1987 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, APRIL 3, 1987

Morning Sitting

[ Page

431 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Presenting Reports –– 431

Tabling Documents –– 431

Private Members' Statements

Science World. Mr. R. Fraser –– 431

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy

Mr. Lovick

Report on unwanted pregnancies. Ms. Smallwood –– 433

Mrs. Gran

Ms. Campbell

Hanford nuclear reservation. Mr. Dirks –– 434

Mr. Clark

Hon. Mr. Strachan

Mr. G. Hanson

Proposed Island Highway. Mr. Lovick –– 436

Hon. Mr. Michael

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Bruce

Boundary Act (Bill 3). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 438

Mr. Williams –– 438

Sechelt Indian Government District Enabling Act (Bill 4). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 438

Mr. Skelly –– 439

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 440

Mr. Guno –– 442

Mr. Long –– 443

Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 444

Sechelt Indian Government District Enabling Act (Bill 4). Committee stage 445

Mr. Hewitt

Third reading

Appendix –– 446

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. JACOBSEN :

It's my pleasure this morning to welcome a couple of very special

ladies to the gallery. I'd like to introduce Lois Serwa, wife of the

first member for Okanagan South, and my wife, Launi. Would the House

please welcome them.

Orders of the Day

Presenting Reports

MR. R. FRASER : Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to introduce a committee report.

Leave granted.

MR. R. FRASER :

As Chairman of the Special Committee of Selection, I wish to present

the second report of the said committee and move that the report be

taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

MR. R. FRASER : By leave of the House, I move that the second report of the Committee of Selection be adopted.

Motion approved.

MR. R. FRASER :

By leave of the House, I move that the second report of the Committee

of Selection be appended to today's Hansard. (See appendix.]

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Strachan tabled the eighteenth annual report of the activities of the Fraser River Joint Advisory Board.

Private Members' Statements

SCIENCE WORLD

MR. R. FRASER :

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to take you and the members of the House through

a quick, imaginary conversation. As you're walking down the streets of

Vancouver, someone comes up to you and says: "I'm a tourist from

California. Can you think of someplace where I might spend the few

hours I have left in Vancouver?" The answer would be: "Get on the light

rapid transit, go down to the geodesic dome and go to Science World."

He says: "That's right, I remember that; I was here at Expo. I saw the

wonderful Expo that you put on. It was great. I'm back here, and

because you've given me this great advice, I'm going to go down to

Science World."

So we will find our tourists going down there and looking at what we hope will

be, or what I certainly hope will be, one of the finest science museums in North

America. It will do a number of things apart from the tourism issue that we

spoke about briefly. What I really want to concentrate on from my perspective,

and for you, is what it will do to the children of the province who we believe,

or I certainly believe, should be given a greater exposure to science so that

they will become more inclined to get into science. Because science is where

we're going today; science is what the children need to study.

Now

we learned, in fact, from the years 1982 to 1986 that the school

children of British Columbia became more aware of science and became

better involved with science, which is kind of amazing. In fact, I

think some people found that kind of incredible. But what we're going

to do is expand their minds, because more and more the work that we do

and the votes we take and the decisions we make are based on science,

and therefore we need to have a greater awareness.

In the

great municipality of Surrey, for example, I understand that we had a

science fair which attracted 15,000 people. There is a growing

awareness of science, and I think we want to work on that. According to

some of the grade 6 and 7 children that were there, they said a science

fair gives them an opportunity to express their knowledge in a certain

area or subject which requires research. We've got the kids thinking

into the future already.

In fact, the reason that is so

important is that we also learn with a little bit of research that when

children get turned off science, which occurs very early, about grade

8, they don't come back. We have been advised through some of our

research efforts that many of our teachers fell into this as well.

Luckily, most of them have come back, Mr. Speaker; luckily, most of our

teachers now are aware of the science aspect of our world and want to

work at it,

We find Canadians have done great work in

science. We learned yesterday that some 20 years ago one of our

Canadian scientists decided that dinosaurs might indeed have been

warm-blooded. None of us had heard of that, I don't think, but if it

was true — and we now hear that it might be — we are learning that

the study of life history and of science is important, and we are

learning in fact that the whole museum....

MR. BLENCOE : Speaking of dinosaurs....

MR. R. FRASER : Yes, that's right, you do took a bit like a dinosaur, Mr. Member.

learn that the science museums are gaining momentum, and the

participation in science museums is going up. People are becoming

genuinely fascinated by this. That is why I want the Science World

group to occupy the geodesic dome on the former Expo site, and that is

why I would encourage our government — I see the minister is here — to support Science World in its approach to their project there.

would imagine that if we were lucky enough to see that tourist again by

accident just before he was leaving town, he would say: "You British

Columbians are fantastic. I can't imagine how you could repeat Expo on

a smaller scale, if you like, in Science World in the geodesic dome,

but you've done it, and I am grateful to you. Not only will I come back

again, but I will bring my friends and my family."

The

Minister of Tourism will now be happy. Not only will they create jobs

in tourism, but we will have our bright young students creating jobs

because of their interest in science and leading the province into the

new technological society that we have to move into. Can you think of

any better and more enjoyable way to turn on the minds of the kids than

with a project like Science World? That is why we should put it in

[ Page 432 ]

the building that is already world-famous and already accessible because of light rapid transit. What more could we do?

Interjections.

MR. R. FRASER :

Do I hear opposition? Do I hear them saying: "Don't let the kids get

exposed to science"? I don't think I do. Not from the members

opposite — they wouldn't. But I know that our people want science.

I know they want the kids to be educated, because the other day the

member across the room said, in reading the rolls of the food bank:

"They don't have a high level of education."

No wonder we're pushing science; no wonder we're pushing education here. That's Science World, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

MR. R. FRASER :

You should be thinking about it, Mr. Member. I've convinced you. All

right then, you're all for it. I hope the government will support it as

well. I know they're short a few dollars.

MR. BLENCOE : How much?

MR. R. FRASER : Not enough to make a big difference, and I want the government to go along with this one.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY :

I am so pleased to have this expression of enthusiasm, interest and

excitement expressed on this great spring morning in British Columbia.

However,

Mr. Speaker, it is a serious statement that the member for Vancouver

South has just given us, because it expresses British Columbia's

commitment and how we are looking to science and technology as the fuel

and formula for generating job-creating investment, economic expansion

and industrial development, and there is no way that we are going to be

able to do that unless we have the young people of our province

attuned. The young people today who are in kindergarten will be

graduating in 13 years, in the year 2000, and what an important time of

their lives to learn about science and technology.

I want

to say that never before in this province's history has the commitment

to science and technology been so clear. Our Premier has indicated

through the budget speech and the throne speech the commitment to

science and technology and has announced that there will be a Premier's

committee on science and technology, and it will be given a very

serious profile and very serious commitment.

[10:15]

I would

like to address the suggestion of using the previous centre at Expo,

the geodesic dome, for a science and technology centre. As you know,

the group was given the first right of refusal until January 1, 1987,

and it was contingent upon raising sufficient dollars, to have

sufficient capital and operating funds. Unfortunately, they were

unable to do that by that date, and so they lost their first right

of refusal. However, I want to say to you, in the same spirit as I have

said to them, that if they are able to meet that commitment, certainly

the government has been very supportive and very excited about their

proposal, and, of course, as in all things, is really very committed to

making sure that before any suggestions are made the moneys are there.

I would

like to say too that the enthusiasm within that group is very high.

They have had support from all political parties. They have had support

from all communities. They have had support from throughout the

business/industrial sector, and from all walks of life. They have

worked very hard. The member has expressed the commitment that they

have shown. All I can say at this point in time is that their proposal

is before the government, the government is very keenly supportive of

their proposal, and now that we get down to the nitty-gritty as to

whether or not it can be done, it is dependent solely upon the

financial capabilities. It should also be known that when they lost

their first right of refusal, other people are coveting that same

property. All of those things will have to be weighed in their proper

context, to do the best thing for the people of British Columbia, who

of course are going to be paying the bill.

Mr. Speaker, may

I just applaud the member for Vancouver South for the enthusiasm he has

and say that with that kind of enthusiasm, science and technology will

be alive and well for a very long time to come in British Columbia.

MR. LOVICK :

I'm intrigued to discover that the Minister of Economic Development

feels obligated to stand up and tell us this is a serious subject,

after listening to the member for Vancouver South. I hope that's not

too subtle.

There is no question that the concept of

Science World is an exciting one and, I am sure, as somebody suggested,

does indeed find support on both sides of this House. The point,

however, is that we ought not to be blinded, by the exhibits and the

exhibitions, to the reality of science policy in this province; because

the predicament, sadly, seems to be that there isn't much of one.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. I must inform the member that the time is up.

MR. LOVICK : Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Fortunately, I need few words to respond.

MR. R. FRASER :

Yes, Mr. Speaker, indeed it was a serious subject that I presented

seriously, and I would certainly agree with the minister that this

particular issue has support from across the floor and from across the

province, from Campbell River and Duncan and Trail and Parksville and a

number of school boards and a number of councils. Indeed it will be

valuable to have the support of the opposition members, along with the

support of my colleagues on this side of the House.

Certainly

we have to overcome what researchers call a pervasive lack of science

literacy in Canada. I know we're making great strides, and I have no

other thoughts than those of compliments to those working in it — in particular to the teachers who have taken the time to become involved.

But

I would really wish to use my important few moments here to prevail

upon all of us in this room, including the Premier and the minister

responsible, to prevail upon the federal government to up their ante,

so that this project can go ahead and so that we can get this building

filled with that kind of activity to turn the children on, to make it

work in a number of ways, specifically for the minds of the young, and

also for those in the tourism business and others.

So with that I thank the members for their support.

[ Page 433 ]

REPORT ON UNWANTED PREGNANCIES

MS. SMALLWOOD :

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to talk about the Health

ministry's report on abortion, a report that was released to the public

this week. I realize that not everyone in this House has had an

opportunity to actually look at the report. There has certainly been a

fair amount of publicity on it, but this time perhaps gives me an

opportunity to look at some of the components and some of the

recommendations that the report brings forward.

I'd like to

state in opening that this report was a very well thought-out, rational

approach to a very difficult problem. The recommendations in the

report, I believe, are sound recommendations.

If I might go

through them, the first recommendation talks about better educational

contraceptive programs. I think this is a very important concept —

a concept that many devoted community groups have been working on for a

long time. The community groups have spent a great deal of energy and

commitment trying to fulfil their role in sharing information and

helping young people make rather major decisions in their lives. I'm

hoping that the money that the minister has put aside for alternatives

to abortion can go into backing organizations like the Planned

Parenthood Association. Planned Parenthood is one of the organizations

that has been working for a long time and has a very good reputation in

the community, but, unfortunately, has suffered severe cutbacks with

government funding over the last couple of years. I would deduce from

the recommendations, if the ministry was indeed going to adopt them,

that Planned Parenthood would be funded properly.

The

second recommendation is a recommendation that talks extensively about

counselling, about providing information to people so that they can

make an informed decision. My concern about this area is that it does

not talk about the type of information available. I believe that when

there is counselling, all of the information should be put forward, and

it should not be put forward in a narrow, ideological way. There should

be counselling not only on support services that the government,

hopefully, is committed to but also on the women's right to abortion

services.

In the third recommendation it talks a great deal

about programs and support, financial assistance; it talks about

improved access to special programs to enable pregnant teens to

continue their schooling. I believe this is a fundamental recognition

of the fact that many young women in our society, if they felt that

they had an opportunity to participate fully in mainstream economics in

our province, wouldn't find themselves in the predicament of having an

unwanted pregnancy. So I commend the report's recommendation on

enabling young teens to continue their education, and I would look to

the government to support such a program throughout all school

districts, not only for the young women who are carrying unwanted

pregnancies but perhaps with actual day-care facilities at the site so

that they can continue their education afterwards.

The

report goes on, for its fourth recommendation, to talk about a special

panel on ethical issues in health. Again I think that this is a very

important area. It's important because the report talks about the broad

nature of such a panel. It talks about such issues as euthanasia,

genetic engineering and the use of human embryonic tissue for

scientific purposes. I would add to that list other areas of

significance that such a committee should deal with. However, it's very

important that the government, in its attempt to deal with these

serious issues, deals with them in such a way that it can garner

support and confidence from the majority of people in this province.

Such a process must be a very open process; it must include all

opinions, all valid information, so that the people of this province

can be assured that such ethical decisions are being made and are

reflecting the majority of the people in this province, not just

narrowly on the view of abortion or the definition of hell.

The

final statement I'd like to make is that in no way does this report

recommend that the government take strong restrictive actions to limit

or reduce the overall supply of abortion services. It goes on to point

out, indeed, that there may be some legal complications if the

government should decide to do so.

While this report

fulfills its mandate and deals with the questions put forward to it by

the Premier, it does not begin to address some of the remedies, some of

the solutions, that I feel we should be looking at. It acknowledges the

fact that many women off the lower mainland seek medical services in

Vancouver not because of the facilities in their own community but

because of their hospitals' inability to grapple with the issue of

safe, accessible medical services for them. I feel that the next step

ensure people of this province that indeed everyone has equal access

and an equal right to safe, accessible abortions in this province. I

would throw that challenge out not only to the Premier but especially

to the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck), as this follows under his

responsibility.

I look forward to a response. I see the Minister of Health is not here. Perhaps the Premier would have something to say.

MRS. GRAN :

I have listened with some interest to the female members on the other

side of the House for the past two weeks. I have some difficulty in

being singled out in this society, as I've said before in this House.

Women have rights and men have rights. The issue of abortion is an

issue that isn't just a woman's prerogative. It has something to do

with another individual also.

I think that the other side of the House is asking for — and please correct if I'm wrong —

easier access to abortion and, in fact, encouraging women and young

girls to have abortions. It's my understanding that there are long

lineups of couples that want children, and I believe we should be

encouraging those women and young girls to have those babies, if it is

safe for them to do so, so that they can be adopted out to loving

families.

Sometime in the very near future we as a society

are going to have to decide when life begins. I believe, as many people

on this side of the House do, that life begins before birth, and that

we do not have the right as women or men to take the life of that

unborn child just because it is an inconvenience to us. Nor on this

side of the House are we saying that women shouldn't have the right to

abortion. That is a federal law that is administered by the provincial

government, and this government does not have the right to take it

away. But I do not — and I would not — ever want to see us

encourage women to have abortions if there is any possible way for them

to have that child and have it adopted into a loving home.

fact, if we in this society opened our hearts a little bit more and

looked after the young women who are pregnant and cannot look after

their children, it would, I think, alleviate the number of abortions

that are done in the hospital. I

[ Page 434 ]

can't

believe that a woman can stand up and say it is her right to destroy a

life. It is not her right to destroy that life. If that service is

available and she decides that she wants to do it, that is her decision

to make, I guess; but I would hate for any government or any

representative of any constituency.... In fact, I have a question for

some of the members on the other side of the House: do you represent

just the women in your constituency or do you represent everyone in

that constituency?

[10:30]

MS. CAMPBELL : Mr. Speaker, I would also like to make some comments in this debate.

agree with the proponent of the statement this morning that the report

is a good one, an objective one, and I think it touches on an issue

which is perhaps one of the most divisive in our society. But I would

like just to draw the members' attention to something that is of great

concern to me.

Yesterday morning I heard an interview on

CBC radio where a young person indicated that they had in fact

participated with young people in birth control clinics, but had

themselves been pregnant as a teenager even though they had the

knowledge. I think sexuality is one of the most important parts of our

being. I am not a prude; I believe sexuality is a legitimate theme for

literature and cultural expression because it is so intrinsic to the

human experience. But I am deeply concerned that in our culture now,

much more than when I was a teenager and trying to deal with the

physical stresses of puberty, we have many, many cultural stereotypes

of irresponsible sexuality, and I believe we must look to that as a

society. It is very difficult for young people to deal with their

emerging sexuality. I don't think that religious views or even family

upbringing are sufficient in this day and age to deal with what is a

very provocative and sexually loaded culture. I would hate to see this

take the form of prudery or a failure to realize that there are very

useful and in fact very instructive ways of dealing with sexuality in

literature.

I am personally very distressed and very

grateful that I am not having to deal with my adolescent sexuality in

the 1980s, because I think it is very difficult for young people to

develop responsible attitudes toward their own sexuality when they've

only to turn on the television and see people engaging in sexual

activity of the sort that gives no suggestion of the

responsibility — I don't just mean the responsibility to use one's

fertility in a socially acceptable way, but the emotional

responsibility to other human beings; sexual relationships are deeply

affecting emotionally — and I believe that that is a role model and an example that is very destructive to young people today.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

I am very tempted to jump into a heated debate, as has been provoked by

the initial reply from the government side. I am somewhat saddened by

the fact the Minister of Health or, indeed, the Premier, who is the

person who initiated this report in the first place, did not see fit to

comment or to add their particular view or their voice to the

information at this time. I'm very concerned that the response from the

member for Langley (Mrs. Gran) was such an emotional one, such a biased

view. I agree that this issue is an important one; as I said, I commend

the report for trying to deal with the information in a very informed

fashion.

The report points out very clearly that there are

not abuses in this province, that the majority of abortions that are

performed are performed in consultation with the woman and her doctor

and therapeutic abortion committees. That legal process has not been

circumvented. The report acknowledges that therapeutic abortion

committees in this province are basically respecting the views of the

doctors who have firsthand information about the situation. I want to

make a very strong statement in this House that the issue, as far as I

am concerned and as far as my colleagues are concerned, is an issue of

democracy, an issue of choice and an issue of the right to safe health

care in this province.

MRS. GRAN : The choice is there.

MS. SMALLWOOD : I believe that this report — and if some of the back-benchers on the government side would read it —

is very clear that the choice is not there for all women in this

province. I feel that it is incumbent upon this government to ensure

that everyone in this province is treated equally and that everyone in

this province has access to good medical services. It is clear in this

report that that is not the situation.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. We're in the sector of private

members' statements that deals with the proponent in reply. The

proponent has finished; that statement is finished.

MR. SPEAKER : The time was up anyway.

HANFORD NUCLEAR RESERVATION

MR. DIRKS : The notice of private members' statements was very brief in my regard; it was simply one word —

Hanford. For some people in this province, "Hanford" itself, the word,

is a statement. To a lot of people in this province it raises deep

concern, and therefore I bring it to the attention of the House this

morning.

What is Hanford? Well, Hanford is a 1,450-square

kilometre nuclear reserve consisting of a number of facilities: first

of all, a fuel fabrication plant, where uranium is converted to fuel

elements for a nuclear reactor; secondly, a nuclear plant, where

controlled nuclear reaction produces plutonium and other radioactive

byproducts; thirdly, a plutonium-uranium extraction plant, or purex;

fourthly, a plutonium finishing plant, where liquid plutonium is

converted to a solid state; fifthly, it is a temporary nuclear waste

dump.

I don't want to be an alarmist, Mr. Speaker, but

Hanford is of great concern to a number of British Columbians, because

it is located only some 400 kilometres from this very House.

Approximately 70 percent of the population of British Columbia lives

within a 400-kilometre radius of that site. It is located right on the

banks of the Columbia River. Although it has been used and is used as a

temporary dump site, it is now short-listed as a possible permanent

nuclear waste dump site. Last but not least, the nuclear reactor, the

N-reactor, is presently undergoing a safety refit — although its life expectancy is estimated to be only three to seven years — due to a swelling of the reactor core.

you say, Mr. Speaker, what is the problem that the reactor is

undergoing a refit? Well, according to the independent six-member task

force that was appointed by the U.S. federal Department of Energy, too

little is being done in too little time. The 23-year-old graphite core

reactor, similar in some respects to that at Chernobyl, has no steel

and concrete reinforced containment building. It cannot be shut down by

[ Page 435 ]

remote

control. There are no safeguards to ensure that the control room is

kept habitable in case of an accident. The emergency cooling system

pumps river water into the reactor and then dumps it onto the ground,

to seep back into the Columbia River. There is no hydrogen-control

system, nor does it have a hydrogen-indicating system in areas where

hydrogen is most likely to build up.

These are perhaps the

worst deficiencies. But that six-member task force found some 88 safety

deficiencies. They claim the planned safety refit, to cost some $50

million and take six months to complete, will not be adequate, and

therefore have recommended that the reactor be permanently shut down.

However, in spite of this, the refit continues, and now the U.S. House

defence appropriation subcommittee was told on March 10, just a couple

of weeks ago, that the reactor would restart in June of this year, when

this inadequately planned modification will only be some 60 percent

complete. Measures to prevent a hydrogen explosion, and measures to

correct the contamination caused by release of the emergency cooling

water, may not be completed for another three years

Mr.

Speaker, this reactor, of questionable safety, is located on a site

that has been used as a temporary dump site for nuclear waste since its

inception during the Second World War. It is not a clean site. Some

contaminants are, and have been, stored in open pits; some stored

underground in tanks; others simply dumped on the ground and later

covered with dirt. The cost of the cleanup of Hanford, and its 40-year

legacy of being a nuclear waste dump, ranges anywhere from $11 billion

to $17 billion; and to do it properly, that sum could reach $100

billion.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Surely, Mr.

Speaker, when one considers the present problems of site contamination,

and then looks at the numerous fault lines and fracture zones in

eastern Washington, which have now been detected by new radar mapping

techniques, the suitability of Hanford as a permanent dump site

certainly must be questioned.

Besides the need to have the

Hanford site cleaned up, there are two issues presently of great

concern. One, will the nuclear reactor be safe for restarting in June,

after such a short refit? Secondly, will the suitability of the site be

thoroughly investigated before a decision is made to make it into a

permanent dump site, where much higher radioactivity material would

accumulate? They estimate some 70,000 metric tonnes of highly

radioactive material would be stored there.

We need once

more, Mr. Speaker, to raise this issue with our federal government. We

need assurances that our present safety and the safety of our future

generations are not in jeopardy because of Hanford. I think it would be

a timely move on the part of our government to approach the federal

government, because it is my understanding that the U.S. Department of

Energy presented to Congress a draft emission plan on January 29 of

this year. That's an update of its May 1986 national policy of managing

radioactive waste. This draft emission plan requests Congress to

endorse a five-year extension of the startup date, from 1998 to the

year 2003, for the first U.S. nuclear waste repository in the west. I

think it is very timely that we again approach the federal government

on our behalf.

MR. CLARK : Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased

to rise in this debate, and I think it's very timely. I want to deal

first with the Hanford waste dump. As the member stated, it's

shortlisted to become the repository of all of the nuclear waste in the

United States. As we know, it has serious flaws in the geology of the

region, and it has already suffered serious leaks into the Columbia

River.

There has been, as I understand it, a referendum in

Washington state that virtually overwhelmingly rejected Hanford as a

repository for nuclear waste. There was a referendum in Oregon

sponsored by citizens' groups that was overwhelmingly against the site.

The governor has stated that he's concerned about the site, and where

has the provincial government been? Absolutely silent on this critical

area, the Columbia River, which we share with the Americans; the

government has been silent.

They had a perfect opportunity

last month when the federal regulatory body in the United States was

holding public hearings. We could have gone there and presented our

case against such a site so close to our borders, but we didn't. We've

had opportunities to raise this at the federal level, with the Governor

of Washington and at the federal government hearings that they held on

the matter, and we've been silent. The member is quite correct: this is

a very serious matter which we should be dealing with at the highest

levels in this government, and they've been silent.

Similarly,

and perhaps in some ways more importantly, the reactor that's about to

restart . . . . As the member stated, it's the same kind of reactor as

Chernobyl; but in fact it's not like Chernobyl. Chernobyl is a child of

this reactor; it is an improvement over this reactor. This is the

grandfather. This is one of the oldest nuclear plants in North America,

one of the oldest in the world, and it has proven again and again to be

unsafe. Eighty-eight safety violations, and they're going to restart

it. And where has the government been on that question? They've been

silent again.

[10:45]

As we know, we have fallout here because of Chernobyl —

thousands of miles away. Whole areas of the Scandinavian countries have

been decimated, and the consequences are even yet to be known in terms

of some of the rural areas in the Scandinavian countries. So these

things are serious, and it travels for thousands of miles. Here we have

a plant that's less than 100 miles from the border. As the member

stated, something like 70 percent of the population of the province of

British Columbia is within 400 kilometres of this plant.

anything happens down there, we're the people who are affected. And

where has the government been? Silent again on this very important

question. It's too important to be raised by back-benchers in this kind

of debate. It should be a prime policy concern of this government. I

hope the members in the government and the cabinet are listening to

this, because it is of critical importance. We must raise it, and we

must raise it again. They should be presenting their case before all

bodies to try to stop this really insane buildup.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

I'll be brief, because I recognize that the first member for Victoria

wishes to address this, but I can assure the House that extensive

discussion has gone on with the federal government and the government

of British Columbia, and I reviewed it with the first ministry I was

with. For the record, Garde Gardom, as Minister of Intergovernmental

Relations, had some lengthy and serious discussion with the Rt. Hon.

Joe Clark, Minister of External Affairs,

[ Page 436 ]

regarding

Hanford. I want it on the record that the government of British

Columbia is very much aware of the concern that has been expressed and

has acted in the best interests of all citizens of British Columbia.

MR. G. HANSON :

With the brief time that's available to me, I want to indicate that my

colleague in Victoria and I have raised this issue on a number of

occasions, and we're heartened by the fact that the Governor of the

state of Washington, Mr. Booth Gardner, opposes the Hanford

development, as does the recently elected senator, Brock Adams, and the

congressman for the city of Seattle, Mike Lowry.

Much has

been said about the site itself. I'd like to indicate something about

the transportation of the radioactive cores to that site. I wonder how

many members in the House realize that that proposal is to deal with

spent radioactive cores on the Pacific Rim as well — Korea and Taiwan — and that that material would be brought by ship through the Juan de Fuca Strait, less than one mile from where we sit today.

This

Hanford proposal is of concern to the citizens of Victoria. My

understanding from the governor and the senators in Washington state is

that they are arguing that it should not be seen as the main depository

for radioactive material, but that a moratorium should be placed on any

increase of materials stored there. Members should realize that those

ships coming through the Juan de Fuca Strait and into Puget Sound would

be offloaded by rail. They would then travel by rail along level

crossings, up the Columbia . . . .

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Sorry, hon. member, time is expired.

MR. G. HANSON :

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's a very important subject that's of concern

to the citizens of Victoria, and I appreciate the opportunity to say

something about it.

MR. DIRKS : I'm sorry, Mr.

Speaker, that I caused an us versus-them type of debate. I didn't think

that something like Hanford was . . . . I thought Hanford was above

this "you haven't done it; we've done it".

This has been

discussed in this House before, and I am pleased to say that there has

been correspondence from this House to the federal government last year

concerning this very issue. I simply wanted to raise it again in this

House and ensure that the federal government was looking after our

safety. In that regard I sent a telex this morning to my MP, asking him

what measures the federal government has taken since August 1986 to

inform the United States government about our concerns. I also wondered

what assurances he has received that the refit presently being carried

out is comprehensive enough to ensure that safety at that installation

will be there in spite of the projected short refit.

I simply wanted to ask again and urge that the Minister of Intergovernmental

Relations (Hon. Mr. Rogers) use his good offices to bring our concerns to the

federal Minister of Externnal Affairs, Mr. Joe Clark.

PROPOSED ISLAND HIGHWAY

MR. LOVICK : I welcome this opportunity to stand before the House today

and to talk about a subject that is very important to the people of my constituency

of Nanaimo, as well as to all the people of Vancouver Island. I am talking once

more about the Island Highway, and I make no apologies for doing that. Indeed,

I will continue to talk about the Vancouver Island Highway until such time as

we get some concrete — or asphalt — evidence that something is happening, or

until we see money on the table. I think we have had enough promises and projections.

The time has come for action. I know that people on both sides of this House

recognize the need for work on the Island Highway. In fact, everybody who looks

at the problem has recognized that.

is also widely recognized that the people of Vancouver Island have not

been served as well as they ought in comparison with other regions of

this province. In fact, I would refer all of us to a document entitled

"Vancouver Island Economic Strategy Discussion Paper." It was

commissioned by the mayors of Vancouver Island. That document pointed

out that the government spends less per capita on highway expenditure

on the citizens of Vancouver Island than it does for citizens in other

regions of the province. For example, in 1984 the per capita

expenditure on Vancouver Island amounted to some $14. The amount was

$87 for the rest of the province.

The Vancouver Island

mayors made one of their themes the fact that Vancouver Island did not

get its "fair share." Curiously enough, two of the mayors who sponsored

and signed that document are sitting in this House today. One of them

is the current Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier), and the other

is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transportation and

Highways (Mr. Bruce).

The point, it would seem, is that we

are clearly agreed on two things. One, we all recognize there is need

for both an improved and an upgraded Island Highway — the existing

highway. Also there is need for an alternate route, what we have called

an "inland Island highway." They also recognize that the Island has

been underserved. We deserve more than we have had.

I want

to commend the government on its stated intentions. It has promised

that there will be a major highway initiative. It has stated that a

full report will come out in June 1987 following consultation with

various communities. "Good stuff," to use a phrase from the other side.

I fear, however, that the stated intentions may be drowned out by the

delays and inactions.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK :

Inaction, I would remind the member opposite, often speaks louder than

words. I think we have to guard against a growing skepticism, because

many people are looking to the promises. They are — perhaps understandably — suspicious. They are wary. They think they've heard those songs before.

For

example, in 1979 the provincial government announced its estimation

that it would take some seven to ten years to build a new Island

highway. Guess what they're saying in 1987? In 1987 the government is

announcing precisely the same thing. In 1982 the Minister of

Transportation and Highways distributed a report for review by the

municipal authorities concerning specific route selections, which

sounds very similar indeed to what the minister is promising now. In

1984 the minister at the time stated that the new Island route would be

given "top priority." We heard precisely the same thing in 1986, and

we've heard precisely the same thing since. There are, in short, lots

of signs that something is happening, but not much else. Because when

[ Page 437 ]

the

minister in 1987 stands and announces that he is now seeking local

input, one wants to simply say that we have had local input for more

than ten years already, thank you very much. Lots of intentions but not

much action. The reason seems to be that there is not much money

available.

To my question in the House the other day the

minister was, I think I can fairly say, evasive if not non-specific. I

think people have reason to be skeptical, just because it also appears

their queries and concerns are not being addressed.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK : Thank you for restraining that person opposite, Mr. Speaker.

I want to refer, for example — and I say this with gentleness and understanding, I hope —

to a letter, dated some time ago, to the Minister of Highways

concerning a perceived problem at an intersection of the Island Highway

in the South Wellington district. The letter-writer is a mother of

small children who is concerned about a problem at that intersection of

the Island Highway. If I can just make this point very quickly, Mr.

Speaker, I shall. Her concern is that there is a problem at the

highway. She hasn't had an answer. She claims the letter was written

over a month ago. More importantly, the letter is not a single sheet

that could be thrown away. Rather, it's a letter that has eight pages

of signatures attached — 222 names. Those people, I'm suggesting,

are skeptical, because apparently they can't even get an answer on that

direct question.

I see my time has ended. I will therefore leave that for the moment to the minister.

HON. MR. MICHAEL :

It gives me pleasure to rise and respond on this very important

subject, the development of a four-lane highway on Vancouver Island. I

certainly support a lot of the things the member said. I believe that

anyone who has traveled the Island will recognize that we have a very

cherished resource on this island. We have a beautiful island, an

island with a lot of amenities, and an opportunity to develop an

infrastructure that will further build on the economies of this

province and this island and continue to attract large numbers of

tourists — in even greater numbers in the months and years ahead.

It's

imperative that we not make any errors in the engineering plans and

design of this facility, this structure. It must be done correctly. We

must have public input. This government has clearly committed itself

that within ten years that Island development will be complete. We

stand by that. We have committed ourselves to prepare an extensive

report, having received public input, for delivery to the Premier no

later than June 1987. We have already had meetings at Qualicum Beach,

Courtenay, Campbell River and Nanaimo, and several hundred people have

dropped in to express their views and concerns regarding the

development of this highway. Future meetings will be held in Port

McNeill, Port Hardy and Port Alberni, seeking further public input and

advice. The meetings will conclude in Duncan in the latter part of

April, and I expect to have an extensive report prepared for the

Premier and the government by June 1987. So once again, I believe it's

imperative that whatever we do there is done right. We don't want to

destroy any of the beauty. We want to make sure that the design is done

in such a way, with public input, that we serve the communities north

and south, up and down, beautiful Vancouver Island.

[11:00]

MR. GABELMANN :

In ten years hundreds more people will be dead, killed by that highway.

The road should be started and completed within two years. There's no

reason why it can't be done. The first studies, the first discussions,

go back to the late 1940s. In 1980 a comprehensive proposal was put

together by the Highways ministry. They commissioned an over-$100,000

study, with detailed routes and planning, and all of the environmental,

ALR and other community problems worked out — solutions proposed.

All the discussions had been held with all the communities. The AVIM

has said it's ready to go. Council after council on Vancouver Island

has said they're ready to go. The chambers of commerce, the labour

councils, every organization that has an interest in the Island

Highway, has said: "Let's go. We're ready to go." There are one or two

tiny decisions yet to be made in terms of route selection; but they're

small, they aren't very many, and they can be done in a matter of

weeks. We need to get on with this immediately,

It is not

just that lives will be saved; it is that the economy of Vancouver

Island could be enhanced by this road too. If you are a skier in

Victoria, and you want to ski on Mount Washington and help the economy

of the Comox Valley and the economy of Mount Washington, you have to go

through 22 traffic lights in Nanaimo. You have to go on a dangerous

road; when it is raining at night, you take your life in your hands. As

a result, people don't go; people don't travel. All kinds of other

economic benefits are also hindered and hampered by the failure on the

part of this government to build a road.

I could say a lot more, but I would like the member for Nanaimo to have another minute as well.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : There's a moment left for the member for Cowichan-Malahat.

MR. BRUCE :

Mr. Speaker, it is action that the opposition wants, and it is action

that this government is going to give in regard to the Island Highway.

In fact, work is already beginning for those who drive the Island

Highway regularly, as I do, and very shortly they will see construction

occurring on Tunnel Hill, just south of the summit of the Malahat.

Only

last night I was at another public forum in Nanaimo with a great number

that turned out, approximately 200 people. It was not a question of

studying it some more, but as the opposition always states, they too

like to have input; so does the general public, and this government

believes in the input and the comments from the general population of

Vancouver Island.

Mr. Speaker, just in closing, it is very

clear that this government is taking action in respect to the Island

Highway, and indeed it will be built.

MR. LOVICK :

Mr. Speaker, I commend the parliamentary secretary for being specific.

Let me remind this House, however, that one of the reasons we had that

turnout in the meeting in Nanaimo last night — a meeting I attended —

is that a week before we had a major newspaper headline telling us:

"$80 Million Highway Project on the Way." The reality is that there is

not a nickel to support that claim. That's the problem. That's why

people are getting cynical and skeptical and fed up with the promises.

[ Page 438 ]

I am sorry I have to be as impassioned as I am. I would dearly hope one wouldn't need to do that.

Look —

we agree on two things, as I have suggested. We agree that there is a

need to upgrade and improve that highway, and we also agree that there

is a need to build a new inland route. The question is timing. What the

government continues to tell us is that we need more study and we need

to talk to more people. As I and my colleague from North Island have

pointed out, we have done those kinds of studies. We all know that more

and more people are now sensing that the government has abandoned its

responsibility. They are fed up, cynical and angry.

We all

know that nobody disputes that a road construction program would

provide a marvelous economic stimulus for our part of the Island.

Indeed, one of the more prominent local Social Credit members stood up

at the meeting last night and said: "What this island needs is a good

$60 million economic stimulus." Fascinating stuff.

We also

know, because everybody has acknowledged it, that the current highway

is totally inadequate and dangerous. The question that we want to end

on, though, surely is whether we are finally going to bite that bullet.

Let's prove once and for all to the cynics and the skeptics that they

are wrong. Let's prove that this is not a seven- to ten-year program

designed for two elections. Rather, let's demonstrate that we are going

to do it and we're going to do it now.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : I call second reading of Bill 3, Mr. Speaker.

BOUNDARY ACT

HON. MR. STRACHAN : The bill is in my name, so I will move second reading. This is interesting stuff.

Mr.

Speaker, British Columbia has always had a Boundary Act. However, when

the constitution of Canada was ratified in 1982, it said in part that

any amendment to the constitution of Canada in relation to any

provision that applies to one or more but not all provinces, including

any alteration to boundaries between provinces, must be made by

proclamation issued by the Governor-General under the Great Seal of

Canada, and only where so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and

the House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province

to which the amendment applies. Our former Boundary Act did not really

fit with the language and intent of the constitution, so it was

incumbent upon the government of British Columbia to redo the Boundary

Act in a form that would comply with constitutional requirements, and

that is the bill we have before us now.

I don't think there

is much more I can say on this. I understand we will be doing committee

at a later day, and if there are any technical questions, we will have

staff available to answer those questions.

MR. WILLIAMS : The opposition has reviewed the bill and finds it acceptable and as interesting as the minister.

Motion approved.

Bill 3, Boundary Act, read a second time.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : On behalf of the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Rogers), I call second reading of Bill 4.

SECHELT INDIAN GOVERNMENT

DISTRICT ENABLING ACT

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

I would like to make a few comments. I had charge of the bill for about

a month and a half and became very close to the issue. There is an

order of speakers today, but I'll make a few brief remarks before

turning the debate over to the Legislative Assembly.

At the

outset, I think it's incumbent upon me to recognize the good efforts of

the former chief, Stan Dixon, and the Sechelt band and the assistance

they had in initiating this legislation and also the federal

legislation. I'd also like to further commend to the assembly and, for

the record, compliment John Taylor, former Deputy Minister of Municipal

Affairs, who worked on a consultant basis for the government in

drafting this act, and also Bob Edwards, who will be here later today,

who was with the Attorney-General's ministry and carried on serious

negotiations with the government and Sechelt in terms of drawing up

this act so it was acceptable to the band itself and to the government

of British Columbia.

The history is that a couple of years ago the Sechelt band — and I should point out that the Sechelt band initiated this legislation and also the provincial legislation —

lobbied the federal government to adopt this form of self-government,

and the federal government did do it and introduced in June 1986 the

federal Sechelt Indian Band Self-Government Act. It was then incumbent

upon the government of British Columbia to write dovetail legislation

that would enable the band to do what it was empowered to do under the

federal act. This act before us is the result.

I think we

should also commend the federal government for acting in good faith and

acting rather quickly in drawing up their legislation.

This

act enables the band council to make laws dealing with zoning and land

use, expropriation, property taxes, health services on band land,

education and social welfare services for band members, public order

and safety.

I'm sure there will be other speakers speaking

to the extent of the act, and when we get into committee later this

morning we can further discuss and answer any questions there might be.

finally moving second reading and entering into debate, I have to voice

again my compliments and best wishes to the Sechelt band, who went

through some problems in the province and with other bands in

initiating this. They had in mind what they wanted to do. They lobbied

the federal government extensively and with good intent, and then the

provincial government. I commend them for their endeavour and their

intent and their willingness to bring this type of legislation and this

type of management to the natives of the Sechelt reserve.

They

are to be commended, and it is notable legislation. There is only one

other piece of legislation in Canada that allows for this type of

self-government, and that's for the Cree in Ontario or Quebec. It does

indicate good intent on the part of the province for aboriginal

self-government. It indicates a good initiative on behalf of the band

and also very good faith on behalf of the federal government.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

[ Page 439 ]

MR. SKELLY :

I'd like to thank the government House Leader for his initial words in

talking about the bill and the work that he did on the bill. The

opposition will be supporting this piece of legislation, and we have

indicated to the House Leader that we're prepared to have it passed as

quickly as possible, because this legislation doesn't finish the

business with the Sechelt tribe; what it does is enable them to get on

with refining some of the details so that they can get down to the

actual business of dealing with their community and expanding their

economy and pursuing some of their economic and social objectives. So

the opposition will be supporting this legislation, and hoping for its

implementation as quickly as possible.

What this act does is not so much create self-government for the Sechelt Indian band —

because essentially they come under the laws of the province and under

the laws of Canada, and the legislation fairly carefully states

that — as allow the Sechelt Indian band to free themselves from

some of the constraints of the Indian Act which prevented and impeded

the kind of economic and social development they wanted to see taking

place in their area, on their lands, lands which they held under

reserve status up to this point.

[11:15]

The minister has indicated that this legislation has come down relatively quickly. I want to point out to the minister — and I'm sure that successive generations of Sechelt band councils have done precisely the same thing —

that it has taken almost a fifth of a century to get to this point. It

has taken 15, 16 or 17 years to get to this point; this has not been

done relatively quickly. It has taken generations of negotiations

between Sechelt band councils and the provincial government and

national governments to come to the position where we now are, in

presenting this legislation both federally and provincially. I'd like

to congratulate those generations of band councillors and chiefs for

their patience in dealing with the provincial and federal governments

to achieve what is finally on the floor of this House — and which will mean further negotiations prior to its implementation.

behalf of the members of the New Democratic Party, who for many, many

years have represented the Sechelt band council in the Legislature, and

the interests of the Sechelt band council, I also want to wish the

Sechelt people the very best. I hope that this legislation is the kind

of thing that they're looking for in order to provide for their social

and economic objectives, to expand their economy and to provide work

and revenues for their people. I think that we can join with the

government in wishing the Sechelt people the very best on this.

But

there's one aspect of the agreement that this government has made

between the Sechelt people and itself that has already been broken, and

I think that's unfortunate. The Sechelt people have always indicated

that they did not intend this legislation, or their model, to be the

model imposed on other bands and other native communities around the

province. I think that when we attended the first ministers' conference

in Ottawa a few days ago, the point at which the Premier was booed at

that conference was when he seemed to indicate that this model would

become the model for other native bands or communities in British

Columbia. I would hope that in the Legislature today the minister or

the Premier will get up and indicate to the people of British Columbia

and to the native people of British Columbia that that's not his

intention, that he will begin negotiations with the native people to

attempt to deal with their aspirations for self-government and to

settle the outstanding native claims in British Columbia.

many native people have said, this kind of legislation does not reflect

their aspirations for self-government. In fact, it is not

self-government as they see it; it's simply a way of opting out of a

very repressive Indian Act, a way of opting out so that Indian bands

that have a unique situation in this province . . . . Sechelt is

located close to a substantial population centre, Vancouver. They're

located on lands that are very desirable from a tourist point of view

and therefore are attractive to the kinds of developments that the

Sechelt people want to be involved in. So they're uniquely situated

with respect to some economic development possibilities, and in fact

those economic development possibilities were impeded by the Indian Act

and the bureaucracy that has been established under the Indian Act. I

can assure you, Mr. Minister, Mr. House Leader and Mr. Premier, that

the kind of legislation that we're looking at here could never in a

million years be seen to apply to, for example, the situation of the

Hesquiat Indians on the west coast of Vancouver Island, or the

Nuchatlets, or other native groups.

When the Premier was at the first ministers' conference, he said the situation in British Columbia — and I agree with him —

is very much different from the situation elsewhere in Canada. He

indicated that there were something like 350 native communities that

would each have to be dealt with separately. But it appears that the

government has gone along that route, and that rather than dealing with

native Indian nations, they have preferred to deal with smaller

communities on a band-by-band basis. I hope this does not mean that by

dealing with one community on this basis, he intends to xerox many

copies of the Sechelt Indian legislation, change the names to other

band names and then try to impose it on other bands in the province.

I would hope that the Premier would begin approaching those native nations — and there's a small number of them, about 27 or 28 —

based on linguistic groups and family and self-government traditions,

and talking about the general land claims issue in the province. I

think this Premier has a tremendous opportunity to change the way this

province has been dealing this its native people and with the

legitimate claims native people. Rather than advocating the Sechelt

legislation as a model for those people in other parts of British

Columbia, I would hope that the Premier would get up in the Legislature

today and announce that he will be talking with native nations around

the province about their aspirations for self-government, their

aspirations with respect to land and resource claims, and their other

aspirations, and that out of those negotiations and discussions will

come resolutions to some outstanding problems that haven't really been

dealt with by this provincial government or by the national government

in Canada for many, many years.

Many native groups are now

concerned that, rather than moving these kinds of concerns and

negotiations forward, this legislation may in fact set them back,

because the provincial government will use this as a model, whether

they say they are going to or not. So I hope that the Premier will make

that statement today: that he has no intention of trying to impose this

model on other native groups in the province of British Columbia.

Mr.

Speaker, there are land claims that have taken place all over the

world, land claims that are still under discussion all over the world.

I visited the United Nations in New York

[ Page 440 ]

recently,

and one of the things that the people at the United Nations point to

with pride, although they haven't been successful in a number of areas,

is their efforts and achievements in the area of decolonization —

taking people and nations that were subservient to other nations and

establishing them as free, separate and independent countries in their

own right.

In the case of the province of British Columbia,

we have nations of people who, as a result of occupancy by non-Indians,

have become subservient in their own lands. They recognize themselves

as nations, they have a right to recognize themselves as nations, and

yet the occupants of British Columbia have imposed a system of laws,

land-holding and culture on them that they feel is inconsistent with

their nationhood and with their aspirations. What they don't want is to

take over this province, to take over the territory, and throw the rest

of us out. What they want to develop is a way to share this province

together in a way that recognizes the nationhood of Canada, the rights

of the province of British Columbia, as well as their rights and their

tradition of nationhood.

I think that capable leadership,

good leadership, in a provincial government would be able to sit down

with those native groups and with the federal government and work out a

way in which we could share this province to the best benefit of all of

us, recognizing the national status of native groups in this province.

I think it's possible. I think reasonable people with reasonable

proposals, sitting down at the table and discussing issues reasonably,

can come to those kinds of decisions that will be best for all of us

here in the province of British Columbia.

As I probably

pointed out in this House in the past, my family came from Ireland, Mr.

Speaker, and the Irish have had a land claim dating back thousands of

years. They were invaded by an adjacent country, and the laws of that

country were imposed on my ancestors. Their lands were taken from them

without any rights whatsoever, without any recognition of Irish law,

and it has taken a thousand years for Irish people to re-establish in

the Republic of Ireland their rights, laws, language and nationhood.

That doesn't mean they're going to solve all their problems, and

Ireland today probably has as many problems as ever, but those people

at least have the fight to determine in their own way, based on their

own traditions and based on their own culture, how they will proceed in

the future.

If the first minister in this government thinks

that measures like the Sechelt land legislation are going to deal with

that problem, he is desperately in error. It's not going to deal with

that problem at all. Indian nations in British Columbia, very much the

same as the Irish people, perceive themselves as nations, and as they

have for the last two or three hundred years they are going to remember

for the next thousands of years that they are a nation, and they are

going to work hard, and generations of people are going to work hard

until they can re-establish that nationhood again.

I think this Premier has a unique opportunity in British Columbia —

a unique opportunity to approach the native Indian people on the basis

that they are nations, on the basis that they do have a legitimate

claim to the land and resources of the province. The Premier has an

opportunity here to resolve those claims, recognize that national

status and produce a province where we can all work together for the

best economic and social interests of all of the people. If the Premier

would at least make that statement, it would move us in the direction

of resolving this problem that's been with us for many hundreds of

years.

Again, on behalf of the official opposition, we will

support the Sechelt legislation proposal. We will assist the government

in moving this legislation through all of its stages of reading — today, if the government chooses to do that —

so that the Sechelt people can get down to the business of implementing

this legislation and achieving their economic and social objectives

that require this legislation.

MR. BRUCE : Mr. Speaker, I beg leave of the House to make a very short introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. BRUCE :

In the gallery today are eight students and Mr. Douglas, the teacher,

from the Duncan Christian School, a very vibrant organization in

Cowichan-Malahat, who are here today to visit and see the proceedings

going on in the House.

Although I said it would be very

short and I wouldn't mention individual names, another two friends of

mine came into the House just a split second ago and are sitting in the

other side of the gallery. Would you bid them all a very warm welcome.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : I'd like to read a telegram that was received only the day before yesterday:

I WOULD LIKE TO CONGRATULATE YOU ON YOUR PARTICIPATION AT THE

FIRST MINISTERS' CONFERENCE. YOU REPRESENTED B.C. WITH HONOUR. I WOULD LIKE

TO MEET AND TALK WITH YOU. IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE HAVE AT LEAST ONE HOUR WITH

EACH OTHER.

is signed by Stan Dixon of the Sechelt Indian band. I read that

telegram, Mr. Speaker, because I think it's clear that there are many

people — native people as well — who do support the initiative we see before us today.

This

legislation, the Sechelt Indian Government District Enabling Act, is

about two things: it's about rights and responsibilities. B.C. has

aimed at these two principles. We aimed at these two principles at the

first ministers' conference.

The points we made at the

constitutional conference on aboriginal matters remain valid today.

Nobody questions the need, the desire or the right for the aboriginal

people of Canada, the first citizens, to have some form of

self-government. And that right will be met. But everyone involved

bears a heavy responsibility to make sure that the process and the end

result is fair. The aboriginal people and all other Canadians deserve

that.

In order for self-government to work properly, it

needs the support of all British Columbians. At the constitutional

conference in Ottawa we spoke a great deal about self-government and

the entrenching of this in the constitution. What we objected to is

that unlike what we have before us today, it was a proposal to provide

some form of self-government without really saying what form or how it

was to be.

[11:30]

When the Fathers of Confederation sat down many years back and

talked about governing Canada, they outlined specifically the form it

would take: how and what responsibilities would be given the federal

government and the responsibilities and legislative powers of a

provincial government. They recognized that this was extremely

important. They

[ Page 441 ]

obviously

went on for some years attempting to devise exactly what it should be,

but when it was finally decided and confederation came about, it was

clear as to how and what the responsibilities of those governments

should be.

We again have in legislation today a clear

statement of how this self-government will work and what it really is.

The Ottawa proposal left too many questions. There were not enough

answers. That in itself was not only confusing to the dissenting

provinces; it was confusing to everyone, including the aboriginal

people. That is why we not only had the meetings in the conference

hall, but we kept going off as well to separate little meetings where

various proposals or other alternatives were put forth; but each and

every time, again a lot of questions were left unanswered.

There

was some criticism because I questioned the cost of it all. Frankly, I

think that is important. If we're to do our jobs properly as those who

represent the people of British Columbia and Canada, we need to know

the cost implications— how it's all to be paid for and who's to pay for

it. In today's society, that certainly is extremely important. There's

little we can do by way of social, education, health or other programs

without knowing the cost and where the money is to come from. The

impact of a third full level of government, as it was proposed there,

was not known. Nor did we know whether in fact we would be creating

whole new levels of bureaucracy, nor the effect of this not only on the

aboriginal people but on all people in our province and throughout the

country. The effects on British Columbia were particularly impacting.

After all, on percentage of population we are way ahead of Canada in

the number of aboriginal people residing in our province. We certainly

don't compare with Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island,

Quebec, the Prairie provinces, but certainly, even when compared to

Ontario as a percentage of the total population, we rank far ahead. We

also have 1,628 reserves, which is by far the largest number anywhere

in Canada, and 350 separate native Indian communities.

Once

more there was no definition of responsibilities between the provincial

responsibility, the federal responsibility and this so-called — or as it was proposed — new level of government, which was never defined. No definition of responsibilities. B.C.'s rejection — along, incidentally, with three other provinces —

for the reasons made clear, was based on a number of things, but

largely the fact that there was no definition of self-government.

Agreeing to the entrenchment was perhaps for some — at least for those present —

politically popular, because the representatives in the conference hall

in Ottawa were certainly almost single-mindedly, I think, very intent

upon entrenching something even though they perhaps didn't know the

definition. Many were prepared to take the chance as to the effects of

it or the cost of it. We were not alone in finally rejecting the

proposal. As a matter of fact, the final proposal was rejected not only

by the four provinces but also by the aboriginal people representing

the various groups present.

The responsible approach is

what we see here today. Of course, our legislation complements federal

legislation. The federal government has passed a bill endorsing the

approach that we've outlined for self-government. They recognize the

value of what we're doing in British Columbia. The Sechelt bill was

mentioned a number of times in Ottawa, not only in the conference hall

but also in the separate meetings, as being an initiative on the part

of British Columbia which was a first, and which certainly was worth

considering even by those who were pushing for the entrenchment

approach.

It shows how self-government can come about

without having to change the constitution. It's a model that can and

will form the basis for self-government proposals and initiatives from

other bands across B.C. It is our hope that we can soon begin

negotiations with other groups to have them involved in the process as

the Sechelt band has been. Of course, they took that initiative, and

they've been very involved, and they're very supportive of what was

finally accomplished, as you can see from the telegram that I read out

before my opening statement.

Its passage will complete the

process and allow the Sechelt band to meet its dream of true

independence and responsibility for their own affairs. It sets up a

form of municipality. It's fully endorsed and supported by the Sechelt

band and, incidentally, by the Union of B.C. Municipalities. B.C.

recognizes the band council as the governing body. B.C. will ensure

that provincial laws that apply to municipalities apply to the Sechelt

government. The Indian bands and the lands, or those bands on those

particular lands and others, will now have a voice. They will have an

advisory council to represent issues affecting non-Indians living on

the lands, and that's fair.

Municipal benefits and

provincial legislation that will apply to the Sechelt lands will be

negotiated. It all takes effect on January 1, 1988, at which time

Indians undertake full self-government. Most important, it removes the

Sechelt band from the restrictions of the federal Indian Act. That act

really has almost enslaved the people in some respect in that it

certainly restricted them from doing that which they do best in their

own way. The removal of this for the Sechelt band will certainly give

them the opportunity to once and for all prove that they can not only

provide self-government for themselves, providing social services,

educational services, health services and other things, but also prove

that they will and can do it extremely well. They can control their own

future.

Mr. Speaker, they have not only gained the right of

self-government, but they have assumed responsibility for their own

destiny. B.C. is prepared and ready and willing — and this is in answer to the Leader of the Opposition —

to sit down with other bands to negotiate similar agreements. I want to

assure the House that we are flexible. We recognize that all situations

won't be the same all over the province — no more than what they

are the same across the nation. But we are prepared to sit down with

the various groups and look at their particular needs and desires and

work out something that is most acceptable to whatever the group,

wherever in the province. We have that flexibility.

Native

Indians will get their rights, and we will meet our responsibility.

This, Mr. Speaker, is a process that works and that is fair. We know

that as time progresses and we see the benefits come from the bill

before us today, other bands throughout the province will be looking at

this. In consultation with them and working closely together, we can

provide other communities the same opportunity of self-government —

of deciding their own destiny, of deciding their own development

project and their own economic projects in order to give their people

the opportunity they are deserving of and have a right to. This

government will proceed to help them do it.

[ Page 442 ]

MR. GUNO :

I do take it as a great honour to participate in this debate on Bill 4,

the Sechelt Indian Government District Enabling Act. In light of the

fact that the Sechelt people have expressed a desire to have this

matter expedited, I do agree that we should come to some conclusion on

this particular bill. However, in light of the Premier's statement

about this bill, both in the recent first ministers' conference and

also this morning, I want to make some general remarks about

self-government, to put this bill in a proper perspective.

There

is no doubt that this arrangement is one which the people of Sechelt

want. They have fought long and hard for it. It is for them an

important first step towards self-determination — and I emphasize that it is a first step.

is a culmination of over 15 years of trying to extricate themselves

from the yoke of Indian Affairs. It is interesting to hear the Premier

state that he recognizes that this is a way of removing themselves from

the restrictions of DIA and getting on with their economic development.

Yet, in the same breath he states that this government recognizes the

band council to be the legitimate government of Indian people. The band

council is the creature of Indian Affairs under the Indian Act. So I

think that he should be consistent when he talks about band councils.

The

bill is a new beginning for the Sechelt people. The question now is:

what does it mean for the rest of B.C.? I think it is important for the

House to realize that this bill deals with a specific situation, and

this has been recognized, as my colleague the leader said earlier, by

the Sechelt people and other aboriginal groups. We all recognize that

we have the right to shape our own destiny, that we are not going to be

restricted by the experiences of others. This has happened too long to

the native people: we are lumped together as this one group and have

one solution offered. It was my earnest hope, until I heard the Premier

speak and say that in essence this would be a model of negotiations on

self-government, that the government would not again succumb to the

siren song of simplistic solutions. I really hoped that they would

collectively take off their blinders and see that the world has changed.

The

matter of aboriginal self-government, as was demonstrated at the first

ministers' conference on aboriginal rights in Ottawa last week, is a

complex one, and it is even more complex in British Columbia. Everyone

recognizes that. No one recognizes it more fully than the aboriginal

people. We've been fighting for 100 years, and after 100 years this is

the first really tangible result. It is indeed a very complicated

process, and it is going to be a protracted one.

[11:45]

want to say that as I understand it, from speaking to many of the

delegates in Ottawa last week after the conclusion of the first

ministers' conference, the majority of the aboriginal people in B.C.

want a just settlement of Indian claims in British Columbia, based on

the recognition of aboriginal title as a basic principle. This

particular position is founded on any analysis of our history, of our

laws, of what we stand for. There is a clear obligation on the part of

both the federal and the provincial government to address this matter

in a more honourable manner.

But along with that

obligation, Mr. Speaker, lie many opportunities, and I think it is an

area that we have yet to really examine. I think that it would be in

the interests of British Columbians that there be strong, vibrant

Indian communities. There would be important economic and political

spinoffs for all British Columbians, not just for native peop1c. For

instance, one of the things that the native people have always

expressed their willingness to do is to coexist, to share. They have

always expressed this since the time of contact.

We talk about — in the election the Premier did also; this was one of his promises —

decentralizing political power, to attain greater community control and

to really establish more effective local and regional government. The

aspirations of the native people are no different. You can express them

in those words. If this government is true in its intent to go down

that road, then it shouldn't be afraid of the position of the native

people in British Columbia.

In spite of the drawbacks, I've

discerned from the native people, the leaders, that they are more

determined to continue their struggle. The people of Sechelt, as I

understand it, have not abandoned their traditional claims. This is an

administrative arrangement that they want in order to get on with their

economic development. For instance, the area in which this bill would

contemplate Sechelt exercising self-government is reserve land. It's a

parcel of land which would be transferred into fee simple so that the

band can borrow against land for their economic expansion. Clearly

then, Mr. Speaker, the traditional lands of the Sechelt have not been

included and have not been abandoned.

Furthermore, many of the powers of the Sechelt people will be delegated, as has been pointed out —

powers that can be taken away whenever the political climate changes.

So by any analysis it is only a very limited form of local government,

one that would prove to be unacceptable as any starting point in

negotiations for self-government. In the federal counterpart, the

federal government would retain incredible veto power over crucial

areas of self-government, including their constitution.

There

are other concerns, but I just want to say again that I acknowledge the

effort that has been put into this by the Sechelt people, who are

resilient and resourceful. They have, in this bill, an opportunity to

improve their standard of life.

In terms of the broader

question of self-government, it is clear, then, that as important as

this bill is for the Sechelt people, it should not be used as some

blueprint for dealing with the rest of the aboriginal people.

The

failure of the first ministers' conference to arrive at some agreement

last week on aboriginal self-government was due to many reasons. The

Premier's negative and narrow approach was only one. But his failure to

at least go to this most important forum with an open mind, a

willingness to try to understand the positions of all participants, was

a major disappointment to many aboriginal delegates from B.C., who were

willing to give his claim to a fresh start at least the benefit of a

doubt.

Mr. Speaker, the shame of the failure was that there

was an historic opportunity to close a shameful

chapter of Canadian

history. It was an opportunity, I believe, to show the rest of the

world that we have the moral stuff to right an ancient wrong. The

Premier's performance at that particular forum, I would suggest, will

only heighten further confrontation. It will instill in this province

once again a climate of uncertainty that would surely dampen investment.

The Premier asks: "What will it cost, and who will pay?" I think

that's a legitimate question, but in this context, taken in isolation, it

is misleading. A more relevant question, I would suggest, would be: what does

the status quo cost, and

[ Page 443 ]

who

is paying? For instance, federally the total budget expended last year

was $1.6 billion across Canada, of which the lion's share went to

British Columbia. The bulk of this amount was administered by the

Department of Indian Affairs to maintain the status quo. The status quo

is a number of small, economically unviable reserves. The Premier talks

about 165 reserves. What he fails to mention is that many of these are

postage stamp-sized entities. They're not great land tracts. I wish

they were; we wouldn't be here.

But the fact of the matter

is that for the most part the opportunities for economic development on

many of these reserves are just simply nonexistent. So the result is

that we have, in spite of this $1.6 billion in Canada,

institutionalized dependency and poverty, a poverty and condition of

life so devastating that we can legitimately compare it to the Third

World. Believe me, Mr. Speaker, you can take my word for it; I've

experienced it.

Provincially, what is the cost to British

Columbians? Because of the horrendous condition of life on reserves, we

see every year thousands migrating to urban areas looking, often

futilely, for a better life. Unfortunately many are unprepared to meet

the demands of this kind of life, so then we have an increased demand

on a wide range of services — education, law enforcement, prisons,

health and social services. So there are significant and substantial

costs to British Columbia today as a result of the status quo.

But there are intangible costs, too, costs in wasted lives — the

many people who we see in the skid rows of all our major urban areas,

their lives completely wasted, many who could be leading productive

lives and contributing to the economy of this great province. And there

are costs in wasted opportunities. Resource industries increasingly are

becoming concerned about the uncertainty as a result of this whole

unfinished business, again tending to dampen development in those areas.

Finally,

what does it cost us as human beings, who supposedly live in a caring

and tolerant society? I want to remind the House of the words of F.R.

Scott, a great Canadian, who said that a society is judged by how it

protects the interests of the least protected, and that if you diminish

one segment of that society you diminish all.

conclusion, I believe that this bill gives us a glimpse of larger

possibilities, for it shows that if we are willing to deal with the

hard questions, the complicated, complex questions, with a measure of

vision and good will, it can be the best long-term investment in the

economic and political potential of this province.

MR. LONG : I am pleased to have the opportunity to address an issue of significant importance —

the concept of self-government as it is practised by the Indian band in

Sechelt. The issue of self-government is addressed in the bill before

us, Bill 4, the Sechelt Indian Government District Enabling Act.

Prior

to discussing in detail the issue this bill addresses, I would like to

comment on the recent first ministers' conference that our Premier

attended in Ottawa. He is to be congratulated on doing a first-rate

job. The inclusion of the members for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) and Atlin

(Mr. Guno) as observers in the B.C. contingent is indicative of the

Premier's commitment to provide open, cooperative government based on

the constitution. I, like the majority of British Columbians, believe

that our Premier truly represented the interests of both the native and

the non-native British Columbian at the conference. Our Premier went to

Ottawa with an open mind, willing to listen to all sides and to assist

in developing a consensus that would benefit all Canadians. The

fundamental purpose of the conference was to discuss the concept of

self-government for natives and how the concept could be enshrined in

the constitution. Yet no one other than our Premier really made a great

effort to come up with a definition of self-government or discuss

existing successful models of self-government. Our Premier, however,

presented the conference with a successful Indian band model of

self-government.

This government recognizes that the

Sechelt agreement is a positive and progressive step in our attempts to

address native concerns in British Columbia. It is a model that offers

possibilities with some modifications, a means by which other bands in

this province can achieve their goals. While everyone else in Canada is

simply talking about the subject of native land claims, we in British

Columbia are doing something about it. The Sechelt band is the first

Indian band in Canada to be legally exempt from the federal Indian Act,

which gives the federal government sweeping powers over Indians and

their land. The Sechelt band will now be able to manage their own

lands. The band has a unique form of self-government under its own

constitution.

[12:00]

The Sechelt Indian band consists of 33 reserves in the Sechelt

Peninsula, covering an area of more than 1,000 hectares, or 2,470

acres. There are approximately 640 members and the majority reside on

reserve lands. Some 350 non-Indians lease land from the Sechelt band.

This area has tremendous economic potential for the band. The area in

and around Sechelt is ideally suited for recreational activities.

Economic development projects planned by the band include a

marina-hotel complex at Wilson Creek and a condominium complex at

Porpoise Bay.

Unemployment among Sechelt band members is

below the national average. Many residents work in this community. Some

run their own businesses; others are employed on construction

projects — housing and community facilities; others run a fish

hatchery for the federal government with the Indians. The bank also

operates its own pre-school, which a lot of the whites use as well.

They integrate in this community.

Bill 4 is complementary

provincial legislation to the federal Sechelt Indian Band

Self-Government Act, which was given royal assent on June 17, 1986. The

federal act is enabling legislation and involves the delegation of

powers to the Sechelt Indian band. The federal act provides, among

other things, for the transfer of fee simple title of Sechelt lands to

the Sechelt band and for the management of those lands according to the

band's constitution.

The legislation sets out the broad

parameters for the definition of the particular powers and law-making

authority of the band to be negotiated and set out in its constitution.

The federal legislation also contains a provision for negotiation of

funding agreements in the form of grants or transfer payments which

will be administered by the band council, who will in turn be

accountable to their own electors. The Sechelt proposal reflects that

community's aspirations. It is not intended to be a strict model for

others; of course, other communities will have different needs and

different desires.

The federal legislation and the bill

before us are extremely important, Mr. Speaker, since they represent

the first significant self-government initiative to receive legislative

[ Page 444 ]

sanctions.

They will form the basis for other bands' selfgovernment proposals.

Bill 4 recognizes the federally created local government institution,

the district council, for purposes of the application of certain

provincial legislation normally applicable to municipal governments.

The bill recognizes the band council as the governing body and ensures

that various provincial laws that would normally apply only to

municipal governments apply to the band. In addition, it provides a

number of other powers. For instance, they will have the power to make

their own laws in relation to the following matters: zoning and land

use, real property taxation, health services on band lands, education

and social welfare services for band members, public order and safety

on band lands, and so on. They are in control of their own destiny.

important reality of this bill and the form of self-government for the

Sechelts that it provides is that the self-government is a local

phenomenon, with different meanings for different communities. The

diversity of aspirations and historic and political circumstances of

the various native groups in B.C. represents a real challenge to our

abilities to find satisfactory solutions to the claims of different

bands, because each native community has its own unique goals, problems

and expectations.

It is important to note that while this

bill is a model which could be useful as a guide for other native

people, it is designed with the specific interests of the Sechelt band

in mind. To apply the definition of self-government as stated in this

bill to all other bands in B.C. might be inappropriate. What one native

group finds acceptable as self-government may not be acceptable to

another group. For instance, as the Minister of Intergovernmental

Relations (Hon. Mr. Rogers) has pointed out previously, the needs of

the Sechelt band are met by this form of self-government, but it may

not fully meet the unique needs of the native people in other regions

of the province.

Certainly this form of government is more

specific, comprehensive and far-sighted than anything tabled in the

recent first ministers' conference. I personally am very pleased that

under the capable leadership of our Premier this government has

addressed this issue of native claims realistically and in a

responsible manner that has met the expectations of all parties

involved. This realistic and reasonable leadership of our Premier was

strongly in evidence at the first ministers' conference. Unlike the

Premiers of some of the other provinces, and unlike the Leader of the

Opposition, our Premier refuses to make any rash decisions that may

have serious and unforeseeable consequences. Stan Dixon, the outgoing

chief of the Sechelt band, stated: "I congratulate the Premier on his

presentation at the conference. If I was Premier, I would have to take

the same stand." That's the former chief of Sechelt, and the Father of

Confederation at that time.

Both the Leader of the

Opposition and the Premier of Ontario seemed to believe that it was

better to make an agreement, any agreement, in order to appease some of

the native groups — and I emphasize the word "some." Such a

solution is irresponsible and short-sighted, in the extreme. It ignores

the realities and complexities of the issue. For instance, some of the

Premiers were intent on entrenching the concept of self-government in

our constitution without any adequate definition of "self-government"

in existence and without any idea of who is going to pay for such a

system, nor how much it will cost.

We recognize, Mr.

Speaker, the importance of self-government as a means to provide

greater self-reliance and self management for native people in Canada.

However, owing to the importance of this issue, we refuse to hastily

entrench in our constitution vague notions that have not properly been

defined and could have a detrimental effect on our natives and

non-natives alike.

As a result, Mr. Speaker, I fully

support Bill 4. It is a major step in the government's overall

commitment to the native groups in British Columbia. It provides an

excellent model with which other native communities can negotiate a

form of self-government that will provide them with a better chance for

cultural autonomy and economic opportunities. This bill clearly

indicates that our government is one of action and results, not

rhetoric and grandstanding.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Just a few comments in closing debate. First of all, I'd like to compliment all speakers — the member for Atlin (Mr. Guno) and the Leader of the Opposition — on their debate. I think they're aware of what we attempted to do here.

The

Leader of the Opposition commented on the time it took. Really, I would

commend to all members that we were very fast on this. The federal

legislation wasn't proclaimed until June 1986. I'll advise the House

now that in late December we were at the final draft stage, and really

right down to dotting the i's and crossing the t's in our negotiations

with Sechelt. So I think we acted very quickly, and I commend Sechelt

and the negotiating staff for that, and would comment to all members of

the House, and for the record, that the government of British Columbia

acted quickly and responsively in preparing this bill.

Also,

I'd like to reiterate what the Premier indicated: this is not

chapter-and-verse, cast-in-stone legislation for every form of

self-government in the province. This is just one model, and we can use

some of it or part of it in future negotiations with native groups as

they come to us. But I also want the record to show that we are by no

means going to impose this type of legislation on everybody else. We're

open to negotiation, as native bands wish self-government, and they can

come to us and indicate what they feel is good for them in terms of

legislation, and what may be appropriate from this act, or what they

may want to see added to this act, or really anything they want. We are

in the position, as government, to sit down and simply discuss how they

would like to see self-government legislation written. By no means is

Sechelt cast in stone as being set up as the only model for

self-government.

Thirdly, in response to the general

comment about the first ministers' conference, as the members will know

I attended two of these conferences as minister, one in Halifax and one

in Toronto. Really, I commend the Premier and the western Premiers and

some other Premiers for the position they took.

I'd like to

quote a comment I heard in the maiden speech of the member for Atlin,

which was memorable: "If you don't know where you're going, you'll end

up somewhere else." You'll recall that; it's a good comment. That was

the position the government of British Columbia was in when we sat down

at the negotiating table. Really, it was a mystery area. I'm sure all

members appreciate that. We didn't really know where we were going; it

was a mystery proposal being presented to us and to the people of

British Columbia. It's a difficult thing just to agree to everything

when in fact you

[ Page 445 ]

have

no direction and no sense of what's going to happen to you. I think it

would have been improper for the provincial governments to just go into

constitutional amendments blind, without knowing where we were going.

All members should be aware of that and recognize that we were put in a

very difficult position at the constitutional conference.

With that said, Mr. Speaker, I will again move second reading.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

[12:15]

HON. MR. STRACHAN : I ask leave to refer Bill 4 to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill

4, Sechelt Indian Government Enabling Act, read a second time and

referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

SECHELT INDIAN GOVERNMENT

DISTRICT ENABLING ACT

The House in committee on Bill 4; Mrs. Gran in the chair.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

section 4.

MR. HEWITT :

I want to speak on the detail in

section 4. However, I'd first like to

say that I support Bill 4, and I support the concept of the municipal

structure of self-government for the Sechelt Indian band. By that

structure the band is given the ability to provide services to their

native residents, and they have the ability to manage their own

affairs. It's a step in the right direction, and it's a vast

improvement on the present system.

Section 4 calls for the

extension of municipal benefits to the Sechelt Indian government

district, and the definition of "municipal benefit," of course, is that

that benefit would include a service, a grant of money, a right or

eligibility to participate in a program, or any other benefit available

to a municipality under an enactment. That's where I have some

difficulty.

To my knowledge, at present there is no

structured provincial funding made available to Indian bands in this

province, primarily because they are a federal jurisdiction and come

under the Indian Act. I'm not familiar with the federal legislation

entitled Sechelt Indian Band Self-Government Act (Canada). I don't know

what that act says, whether it allows for transfer of equity payment to

the province, therefore allowing the province to pass the funding that

normally comes from the federal government to the Indian band via the

province . . . . I'm not sure how that structure works, but I can only

assume that the Indian Act still applies and that there is no taxation

on income and/or sales or economic activity on the Indian band

land — no revenue, then, to the government; no contribution to provincial government general revenues.

That

being the case, the question has to be asked: does municipal benefit

under

section 4 mean revenue-sharing grants, grants that are made to

municipalities throughout this province to deal with municipal

services? If the answer to that question is yes, then I have difficulty

because of a possible inequity, whereby the taxpayer of B.C. who does

not live on an Indian reserve will be paying to the Sechelt Indian

municipal government funds generated from economic activity of the

province, to which there is no contribution by economic activity on

Indian band lands.

Madam Chairman, in his speech the member for Atlin (Mr. Guno) made the following comment —

and it was raised by the House Leader: "If you don't know where you're

going, you'll end up somewhere else." I recognize that

section 4 does

have the word "may" — "the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may

prescribe requirements" in the regulations. I think it is important

that we recognize that, and I understand what that

section means. All I

ask is that, prior to the proclamation of this bill, the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council resolve the question that I have raised

in this House before — and will continue to raise — with

regard to equity, and therefore equity funding of services, grants,

etc. to a municipality, which this Sechelt band will be deemed to be

after this legislation is passed.

I feel there are services

that would normally be shifted to the reserve. If that is the case and

those functions are shifted to the reserve's responsibility — and I think the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Long) mentioned them —

then funding should be shifted with them. What we are doing is giving

self-government to the Indian band; therefore the normal funding we

already provide through our provincial services should flow through.

However, if we are talking revenue sharing under the Municipal Act,

where funding really comes from economic activity by the municipality,

then I would have difficulty if all other municipal economic

activity — personal and corporate income tax to this province —

was making contributions to a self-government that normally falls under

the Indian Act and federal jurisdiction. So my point to the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, to the government, is that while I

recognize that

section 4 does say "may," my concern is to ensure that

what is provided is justified.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Briefly, to the member for Boundary-Similkameen . . . .

AN HON. MEMBER : That's an Indian name.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : That's right.

The

member raises some very good questions. In terms of income tax and not

having to pay sales tax, that will apply to natives on the reserve.

That is the same throughout the province.

In terms of taxes

established by the Sechelt that will apply for services being provided,

all residents of Sechelt will pay those taxes equally. To that extent

it doesn't differ from any other municipality. Of course, in terms of

revenue-sharing and the type of municipal benefits that the province

confers on a municipality, as the member pointed out, those will be set

by the L-G-in-C by regulation.

Sections 4 to 8 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

[ Page 446 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Madam Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 4, Sechelt Indian Government District Enabling Act, reported complete without amendment.

MR. SPEAKER : When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER : By leave. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

Bill 4, Sechelt Indian Government District Enabling Act, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

Mr. Speaker, I have a little problem here: I didn't commit Bill 3, the

Boundary Act, so I'd like to have leave to move that .... Can I have

leave to commit a bill?

MR. SKELLY : Yes.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Thank you. [Laughter.]

I'd

like to move that Bill 3, the Boundary Act, be referred to a Committee

of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting after today.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Mr. Speaker, I'd like to wish one and all a very fond "happy weekend," and move that the House do now adjourn.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:28 p.m.

APPENDIX

SECOND REPORT

SPECIAL COMMITTEE OF SELECTION

Legislative Committee Room

April 3, 1987

Mr. Speaker:

Your Special Committee of Selection

appointed on March 9, 1987 to prepare and report lists of members to

compose the Select Standing Committees of this House for the present

session, begs to report that the following is the list of members to

compose the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts for the

present session:

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE

ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Ms.

Marzari (convenor) and Mr. Hewitt, the Hon. S. Hagen, the Hon. R.

Johnston, the Hon. C. Richmond, the Hon. E. Veitch, Messrs. Chalmers,

Long and Peterson and Ms. A. Hagen and Messrs, G. Hanson and Lovick.

Membership on the following Select Standing Committees reflect changes agreed to by your committee:

LABOUR, JUSTICE AND

INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

Ms.

Campbell (convenor) and Mr. Chalmers, the Hon. L. Hanson, the Hon. S.

Rogers, Messrs. Jansen and Weisgerber and Messrs. Gabelmann, Sihota and

Skelly.

TOURISM AND ENVIRONMENT

Messrs.

Messmer (convenor) and Serwa, the Hon. W. Reid, the Hon. B. Strachan

and Messrs. Bruce and Pelton, Mmes. Smallwood and Edwards and Mr.

Barnes.

FORESTS AND LANDS

Messrs.

Bruce (convenor) and Vant, the Hon. J. Davis, the Hon. D. Parker,

Messrs. Jacobsen and Long and Mrs. Boone and Messrs. Gabelmann and

Williams.

ENERGY, MINES AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES

Messrs.

Peterson (convenor) and Ree, the Hon. A. Brummet, the Hon. J. Davis,

Messrs. S.D. Smith and Vant, and Messrs. Clark, D'Arcy and Guno.

Respectfully submitted,

R.G. Fraser

Chairman

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright 1987, 2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada