Hansard -- Volume 22, Number 7 -- Wednesday, March 21, 2001

2001 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 36th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 21, 2001

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 22, Number 7

[ Page 17423 ]

The House met at 2:09 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Joining us in the House today is a long-time friend of mine, Ravi Hira, with his two young sons, Ryan and Robin. They're here to see adults in action in the House. I'm asking the House to please make them welcome.

C. Clark: I've two constituents visiting us today. Harry Warren is visiting us from Coquitlam. John Seney, who lives up the hill from me in Port Moody, is also visiting us. So I hope the House will make them welcome.

[1410]

G. Mann Brewin: In the gallery today are four wonderful political activists, who have been doing political work for a very long time both in this province and elsewhere. But right now they're from greater Victoria. They are Bessie Ellis, Joseph Meade, Betty Muller and her husband, Warren Muller. Would the House please make them all welcome.

L. Reid: In the precinct today is someone who has provided enormous support to me over the past 12 months, and that is the person who operates as the nanny to my little girl. So I would like the House to please make very welcome Rheta Steer.

Hon. I. Waddell: Like the member from Victoria, I have the honour to introduce two young aspiring social activists. They're a little younger. They are the daughters of my ministerial assistant: Jennifer Koide, age 8, and Emily Koide, age 7. They're here with their grandmother. Would the House please make them welcome.

C. Hansen: I'd like to introduce a very important constituent from Vancouver-Quilchena. His name is John Clark. He's a grade 4 student, and he's using part of his spring break to come over and see how the Legislature is working. I'm also delighted that John brought along with him his mother, who is Vancouver city councillor Jennifer Clark. Make them both welcome.

Hon. M. Farnworth: It's my pleasure today to introduce a very important committee and the members of that committee. They are the child care advocate committee to my ministry, and they're over here for news about child care, which we shall be talking about later on.

In the House today with us are Necole Anderson, who is a founding member of Parents for Child Care; Maryann Bird, who is currently a social policy and child care policy issues advocate for national-provincial organizations; Sheila Davidson, chair of the Provincial Child Care Council and the executive director of the SFU Child Care Society; Sharon Gregson, who is a founding member of Parents for Child Care; Susan Harney, an owner-operator of Country Grove Children's Centre in Langley; Kaela Jubas, executive director of the B.C.

Association of Child Care Services; Diane Liscumb, longtime director of the Vancouver Child Care Resource and Referral Program and now the executive director of Westcoast Child Care Resource Centre; Linda MacDonnel, the president of the Early Childhood Educators of B.C.; and Christine MacLeod, a family child care provider and past chair of the Western Canada Family Child Care Association.

[1415]

Also with us are Karen Norman, who is the chair of the Westcoast Child Care Resource Centre; Marg Rodrigues, who is a family child care provider in Delta and the current chair of the member council of the Canadian Child Care Federation; and Astrid Visscher, the director of the Spare Time School Age Program, parent of four children. She is active in and trained in Montessori and is well known for her activities and efforts around school-based child care. Would the House please make these hardworking advocates for child care in British Columbia most welcome.

B. McKinnon: It gives me great pleasure to welcome from my riding Vicki Pedersen and her daughter Laura. They're here while Laura is on spring break. Laura goes to Semiahmoo high school, and one day she would like to be a writer. I give her all the encouragement in the world. I tried to talk her into coming into politics, because we need more women. But she said no. I ask the House to make them welcome.

Hon. C. McGregor: Thank you for recognizing me again, hon. Speaker. I have another set of visitors I'd like to introduce that are in the gallery today. The B.C. Teachers Federation has been hosting its annual general meeting here in Victoria -- an unusual event, because it's normally held in Vancouver. But this year, because of the World Figure Skating Championships, they moved their convention to Victoria. So we've had a number of friends visiting the Legislature -- a chance over spring break to watch the proceedings of the House.

I'd like to introduce the teachers here: Valerie Windsor, Jean Fraser, Phillip Milligan, Sukhy Dhillon, Jessie Dhillon and Michael Bal. Would the House please make them welcome.

I. Chong: Today I'd like to introduce to the House some constituents of mine. Visiting the House today are Mr. Michael

[ Page 17424 ]

Easton and his wife Melanie, accompanied by their four children, Brendon, Elya, Shaylynn and Rachelle. Would the House please make them welcome.

B. Penner: It's my pleasure to introduce today two people visiting from Chilliwack. Warren and Cathy Hultman are here attending the BCTF conference this week in Victoria. I had an opportunity to speak with them earlier, and it's my pleasure to ask the House to please make them welcome here.

Hon. H. Giesbrecht: I'd like the House to recognize a couple of members of my staff. Visiting us in the gallery are Maurine Karagianis, who is also a councillor from the city of Esquimalt, and Navin Madhopuri. That gives me a chance to say thank you to them for all their work. Thank you.

M. Coell: I have four students that I'm pleased to introduce to the House today. They're taking political science at Camosun: Adam Olsen, Jason Masai, Tiffany Cowell and Trevor Allen. Also in the House today we have Cyril Shelford, a former MLA. Would the House please make them all welcome.

The Speaker: Thank you, members, and if I may, I see a constituent of mine, a teacher from Maple Ridge, Helen Homer. She has been here many times with classes from the constituency, and I welcome her here today. I hope members will also make them welcome.

The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Economic Security -- sorry, Social Development and Economic Security.

Interjections.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Thank you, hon. Speaker. It's something that some of you may never get a chance to try.

[1420]

Introduction of Bills

CHILD CARE BC ACT

Hon. M. Farnworth presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Child Care BC Act.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: It's my pleasure to introduce Bill 2, the Child Care BC Act. Studies clearly show that quality child care that the child receives in early years is the strongest indicator of their later success in school and life. We know that access to appropriate, affordable child care is a major factor in a working family's ability to succeed in the labour market and gain economic security.

This bill is an important commitment to helping children get a better start in life. This act would govern all of B.C.'s grant programs for licensed child care providers. At the same time, we will amend the BC Benefits (Child Care) Act so that it will govern solely the child care subsidy for low-income families. This will clearly separate legislation that governs programs that directly fund child care providers versus a program that assists low-income parents.

The bill includes the new Child Care B.C. funding assistance program that was launched in January as a first step to a made-in-B.C. system of publicly funded child care. The Child Care B.C. funding assistance program began with before- and after-school care in licensed group facilities. This bill sets out a timetable to expand the funding assistance program to more children and more licensed providers between now and 2004. It also sets the maximum fees that a participating child care provider may require a parent to pay. These maximum fees are designed to make quality, accessible child care affordable to thousands of working families across British Columbia.

The act would also cover the granting programs that have been with us for several years. These programs help child care centres with repairs and upgrades to meet licensing standards, help non-profit child care societies create new spaces, help child care providers with higher costs of infant and toddler care, help top up the wages of lower-paid child care workers and help support child care for special needs children.

Hon. Speaker, I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 2 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

VANCOUVER ISLAND ELECTRICAL

RATE STABILIZATION ACT

R. Kasper presented a bill intituled Vancouver Island Electrical Rate Stabilization Act.

R. Kasper: I move that this bill, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

R. Kasper: Electrical consumers on Vancouver Island will be faced with impending shortages of electricity in the coming years. B.C. Hydro is in the process of implementing options to meet the anticipated electrical demand. This bill recognizes that the relative isolation of Vancouver Island makes these consumers more vulnerable to rate fluctuation due to projected and current capital and natural gas costs required to generate and transmit electricity to this geographic region.

The bill further recognizes that net revenue projections for B.C. Hydro in the current budget year are substantially lower than previously anticipated, thus possibly forcing B.C. Hydro to increase the cost of electrical energy to consumers on Vancouver Island, and that such action would be unfair.

I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M203 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[ Page 17425 ]

Oral Questions

B.C. HYDRO BUDGET PROJECTIONS

AND IMPACT ON MACKENZIE

R. Neufeld: Documents released by the Minister of Finance on Monday reveal that the NDP will drain Williston Lake to as low as 2,140 feet this year in order to meet the minister's reckless revenue targets. Can the minister responsible for B.C. Hydro inform this House when he decided to break the promise that the NDP made to the community of Mackenzie that Williston Lake would never be drawn lower than 2,150 feet?

Hon. P. Ramsey: We expect B.C. Hydro to demonstrate leadership. We expect it to manage the things that it can manage. That includes its reservoirs, that includes its non-hydro facilities, and it includes controlling its cost. We believe that it can do that, and we believe that it can meet its net income target of $300 million. In fact, I think they'll do better than that, hon. Speaker.

[1425]

The Speaker: The hon. member for Peace River North with a supplemental question.

R. Neufeld: Well, Mr. Speaker, there are some problems -- and they were listed out in the documents that the minister tabled that day -- to meeting these targets. According to those documents, it says that below 2,150 feet, docking facilities in Mackenzie will be impacted. Below 2,150 feet, they can't run their crane. Below 2,140 feet, they're not sure of the impact of pulp effluent on the lake. Yet the minister says they have to go lower. Why would this minister be playing with a community -- the entire northern community of Mackenzie and all the jobs associated with that community -- just to meet his inflated revenue targets?

Hon. P. Ramsey: You know, hon. Speaker, I do wonder sometimes why they want to question the ability of B.C. Hydro, even in a low-water year, to manage its resources and make profit for the people of this province. Last year was not a high-water year. B.C. Hydro made $1.1 billion last year in a below-average year for water.

Hon. Speaker, I think what's really going on here is not their concern that B.C. Hydro make $1.1 billion or $300 million or $100 million. Under their plans -- these admirers of California deregulation, these admirers of what Alberta's done to its hydro system -- B.C. Hydro won't make a dime for the people of British Columbia, because they're going to sell it.

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

R. Neufeld: We're not questioning B.C. Hydro's integrity. They are the ones that are presenting the numbers to the minister. It is the minister that is telling them to extract more dollars, more dollars, more dollars, more dollars. Further, it was that government that talked about selling off the huge asset called B.C. Hydro. That's what we're talking about.

Further, Mr. Speaker, a 1994 report commissioned by the NDP said that if Williston Lake falls below 2,150 feet, the impacts upon Mackenzie and the forest industry would be disastrous -- disastrous. And the opposition has obtained new documents from B.C. Hydro to show that we are heading for that disaster. Hydro's March 1 forecasted levels for Williston reservoir show it's expected to drop to 2,150 feet on May 2; 2,145 feet a year later; and 2,140 feet a year after. This was before the Finance minister decided the levels could drop by another ten feet.

Again I ask the minister: why would he even consider this when it will shut down two pulp mills and four sawmills in the community of Mackenzie?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Through Forest Renewal B.C. and others, we have invested millions of dollars to make sure that Mackenzie can deal with lower water levels, and the member knows that. The reality is that we don't know what level it will have to be drawn down on.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. P. Ramsey: We do know this . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon. P. Ramsey: . . . that as a well-managed public corporation, B.C. Hydro can manage its reservoirs, can manage its non-hydro facility, can accelerate and reap benefits from its trading, can control its costs and can meet the targets that we have set for it.

R. Neufeld: Well, I guess it's very clear to everyone in British Columbia that this government, this Premier and this minister have written off the north again. The Finance minister's own documents say he's prepared to draw down to ten feet lower than the disaster zone -- ten feet lower than the disaster zone. And yet he stands up and makes light of it. When will he come clean with the people in Mackenzie? Why is he putting working families at risk in Mackenzie -- good, well-paying, family-earning jobs? Why is he putting them at risk just to get his inflated revenue?

[1430]

Hon. P. Ramsey: You know, I heard a former head of the B.C. Utilities Commission on the radio this morning -- Mr. Jaccard. He said that this target of $300 million that we have set for B.C. Hydro is entirely achievable. It's entirely achievable.

But speaking of coming clean, when will this opposition come clean on how they expect to pay for their reckless tax cuts? When are they going to come clean? They run away from the budget debate. Will they come clean and tell the people whether they're going to accept the recommendation of their think tank that we saw yesterday -- the Fraser Institute -- which said: "Well, here's a plan for you. Why don't you review Crown corporations?" I think we've heard that before. "And after a review, here's our plan for selling B.C. Hydro." The reason why they don't want a positive target for Hydro is that they expect no money from Hydro at all. They're going to sell it, hon. Speaker.

[ Page 17426 ]

FOREST SECTOR JOB CREATION

G. Abbott: It has been a pathetic week for the government, so I'm happy to bring some good news to them this day. Today is a very special anniversary for this NDP government. Five years ago today the NDP promised to create 21,000 new forest jobs in British Columbia. They didn't low-key this. They said this was the most ambitious package of job creation in the history of Canada.

G. Plant: How did they do?

G. Abbott: Well, unfortunately, since then not one new additional forest job has been created, and in fact thousands of forest workers have lost their jobs, lost their homes, due to NDP policies. Will the Premier admit today that his phony promise of 21,000 new forest jobs was nothing more than a sham?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, order.

Hon. G. Wilson: I'll tell the people of British Columbia what is a sham. What is a sham is these members opposite who say that meetings took place when we know that they didn't take place or who are not prepared to come out and table their budget. They're not prepared to tell us what estimates they would put on Hydro. And when it comes to forestry, I am absolutely astounded that this member opposite would make light of the difficult situation that British Columbia faces as a result of softwood lumber countervail and a declining Japanese marketplace.

I have invited that member to participate with me in discussions, to work with my staff, and to date that member hasn't made one phone call or one suggestion and has offered no solution or help to us on this side.

The Speaker: The hon. member for Shuswap has a supplemental question.

G. Abbott: I've actually been feeling for the past three days like a date that's been stood up. Last Friday the minister's staff called my office. We called his office Monday, Tuesday and today, and we have had no return calls from his office. Further . . . .

The Speaker: The member has a question?

G. Abbott: It's fascinating. Back when the jobs and timber accord was announced, this member didn't have quite the same opinion of the accord as he apparently does today. In fact, he called it a Technicolor dream. "A Technicolor dream," he said. Well, no wonder he called it that. Not only did the NDP promise 21,000 new forest jobs for this year, they also promised 42,000 new forest jobs by the year 2005. So I want to ask the Premier once again: does the Premier still support the NDP's phony promise to create 42,000 new forest jobs by the year 2005? Or was it, as the Health minister put it, another announcement that they never intended to keep?

[1435]

Hon. G. Wilson: I'm amazed that the member suggested his office was trying to contact us, because after the offer was made, we read in the Liberal campaign newspaper, the Vancouver Sun, that he didn't want to and would not attend. So we simply believed that he wasn't interested.

Hon. Speaker, when it comes to the forest industry, it is this side of the House that has said that we are going to work with the industry to move to market-based stumpage, that we are moving with respect to tenure reform. It is this side of the House that is working with the forest industry and with the environmental communities and with first nations to bring about working, lasting solutions in our forests, and it's this side of the House that is moving towards certification.

It is that side of the House that will -- through their obscene policies toward aboriginals, their gutting of the Forest Practices Code and their absolute disdain for labour through their desire in the first 90 days to amend the Labour Code -- bring an absolute shutdown to the industry, kill our markets and put first nations at war with us once again. Those are the members we have to be fearful of.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

USER-PAY KINDERGARTEN

J. Dalton: Yesterday the Minister of Education addressed a friendly audience -- namely, the BCTF -- that she would look at outlawing the user-pay half-day kindergarten in West Vancouver. Her predecessor last year looked at the School Act and said, and her lawyers agreed, that there was nothing illegal about user-pay kindergarten. Given that the program has run since last September, that it's a choice available to parents and that there is a waiting list for this September, on what grounds can the Minister of Education justify this change of policy, particularly when you compare it to the BCTF opposition to independent school funding, which will not be changed?

Hon. J. MacPhail: What an NDP government . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. J. MacPhail: What an NDP government does believe in is that a child entering our public education system should have equal opportunity regardless of his or her socioeconomic background. That's our beginning principle. That was always the intent of the School Act, and it was never contemplated under the School Act that any child would have to face a situation where, because of his or her parents' economic circumstances, she or he may be disadvantaged compared to other students.

The previous Minister of Education was exactly right -- that people have found their way around the original intent of the School Act. Absolutely. And at the time she was also correct when she said parents are looking for alternatives -- parents who have children who require care from morning to evening. You know what, hon. Speaker? Today we have entrenched in legislation for the first time a four-year program of child care that finally gives parents an alternative, and that's wonderful news. It does mean that school boards won't be able to say: "We have to compete with independent

[ Page 17427 ]

schools, and therefore we're going to force parents who have chosen the public education system to have to pay fees." We are against that, and we're working to stop it.

[1440]

The Speaker: The bell ends question period.

Reports from Committees

R. Thorpe: Hon. Speaker, pursuant to the committee's terms of reference, I have the honour to present the seventh report of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts for the fourth session of the thirty-sixth parliament, entitled "Review of the Estimates Process in British Columbia." I move the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

R. Thorpe: I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

R. Thorpe: I move that the report be adopted.

This seventh report reflects the Public Accounts consideration of the auditor general's report, "A Review of the Estimates Process in British Columbia," released in March 1999. The auditor general's report recommended changes to the budgeting process and the way in which the Legislative Assembly scrutinizes and approves government spending plans. As well, it recommended changes to the way the government plans to finance its programs, monitor actual results and report on its performance to the assembly.

In tabling this report and reflecting on the auditor general's report No. 4 regarding the government's 1996 budget, which the public named the fudge-it budget, I am very troubled. In the auditor general's report from page 139, I note: "In our opinion, information provided by government when these budgets were presented did not make full and fair disclosure of the extent of the business risk being assumed and the government's plan to address it."

Unfortunately, today's Premier and today's Finance minister have now, only five years later, taken exactly the same route in an effort to table a balanced budget just prior to an election. The public are now calling this year's budget fudge-it budget 2. This government still believes it can do whatever it wants and has totally disregarded the auditor general's concern about developing budgets on revenue estimates that are disproportionately risky.

Mr. Speaker, the Public Accounts Committee, the auditor general's office, those who worked so hard on the Enns panel and the professional civil servants of British Columbia were all working for open, transparent and truthful budgets. Sadly and unfortunately, once again this Premier and this Finance minister have put politics before an open, transparent and truthful budget. Unfortunately, the 1996 budget was developed on overly optimistic revenues. Now in 2001 the budget is built on the minister making overly optimistic revenue projections on behalf of B.C. Hydro.

In tabling this report as the former Chair of Public Accounts, I ask the Premier and the Minister of Finance to stop the charade, to stop embarrassing our province, to stop embarrassing the people of British Columbia, to stop embarrassing the public service and to apologize. The work has been done; the recommendations have been made. It's time for the recommendations to be followed.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

D. Miller: Hon. Speaker, I take your silence with respect to the member's comments as licence to offer my own comments. I think the member went far beyond . . . . If I must say so, I think other members of the Public Accounts Committee could also verify that his statements today did not characterize the discussion -- and, I thought, some very useful discussion -- that took place in Public Accounts with respect to the budget for the '95-96 fiscal year, as well as the auditor general's report on that issue and the Enns report.

I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that the Enns report was commissioned by this Minister of Finance. Its 26 recommendations have virtually all been accepted and, I think -- I didn't do a full count -- implemented. There is some difference of opinion with respect to recommendation 19 and the inclusion of the SUCH sector. I think that's a legitimate accounting debate that will probably go on for some time before there's a finalization on that question.

But I'm a bit perplexed. It was not my intention to get into the realm of politics in discussing a report of . . . .

[1445]

Interjections.

D. Miller: Well, Mr. Speaker, I find it a little bit much to take after listening to the comments of the Chair of Public Accounts, who has broken with a longstanding tradition with respect to the introduction of reports to this House -- a flagrant disregard of that longstanding tradition. And that's fine. I guess if the political mood is such that he feels that's acceptable, then fine; I don't quarrel with it. But having listened to him, I suppose I should be afforded the same opportunity.

But I wanted to go back and . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

D. Miller: . . . reiterate that the transparency that has been introduced by this government is unparalleled, I think, amongst all Canadian provinces with respect to the amount of consultation, the knowledge and the transparency around . . . . Let's deal with the difference that appears to exist with respect to one item in the budget estimates -- namely, the $300 million revenue forecast for B.C. Hydro.

I do know, having been a minister in the past . . . . And I must confess that I made a grievous error last year, as the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, in working with my staff and forecasting a revenue in this current fiscal year of, I think, about $680 million. However, I was delighted when that forecast was wrong. It was dead wrong. It turned out to be $1.8 billion.

[ Page 17428 ]

I listened very closely to the questions with respect to energy forecasts and the implications with respect to Williston and others. I did pay particular attention to the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain and the Leader of the Opposition, who promised to shut down Burrard Thermal. The forgone revenue for that reckless, reckless political act is $2.7 billion over ten years. They promised them -- I saw them make the promise -- a replacement cost of $600-$700 million.

However, the purpose of all of this -- particularly the Enns report and the auditor general's report, as you well know and members opposite in this House well know . . . . The auditor general's desire over the years has been to provide as much information as possible for members in debating the budget and the estimates that any government tables. And I'm satisfied that the rulings and the legislation that we've passed will make the opposition's job easier in the future.

But it does strike me as passing strange that we have an opposition that made significant fiscal promises in 1996, and they have now, on the eve of an election, said: "We have scrapped all of those." And while we've made the opposition's job easier in terms of questioning the budget, this is the worst year in my 15 years in this place, because the opposition refused to debate the budget that we put forward. And I can only conclude that the reason they refused is that they do not want their hand revealed to the public of this province in terms of what they will really do.

That is the central debate in this province. When will these people come clean and tell the public of British Columbia what their real fiscal plans are? Will their agent in Ontario, who's with Mike Harris, follow the lead of the Harris government announced today, which is controlling civil servants, cutting back in health and education? What is it, Mr. Speaker? That's the question. That is the central question that we are about to face in this province.

[1450]

E. Walsh: Hon. Speaker, I stand because I am a member of the Public Accounts Committee. When I hear what the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee said in this House today, it does not reflect the discussions that took place in the Public Accounts Committee, hon. Speaker. As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I take great offence that he would dare reflect my views that had absolutely nothing to do with his political partisanship in this House today.

What is at risk here today is the integrity of an all-party committee of this House. It's the integrity of the people in this province that trust the people in this House to do their work and debate the work of this House. And for the Chair of that committee, for the Chair of the Liberal opposition to stand in this House and report on falsehoods that did not take place in the committee is a disgrace. Shame on them. Shame on them.

I will add, too, that they have every opportunity, as does every member of this House, to put their views forward. They have every opportunity to speak on the budget, to speak on every issue that comes up in this province. But they choose not to. Why do they choose not to? They choose not to because they've chosen to hide behind a façade. They choose to hide behind political partisanship in discussions that should have taken place in Public Accounts. That's a disgrace. It's a disgrace and is disrespectful of all the people in British Columbia.

This report reflected nothing of what this member, a member from the opposite Liberals, has in fact quoted from. I would like this member to point out where has been the consensus of the committee of which he spoke. I'll also mention the fact that the courts threw out any charges on all of this brouhaha about the '96 budget. How dare they show such contempt for the courts of British Columbia? How dare they show contempt for the judge, Justice Humphries, who said that there was absolutely no fault found in the '96 budget.

Hon. Speaker, I believe that this member owes the people of British Columbia an apology, not only for the falsehoods he's reporting that the committee spoke about in Public Accounts but for all the falsehoods that they are spreading today. [Applause.]

The Speaker: Order, members. Order, members.

S. Orcherton: It was not my intention to rise to discuss this report today. But you know, we did some good work in Public Accounts. We worked with the auditor general. We canvassed a whole variety of issues. We listened to what the Enns report had to say. I think that at the end of the day, we came up with a good report.

It's absolutely staggering to me that this biased member, this Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, this master of slur and innuendo and allegation, can stand up in this House and talk about issues that have nothing to do with this report. It amazes me that they can debate on allegation. They have no capacity on that side of the House to debate anything of substance. We haven't seen them stand up and debate a single issue in this House since this House was called back -- not a single issue.

[1455]

They refuse to debate the budget. The only thing that they can stand up and speak on in this House is allegations surrounding a report that comes from Public Accounts -- unbelievable. I challenge any member on that side of the House to stand up and support what that biased Chair of the Public Accounts Committee has said in this House today. Stand up and support it.

He talks about all these allegations. Not a mention of this is in the report -- not a mention of any of these issues. Stand up. Who's going to be up next on your side to talk? Let's hear some issues of substance, not allegations and innuendo.

Hon. Speaker, what's occurred here today is unbelievable, in terms of that member presenting this report to the House in the fashion that he has. I think it is reprehensible. It does not speak of what occurred at the Public Accounts Committee. It is, by its very essence, a minority report that's been presented here today by way of the comments made by the member opposite. He should be substantially and fundamentally ashamed of himself and ashamed of his behaviour in this House.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

P. Calendino: The reaction from the opposite side shows that I stand up to speak on issues that have to do with the behaviour of members in this House. I haven't spoken very much in this place. I intended to speak on the budget in the last few days, but those members over there have come down

[ Page 17429 ]

with a game that has prevented us from fully debating the merits of the budget. And it's shameful. It's shameful that they've behaved that way.

I have to tell you, I've been on the Public Accounts Committee since I was elected to this chamber. I was proud and happy to be there discussing issues in a non-partisan way. The former Chair, Fred Gingell, was an exemplary Chair. But ever since he has been replaced by that member over there, who stood up to make the report, it's been one shameful session after another there.

Tonight there's going to be a private member's statement on bullying in the school yard. That member, as Chair, is behaving like a bully both in the committee and on this floor. What he said today does not reflect what was discussed in the committee. I was shocked and offended by that member getting up to make a report which should be a non-partisan report and starting on a political rant that he could have done in the debate on the budget.

They refused to do that, because the budget was a good budget. The budget is what the people want -- investing in health and in education, not huge tax cuts. He could have given that political rant in the budget debate, and he refused to do that. I am offended. I ask him to stand up and apologize for what he said today.

The Speaker: I recognize the member for Okanagan-Penticton to close debate.

R. Thorpe: I'm pleased to close the debate. I'd like to observe, though, that I've seen more action here today in 15 minutes than I have in the last five years in Public Accounts from that side of the House.

Interjections.

R. Thorpe: In closing, hon. Speaker, the truth seems to have struck a very exposed, raw nerve. I move this report be adopted.

[1500]

The Speaker: I take it the member has concluded his remarks.

The member for North Coast on a point of order.

Point of Order

Interjections.

D. Miller: Hon. Speaker, I'm well able to defend myself. I don't need anybody's protection, but this is the most flagrant abuse of this process I have ever witnessed in 15 years in this chamber. I can play politics, and I love playing politics. I'll debate that member any day of the week anywhere. But I would ask that member to consider what he's done, and perhaps reflect, stand up and tender an apology to this House for the flagrant abuse -- flagrant abuse -- and the insult to all members of this House that he has just done.

The Speaker: The Opposition House Leader on the point of order.

G. Farrell-Collins: These motions are debatable. They have been debatable . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, the member has the floor.

G. Farrell-Collins: These motions are debatable. They have . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Will the member for North Coast come to order. The member has the floor.

G. Farrell-Collins: These motions are debatable. They have been debatable before, under the leadership and stewardship of the former Chair, Mr. Gingell, the member for Delta South. In fact, I object strenuously to the characterization made by the member for North Coast of the former Chair. That Chair was handpicked by the former Chair because he knew he'd be the best one in the House to do that job.

These motions are debatable. They're debatable when everybody agrees, and they're debatable when the government doesn't like what the opposition has to say as well. There's nothing out of order at all in what's happened here today.

The Speaker: On the point of order, Government House Leader.

Hon. G. Janssen: It is laughable that the Opposition House Leader would stand up in this House and mention the fact that there's debate going on, after the antics of that side over the last few days.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Thank you, members. The only comment I have is that there were reflections on members and on the House from both sides today during that debate, and I would ask members to perhaps look at what they said and consider what they might say in the future.

Motion approved.

Reports from Committees

B. Goodacre: Now for something completely different. Hon. Speaker, pursuant to the committee's terms of reference, I have the honour to present the second report of the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture and Fisheries for the fourth session of the thirty-sixth parliament.

An Hon. Member: Spice it up a bit.

B. Goodacre: Yeah, indeed.

I move that this report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

B. Goodacre: I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

[ Page 17430 ]

B. Goodacre: I move that the report be adopted. The second report presents the recommendations of the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture and Fisheries with respect to the agricultural lease program.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Motions on Notice

Hon. G. Janssen: I call continued debate on Motion 1.

REFERENDA ON ISSUES AFFECTING

MINORITY RIGHTS

(continued)

On the amendment.

Hon. G. Wilson: I rise to speak in favour of the amendment to this motion. The motion is very clear. But I want to reflect for just a moment as I make my comments about what has just transpired in this House, because it speaks very directly to this motion. It speaks to this motion to the extent that we have just witnessed not only contempt for parliament by the members opposite, but we have witnessed the absolute contempt for the people by the members opposite.

[1505]

The Speaker: Thank you, minister. Could you take your seat for a moment.

The Opposition House Leader on a point of order.

Point of Order

G. Farrell-Collins: If the member wants to make an allegation of privilege as contempt of parliament, he should make it. He shouldn't do it in debate. He should make it formally, and there are rules to do that.

The Speaker: Perhaps the minister could confine his remarks to the motion on the floor.

On the amendment.

Hon. G. Wilson: Contempt is an issue that I think we need to deal with, because it speaks particularly toward the motion that has built up a process for treaty negotiation over the last number of years. And I would like to quote a former member of this House whose name was Fred Gingell, who was an honest man, who was an honest Liberal, a real Liberal and somebody who had great integrity. This is what Fred Gingell said about the treaty process: "I rise to speak for both myself and the members of the Liberal caucus who will not speak on second reading of this bill. I wish to advise everyone that our caucus supports Bill 22."

Bill 22 is the Treaty Commission Act, which establishes the treaty that we have been working on and the process of treaties that have been underway in British Columbia. I go on to continue with this member's comments: "It is time -- in fact, it is over time -- for us to get on with the negotiation of land claims. There are many questions that will be dealt with in detail during committee stage. We do have questions that we need to have answered. We support in principle, however, the creation of this commission to assist the process in as timely a manner as possible."

Hon. Speaker, that's what an honest Liberal said when this in fact came forward in the House to commence a historic process of treaty negotiation. It is interesting today, when we take a look at the issue that's in front of us now, that we see that despite the fact the federal government, the provincial government and first nations have, in the spirit of Mr. Gingell's comments, undertaken debate and discussion, the members opposite now say they will not honour that. They will not honour those words; they will not honour that commitment.

Every single member opposite of the so-called Liberal Party, which it is no longer today . . . . Every one of those members opposite stood up and voted in favour of the creation of the commission they seek to undermine today through their desire to hold a referendum on the question of the treaty. It is an absolute abuse. It is an absolute abuse of their word and their commitment to first nations in this province, nothing other than that.

And it is furthermore an extension of what we have just witnessed in this House: the complete contempt that the members opposite hold for this chamber and for the people of British Columbia. Having accepted and adopted this bill, having accepted and voted in favour of this commission, they are now prepared to stand up and say that they're going to challenge those who have worked over the last number of decades to try to make this process a reality.

There have been some successes. There have been some excellent successes: Sechelt and the movement to AIP. And now again, with some discussions underway with them, hopefully, to get them back to full treaty . . . . The Sliammon, who are now in AIP . . . .

I see the member from North Vancouver laughing. They always laugh when we talk about aboriginal people. It's the only issue they bring forward that they want to hold a referendum on. It's aboriginal rights; it's the only one. They see nothing else so compelling that they have to go to the people except when we want to have inclusion of aboriginal people in the economy of British Columbia. What a change there has been in that party since the departure of Mr. Gingell and others who believed in true Liberal policy.

[1510]

Hon. Speaker, it's no wonder there's been a change, because if we look to see who runs among them today, they're not Liberals. They're not people who were part of a movement in 1991 to bring progressive new policies into this province. Indeed, they are people who we ran against in 1991 to try to push them out of the agenda so that we could bring progressive new policy into British Columbia.

D. Jarvis: Wrong. Wrong.

Hon. G. Wilson: That member for North Vancouver-Seymour who stands up and says, "Wrong, wrong," or sits and says "Wrong, wrong," because they don't have the courage to stand and speak . . . . Those members who say it's wrong can tell me that someone like Claude Richmond, Harold Long, Stan Hagen . . . . Are these names that come to mind? Howard Dirks is another one that comes to mind. These are all Socreds. These are people who, when we go back

[ Page 17431 ]

through the Hansard as I have done today -- and I'm happy to read into the record their views on first nations when they had an opportunity . . . .

When a park was to be created in Vancouver on the Musqueam, when the members of the New Democratic Party stood up at that time, when they were in opposition, to try to amend it to protect the rights of Musqueam people on the creation of a park, the very member, Mr. Richmond himself, who now runs in Kamloops, stood up and blocked it. He said that he would not entertain it, because there was no inherent right of aboriginal people in this province to hold it. That's what the Hansard says. So let us not be surprised when we see that these members now, these retread Socreds . . . .

And that's what they are; let us call them what they are. Let us not be surprised that these members opposite don't stand in support of treaties, because they don't. They do not.

We have heard from their official critic, and we've heard from the Leader of the Official Opposition, who stands up and says -- although certainly not in defence of this motion, because they won't speak to this motion about whether or not we should have treaties . . . . They stand up and say: "We're not opposed to treaties. We just want to make them more inclusive."

Well, that's what Bill 22 did. It created a commission that brought people together: first nations under the Treaty Commission, the federal government and the provincial government. That's what it did, hon. Speaker. And when we start to look at what the members opposite say -- "We're not opposed to it" -- you cannot trust what they say. You cannot trust what they say; you have to analyze what they do.

What is their action? When the Nisga'a came forward and we had a treaty finally signed -- the first modern treaty for the Nisga'a people -- what did these members do? Every individual in this chamber opposed that treaty. They voted against it, notwithstanding the fact that the federal government, the provincial government, the first nations and the vast majority of British Columbians supported the conclusion of that treaty. They voted against it.

And that wasn't enough -- oh no, not for these members opposite. It wasn't enough to vote against it in this chamber. They rushed it off to court. Now, what really concerns me is the fact that this debate has been caught up -- it's been captured -- in a tone reported in the popular press as being something that is somewhat irrelevant. I think the word that was used today in their new propaganda magazine . . . . The Vancouver Sun called it a charade. This debate's a charade. That's what the reporters in the Vancouver Sun think. That's what the members opposite think. "Call an election," yells the editorial writer.

"End this charade and call an election." Well, I wonder if it's a charade to every aboriginal individual who is listening to this debate when they hear those members opposite say that they now want to stop the treaty process, break their word and completely go back on the commitment that they made on Bill 22 -- break their word and now say that despite years of negotiation, they are going to rush out and have a referendum on this issue.

[1515]

I don't think it's a charade. It speaks to the very heart of who we are as British Columbians. If they don't have the courage . . . . If they have the audacity to sit on their chairs without the courage to stand up and somehow defend their positions, which they cannot and will not do, one has to question. If that level of arrogance exists today in this chamber, imagine -- God forgive us, that we should ever vote these people to be government -- the level of arrogance they would have on this side when they have the reins of power at hand.

Well, the people of British Columbia need to think about that. They need to witness what we just saw today in the absolutely flagrant breaking of the rules, which you aren't going to read about in any kind of unbiased fashion in the papers. You're not going to see this reported in any unbiased manner on television, God knows. When the media of this province have contributed over $150,000 to the campaigns of the members opposite, how would you expect that there is going to be any kind of unbiased, unfettered coverage? Let's not go there, because you're not going to find it. Why?

Because they are part of the corporate entities in this province, the corporations of this province that would very much support these members opposite. These members opposite have been bought and paid for.

Up to 1999 -- and the numbers grow -- if we take a look at the numbers of dollars that have been put into their coffers . . . . Let's just take a look at this: from 1996 to 1999, defendable statistics show that the corporations of this province have financed these members opposite to the tune of $7.8 million -- bought and paid for, hon. Speaker. So let's not expect that you're going to hear any kind of fair coverage on this debate.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister. Could you take your seat just for a moment, please. The Opposition House Leader has a point of order.

Point of Order

G. Farrell-Collins: The allegations and the absolutely ridiculous comments that the member just made are extremely offensive, and I ask him to withdraw them.

The Speaker: The Chair would ask the minister to withdraw the comment that the members opposite were bought and paid for.

Hon. G. Wilson: I've never intended to offend the members opposite. I certainly don't. If any of my comments have offended the member opposite, I would happily withdraw them.

The Speaker: Thank you.

On the amendment.

Hon. G. Wilson: But let me continue by saying that what we are witnessing from the members opposite in this so-called debate, which they refuse to stand up and debate, is clearly an agenda at work that they will not tell the public about. Why do they oppose this motion that talks about the mandates? In this amended motion we talk about having a referendum on the mandates for first nations.

Now, think about that for a moment. And the people of British Columbia should think carefully about that. The reason they want to hold a referendum on the mandates is because they do not support the mandates as they are currently constituted. They don't support them. They do not support the creation of first nations government. They do not support the

[ Page 17432 ]

idea that we are going to have first nations tenures. They do not support the notion that first nations in this province will have an equal opportunity to succeed.

The reason that they don't is because they have a different agenda. That's clearly why. And that's an agenda that they will not table in this House. They are fearful to table it before an election, because if the people of British Columbia fully understand what that agenda is, they will not support these people in the Liberal Party for government. That's why they won't table that agenda. That's why they want this. And if we need to have a bit of glimpse as to what that real agenda is, we have to go back and do a little bit of homework, a little bit of research, to find out what these members opposite have been saying.

[1520]

These members opposite, in terms of doing a general synopsis with respect to where they are going, deal more specifically with the corporate desire to have greater control over the economy and over the government of this province. Corporations don't put up $7.8 million and not expect something in return. So what are they going to get in return? Well, I'll tell you what they're going to get in return. They're going to get a process of privatization unlike any we have seen in this province yet, and that affects the ability of the members opposite to settle land claims.

I've been engaged over the last while in trying to settle issues with the Americans on softwood lumber. One of the things that's become absolutely clear to me is that if we are to have any kind of opportunity in this province to be successful, the successful resolution on first nations land claims is key to it. I can tell you that what their agenda is with respect to privatization impacts directly on their willingness to include first nations in that agenda. The movement to greater privatization in the forest industry is something that the Leader of the Official Opposition has confirmed in his comments.

We have that on record, something that their official opposition critic has spoken to, and we have that confirmed through his taped work on television.

When we see that information and we start to understand a little bit more specifically about where they're going -- which is really outlined in what their program of advancement is, which we find through the Fraser Institute -- we take a look at a very interesting document indeed, because it speaks to policy recommendations. It talks about the movement to work first nations land claims in conjunction with privatization of the forest land base. That's interesting, because the Fraser Institute has long been something that has been used by many members opposite as their sort of bible.

The Speaker: Excuse me, minister. Could you take a seat for a moment. The Opposition House Leader has a point of order.

G. Farrell-Collins: If the member is referring to documents in his speech, I would ask him, in compliance with the rules, to table those documents so all members have access to them.

The Speaker: The point that you're raising is necessary for state or government documents only. Minister of Forests, continue, please.

Hon. G. Wilson: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I'm amazed that they're so touchy about this, because clearly we are slowly unmasking their agenda. If the member would like to see what they've got, I would refer him to the Fraser Institute web site,

www.fraserinstitute.ca/media/media_releases/. Hon. member, you might want to go and check it out.

Interjections.

Hon. G. Wilson: Yeah, right. I'm surprised he hasn't seen it, because the foreword is written by somebody who is working very closely on their transition team.

It seems to me that we have a fairly good understanding, in looking at this document, of what they're all about. And let me tell you, that is one of the reasons that these members opposite are quite concerned with respect to their willingness to get into treaty negotiations.

It is interesting that if we take a look at what others believe in, others recognize that there is a movement toward the desire for privatizing the forest.

Interjections.

Hon. G. Wilson: The members opposite have ample opportunity to get up and refute my comments if they choose to. Stand up and get involved in this debate.

The fact of the matter is that we have people . . . .

Interjections.

Hon. G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, I have to just pause for a moment.

The Speaker: Through the Chair, minister.

Hon. G. Wilson: This member, who suggests I stand up and tell the truth, is the very member who read into the record a meeting that took place between the chairman of B.C. Hydro and the Minister of Finance when the chairman of B.C. Hydro wasn't even in the province. And this member is suggesting that I get up and keep my facts straight? Good luck. That is just so ridiculous.

I want to come back to this important point, because it seems to me that the members opposite have to account for what their issues are. Why are these members so opposed to this? I think we can start to see why. They are opposed to the treaties under the mandates that they are currently involved in. We have somebody here who talked fairly specifically about what their involvement was. There's a gentleman by the name of David McLean. Now, David McLean will be . . . .

Interjections.

Hon. G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, if I could finish my remarks without this heckling . . . . I haven't suggested for a moment that he's on their transition team.

Interjections.

[1525]

Hon. G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, this member says he's not on their transition team. I haven't suggested he is. If he would let me conclude my remarks, he will understand where I am going with my comments.

[ Page 17433 ]

What David McLean and the Canadian National chair at the time, Mr. Brian Smith, who has been in the news recently, have said about the Nisga'a final agreement is that the Nisga'a final agreement was an important breakthrough. The certainty this agreement brings to the business climate of British Columbia is only one of the very good reasons to fully support this initiative.

And the reason those two senior business leaders have said that we have to have an opportunity to settle land claims is because these two senior business leaders know that if we do not settle land claims, it is going to be at our peril economically. The Premier has already determined quite clearly, and has said quite clearly, that it has cost us -- some economists would estimate -- $1 billion a year because of uncertainty.

Hon. Speaker, let me tell you that what is interesting to me, as a former Finance minister -- and other former Finance ministers will confirm -- is that when a Finance minister goes to New York, the one issue that the people who put the financing together for this province, in terms of our principal lenders . . . . The one issue that they ask for -- what they want to know -- is: have you settled the outstanding land claims of the first nations? Those lenders in New York know the importance of building that certainty. That's why senior business leaders like Brian Smith and David McLean understand the need to have this settled.

It's also quite clear that if we are to move into a new and progressive economy, it's essential in that new and progressive economy that we settle land claims because of our primary, extractive, resource-based economy. We believe, and I think that we have demonstrated quite clearly, that in the forest sector we will lose market share if we do not have first nations involvement. We've made it a policy to involve first nations in the forest sector. One of the key components to that is settlement of first nations land claims.

When we moved to AIP with the Nuu-chah-nulth -- a historic breakthrough with the Nuu-chah-nulth -- did we see the Liberal opposition stand up and say: "Good job. Great job. We're moving forward. We think this is a good idea"? We did not. What their critic turned around and said was that they did not feel obliged to honour it, that they would review and may not honour that agreement-in-principle.

Let's be clear. The member opposite -- I think it was the Attorney General critic -- talked about the Premier speaking on behalf of the government. All of us in this chamber know that government is more than the governing party. It includes the opposition. That's why we had an all-party committee on aboriginal issues travel the province -- so that we could make sure that we had this correct.

Quite clearly, the contempt that is demonstrated in the words of the official opposition's Aboriginal Affairs critic -- that they are not going to honour an agreement-in-principle, that they would not honour that, that they may not honour that, that they will review that . . . . Indeed, he went further than that and said they would review all of them, including Sliammon -- all of them. What that says is that this group opposite will not honour the commitments that were made by the Crown.

That certainly was the

interpretation offered by federal critic Nault, who believed that once we have an agreement-in-principle through a treaty, we should honour that. We should stand forward and we should put the word of the Crown on the table, and once we have signed that word, we should maintain it.

It is quite obvious to all of us observing that the reason they don't want to do this is because they have another agenda, and that other agenda is a corporate agenda that does not wish to see land claims set down.

It is quite obvious that that's where we're headed. When you take a look at the agenda that these people have put forward, particularly in light of the discussions around privatization of the forest land base, issues around privatization of B.C. Hydro . . . . There's now talk of privatization of a whole host of other resource-related activities that may go on in this province, which are right now under Crown administration.

[D. Streifel in the chair.]

Hon. Speaker, it's clear that settlement of land claims will interfere with that process. And that is at least one of the reasons why the members opposite would simply not be prepared to support what we have put forward.

D. Jarvis: Sleazy innuendoes.

Hon. G. Wilson: Now, the member for North Vancouver-Seymour says "sleazy innuendoes." This is the party that has levelled attack after attack after attack not only against this party but from time to time against me personally. They have been investigated, they have been studied, and they've been reported out and found to be untrue -- on every count, untrue. Yet they accuse us of doing this.

[1530]

What is sleazy, what is underhanded and what I believe is fundamentally dishonest is to go into an election with an agenda in your hip pocket and not tell the people what it is you really stand for. That is what it is. "Call the election," he says, "and then we'll tell you." We've heard that before. It was put out by a fellow by the name of Mulroney: "Call the election, and I'll unveil it." And when he did unveil it, they commenced on one of the greatest privatization scandals in this nation's history. Let there be no doubt that's where these people are headed. Let there be no doubt of that.

The reason they don't want to have the settlement of aboriginal land titles is because that will get in their way.

Let me tell you, hon. Speaker, that there is an interesting turn of events in British Columbia. What we have been able to do as a government -- and one I'm very proud of -- is bring people together. We have been able, instead of driving people apart, instead of pushing people into referenda where you have one group voting against other groups and you have people who are going to be quite divided . . . . I think my colleague from Bulkley Valley-Stikine outlined it very well. He lives among a large percentage of aboriginal people in his riding. He talked about how incredibly divisive this was likely to be, if we were to head down that route.

It seems to me that we've been able to go a different direction, and I think that causes some considerable concern among the members opposite. Our direction has been one that talks to bringing people together, that brings together first nations, non-first nations, companies and unions, environmentalists and companies in a process which is called land use planning. It is a process that talks about building an economy in British Columbia that is inclusive. We have undertaken to include aboriginal people in record numbers, and more so we have also been able, through the inclusion of first nations, to build partnerships that are steps toward the finalization of treaties.

[ Page 17434 ]

All of this is put in jeopardy. It is put in jeopardy by members opposite who are prepared in the first 90 days, if we're to believe the Leader of the Official Opposition, to immediately make an attack against certain segments of our population. That is going to divide us. I'm not even sure if the members opposite understand that under the new certification polices that are going forward, particularly FSC, the inclusion of first nations in the certification process is mandatory.

I ask the people of British Columbia to consider this: having had ten years of trying to bring people together under the Treaty Commission -- something they all supported when this was put in this House, something they've all committed their word to, which they have now gone back on . . . . They have now said: "We don't honour that anymore.

We're not going to allow the Treaty Commission process to be the duly constituted negotiation process." I ask the people this: how much wood do you think we're going to sell abroad when members opposite cause such tremendous disruption because they're going to go out and violate the very fundamental principles of human rights, which is to bring people together with respect to this process?

They don't even understand it; that's what's concerning. They don't even understand that process. We will not be able to sell a single stick of wood if these members have their way. And if, God forbid, we are ever to elect them government, if they divide us, if they go out with referenda, if they put the first nations on the streets, if they go out and gut the Forest Practices Code -- which they say they want to do -- and put the environmentalists on the streets -- if all of this is in a plan which I believe is fully scripted out there in the Fraser Institute's model for the economy, which is their policy . . . .

If it isn't, then I ask them to table it. Table what yours is. Let us see the differences. They won't do it, because we know they do not dare put their full policy in front of the people. Now they can hide under the editorial writers and those who will do their bidding in the popular media, the people who have already decided that these people will be government, which is the most outrageous, most contemptuous attitude toward the actual voter. These people have already decided for the voters where they're going to go.

[1535]

Well, I ask British Columbians to consider this one fact: where is our economy going to be when you've got first nations in the streets, you've got environmentalists in the streets, and you've got this province once again divided because of the policies of the mid-1980s, which are reflected . . .

Deputy Speaker: Minister, would you conclude your remarks, please.

Hon. G. Wilson: . . . in the very people running, these people today?

Hon. I. Waddell: I rise to take

part in this debate on the amended motion. I'll try to be as brief as possible, because I know a lot of my colleagues want to speak. I want to speak on two parts, as I see them, to the debate.

The first one is the fact that I was the Chair of the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs when we did extensive hearings on the Nisga'a treaty and on the process of land claims itself. The second

part I want to raise is from my own experience over a number of years -- 21 years in politics both on the federal and the provincial levels -- with respect to minority rights, which I care passionately about.

I want to start with the select standing committee. I have the report. It's available in the library, and the members would have the report before them. It has been tabled in this House. Included on the Aboriginal Affairs Committee that did these hearings was the hon. member for Peace River South, who spoke in this debate, and the hon. member for Matsqui, who's the critic for the Liberal Party.

At the first session of the committee the hon. member for Richmond-Steveston, who's the Attorney General critic for the Liberal Party, had to resign from the committee because he had a conflict of interest, as ruled by the conflict-of-interest commissioner. With the law firm of Russell and DuMoulin he had prepared briefs for COFI, the forest industry, and substantially the same briefs were being presented to the committee. So he had to resign from the committee on a conflict of interest. But the rest of the members were there on the committee, so they took

part in what happened, and they issued a report.

There was a resolution of this House on August 8, 1996.

That set out what the committee was to do: "This House authorizes the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs to examine, inquire into and make recommendations on: the application of key issues arising out of the Nisga'a Agreement-in-Principle to treaty negotiations throughout British Columbia; how progress can be made towards treaty settlements with aboriginal people beneficial to all British Columbians." And then: "Further, that the House authorizes the committee to provide opportunities for all citizens of British Columbia, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, to express their views on these matters." Further, it allowed the committee, for the first time in legislative history here, to permit television broadcasting of any public hearings the committee may have.

Those were the terms of reference.

Remember that in this debate we're having today, the opposition raised the issue that they need to have a referendum because they have to give the people of British Columbia a chance to pronounce on the terms of the treaties and the treaty-making process. Well, what did we do for half a year in this committee that they took

part in? It's a puzzlement, then, that they need a referendum. I'm going to suggest later on that that's a smokescreen and that they want the referendum for other reasons.

But let me continue with what the committee did so that the members will be reminded that we actually did have a process. I want to quote from page 13 of the committee report, about three-quarters of the way down the page: "We heard 560 oral presentations and an additional 232 written submissions." We had 62 hours of television coverage, live. We had 31 public hearings in 27 communities in every region of British Columbia.

And then I'll just quote on page 14:

"The committee tried its best to inform the public about its hearings. Two weeks before each hearing, quarter-page advertisements were placed in local daily and weekly newspapers with the highest area circulation figures. Each advertisement ran at least twice. Prospective witnesses were asked to register with the office of the Clerk of Committees, and approximately 30 minutes were reserved for unscheduled speakers in an open microphone session at the end of each hearing.

"In an effort to reach out to both native and non-native communities, the committee conducted its hearings in band

[ Page 17435 ]

halls, legion halls and in hotel meeting rooms and aboriginal friendship centres. By alternating hearing locations, we were as accessible as possible to all interested parties.

"Before each hearing letters were sent to local mayors, regional district officials, band offices and chiefs, inviting their participation. The committee met formally with the Treaty Negotiations Advisory Committee . . . the committee Chair met with the First Nations Summit before the hearings, and the full committee met with the summit at the end of the hearing process.

"The committee was pleased with the wide cross-section of people who appeared before it. Approximately 32 percent of the witnesses identified themselves as aboriginal. Just under half of the witnesses spoke on their own behalf, while the balance were affiliated with one of an assortment of corporations or groups. We heard from Members of Parliament and locally elected officials, first nations chiefs, elders, associations and tribal councils, members of churches and church groups, fish and wildlife organizations, forestry companies, labour unions, [business groups] and regional and treaty advisory groups."

[1540]

We went to schools. We got the local MLAs involved. Well, I could go on. Clearly you wouldn't read about this in the Vancouver Sun , and you didn't -- the most important committee hearings, I think, of any committees held.

Dealing with the treaty process, dealing with what people want in it -- you don't need a referendum. We did it. We went around the province, and there it was. Vaughn Palmer didn't write about it because you'd have to have some depth of writing. You'd have to follow the hearings.

If you look at this report, there's something else that comes into it, and that is that the opposition asked to file a minority report. Now, being a good fellow and all that and wanting to do parliamentary procedure I said, sometimes against advice: "Go ahead, let the opposition do a minority report." So if you look carefully at their minority report, you can start to see their policy, which has been hidden and hidden and hidden. If you look at it . . . .

The first one is, in their minority report, that they talk about certainty and finality. And you know what they want? They want language that says "cede, release and surrender." They want the aboriginal peoples to put in the words "we surrender." Well, I gotta tell you something: they ain't gonna do it. We can find other language, and we did in Nisga'a. The member for North Coast knows that. He helped on that. We have it. But they're not going to sign it. And that's what they wanted. That's what they want.

The next thing that they want, and I quote from page 97 of their minority report: "Treaties should be settled . . . in cash, rather than in land and resources."

They don't want to give land. And native people told us constantly, especially in the rural areas -- we're not talking of the cities in the lower mainland, but we're talking in the regional areas of the province: "Land is basic to our life. We live on the land. The land is holy to us."

Ask any aboriginal people in the regional areas of the province. It's not on. If you just try and buy 'em out, they ain't gonna do it, because they know that the cash is here, gone tomorrow, but the land lasts. The land can be used, and you can have a viable, sustainable economy from the land -- right? You can get a piece of the forest, or you can get a piece of the mine, if you're aboriginal. You can get a piece of the fishing. So that's not on.

And finally they say on self-government: "Treaties should not include the constitutional entrenchment of a third order of government for aboriginal people; rather, a municipal style of self-government . . . . "

And they know that's not on either. So if you take their minority report, and you take what they said, you're not going to have land claims settlement. You're going to have what the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast said: you're in fact going to have chaos, and you're not going to have settlement. And it's all here.

The final thing is that they talk about the Nisga'a AIP. They voted against Nisga'a. You know, they voted against Nisga'a.

So, hon. Speaker, I offer this as evidence to the House. The fact is that we had extensive hearings, extensive consultations. The people of B.C. were consulted. They had a part of shaping this. We followed some of the things they said in Nisga'a. We followed it in changing the treaty process. So there you have it.

Secondly, I want to make this other point. That is the issue of minority rights. You know, the Premier in his speech talked a lot about minority rights in this debate, and there's a reason for that. The great philosopher Martin Niemoeller -- I can't get the exact quote, but this is just a general quote of what he said about the Holocaust. He said that first they come for the Jews, and then they're going to look for the gypsies. Then they come for the gays and lesbians, then they start coming for the Catholics, and then they start coming for the . . . . Eventually, they come for you. He was making the point . . . .

[1545]

Interjection.

Hon. I. Waddell: Now, the hon. member should listen to this. I know you don't care about minority rights, but you should listen to this. Listen. The fact is that we should all care about minority rights, because some day they could come for us.

In the gallery yesterday, you will recall that I introduced some francophones; the head of the federation of francophones and his assistant were here. And they commented afterwards . . . . When they watched the opposition and the attitude of the opposition to the Premier speaking about minority rights, it was very interesting. They were, I think, shocked and concerned. I want to remind these members that when they play the games with first nations . . . .

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order. Order, members.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. I. Waddell: If the member listened . . . . Listen to the point I'm making. What I'm saying to the member . . . .

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: North Vancouver-Seymour, come to order, please. Minister, would you take your seat for a minute,

[ Page 17436 ]

please. Every member has the opportunity to rise in this debate. The minister has the floor at this time. It's the members' orders; it's the members' rules. The members should respect them.

Hon. I. Waddell: I invite the member to get up and speak. I'll draw my remarks to a conclusion so he can get up and speak, if he really wants to speak.

My point is this: that the members opposite are dealing with more than . . . . You know, 4 1/2 percent of the population is first nations in this province. You're going to isolate them with these referendums. We've made that point.

But I ask the hon. members to realize that when they start doing this to first nations . . . . There is a Chinese Canadian minority out there; there's a Vietnamese Canadian minority out there; there are francophone Canadians; there's an Indo-Canadian minority. There's a history of discrimination in this province. So in my riding, which has many Chinese Canadians, many Indo-Canadians . . . . I'm going to go into this election and say: "Look at that Liberal opposition. Look what they want to do. It's scary. What is their real agenda? How are they going to treat minority groups?

If they're willing to do this to first nations people -- vote against the Nisga'a treaty, demand a divisive referendum in this province -- what are they going to do to the rest of the minority groups in B.C.?"

I think it's scary, and I believe that in this upcoming election, the voters are going to have another look at what the Liberals' real policy is. And some of it is revealed in the report that I referred to today.

Hon. C. Evans: When I was a kid, my dad was a lawyer. He was a public defender, and he had the opinion that the law was a wonderful thing. It could be used to defend the poor. In spite of the fact that I just wanted to play baseball, he wanted me to go to school and become a lawyer too. I kind of wasted my youth and then went to work.

And until yesterday, I always felt kind of bad that I didn't go to law school. I always kind of thought that maybe that was a higher calling. Then yesterday I watched what lawyers could do to common sense and to my understanding of the truth, and I started feeling not so bad for all those years of driving a bulldozer and all those wasted hours as a kid throwing baseballs.

What seemed to me yesterday was happening in here, and with all due respect, I would say from both sides . . . . Some of my most wonderful friends are lawyers; I don't mean to denigrate them and my leader. But it seemed to me like what was happening yesterday was people taking an idea that was really simple and that I thought I understood -- and I think everybody out there understands and everybody watching understands -- which was that we had engaged for most of a decade now in negotiating with some people, and we were going to sign treaties. And they turned it into a whole bunch of words which made no sense to me.

I'm not a stupid person. I've been working here for ten years, and I've voted on lots of laws. It's not like I'm completely unfamiliar with laws or with parliamentary language. But they turned it into something that made no sense to me. It was gobbledegook. And it started making me feel like this venerable place was being defamed a little bit. That notion, you know, that you see on television sometimes, where they say the white man speaks with forked tongue or something . . . . That's what they said when you were a little kid, and you were watching cowboy-and-Indian movies.

I started thinking that maybe that's what was going on here. We were using legal language to obfuscate something that everybody understood until yesterday. We were finally fixing something, and we were going to make treaties. As we saw once, people would come in here and do the deal and sign off the end, and then we'd move on.

[1550]

Then yesterday motions started going back and forth. I heard words that made it sound like night was day and day was night, and I must be confused. When the sun's up it's really time to go to sleep, and when it's dark you should all get up and go to work. When I think it's Monday, it's Tuesday, because legal language turns night into day, right into wrong. It started to feel like maybe we do speak with a forked tongue. And I worried because sometimes young people come and sit in the public galleries. They sit up there, and they look down. They want to believe that whatever's going on down here is understandable. It's probably the truth as we understand it, and whatever we say, we mean.

I thought, well, what if they're up there watching us use language to turn common sense into nonsense, truth into fiction and maybe to break our word? And it seemed to me that maybe we ought to take this debate away -- with due respect -- from the lawyers and put it back where I kind of thought it was, which is a really simple question, in case there's anybody out there at home who doesn't get what's going on here. What it's supposed to mean is: do we intend to keep our word and make treaties?

Or are we going to throw it into some other process that maybe makes it go away or maybe even has the people vote against it or that obfuscates it or, as the hon. member said yesterday, creates such trauma and struggle in the communities that we can't even get to the point of coming to agreements anymore? That's what's going on. We're trying to decide how the other side feels and how we feel about keeping our word.

Never mind all the legal language, that mumbo-jumbo that tries to turn it into something you'll never understand, because I guarantee you, I don't. It's about: do we keep our word or not? It seemed to me that one of the lawyers -- a good gentleman that works over there and was up on his feet yesterday -- was kind of saying, "Oh, don't worry, native people. This will make it better in the end." There were first nations people in all the galleries yesterday, and he was saying: "No, no. You don't actually know what's good for you. We who work down here know, because we went to law school -- see?

And law school teaches us how to figure it out for everybody. So never mind what you think. Trust us down here. We're going to make it better by making it strange and putting it to a vote by a whole bunch of other people."

And it seemed to me that it might be legalese, but it's plain patronizing where I come from. Then you stand up on your feet and use the fact that you got the job. You have the chair. You're sitting down here in a room. You've got the right to speak, and you've got the vocabulary. You went to school. So you use that to say: "I know better than you how you should live your life."

And never mind the fact that five or six years ago, on both sides, all the people down here stood up and voted for a treaty process. That's a fact, and anybody who missed that . . . . We all voted for it one day, didn't we, hon. member

[ Page 17437 ]

-- you and me, the back bench, you over there? We got up; we stood up and voted for it. Six years later, maybe we're going to use the power of law to say we didn't mean it.

In the meantime, in those six years, what happened? First nations people all over the province -- 50 or 60 different groups of them -- went out and said: "Okay. Never mind 139 years of trouble that went before. Maybe we'll believe them this time, because they all got up and voted together, the hon. members over there and over here. Maybe we'll believe them."

Interjections.

[1555]

Hon. C. Evans: Just ignore them. Just let them heckle. Let the people upstairs see who wants to heckle this debate -- okay? Watch.

Since we all voted a few years ago that we're going to sign treaties, first nations people around the province went out and took us at our word. They said: "We've got to get some advice. We've got to do some research. We've got to build some capacity. We've got to go to the table." As the hon. member for Skeena was talking about yesterday, they had to build the wherewithal to have these negotiations in the towns and villages where they live. They had to spend money to do it. I'm not talking about 15 cents or the lousy amount of money you make in your wages down here. I'm talking thousands and millions and tens of millions of dollars in order to negotiate with us because we voted.

They went out and borrowed the money against the conclusion of the treaty, because they believed it. Now we're going to have a vote down here, and the lawyers are going to say: "Oh well, maybe we didn't mean it." Who's going to pay the bill that the first nations borrowed to get the capacity to negotiate with us because we claim we tell the truth?

I want to ask the question, but it's kind of rhetorical, isn't it? Nobody's going to get up and answer the question. This isn't even really a debate; a debate takes two sides. Somebody over there has got to get up and say something. But for two days they haven't. They just heckle the speaker. They want to say that we're going to have referendums on treaties, but they won't even stand up in the room where they're getting paid and say why. Who's going to pay the bill if the referendum says no, we won't keep our word?

Hon. Speaker, I've got a couple of other questions. Maybe you'll debate with me, eh? Maybe you'll help me out. How do you have a vote? Who votes? We're going to have a treaty in the part of the world where I live, Nelson-Creston -- okay? So do the people of Vancouver get to vote, do you think? What if we all want peace where we live? Does his constituency get to vote it down if there are more of them?

Three-quarters or four-fifths -- or some -- of the people of B.C. live in one corner. They don't know the first thing about what's going on out there on the land. Do they get to vote? I'm sorry that I'm hollering. Do they get to vote, sir? Is that what a referendum means? If the treaty that we're negotiating is in the Peace River, do the people of Vancouver get to decide what your people are going to do?

I was kind of wondering: if you have a referendum . . . . Help me with the question. Maybe the Clerk could help me with the question. Will the question say, "Should we have this treaty?" like they tried to when we did the Nisga'a, and the good people at the Bentall Centre said they should put it to referendum? The good people of the Bentall Centre wanted to have a referendum. Is it treaty by treaty -- in which case, what about the first nations that have been negotiating for five years? What about the money they borrowed? Are you going to put that to a referendum?

Or as the lawyer sort of said to me -- and I didn't quite get it, but maybe you folks will -- "No, we're not going to put the individual treaty to a referendum. We're going to put the idea of treaty to a referendum." And then what, if you vote no? Do they all go down? I just don't get it. It's lawyer talk. What are they doing to the truth, to the simple . . . ? What are they doing to common sense, to the deal, to the integrity, to the honesty of this place?

I'm sorry for hollering. My dad told me that the law meant something, that civilization was dependent on this thing that is based on justice and formulated in law. And people like this write it, and then courts determine it.

I kind of operated that way until yesterday, and it all started to bend like a mind-warp. Lawyers got up and said to me that the law isn't really the law, that we can have a vote on whether or not we meant it when we made the law. We can take a law and pass it today and say that what we said was the law five years ago isn't really the law, that we were kind of kidding. We can use the power of words in this place to . . . .

And that's exactly what native people said about us, isn't it? For 130 years we said to them: "The law says you don't have the right to be here. You don't have the right to vote, and you don't even have the right to hire a lawyer and fight the law." And then we said: "Okay, we're changing. We're going to come in here and -- watch us -- both sides are going to stand up and make a law that says you've got a right to be here."

[1600]

And then five years later, we're going to use lawyer talk to say we didn't mean it? Hon. Speaker, my dad is dead, but if the things he believed in and a whole lot of other people fought for: to say that we were telling the truth when we made laws in places like this . . . . If it's true at all, we can't be doing this thing. We can't do it. You and I who voted five years ago, hon. member, can't be using lawyer talk now to change the rules on what we said we meant five years ago.

There was some talk yesterday that suggested that maybe we had to have referendums because this thing turned out to be a bigger deal than some people thought it was, five or six or ten years ago. Hon. Speaker, we just made land use plans where I live. We took 13 percent of the land, and we put it into parks. That changed economics and how we live in the Kootenays more than any treaty could ever do. And not a single member here, not even our lawyers, said we had to put that to a referendum. They said the power to govern was enough.

So it can't really be about their fear of changing our lives, because we didn't do that with the land use plans, and we didn't do that when we managed the rivers. I think there must be something else going on here. If I were watching it at home, I'd be wondering: well, what is going on there? What are those lawyers trying to hide in their words? How come the loyal opposition that voted five or six years ago that we ought to do treaties is now bringing this position into this place?

Some of the people are actually political. They actually think about this stuff enough to come down to visit. And they

[ Page 17438 ]

might be wondering: how come, as we get close to the next election, the folks on the other side . . . ? Oh, their position on trade unions is kind of moving, and they're becoming more friendly. Their position on reproductive choice is becoming a little more friendly, even their position on the budget. They say: "Never mind. Maybe we'll run a deficit." That's becoming a little bit looser. I can't think of a single thing on which their position isn't evolving, except one. One issue. There's one issue on which they appear to be stuck and unable to move in a progressive direction, and that appears to be the issue of treaties.

A whole lot of people out there are watching. They know it ain't the lawyer talk. It has nothing to do with the blah-blah that's being put on the record in this joint. It must have to do with something that's going on that, to somebody, is bigger than justice and the law and telling the truth and the stuff we're doing down here.

I would submit that some of us think that what's going on here is that the hunger to power that some people in this room feel has led them to believe that they've got to move over and occupy the ground of Bill Vander Zalm and wipe out the ground of the Reform Party so that there will be only one party on ballot day.

I know this is cynical, but it makes more sense to me than the lawyer talk I heard yesterday. I think the right wing has said to these people: "On one issue you can't move. There will be one right-wing party on election day on one condition, and that is that there be referendums on land claims. We're willing to move on all that other stuff, but we don't want those Indian people getting treaties in British Columbia."

As cynical as it makes me feel, I actually think there are people sitting over there who meant what they said the day they stood up and voted for a treaty commission. I think they meant what they said when they participated in the hearings, and I think they meant it even when they applauded -- and some of them even cried -- the day the Nisga'a walked in here.

But I think the hunger for power has overcome the sense of justice and law and the desire to participate in history that we built this room for. I have no idea if we can beat this thing in this room, but I want somebody who's visiting here today to go out and talk about it. You can see this end of the room. This is where the press would sit if they thought treaties were interesting. You observe that the seats are empty. You folks that are here and a few people watching at home, you might be all there is to talk about it.

Tell the story that the battle that's going on in here today is between lawyers obfuscating honesty and people trying to do the things they said they'd do five years ago, and don't let them win.

[1605]

R. Neufeld: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

R. Neufeld: I'd like to introduce to the House a councillor from Fort St. John, Brian Churchill, up in the galleries watching what's going on down here. As I read in the paper today, in Fort St. John, Brian will be the NDP candidate running against me in the next provincial election. Welcome, Brian.

G. Clark: I haven't spoken in the House much in the last while.

Interjection.

G. Clark: Thank you, Dan.

I didn't plan to speak on this debate, but the member for Matsqui, my friend from Matsqui, provoked me when I was listening yesterday to his remarks. I could feel a speech coming on; I could just feel it building up in me that I had to make a speech. But then I realized that I'm rusty because I haven't spoken very much, and I'm really, you know, past it. I'm not running again. I'm not a practising politician. In fact, I'm no longer one of those bottom-feeding, scum-sucking, vote-grabbing politicians. I am now, or am soon to be, a pundit. I have joined the landed pundocracy.

Now, when I look up and see Vaughan Palmer and Michael Smyth and that -- what's his name? -- pudgy guy from BCTV, I realize that I am on their side. I have joined them.

Interjections.

G. Clark: I did say I was not a scum-sucking bottom feeder.

I have joined the pundits, so I am no longer partisan. We all know that the gentlemen I have just named are not partisan. We know that they are intellectuals.

An Hon. Member: Rafe Mair as well.

G. Clark: I didn't mention Rafe Mair -- Rafe Mair as well. I have joined them -- or am soon to be joining them, at least for a few weeks on the campaign trail.

And so I thought today that I should speak not as a practising politician, which I am soon not to be, but rather in my new capacity as an observer of political events in British Columbia. I want to seriously talk about why it is a very dumb idea for there to be a referendum on aboriginal land claims and why the Liberal Party is wrong.

When I listened to the member for Matsqui, he made several remarks. One of the things that stuck in my mind was, and I've heard it from other Liberals and from the Leader of the Opposition . . . . He said it was a matter of principle that there be a referendum on something as important as this.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Having been in this House for almost 15 years, I have seen a few things, and as former colleagues of mine have mentioned to me -- oh, maybe not quite yet -- in their speeches . . . . I want to take you back to the Liberal Party discussion of this question for some time.

When Premier Mike Harcourt decided that land claims should be resolved and that British Columbia should join the table -- or at least, that we should try to expedite the land claim process, because the leader of the Social Credit Party/Reform Party/Alliance Party or independent from Peace River South, of course, did actually bring British Columbia into the treaty process -- we decided as a government to try to expedite that process, supported by the Liberal Party. We passed legislation in Bill 22, the Treaty Commission Act, supported by the Liberal Party.

[1610]

More recently -- when I happened to have more influence than I do today -- in the last election campaign, the issue

[ Page 17439 ]

of referenda on land claims was a subject of debate and discussion. The leader of the Liberal Party, who is currently the leader of the Liberal Party, took a position against the referendum. And so did the critic, the member for Matsqui. The only politician on the campaign trail, and the only party that supported a referendum, was the then Reform Party member and current member for Peace River South.

They supported a double referendum: a referendum provincewide and a second referendum in the region affected. You have to have a double majority. That was their position. To his credit, he argued that passionately and aggressively. I debated him on that very point. I debated the leader of the Liberal Party on this point, although he supported me on this issue. It was only after the last election that the Liberal Party changed their position on a referendum.

Now, I said I've been around here a long time, but usually if it's a matter of principle, it's not something that only lasts for a couple of years. Usually, if it's a matter of principle, it's something deeply held and, around this business, might last for half a dozen years or so at least, if not longer. So it is not a matter of principle for the Liberal Party, because they took a position against referenda repeatedly and consistently every year until just a couple of years ago, after the last election.

What was it honestly, hon. Speaker? It's not racism. Nobody on the opposition side is a racist as far as I know, and I would not ever say that to any member that I know in this House. I know that people come to this chamber with good intentions and with very strong beliefs and want to do a better job. I see no evidence of racism in this chamber, on the other side of the House or this side of the House. It's not racism that made them change their position, and it's not principle that makes them hold this position. The only reason that they support a referendum on aboriginal land claims is the lowest form of political opportunism. It is the only explanation that rings true.

The members of the opposition, the Liberal Party, support a referendum because they are opposed to the Nisga'a treaty and because they want to see something different. I say that, because if you were in favour of the Nisga'a treaty, clearly you would not be standing in the House calling for a referendum; you'd be supporting the treaty. So the only reason for supporting a referendum is to try to stop that treaty or other treaties like it. They have not been saying that, but I think it's obvious to any student of politics or anybody who observes the scene in British Columbia today.

They are opposed to the Nisga'a treaty. They're going to court to stop the Nisga'a treaty. They disagree with elements of the Nisga'a treaty.

Before this next election, and I gather there is kind of an election sense in the air, it behooves the Liberal Party . . . . It is critical, it seems to me, for them to say what they are opposed to in the Nisga'a treaty specifically, and in general on land claims -- what they would change about the mandate and what question they would therefore ask of the public.

As I said earlier, the land claims process is not about principles; it's not about racism. It's about political opportunism, in my view, and I think anybody watching would agree. The member for Matsqui also said that this would not be a referendum on minority rights. In that he's wrong as well. It's sophistry -- or weaselry, to put it in more pundit-like language. It is sophistry, because -- and let's be clear about what land claims negotiation is -- the constitution of Canada confers aboriginal rights under

section 35. So in the constitution, there is protection for aboriginal rights, for treaty rights and for treaty rights that will be acquired.

The members opposite say: "We have no quarrel with that." They say, or pretend: "We don't propose a referendum on treaty rights." Therefore they say they can vote in favour of the original motion presented by the government.

[1615]

Why it is weaselry, hon. Speaker, is because those rights in the constitution are undefined. It is precisely the definition of those minority rights that is the substance of the treaty process in British Columbia. We are the only province in Canada that did not sign treaties with aboriginal people. That puts aboriginal people in a powerful legal position to pursue their rights. The treaty process was designed in such a way that aboriginal people in this province were asked to give up their right to pursue the codification and definition of their rights in court and exchange them for agreed-upon rights between the federal government, the provincial government and themselves.

If you respect the constitution, as the members opposite say they do and say they support aboriginal rights, the treaty process is designed to define those rights. If you suggest that a referendum will restrict the mandate dramatically with respect to the mandate of the province in terms of negotiation of the definition of those rights that are protected by the constitution, then you are directly affecting minority rights. You're directly affecting them because you're saying to aboriginal people that no longer is this a question of negotiating what those rights are.

If the mandate is such that whole elements are excluded from that -- that's the basis of a new government, a potential new Liberal government -- then aboriginal people will have only one choice -- or two choices, really. One is direct action, and one could hardly blame them for taking direct and more militant action, or secondly, choosing not the negotiation route, which will be closed off prematurely by a referendum, but rather the legal course of action: to have the courts define their rights.

We should be clear, and the Liberal Party should be clear, that if they pursue a referendum on the question of the negotiating mandate of the province, and if that mandate is less than the current mandate or the Nisga'a treaty, then we will have no negotiated treaties in British Columbia. Aboriginal people will quite rightly, I believe, choose the courts as a way to try to define their constitutional rights in this country. They will end the negotiation process.

It is weaselry in the extreme for them to pretend to be in favour of aboriginal rights in the constitution -- for them to pretend to be in favour of negotiations to settle those treaty rights and, at the same time, erect a type of mandate-limiting move with respect to a referendum which would forestall those negotiations. That was a long sentence.

Let me try that again. I want to be clear. A referendum which restricts and limits the provincial government's negotiating mandate is a prescription for either chaos or, at the very least, paralysis with respect to the land claims process. That is the clear and, I think, objective analysis of everybody who has looked at this question. It is sophistry. It is not really telling the truth to say that you're in favour of a referendum on an aboriginal mandate for the provincial government and not admit that it means the end of negotiations and a more confrontational approach when it comes to aboriginal people.

The member for Matsqui said, in fact, that this actually will expedite the treaty process. "You people aren't doing a very good job", he said. "You've only got a couple of agreements-in-principle and one treaty. This will expedite."

[ Page 17440 ]

Why have we not made more progress with a government committed to progress on aboriginal rights? Because aboriginal people feel that the mandate that this government has given the negotiators is not broad enough to encompass their rights under the constitution. Aboriginal people feel that we have been tougher than we should be -- not as generous as we should be -- in negotiations. It's their right to feel that way, and it's our right to have a tough mandate.

And, by the way, I want to acknowledge that it's the right of a future government to have a tougher mandate. But don't pretend that by having a more restrictive mandate, you will expedite the process. You clearly will not. Having a more restrictive mandate from the provincial government by way of referendum or otherwise means that you will not have negotiated treaties in British Columbia. You will have conflict, confrontation, and you will have court action. That's the prescription that we see from members opposite.

[1620]

I want to talk just a little bit, as well -- not as eloquently, certainly, as the speaker before me -- about a process of referendum. When I used to have influence in the caucus, I had a rule which was never to follow the member for Nelson-Creston in speeches. I now am in the position of following the member for Nelson-Creston.

I want to say this: what would the question or questions look like? The members opposite and the critic have said that up to 20 questions could be put to the people of British Columbia. So think about how we have a debate and negotiations where we put to the people a bewildering series of questions for them to answer, which would a priori restrict the ability of the provincial government then to act. Is this negotiation, I ask you?

Is this negotiation for the government of British Columbia -- one of the three parties to a treaty -- to lay out before them the bottom line of the province in every area as set out by referendum and then say to the aboriginal people: "Here, take it or leave it"? How can you negotiate, then, if you have set in stone a mandate approved by referendum? You can't do it.

Secondly, how do you have a fair discussion on a referendum? Aboriginal people in this province, as we all know, live 12 years less than non-aboriginal people. The alcoholism rate is extremely high; the poverty rate is even higher. We are taking marginalized people who have been abused by the state for years, and we are in the process of negotiation with them. Somehow we are going to have a referendum -- if you listen to the opposition, remember this -- with no limits on spending. We're going to have a referendum debate that allows powerful interests to spend millions of dollars on advertising and discussion of their points of view.

We're going to decide what the fate is, really, of the treaty-making process for 3 percent of British Columbians who have substantially fewer resources in every way to debate and discuss in the forum of public opinion during a referendum. It is patently unfair, because of the fundamental and dramatic and explosive imbalance of power that exists between aboriginal people and the rest of the province. To think that we can have a fair referendum -- even discussion -- in that context is preposterous, and they know it. They know it; they must know it. Everybody in British Columbia must know that.

Hon. Speaker, I'm going to end my brief discussion by giving some advice to the opposition again in my new capacity as a non-partisan pundit on the provincial scene. If, God forbid, the Liberal Party were to form the government, they would be very busy. They don't realize yet how busy they will be. They will not be able to read a novel again -- those in cabinet -- for five or six years. They won't even be able to read all of their briefing books.

They have a radical agenda. And I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be partisan; I think it's obvious they have a fairly radical agenda. It's going to involve changes to the Labour Code, which will be confrontational, I predict. It will involve cuts to taxes, which will involve significant cuts to services. But that's not a bad thing . . . . I mean, I don't agree with it, but it's not a bad thing. It's a legitimate, political choice. They've done it in Alberta; they've done it in Ontario and other provinces. Fill your boots, I say. If that's your position, campaign on it, go for it.

Bring in legislation to break teacher contracts or something you have to do. Or cut wages like Ralph Klein did, or lay off 10,000 people like Harris did. You have to do . . . .

This is not partisan. It is obvious to anybody that a conservative government, in the guise of a Liberal Party, that has the agenda they have will be very busy people. They have a 90-day plan, they say, if they win. And it's an ambitious plan. I applaud them. Go for it. Do your thing. Cut taxes, cut health care, cut education, raise tuition fees, do what you have to do. But whatever it is you're doing, I guarantee you that it will be confrontational. There may not be chaos. Governments in Ontario had hundreds of thousands of people protesting against them, and they even got re-elected. So go ahead.

Maybe it's the right way to get re-elected in Canada in the year 2001; maybe that's the right prescription for election success. Go ahead.

[1625]

But think about it. In the midst of the commonsense revolution that they say they're going to bring about in British Columbia, in the midst of fighting with public sector unions and labour unions and laying off thousands of people and protests . . . . And by the way, for the Premier, I can tell him they'll be people sleeping on his lawn, protesting. His constituency will be occupied several times. They'll be hunger strikers in his office. I'm not making this up. I speak from firsthand experience. There will be people picketing his house. There will be people dumping garbage on his house.

This is the environment under which they will be operating. It will be a poisoned environment, because they have a radical agenda that's going to polarize British Columbians in a way I think we haven't seen in a long, long time.

In the context of that, they're committed now to bringing in a referendum on aboriginal land claims which, like it or not -- even if there is goodwill and good intentions -- will bring a racial element to the debate which surely will not be productive or constructive. Surely that debate is one which is not going to advance the interests of British Columbia. It certainly is not going to advance the interests of aboriginal people, but it will not even advance the interests of our province.

It will even -- to use the right-wing language -- scare away investments, because the instability that is caused by not settling land claims is very significant indeed. Some people say $1 billion a year now. That's now. What happens when aboriginal people decide that the treaty negotiation process was in bad faith and the millions of dollars they spent on that process is squandered? What happens when they decide to take direct action to try to assert their rights, as they have from time to time in British Columbia and no doubt will -- emboldened, I might say, by successive Supreme Court of

[ Page 17441 ]

Canada decisions which have sided in their favour? What happens when the treaty process collapses and the debate becomes acrimonious and the referendum degenerates into the debate about the rights of minority people in this country, who have rights under the constitution and are now prepared, frankly, to exercise those rights? They're not going to sit back quietly -- we all know that -- in the context of a Liberal government that already has an agenda of divisiveness and, I think, will breed the kind of confrontation we haven't seen for some time.

The Liberal Party has backed off from many of their positions. I don't really think they've backed off, but they've said they've backed off from them, and the media has applauded them for that. This is a case where almost every media outlet has said it's dumb to do a referendum. Even Barbara Yaffe, one of my new colleagues, has begged the Liberal Party to change their position on referenda. Even Rafe Mair has said it's a dumb idea, and we all know that they do everything that Rafe Mair asks. Even though all those people have asked them to back off, they have not.

Hon. Speaker, this is my advice to them. If they back off, it might actually help them win. I wouldn't say that as a partisan politician, but I say that as a pundit, and I say that honestly as someone who cares deeply about British Columbia and the future of our province.

This referendum cannot happen. It is a bad idea; it is a divisive idea. It is one that is only there because they were desperate to try to seek political gain. It is not one founded in any kind of principle; we know that. It's not one founded even in racism or those base motives. The only reason that the Liberal Party proposed a referendum was to assist them politically.

The time has come for them to recognize that it no longer assists them politically. It will hurt them in this election campaign coming up very shortly. But more important than the politics of it -- and I know that all members of the House should agree with this, but certainly the members on the government side do -- it will hurt British Columbia if they pursue this morally repugnant idea of a referendum on aboriginal land claims. And they should take the opportunity now to change their position and be applauded for it.

[1630]

Hon. G. Robertson: I rise today to support the amendment to Motion 1. I'd also like to report that this province is making great inroads into treaty-making, and we are moving forward as a province.

I can remember when I was elected in 1996 and we were at one of our first caucus meetings. I was appointed to the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. I have a large riding; it's about 20,000 square kilometres. So I went up to the member for North Coast and asked him: "Well, what do think about me being on the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs?" He put his hand on my shoulder and said: "Glenn, how many first nations bands have you got within North Island riding?" I said: "Fifteen." He said: "Well, you know, Glenn, you might want to go out on the road and check this province out.

It's a great opportunity to see what makes it work, to understand it better and to find out more about first nations people and their role and their history in this great province of ours, and their culture and their heritage."

I did that, and I learned a lot. I still have a lot to learn. We've got 15 first nations bands in our riding. And they're making progress on treaties. They're negotiating in good faith, and they're doing a good job.

Recently, a week ago this past Saturday, I went to Port Alberni for the initialling of the Nuu-chah-nulth agreement-in-principle. It was a great day in Alberni. It was a great day for the Nuu-chah-nulth people, and it'll be a great day when that treaty is concluded, not only for the Nuu-chah-nulth people but for every man, woman and child on North Island and the west coast of Vancouver Island.

We're not negotiating treaties across the province because it's necessarily the right thing to do -- it is the right thing to do -- but also because there is no reasonable alternative other than negotiating treaties. The Supreme Court of our country and the Chief Justice at the time, Antonio Lamer, was very, very clear that first nations have aboriginal rights, that those rights have not been extinguished and that those rights are rights to the land itself. And the treaty negotiation process in this province basically defines, through negotiations, what those rights are.

What are the alternatives? There are really only two alternatives. The member for Vancouver-Kingsway spoke about that eloquently. He spoke about not wanting to speak after the member for Nelson-Creston. Well, I never thought I'd be speaking after the member for Vancouver-Kingsway, but he spoke very eloquently. He spoke about the future of this province and said that an important part of the future of this province is negotiating treaties in good faith.

There are no other alternatives. I talked to people in my riding. They say: "Glenn, why are we negotiating treaties?" I tell them, and they say that they don't understand. I talk to them for a while, and they understand that there is an alternative, and the alternative is the courts. It's not one that is fair to first nations, and it's not one that's fair to this province. Even if you did go to the courts, you're going to have to come back and negotiate specific elements of a treaty. So this is a process that I'm proud of.

I don't think we should go back to the days when there was a war in the woods, and there were blockades all over this province. It was absolutely intolerable. The opposition often speaks about our resource communities and about forestry in this great province of ours, although a lot of them have never had anything to do with it. Well, on the North Island I worked in that industry for 25 years. It's always been cyclical, and it's always been tough. It's a tough life working in the forest industry.

[1635]

A big part of what we're doing in British Columbia right now and what the corporations are doing in this country . . . . They're getting certified under the Forest Stewardship Council and under other certification processes on an international level so that they can maintain and enhance markets on a global scale. Anybody who knows anything about FSC certification knows that first nations are an important part of that, negotiating land claims is an important part of that, and also land use planning is an important part of that.

Without those components we're not going to gain market access; we're going to lose market access. It's happening today as we speak. I talk to loggers up and down the coast, and they say: "Glenn, we're concerned. We haven't got enough wood to log." Well, it's a five-million-cubic-metre

[ Page 17442 ]

undercut today on the coast of British Columbia -- five million cubic metres. There are a predicted 11 million cubic metres under harvest as well, for a grand total of 16 million cubic metres. Our companies and our communities are having difficulties accessing markets. Treaty negotiations and finality and certainty with respect to land use are going to be key to maintaining and enhancing those markets and solidifying our resource sector.

When we look at the problems that we had back in the eighties before we got engaged in a treaty-making process, I think a referendum would definitely take us back to those days. The Liberals with the referendum plan will destroy the treaty process and move us back at least a decade in time. A referendum is not quasi-evil. It's not semi-evil; it's absolutely evil. After negotiating with first nations in this province for ten years in good faith and with honour, we must not go back to those days ten years ago.

You know, I was looking at what the opposition had to say with respect to referenda. I was talking to some people last weekend, and they said: "Glenn, what do you think of that?" And we've all heard what I think of it: not much. But I said that what they're suggesting for first nations people in this province is not a whole lot different than what they're suggesting for trade unions, for child care, for our environment, for the poor, the destitute and the despondent. It's just an opportunity. I would strongly suggest that the Liberal opposition really consider their position on this. It is not a good position.

It is not good for our province; it's not good for our communities; it's not good for our children.

I remember when the Nisga'a agreement was finalized, and Joe Gosnell walked through the door in our Legislature. The Bar was lifted, a