committee. The minister referred to it briefly, and that is that one could not help but be impressed, even in 1996, with the level of local support that existed around what was then an interim agreement, or what people hoped and thought was an interim agreement.

It speaks well, I think, of the efforts the parties made. But I have to say in particular, based on the submissions we received and one's discussion with the mayor and council . . . . I think the acting mayor of the day made submissions in Mackenzie. Members of the chamber of commerce . . . . The chamber had a task force that we heard submissions from.

One had to be impressed by the efforts made by the McLeod Lake band to involve members of the community around Mackenzie and to keep them informed on really quite difficult negotiations and land selection that impacted on the downtown area of Mackenzie, as I understand it -- though I confess I'm not an expert on the streets and roadways within Mackenzie.

You couldn't help but be impressed by the efforts that had been taken and the results that had been achieved and the commentary from local officials and local people that no, they weren't 100 percent satisfied, but there was a recognition of the effort that had been made to involve them and keep them informed. And at the end of the day, they were hopeful that the agreement could be ratified and that all parties could get on with their lives and make use of the lands that were, at that time, tied up via the courts.

But there was another feeling that one got in December 1996 -- actually February 1997, when we were in Mackenzie -- and that is the frustration relating to a delay. I guess you could say, Mr. Speaker, that there's no real point in spending a lot of time considering that, but three years passed. At the time we were in Mackenzie, the band was returning to court.

I guess the question could be asked of the government: what changed? What changed between the early part of 1997 and 2000, when this deal was finally initialled? It took a threat to go back to court -- in fact, I think litigation was resumed -- to get sign-off. And I have to say -- and I think the Hansard from the submissions we heard will bear this out -- that the blame was laid squarely on the shoulders of the provincial government -- not my accusation, but the submission that we were given in December 1996 by lawyer Schuck. And when we went to Mackenzie, there was a similar accusation.

I guess the government could say: "Well, it's largely a moot point. Let us celebrate the achievement of a deal now and get on with it." But I note that in the agreement that was signed, British Columbia is contributing $1 million towards McLeod Lake's legal fees. I think one can ask: how much additional cost accrued in the intervening three years?

Maybe it's not a relevant point if the delay resulted in significant changes to what was then an interim agreement. But that's not my information. My information is that the interim arrangement that existed back in 1996 is essentially what we are dealing with today. Insofar as the taxpayers of British Columbia are being asked to contribute to the legal costs associated with securing this deal, I think it is relevant to at least pose the question to the government: how much of that was accrued during the intervening three-year delay? And what was achieved as a result of that delay?

[1455]

I want to talk, perhaps more importantly, about some of the features of the deal -- not all of them, but a few of them. I think it is fair to say that land claims negotiations in British Columbia have, to a certain extent, hit an impasse. I know the government doesn't like to refer to it in those terms; they would rather like to focus on progress, where they can point to it.

[ Page 15487 ]

But the fact of the matter is that the days when ministers were predicting final agreements and significant progress are over. The minister, in our recent estimates exchange, I think, offered very, very cautious predictions -- very conservative predictions -- about what might take place in terms of achieving settlements. In fact, he can correct me, but I don't think he predicted the achievement of a final agreement over the next year -- some talk of some cash-land settlements, perhaps a couple of interim agreements-in-principle. We're not even talking about any final agreements within the Treaty Commission process, Mr. Speaker.

I contrast that with what has happened here in McLeod Lake, and I also point out that, of course, McLeod Lake had an option. They could have opted for negotiating a comprehensive land claim agreement, but they chose not to. In so doing, I guess you could say that they, for the moment at least, have forgone the opportunity to negotiate some of the things that lawyer Schuck referred to in his submission.

But maybe we have to look at this agreement with an eye to learning something about how these negotiations were conducted. Maybe there's a lesson. What is that choice they have made resulted in for them and for their neighbours in the Mackenzie area? So what about some of the features of the deal?

It won't surprise the minister. I think I should do this as well. I should acknowledge that besides ministry officials who offered a briefing on the deal, the member for Peace River South has doggedly pursued questioning of the government over the last eight or nine years and was involved in a fairly direct way as the first Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. The exchange that has taken place in estimates debates and in this House over the past number of years between the member for Peace River South and various Ministers of Aboriginal Affairs is helpful in tracking just where this discussion and debate has gone.

One can't help but note that we are today celebrating the achievement of a deal and adhesion to Treaty 8 that, I would say, is every bit as significant to the 387 members of that band as the achievement of the Nisga'a deal was for the members of that community. This is a very significant development for them -- one that they have worked towards for a long, long time.

[1500]

When you look at the provisions of that agreement that deal with certainty and finality and at the language that is used, you have to make the observation, as it has been made in the past, that those words that we are told represent an absolute obstacle to progress and settlement -- that is, "cede, release and surrender" -- are the words that are adopted here to ensure that this represents a lasting, final and certain agreement.

One can draw the distinction, as I'm sure members of the government will, that this was an adhesion to an older treaty. But repeatedly we are told that that is a non-starter for negotiating with first nations people in British Columbia. Well, apparently not. Apparently, in this case, that's not the case. These are first nations people in British Columbia, and they had a choice. They had a choice about whether or not they wanted to opt for a comprehensive land claims agreement within the Treaty Commission process or whether they wanted to adhere. That is point one with respect to that issue.

I have to say that it's not altogether an academic point, in light of what the minister has said most recently about the discussions that are taking place within the Treaty Commission process around certainty language. It seems that we're back discussing that -- that the government's preferred position, as I understand it, is that now the language utilized in the Nisga'a settlement model is satisfactory and achieves the notions of certainty and finality that it is looking for . . . . That apparently is not something that first nations across the province are entirely satisfied with. So we're back discussing that issue.

We should be mindful, I think . . . . I don't want to overstate this, but at a time when we are celebrating very few successes, the one we are celebrating adopts that old and -- we are told by others -- outdated language. I wanted to make a point of reminding members of that.

Land transfer was made, I think, somewhat easier . . . . Well, quantum of land was made somewhat easier by virtue of the fact that we had a formula we were working with; undoubtedly, that assisted. It didn't make land selection any easier, and I think I've already said we should respect the abilities of those who undertook that process. There are some unresolved issues around land selection that I'll draw to the minister's attention. I'm certain that he's aware of them, but we'll have some questions about that.

I want to focus, for a moment, on the provisions of the agreement that deal with lands and severalty. I don't by any means profess to be an expert on this, and I'm appreciative of the information the ministry staff were able to provide. My understanding is that this is a concept and notion within Treaty 8 that has historically involved a choice -- as it does today, quite honestly, for members of the band. It involves a choice in how they are to individually or collectively receive treaty benefits.

Historically, it was quite a dramatic choice, insofar as those who opted for lands in severalty back in 1899, in another century, achieved that but gave up some things -- essentially their right to be a member of the band and the benefits that flowed to the band, whatever they were. The trade-off was through enfranchisement; they acquired the right to vote. It was a very, very dramatic and significant decision that individuals were required to make.

One of the issues we'll want to explore when we get into committee is how those individuals . . . . I understand it's about 30, and I also understand that the cut-off date for when that decision can be made has already passed as at December 31, 1999. Those 30 individuals who have chosen to exercise that option -- what is their relationship with the band going to be? I am advised that they will remain native aboriginal persons within the meaning of the Indian Act. The question relates to their relationship with the band. I think the documentation I've seen and the agreement itself are largely silent on that matter.

[1505]

Another facet of that which interests me and that we'll want to explore with the minister relates to the manner in which that transfer takes place -- 160 acres in fee simple. I will tell the minister now that I'm more than curious and perhaps a little troubled that the land is transferred subject to a fairly significant caveat, which is the right those individuals have who take that land to alienate . . . . I always wonder about that word alienate; I think that means sell. The right they have to sell that land is subject to approval by the federal government. That puzzles me. When I read that, it strikes me as being the height of paternalism. I had hoped and thought that if there

[ Page 15488 ]

was a feature of these settlements that we had moved beyond, it was the notion that when individuals take title and land in fee simple, they shouldn't have government looking over their shoulder exercising a veto over their right to sell or otherwise deal with that land.

That is a feature of Treaty 8 that is preserved and in fact emphasized in this agreement. Maybe the minister, during the committee-level debate, is going to say that it is there at the insistence of the band and its members. I suppose that represents something of an answer to the question, but I have a difficult time believing that. I have a difficult time understanding why anyone in any band would want to remain tied and have that degree of paternalism continue to operate in a way that I think can only complicate their lives in the long run.

We'll want to explore that. There are concerns. I don't want to overdramatize it. I am advised from consultations with people in Mackenzie and the areas -- some of the guide-outfitters, some of the licence holders -- about the process by which these lands in severalty will be selected. I understand that it is not an issue that has been resolved at this point, that there are negotiations which will take place on an individual basis that will extend into the future.

I guess one of the other features of this that crops up, as well, is the ability that adult members of the band . . . . I guess we're talking now about the 30 who have chosen to take advantage of the option versus those who haven't. For the 357 members of the band who have chosen not to exercise their option, what ability do they have to contract out of that option on behalf of infant children? That, I'm told as well, is something that is not entirely resolved, or if it is, it wasn't explained to me in a way that suggests that it was entirely resolved.

Of course, there is interest in whether or not there is going to be a claim in the future for many of the descendants of these people, living or not living at the present time, to exercise the option that is available now to adult members of the band. Those are issues that we will want to explore in the committee level of debate.

I understand that in Bear Lake and Mackenzie Lake there is an expectation that before there is finalization, there will be servicing agreements between the band and those two local jurisdictions for lands that are located within their boundaries. Those discussions are ongoing as well, so there is some negotiating to be done yet.

[T. Stevenson in the chair.]

There is the question of valuation of the stumpage. I had hoped the minister would have mentioned this, and he may later or during the committee level. We are told that the price tag on that matter could be as high as an additional $18 million. I understand that $25 million has already been paid. If I have those figures wrong, the minister will correct me. But there is $25 million, plus an additional $18 million that is owed, relating to past stumpage. These are not insignificant amounts of money, and we will seek to verify what those amounts are.

[1510]

The question of mineral rights. As I understand it, mineral rights to the majority of the lands remain vested in the provincial Crown, though there is an agreement to split revenues 50-50, the difficulty there being . . . . I am told that there is the ongoing discussion around the definition of what con- stitutes revenue. I am not certain what the dispute or discrepancy or debate relates to, but here again is apparently an area where some ongoing discussions are required.

Lastly, what I want to alert the government to is the concern that has been articulated by some of the small tenure and licensee holders -- that their interests may be impacted by the transfer of some of the lands, both the reserve and non-reserve lands, that are captured by the terms of this agreement. The fact that those interests may be impacted is another issue we can explore in further detail at the committee stage.

But let me end on a more positive note, to emphasize to members of the House and to confirm for the benefit of the government that, broadly speaking, there is -- in my view, at least -- support for the fact that this agreement has finally been reached and disappointment that it took so long -- on the part of many people, the band included, but also members of the community in Mackenzie and around McLeod Lake. I hope now that on the strength of this agreement, the members of that community can get on with development and enterprise and get on with capitalizing on the natural resources that exist there, to the benefit of all of the members of the community.

We have always said on this side of the House that any land claims agreement will live or die at the end of the day on the strength of the support it enjoys on the ground, in the communities that it is going to impact most directly. I am happy to say that, by and large, there is support. As a result, members of the opposition are happy -- with the caveats I have mentioned -- to lend their voice of support to the legislation that gives effect to this deal.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm very pleased to be rising in the Legislature today in support of Bill 10. I have had the privilege of representing the Sekani people of the McLeod Lake band for some eight and a half years. During that time I have advocated for resolution of their case for adhesion to Treaty 8 in a variety of places over that period.

Like the member opposite, I want to acknowledge the efforts of others who have worked towards this goal in this chamber, including the member for Peace River South -- he and I share a general agreement on the importance of this treaty -- and the member for Prince George-Mount Robson. He previously represented the riding of Prince George North and was also involved in working with the people of McLeod Lake.

I'm not going to dwell a great deal on the technicalities of what's in the treaty or not. I will leave that to the minister responsible. I must say, though, that it was a wonderful day in McLeod Lake on April 28, when the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and I and the federal Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs and Chief Alec Chingee had the honour to sign this adhesion document in the presence of band members that had come from across the province -- in some cases from across Canada -- to witness this historic day for them. The importance of this event in the life of the Sekani people of McLeod Lake cannot be underestimated.

[1515]

The member opposite spoke of the people of McLeod Lake being at a dramatic disadvantage compared to other people living on their traditional territory prior to the adhesion to this treaty. I would agree with him. The Sekani people of McLeod Lake felt very much shut out of the economic life and economic opportunity in the region. They felt very

[ Page 15489 ]

strongly that they needed to assert their rights to economic opportunity in the land which they and their ancestors had inherited for probably thousands of years -- surely long before Simon Fraser established Fort McLeod back in 1805, the first permanent European settlement west of the Rockies in B.C., from which the band then took its name. They've been there a long time. It was painful to see themselves shut out of the economy and opportunity around them that they saw in Mackenzie, Bear Lake and Prince George. They have had wonderful leadership over the years, and in seeking this treaty, they have been relentless and forceful.

I would say, though, that their situation is not greatly different from other bands, other first nations in the province, who are also at a dramatic disadvantage. It does not matter, frankly, whether they have the opportunity to adhere to an existing historical treaty, as McLeod Lake has had, or they do not. In either case, the important thing here is to focus on the issues of economic opportunity and to rectify a historical injustice in the making of treaties. Just because this is a bill reflecting an adhesion to a historic treaty makes it no less a significant event in the life of the members of this community in the northern part of my riding.

I know that in the early nineties there was consultation, and in 1993 there was actually a formal committee established, the forest sector committee -- because one of the great concerns here was the impact of this treaty on forest activity and forest communities -- to consult with industry. I think in the terms of this treaty you'll see that the band and their activities mesh well with the need of the industry for security and certainty on access to the land.

The band, by this treaty, has said: "We will put timber that we harvest from our lands on the log market for sale in the region; we will integrate ourselves with the economy of the region." It's very much a timber economy and a forest economy in that part of British Columbia. They very much see this treaty as providing them that opportunity to be not coming to the Ministry of Forests asking for a temporary timber licence or some salvage deal or a little contract here. They see themselves now as having the ability, in their own right, to control their destiny and integrate with the dominant economy of the area.

The other thing that was established, again in the early nineties, was a cross-sectoral committee that sought to make sure everybody understood exactly what was going on in these negotiations. It included the district of Mackenzie, I know, the Bear Lake community commission, the Prince George regional development corporation, the Cariboo Real Estate Association, the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, Westcoast Energy and associations representing guide-outfitters and trappers -- really the broad range of people who, in some way, also had interest in the land that McLeod Lake band was claiming treaty rights to.

[1520]

I think that the agreement we had before this debate reflects those local interests. I agree firmly with the member opposite -- another surprise -- that one of the tests of treaties is local acceptance. I must say that in this case -- and, I would say, as in the case of the Nisga'a treaty -- some of the strongest supporters for getting on with life and doing a treaty are the people closest to the first nation that was seeking permanence and recognition of their rights as first nations. This is an agreement that reflects those local interests.

I will leave the discussion of many of the points that the member opposite raised about how ongoing discussions with trappers and guide-outfitters about impact on their tenures will be dealt with, how B.C. is going to carry out its obligations under the agreement and what this means in terms of stumpage payable to McLeod Lake band. I'll leave that aside. I did want to reflect, though, at least briefly, on where this whole process started and where we've ended up.

This is a small community: 387 individuals. Fewer than half of them actually reside in the principal reserve community close to McLeod Lake and the historic site of Fort McLeod. Others live in Mackenzie or in Prince George. But they are definitely residents of the region, the great majority of them. They and their ancestors lived on this land long before there was a fur economy in B.C., of which they then became part.

The impact of this treaty on the band cannot be overestimated. I would correct one thing, though, that I heard from the member opposite. I do not think that the people of McLeod Lake will see full social justice and full recognition of what they want to do in controlling their own destiny stop with this adhesion, which recognizes their rights to land and cash under a historic treaty.

When I talk to band members, they want the work to be ongoing as they gain more control and more influence over matters as simple as the education of their children, health care for their elders and the environmental protection for their lands. The work is ongoing; the member said it well. At least, I recognized in what he was saying that even an event as significant as this -- where, after 16 years, we have reached a formal agreement for treaty adhesion for the Sekani people of the McLeod Lake Indian band -- is just a stage along the way, both for the band, as it evolves into the future, and seeks its economic opportunity as part of British Columbia, and for the surrounding community.

There's one final point I want to touch on, and both the minister and the member opposite spoke to it as well. I might provide a little more insight into this. This day did not start with negotiators sitting across a table rationally discussing how lands might be selected for adhesion to an 1899 treaty. This day actually started, regrettably, with confrontation. It started with illegal logging, because the government of the day had no interest in even talking about negotiating adhesion to this treaty. It moved from confrontation -- and it was not pleasant -- to the courts.

As both members have spoken of so far, both sides spent a lot of money on lawyers, and that didn't resolve it either. Confrontation didn't work; the courts didn't work. What finally did work was people of good will from all sides sitting down and saying, "It's time to figure out how this can work for us," rather than pursuing a court settlement or some sort of confrontation.

[1525]

[ Page 15490 ]

When I look at this treaty, I see what has happened here in McLeod Lake as a microcosm of what needs to happen across the province: a recognition by all sides that if we sit down seriously and work hard at it, we can get to a deal that recognizes that we're not in two separate realities. We're part of one common people living here in British Columbia. As the Supreme Court said in the Delgamuukw case, we're all here to stay. We'd better recognize that and figure out how we work together for the progress, prosperity, security and justice of us all.

Hon. J. Doyle: I'm pleased to speak in second reading of Bill 10, the McLeod Lake Indian Band Treaty No. 8 . . . . As was mentioned by other speakers -- and it's nice to see the general agreement in the House on this very important issue -- the McLeod Lake Indian band has been waiting for a long time for settlement of this issue. Since 1998 there has been an injunction against logging in the area claimed by the McLeod Lake Indian band. That arose out of a lawsuit first initiated by the band in 1983. The McLeod Lake Treaty 8 agreement settles this lawsuit, and that is good to see.

There are a number of key issues in the agreement regarding forestry. The agreement ensures that strict rules for the protection and sustainability of forest resources in the area will continue to apply to McLeod Lake bands. This is very important for the McLeod Lake first nations people and for all people in the province. Forestry practices on the reserve lands will be conducted in a sustainable manner and will be defined by the McLeod Lake Indian band forest practices code.

The McLeod Lake Indian band forest practices code must meet or beat provincial standards for harvesting methods, forest health, soil conservation, environmental protection, water quality, forest road engineering, construction, forest protection and silviculture. Those are all very important to the well-being and good stewardship of forests in our province.

As part of the final agreement, McLeod Lake will establish and maintain a $1 million trust fund to correct any deficiencies in forest practices when they're harvesting trees in their lands. McLeod Lake will establish an annual allowable cut rate in order to carry out sustainable forest practices. This rate will be made in consultation with British Columbia and carried out under the McLeod Lake forest practices code.

Under the agreement, hon. Speaker, timber harvested from the McLeod Lake band's lands will be offered at fair market values within the Prince George and Mackenzie timber supply areas. McLeod Lake will not engage in any primary processing of this timber that duplicates facilities already in use in the Prince George timber supply area. This will help to integrate the band's economy into the local economy. This is very important, that communities, whether they're first nations or others, work together; that's good for all of us in British Columbia.

Those obligations and the restrictions under the timber supply will be in place for 20 years from the signing of this final agreement. The province will ensure that outstanding reforestation and silviculture treatment are completed for all harvested areas on lands that will belong to the McLeod Lake band. British Columbia will return stumpage to McLeod Lake for timber harvested after 1995, as was mentioned by the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, on the Crown lands that will become reserve lands and were under injunction at the time it was harvested.

I am pleased to join, as I said, with other members speaking on this bill. It's good to see the general agreement. I've no doubt that this will be dealt with in a fast, timely basis by this House.

[1530]

R. Neufeld: I rise to briefly speak to Bill 10, the McLeod Lake Indian Band Treaty No. 8 Adhesion and Settlement Agreement Act. Like my colleague for Matsqui, I stand in support of the agreement and wish to make a few comments about it.

Mr. Speaker, the lands or the band in question do not reside or are not situated in my constituency. But Treaty 8 covers the whole part of my constituency, which is a huge part of the northern part of British Columbia. I know that in my constituency, although there have been some disagreements with the bands, there has been, I think, a pretty good working agreement between the bands in Treaty 8 that are in my constituency and the resource industries.

I can say that some of the things that have taken place in the last while with this present government, in trying to deal with some of those issues, have gone a long ways to making that happen. There is a way that we can actually work together, farm the resources, for the betterment of everyone. I think it's true in the constituency that I reside in, and when I look at some of the issues in the McLeod Lake Indian band treaty adhesion and some of the stipulations, it should work fairly well within their territory also.

Treaty 8 is a treaty that was signed in 1899. That's a long time ago, hon. Speaker. I want to back up a bit to when we started dealing with Nisga'a in the House and all the issues that went on about the Nisga'a treaty, the first modern-day treaty. I often wondered why we would be trying to develop treaties that encompass 700 to 800 pages of legalese and descriptions and all those kinds of issues.

It gets hard to understand bounds, and I think that if you put the metes and bounds with this, it probably would be double this amount -- and the McLeod Lake adhesion treaty, which I think encompasses 75 or 80 pages, something to that amount, for a modern-day treaty. I have always been of the opinion that the larger and the more difficult and the more descriptive you try to make a treaty -- in fact, when I spoke on Nisga'a, I spoke about these terms -- the more difficult it becomes to have that treaty actually work on the ground.

No offence to the legal profession, but at the end of the day they seem to be the winners in many of those issues, because that's who seems to be able to come in and try and interpret different sections of the treaties in different ways. As I said, I mean no offence to the legal profession. But the longer the document, the bigger the document, the more difficult the document, the more you know that those issues are going to be in a court of law -- trying to deal with them there.

I think it's evident, and it should be evident to all of us in this House, that the courts are not always the end-all and be-all of trying to settle some of these issues. They are expensive, and I think the government knows that full well, with what's taken place in the last number of years just with their operations. They become very expensive, and the people that pay for it are those who live on the treaty land and the public at large.

I support this treaty and the agreement that's made. I for one would very much like to encourage the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs that we look closely -- and we don't always have to follow this model -- at how we can actually

[ Page 15491 ]

have modern-day treaties that are simplified to a certain degree, instead of so prescriptive. I think that's not just important to myself or the people that I represent in my constituency or the people of British Columbia, but it's very important to the very people that we're trying to deal with in treaties, and that's the aboriginal people. I think that the more we can make these treaties workable on the ground, the better off those particular bands will be.

[1535]

The other issue I understand, and I have spoken to a number of people in the area, is that there is acceptance of this treaty to a large degree. That will go a long ways, Mr. Speaker, to making sure that this treaty will be dealt with fairly and will work. If we get treaties that are so difficult, so large and so huge and hard to understand, once you put try to them on the ground they become almost impossible to be able to put into place and to work.

For some of those reasons I am happy to support Bill 10. I do notice also . . . . It was interesting that approximately 30 people within the band have actually elected to take land to themselves -- the 160 acres, I believe, per person. I think that indicates a level of understanding within the community there that some of the people would actually like to go out and have their own piece of land that they can call their own, that they can actually do with what they want to do within the rules and regulations in the province.

I think that's a great step forward. I do have some difficulty -- and I know the member for Matsqui brought it up, and I'll bring it up again so that the minister is on notice that we'll have some questions around this -- in that the federal government reserves the right, actually, to withhold that land if that individual wishes to dispose of it.

That's really, I think, ultimately telling the native people that they can't do what they want with their land. I have a piece of land, and if I wish to sell it, I can sell it. I don't have to speak to the federal or provincial government. All I have to do is be able to sell it within the laws and regulations that are place in British Columbia. I don't think that it should be any different for those people who have chosen not to live on the communal land, to actually have their own land; they should be able to make their decisions the way they wish to make their decisions about their land.

I also notice . . . . And it's becoming more common in British Columbia to share resources with the natives on the different reserves. We probably saw that first in Fort Nelson when Mr. Schuck, who is the lawyer representing the McLeod Lake band, actually represented the Fort Nelson Indian band and won a large settlement for the Fort Nelson Indian band. They share in resources, the oil and gas -- well, not oil, but natural gas -- revenue off the resources that are found on their land.

I see in the treaty that, actually, the McLeod Lake Indian band will share the royalties for minerals, including oil and gas, on a 50-50 basis with the province. I think that those are good moves. They are set out in a certain area where they will share those resources, and I am hopeful that those resources will go towards the betterment of their community. The Minister of Forests spoke about the timber supply and said that they have to meet or exceed the Forest Practices Code. They will share in that resource, which is also good.

The certainty part. I think many people in British Columbia -- when I go around, anyhow . . . . I wasn't on the Aboriginal Affairs Committee, but I have travelled the province, and most people want the province of British Columbia and the Dominion of Canada to settle the issues with natives across Canada, especially in British Columbia. They want them settled, so that there is some certainty. The investment community wants some certainty. The resource industries want some certainty so that they know where they can go and what the rules are. I think that that's great.

I think the general public -- in fact I don't think so; I know so . . . . They all tell me they want some certainty and some finality to treaties. Across the province, there was a certain degree of not feeling finality with the Nisga'a agreement, and I think that will cause some difficulty in the future.

[1540]

Treaty 8 does have a certainty clause in it and the treaty states that the Indians cede, release, surrender and yield up to the federal government the rights, titles and privileges to the lands. I think that gives people in the province some certainty about what's actually taking place. I know that the treaty, actually, is not exactly the same as Treaty 8, because the band is able to pick out certain land with certain resources on it and set aside certain areas for berry-picking and those kinds of things, which I think most people accept and will accept.

With those few words, Mr. Speaker, I add my support to Bill 10 and congratulate the McLeod Lake band for their perseverance. In fact, when I think about it, I am glad they persevered to get this treaty signed, whether the Minister of Finance says it was some other government or not -- that's quite typical, to blame someone else. The band, to my knowledge, actually had to start a court action against the government to have it come to the table, sit down and start negotiating this treaty.

It's unfortunate, for a government that talks about wanting to settle treaties in a modern way, that the bands actually have to solicit the cooperation of the province through the court system. I think that's terribly unfortunate in the province, and I hope that doesn't happen again.

So again, I conclude my remarks with my support for Bill 10, the McLeod Lake Indian Band Treaty No. 8 Adhesion and Settlement Agreement Act.

P. Nettleton: It's an opportunity which I'm happy to take advantage of, an opportunity to congratulate, first of all, the McLeod Lake band -- the leadership of that band -- and the Sekani people who are involved with respect to this treaty.

I see that we have a number of school-age children here today who are probably -- I'm just guessing -- roughly in grade 6, somewhere in elementary school. I would expect that the world that they will face will be quite different with respect to the whole question of treaties than the world that we face here today, the residents of McLeod Lake and other bands throughout the province face and children their age in villages throughout the province -- first nations children, native children . . . . I expect their world will be quite different, and we have a responsibility on both sides of this House to move forward with respect to the treaty process.

First nations have a responsibility, as well, to decide amongst themselves in terms of what it is they want -- varying, as it does, from village to village and from region to region -- where it is they want to go and what the future holds not only for them -- that is for the current leadership of the various bands -- but for their children. I know that is a big concern, and I know that in fact we have seen leadership at the provincial level, at the regional level and even from band to band.

[ Page 15492 ]

I'm fortunate in that I come from a neighbouring riding, the riding of Prince George-Omineca. Ed John, the grand chief of the summit, is in fact a product of the village of Tachie, Tl'azt'en nation, which lies next to Fort St. James, where I presently reside. I'm quite pleased to say that I come from Fort St. James and from that area. I know that the people of that region are proud of what he has done and what he's doing in terms of providing leadership.

So I believe that as we as non-natives look forward to people like Grand Chief Ed John and others coming out from the various villages and providing the leadership they will need to, as I say, get some sense of direction in terms of where they want to go and what they want to achieve.

Treaties are certainly not the end in terms of achieving their objectives, but they are certainly a necessary step along the way to achieving those objectives.

[1545]

I know, in recent conversations with a friend who has been working with the government in the Yukon, where they have an umbrella agreement with respect to treaties, quite unlike what we have here in British Columbia . . . . He had been working with various bands throughout the Yukon. I know that the concern that he expressed to me, whether they're working in the areas of education, health care or what have you . . . .

Capacity-building was the term that he kept referring to when talking about those areas and the need for bands to come to grips with some of the problems that they have to come to grips with as they move forward -- providing a future which is bright and hopeful and so on for the residents, particularly the younger residents of the various villages, not only in the Yukon but here in British Columbia.

Again, I'm delighted to congratulate, as a neighbour of the McLeod Lake band, as a representative of a good number of the Carrier-Sekani tribal council in the Prince George-Omineca riding . . . . Our congratulations to McLeod Lake, our best wishes as they move forward. We wish them every success in dealing with the future as it is about to unfold.

J. Weisgerber: It's a pleasure for me to have an opportunity to speak to Bill 10, which implements the adhesion for the McLeod Lake band to Treaty 8. I know that a number of people, including the minister, have talked about the history and why the McLeod Lake band wasn't included back in the late 1800s or early 1900s.

My view of how that occurred -- and it's one person's view of history -- was that the Treaty Commission, which travelled through northern Alberta, northwest Saskatchewan, areas into the Northwest Territories and into northwestern B.C., understood their area, the bounds of their authority, to be the arctic watershed. I think they, understandably, believed that the arctic watershed and the Height of the Rockies were one and the same.

So they went in and dealt in the Peace River area with the bands that have historically been known as Treaty 8 bands. They missed bands in northern Alberta that were nomadic by nature. I don't believe they overlooked McLeod Lake, but rather they didn't recognize the geographic area that the McLeod Lake band were resident in as being within the arctic watershed or the area in which they had been instructed to go and make treaties.

If one follows that logic, then it seems to me very clear not only that the arctic watershed includes the Rocky Mountain Trench and entitles the McLeod Lake band to make a decision to adhere to Treaty 8, as band members there did, but that you have exactly the same situation at Kwadacha -- or Fort Ware, as it is more commonly known on the map -- and also at Tsay Keh Dene or Ingenika, which is a relative . . . . That's a story unto itself -- how the people there were moved when Williston Lake was created, displaced and then finally established again at Ingenika Point. And there's also the band at Lower Post.

[1550]

Those three bands could make precisely the same argument that the McLeod Lake band has made with respect to adhesion to Treaty 8. I fully recognize that McLeod Lake, the Kwadacha, Tsay Keh Dene and Lower Post could all decide, as they could have in the case of McLeod Lake, that they want to pursue a comprehensive land claim. They chose not to. They chose to pursue Treaty 8. They started that in 1982, as I recall.

It was a long battle -- nearly 20 years. But when one looks at native history in this province, that's probably a relatively short time. I expect that if most of the bands involved in the treaty-making process could look at a time line of 18 years from the time they finally decided to pursue a claim to final signatures, to the Legislature's passing the bills, they would decide that wasn't an inordinately long time.

From talking with the minister, both in estimates and in less formal circumstances, I know that the province is still very, very reluctant to recognize the arctic watershed and to recognize the bands that I've mentioned as having a right to sign on to Treaty 8. I think they will find, should any of the bands make that decision -- and none have to date -- that they will have a battle, I expect, not so much with the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs but rather with the Attorney General. At least that was the case when I was the minister. Perhaps it's comforting, and at the same time disturbing, to know that some things don't ever seem to change, that obstacles don't seem to go away easily.

Let me talk for a minute about that. I think the legal evidence is clear. Quite honestly, I'm not sure that the advisers in the Attorney General ministry would have consented, if you like -- and I use that term with a bit of sarcasm -- or would have agreed to this deal if they hadn't known, going to court, that they were going to lose. The facts of the matter are pretty clear. The arctic watershed is where it is. Treaty 8 documents clearly define the arctic watershed as the area of jurisdiction, and I think that while there might be some legal wrangling for these Rocky Mountain Trench bands, at the end of the day it wouldn't be a huge fight.

So what would be the decision if one were a member of the Fort Ware band or the In-SHUCK-ch N'Quat'qua, or a band member at Lower Post? What would be the options that you would look at when considering whether or not you should sign on to Treaty 8? This is a decision made by the McLeod Lake band -- I think a courageous decision. I think that the decision that McLeod Lake made is, in many ways, similar to the decision of the Nisga'a. The Nisga'a, very early in history in this province, decided to pursue a comprehensive land claim -- courageously; we've talked about that in this House.

The McLeod Lake band decided to use a different mechanism. That always requires a level of courage, and I think the McLeod Lake band deserves to be recognized for

[ Page 15493 ]

that, in much the same way as I have enormous respect for the Sechelt and their willingness to pursue a comprehensive claim with a delegated form of self-government.

Anytime you break away from the mold, there are critics, and those latter two bands have had their share of criticism. But if the other bands look at the decisions that are made and model the comprehensive claim versus the treaty adhesion, there are some interesting parallels and some interesting differences. The Nisga'a got about 80 acres of land per person. Treaty 8, a historic treaty designed to make farmers of aboriginal, or native, people on the prairies, allowed for 128 acres per person, to a maximum of 640 acres per family -- that being a quarter

section of land -- and for 160 acres for individuals who weren't members of a family group of four or larger.

[1555]

So the land is almost twice as much. The land entitlement, if you decide to adhere to Treaty 8, is almost twice as much, certainly half as much again and a little more. The cash component is provided by the federal government -- for Nisga'a, about $35,000, and for McLeod Lake, $25,000. Again, I guess there's an interesting decision that one would have to make: is 80 acres of land and $35,000 worth as much as 128 acres of land and $25,000? That's a decision, obviously, for individual band members and individual bands to make.

The member for Matsqui, the official opposition critic and others, I'm sure, have noted that Treaty 8 contains the old cede, surrender and release language. We've been told -- I've been told many times -- that, indeed, bands in this province in this day and age would never, ever accept cede, release and surrender -- I believe it is, rather than surrender and release -- language, that it was too harsh, that it offended aboriginal people. Well, that may be the case in some places. It obviously didn't offend the McLeod Lake band to the degree that they couldn't live with it. The language is the historic language.

The treaty allows for bands to hunt, fish and trap as formerly and provides no reference to self-government. What fascinates me with this issue is that I've been told since the days when I was minister that bands would never accept the old certainty language and that bands would never accept a treaty that didn't enshrine aboriginal self-government.

Well, Mr. Speaker, in the two examples that I've used -- McLeod Lake and Sechelt -- we have treaties that were done without the constitutional enshrinement of self-government. I think that it's important, as we move forward, to recognize these facts, as opposed to the rhetoric. Heaven knows, rhetoric doesn't belong at any one of the three tables in a negotiation. The feds come with lots; the province comes with lots. And there's no question that the band comes with the very best arguments that they can put forward. But I think that as these treaties unfold, these facts become relevant in the future.

There are just a couple of other unique things about this treaty. Treaty 8 allowed for the enfranchisement of aboriginal people. If you take your minds back to 1899 and later, when the treaty was being circulated around western Canada, aboriginal people didn't have the right to vote. So one of the elements of the old treaty was to allow band members to take land severally, as it was described in the treaty -- or individually -- and enfranchise themselves. So what they got were 160 acres of land to which they got fee simple title, as near as I can figure out. They got the right to vote.

And in essence, they ceased to be Indians as per the official description; they ceased to be beneficiaries under the Indian Act.

[1600]

What's happened at McLeod Lake is somewhat akin to that. I understand that 29 members of the band have decided that they'll take their 160 acres of land severally, or separately. This falls very clearly into the area of the federal government. But I think the province has an obligation not only to be aware of how that's unfolding but also to make sure it's consistent with the objectives of the people at McLeod Lake and the people of the province, in the broader sense.

I think there are questions -- and we'll pursue them a bit further in committee stage -- about the status of people who take land severally. We know, historically, what the position was, but so far nobody's been able to tell me exactly what happens in the modern-day context. With respect, some of the provisions in the old treaty for cattle, scythes and suits with brass buttons, were clearly old-fashioned and out-of-date. Those have been replaced with cash, which is always up-to-date and modern and which people all understand.

The question is: what happens to status? What's the saw-off? What's the trade-off for taking land and moving away from the communal group? Is there an opportunity . . . ? I'm interested in it, because McLeod Lake is important and because of the possibility of there being an expansion to at least three other bands that I'm aware of. I'm interested in it from the broader treaty negotiation process.

Is there some value still in that old element of the treaty? Is there some value in saying to people, particularly people who live off reserve: "Here's how you could more fully participate in a comprehensive land claims settlement; here's a model"? Enough thought probably hasn't been given to that issue and to the status of the people who opt for it.

Enfranchisement in the late 1800s had upsides and downsides. Aboriginal people, thank heaven, have been enfranchised since, so that's no longer a carrot that can be dangled out there. But should in fact the 29 band members at McLeod Lake who've taken their land individually still be entitled to band membership? Should they be entitled to all of the benefits that McLeod Lake band members enjoy? Should there be the same education provisions for their children?

To what extent, in this day and age -- with adequate and perhaps more than adequate legal representation for bands and individuals -- can an aboriginal family commit their children? Are they less able to commit their children to a family decision than I was when my children were minors?

I made decisions -- my family, my wife and I made decisions, often in discussion with our minor children -- about where we would live, whether we would sell the family home, whether we would move to a new community. I wonder how, in the modern day, this application applies to the people at McLeod Lake.

[1605]

In closing, I want to commend the province, the federal negotiators and most particularly the McLeod Lake band, because the outstanding feature of this unique arrangement, I believe, is the exceptional relations with the communities around McLeod Lake. Negotiations have continued for quite some years. The town of Mackenzie is a new town on Williston Lake in the centre of the traditional McLeod Lake territory. There were a lot of negotiations, consultations. The band picked out land immediately adjacent to the municipal boundaries at McLeod Lake, and there were concerns raised.

In the very best spirit of negotiation, new lands were selected. The effect of that was very, very cordial relations and a high

[ Page 15494 ]

level of support in the community. Recognize that this is a mining-logging community, a forest community, that sees 128 acres of land per person being alienated -- nearly twice the per capita land element that there was in the Nisga'a in the Nass Valley.

So the achievement of the McLeod Lake band and the province and the federal government in so smoothly, despite some legal hiccups along the way, making that transition makes this, for one more reason, a lesson that goes beyond simply a unique situation where a band has decided to adhere to an old treaty. Rather, I think, this puts it on a par with, or very close to, something of the import of the Nisga'a agreement and the Sechelt agreement as we start to see differing models of land claims settlements evolve.

It gives me some encouragement that despite my great fears that Nisga'a will be repeated 50 or 60 or 70 times over in this province, especially as it relates to self-government, it's still not too late for the province and the federal government and aboriginal people to rethink the issue of constitutionally enshrined self-government. We have, in the period of the last two or three years, now concluded or nearly concluded three major treaties, only one of which includes constitutionally enshrined self-government.

So for those people who say you can never do a treaty with a band in British Columbia that doesn't include self-government -- constitutionally enshrined self-government -- I say: look at McLeod Lake, look at Sechelt, and then tell me that it can't be done.

Mr. Speaker, it's been a pleasure to speak to this. I want to close by again extending my congratulations to Chief Chingee, to his band members and especially to a man by the name of Verne Solonas, who has been exceptional in the work that he's done in community relations in the north-central part of British Columbia.

D. Zirnhelt: I would like to pick up where the previous member left off. I understand the strong support for this adhesion treaty, and I welcome it. I think it is proof that when you do involve the local people, local communities and third party' interests and when you do deal honourably, you can get a high, high level of agreement. It does not become a partisan issue on the floor of this Legislature.

Of course, I'm sure many members of that first nation will argue that it isn't perfect. I'm sure that many of us, as well, can argue that it isn't perfect. The fact remains that it is a lot more perfect than something that might be decided in the courts. I think that's the first point. It is a negotiated treaty, and this is the way we want to see things handled, because as we know, courts produce winners and losers. But it is important that we pause and consider the work that goes into it on behalf of local leadership, on behalf of the member from that area, on behalf of the people surrounding it.

It's supported by the members from Prince George, as well. Everyone in the surrounding area and the member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine were supportive of this.

[1610]

It was a treaty that took them from where they were -- having been denied being part of the treaty originally, 100 years ago -- to being given an opportunity to become part of the treaty and to correct a wrong of the past. That was when the Treaty Commission, or whatever it was called, neglected to stop in that community because, I'm sure, the people were out -- probably doing what they always did, making a livelihood on the land somewhere -- and weren't at home. That wasn't uncommon.

I know there's one Indian reserve in the Charlottes that's only a couple of acres, because everybody was out fishing when the commission came by. And guess what. If you weren't at home, sitting there waiting for the commission, you don't have a place to be. This is a little bit like that, but finally, after many years, we now have a treaty in that area.

I think the negotiations were characterized -- once we got it out of the courts -- by a sufficient degree of openness and good intent on the part of the various parties that might be affected by it that it got substantial agreement from the communities around it. I think that's what we have to say about all our treaties. I think the Nisga'a treaty had a high level of agreement by the communities, the chambers of commerce, the municipalities, the political leaders in the area, save some -- a high degree of support from the surrounding communities.

With respect to what the previous speaker said about local government, I think we may well see modifications to treaties as we go through them and as people discover that it's hard to construct elaborate self-governments for very small communities. I think it's different when you're talking about thousands of people than when you're talking about hundreds of people. It's different when you're talking about even smaller numbers -- perhaps just large families.

I'm honoured to be able to stand here and support this treaty, because I think it shows that there is momentum in this province toward modernizing treaties as well as creating modern land claims treaties. I think the history has probably been dealt with sufficiently. I know that on the forestry part of this, I would like to say a couple of words, in that this treaty is a lot about land and a lot about the trees on the land. Essentially, it is a cash-and-land agreement.

Between the time that there was an agreement-in-principle and the final treaty, there were some resource management issues on the land. There was a beetle infestation, and it had to be dealt with. The government didn't put off acting because land was under negotiation. There was an agreement made to deal with the beetles and with the stumpage on the land as the treaty was being concluded.

It showed that we can work, in this critical period, from an agreement-in-principle on a land base until we actually finalize a treaty and then implement it. We can actually deal with problems that come up in the meantime. I want to congratulate the parties that were involved in that. They did it with very easy transition provisions that were agreed to. It required some negotiation, no doubt, but nevertheless, it was done rather smoothly. The Minister of Forests spoke ably about many of the forestry provisions, and I won't repeat those. Those are important, as I said, but I'm not going to go into those.

It's also important that we recognize that we have to modernize the language. When we're dealing with old treaties, as we may well have to in the negotiations around some of the Douglas treaties, they have to be modernized, taken into account. We have a few of those here. We have to find ways to take the language of agreements, of treaties, that may or may not have been honoured and give them life by putting them into language, into modern-day treaties, so that they can, like the McLeod Lake treaty, be given effect that allows for a modern expression of the intent that was there

[ Page 15495 ]

when the treaty was made. I know that the economy has changed and indeed society has changed a lot in the ensuing 100 years.

The benefits to the local economy from some of what you might call the transition provisions . . . . An important fact is that the major economic activity in the area, other than the traditional ones, is forestry, and that there won't be a sawmill built for 20 years. There is lots of time for adjustment to take place there.

[1615]

I'm more and more concerned, as we enter the agreement-in-principle stage with treaties, that we look at ways of working together on an interim basis. This treaty didn't have, to a large extent, any interim measures. As we proceed with other treaties in British Columbia, we have to have interim measures, which of course cut both ways. There are agreements which benefit and protect the resources that might be the subject of treaties, and they protect the economic activity and the resource management in the area and thereby the local economies, which is critical to supporting the eventual treaty.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

I am pleased that this treaty shows that you can have certainty that comes as a result of the discussions and that you can have that certainty up front and during the process of negotiating a treaty. I hope that we will get better and better at that, because to fail would be to fail the first nations people and to fail the people of British Columbia, as well.

A bit about the committees that were set up around this. How did the process work? Why was this treaty a good treaty? Why was the agreement effective? I think some of the committee members . . . . Their cross-sectorial committee that was set up represented the district of Mackenzie; the Cariboo Real Estate Association, who have interests in land dealings that might go on in the area; the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society; Westcoast Energy; Prince George regional development corporation; the Bear Lake community commission; and associations representing the guides and outfitters. That is in addition to the forest sector committee that was set up. I don't need to speak about that.

These sets of local interests have been accounted for in the treaty, and the agreement reflects those. The utility rights-of-way, the highways and some forest service roads are excluded from the reserve lands. The utility companies have access through the reserve lands to their rights-of-way. The servicing agreements are to be negotiated by the band and local governments before the reserve lands near the communities of Bear Lake and Mackenzie are transferred to the land. I know there is general agreement and optimism that that can happen. It's a requirement and therefore it has to happen, and I'm confident that it can.

The guides and outfitters are involved in ongoing discussions, because there may be impact on their tenures that may be removed from Crown land. As a result, they have to be accommodated in some way. These are one of the many third-party interests that often are displaced when you have land as part of an agreement. The province is prepared to meet with other tenure holders who may identify an impact and feel that they want to discuss mitigation for that impact. As B.C. carries out its obligations under the agreement, which this legislation enables, the province's commitment to community discussion will continue.

It's important for ongoing support and critical to the successful implementation of this treaty that the communities be involved continuously.

The McLeod Lake people, because they have a substantial cash portion to this treaty and because they have a large land mass -- 120 acres per capita . . . . This is the basis for a more secure economy for the people from McLeod Lake. My hope for these small communities is that given some solid resource commitment, they can grow their economies, slowly but surely. They have the security of the land base. They will be challenged to maintain it, as we all are, to make sure that things like rates of harvest and of non-forest products are done in a way that is sustainable.

I wish them well and success in arranging the expenditure of their program dollars in a way that grows their capacity for continued resource management and the management of the land, should it and as it becomes private or under individual family control.

[1620]

That is critical to the success of treaties. We'll be watching what unfolds in the McLeod Lake area, because I know the treaties in the Cariboo will be enhanced by us being able to grow the capacity of the surrounding communities to be able to respond to the needs and the challenges of life both before and after treaties. Particularly the first nations, as they want more self-control, can grow that capacity with careful and judicious use of the funds they have while adding to those funds other programs that might be available so that with their added skills they become more in charge of their own destiny. That, to me, is what's critical.

Since I've been interested in treaties, I understand that they have two elements. One is the certainty that both parties get -- the government and the people who are not part of the first nation community, and the first nation community itself, which needs the certainty that they have a base, that they can preserve the culture as they see it and that they can grow and become modern participants in an expanding economy and be full economic citizens of the province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm honoured to stand in support of this treaty.

B. Goodacre: I, too, rise to support Bill 10 and offer my congratulations to the McLeod Lake Indian band and also to all of the folks that participated in making that treaty adhesion a reality. This treaty signing, coming on the heels of the Nisga'a signing, is a wonderful thing for our province, as we note that both of those agreements are being signed in the modern day and that both of them are quite different from each other.

I think one of the things that we have to bear in mind, as we look around our province and at the need we have for resolving issues with the first nations of this province, is that there is no one-size-fits-all. I think we have to bear in mind what we've heard from previous speakers. Clearly the McLeod Lake Indian band was prepared to sign the language that was contained in that document. I will go right away to the language, which was referred to by several speakers, of "cede, release and surrender."

Think about that for a minute -- what that language actually means. One of the things that I've heard time and time again, as we've been through the discussions of Nisga'a in particular and land claims generally, is that that is certainty

[ Page 15496 ]

language. I want us to go back to where that language first came from, and that is the language of the numbered treaties. I think that as we go forward with land claims in this province, we have to bear in mind that the numbered treaties in this country are in areas where social conditions for aboriginal people have deteriorated over the last hundred years. Third World conditions exist in virtually all of the territories where numbered treaties exist in this country.

We have to realize that if we are talking certainty in that language . . . . In terms of past history, it was certainty not for the aboriginal people of this country; it was certainty for the government to get the "Indians out of the way" for the settlement of this country by non-aboriginal people. The fact that that's no longer an issue makes the acceptance of this language by the McLeod Lake band a lot easier and a lot more palatable, because they realize it's not going to cause them any great grief in the way they live in their territory.

I want to move on to the situation that my riding is faced with. I have over ten first nations in my riding of Bulkley Valley-Stikine that are either in the treaty process or on the edge of the treaty process. Amongst those first nations there is wide range of interest in what they actually want to accomplish with a treaty -- if a treaty is even part of the package that any of them want. We actually have first nations that are more interested in just putting together a working relationship with the government rather than an actual treaty.

My personal connection with the aboriginal people in my area started actually about the time that Treaty 8 was signed. An ancestor of mine by the name of Blackjack MacDonnell went up to Atlin and Whitehorse at the time of the gold rush in 1899 and chose to stay in the north. Our family is a result of his decision to do that. Over the past 100 years my family has been part and parcel of the development of issues with aboriginal people. When I talked to my grandfather when he was still alive about the relationship between aboriginal people and the general population at that time, one thing was very, very clear.

People have always accepted in this province and in this country that the aboriginal people are a unique and separate people from the rest of Canada -- based on their prior occupancy and the fact that they've carried on their traditions, languages and lifestyles throughout all of our attempts as a wider society to shut that down.

[1625]

I don't want to belabour this point, because I have offered to give my time to my dear friend on the other side of the House from me -- my colleague from my own party, of course. I will wind up by asking this House to recognize that when we deal with aboriginal land claim issues, it is very, very important we bear in mind the needs these people have to meet their goals and objectives in the future and that there is no one way to make a treaty with the aboriginal people of this province.

We have to bring the kind of flexibility into this issue that is needed to succeed in creating what I would like to refer to as the three Rs in dealing with aboriginal people, and that is recognition, respect and reconciliation, with special emphasis on our need to reconcile the rights of aboriginal people with the sovereignty of the Crown.

With that, hon. Speaker, I again offer my congratulations to the McLeod Lake people. Thank you very much for listening to me.

J. Cashore: As former Minister of Aboriginal Affairs for over four years, I want to take the opportunity in this discussion to set up a bit of context with regard to our relations with first nations and how this particular adhesion treaty we are talking about today fits into that general scenario. It is important to fit it into that context. I do appreciate the comments that members on both sides of the House have made during this discussion. I think there is a story, which is informative and instructive, to be told here with regard to how we continue to learn the best way possible to address unresolved issues in the province.

When our government was first elected in 1991, it committed from its outset to address unresolved issues of first nations. Our current Attorney General was our first Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, and when he stood on the threshold of the issues he had to address, there was before him a very challenging landscape. You might say it was a map of the province, and on that map there were a number of aspects of this issue.

In general there were two major umbrella organizations that represented first nations. Both of them had a distinguished history with regard to the struggle on the part of first nations peoples to achieve justice -- justice that had so long been denied by the lack of treaties in most of the province. There was the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs and the First Nations Summit. Also, representing the Métis people, we had a collection of Métis organizations throughout the province, but they were not united, and there was much division there.

Again, the emerging legacy of the courts and the Constitution of Canada was to indicate that the Métis people, as well as other first nations people, had to be taken seriously by government in dealing with their concerns. Then there was another organization which, loosely described, represented aboriginal people in the cities, the United Native Nations.

[1630]

Then, on top of that, as our first Minister of Aboriginal Affairs found out, there was a kind of spotty history in the province with regard to addressing the certainty issues that had to be addressed through treaty-making. For instance, there were the Douglas treaties, which some members have referred to -- which were negotiated for the most part prior to Governor Douglas becoming governor -- and a bundle of treaties in some specific locations, mostly on Vancouver Island. Again, they carried their own particular set of sometimes quaint approaches -- inadequate approaches, actually -- to addressing a number of issues.

Then there was Treaty 8. Now, the initial signing of Treaty 8 was as a treaty negotiated between Canada and first nations and took place in the year 1899. Following that, there were the adhesions to that treaty in 1900, 1910, 1914, 1991 and 1999. Treaty 8 was No. 8 of 11 treaties between Canada and first nations between 1871 and 1921.

The geographical area covered by Treaty 8 is Northern Alberta; Saskatchewan; the southwest portion of the Northwest Territories, as it was then called; and northeast British Columbia -- generally defined as somewhere in the vicinity of the spine of the Rocky Mountains and covering the Peace River country over to the Alberta border. I'll come back to that in relation to McLeod Lake.

So as our Minister of Aboriginal Affairs in 1991 was looking at that landscape, he realized -- as he already was aware -- that he would have to address this issue of this vast area of British Columbia that had been settled. Notwithstanding the fact that over 94 percent of the province was still Crown land, this domain of rivers and valleys and mountains,

[ Page 15497 ]

other than the Peace River country, had been settled, since European contact, in areas that were also, in a great many instances, the traditional territory of first nations. So this left an enormous task for our government, following on the efforts of the previous government, in which the member for Peace River South was the Minister of Native Affairs and really began the work that we were faced with continuing when we became government.

There was a backdrop to all of this. The backdrop was the growing uncertainty on land issues in the province, especially in view of court decisions that had been coming down for quite some time by that time -- decisions that were in themselves changing the legal profile of the province with regard to land issues. Just to mention a few, there was the Nisga'a Calder case, the Sparrow decision and the first Delgamuukw decision at that time, where the term "fiduciary responsibility" suddenly became part of the common language of the people,

whereas before, none of us knew what the word "fiduciary" meant.

It became apparent to the Vander Zalm-Johnston governments at that time, prior to 1991, that there was no going back, that through negotiations . . . . Senior governments and first nations would need to negotiate modern treaties that would produce the certainty that was so desperately needed. It was desperately needed because it was an issue that had been neglected and ignored, for the most part, in British Columbia. That previous government started the process to address those issues. The minister, the current member for Peace River South, led the province into the ongoing negotiations that were underway with the federal government and the Nisga'a.

[1635]

British Columbia became party to those negotiations for very good reasons.

Whereas in the early days the numbered treaties had been negotiated by Canada and the first nations, now we had this entity of a province, operating under a constitution where it had responsibility for the land. And there were a number of other elements for which we were constitutionally responsible. Therefore, in my view, it would have been ludicrous not to be at the table, both to protect the interests of British Columbians and also to be able to work with the other two parties in finding a way to address the issues that involved three different jurisdictions in the emerging treaties.

Now, an interesting part of history is that the minister, along with the First Nations Summit and Tom Siddon, who was the Minister of Indian Affairs in the Mulroney government at that time . . . . They appointed a task force to recommend to those three entities -- Canada, British Columbia and the First Nations Summit -- a process that could be enjoined to address this large issue of treaty-making in the province. And they went about doing that; they prepared the report. By the time they were ready to report that out, we had become government, and led by our first Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, we decided that we would accept all of the recommendations of that process.

That's a long way of giving some background to a process that does not apply to McLeod Lake. But it behooves me to talk about that a bit, because the average British Columbian, understandably, having a lot of things to think about and worry about, doesn't really spend a lot of time, as we do in the Legislature, dealing with the intricacies of all these different historic parts of an unresolved part of our history. Therefore it is an opportunity to point out that while there was a general, overall need to be resolving unresolved issues, they didn't all fit into the same category. For instance, the Union of B.C.

Indian Chiefs, which I mentioned, did not buy in and have not bought into the treaty process that was worked through with the First Nations Summit.

In the case of McLeod Lake, it is true that the generic group of Treaty 8 in British Columbia did apply to enter the B.C. treaty process. They did that, I think, on December 15, 1993. They stayed in the process for a few months, but then they withdrew from that process, and they weren't there at all. At that time, I don't think that McLeod Lake was really closely connected with that Treaty 8 Provincial Council organization. But generally the challenge was to engage on a wide variety of circumstances. There were some existing treaties; in major areas of B.C. there was no treaty.

Then there were the ongoing negotiations with regard to modern treaties -- in the pre-treaty process, in our responsibility to carry out our fiduciary responsibility under Delgamuukw and the emerging considerations that had to be made under the subsequent Delgamuukw decisions.

The McLeod Lake treaty, therefore, being different from the B.C. Treaty Commission process, has gone through an interesting history. For instance, it settles a lawsuit of the McLeod Lake band and allows the band to adhere to Treaty 8 -- to receive the benefits of this 100-year history of Treaty 8. It includes only land and cash provisions and not provisions such as governance, which occupies a lot of time at the regular B.C. treaty table.

Now, others today have talked about the benefits in the region, and it is interesting. I think that it's becoming more and more recognized and accepted that as the legacy of resolution unfolds, it does indeed lead to a higher degree of economic certainty and indeed economic stimulus. We know that Chief Alec Chingee, who has certainly been a wonderful spirit with regard to this process all the way, has a very strong record in business development on behalf of his people and in that area. I know that the member for Peace River South and the MLAs from Prince George have spoken to that.

Also, with regard to forestry, the former Minister of Forests, the member for Cariboo South, has outlined some of the forestry provisions. But the point is that as this resolution is achieved, it should be much more possible for that first nation to take its role in partnership with non-aboriginal entities and in dovetailing to an even greater extent into the economy of the region. Of course, one of the hoped-for outcomes will be that the opportunity for self-respect and job creation and self-determination will lead to improved social conditions.

[1640]

Now, again the question is: why would the province be at the table when it's a historic treaty and was negotiated between only two entities, the first nations and Canada? The fact is basically the same as I said before: we need to be at a treaty table to represent the provincial interest and also to be able to address issues that are of provincial importance. Therefore it was absolutely vital that the province be present.

Hon. Speaker, I also want to congratulate the negotiators for McLeod Lake, for Canada and for the province of British Columbia. I think that they have done a very fine job in carrying this out and bringing this to this conclusion. I don't for one minute think that the benefit is only for the McLeod Lake people or for the McLeod Lake region. I think it goes beyond that. I think it becomes one more building block

[ Page 15498 ]

toward the time that we achieve the certainty that we all desire for future generations -- for the children of both first nations and non-first nations -- as we realize that if we were to leave some of these issues to the next generation, we would simply be leaving them an even more difficult problem than the one that faces us at this time.

So I appreciate the opportunity to take my place in this discussion, and I look forward to seeing this implemented.

The Speaker: I recognize the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs to close debate.

Hon. D. Lovick: When I was in McLeod Lake a couple of weeks ago to sign these documents for adhesion and settlement, I looked out at the crowd and saw all these wonderfully happy faces. I remember saying at the time, what a nice change that was from the Legislature where I normally spend my time. But after listening to the fact that we seem to have support on both sides of the House for this measure, I am very pleased indeed that we are seeing smiling faces here -- and we should be. This is a significant accomplishment.

It's worth noting that when I was up there, on the table in front of us was a Hudson's Bay blanket, and on top of the blanket was a wolf pelt. It's sort of a reminder of where we had been and where this particular band came from.

The Carrier-Sekani people, obviously close to the land, had a difficult time, because it's not the most productive land in the world. It's been a hard struggle for them for all these years. I want to acknowledge, as so many others have here, the courage of these folks for their persistence in coming to this day.

I listened very carefully to comments from the other side, and I welcome all the comments made from both this side of the House and from the other side. I want to say that I appreciate the comments and also the spirit in which they were offered -- some criticisms, some legitimate questions, most of which, of course, we will address during committee stage.

Let me ever so briefly respond to a couple of the points, though. I think, for the record, we have some obligation to say a couple of these things -- for example, the notion that it took too long. That's probably true, but it's probably true to say that of every treaty we will ever negotiate in this province. A tremendous amount of goodwill on all parties' parts . . . . I think we are better served, frankly, to look forward on this one, rather than look back and start assigning blame. This is why this one bogged down and why we weren't here more quickly.

[1645]

Second, what I think is a much more serious point -- and I don't mean for a moment to put words in the mouth of the member for Matsqui -- is the suggestion left out there that somehow the McLeod Lake treaty, Treaty 8, might be a model for other treaties. With the exception of a few other bands in the Rocky Mountain Trench that may well, because of historical connection, want to connect with Treaty 8 bands . . . . So far we've heard nothing to that effect. With the exception of those people -- I will be very blunt -- there is no other band I've ever heard of in this province that would in any way commit to a Treaty 8 provision whereby (

a) the treaty is only about land and cash, and (

b) where there is cede, release, surrender language. Cede, release, surrender language is absolutely anathema to all other first nations in this province. That is why we are now struggling with certainty language.

What we thought we had achieved in the Nisga'a final agreement was language that would satisfy the demands of both parties. It would provide certainty to the non-aboriginal people of this province and also satisfy the concerns of first nations people that their rights were not being extinguished. The first nations people, through their spokespersons at the summit, advised us that they and the people they represent are not yet persuaded that the language that we used in the Nisga'a treaty does achieve what we think it does and doesn't achieve what they fear it might.

We've come a long way from cede, release, surrender language. It is simply not in the cards any longer. I can't think that anybody who thinks too much about it . . . . I don't think the member meant this, by the way, and I hasten to point that out. I don't think anybody trying to negotiate a treaty would dare take it to the table. If somebody came and brought it forward, that might be different. I'd be willing to bet a significant sum of money -- at least a dinner -- that says no band in this province will ever settle for cede, release, surrender language, with the possible exception of the Rocky Mountain Trench. Even there I'm pretty darn skeptical of that as well.

I want to embrace the point made by a number of others -- namely, treaties will always live or die on the basis of the degree of support they have in their local communities. A number of people have spoken about the fact that in the McLeod Lake territory -- in Prince George, in McLeod Lake itself, in Mackenzie and surrounding communities -- there has been wonderful consultation and, therefore, wonderful support, for the measures in this treaty adhesion.

That's absolutely appropriate; it's also instructive, I think, for future treaties. I would, I guess, simply make the point that if we can say that and say that it is absolutely the requirement for treaty and that without it, you can't have a treaty . . . . How can my friend across the way say that and then