British Columbia Hansard — Wednesday, March 13, 2002

H0313pm-05

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

3rd Session, 37th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) Wednesday, March 13, 2002 Afternoon Sitting Volume 4, Number 5 THE HONOURABLE CLAUDE RICHMOND, SPEAKER ISSN 0709-1281

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Honourable Iona Campagnolo 3RD SESSION, 37TH PARLIAMENT SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Claude Richmond EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council................................................................................. .........................Hon. Gordon Campbell Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations.............................................................................. ..................... Hon.

Greg Halsey-Brandt Deputy Premier and Minister of Education ....................................................................................... ..................................Hon. Christy Clark Minister of Advanced Education................................................................................................. ...........................................Hon. Shirley Bond Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries.................................................................................... ..............................Hon.

John van Dongen Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiations.............................................................. .................... Hon. Geoff Plant Minister of Children and Family Development.................................................................................... ..............................Hon. Gordon Hogg Minister of State for Early Childhood Development.............................................................................. .................................Hon.

Linda Reid Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services......................................................................... .................. Hon. George Abbott Minister of State for Community Charter........................................................................................ .................................. Hon. Ted Nebbeling Minister of State for Women's Equality ......................................................................................... .................................... Hon.

Lynn Stephens Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise ................................................................................ ..................................Hon. Rick Thorpe Minister of State for Deregulation ............................................................................................. ............................................ Hon. Kevin Falcon Minister of Energy and Mines................................................................................................... ....................................... Hon.

Richard Neufeld Minister of Finance ............................................................................................................ ....................................................... Hon. Gary Collins Minister of Forests ............................................................................................................ .................................................. Hon. Michael de Jong Minister of Health Planning .................................................................................................... ............................................ Hon.

Sindi Hawkins Minister of Health Services.................................................................................................... ................................................ Hon. Colin Hansen Minister of State for Mental Health ............................................................................................ ...................................Hon. Gulzar S. Cheema Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care ............................................................................. Hon.

Katherine Whittred Minister of Human Resources.................................................................................................... ............................................Hon. Murray Coell Minister of Management Services................................................................................................ .........................................Hon. Sandy Santori Minister of Provincial Revenue................................................................................................. ................................................Hon.

Bill Barisoff Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General ................................................................................ ..................................Hon. Rich Coleman Minister of Skills Development and Labour...................................................................................... .............................Hon. Graham P. Bruce Minister of Sustainable Resource Management.................................................................................... ..................................Hon.

Stan Hagen Minister of Transportation..................................................................................................... .................................................... Hon. Judith Reid Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection..................................................................................... ....................................Hon. Joyce Murray LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Deputy Speaker................................................................................................................. ..............................................................

John Weisbeck Leader of the Opposition ....................................................................................................... ...........................................................Joy MacPhail Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ........................................................................................... .............................................. Harold Long Clerk of the Legislative Assembly .............................................................................................. .........................................E.

George MacMinn Clerk Assistant ................................................................................................................ ................................................................... Robert Vaive Clerk Assistant and Law Clerk .................................................................................................. ........................................................ Ian D. Izard Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees........................................................................................ ............................................Craig H.

James Clerk Assistant/Committee Clerk................................................................................................ ............................................ Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sergeant-at-Arms ............................................................................................................... .........................................................A.A. Humphreys Director, Hansard Services ..................................................................................................... ........................................

Anthony Dambrauskas Legislative Librarian.......................................................................................................... ............................................................. Joan A. Barton Legislative Comptroller ........................................................................................................ .................................................................Peter Bray Published by British Columbia Hansard Services, and printed under the authority of the Speaker by the Queen's Printer, Victoria.

Rates: single issue, $2.85; per calendar year, mailed daily, $298. GST extra. Agent: Crown Publications Inc., 521 Fort St., Victoria, B.C. V8W 1E7. Telephone: (250) 386-4636. Fax: 386-0221. Internet: www.legis.gov.bc.ca/hansard

Party Standings: Liberal 76; New Democratic 2; Independent Liberal 1. ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Abbott, Hon. George (L) ....................................................................... Shuswap Anderson, Val J. (L) .............................................................Vancouver-Langara Barisoff, Hon. Bill (L)............................................. Penticton–Okanagan Valley Bell, Pat (L).........................................................................Prince George North Belsey, Bill (L).................................................................................

North Coast Bennett, Bill (L) ........................................................................... East Kootenay Bhullar, Tony (Ind L) .................................................................. Surrey-Newton Bloy, Harry (L).................................................................................. Burquitlam Bond, Hon. Shirley (L).........................................Prince George–Mount Robson Bray, Jeff (L)......................................................................Victoria–Beacon H ill Brenzinger, Elayne (L) ...............................................................

Surrey-Whalley Brice, Susan (L) ............................................................................Saanich South Bruce, Hon. Graham P. (L)................................................ Cowichan-Ladysmith Campbell, Hon. Gordon (L)............................................. Vancouver–Point Grey Cheema, Hon. Gulzar S. (L) ..........................................Surrey–Panorama Ridge Chong, Ida (L)................................................................ Oak Bay–Gordon Head Christensen, Tom (L) .............................................................

Okanagan-Vernon Chutter, Dave (L) ........................................................................... Yale-L illooet Clark, Hon. Christy (L) ..................................................Port Moody–Westwood Cobb, Walt (L) ............................................................................. Cariboo South Coell, Hon. Murray (L) ........................................ Saanich North and the Islands Coleman, Hon. Rich (L) .............................................. Fort Langley–Aldergrove Collins, Hon.

Gary (L).........................................................Vancouver-Fairview de Jong, Hon. Michael (L)....................................... Abbotsford–Mount Lehman Falcon, Hon. Kevin (L) .......................................................... Surrey-Cloverdale Hagen, Hon. Stan (L) ................................................................... Comox Valley Halsey-Brandt, Hon. Greg (L) ..................................................Richmond Centre Hamilton, Arnie (L)............................................................Esquimalt-Metchosin Hansen, Hon.

Colin (L) .....................................................Vancouver-Quilchena Harris, Roger (L)......................................................................................Skeena Hawes, Randy (L) ............................................................ Maple Ridge–Mission Hawkins, Hon. Sindi (L).......................................................... Kelowna-Mission Hayer, Dave S. (L) ................................................................... Surrey-Tynehead Hogg, Hon. Gordon (L) ........................................................

Surrey–White Rock Hunter, Mike (L) ...................................................................................Nanaimo Jarvis, Daniel (L)...................................................... North Vancouver–Seymour Johnston, Ken (L)............................................................ Vancouver-Fraserview Kerr, Brian J. (L).............................................................. Malahat–Juan de Fuca Krueger, Kevin (L).................................................

Kamloops–North Thompson Kwan, Jenny Wai Ching (NDP) ...............................Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Lee, Richard T. (L).......................................................................Burnaby North Lekstrom, Blair (L)................................................................. Peace River South Les, John (L) .......................................................................... Ch illiwack-Sumas Locke, Brenda (L) ...........................................................

Surrey–Green Timbers Long, Harold (L) ...................................................Powell River–Sunshine Coast MacKay, Dennis (L)....................................................... Bulkley Valley–Stikine McMahon, Wendy (L).............................................Columbia River–Revelstoke MacPhail, Joy (NDP) ..........................................................

Vancouver-Hastings Manhas, Karn (L) .............................................Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Masi, Reni (L) ...................................................................................Delta North Mayencourt, Lorne (L) ..........................................................Vancouver-Burrard Murray, Hon. Joyce (L) ........................................................... New Westminster Nebbeling, Hon. Ted (L) ..........................................

West Vancouver–Garibaldi Nettleton, Paul (L).........................................................Prince George–Omineca Neufeld, Hon. Richard (L)...................................................... Peace River North Nijjar, Rob (L)...................................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Nuraney, John (L) ...............................................................Burnaby-W illingdon Orr, Sheila (L) ...........................................................................Victoria-Hillside Penner, Barry (L).......................................................................

Ch illiwack-Kent Plant, Hon. Geoff (L) ......................................................... Richmond-Steveston Reid, Hon. Judith (L)............................................................Nanaimo-Parksv ille Reid, Hon. Linda (L) ................................................................... Richmond East Richmond, Hon. Claude (L) ................................................................

Kamloops Roddick, Valerie (L)..........................................................................Delta South Sahota, Patty (L).....................................................................Burnaby-Edmonds Santori, Hon. Sandy (L)..............................................West Kootenay–Boundary Stephens, Hon. Lynn (L) ........................................................................ Langley Stewart, Ken (L)...................................................... Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Stewart, Richard (L) ......................................................

Coquitlam-Maillardville Suffredine, Blair F. (L) ................................................................Nelson-Creston Sultan, Ralph (L)....................................................... West Vancouver–Capilano Thorpe, Hon. Rick (L) ..........................................................Okanagan-Westside Trumper, Gillian (L)................................................................Alberni-Qualicum van Dongen, Hon.

John (L) ................................................Abbotsford-Clayburn Visser, Rod (L).................................................................................North Island Weisbeck, John (L).........................................................Kelowna–Lake Country Whittred, Hon. Katherine (L) ...................................North Vancouver–Lonsdale Wilson, John (L)...........................................................................

Cariboo North Wong, Patrick (L)............................................................Vancouver-Kensington LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Clayburn....................................................... Hon. John van Dongen Abbotsford–Mount Lehman ..............................................Hon.

Michael de Jong Alberni-Qualicum.......................................................................G illian Trumper Bulkley Valley–Stikine ..............................................................Dennis MacKay Burnaby North..............................................................................Richard T. Lee Burnaby-Edmonds............................................................................Patty Sahota Burnaby-Willingdon......................................................................

John Nuraney Burquitlam ........................................................................................ Harry Bloy Cariboo North ..................................................................................John Wilson Cariboo South .................................................................................... Walt Cobb Chilliwack-Kent ............................................................................. Barry Penner Chilliwack-Sumas .................................................................................

John Les Columbia River–Revelstoke....................................................Wendy McMahon Comox Valley .......................................................................... Hon. Stan Hagen Coquitlam-Maillardville .............................................................Richard Stewart Cowichan-Ladysmith .......................................................Hon. Graham P. Bruce Delta North.......................................................................................... Reni Masi Delta South................................................................................

Valerie Roddick East Kootenay .................................................................................. Bill Bennett Esquimalt-Metchosin...................................................................Arnie Hamilton Fort Langley–Aldergrove ..................................................... Hon. Rich Coleman Kamloops ....................................................................... Hon. Claude Richmond Kamloops–North Thompson ........................................................Kevin Krueger Kelowna–Lake Country...............................................................

John Weisbeck Kelowna-Mission ................................................................ Hon. Sindi Hawkins Langley ............................................................................... Hon. Lynn Stephens Malahat–Juan de Fuca .....................................................................Brian J. Kerr Maple Ridge–Mission ................................................................... Randy Hawes Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows .............................................................Ken Stewart Nanaimo..........................................................................................

Mike Hunter Nanaimo-Parksville ...................................................................Hon. Judith Reid Nelson-Creston.......................................................................Blair F. Suffredine New Westminster ..................................................................Hon. Joyce Murray North Coast ........................................................................................Bill Belsey North Island........................................................................................Rod Visser North Vancouver–Lonsdale.......................................... Hon.

Katherine Wh ittred North Vancouver–Seymour .............................................................Daniel Jarvis Oak Bay–Gordon Head .......................................................................Ida Chong Okanagan-Vernon .................................................................... Tom Christensen Okanagan-Westside.................................................................Hon. Rick Thorpe Peace River North .............................................................Hon. Richard Neufeld Peace River South .......................................................................

Blair Lekstrom Penticton–Okanagan Valley ....................................................Hon. Bill Barisoff Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain.................................................... Karn Manhas Port Moody–Westwood......................................................... Hon. Christy Clark Powell River–Sunshine Coast.......................................................... Harold Long Prince George North................................................................................Pat Bell Prince George–Mount Robson................................................Hon.

Shirley Bond Prince George–Omineca................................................................Paul Nettleton Richmond Centre......................................................... Hon. Greg Halsey-Brandt Richmond East .......................................................................... Hon. Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston ................................................................ Hon. Geoff Plant Saanich North and the Islands ............................................... Hon. Murray Coell Saanich South...................................................................................

Susan Brice Shuswap .............................................................................. Hon. George Abbott Skeena.............................................................................................Roger Harris Surrey-Cloverdale ................................................................. Hon. Kevin Falcon Surrey–Green Timbers .................................................................. Brenda Locke Surrey-Newton ............................................................................... Tony Bhullar Surrey–Panorama Ridge................................................. Hon.

Gulzar S. Cheema Surrey-Tynehead .......................................................................... Dave S. Hayer Surrey-Whalley ...................................................................... Elayne Brenzinger Surrey–White Rock ...............................................................Hon. Gordon Hogg Vancouver-Burrard................................................................. Lorne Mayencourt Vancouver-Fairview............................................................... Hon.

Gary Co llins Vancouver-Fraserview ...................................................................Ken Johnston Vancouver-Hastings .......................................................................Joy MacPhail Vancouver-Kensington...................................................................Patrick Wong Vancouver-Kingsway..........................................................................Rob Nijjar Vancouver-Langara....................................................................Val J.

Anderson Vancouver–Mount Pleasant............................................Jenny Wai Ching Kwan Vancouver–Point Grey ................................................... Hon. Gordon Campbell Vancouver-Quilchena............................................................ Hon. Colin Hansen Victoria–Beacon Hill.............................................................................Jeff Bray Victoria-Hillside.................................................................................. Sheila Orr West Kootenay–Boundary.................................................... Hon.

Sandy Santori West Vancouver–Capilano ..............................................................Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Garibaldi ................................................. Hon. Ted Nebbeling Yale-Lillooet .................................................................................. Dave Chutter

CONTENTS Wednesday, March 13, 2002 Afternoon Sitting Routine Proceedings Page Introductions by Members....................................................................................................... ............................................... 1871 Motions without Notice......................................................................................................... .................................................. 1871 Appointment of Kate Ryan-Lloyd as Table Officer Hon. G. Collins J.

MacPhail Statements (Standing Order 25B).............................................................................................................................. .............. 1872 Journée internationale de la francophonie R. Stewart Softwood lumber negotiations R. Visser Visit to Kincolith B. Belsey Oral Questions................................................................................................................. ......................................................... 1873 Northern health authority and Sodexho J. MacPhail Hon. C. Hansen J.

Kwan Public-private partnerships for health care facilities D. Chutter Hon. C. Hansen U.S. duty on tomatoes V. Roddick Hon. J. van Dongen Nelson health campus project B. Suffredine Hon. C. Hansen Petitions ...................................................................................................................... ............................................................... 1876 D. MacKay B.

Suffredine Motions on Notice.............................................................................................................. ...................................................... 1876 Referendum on treaty negotiations (Motion 30) Hon. G. Plant J. Les J. Kwan M. Hunter R. Hawes J. MacPhail Hon. G. Campbell Second Reading of Bills ........................................................................................................ ................................................... 1902 Deregulation Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 8) Hon. K.

Falcon Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 7) Hon. S. Santori Hon. G. Plant Gaming Control Act (Bill 6) Hon. R. Coleman

Committee of Supply ............................................................................................................ ................................................... 1907 Estimates: Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services (continued) Hon. G. Abbott J. Kwan Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room Committee of Supply ............................................................................................................ ................................................... 1919 Estimates: Ministry of Education (continued) J. MacPhail Hon. C. Clark

1871 WEDNESDAY, MARCH 13, 2002 The House met at 2:03 p.m. Prayers. Introductions by Members J. Wilson: Today I have the great pleasure of intro- ducing a longtime friend and special guest of the House, Dr. Stephen West. Steve and I have been ac- quaintances for 40 years now. I would like to make the point that Steve sat in the Legislature in Alberta from 1986 to 2001 and has done a great deal of work in that province. Today we have the honour of having him visit our Legislature, and he's really looking forward to question period to see how things are done in British Columbia.

I ask that the House make him welcome. [1405] K. Johnston: Today it's a real pleasure for me to be able to introduce two truly long-term great friends, special friends of mine from the lower mainland, whom I've known for over 30 years. Brian and Susanne Galloway are here today to watch the proceedings, and I would ask that the House make them welcome. P. Sahota: I would like to introduce two hard- working entrepreneurs from the forest industry: John Mohammed, who is the president of A&A Trading Ltd., and his colleague, Paul Muckler. They're here in the House with us. Would you please make them wel- come. P.

Bell: Joining me in the House today from the beautiful riding of Prince George North is my wife, Brenda Bell. Would the House please make her very welcome. R. Stewart: It's my pleasure to introduce two guests t o d a y . F i r s t , M . P a u l D e r o y . H e ' s a m e m b e r o f t h e board of directors of the Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique. My second guest is Mme. Monique Clébant, who is the executive director, repre- senting La Société francophone de Victoria. [Would the House please make them welcome.] [Translation from French provided by R. Stewart.] Mr.

Speaker: H o n . m e m b e r s , i t i s w i t h p l e a s u r e that I wish to announce to the House that Kate Ryan- Lloyd of the committees branch has been made a Table officer of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. Kate has been with the Assembly for nine and a half years and as a Committee Clerk for two and a half years. I'm sure all hon. members will agree that this change of status is well deserved, and the House will be asked to consider a formal motion conferring on Kate her title as a Table officer.

I would like the House now to join with me in congratulating British Colum- bia's newest Table officer. Motions without Notice APPOINTMENT OF KATE RYAN-LLOYD AS TABLE OFFICER Hon. G. Collins: I have the honour to move, sec- onded by the member for Vancouver-Hastings, that Kate Ryan-Lloyd be and is hereby appointed Clerk Assistant/Committee Clerk of the Legislative Assem- bly of British Columbia. Motion approved. Hon. G. Collins: If I'm permitted, I'd like a moment to say a few things. Mr. Speaker: Please proceed. Hon. G. Collins: I think perhaps the member, the Leader of the Opposition, would like to speak also.

I want to, first of all, congratulate Kate on her new position, although she's been working tirelessly over the last number of years. Many of us have come to rely on her good advice and stable and calm guidance through what are sometimes tumultuous committee meetings. I certainly appreciate the work she's done. She's proven herself to be of invaluable assistance to all members of the House. I want to congratulate her on her position, and I also want to extend my sympathies for her joining such a small club. Interjection. Hon. G.

Collins: "Disreputable," the Attorney Gen- eral said, but I couldn't possibly say that. Being a Clerk is often a very thankless job. It is a difficult job, and you're exactly right in the middle of the crossfire. I always thought it interesting that while they keep members of the opposition and government two sword lengths apart, it's the Clerks that get to sit in the middle. I wish her the best. I know it's a tough job. Some- body has to do it, and you've done it very well so far. We look forward to working with you in the future. [1410] J. MacPhail: Mr.

Speaker, I join you and the Gov- ernment House Leader in saying absolute congratula- tions to Kate Ryan-Lloyd on this momentous occasion. I t i s m o m e nt o u s f o r a c o u p l e o f re as o ns . O ne i s t hat I understand we're getting two for one — two for the price of one in terms of the appointment. Secondly, it is not the first time that we're bringing brains to the table. I can say that virtually all appointments have brought brains to the table, but maybe it's the first time — I don't know — we're bringing beauty to the table as well. Congratulations.

1872 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, MARCH 13, 2002 Mr. Speaker: I've done the motion, but we'll do it again. You've all heard the motion. Motion approved. Statements (Standing Order 25B) JOURNEE INTERNATIONALE DE LA FRANCOPHONIE R. Stewart: Today I've invited M. Deroy and Mme Clébant to be here as representatives of B.C.'s franco- phone community, as I want to announce the procla- mation of March 20 as la Journée internationale de la francophonie pour la Colombie-Britannique.

It was on March 20, 1970, in Niger that a treaty was signed creat- ing the francophone nations' first intergovernmental organization, the Agence de coopération culturelle et technique. Since 1988, March 20 is the date chosen to celebrate the International Day of the Francophonie, or the Journée internationale de la francophonie. This government wants to mark March 20 as a spe- cial day for British Columbia in recognition of Canada's t w o o f f i c i a l l a n g u a g e s .

W e a l s o w a n t t o r e c o g n i z e t h e fact that our province is home to a vibrant and dy- namic French-speaking community and to hundreds of thousands of other British Columbians who have em- braced the French language. French-speaking people have contributed to the development of British Columbia since their first arri- val as guides, as coureurs de bois, in 1793 with the expe- dition of Alexander Mackenzie. Francophones played an important role in the colonization and exploration of the Pacific coast. In fact, in 1838 francophones repre- sented 60 percent of the non-native population on B.C.'s coast.

The B.C. francophone community has been an im- portant part of our society since then and is proud of its heritage and contribution to our province and coun- try. On March 20 we wish to give all of our province's French-speaking individuals the opportunity to cele- brate and share their contribution to our society. [Thank you to our guests for representing this proud heritage.] [Translation from French provided by R. Stewart.] There is currently a Festival de la francophonie in Victoria with many joyous activities taking place be- tween now and March 21.

I would invite all of you to participate, if you can, to get an appreciation of franco- phones' famous joie de vivre. Merci. Thank you. SOFTWOOD LUMBER NEGOTIATIONS R. Visser: T o d a y I w a n t e d t o r e l a y t o t h e H o u s e what I believe Team B.C. accomplished in its two-day visit to Ottawa and how proud I am of those folks who, in the face of the crippling and prolonged softwood lumber dispute, have stood focused and resolute in representing their communities' interests as we ap- proach this March 21 deadline.

This is the first time anything like this has ever been attempted on such a looming national issue at such a pivotal time in negotiations, and the government of Canada responded in a very strong and meaningful way. I want to thank the Prime Minister for his time and attention. I want to thank Finance minister Paul Martin for listening to those British Columbians. I want to thank the Minister for International Trade, Pierre Pettigrew, for all his hard work. More important than their time was their understanding. They listened to us.

They reinforced our message, and they promised to take it onward to the meeting that the Prime Minister has with President Bush on Thursday and as the nego- tiations continue. This is the largest issue we currently face as a coun- try. For the first time in a long, long time everyone, including the opposition parties here and in Ottawa, is working cooperatively. I also want to thank the gov- ernment of Quebec, with whom we met on Sunday. Mr. Speaker, as always, I am most impressed with the passion, the intelligence and the commitment that British Columbians have towards this issue.

I want to thank the mayors, who are from all parts of forest- dependent B.C. I want to thank Harvey Arcand, the secretary-treasurer of IWA-Canada; Earl Smith of the Ehattesaht first nation and the aboriginal forestry council chair; contractors; and industry CEOs. They delivered a profound message to our nation's leaders. They spoke with one voice. They set aside their often diverse and conflicting issues to talk about softwood and its impacts. They reached out to Quebec, and they spoke about Canada. [1415] The next seven days are critical. There are no guar- antees.

While we may want a deal, the delegation rein- forced time and time again that we only want a deal that works for British Columbia, works for Quebec but, most of all, works for all of Canada. I want to thank the Minister of Forests for his lead- ership and thank those delegates, because I think our nation became a little bit stronger on Monday after- noon. VISIT TO KINCOLITH B. Belsey: I am very fortunate to have the commu- nity of Kincolith, part of the Nass community, situated in my riding. Chief Councillor Nelson Clayton and a number of the councillors met in my office and invited me to their community.

Kincolith could well be one of the most remote communities in my riding. It has ac- cess only by floatplane and ferry, when the weather permits. From the time I arrived in the community until the time I left Kincolith, I was made very, very welcome. The visit included a tour around the village and a nar- ration by Chester Moore, the village cultural leader, who told me stories about Sim'oogit Hymass, one of the great leaders of the village. I was made a guest of

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 13, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 1873 honour at a ceremony conducted by the community. I witnessed the drummers and the dancers calling the elders, the matriarchs and the chiefs into the hall. I wit- nessed the passing of the talking stick from elders to councillors and back again. We exchanged gifts. I received a beautiful native print by one of the local artists, and I presented a wooden carved bowl filled with fruit, which was even- tually passed on to the elders. I witnessed the singing of O Canada in the Nisga'a language.

I was treated to music from the Kincolith marching band, songs from the Kincolith choir, ceremonial drumming and dancing by school members and by the men and women of the community. From time to time I participated in the dancing, and I had a wonderful time. The highlight of the evening was a feast that in- cluded fresh oolichan, moose meat, sea lion meat, sea- weed and herring roe, to name just a few of the delica- cies that were offered. No effort was spared to put this impressive display of Nisga'a friendship and culture b e f o r e m e .

D u r i n g m y s t a y i n t h e v i l l a g e , I m e t w i t h school teachers, principals, students and families in the communities. On Sunday I attended an Anglican church built more than a century ago. My visit to the Nisga'a village will never be forgot- ten. I would just like to say to the people of the Nisga'a — simgigat, the elders; sigidimhaanak, the matriarchs; sim-oi-ghet, the chiefs; gitginglox, to all the people of Kincolith: [The member spoke Nisga'a.] Mr. Speaker: That concludes members' statements. Oral Questions NORTHERN HEALTH AUTHORITY AND SODEXHO J.

MacPhail: Can the Minister of Health Services con- firm that the Premier's handpicked CEO in the northern he alth re gi on is spe nd ing tax dol lars , as we spe ak, o n a company called Sodexho to help privatize health support services? Will the minister confirm for British Columbi- ans a rundown of Sodexho's record in the privatization of health care in other parts of the world? Hon. C. Hansen: We've certainly given the latitude to the health authorities to explore options as to how they can get better value for the health dollars that they have available to deliver patient care in these regions.

I am aware that the northern health authority has con- tracted a company called Sodexho to do consulting work for them with regard to how services can be ef- fectively delivered. [1420] Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition with a supplementary. J. MacPhail: I asked the minister to provide the re- cord of Sodexho, and he refuses to do so, so I will pro- vide that record. Sodexho is an international company specializing in private health care.

In Glasgow, Scotland, where Sodexho provides support services to the city's largest hospital, an investigation uncovered a horror story of filth and infection, the result specifically of So- dexho's shoddy work. Just this week the hospital admit- ted fault in the death of a patient through viral infection. To the Minister of Health Services: does the minis- ter support the hiring of this rogue company to privat- ize health services in northern B.C.? Hon. C. Hansen: There is no health authority in this province that is privatizing health services through that kind of a process.

We are looking at how we support a publicly funded health care system in British Columbia and get the best value for health dollars. We have given authority to the health authorities around this province to make sure they explore all options in terms of how they can get the best value possible and meet the needs of patients in all parts of British Columbia. Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplementary. J.

MacPhail: The minister's own briefing book, which had to be leaked to the public to find the truth, says that there will be privatization to the tune of where 14,000 health care workers will be privatized. Their jobs will be privatized. The privatization scheme that led to Sodexho's hir- ing in Glasgow is exactly like the one this government is embarking upon in British Columbia. The investigation in Glasgow found that piles of waste and garbage were being left in hospital elevators and on the floor because there weren't enough workers, just like the scheme that was revealed in his secret briefing book.

Cleaners were being forced to serve pa- tients food after they'd cleaned toilets. Patients were being infected with superbugs. Again, to the Minister of Health Services: why is he letting his handpicked chair spend taxpayers' money to get advice from a private health care company with such an abysmal record? Hon. C. Hansen: We expect our health authorities throughout the province to maintain the highest stan- dards when it comes to sanitation and when it comes to all of the services that….

We have asked the health authorities to explore opportunities to get more cost-effective delivery of patient care in British Columbia, but we are not com- promising any standards in terms of safety and the effectiveness with which those services are delivered around this province. Interjection. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. J. Kwan: Sodexho was embroiled in yet another scandal in Great Britain. The government and So-

1874 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, MARCH 13, 2002 dexho cooked up a scheme to allow Sodexho to pay refugees 60 cents an hour to provide support ser- vices at one of Sodexho's private refugee holding tanks. That's 1/10 of the minimum wage. I wonder if the Minister of Labour knows anybody over at So- dexho. Sodexho should not be allowed anywhere near patients or workers in British Columbia. Will the Min- ister of Health Services take charge, step in and see that no more money is being spent on paying this company for advice? Hon. C. Hansen: In this province we have stan- dards when it comes to cleanliness.

We have stan- dards when it comes to sanitation in our hospitals and health facilities in British Columbia. We have standards when it comes to minimum wage in this province. We will not compromise on those stan- dards. Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary question. J. Kwan: The CEO of the northern health authority was handpicked by this government.

That CEO has gone out and hired one of the worst companies imag- inable to help him privatize health care — a company that is unethical, a company that is hurting patients, a company that specializes in union-busting, a com- pany that British Columbians want nothing to do with. Will the Minister of Health Services show some leadership, take responsibility for the decision of the health region CEO and immediately get Sodexho off the public payroll? Hon. C. Hansen: Our commitment to British Co- lumbians is that we're going to deliver effective pa- tient care in communities throughout British Colum- bia.

We're going to do that in the most cost-effective way possible, so we have given that mandate to the health authorities. We will be holding the health au- thorities accountable for the standards that they meet. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Order. The minister has the floor. [1425] Hon. C. Hansen: We will be holding them account- able for outcomes. We will be holding them account- able for the cleanliness of facilities. We will be holding them accountable for the effectiveness with which they deliver good patient care.

It's the first time there's been that accountability in the health care system in British Columbia in many, many years. PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS FOR HEALTH CARE FACILITIES D. Chutter: I would like to ask a public written question submitted by Chris O'Connor, the mayor of the village of Lytton, to the Minister of Health Services. "1. Will the Ministry of Health Services be encouraging the interior health region to vigorously pursue public-private partnerships (P3s) for the construction of new health care facilities? "If the answer to this question is yes: "2.

Municipalities have many local resources at their disposal. Could the government consider municipalities as one of the suitable partners to a P3 health care facility?; and "3. If so, will provisions be incorporated in the new community charter which may allow greater flexibility to communities who wish to participate in this fashion?" Hon. C. Hansen: The short answer to the question is yes. We have asked health authorities now to look at the network of facilities they need in the region to make sure that patient care is delivered in a timely and effective way.

We certainly have seen local govern- ments throughout the years take an active participation through the regional hospital districts in capital fund- ing projects. We encourage local governments to con- tinue to be part of that process of providing capital initiatives in their regions. We think that local governments could do even more. They could be involved in terms of fast-tracking health care projects. They could look at zoning consid- erations that would help us to meet patient needs faster and at development cost charges, which are an impor- tant component of that.

Also, they have local resources, as His Worship was mentioning, in the way of land and other things they could be part of when it comes to public-private partnerships. I have talked to the minister of state responsible for community charter, and he has assured me that the community charter will include the kind of flexibility that His Worship is looking for. Mr. Speaker: Member for Yale-Lillooet has a sup- plementary question. D. Chutter: My supplementary is to the Minister of Health Services again.

Increasingly, public-private partnerships are being implemented across Canada to improve the delivery of important public services. Could the Minister of Health Services tell us how im- plementing public-private partnerships will help to improve patient care in British Columbia? Hon. C. Hansen: Certainly, if you look at the track record in this province of the construction of health facilities, it is one of cost overruns. It is one of late de- livery of facilities. It is one of constant change orders that drive up those costs of construction. Our purpose is to focus in on the needs of patients in a timely way.

One perfect example is the VGH tower where you had a shell built, and it sat empty. It cost the taxpayers

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 13, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 1875 about $17 million a year to have an empty facility that the previous government was not able to move on. Interjection. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. C. Hansen: We believe that by going to pub- lic-private partnerships, we can get the advantage of timely delivery of health facilities in this province in a way that actually meets patient care and gets the Min- istry of Health Services out of the real estate business and allows us to focus on the patient care business, which should be first and foremost. U.S. DUTY ON TOMATOES V. Roddick: Mr.

Speaker, my question is to the Min- ister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. British Colum- bians have been farming in my riding for over a hun- dred years. In that time they have become world- renowned for turning out some of the finest-quality produce. However, hothouse tomato farmers in my rid- ing have been unfairly attacked by heavy American du- ties, and that now threatens their livelihood. Can the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries provide my constituents with an update on the status of this dispute? Hon. J. van Dongen: Certainly, this is a very serious matter for B.C. tomato producers.

On February 20 the U.S. Department of Commerce issued their final determination setting the anti-dumping duty for B.C. hothouse tomatoes at 18.2 percent. That would be 18.2 percent levied on the value of all tomatoes exported to the United States, and that's about 80 percent of our tomatoes. [1430] The next important date is April 6. At that time the U.S. international trade tribunal will issue its final de- termination on whether or not there was injury to the U.S. industry. If there is no injury found, then that ends the whole matter.

If there is injury found, then that puts in place the duty of 18.2 percent until April 2004. This is a very serious matter for our producers. We feel that the U.S. action is totally unfair and totally un- founded. Mr. Speaker: The member for Delta South has a supplementary question. V. Roddick: The hothouse tomato industry plays a significant role in Delta South. Any barriers to trade will no doubt have an impact on the workers in my riding. Can the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fish- eries tell us to what extent he expects this dispute to impact the future of the hothouse tomato industry in British Columbia?

Hon. J. van Dongen: Certainly, it will have a sig- nificant impact. There'll be a lot of adjustments that h a v e t o b e m a d e , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n p r o d u c e m i x . S o m e product will simply not get shipped. The Canadian industry has started an action of its own, which is starting to have some impact. They are working through Canada Customs to pursue this ac- tion through the whole system. Hopefully, this will bring the U.S. growers to the table, and maybe we can negotiate some kind of reasonable outcome.

We in British Columbia — and the British Colum- bia government — are working closely with the indus- try and the federal government to try and find a resolu- tion to this unfair U.S. action. NELSON HEALTH CAMPUS PROJECT B. Suffredine: Prior to the last election the former government said that the construction of the Nelson health campus was approved. Since then, one of the members opposite has claimed that it was even fully funded. Health services are the single most important concern we all share. Nelson and area residents want and need to know about this project.

Could the Minister of Health Services clarify the status of the Nelson health campus project? Hon. C. Hansen: W h a t i s c l e a r w h e n y o u r e v i e w the work leading up… Interjection. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. C. Hansen: …to the Nelson health campus is that it was driven very much by a political agenda of the previous government. For members… Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. C. Hansen: …of the previous government to claim that that project was fully funded is like saying that there are cheques in the chequebook, so therefore there must be money in the bank.

The project was never fully funded by the previous government. What we have said to health authorities is that we are changing the way capital projects will be proceeded with in this province in the future. Instead of them being mi- cromanaged out of Victoria with a debt service cost being carried by the provincial government in a central way, we are actually allowing the health authorities… Interjection. Mr. Speaker: Order. Order, please. Hon. C. Hansen: …to determine what their priori- ties should be in their regions. And then we're allowing them… Interjection.

1876 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, MARCH 13, 2002 Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. C. Hansen: …to put forward their own pri- orities, knowing that the debt-servicing cost would have to be carried on a regional basis. So instead of having operating budgets in one hand totally discon- nected from the debt-servicing cost, we're saying: "Let's make sure these things work together in the best interest of patient care in region to region around this province." When it comes to the proposal in Nelson… Mr. Speaker: Thank you. Hon. C.

Hansen: …where the residents from Nel- son have done a considerable amount of… Mr. Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. Thank you. Hon. C. Hansen: …work, certainly they should be taking that… Mr. Speaker: Order. Interjection. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Thank you. Hon. C. Hansen: …to the health authority and en- suring that it gets the proper consideration. [End of question period.] Petitions D. MacKay: I wish to file a petition, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: Please proceed. [1435] D.

MacKay: On behalf of 453 people from South Side, which is a small community located near Burns Lake, I'd like to file this petition asking the province to consider helping with the funding for an ambulance station in South Side. B. Suffredine: I'd like to present a petition on be- half of the east shore of Kootenay Lake. They have con- cerns about the proposed changes to the ferry, and they're asking the minister to consult before proceeding with the changes. Motions on Notice Hon. G. Collins: I call government motions on no- t i c e , and I c al l M o t i o n 3 0 i n t he n am e o f t he H o n.

A t - torney General. REFERENDUM ON TREATY NEGOTIATIONS [That the House urges the Government to conduct a referendum asking the following questions.

Whereas the Government of British Columbia is committed to negotiating workable, affordable treaty settlements that will provide certainty, finality and equality; Do you agree that the Provincial Government should adopt the following principles to guide its participation in treaty negotiations? 1. Private property should not be expropriated for treaty settlements. 2. The terms and conditions of leases and licences should be respected; fair compensation for unavoidable disruption of commercial interests should be ensured. 3.

Hunting, fishing and recreational opportunities on Crown land should be ensured for all British Columbians. 4. Parks and protected areas should be maintained for the use and benefit of all British Columbians. 5. Province-wide standards of resource management and environmental protection should continue to apply. 6. Aboriginal self-government should have the characteristics of local government, with powers delegated from Canada and British Columbia. 7. Treaties should include mechanisms for harmonizing land use planning between Aboriginal governments and neighbouring local governments. 8.

The existing tax exemptions for Aboriginal people should be phased out.] Hon. G. Plant: This government sought election on a commitment to negotiate workable, affordable treaty settlements that will provide certainty, finality and equality. We believe treaties are the best way to forge a new relationship with first nations, a relationship based upon mutual trust, recognition and respect. Treaties offer the promise of a new era of hope, economic opportunity and greater self-determination for all aboriginal people, but for too long most British Columbians have felt shut out of the process.

So we made two commitments to bring the people of B.C. into the treaty process. We promised to give all British Co- lumbians a say on the principles that should guide B.C.'s approach to treaty negotiations through a one- time provincewide referendum within our first year. We also promised to ask an all-party committee of the Legislature to consult with British Columbians, includ- ing first nations, to draft the referendum questions. We kept the second promise. The all-party commit- tee has consulted and reported to the Legislature. To- day we are putting in motion the steps to keep the first promise.

The government will conduct a referendum on the principles to guide the province's participation in treaty negotiations. The referendum will be held under the Referendum Act. The vote will be by mail-in ballot. Ballots will be mailed to B.C. voters commencing April 2. Voting begins when ballots are received. The last day for returning ballots will be May 15, and the results will be announced as soon thereafter as the counting is complete.

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 13, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 1877 The referendum questions will be those approved b y t h i s a s s e m b l y a t t h e c o n c l u s i o n o f d e b a t e o n t h e motion now before the House. As provided for in sec- tion 4 of the Referendum Act, if more than 50 percent of the validly cast ballots vote the same way on a ques- tion stated, that result will be binding on this govern- ment. Treaty-making is a three-party negotiation process created as a result of the 1991 report of the B.C. Claims Task Force. That report contained 19 recommenda- tions.

This government has consistently affirmed its support for each of the 19 recommendations of the task force. The first and fundamental recommendation of the task force is that the first nations, Canada and British Columbia establish a new relationship based on mu- tual trust, respect and understanding through political negotiations. This recommendation makes it clear that the treaty process is a political process. [1440] The task force's second recommendation is also important to today's debate.

That recommendation is that each of the parties to the treaty process be at lib- erty to introduce any issues at the negotiation table that it views as significant to the new relationship. Implicit in this second recommendation of the task force are two questions: what are the issues that the province as one of three parties views as significant to the new rela- tionship? And how are those issues to be determined?

I t m u s t s u r e l y b e t h e c a s e t h a t e a c h p a r t y t o t h e treaty process can bring to the table its own vision, objectives and mandate for what it seeks to achieve through these political negotiations. As we know, first nations negotiators work hard to connect with their communities to ascertain the vision, objectives and mandate that they bring to the table on behalf of their communities. The government of Canada is free to decide upon its goals for treaty-making and to pursue them as it sees best.

So, too, then must the government of British Columbia be able to define its own vision, its own objectives and its own mandate for negotiations. If these are — as the task force said they were to be — political negotiations, then it is surely right for this government to decide how to obtain a mandate sup- ported by those to whom it is politically accountable — namely, the electorate of British Columbia. We choose to do so by asking the people directly. For too long the province has sat at the treaty table without a clear sense of direction or purpose. It's time to remedy that omission.

This referendum does not seek to tell first nations what issues they should intro- duce nor what goals or aspirations they should pursue at the treaty table. Nor does this referendum presume to tell the government of Canada what it should pur- sue. This referendum seeks from the electorate of Brit- ish Columbia a mandate on principles to guide the province's negotiators. With a clear set of principles, the province's negotiators will have a clearer sense of purpose. It is important to say what this referendum is not about.

This referendum will not, indeed cannot, inter- fere with or compromise the constitutionally protected aboriginal rights and title of the aboriginal peoples of British Columbia. I have heard many people make a contrary claim. However, I have never heard them de- fend that contention. The reason is simple: there is no basis for the argument. After 1982 no unilateral action by the province, whether in a referendum or in any other process, is capable of determining or limiting the existence or the content of aboriginal rights and title.

Equally funda- mental and important to make clear here is the fact that the constitution of Canada, including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, will continue to apply to all Brit- ish Columbians before and after land claim settle- ments. Treaty-making is a political negotiation to find common ground that will form the basis of an agree- ment, but no one is bound to agree to that which they cannot accept.

If a first nation finds it cannot achieve agreement with the province and Canada on a mutu- ally acceptable land claim settlement, then it will be free to determine its rights by litigation. [1445] First nations who choose to litigate will find that nothing in this referendum has in any way compro- mised their constitutional rights. But litigation is surely not the pathway to certainty or reconciliation. Litiga- tion is expensive, adversarial and time-consuming. In this area of the law, it seldom produces any certainty. I only need one example to prove my point.

After 13 years of litigation in the Delgamuuk case, in which Gitxsan-Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs asked the court to declare their ownership and jurisdiction over their traditional territories, the Supreme Court of Canada refused to grant this relief and ordered a new trial. That is neither certain, nor does it achieve reconcilia- tion. I want to express the government's appreciation to the legislative committee chaired by the member for Chilliwack-Sumas and to all those who made submis- sions to it. The work of the committee has begun a con- versation with the people of British Columbia.

That conversation is essential if we are to reinvigorate the treaty process. The legislative committee made two recommenda- tions. First, it recommended that a process of recon- ciliation, including an expression of regret by the gov- ernment of British Columbia regarding the experiences of aboriginal people, be undertaken. As a part of this recommendation the committee said it envisioned trea- ties perhaps including specific language addressing reconciliation. It emphasized that this is a process of community-based reconciliation and is not meant to attribute blame or guilt to individuals.

The government accepts this recommendation. Government also accepts the committee's observa- tion that this reconciliation process will need to be un- dertaken in consultation with first nations. To put that in the context of the language of the task force report, reconciliation, including an expression of regret by government, is an issue that the government of British

1878 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, MARCH 13, 2002 Columbia wishes to introduce at the negotiation table because we believe it is significant to the new relation- ship between first nations and British Columbia. The committee also recommended a ballot for the referendum. Government has given careful considera- tion to the committee's recommendations for the con- tents of the referendum ballot, including the referen- dum questions.

In the days following the tabling of the committee's report last November, I also listened as carefully as I could to the opinions of British Columbi- ans who read and responded to the report's recom- mendations. In thinking about treaty principles it soon becomes clear that some principles are simply so fundamental to the entire process that they are not open to question. These fundamental principles include the following: treaty settlements should be workable and affordable and they should provide certainty, finality and equal- ity.

To put the point another way: no one could seri- ously contend that treaties should be unaffordable or unworkable or that they should create uncertainty, endless disputes or inequality. In considering the committee's recommended ques- tions, we also took into account the need to construct a ballot with a manageable number of easy-to- understand questions. We also recognized that the primary objective of the referendum is to provide ne- gotiators with a mandate on substantive issues, not process.

The committee recommended three questions that have more to do with the process of negotiation than with the substance of treaty settlements. These questions were: 1. Treaties will be negotiated in as transparent a manner as possible. 2. Treaty negotiation will be responsive to the input of local community and economic interests. 2. Local government participation in the treaty process is guaranteed. Government does not need to seek a mandate from the voters on those three points.

They represent the clear and unequivocal policy and commitments of the government. [1450] W e a l s o c o n s i d e r e d t h e f o r m o f s o m e o f t h e p r o - posed questions. The referendum is about principles. Since this is a three-party negotiation in which some measure of compromise is inevitable, the province cannot, as one among three parties, guarantee a result. W e w i s h t o b e g u i d e d b y p r i n c i p l e s , a n d w e w i l l b e held to account for our adherence to them, but we can- not promise outcomes.

The legislative committee also recommended a question with respect to the goals of administrative simplicity and jurisdictional clarity amongst various levels of government. Again, this seems to me to be practically self-evident. No one could want administra- tive complexity or jurisdictional confusion. Settlement agreements that fostered excessive complexity or con- fusion would, I respectfully suggest, be unworkable. The need for jurisdictional clarity is important, but it is forcefully raised by other questions.

Lastly, government believes it is inappropriate to ask the electorate to vote on matters essentially internal to first nations. I know the committee heard from abo- riginal women who expressed concerns about aborigi- nal governments post-treaty, and I know others have concerns about access to treaty benefits for those who live off reserve. I do not discount these concerns. They are impor- tant, and governments representing the public interest will have to take them into account in the treaty proc- ess.

But the question of what vision, mandate and ob- jectives ought to be brought to the table by first nations is a question for first nations, not this referendum. Mr. Speaker, the product of the analysis I have just described is the questions contained in the motion now before the House.

The proposed ballot will read as fol- lows: "Whereas the government of British Columbia is committed to negotiating workable, affordable treaty settlements that will provide certainty, finality and equality, do you agree that the provincial government should adopt the following principles to guide its participation in treaty negotiations? "1. Private property should not be expropriated for treaty settlements. "2. The terms and conditions of leases and licences should be respected; fair compensation for unavoidable disruption of commercial interests should be ensured. "3.

Hunting, fishing and recreational opportunities on Crown land should be ensured for all British Columbians. "4. Parks and protected areas should be maintained for the use and benefit of all British Columbians. "5. Provincewide standards of resource management and environmental protection should continue to apply. "6. Aboriginal self-government should have the characteristics of local government, with powers delegated from Canada and British Columbia. "7. Treaties should include mechanisms for harmonizing land use planning between aboriginal governments and neighbouring local governments. "8.

The existing tax exemptions for aboriginal people should be phased out." The government takes a position on these ques- tions. We would answer "yes" to each of them. Answer- ing yes to these questions will provide the province's negotiators with a clear mandate on issues that have arisen and will continue to arise in the course of nego- tiations. With a renewed and clearer sense of purpose, better progress will be made at the tables, leading to agreements that will enjoy public support and build a strong foundation for enduring relationships built upon mutual recognition, reconciliation and respect.

Some will say that some of these questions are, to use an outmoded term, motherhood questions. I re- spectfully disagree. [1455] When first nations politicians say that first nations own British Columbia lock, stock and barrel, they don't make an exception for parks and protected areas. Pro- vincial leases and licences are routinely challenged by first nations in court. If and when demands are made for exclusive hunting or fishing rights outside treaty

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 13, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 1879 settlement lands, I want our negotiators to be able to say that the people of British Columbia have said they want continued hunting, fishing and recreational op- portunities on Crown land. When demands are made for self-government au- thority, I want to be able to say that the people of Brit- ish Columbia have told us we should insist upon nego- tiating tools that will harmonize land use planning between aboriginal governments and neighbouring local governments.

Yes, aboriginal governments may have the power to plan the use of their own lands, but equally importantly the province should be at the table insisting that mechanisms be put in place so that first nations and local governments can work and plan to- gether for the good of both communities. These are not motherhood questions. They are real questions about real issues, and they are real princi- ples. Some will ask: what would no mean? What would the answer no mean to any of these questions?

Simply put, the answer no to any question means that the pro- vincial government should not adopt that principle to guide its participation in treaty negotiations. That might have different significance in different contexts. To illustrate the point, let's look at the first princi- ple, the principle that private property should not be expropriated for treaty settlements. If a majority of voters vote no to this question, it means that govern- ment need not be constrained by a principle against private property expropriation in negotiating treaty land issues.

Presumably, government would be less reluctant to expropriate land if this principle were re- jected. That's what no means in this context. I want to set this point in a slightly larger context. I have said that the proposition that private property should not be expropriated for treaty settlements is a statement of principle that can usefully guide the prov- ince's participation in treaty negotiations. Let me state the obvious: it is not put forward as a statement in- tended to guide negotiators for first nations or for Can- ada.

Moreover, nothing about this question, whether answered yes or no, in any way subjects minority rights to the whim of the majority. This principle does not bind first nations. It does not bind Canada. It does not bind the courts. Nor, for that matter, does this prin- ciple bind the province in its dealings with ordinary citizens and landholders outside the treaty process. It is simply a principle to guide the province in negotiations with first nations.

In limited, appropriate cases this principle might permit the acquisition of land on a willing seller, willing buyer basis — provided, of course, that that action was consistent with other prin- ciples including, for example, the important principle that treaty negotiation will be responsive to the input of local community and economic interests. A similar analysis can be undertaken for each of the eight principles, with similar results.

Take, for exam- ple, the sixth principle: the principle that aboriginal self-government should have the characteristics of local government with powers delegated from Canada and British Columbia. This is not a legal statement about aboriginal self-government. It is a political statement about the province's interests in negotiating self- government at the treaty table. [1500] Voting yes to this principle means that the province will seek to negotiate aboriginal self-government ar- rangements with the characteristics of local govern- ment with powers delegated from Canada and British Columbia.

Examples of such self-government ar- rangements already exist. They include Sechelt. They include self-government under the Yukon land claim agreements, and there are other examples across Can- ada. Voting yes to this principle does mean that the province will not seek to negotiate self-government on the Nisga'a model with paramount powers entrenched in constitutional concrete and limited democratic ac- countability for the non-aboriginal citizens governed by the first nation. What would voting no to the sixth principle mean?

Again, voting no means that the province need not adopt this principle to guide its participation in treaty negotiations. It does not mean that the province would refuse to negotiate self-government. Voting no would mean, from the province's perspective, that the discus- sion about self-government will not be guided by or constrained by the principle expressed in the sixth question. Presumably, if a majority of voters voted no to this question, the province's negotiators would be more receptive to proposals for constitutionally en- trenched self-government. I have already pointed out, Mr. Speaker, that the

preamble to the ballot, which I earlier read, contains and will contain a commitment to affordability. This is a critically important commitment. The best measure of affordability of a particular settlement is the willing- ness of the province's elected representatives to accept it. Accordingly, the government commits that all pro- posed agreements will be presented to this House with a full accounting of treaty costs. The former govern- ment failed to do this with Nisga'a. We will not repeat that mistake. Let me now say more about how the referendum will be conducted.

There will be no large-scale gov- ernment advertising campaign. Government will not provide funding to support any other party in putting forward their views on the referendum questions, nor will the law constrain or limit the ability of other par- ties to conduct at their expense any information cam- paign that they wish to conduct. Elections B.C. will conduct the referendum. It will send out information about voter registration and vot- ing packages, and it will count the vote. I am informed that the ballot count may take several weeks, depend- ing upon the rate and the timing of return of the bal- lots.

A referendum office will be established to provide factual and timely responses to referendum-related questions from the public. Commencing March 18, a few days from now, the referendum office will send

1880 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, MARCH 13, 2002 voters a householder which will provide them with information about the referendum, including informa- tion about how to contact the referendum office. There will be a 1-800 telephone line and a website. The householder will not provide information about the questions, positions or arguments on the questions, but the referendum office will be accessible by phone, web- site and mail, and will provide information to people who request it. The referendum office will maintain neutrality with respect to the questions.

In some cases, detailed questions asked of the referendum office may be referred to government or Elections B.C. or a third party. [1505] Government undertakes the responsibility of help- ing the public understand why we need to negotiate treaties and why we urge the voters to vote yes in this referendum. I want to conclude with two general observations. Some have argued and I expect, in the days to come, will continue to argue that treaties should be settled on an all-cash-for-clear-title basis. That argument, if ac- cepted, would doom the treaty project to certain fail- ure.

When we speak as British Columbians about the historic Indian land question, we need to recognize, as the courts have said, that aboriginal title is a legal in- terest in land that is protected by the constitution and that aboriginal title cannot be held by individual abo- riginal persons. It is a collective right to land held by all members of an aboriginal nation. When aboriginal people speak about their traditional territories, they do so in terms that connect their traditional territories to their sense of identity as first nations. We must respect that reality.

Lastly, I want to repeat again in the strongest pos- sible terms my view that this project is both morally and democratically legitimate. Some will argue that the issues raised by these questions are too difficult for the average voter. This referendum is about lands, re- sources, governments, taxes — the very stuff of citizen- ship in a modern, complex world.

Democracy requires that we trust citizens with these questions while recog- nizing, also, that in our democracy the rights of minori- ties enjoy constitutional protections as strong as any found on the surface of the Earth — vigorously guarded by an independent judiciary. This referendum is a conversation. It can be respect- ful. We can disagree and listen at the same time. We can even learn from our disagreements how to build a common cause.

Voting yes to these questions will es- tablish essential parts of the vision, objectives and mandate that the province's negotiators will take — that they need to take — to the treaty table to build lasting treaties and new relationships so that all British Columbians, including first nations, can work together to build hope and prosperity. J. Les: I'm pleased to rise today and participate in the debate on this important initiative which fulfills another commitment made to the people of British Co- lumbia by our government in last year's election.

Spe- cifically, the commitment was this: to give all British Columbians a say on the principles that should guide B.C.'s approach to treaty negotiations through a one- time provincewide referendum within our first year. I am p ro u d t o b e p art o f a go v e rnm e nt t hat k e e p s its commitments.

Just as we are following through on a commitment to double the First Citizens Fund to $72 million to support native friendship centres, student bursaries and economic development programs, we will be offering all B.C. voters an opportunity to ex- press their opinion regarding treaty-making principles — a public policy issue that has enormous implications for aboriginal and non-aboriginal British Columbians alike. Treaties are about how we are going to live to- gether. Treaty-making today is clearly much more complex than the process of treaty-making previously in the history of this country.

The economy has advanced, and millions of non-aboriginal people now live here. The complexities that flow from this situation make it mandatory that there is a broad and, hopefully, in- formed consent amongst all residents as to how we proceed and what the guiding principles are to be that guide the treaty-making process. [1510] Let me be clear. This referendum or its result in no way detracts or derogates from the constitutionally guaranteed and protected rights that aboriginal people possess.

Further, we all strongly support the treaty- making initiative, and I believe strongly that the pro- posed referendum will be an important and productive step towards the goal of negotiating workable, afford- able treaty settlements that will provide certainty, final- ity and equality. Treaty-making is a matter of social justice and prac- tical necessity. Aboriginal peoples have rights under the constitution that need to be clarified and codified. Treaties will accomplish that objective. I need to repeat again: this is not a referendum on aboriginal rights.

Existing aboriginal rights are already protected under the constitution of Canada. They cannot be extin- guished or surrendered without aboriginal consent. Those who insist that this is a referendum on mi- nority rights, quite simply, have it wrong. This is an opportunity for the public to have a say regarding the negotiating principles that guide B.C.'s negotiators in the negotiating process. This is not an attempt to stall the treaty process. Arguably, it has been stalled for years.

If British Columbians respond as I believe they will, treaty-making will be reinvigorated, re-energized and relegitimized — a n o p p o r t u n i t y t h a t w e s h o u l d then all seize and move forward with. I was pleased to act as the Chair of the Select Stand- ing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs that was tasked with the responsibility of conducting public hearings and, subsequently, to make recommendations regard- ing questions that should be put to the public in a one- time referendum on treaty principles.

There were those who predicted that the public hearing process would be divisive and destructive, leading to racial tension and all manner of unpleasant-

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 13, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 1881 ness and bringing out the very worst in people. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to report that these predictions absolutely failed to materialize. In the event, we heard from some 500 people, both verbally and in writing, at 15 public meetings con- vened in communities throughout the province. Practi- cally without exception, we heard from people who were respectful and who appreciated the opportunity to dialogue regarding this important public policy mat- ter.

We heard from an exceptional variety of British Columbians: academics, scholars, homemakers, church leaders, municipal politicians, aboriginal individuals and leaders, young people, loggers, miners and cattle- men — in short, a complete cross-section of our prov- ince. Of all the presenters we heard from, I don't recall anyone telling us not to negotiate treaties. On the con- trary, I believe it's fair to say that everyone wanted us to make the process better and more successful. No doubt, some of the suggestions offered were unwork- able or unrealistic, but many offered significant in- sights.

We heard of the dreams and aspirations of aborigi- nal people themselves and from aboriginal women with misgivings about what the treaty-making process means for them and how it may impact their rights as women. In my view, a particularly significant presenta- tion was made by an aboriginal young woman, who later wrote an editorial to one of the local papers in her area. I wish to refer to that in my remarks, and I will quote from her editorial.

It said this: "Dear Readers, "With my blood boiling and my anger building like a volcano ready to erupt, I sat before the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs recently, and I counted every native cliché that the non-natives voiced like an old, boring, uninformed and ignorant record. "With a 15-minute time slot I told them how my mom paid off her home in Smithers; I purchased my own new car 11 years ago, which the non-native community assumed I had won at bingo. I talked about receiving a four-year post-secondary education at several of the best schools in the province.

I spoke about working, paying taxes. I gave specific examples of blatant racism in this community and how natives are rarely hired by local stores, which I believe is a serious form of discrimination. "I was pleasantly surprised that most of the ten MLAs on the panel genuinely listened to my concerns, which I wasn't sure that they would do. I talked about how the native community wanted similar things as the non-natives like: a better life for the younger generation, a job, advancement on the treaty process and hope for a better future.

"I ended up being in the hot seat for about an hour, but I left, feeling like I gave them a new perspective. I felt empowered about being heard, because I feel the native community is often ignored by all levels of government, all forms of media and this community until a scapegoat is required, so it was good for me to have a new, positive experience." [1515] That, Mr. Speaker, I think, is evidence that the process of dialogue works in a very positive way.

These people articulately, in many cases, talked about their vision for the future, how they saw aborigi- nal and non-aboriginal people living together in the future, and what would or should characterize the new relationship. There is significant divergence in points of view amongst the public. Much of this can be ascribed to the fact that these are very complex legal and consti- tutional issues, but there was one common theme throughout: British Columbians want to get on with a productive and conclusive treaty-making process.

They recognize the injustices and shortcomings of the past and want a practical and pragmatic resolution to treaty-making. The public is interested in treaties that are constitu- tionally sound and that will produce justice and oppor- tunity for aboriginal people. They recognize that treaty-making will affect us all and that the cost in terms of resources, land and other considerations will be considerable.

To those who predicted chaos as a result of having the temerity to conduct public hearings around these issues, I say: you seriously underestimate the willing- ness and ability of British Columbians to engage in a respectful and useful discussion on these issues. The average British Columbian is fair-minded and resents the suggestion that they are incapable or should not be allowed the opportunity to openly and rigorously con- sider, debate and discuss aboriginal treaty issues.

Similarly, I expect the upcoming referendum proc- ess itself will be a positive exercise in public consulta- tion that will enable us to move forward, post- referendum. We know that treaty-making has not had an illus- trious history in the recent past. Other than the Nisga'a treaty, which was negotiated outside of the B.C. Treaty Commission process, no other treaties have been achieved — this, in spite of a decade of negotiations and $500 million spent by all parties in the process.

Four agreements-in-principle have been initialled at the treaty table and subsequently rejected by the first nations people involved. These were the Nuu-chah- nulth, the Sliammon, the Sechelt and the In-SHUCK-ch. C l e a r l y , w e n e e d t o t a k e a s t e p b a c k . C l e a r l y , w e cannot continue to expend these enormous resources without achieving results. Clearly, our constituents, be they aboriginal or non-aboriginal, deserve better. Clearly, it is in all of our interests to renovate the proc- ess to produce the certainty we all require.

The current state of uncertainty that exists in British Columbia is detrimental to everyone's interests. It in- hibits investment in our economy. It slows economic growth. It postpones the day that aboriginal peoples themselves get out from under the burden of the In- dian Act. It continues the economic underperformance and social despair evident in so many aboriginal com- munities, both on and off reserve. The opportunity for aboriginal people to more fully participate in the economy is frustrated.

We need to do better than to continue to wallow in fruitless uncer- tainty while unproductive so-called negotiations grind on endlessly.

1882 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, MARCH 13, 2002 Our constituents demand a revitalized approach to treaty-making. They are asking us to produce results and certainty. Even if we cannot achieve complete and final treaties immediately, incremental treaty-making is an approach that should be attempted. The B.C. Treaty Commission has also suggested that the big-bang ap- proach to treaty-making may not be the best. An in- cremental process that allows capacity-building to oc- cur, while some treaty benefits are realized, may be a much more productive approach.

Let me turn to the recommended referendum ques- tions. I believe that these fairly and reasonably reflect the recommendations put forward by the Select Stand- ing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. If these sug- gested principles are supported by the public, I believe they will provide a solid foundation for the provincial position in future treaty negotiations. It is absolutely impossible to presuppose or anticipate every nuance that might present itself in negotiations.

However, these suggested principles will provide an essential blueprint to guide provincial negotiators. [1520] I am particularly pleased that the recommendation to conduct the referendum by way of a mail-in ballot is being acted upon. This will provide several beneficial features. Firstly, it will be a less costly mechanism. More importantly, it will provide British Columbians a more reflective and thoughtful opportunity to consider and respond to the questions posed. Who knows?

It may even lead to discussion around the kitchen table and at other informal gatherings — all of which will help to raise the level of awareness and discussion, which can only help to develop the public consensus necessary to move forward. Again, I am confident in the public's ability to fairly consider these matters and guide us in these important negotiations. Those who decry this process need to be very careful indeed not to denigrate the B.C. public and their ability to understand and appreciate what is at stake, what is fair and what is reasonable. Do not sell the public short.

I would urge all British Columbians to participate in this unique opportunity. Treaties will be an impor- tant future feature of all of British Columbia's eco- nomic, social and political landscape. It is vital not only that these treaties reflect current realities but that they be able to stand the test of time and be equally as rele- vant to our collective children and grandchildren as they may be to the negotiating parties at the table to- day. Mr. Speaker, I commend this process to all British Columbians, and I would encourage all members of this House to support the motion. J.

Kwan: I rise to enter into debate on the Attorney General's motion on a referendum on aboriginal issues. I'd like to begin the debate by telling a story that was told to me by a member from Vancouver–Mount Pleas- ant when I first got involved in community politics. Later on, when I was elected, this person reminded me, as the elected MLA for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, of this story. I've told this story to some members of the House, but other members might not have heard it.

It was im- pressed upon me that this story and the principles be- hind it must guide us in all of our actions on the ques- tion around aboriginal issues. The story begins like this. Once upon a time there was this beautiful, vast land called British Columbia. At that time this land did not have a name; it was sim- ply a vast, beautiful piece of land. On this land there was a bench, and on this bench sat a nation of peoples who have now come to be known in western society, I guess, as the first nations of British Columbia. They occupied this bench. They lived off this land. They governed each other.

They supported each other. They learned with each other. They respected each other. Perhaps most important of all, in this story, is that they very much respected the ability to work with each other not in a confrontational way but in a way that often we now speak of — as the aboriginal people do — as a resolutionary way, where they work with each other to overcome difficulties. They listened to their elders.

They took advice from their elders, and they guided each other with those principles — first and foremost, guided by respect. [1525] Over time, on this bench where this nation of peo- ples lived, visitors began to show up. They showed up on this vast land. As is the case with the aboriginal peoples in British Columbia, they were great hosts. They not only allowed these guests to have a seat on this bench — and the guests did ask for a seat on this bench — but they allowed them to enjoy and share the r e s o u r c e s t h a t t h e y h a d .

A s t i m e w e n t o n , m o r e a n d more non-aboriginal people — visitors, if you will — came to this land and sat on this bench. O v e r t i m e i t b e c a m e s o o v e r w h e l m i n g t h a t a s t h e space on the bench got squeezed more and more, the aboriginal people found themselves being pushed off that bench. They found they no longer had a seat on the very bench on which they began, the very bench on which they supported their families and their commu- nities and they cared for each other, to the point where they are now completely off that bench.

Not only are they off that bench; they're being governed by the peo- ple who came and consumed the space on this bench. Now the aboriginal people, the first people of this land, are saying: "No more. We want a seat back on this bench." They don't want the whole bench back. They're not saying: "Get off our bench and go away." They're simply saying: "We want our rightful place in history. We want a seat back on this bench, and we want to be respected. We want to have the ability to live on the resources. We've always done so. We want the oppor- tunity to grow.

We want the opportunity for self- sufficiency, for self-determination." They want an op- portunity to be their nation once again. They're saying this to the people who came and consumed their bench and consumed their space. They use a variety of different tactics to try and get their

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 13, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 1883 message through. In most instances they use ap- proaches that are non-violent, non-confrontational. They're saying they're prepared to share, but they're saying: "We want our rightful place in history." Hon. Speaker, I'm often reminded of the story that was told to me by a good friend of mine, a constituent of mine, especially as I entered the halls of the Legisla- ture to assume my role in 1996 as the elected MLA for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. I do know that the abo- riginal issues run deep in our history.

I look around my community, and I see the damage that has been done to the first people of this nation by the people who came and took that space on that bench. That's one story. I think it's a short story in that it captures the history of British Columbia with respect to aboriginal people and aboriginal issues. Some, when they hear this story, will perhaps think: "Well, you know, it's just sentimentality. Jenny's always sentimen- tal and emotional about these issues." Maybe it's not even — some perhaps would challenge — legal in terms of the rights aboriginal people have.

Some may even challenge the historical facts of the aboriginal people in this province. As I engage in the debate on this motion, I'd like to just walk through some of the legal issues around abo- riginal issues, because I think it is pertinent that we understand the legal rights of aboriginal people and where they stand. It brings us to the question that this referendum cannot be supported, must not proceed, and I think the legal arguments will illustrate that very clearly. Then I will have more points to make about why this referendum should not proceed. [1530] [H.

Long in the chair.] The courts have said that the governments have a duty to negotiate, to negotiate treaties in good faith. Chief Justices have made this conclusion. Working backwards…. I guess it's not one of the most recent cases anymore — the Delgamuukw case. It is one of the most prominent cases that spelled out more clearly the rights of aboriginal people. In that case the Chief Justice had ruled: "Moreover, the Crown is un- der a moral, if not a legal, duty to enter into and con- duct those negotiations in good faith.

Ultimately, it is through negotiated settlements, with good faith and g i v e a n d t a k e o n a l l s i d e s , r e i n f o r c e d b y t h e j u d g - ments of this court, that we will achieve…'the recon- ciliation of the pre-existence of aboriginal societies with the sovereignty of the Crown.' Let's face it, we're all here to stay." That is from the judgment of the Delgamuukw case.

It speaks very clearly of the rights of the aboriginal peo- ple: that the aboriginal people have a legal right and that the Crown, meaning the province, has a legal responsi- bility to negotiate treaties in good faith — and, although not legal, I would argue a moral responsibility, as the courts have recognized. The Delgamuukw case is not the only case. It's one case that really highlighted and more clearly defined the rights of aboriginal peoples in saying to the province that they have a responsibility to negoti- ate treaties with the first nations.

The constitutional position of aboriginal peoples begins with the simple fact — a very simple fact — that the aboriginal people were here first. It brings us back to that story where I say that once upon a time there was this piece of land. On this land was a bench, and on this bench lived a nation of people known as the first nations. The Supreme Court of Canada under- stood that and described aboriginal title as follows: "The fact is that when the settlers came the Indians were there, organized in societies and occupying the land as their forefathers had done for centuries.

This is what Indian title means." It is very clear. The case — this was the Calder case in 1973 — clearly laid out the constitutional position of aboriginal peoples. It's very simple to grasp, a simple historical fact: the aboriginal peoples were the first people on this land. To further the constitutional question around the ri g ht s o f ab o ri g i n al p e o p l e , w e o nl y h av e t o g o t o t he Royal Proclamation of 1763.

The proclamation states: "Whereas it is just and reasonable, and essential to our Interest, and the Security of our Colonies, that the several Nations or Tribes of Indians with whom We are connected, and who live under our Protection, should not be molested or disturbed in the Possession of such Parts of Our Dominions and Territories as, not having been ceded to or purchased by Us, are reserved to them, or any of them, as their Hunting Grounds." In other words, it simply means that aboriginal peoples are to be respected in their possession, their claim, of the land until the Crown concludes a treaty with them.

Actually, I should pause for just a moment, because I used the word "claim." The aboriginal community takes offence at that word, because it is not a land claim. They're not claiming the land; it's land that be- longed to them. They often point that out to me. They say, "We're not claiming back land; it's simply recog- nizing that the land belonged to us in the first place" — to the first people of this land, which the court has al- ready recognized. Really, rightfully, it's their right to possess that land, and it's their title.

The Supreme Court has affirmed that pre-existing right and the con- tinued right of possession. [1535] Another case, the Guerin case in 1984, said the aboriginal people were admitted to be "the rightful occupants of the soil, with a legal as well as a just claim to retain possession of it, and to use it according to their own discretion." That was established in 1984.

This case goes on to say: "Their interest in their lands is a pre-existing legal right not created by royal procla- mation by s. 18(1) of the Indian Act or by any other ex- ecutive order or legislative provision." So let's be clear: the Crown does not have the authority to legislate. The courts have now recognized that aboriginal rights rest with the people, with the simple fact that they were the first people here. The proclamation had nothing to do with it, but even then the proclamation

1884 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, MARCH 13, 2002 recognized the right of the aboriginal people to process title  to own land — and the courts reconfirmed that at a later date. The courts have concluded that, in fact, the pre- existing legal rights are much broader than some peo- ple would like to have them. Some people would like to imply that aboriginal people should only have the right to some of their traditional values being hon- o u r e d .

A s a n e x a m p l e , o n t h e r e s o u r c e s o f t h e l a n d , they could go and pick berries; they could go and hunt, perhaps, as some of their rights. The courts have defined the rights of aboriginal people to be much broader than that. It is not just ceremonial prac- tices. This is what they have to say in the Delgamuukw case. First, aboriginal title encompasses the right to exclusive use and occupation of land.

Second, aborigi- nal title encompasses the right to choose to what use this land can be put subject to the ultimate limit that those uses cannot destroy the ability of the land to sus- tain future generations of aboriginal peoples. Third, lands held pursuant to aboriginal title have an inescap- able economic component. The aboriginal community, amongst many com- munities, is one of the best communities.

It will be the first to come forward and say, "We live off this land, y e s , t o f e e d u s a n d s u s t a i n u s a s w e l i v e n o w , " b u t they also say: "We will only take from the land, the motherland, what we need today but no more, nor will we abuse the motherland so that the generations to come would not be able to benefit from the re- sources." They would say that in living off the land and the resources, they would see economic devel- opment, not so that it would destroy sustainability for future generations, but rather to preserve it for future generations  for economic gain, but not gain at all costs.

That's what the aboriginal community that I have learned from says, and those are the principles t h e y h a v e a l w a y s l i v e d b y . T h e c o u r t s h a v e d e f i n e d that very clearly for us in terms of what their rights are with respect to the land, the title and the resources that rest on that land. [1540] The question always comes up: can the province, as the Crown, rid itself of its fiduciary responsibility to the aboriginal people? The court has something to say about that, too, because treaty negotiation is the prem- ise by which government can rid itself of that fiduciary responsibility.

The principal government that leads in this process would be the federal government  Can- ada ― not necessarily the Crown but the highest level, the highest order of government. To put it another way, the Crown can only rid it- self, if you will, of the burden of responsibility of the aboriginal title through a treaty concluded by Canada. The federal government must be the lead in this, and the lands become open for disposition by the province. It is only through negotiations that you could achieve that.

The constitutional burden of aboriginal title on Crown title has also been repeatedly upheld in the Su- preme Court of Canada and again most recently, in 1997, the Delgamuukw case. The Crown title burden by aboriginal title…. That burden can only be lifted through the federal government, the government of Canada, through negotiations. The province has no power whatsoever to legislate in relation to Indians and land reserved for Indians, because this power is assigned exclusively to Canada.

As for the province, you may want to say that through this referendum process, you're going to want to get a mandate from the people. But no matter what mandate you get, irrespective of the questions, Canada does not have the authority, legally, to rid itself of the burden of the title. We do not have that responsibility. This is another reason why — and I will go on later to tell you — t h i s r e f e r e n d u m i s a w a s t e o f t i m e a n d m o n e y . I t should be money spent elsewhere, not through this process.

Keeping in mind over — goodness — a century of time in terms of the courts defining, further defining and further clarifying the rights of the aboriginal peo- ple, it is important for us to understand where the courts have come from and to understand, then, the history behind aboriginal title and the aboriginal is- sues. The relationship between the Crown and aboriginal peoples has been described by the courts, as I men- tioned earlier, as a fiduciary responsibility, a fiduciary relationship.

This means the government is bound to treat aboriginal peoples and their land differently from other Canadians, because they have a fiduciary respon- sibility. They're bound to do that. The Crown must safeguard and protect the abo- riginal right of occupation and ensure a fair process. If and when aboriginal peoples choose to give up land rights to the Crown, what is the role of the province? The role of the province is to protect that land, to safe- guard it and to ensure there is a fair process. That is the role of the province.

When and if the aboriginal people choose to give up that land, that right to the C r o w n , t h e n t h a t l a n d c o u l d b e s h a r e d . T h a t i s t h e legal definition of when the province could intercede in terms of the rights of aboriginal title. This has been established through the courts over a number of years. Not only in the courts has that been estab- lished, it plainly says and has been interpreted for us in the courts that the constitution under

section 35(1) spells out the rights of the aboriginal peoples of Can- ada. [1545]

Section 35(1) clearly states: "The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed." The constitution has recognized that, and the definition of that

section has been defined by the courts over the years with a number of different cases. The Supreme Court, the highest court in Canada, has concluded that aboriginal title is indeed incorporated under our Charter,

section

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 13, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 1885 35(1), and that they enjoy constitutional status and pro- tection. The aboriginal community has always maintained that. Over the years many people didn't listen. I recall in the last session with this government, when Dr. Joe Gosnell stood at the bar of this chamber and told the story about how he and his father before him and his father before him had travelled all the way to the Legis- lature seeking justice in this House, asking to be heard, and how they were barred from that process. They were sent back.

They were not allowed to come into the Legislature. They were not allowed to speak to the members of this House. Joe Gosnell came when the Nisga'a was finally ratified by the three levels of government — with the p r o v i n c i a l g o v e r n m e n t f i r s t . H e c a m e a n d t o l d h i s story. He said he had black, flowing hair and was at a young age when he pursued this goal of gaining the rights for aboriginal people and achieving through that process a modern-day treaty. He stood before us at that time, silver-haired and perhaps in the autumn of his life. It was very moving.

I remember members in this House sat and listened. Many of us had tears in our e y e s . I k n o w m y c o l l e a g u e h e r e f r o m V a n c o u v e r - Hastings, myself, the then Deputy Premier and then Premier — we all had tears in our eyes, even Liberal opposition members. I remember the Minister of State for Women's Equality. I remember looking over at her, and she had tears in her eyes. It meant something — the modern-day treaty. That process was achieved outside of the Treaty Commis- sion. Nonetheless, it was a treaty-making process that achieved the goals of what all people wanted.

You have to ask if the referendum would help that process. Would it derail that process, or would it hin- der that process? I would have to argue that the refer- endum would indeed hinder the process instead. I digressed from my legal arguments, and I should get back to that. The legal arguments are important to lay the groundwork of what we're talking about. I fo- cused around the land issue and the title issue. I fo- cused around the fiduciary responsibility and the re- source question. I want to touch on the resource ques- tion a little bit more, because the referendum actually touches on that as well.

The courts have spelled out very clearly for the province and for others what the province must take f o r t h e i n f r i n g e m e n t t o b e l a w f u l . T h a t i s t o s a y , a b o - riginal peoples must be given a priority in decisions affecting natural resources. Over the course of the years it became more clear around what that priority must include in the decisions affecting natural re- sources.

The court case, again in Delgamuukw, stated that what is required is that the government demonstrate both the process by which it allocated the resources and the actual allocation of the resource which results from the process reflect the prior interest of the holders of the aboriginal title in the land. That is to say, abo- riginal people must be given a priority in decisions affecting natural resources. That is the Delgamuukw decision. [1550] It goes on to say that aboriginal peoples must also be properly consulted. How did they identify that in the courts?

They have said: "There is always a duty of consultation." The nature and the scope of the duty of consultation will vary with the circumstances. Consul- tation must be in good faith and with the intention of substantially addressing the concerns of the aboriginal peoples whose lands are at issue. It is not just willy- nilly consultation. It is not just consultation by a mo- tion, but rather good-faith consultation. That consulta- tion must be reflected in the decision of the govern- ment.

The Delgamuukw case goes on further to define that not only must you consult, not only do aboriginal peoples have a priority in the decisions, but that if re- sources or lands are taken away from them, there must be compensation for this infringement — the infringe- ment of their interests in the land, whether it be the land or the resources associated with it. The courts have clearly defined that.

In the Del- gamuukw case: "In keeping with the duty…and good faith on the Crown, fair compensation will ordinarily be required when aboriginal title is infringed." That was spelled out in the Delgamuukw case very clearly. We've recognized that aboriginal people are the first people of this land through a variety of court cases and through constitutional areas.

We have clearly iden- tified that in that definition, aboriginal peoples have the rights to their resources; that the resources and the land are to be defined in a broad scope, not only in limited ceremonial ways; that there is a responsibility of the Crown to engage in consultation; that aboriginal people must be a priority in that process; and finally, when there is infringement on the rights of aboriginal people, that they must be compensated. I know that over the years various governments…. Deputy Speaker: Member, I have to remind you of the time, please. J. Kwan: I'm the designated speaker, hon. Chair.

Deputy Speaker: Proceed, member. J. Kwan: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Throughout the years people have tried to chal- lenge those rights of aboriginal people. They've tried to put forward extinguishment arguments. They were advanced in 1986, 1997 and throughout in trying to take away the rights of aboriginal people. However, the courts have rejected that. They have rejected that argument, and they said: "No.

Aboriginal peoples do have rights." It all goes back to the very first premise, the premise that on this land there was this bench, and on this bench sat the first people of this land, and they have the right to the title of this land. It's all premised back to that one simple principle.

1886 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, MARCH 13, 2002 The courts have defined very clearly what aborigi- nal rights are. Aboriginal nations are under the protec- tion of the Crown. This means that British Columbia cannot treat aboriginal peoples as if their rights are at the province's pleasure. It means that aboriginal na- tions are not to be molested or disturbed in the territo- ries that they occupied, which are reserved for them. It means that British Columbia cannot simply ignore the rights of aboriginal peoples or choose what rights, if any, they'll seek a mandate to respect.

It means that treaty negotiations and the rights of occupation must be engaged and must be respected. The Crown cannot unburden itself of this responsi- bility; the province cannot. The only level of govern- ment that could is the federal government, the gov- ernment of Canada.

For British Columbia, until treaties are made, the province does not have full power to dispose of the resources of the province and third- party interests derived from the Crown, because the province has that responsibility to maintain its land — to be a caretaker of the land, if you will. [1555] What is the real question, then, before us given that the constitution, the Charter and the courts have de- fined the rights of aboriginal people? The real question for us is around treaty negotiations: how to implement those rights and the relationship the courts have taken great pains to articulate.

They have already told British Columbia what your mandate needs to be. It's already all spelled out. All we have to do is look back in history and un- derstand that history, document that history, learn from that history and take that history as our mandate to go out and negotiate. We don't need to spend $9 million asking referendum questions around that. The courts have already defined it for us. If you say you don't like it…. It's a legal responsibility. We cannot not like it. Mind you, I like it.

Even if you didn't like it, you cannot not like it, because it is a legal responsibility that has already been defined in the courts. Don't we j u s t n e e d t o g o t h e r e , l e a r n f r o m t h a t w i s d o m a n d knowledge, and take that as the mandate of British Columbia in the treaty-making process? Yes, treaty-making is a complex question. It is a complex question to determine how Charter rights and aboriginal rights interact. It is a complex question on negotiations and to conclude a treaty in good faith. The fact of the matter is that the province cannot af- ford not to do that.

The province cannot afford not to do that. When I mentioned the cases around legal rights of aboriginal people, I talked about the lands and re- sources. In the questions from the Attorney General in this motion that is to go out on a referendum, it actu- ally asks the question. One of the questions is: hunting, fishing and recreational opportunities on Crown land should be ensured for all British Columbians. The other issue relating to resources and land is that parks and protected areas should be maintained for the use and benefit of all British Columbians.

Terms and conditions of leases and licences should be respected; fair com- pensation for unavoidable disruption of commercial interests should be ensured. Provincewide standards of resource management and environmental protection should continue to apply. These are the key questions that deal with the resource and land question in this referendum. I would argue that on all of these ques- tions, the answers and the mandate given to British Columbia have already been defined for us through the history of the courts.

Moreover, when I began my story about aborigi- nal peoples where people came and took over their bench, the aboriginal people never said — even now, even today, even with the abuse that they had en- dured…. Even now they're not saying: "I want the whole bench back." Never have I heard any aboriginal leader say that. I have never heard that in the course o f m y w o r k , i n t h e c o u r s e o f m y d e a l i n g s w i t h t h e c o m m u n i t y . T h e y h a v e a l w a y s s a i d t h a t t h e y ' r e p r e - pared to share those resources in a fair and just way. They've always said that.

All they want is for their place in history to be recognized and to be self- sustainable, self-determining and self-governing — all of those things that they enjoyed before people came and took over their bench. That, too, was recognized in the court. The aborigi- nal people, to illustrate their hearts, really, on this is- sue, in the courts…. Here's what, in the Delgamuukw case, the aboriginal people did. [1600] The aboriginal people have been sensitive to en- sure that the neighbours who hold land in fee simple are not affected in the efforts to have the Crown rec- ognize and respect their rights.

In the Delgamuukw case, here's what they've done. The aboriginal peoples in that litigation exempted fee simple interests from the relief sought in that case. They said, even in a court case, that they would not seek their rights. They're respecting the rights and exempted fee simple interests in their court case. By that action, they dem- onstrated to all people of all nations that irrespective of the abuse they have experienced and irrespective of their place in history that ought to have been recog- nized…. They are saying they don't want to take eve- rything back.

They are saying that they will respect those rights of people here, and they will share their resources with people. We ourselves must recognize that there may well be instances whereby a fair settlement would perhaps involve private lands, because they may well have tra- ditional value to the aboriginal people, whether it be for ceremonial or sacred recognition purposes. They could be burial grounds that have significant meaning to the aboriginal people. We ourselves ought to take on some responsibility and, wherever possible, say: "Absolutely.

We would not try to impact private lands and private land own- ers, but there may be cases where we have to do that." When those cases arise…. And, yes, you go through a negotiation process to engage in the give-and-take ex- ercise to determine whether or not to proceed and, if

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 13, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 1887 so, how much, where and all of those questions that need to be answered through negotiations. I want to highlight this because I want to say very clearly that the aboriginal people never said: "Get off my land. We're not prepared to share anything with you." When you ask these questions in the referendum about whether hunting and fishing rights and recrea- tional opportunities on Crown land should be ensured for all British Columbians, the aboriginal people them- selves have already demonstrated that they're pre- pared to share.

They've already demonstrated that. One would have thought too — and I think that British Columbians on the whole are individuals who value themselves as being compassionate and fair- minded…. I, too, would imagine that the non- aboriginal people would be prepared to say: "Yes, of course we're prepared to share. Of course we are." Yet these questions are asked on here as if maybe they won't or implying that the aboriginal people want more, when in fact history has demonstrated that they never have. What is the purpose of this referendum other than to not get an answer?

Even if you did get an answer, it doesn't really mean a whole lot from the point of view that the mandate for British Columbia on the question around negotiations has already been clearly set out in the courts. On all of the resource and land use questions, even on the question around management in environmental protection, the aboriginal people are the

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	H0313pm-05
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	H0313pm 05
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	a2b190bd5b1401a6331c1e59a74219dd7ca59d91

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).