1998 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 36th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1998

Afternoon

Volume 12, Number 23

[ Page 10957 ]

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. I. Waddell: Visiting the House today are three people who have greatly contributed to the arts in Canada and in British Columbia. M. Jean-Louis Roux was appointed chair of the Canada Council for the Arts in May of 1998. M. Roux established the Théâtre d'essai in Quebec, which became the Théâtre du Nouveau Monde, serving as its secretary-general and artistic director. He also served as director-general of the National Theatre School of Canada.

Secondly, I see my old friend, Dr. Shirley Thomson, who is the director of the Canada Council for the Arts. She has also served as director of the National Gallery of Canada, secretary-general of the Canadian Commission for UNESCO and the director of the McCord Museum in Montreal.

Finally, a man we can't miss up there is Max Wyman, the B.C. representative on the Canada Council for the Arts. He's a Vancouver writer and critic whose works include histories of the Royal Winnipeg Ballet and Dance Canada, a biography of Evelyn Hart and numerous magazine articles and scripts for radio, television and film. In 1986 he was named Man of the Year by the Vancouver Community Arts Council. Would the House please make our guests welcome.

R. Coleman: In the gallery today is His Worship John Scholtens, the mayor of the township of Langley, and his wife Fanny. John has served our community in public life for close to 20 years on various boards and on council as mayor for the last five years. Fanny and John are great contributors to the Fort Langley-Aldergrove riding and to the community of Langley, where they live. As a couple and as a family, they're great examples to us all. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. D. Miller: I'd ask the House to give a welcome to Mr. Frank Collison, from the village of Masset in the Queen Charlotte Islands -- or Haida Gwaii. Frank and I go back a long way. Over many, many years he's been one of the prominent leaders of the Haida community in Haida Gwaii.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: We have in the gallery today a former classmate of mine and a good friend, Gian Sihota, who hails from the ancestral village of the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin. Who knows? He may even be related to him. Mr. Sihota is a good New Democrat, a great friend and a great community activist. Would the House please welcome him.

B. Penner: Visiting us today from Chilliwack is the mayor of Chilliwack, John Les, and a councillor of the district of Chilliwack, Clint Hames. Would the House please make them welcome.

G. Janssen: Joining us today from the Musqueam nation are Nolan Charles and Jim Kew. I ask the House to make them welcome.

Hon. A. Petter: In the gallery today, from my constituency of Saanich South, are 16 grade 11 students from Trinity Christian School, along with their teacher, Mr. Snell, as well as accompanying parents, Mrs. Brenda Stuart and Mrs. Donna Cook. I would ask the House to please join me in making them very, very welcome.

S. Orcherton: Joining us in the gallery today is my constituency assistant, Mr. Jim Herring. Jim works very, very hard on behalf of the people in my constituency, helping them through difficulties. I know that he often wonders what it is that I do when I am here. I hope he enjoys listening to the banter and the debate of question period. Hopefully, he can make some sense of the questions by the members opposite.

T. Stevenson: Also in the gallery is my constituency assistant, Rick Barnes, who has come over for the day for some meetings with me. I would ask the House to make him welcome.

G. Campbell: I'd like to welcome to the gallery today the mayor of Castlegar, Mike O'Connor, and I hope everyone will make him welcome.

Oral Questions

EFFECT OF PROVINCIAL TAXES

ON B.C. WORKERS

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, today the B.C. Business Summit issued its prescription for economic renewal for the province of British Columbia. It says that "the single biggest obstacle to new private sector investment and job creation in B.C. is high taxes."

Think of this, hon. Speaker. If you're a worker in White Rock earning the average take-home pay for British Columbians, you're receiving $16,000 less than if you work and get average pay just a stone's throw away in Blaine. My question is to the Minister of Employment and Investment. With that kind of difference in paycheques, how do you expect to keep B.C.'s workers and B.C.'s young people here at home in British Columbia?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The KPMG report that was out not too long ago showed that British Columbia is competitive with all the major jurisdictions that we compete with. My question to the Leader of the Opposition is: is he saying that he supports the prescription of the B.C. Business Council, which is tax breaks for the wealthiest 4 percent in this province and nothing for the middle class and the working class of this province? That's the prescription that he's advocating, hon. Speaker.

[2:15]

The Speaker: I recognize the Leader of the Official Opposition, first supplementary.

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, this is why this province is the only province in Canada that's in a recession. The fact of the matter is that if this minister and this government would listen to the facts and listen to the workers of British Columbia, they would know this: since 1992 the average take-home pay for B.C. workers is down 6 percent -- 6 percent lower. And there is only one reason it is down 6 percent. It's because this government brought in over $1.5 billion in taxes that B.C. taxpayers have got to pay year in and year out.

[ Page 10958 ]

My question to the Minister of Employment and Investment is: when will this government get the message from the job creators of B.C. and the workers of B.C., and provide a dramatic income tax reduction for B.C.'s workers?

Hon. M. Farnworth: B.C. workers pay the second-lowest taxes of any jurisdiction in this country. That member says it's not true, because the workers he represents are those earning over $100,000. What they're arguing for is tax breaks for the wealthiest 4 percent in this province. They never want to acknowledge that people in this province, ordinary British Columbians, pay the second-lowest taxes of any province in this nation.

The Speaker: Leader of the Official Opposition, second supplementary.

G. Campbell: You know, hon. Speaker, the problem with this minister is that he has never created a job in his life. He knows how to destroy jobs for the workers of British Columbia, but he doesn't know how to create them. The fact is that the average B.C. worker's take-home pay has gone down 6 percent. Investment is fleeing the province. When will the Minister of Employment and this government bring in a dramatic personal income tax reduction for the workers of British Columbia? It's time to give our workers some hope, hon. Speaker. And the question to the minister is: will you act now so people can take better care of their families across this province?

Hon. M. Farnworth: There's a tax break coming in on January 1 of this year, which is for workers of this province, hon. Speaker. There have been taxes cut last year and the year before that. There have been small business tax cuts last year -- and this coming year. Workers in this province, the people we represent, pay the second-lowest taxes of any jurisdiction in the country. My question to the hon. Leader of the Opposition is: how many jobs did he create when he was a developer? Not too many, judging by his record. What he is promoting is a tax cut for the top 4 percent in this province.

That's where their agenda is; it's an early Christmas gift for the wealthy and lumps of coal for everybody else.

G. Farrell-Collins: It's the Premier of this province who's the grinch who's stolen Christmas from families right across British Columbia. If they haven't lost their jobs in the forest sector and already moved to Alberta, they're making plans to move to Alberta, hon. Speaker. That's the history of this government.

Darcy Rezac of the board of trade said this morning that the only two places in North America that are in recession are British Columbia and Chiapas, Mexico.

Interjections.

G. Farrell-Collins: Now, I know the sympathy those members have for Chiapas, down in Mexico. But what they can't deny is the recession that's hitting British Columbians every single day. Will the Minister of Employment and Investment talk to his Finance minister and tell her what British Columbians want -- all British Columbians, whether they're working for $5 a year or $50,000 a year -- and that is a significant income tax cut, not the beer-and-pizza money they've been offered?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Hon. Speaker, 85,000 jobs have been created so far this year in this province -- the best rate in Canada. This opposition doesn't want to recognize that. This opposition only wants to work for the top 4 percent in this province. They don't care about the rest of the people in this province. They don't want to acknowledge that regular, ordinary working British Columbians already pay the second-lowest taxes of any jurisdiction in this country. They don't want to recognize that there's a tax cut coming, which will be in place on January 1. They don't want to recognize that taxes have been cut for small business in this province. They don't want to recognize any of that.

The Speaker: Opposition House Leader, first supplementary.

G. Farrell-Collins: I love it when ministers of this government stand up and tell British Columbians how great things are out there -- because British Columbians know differently. If the Minister of Employment and Investment would lean over and talk to the member from Prince George, he will know how the people in Prince George are hurting. All the statistics, all the rhetoric from the government don't add up to a hill of beans for the people that are leaving British Columbia.

My question is to the Minister of Employment and Investment. If everything is so good in British Columbia, if everything is so great for working families in British Columbia, why are tens of thousands of them leaving British Columbia for Alberta this year?

Hon. M. Farnworth: So far, 85,000 jobs have been created this year in this province -- in high-tech, in tourism, in film and television, right across the province. It's the best rate of job creation in the country. Unemployment has gone from 9.9 percent at the beginning of the year down to less than 8 percent -- the lowest rate since 1990.

All this opposition wants to do . . . . They do not wish to let British Columbians know that there are exciting things happening in parts of the economy in this province. All they want to focus on is doom and gloom. All they want to do is focus on negativity. We have a plan, and it's working. Unemployment is down. Unemployment in this province is down -- 85,000 new jobs created, and the second-lowest taxes of any province in this nation.

C. Clark: Just last week I was reading about a bright spot in the local economy. There is one business in Nanaimo that over the last two years has grown by 200 percent. But guess what: they're in the moving business. In the last year alone, Scotty Taylor and Michael Oleksiuc have moved 270 families out of just the Nanaimo area, and guess what: most of them have gone straight to Alberta.

Can the minister tell us this? If his government is doing such a good job of encouraging business in British Columbia, then why is the fastest-growing business in our province the moving-van business?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. A question has been asked. It's time to hear the answer.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The only moving that's going on is watching that member and Liberals in her caucus move over to the Reform position.

[ Page 10959 ]

Hon. Speaker, 85,000 jobs . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order! Come to order, members.

Hon. M. Farnworth: A net increase of 85,000 jobs -- the best job creation record of any province in the nation. That speaks for itself. An unemployment rate that is two points lower than at the beginning of the year . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. M. Farnworth: That speaks for itself. A denial by this opposition to even recognize that we now have a diversified economy that is booming in the area of tourism, that is booming in film and television, that is booming in high-tech -- in part because of policies of this government, designed through our plan to ensure that that happens . . . .

The Speaker: Okay, wind up.

Hon. M. Farnworth: And a refusal to recognize that British Columbia families pay the second-lowest taxes of any province in the nation . . . .

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

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

C. Clark: There is a lot of moving going on in British Columbia. People are leaving this province, and they are moving to places where they can earn a buck, where their hard work translates into some money in their pockets. The business summit has told us that the largest single obstacle to job creation in British Columbia is the NDP's high taxes. But the response from the NDP to the report -- which came from the Education minister, of all people -- was simply to dismiss it.

Can the Employment minister tell us how he expects us to keep our skilled workers and our entrepreneurs in British Columbia when his NDP government has given us the highest tax rates in North America?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members! Members will come to order. Come to order, members. I recognize . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: A question has been asked; the answer is imminent.

An Hon. Member: Everybody's after your job.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Well, you ain't ever going to get over here to have it, hon. member.

The Speaker: Minister, minister.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Hon. Speaker, 85,000 new jobs created in the province; unemployment down 2 percent -- I find it amazing that the opposition doesn't want to acknowledge that. I find it amazing that they don't want to recognize that this province has the best job creation record of any province in the country. They don't want to recognize that companies such as Ericsson Communications moved their offices out of Alberta and here to British Columbia because they see British Columbia as the hub of high-tech over the next decade.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. M. Farnworth: There's a lot going on.

LOCATION OF B.C. FERRIES TERMINAL

M. Coell: I represent a riding that is heavily dependent on the B.C. ferry system. So does the member for North Coast. Yesterday the minister responsible for ferries, the member for North Coast, threatened the people of Nanaimo with the loss of the Departure Bay ferry terminal. He threatened them because they dared to question NDP policy.

I'm going to give the minister one chance. Will he stand up in this House today and apologize to the people of Nanaimo for bullying them and threatening them?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order.

Hon. D. Miller: All members know that I don't have it within me to threaten people.

But I certainly want to acknowledge that I was a bit heated yesterday, and I want to state for the record that we do not want to relocate the terminal. I was rather surprised to read a copy of the Nanaimo paper this morning and to learn that an alderman by the name of Blake McGuffie thinks it's a wonderful idea. He says that the city council will strongly support such a move, and they don't want the terminal in Nanaimo. So I am a bit perplexed.

Interjections.

The Speaker: That ends question period. Hon. members, come to order.

[2:30]

Tabling Documents

The Speaker: I have the honour to table the auditor general's "Report on Government Financial Accountability for the 1997-98 Fiscal Year:

Part 1, Report on the 1997-98 Public Accounts, Province of British Columbia."

Orders of the Day

Hon. D. Lovick: I call second reading of Bill 51.

NIS G A'A FINAL AGREEMENT ACT

(second reading continued)

S. Orcherton: Hon. Speaker, let me say that it's a great pleasure and really quite an honour and privilege to be able to rise and speak to this bill, the Nisga'a treaty, and to be here on behalf of my constituents and my constituency, in which I've resided pretty well all of my life.

[ Page 10960 ]

I've had a great deal of discussion with people in my community around the issue of the Nisga'a treaty-making and the Nisga'a treaty-making process, and overwhelmingly people in my community are saying that it's about time. I've heard others in the community and indeed others in this House arguing about the process that has occurred around this treaty-making initiative and where we are today in terms of debating the Nisga'a treaty in this Legislative Assembly. They've argued about process. Some will know me in this House as one who recognizes the value of process but also recognizes the need to get to the task that's required on these kinds of issues.

You know, you talk about process in terms of this Nisga'a agreement. We've had 111 years of process. When the Nisga'a people first came down to this Legislative Assembly 111 years ago, they were asking for process. They were asking for a mechanism that would allow them to be able to achieve some justice and some equity and some dignity for their people. They were asking for a process. We've put those people through a whole series of different levels and different kinds of processes.

So when I hear people talking about process, I really have to question where we're at. It is my view that it's time to get on with the task at hand, the task that the Nisga'a people have been arguing about and trying to achieve resolution on for the last 111 years. My sense, in talking to people in the community, is that they want us to move forward as a legislative body and deal with this issue, with the Nisga'a treaty-making process, and in fact move on across British Columbia to deal with other aboriginal people around the issues of finally resolving land questions, aboriginal rights and aboriginal treaties.

It's a pleasure for me today, really, to be here and speak in favour of this bill. I must say, though, to all the members of the House -- and I've said it to people in my community, as well -- that when I first became involved in the discussions and the debates around the Nisga'a agreement, the Nisga'a agreement-in-principle and subsequently the bill that we're debating, I had concerns.

Firstly, I had concerns about the legal arguments about why we were entering into these kinds of discussions, why we had been in the process for some time, what the legal context of those arguments was and what they were all about. I had concerns, because some people in the community and some in this House were arguing -- and some in this House continue to argue -- the issue of a referendum. I had concerns about that question and wasn't feeling comfortable about that issue. I had concerns, as well, about the agreement and how it portrayed self-government.

I was wondering how that would work in terms of the Nisga'a people and what the relationships would be with the province of British Columbia, with the federal government and with other jurisdictions -- regional districts and the like. I had concerns around issues of taxation as well.

I'm pleased to say that I've had discussions with a number of people in the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, in the legal community and in different levels of bureaucracy in government, seeking out answers to those questions, which I believe are very important ones. Even today and in the last few days and, I predict, in the next few as well, we'll still be hearing people talk about those questions, people who haven't realized or recognized or come to the same conclusion that I have: that those questions are addressed in the treaty and are addressed in a substantive fashion.

I want to take a few minutes to touch on those points -- on the legal argument, the referendum issue, self-government, the justice system and taxation, because I think they're important points. They were important for me a number of months ago, important enough for me to go out and ask questions, so that I could get clarification and a sense of surety about where this agreement was leading -- in terms of the Nisga'a agreement -- and to make sure that I was representing the people in my constituency to the best of my ability by indeed asking those questions.

Let me say, firstly, on the legal arguments for treaty-making themselves, that there's a legal obligation to negotiate treaties, and that obligation is indeed compelling. In a nutshell, it comes down to the fact that aboriginal people were here first and had their lands taken away, and that is illegal under our system of law. It's true that all of these things occurred more than 100 years ago. But, you know, history has not erased that wrong. We have to deal with it. Otherwise, the courts are going to settle the issue for us, and they may do it at a much higher cost.

Furthermore, there was no obligation to build in protections for non-aboriginal people in that previous system -- the obligations that we've dealt with and addressed in the Nisga'a treaty.

The Supreme Court of Canada was clear about the need to negotiate when it handed down its landmark ruling on Delgamuukw in December of 1997. It rejected the old contention that aboriginal title was extinguished when B.C. joined Confederation. The High Court signalled that it is prepared to rule that aboriginal people have the right to the exclusive use and occupation of their traditional lands, as long as they can prove that they occupied the lands at the time when Britain asserted its sovereignty. In other words, if first nations want to take their cases to court, judges are prepared to back them up.

But I believe, as other members in this House do, that treaty negotiation is a better option than the courts. Court cases by definition are adversarial. Judges decide who's right, and they decide who's wrong. Someone is always the loser in that system. It is far better, I think, to sit down and negotiate in good faith, so all parties can walk away as genuine winners. Furthermore, court cases typically decide one issue at a time, so it would take literally thousands of cases to reach the kind of comprehensive settlement that is before us today in this House.

Imagine the costs not just in legal fees but in lost investment and jobs as B.C.'s land base continues to be under a cloud of economic uncertainty. And think of the costs in terms of the divisions in our society. They are divisions which would only deepen with each successive court case.

In my view, that, hon. Speaker, is the legal argument for negotiating a land claim settlement. I think it's important for members in this House to understand where we're coming from in terms of this bill and the legal argument. It was a question for me when I was considering this bill and gathering information on it on behalf of my constituents, and I hope that I've clarified my position regarding the legal argument issue.

Moving on, the next point is of concern to me and to people in my constituency, and it's been a concern raised by some members in this House in the context of the debate, the discussion, on Bill 51 -- that is, the issue around a referendum. Everyone in this House knows that the B.C. Liberal Party has launched a lawsuit that claims that the provisions of the treaty establish a new branch of government that's not provided for in the constitution.

They say -- their argument goes along this line -- that if a new form of government is to be added, the constitution must be amended, thus triggering British Columbia's referendum law. I think, upon review, that the problem with this argument is that our constitutional laws were never

[ Page 10961 ]

meant to be an exhaustive description of every organ of the Canadian system of government. They were never meant to do that.

By way of a startling example -- and I see I've caught the attention of some of the members opposite -- the constitution is utterly silent on the office of the Prime Minister. Does that mean that we have to rush into a referendum mode to deal with the office of the Prime Minister? I don't think so. Municipal governments are not mentioned either. Does that mean that we suddenly have to have referendums in British Columbia to deal with municipal governments?

Nor is the Department of Indian Affairs, and all members of the House know that that has had a very vibrant and a very expensive existence since the last century, with its minister using powers vested in him by the Indian Act to reign over the 3 percent or so of Canadians who are aboriginal. The minister and the act govern every feature of what Supreme Court Chief Justice Antonio Lamer characterized in the Delgamuukw decision as "Indian-ness," or the "core of Indian-ness."

To listen to some of the commentary, you'd think that the Nisga'a were setting up their own country. But I think that what's happening here is that the Nisga'a are essentially going to gain self-governing rights in the treaty as an assumption, because of their jurisdiction over their lands.

What they give us in return on that issue -- and members should listen, I think -- is the acceptance of the primacy of the constitution, the acceptance of our appellate courts of law, the acceptance of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms over every law or policy that they make and the abandonment of any future claims on these questions. In any case, for any non-Nisga'as affected by the decision of their governing institutions, the treaty provides for them to be given voting and membership rights in those institutions affecting them.

While there are those who talk about referendums on these questions, I think that those issues will be dealt with in the fullness of time. I think they'll be dealt with in a proper and appropriate fashion. If I may say so, arguing for a referendum on this question is really, in my mind, like taking a collective agreement -- let's say the collective agreement with the B.C. Government and Service Employees Union -- and saying that every individual in British Columbia has to vote on acceptance or rejection of that agreement. In my view, that is just a haywire way to move on those kinds of things, and it's equally haywire to argue for a referendum on these kinds of questions.

I want to move on now to the issue of self-government -- what that means, and some of the concerns that I had. Hopefully, by making my viewpoints known, it will give some sense of surety and clarity to some of the members who still have these questions in their minds. It's my view that the Nisga'a treaty strikes a fair and workable balance between existing federal and provincial laws and the modern-day reality of aboriginal self-government. For the most part, Nisga'a government powers are similar to municipal powers.

The only exceptions that I could find are in areas integral to the Nisga'a culture, internal to their community or necessary to manage their own lands and resources. But these are essential because the treaty's central purpose is to support the Nisga'a people, so they can manage their own affairs, so they can rebuild their communities and become self-reliant -- goals that I have even heard the members opposite support.

Before I go on, I want to take a moment to address an issue underlying much of the criticism we've heard about the Nisga'a treaty. They don't always come right out and say it, but critics would have you believe that any powers given to the Nisga'a somehow take away power from non-Nisga'a citizens. That's what they want you to believe: that it takes away power from non-Nisga'a citizens. For the record, I just want to say that that's wrong; it is not true. Even worse, those kinds of statements, in my view, are irresponsible and tantamount to scaremongering.

[2:45]

Nisga'a government powers can only be exercised consistent with the constitution, the Charter of Rights, and federal and provincial laws. That is very clear. They don't affect the balance of power between senior levels of government, nor do they in any way reduce or infringe upon federal or provincial powers. The members opposite like to make reference to the fact that in a number of limited cases, Nisga'a law will take precedence over federal or provincial laws. That's true, but as with many facts, it's meaningless until it's placed in context.

That's what I'd like to do for the next few minutes. I want to discuss those areas where Nisga'a laws are paramount and tell you why negotiators agreed to make them so and tell you why I feel comfortable with that occurring.

The first area involves matters internal to the Nisga'a community and integral to Nisga'a culture. Under the treaty, the Nisga'a have the authority to manage, administer and operate their own government, their public institutions and their villages. What could possibly be more internal to their community? It is absolutely internal to their community. If Nisga'a laws do not have paramountcy in these areas, B.C. or Canada could unilaterally devolve Nisga'a institutions or Nisga'a villages. What possible purpose would that serve?

It would be the equivalent of this assembly deciding on its own volition that the city of Victoria should cease to exist -- or maybe we should just call it something else. I can't honestly imagine why anyone would want the right to overrule the Nisga'a in this particular area. It doesn't make sense.

Citizenship, language, education and culture get similar treatment under the treaty. Let me say that we don't have too far to look to see what happens when federal or provincial laws are paramount in these areas. What we all know about residential schools . . . . I heard the member for Alberni talking yesterday, I think it was, about his experience with his community and residential schools, and it was very moving. What occurred there was very, very shameful.

We all know about the residential schools, where the Nisga'a children were beaten or intimidated and chained if they dared to speak their own language or practise their own culture. We all know about that. It wasn't long ago that federal law banned the potlatch, the central spiritual and social institution of Nisga'a culture. For many years Nisga'a people couldn't even dance without permission from federal bureaucrats.

I have to ask the members opposite: is that the kind of power they want? Is that the control that's required in an aboriginal treaty of this nature? Is that the thing that's going to provide resolution to the Nisga'a issue and provide comfort to people who've gone through those kinds of situations? I don't think so. Is that what they're getting at when they say it's wrong for Nisga'a laws to be paramount in any area? Why do they insist that the federal and provincial laws must take precedence in every single area? Why do they want the right to suppress Nisga'a culture or for that matter, to dictate how

[ Page 10962 ]

Nisga'a people should raise their children? Why shouldn't the Nisga'a have a final say in matters such as child protection and adoption -- especially when, under these treaties, these powers come with strict conditions?

Hon. Speaker, for thousands of years before the arrival of European settlers, the Nisga'a people lived in what we now call the Nass Valley. No one disputes their age-old ties to the land, but many British Columbians have only a vague understanding of how the Nisga'a governed themselves. Until recently, a few months ago, I was one of those British Columbians as well; I didn't understand how the Nisga'a had governed themselves.

Let me share with you some of the things I have learned on this matter. The Nisga'a followed a strict set of ancient laws called ayuuk Nisga'a. These laws covered the same fundamental issues addressed by societies worldwide, including civil order, property ownership and social issues such as the distribution of wealth. Just as their lands were never sold or signed away in treaties, their system of government was never surrendered. Just as we've had a legal and moral duty to reconcile aboriginal rights to land with today's modern realities, so too must we reconcile existing federal and provincial laws with the modern reality of aboriginal self-government.

That's what this treaty is about; that's what this treaty does. It strikes a fair and workable balance. It gives the Nisga'a the authority to manage their own affairs within the framework -- and listen, members -- of the constitution, the Charter of Rights and existing federal and provincial laws. The vast majority of the Nisga'as' powers will pertain to local matters and will affect only Nisga'a citizens. In other words, the Nisga'a will have many of the same powers that municipalities have, or have had, in various parts of Canada. The only exceptions are in the areas internal to their community, integral to their culture or necessary to manage their own lands and resources.

Before I go on, I want to stress that the Nisga'a government is appropriate to their circumstance. The powers it has under the treaty are reasonable and necessary for governing a remote, self-contained community. These provisions are not necessarily transferable to other first nations in treaty negotiations, especially those in urban areas. Every community is unique, and every treaty will be different, reflecting and respecting local needs and realities. In the case of the Nisga'a treaty, local needs demand powers beyond those available under the Municipal Act for a number of very logical reasons.

First, unlike municipalities, the Nisga'a will own the land they govern. In order to make use of that land and become more self-reliant, they must have jurisdiction over land-based resources, something that cannot be achieved under the Municipal Act.

Second, the Nisga'a will have the right to manage their own affairs, including making laws and setting standards in areas directly affecting their culture, like adoption, marriage, language and education. Nisga'a law will have to meet standards comparable to those in provincial and federal legislation. At the same time, some of their laws are paramount to help ensure that they have the flexibility to organize and deliver services in a way that meets the needs of their community. Nisga'a government powers will in no way diminish federal or provincial powers.

The constitution, the Charter of Rights, criminal law and other laws of B.C. and Canada will continue to apply to the Nisga'a. As I mentioned earlier, where new laws they pass set important standards, they will have to meet or beat those in existing federal or provincial laws. The Nisga'a government will have no exclusive power.

I'd like to take a moment now just to address some of the concerns I've heard that the treaty creates a new, race-based government. The truth is that the Nisga'a treaty does exactly the opposite; it ends race-based government. It ends it by abolishing the Indian Act on Nisga'a lands. For generations, the act has set aboriginal people apart from the rest of British Columbia and Canada. It set them apart physically on Indian reserves, the same reserves in Canada that the South African government officials -- and listen, members -- studied when they were setting up the famous apartheid system.

The Indian Act and other federal and provincial laws have also set aboriginal people apart socially, economically and legally, and they deprived them of even their fundamental right to vote until the 1960s.

At the same time, we talk about status Indians. Under the current system, status Indians are exempt from most taxes in many B.C. laws, including those that govern resource management and environmental protection. Furthermore, the Indian Act provides no significant rights for non-aboriginal people who live on reserves. Those issues and those situations will be corrected, because this treaty ensures that these non-Nisga'a residents will be consulted about any Nisga'a government decisions that affect them.

They'll also have the right to participate fully in any Nisga'a government institution that affects them, such as school or hospital boards. If they disagree with Nisga'a government decisions that affect them, they can appeal, using a review process that's built right into the treaty. If necessary -- and the members opposite should listen here -- that process can go all the way to the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

Furthermore, the province can use the treaty's dispute resolution process to intervene on behalf of non-Nisga'a people if it feels that their rights have not been respected by the Nisga'a government. And, of course, their rights will be protected under the Charter of Rights and the constitution.

This is a good example of what we mean when we say that the Nisga'a treaty is fair, balanced, and works for all British Columbians. Nisga'a people have fundamental rights that must be addressed, and the treaty honours those rights while at the same time maintaining the integrity of existing federal and provincial laws. It doesn't create, as some critics say, a third order of government, and it doesn't take anything away from non-Nisga'as. It represents the best possible balance of rights and interests, to the benefit of all British Columbians -- Nisga'a and everyone who lives in British Columbia.

When I discovered the history of Nisga'a people and their government on the question of self-government, on which I had some concerns, I felt much more secure in terms of my position around these kinds of questions.

I want to move on now to another concern, one that I needed to have addressed before I could rise to speak in support this bill. That was the question of the justice system and the administration of justice as laid out in the context of this treaty. I want to say that for thousands of years before the arrival of European settlers, the Nisga'a people governed their own society and their own communities. They lived, as I said earlier, according to ayuuk Nisga'a, their own set of laws. And they took responsibility for ensuring that those laws were upheld.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Under the Nisga'a treaty, the Nisga'as will regain the right to police their own communities, this time in accordance with the B.C. Police Act. They will have the option of contracting with the RCMP, who currently have the authority for

[ Page 10963 ]

policing in the Nass Valley, or, with specific approval from the Attorney General, they can establish their own Nisga'a police force. This is neither new nor unusual. More than a dozen B.C. communities have their own local police forces. Under provincial law, the right to establish such a force extends to any community with a population over 5,000.

Just like municipal forces, a Nisga'a police force would have to meet provincial standards in areas such as certification, public complaints, discipline and the use of force, and it would be accountable in all of the same ways as any other B.C. police force. Similar checks and balances would be in effect if the Nisga'as establish their own court. The court would have to satisfy a list of conditions and would need specific approval from the B.C. Attorney General. It would have jurisdiction only in cases involving Nisga'a law. That's what the treaty says.

Existing standards would have to be met in areas such as independence, impartiality and judicial fairness. Judges will be supervised by the Judicial Council of British Columbia in terms of the justice system and the judicial system laid out in this treaty. It's very important that any decision from Nisga'a court -- and this is in the treaty -- could be appealed to the Supreme Court of British Columbia. And any accused facing a possible jail term would have the right to be tried in Provincial Court instead of Nisga'a court.

Along with the court and policing power, the treaty gives the Nisga'a the right to provide community-based services such as bail, probation and sentencing supervision within Nisga'a land. The treaty does not allow the Nisga'as to establish their own prisons. It ensures that major crimes will remain in the jurisdiction of the federal and provincial governments. It also ensures that the fundamental principles of justice that apply across this country will continue to apply.

The legal rights of all Canadians are protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and there is no difference in the situation in terms of this agreement and how that is applied to the Nisga'a people throughout this treaty process. The legal rights of all Canadians -- Nisga'as, British Columbians, everyone in Canada -- are protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Every one of us is guaranteed the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure, the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned, the right to retain and instruct counsel without delay if arrested and the right not to be subject to cruel or unusual punishment.

[3:00]

Hon. Speaker, none of these legal arguments is in any way infringed upon by the Nisga'a treaty -- none of them. Its provisions are grounded in plain old common sense. It would be illogical to give the Nisga'a the right to make laws within their own community without the parallel power to enforce those laws. And it's only fair that all of these provisions be subject to the full extent of existing checks and balances and the protection for individual rights. Administration of justice is a key part of any government structure. This treaty recognizes that basic truth and ensures that it can be honoured in a way that serves the interests of all British Columbians.

As I said, I had questions about the justice system in terms of this treaty and how that was going to be implemented and impact on the Nisga'a, British Columbia and Canada. Through some investigation -- by looking into these situations and asking questions -- I feel absolutely comfortable that the treaty addresses all of the concerns that I had in this regard.

Another point I wanted to raise that was of concern to me -- and it's been quite topical, actually, in the debate and the discussion coming from the members opposite -- is the issue around taxation. I think, really, that when you look at this question, there is one reason why the Nisga'a treaty is of such historic importance, and that is because it marks the beginning of the end of the Indian Act in British Columbia.

When you think about the Indian Act and what it has done to aboriginal people in this province, it really is shameful. The poverty, the economic instability and the injustices that have been put on people who live under a reserve system are really quite shameful. But let me say very clearly: these are not the shames that should be borne by the aboriginal people of British Columbia or the Nisga'a people. These are shames that should be borne by us. It is us -- it is the Canadian government, through the Indian Act; it is all of us who have supported that system -- who I think really bear the brunt of that shame.

I think this treaty goes a long way for us to be able to face that shame and deal with it and move on in a responsible fashion.

There has been a broad agreement with people across the country that the Indian Act has failed -- and failed miserably. It's bureaucratic, it's obscenely expensive, and worst of all, over the years it has done more harm than good to the very people it has purported to help.

Deputy Speaker: Your time has expired, member.

S. Orcherton: Thank you for the opportunity to make my remarks, hon. Speaker. I was hoping for a little bit more time to deal with the issue of taxation, but I hope that other members will be able to address those questions and deal with them. I think the taxation question is an important issue.

Hon. J. Kwan: It is indeed an honour and privilege to rise in the House today to debate what I would say is the most important issue that I have faced as a member of the Legislature -- that is, Bill 51, the Nisga'a treaty. To begin the debate, I'd like to offer a story, a story that was told to me by a constituent of mine in Vancouver-Mount Pleasant. I believe the story reflects, in a short way, what the land title question that we're debating is about. The story goes like this.

Once upon a time, a long time ago, there was a bench. This bench sat on this vast land, this beautiful land that we now call British Columbia. The people that occupied this bench were aboriginal people, people who lived on this land. Over the years, people came to visit this land. These visitors -- Europeans -- came to this land, and they wanted to have a seat on this bench. The aboriginal people were gracious in their nature, and they moved over to share the bench and invited their guests to come and take a seat. Many years have passed since that time, and more and more visitors came.

But lo and behold, the visitors didn't want to leave. In fact, not only did they not want to leave, they wanted the whole bench; they wanted to occupy the entire bench. Over time, what they did was keep on moving over. The aboriginal people moved over to make more room for their visitors, until one day they found themselves falling off the bench. The Nisga'a treaty is about the aboriginal people wanting back a seat on this bench, which they occupied prior to the visitors coming. I tell this story because I think it puts in simple terms what this issue is all about.

I have heard from many members -- some members opposite, in fact -- that the issue around the land title question, the issue around self-government for the Nisga'a people . . . . That is something they would say is unproven and untested; they would suggest that there is a question

[ Page 10964 ]

about whether or not it would actually work with our existing system today. I can only assume that those who make such assertions are either extreme in their paternalism or completely ignorant of the history of the Nisga'a people in British Columbia. It might be helpful for some members to actually take the time to learn this history. I think it would be particularly helpful for members to visit the Nass Valley, to get a sense of what the community and the issues are about. Unfortunately, some people have not done that, yet they refuse to acknowledge the paternalistic approach that has existed throughout their history.

The Nisga'a people have actually lived in what we now know as the Nass Valley for many thousands of years. Their oral history, passed down through generations, tells of a thriving, vibrant nation, rich in its culture, sustained by the bounty of the rivers, the sea, the forests and the mountains. The Nisga'a lived in settled villages, governing themselves according to their own strict set of ancient laws of property ownership, succession and civil order. Far from being savages, as some people believed, they lived in homes described by early Hudson's Bay traders as the equal of any in Europe.

They saw themselves as guardians and protectors of the land. Before the arrival of the European settlers, the Nisga'a people lived a life characterized by peace, stability and prosperity.

I'm not suggesting that their existence was perfect; I'm simply suggesting that their existence was just like anybody else's. As with all people, sometimes we argue, sometimes we fight, and sometimes we have disagreements. Sometimes we fail to sustain ourselves because of the limitations of the resources that are out there. But people had laws which they lived by, and they dealt with those issues in their own way.

The Nisga'a people's laws were not like our laws, in that they were not enforced by jail or by police; rather, they worked on the basis of mutual agreement, a code of honour built on the principles of respect and consent. This untested, unproven form of self-government, as the opposition leader implies, was the way in which the Nisga'a people governed themselves prior to the arrival of the European settlers. The principles of honour, respect and consent might perhaps be foreign to the member opposite, but that was the way in which the Nisga'a people governed themselves.

I would say that to suggest that the Nisga'a form of government is unproven and untested is very, very offensive -- offensive in the extreme -- especially in light of what we now know in terms of the history of the implication of these laws on aboriginal people. I would remind the opposition leader that it was the non-aboriginal people who did not honour the commitment made in the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which officially recognized aboriginal ownership of and title to traditional lands under British law.

It was the non-aboriginals that did not honour the promise that native lands would not be taken from them without permission. It was the non-aboriginals that took away the aboriginal people's right to vote in elections. It was the non-aboriginals that took away the Nisga'as' right to practise the central institution of the Nisga'a tribal government, the potlatch, which for countless generations served as a means of not only governing their people but also redistributing wealth from the richest to the poorest. That concept, perhaps, is also foreign to the members opposite.

It was the non-aboriginals that disallowed the Nisga'a the right to sing and to dance without the permission of some bureaucrat in Ottawa. It was non-aboriginal legislators in 1887 that refused entrance to this Legislature to a delegation of Nisga'a chiefs who had paddled here in their canoes, seeking to negotiate in a peaceful manner and to settle the land claim question. It was the non-aboriginals that passed a law that made it illegal for aboriginal people to hire lawyers to represent them on the land title question. It was the non-aboriginals that made it illegal for three or four aboriginal people to gather together to discuss the land title question.

It was the non-aboriginal people who took the aboriginal people's children away from them. Why? All because they were aboriginal. Sometimes the children in the residential schools -- and we've all heard stories -- had been humiliated. They'd been abused physically, sexually, mentally -- any way you can imagine -- all because they were aboriginal. That history is a result of the belief that somehow non-aboriginals are more superior than the aboriginal people.

The decimation of the Nisga'a people is not a result of their own laws; it is not a result of their self-governance approach. It is a result of our form of government, this so-called proven form of government. It is, I would submit, a result of our paternalistic approach, which I'm sad to see and sad to note still exists today in this chamber, with some members in this House. This century-old paternalism has been rampant in this country on the part of non-aboriginals in their treatment of the aboriginal people.

It is this treatment under our own Canadian laws and policies that has been largely responsible for the fact that infant mortality rates are more than twice the national average for the aboriginal community and unemployment rates are as high as 80 percent. Half the adult incomes under $10,000 are within the aboriginal people. The life expectancy is seven years shorter than the national average. Fully half of all aboriginal children live in poverty. Only one in three graduates from high school; one in ten applies for university.

Suicide rates, violence, overdoses and drug abuse are all causes of death, suffering and pain in the aboriginal community. Those things resulted from our laws and our refusal to recognize and practise our own laws.

Hon. Speaker, it is not the untested or unproven laws of the Nisga'a people that produced these statistics; it is the proven laws of the non-aboriginal people that produced them. We're now faced with a choice -- a choice to say, with meaning, that we were simply wrong, a choice to say, with meaning, that we will no longer treat and believe that the Nisga'a way of life and form of government is somehow inferior to ours or that it is somehow less valid and less appropriate.

It is time for us to honour and recognize the Nisga'a people's history, the history in time, their time-honoured traditions and culture, their system of self-government. It is time for us as legislators in this House, representing the people that duly elected us to do this job, to simply follow the process that was established for us many years ago, laws which we have set out that say very simply that we have a responsibility to settle the land claims issue.

From the earliest days of the presence of the British Crown in the North America, there was a policy which was established, in the Royal Proclamation of 1763 by King George III, that recognized aboriginal people as nations or tribes and acknowledged that they would continue to possess traditional territories until they are ceded to or purchased by the Crown. This is what we said we would do, which we have never done since that time. It is time for us to move forward onto a new journey, to say that we will honour that process. We will honour our own laws as the aboriginal people themselves have honoured . . . .

They have not only honoured their own laws, but they also honoured what we had imposed on them as well. They sought the question of land claims, land title, peacefully over 111 years.

[ Page 10965 ]

[3:15]

It disturbs me greatly, because as I think about the process question, not only have we not followed the laws that we have established -- what the courts have told us that we must do -- but since that time in 1990, we actually agreed to enter into a process of negotiations. Actually, that process was entered into not by this government but by a former government led by Bill Vander Zalm. There was a process that we agreed we would embark on and that was a process to say we would negotiate.

That is a process saying that at the end of the negotiation process, we would ratify what we have negotiated through the different respective levels and jurisdictions -- through the Nisga'a in their own way, through the B.C. Legislature in the manner in which we're doing and through the federal Legislature in the way which they will be doing in the new year.

Through that whole process, we agreed that we would simply ratify it in the House, that we would not hold a referendum on this matter. Yet somehow throughout the process, as we concluded the process and even as we brought the matter to an election in 1996, even though the members opposite agreed that this is the appropriate process to follow, they then changed their minds. In any other community, when you enter into negotiations with somebody -- in the business community, let's say -- and at the end of those negotiations you decide: "No, the terms in which we agreed on . . . .

We have now changed the rules; we don't want to play with those rules anymore . . . . " If you had done that in any other community, that would be acknowledged and seen and recognized as negotiations in bad faith. Nobody would dare to dream or think about embarking on that road. But somehow it is okay for the members opposite to say that it is an acceptable practice to betray and to violate those terms, only because it is for the aboriginal community. That is unacceptable.

To bring passage of Bill 51, the Nisga'a treaty, we would in fact see the completion of a circle, I would say -- something coming to full circle. That is to say that the Nisga'a people are returning to their rightful place in history to be owners of their own land, to make their own laws, to speak their own language, to sing their songs and dance in their own tradition, to practise their own culture, to be treated as equals -- as we all sought to be treated as equals -- and to be fully recognized as a legitimate component of this community. So it is vitally important that we've recognized those principles and what those principles are.

I want to turn now to speak on another issue that I would say is pertinent to the debate of the Nisga'a treaty. That is, I would say, the misguided assertion that recognizing Nisga'as' right to self-government is somehow creating a third order of government or a race-based government. Let me start with the Charter question. Let me actually quote the Charter, because sections 35(1) and 35(3) of the Canadian constitution state as follows. It is titled "Rights of the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada."

Section 35(1) states: "The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed."

Section 35(3) states: "For greater certainty, in subsection (1) 'treaty rights' includes rights that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired."

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Self-government is a component which was negotiated through the treaty process, a treaty process that is recognized within our own constitution as a valid way in which to deal with the land title question. Just as the aboriginal people's lands were never sold or signed away in treaties, so too were their systems of government never surrendered. And just as we have a legal and moral duty to reconcile aboriginal rights to land with today's modern treaties, so too must we reconcile existing federal and provincial laws with the modern reality of aboriginal self-government.

That's what the treaty is about, and it strikes a balance to make it workable to ensure that we recognize the history of the past and the legacy that existed before us, before our arrival on this land -- the rights of the aboriginal people.

It gives the Nisga'a authority to manage their own affairs within the framework of our own laws, because that is the Nisga'a people's way. Not only will they respect their own laws, but they will respect ours as well. That's what they have done over 111 years. It is us who have not given that respect back to them; it is us who have not honoured what we said we would do. It is time for us to honour that process; it is time for us to honour our own laws, and that's what the treaty is about.

Hon. Speaker, I see that I only have about five minutes or so left, and I would now like to take the opportunity, in the tradition of this House, to actually debate this matter, in a short time frame within my allocated time, in Cantonese, the language that I was blessed with when I was born. Members of the House will see on their desks a copy of what I'm going to say in Cantonese translated for them.

[As a Chinese Canadian, I believe the debate today is a very important one. The struggles of the Nisga'a people and the Chinese community are similar.

In 1887, the same year that a delegation of Nisga'a chiefs was turned away on the steps of the British Columbia Legislature by the Premier of the time, there was an anti-Chinese riot in Vancouver. That year both the Nisga'a and Chinese Canadians learned the same lesson: that we were not welcome here.

At the time of the riot, Canadians of Chinese ancestry couldn't vote at the municipal, provincial or federal level. They couldn't practise as lawyers or accountants. Unlike any other group, Chinese immigrants coming to Canada had to pay a special head tax. When the head tax was first imposed in 1885, it was $50. It then rose to $500. And then the Chinese Immigration Act was imposed. It is only in the last 50 years that Chinese Canadians have gradually gained their full rights. Therefore we have great sympathy for the Nisga'a people.

For the Nisga'a, their situation has been even more deplorable. We put their children into residential schools. Their life expentancy is lower. They have a higher unemployment rate and the suicide rate among youth is higher.

I believe this is an important debate. I hope that the Chinese community and other multicultural communities can support the Nisga'a debate and allow all communities to obtain the same development opportunities.]

[Translation of speech provided by Hon. J. Kwan.]

Hon. Speaker, we have to remind ourselves that the basis on which and the principles on which we have to operate have to be based on the question of equality and justice. There is no other issue I can think of that equates to the magnitude of this principle and the need for the application of this principle in the Nisga'a debate. When we visit the history of the aboriginal people, when we visit the Nisga'a people's history and the way in which their communities were

[ Page 10966 ]

destroyed, it is time for us to make that recognition and to say: "We were wrong." We need to not simply say that we're sorry and then move on, but to say and acknowledge that we were wrong and to offer and support ways which we can bring to the table in a fair and balanced way to restore that, so that we can begin on the road to reconciliation. Words -- as we as politicians all know -- don't mean anything until you put teeth behind those words, and that's what the treaty is about. It is putting action behind the words when we say that we are sorry for the past and for the injustices that aboriginal people have faced. So it's vitally important that I say that we support this treaty.

I would also say that we have a free vote in this House. I would challenge the members opposite, particularly those whom I know are true federal Liberals, on where they are on this issue. The Liberal opposition leader said that they will search their hearts. Well, then I ask all the members across the way to search their hearts and to stand up and do the right thing. It is critically important that we don't hide behind some veiled fence, some screen, and say: "I don't know what this means; I don't know what that means. I don't have those questions answered, so therefore I cannot support this treaty."

It is not acceptable to pretend that ignorance is somehow a valid defence. It is not a valid defence, because any member in this House can simply pick up the phone. If they don't trust the provincial negotiators, phone their federal cousins who are negotiators. Ask them those questions; get the answers for themselves. Find out what the facts are. Read the treaty document and come to understand what the document means and what its ramifications are. It is not acceptable to say: "We cannot support this treaty because we don't understand what it means." It is important that we take the leadership role and do what we said we would do.

The treaty is about equality. It is about justice, it is about hope, and it is about freedom. It is about the dreams of tomorrow. It is about legitimacy. It is about economic stability. It is about pride. We as British Columbians stand for these principles, and that's what we must now do: rise above the politics, come to the table and move forward on this new journey.

I don't know how many members are aware, but they should know that when South Africans were studying the system of apartheid, they actually came over here and studied the Indian reserves. They came here and looked to see how apartheid actually works -- here, in our own country. That's what we have in place; that's what we've got to end. We all -- many of us -- spoke up against apartheid. Why can't we speak up against apartheid here in British Columbia -- to say it is time to end the Indian Act, that it is time to stop the segregation and the treatment of the aboriginal people in the manner in which they have been treated over the last hundred years?

The Nisga'a people last week . . . . We have seen the way in which they have handled themselves. We went through a very emotional week. Over the last 111 years, I would say, they have demonstrated a model of strength, endurance, determination, patience, integrity, fairness and, most important of all, faith. Despite the laws that were ours, which we did not obey . . . .

Despite the fact that we inflicted all kinds of pains and injustices on them, they still had faith to say that they must follow the laws of the European communities, that they must follow the laws that exist now and not violate that -- 111 years later. They want to actually go to the table and continue going to the table, even though when they came to the front steps of this Legislature, they had been turned away without even being allowed to come into the building. They kept the faith and believed that equality and justice would one day prevail.

[3:30]

Hon. Speaker, I ask that that day be today. I ask that we as legislators in this House recognize the wrongs of the past and not just say that we recognize them, but do something about them -- begin this new journey, as Chief Joe Gosnell so eloquently expressed it in the House when he invited us on this new journey. I ask all members of the House to join them on this new journey, to begin a new era for the twenty-first century.

K. Whittred: It is an honour to rise in this Legislature to speak on the Nisga'a treaty. I am pleased that so many of the Nisga'a themselves were able to journey to Victoria and witness portions of this debate firsthand. I share with many of my colleagues the feeling that we are participating in a special moment in history. This treaty, so many years in the making, is of enormous importance to all of us who make our homes in this magnificent province. But for the Nisga'a people, it must feel like being nearly at the end of a very long journey on a very bumpy road.

The Nisga'a people have every right to feel a tremendous sense of accomplishment and pride, particularly in their leaders -- leaders like Chief Gosnell, Frank Calder and others before them who, for more than 100 years, travelled that bumpy road on behalf of their people. This journey, which started so many years ago, has taken the Nisga'a leaders to Victoria, Ottawa and London, with numerous detours through the courts. Surely there must have been many times when they felt that for every mile gained, a detour was thrown up that sent them five miles back. But they never wavered. The Nisga'a and their leaders never lost focus.

The story of this journey and the perseverance of the Nisga'a people is one reason why it is so important to get this treaty right. I do not want my grandchildren or another generation of Nisga'a children to study from history books that list the Nisga'a treaty of 1998 as one more event in a continuing saga in an ongoing

chapter entitled "Land Claims." I want my grandchildren and the grandchildren of all Nisga'a grandparents to learn that the Nisga'a treaty of 1998 did indeed usher in an era of renewed understanding for all British Columbians. I hope that the textbooks for Nisga'a children studying in the Nass Valley and the textbooks of children in North Vancouver agree that the principles embodied in the Nisga'a treaty of 1998 reconciled the rights of first nations people with our shared values as Canadians within the framework of our Canadian constitution and laws.

Twenty years down the road, if one group of children learn that this agreement was a great achievement, while another group of children learn that it created a whole host of new problems, then we will have failed as legislators. Twenty years down the road, if the subject of aboriginal treaties is still before this Legislature, then we will have failed. I will have failed as a legislator if I do not enter into this debate those aspects of the treaty which are of grave concern to me.

Much of the symbolism surrounding the events of the past few days has involved the Nisga'a celebrating their culture and history. The pageantry that has enriched us all has been about them celebrating and listening to their history.

As Canadians and British Columbians, we also have a history that we must listen to. A look back in time to the turn of the last century reminds us that aboriginal people, along

[ Page 10967 ]

with Chinese, Japanese and East Indians, were all disenfranchised. They simply didn't have the vote; they had been deliberately disenfranchised. At the same time, women, of course, were not considered persons, so were unable to vote. Hutterites and Mennonites were ineligible to vote. Doukhobors had the vote taken from them in 1931, which was the last time the vote was legislated away from anybody.

Women were the first of this group to achieve suffrage -- extended to them in 1917. In Quebec, however, women had to wait until 1940. The franchise was extended to all other groups between 1947 and '52. The Nisga'a regained the right to vote, along with all other aboriginal peoples, in 1949, the same year that Frank Calder was elected to the Legislature. The vote was finally extended to Doukhobors, and the voting age lowered to 19, in 1952.

This little sketch of who could or could not vote reminds us that 80 years ago, democracy in Canada really meant that fewer than half the citizens could actually vote. But it also reminds us that democracy is fluid; it reminds us that there has been progress. It has in fact been 68 years since the vote was taken away from anyone; it has been 68 years, in this province, since anyone was disenfranchised. British Columbians being denied the vote for any reason is something that most young British Columbians think happened only in the olden days.

If we do not learn from the collective struggles of these British Columbians, including aboriginal, who fought for the right to vote, then surely they struggled in vain. I cannot think of a single, solitary instance anywhere inside or outside of Canada when any good, any enduring principle or any lasting human value has come from a government that determined who could vote on the basis of ethnicity, colour, class, wealth or gender. Surely this first modern treaty should not deny any Canadian the most basic of rights: the right to vote. That is what this treaty does.

Non-Nisga'a living on Nisga'a lands cannot vote for their lisims or their village government. There is, I believe, a great irony here. A non-Nisga'a living on Nisga'a land can neither vote nor hold office for a government that can pass legislation directly impacting his life, while a Nisga'a living in Vancouver can vote for a representative of that same government. This troublesome aspect of the treaty, which is at odds with the most fundamental of our rights -- the right to vote -- is explained away by comparing it to a strata council. The principle of universal suffrage is reduced to comparison with a strata council. Surely this doesn't warrant serious debate.

One of the truly enriching experiences of my life was an opportunity to be part of a research project called Facing History and Ourselves. Funded by the American government and centred in Brookline, Massachusetts, the main goal of this organization was to develop curriculum and teaching resources to enable classroom teachers to effectively address issues around things like systemic poverty, discrimination, Holocaust education and racial issues. During approximately ten years of involvement with this project, I was left with an overriding concern.

In the collection and development of teaching and learning resources, I was embarrassed and dismayed to discover how many were from my country. Canada and British Columbia provided a rich harvest of material for this project. Several of the case studies that were collected focused on aboriginal issues, including the awful story of Canada's residential schools. I do not want anything to emerge from this treaty to provide more fodder for this project.

I believe that the Nisga'a treaty's failure to embrace the basic, universal and Canadian principle of the right to vote and the possibility that this may be repeated in the 50 or so remaining treaties is a flaw that will haunt this treaty forever.

Another glance back in time reminds me of the events surrounding the Charlottetown accord. The legacy of Charlottetown, I think, is that governments cannot always depend on citizens to support their projects, no matter how well thought out they think they are, and that governments had better consult with the people by referendum on anything so far-reaching in its scope that it fundamentally changes the way we govern ourselves.

Charlottetown and the political climate created by the Quebec referendums have forever changed the notion that governments can initiate far-reaching, fundamental change on matters of such scale without direct consultation in the form of a referendum. The Nisga'a treaty embodies principles of such magnitude.

I very much support the principle of self-government and believe that the Nisga'a should have self-government, in the same way that any municipality, school district or regional health board exercises government in its jurisdiction. What is promised in

chapter 11, the

chapter describing Nisga'a government, goes well beyond that.

Our federal system is based on a division of power between two governments -- federal and provincial -- each of them sovereign in their defined jurisdictions, as described in sections 91, 92 and 93 of the BNA Act. Those two levels of government can delegate responsibility to another governing body, and often do. The most obvious example is the power that provincial governments delegate to municipalities. But municipalities are not a third level of government, because those powers are not enshrined in a constitution and are always subordinate to provincial laws.

Provincial governments have delegated some of their exclusive power over education to school boards. The Legislature can and sometimes does revoke or change such delegated powers, as it did recently when it ordered several school districts to amalgamate.

[3:45]

Both the federal and provincial negotiators have acknowledged that the Nisga'a law will be legally paramount in 14 areas of jurisdiction. I urge this government to stop describing the self-government

section of this treaty as being like a municipal government, as it has in its literature, and to acknowledge that this treaty creates something quite different from a municipal government. The Premier has acknowledged that this treaty is a template for the 50 to 60 remaining treaties presently in various stages of the treaty process.

Hon. Speaker, I can only imagine how the various governing institutions of the North Shore will be affected if we overlay similar treaties, with the same 14 areas of legislative paramountcy, with the Squamish and Burrard nations onto the three existing municipalities, school boards, regional health board, GVRD, Ports Canada, provincial government, federal government and so on. The public deserves to have that discussion. I believe that if the principles embodied in this treaty are to enjoy long-term success, the public must be allowed to give its consent.

Who among us was not moved by the remarks of Chief Gosnell to the members of this assembly? The aspirations of Chief Gosnell for his people to stand on their own feet, to no longer be beggars in their own land, is an aspiration which I commend and applaud. I applaud the overall tone of the treaty, which speaks to greater economic opportunity for his

[ Page 10968 ]

people. I support Chief Gosnell when he speaks to correcting the mistakes of the past. I agree that the shameful legacy of the Indian Act must be erased and the endless cycle of poverty, dependency, inequality and humiliation stopped.

I have not had the opportunity to travel to the Nass Valley. I have, however, travelled to many other areas of the province, where I've had the pleasure to observe many far-reaching and proactive aboriginal programs. I have observed schools being run and operated for and by aboriginal people. From aboriginal school board members in Lillooet I learned of an innovative program to reintroduce young adults into educational programs. In Lytton I observed some creative uses of distance education for youth. These are but a few examples of many in British Columbia where aboriginal people are in charge and are taking the lead within the existing structure.

On Wednesday, December 2, Chief Joe Gosnell addressed the Members of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. The presence of Chief Gosnell speaking at the Bar of the Legislature is testimony to the historic significance and importance of the Nisga'a treaty for all British Columbians. Chief Gosnell said: "today . . . marks a turning point in the history of British Columbia. Today aboriginal and non-aboriginal people are coming together to decide the future of this province."

Hon. Speaker, I believe that Chief Gosnell is right, which is the reason I cannot support this bill. I believe that this treaty is the stuff of which history is made. I believe that it is indeed a history-making event, an event that establishes the blueprint for another 50 or so treaties that surely will impact on British Columbia politically, socially and economically in the foreseeable future -- all of which substantiates my argument that the principles embodied in this treaty are of such importance to the future of all British Columbians that they need to be voted on by all British Columbians.

I began my remarks by saying that we, the legislators of British Columbia, must get this right. We must get it right so that the long, bumpy journey of the Nisga'a people will finally be over. But more important than the past is hope for the future, when our children and grandchildren have equal opportunity to enjoy the benefits of a good education, good health care and a flourishing economy that promises a secure and certain economic future for all our children.

F. Randall: I just want to say that I appreciate the opportunity to make a few comments on Bill 51, the Nisga'a treaty. I want to thank Chief Gosnell for his stirring speech from the Bar of the Legislative Assembly here and also all the Nisga'a people for their patience over the last 111 years.

The general provisions of the agreement lay out some very basic but very important features of the Nisga'a treaty. These apply to the whole agreement and deal with matters of special importance, such as aboriginal rights, certainty and overall

interpretation of the agreement. After addressing some of the technical points, the general provisions state:

"This Agreement does not alter the Constitution of Canada, including:

a. the distribution of powers between Canada and British Columbia;

b. the identity of the Nisga'a Nation as an aboriginal people of Canada within the meaning of the Constitution Act, 1982; and

c. sections 25 and 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982."

For the record, sections 25 and 35 of the constitution recognize and affirm aboriginal rights. There has been considerable debate about this treaty and its impact on aboriginal rights. But the general provisions make it clear that the treaty modifies constitutional rights, exchanging them for clearly defined, clearly limited treaty rights. These rights are exhaustively defined in the treaty.

The Nisga'a agree to release any rights or title they have or may ever have that differ from those of the treaty. They can't come back in the future and ask for anything more. As stated in the general provisions, the treaty is a full and final settlement of the Nisga'a land claim.

If the parties disagree on any of the fine points of implementation or

interpretation, those will be settled within the treaty through a four-stage dispute resolution process. Stage 1 is informal talks, stage 2 is formal negotiation, stage 3 is mediation, and stage 4 is arbitration. If all of those avenues fail, the treaty allows for a final and binding decision from the Supreme Court of British Columbia. This process assures us that we will not end up wasting taxpayers' money in a fight in the courts. It provides the B.C. government, the Nisga'a people and the citizens of British Columbia with legal certainty.

It also provides investors and workers with certainty, helping to improve B.C.'s investment climate. The Nisga'a cannot come back later and claim any additional rights above and beyond those contained in the treaty. They cannot hold Canada or British Columbia or individual citizens liable for past acts that may have infringed on their aboriginal rights. If an individual Nisga'a citizen is successful in a challenge to the treaty in the future, the Nisga'a indemnify B.C. and Canada against any resulting costs.

What about the rights of non-Nisga'a people? They're protected under the treaty, just as they are in every other part of British Columbia. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms will continue to apply. So will existing federal and provincial laws, with one important exception. The Indian Act, along with all its inherent inequalities, will be eliminated on Nisga'a lands. Under the treaty there will be no reserve lands for the Nisga'a people, and the Indian Act itself will cease to apply. This is one of the truly historic aspects of this treaty.

It marks the beginning of the end of the Indian Act in British Columbia and allows the Nisga'a to finally take their full place as British Columbia citizens.

There is one further general provision that I'd like to address, and that's the

section on ratification. It states that the Nisga'a will hold a majority vote -- which, of course, they did in early November, and 61 percent supported the treaty. The ratification

section states that the province and the federal government will ratify the agreement through the Legislature and Parliament. Those are the terms agreed to since 1990, when B.C. officially joined the Nisga'a treaty negotiations under the Social Credit government. Those are the terms endorsed by that administration and two successive B.C. governments. During the 1996 election campaign, our government restated its commitment to ratify the treaty in the Legislature. Let me remind you that at that time, that position was fully supported by the official opposition.

Throughout our history, free votes have been used to decide sensitive issues that go beyond partisan politics, issues that define who we are as a people. After a full and open debate both here in the Legislature and in our communities, MLAs will individually weigh the pros and cons of the Nisga'a treaty. We will make our own decisions, based on our own beliefs and experiences, our understanding of our constituents' wishes and our analysis of the treaty's impact on our society and our economy. We will make up our minds on the key questions.

Is this a fair compromise not only for the Nisga'a but for all British Columbians? And if we reject this treaty, can we realistically go back to the negotiating table? Could we reasonably expect to get a better deal?

[ Page 10969 ]

Some people have questioned why it is that the Nisga'a people will vote on this agreement but other British Columbians won't. It's because the treaty directly affects the rights of Nisga'a people. The courts have made it very clear that aboriginal rights exist, but right now they are only vaguely defined, and we do not yet know their limits. That's a real concern for all parties. The Nisga'a final agreement will exchange those undefined aboriginal rights for clearly defined and clearly limited treaty rights.

These rights are held by individual Nisga'a people and cannot be delegated to representative organizations such as the Nisga'a' tribal council. Therefore the treaty cannot be legally binding and cannot bring the certainty we all desire, without the approval of individual Nisga'a people. On the other hand, the treaty does not have a comparable effect on non-Nisga'a people. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the constitution will continue to apply unchanged, just as they do today.

Some have argued that this is of such great importance that it should be put to a provincial referendum. Now, I agree that this is a very important issue, but as I mentioned earlier, the terms of ratification have been set since 1990. The opposition's own critic, the hon. member for Matsqui, said not long ago in this House: " . . . it would be unfair at this point to inject the referendum card into the ratification process involving the Nisga'a treaty."

Yes, it would be unfair, and that's just the beginning. Changing the rules now, at the eleventh hour, would leave the province open to legitimate charges of bargaining in bad faith. That's a very serious charge. Taking that step would have extremely serious ramifications for all British Columbians.

[4:00]

The real reason the critics are crying "referendum" is because they want to see this treaty scrapped. Right now, polls show that most British Columbians support the treaty, and we are confident that this would translate into a majority in a vote. Nevertheless, the members opposite seem to feel that they could sway public opinion. Their demand for a referendum is tied to their opposition to the treaty and to their hope to see it defeated. I'm confident that my constituents are ready to ratify this treaty.

But let's ask ourselves: what would happen under the opposition's scenario? They would have you believe that it's a simple case of going back to the bargaining table. But why on earth would the Nisga'a agree to that? They've negotiated patiently, with trust and honour, for more than 30 years. During that time, aboriginal people have been winning in court, and they hold a very strong hand. Given the choice between ten, 20 or 30 more years of negotiation or a well-supported argument in court, which do you think the Nisga'a would choose? I expect that they would take us to court. And given the way the courts have continued to expand the legal

interpretation of aboriginal rights, we might expect a settlement that would ultimately cost the province much, much more than the Nisga'a treaty does and that would not have the built-in protections for non-aboriginal interests that the treaty has.

Furthermore, changing the rules now would send a signal to all first nations. It would tell them that negotiations are just a waste of time. That could throw the entire B.C. treaty process off the rails and plunge our province into a chaos of litigation and conflict. A vote in this House is what the parties agreed to from the beginning, and we believe it's the best way to ratify this treaty and give us the certainty we need to get on with the work of building our province and creating jobs and prosperity for all British Columbians.

This is the path set out in the general provisions: clarification that this is a legally binding treaty, confirmation that it does not alter the constitution, assurance that the rights of Nisga'a and non-Nisga'a people are protected equally under the constitution and the Charter of Rights, and an absolute guarantee that this is a full and final settlement of the Nisga'a land claim. That's what British Columbians have been asking for: resolution and certainty around the issue of land claims. The general provisions make it clear that the Nisga'a treaty delivers.

The general provisions of the treaty apply to the entire agreement and deal with important, overarching issues. They clearly state that the treaty does not alter the constitution. It modifies existing aboriginal rights, exchanging them for clearly defined, clearly limited treaty rights. It is a full and final settlement of the Nisga'a land claim -- one that brings the certainty that we need to stimulate growth, investment and jobs. The general provisions also lay out a four-step process for resolving disputes about the treaty, and they set out the ratification process: a referendum for the Nisga'a people and legislation for Ottawa and the province.

I just want to stress again the importance of land use certainty for our resource industries, particularly in British Columbia. Certainty will bring much more development and jobs for British Columbians. I know from my involvement in the mining industry that they certainly would like to know where they stand with regards to land before they start developing.

This treaty will also require that Nisga'a pay taxes -- to my knowledge, the first treaty in Canada to do so. I just want to mention that I found that the leaders' debate and the following Knowledge Network program -- with Chief Gosnell; Mr. Molloy, who is the chief federal negotiator; and Mr. Jack Ebbels, the provincial negotiator -- were certainly very informative. I know that there were questions answered there that I was not aware of until I watched that program, and that was only weeks ago. It was certainly a good program and answered a lot of good questions.

If this treaty is rejected in this House over the issue of a referendum, then I expect that the courts will eventually end up making a decision. I do not expect that the Liberals will call for a referendum on the court's decision, because it's unusual to call for a referendum on a judge's decision. I've never heard of that, but that might be something new. In my opinion and experience from negotiations, the deal that you make yourself is always much better than one imposed by a third party. In many cases, the third party does not have the knowledge of the issues as well as the parties at the bargaining table.

The deal you make yourself, you can usually live with. The one that is imposed on you can be very harsh, unworkable and not make sense in some cases. It's always best to make your own deal.

I also want to say that it's very easy to be against the treaty. There are about -- I don't know -- 650 pages in total here. I don't know how you would do a referendum on that. If you want to be against the treaty, you'll find something in those 650 pages that you can pick on. In an agreement that's negotiated over that many years, there are always going to be some issues because of give-and-take. Nobody ever gets everything they want, so there have obviously been some concessions on both sides to get that agreement.

So a person reading it for the first time would say: "My golly, I wouldn't have agreed to that." Well, I think you have to accept that all these years of negotiations to reach a conclusion have certainly been done through concessions on both sides, I would expect.

[ Page 10970 ]

I also want to mention that certainly in my opinion, it's very disappointing that the Liberal opposition is spending taxpayers' dollars on lawyers and courts to try and stop the treaty process. I don't think that's a good use of taxpayers' money. I also want to mention that from the religious and faith healers' area, there's a statement by ministers, archbishops, etc., in two different documents. The key paragraph here says:

"We affirm that the process of negotiation is the best means for resolving land claims issues, reconciling communities with each other and restoring dignity to those who have suffered injustices. We endorse the general principles of the Nisga'a final agreement as the result of good-faith negotiation between three parties, and we believe that ratification of the treaty would be in the best interests of British Columbians and Canadians."

This is endorsed by 130 different religious leaders. Just to mention a few, there are: Rev. Jeremy Bell, who's with the Baptist Union of Western Canada; Archbishop David Crawley, Anglican Church of Canada; Archbishop Adam Exner, Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Vancouver; Rev. Dr. Phillip Hewett, the Unitarian Church of Vancouver; Deirdre Kelly, the Catholic Diocese of Victoria; and Rev. Edwin Searcy, University Hill United Church. There are 130 like that, who have all endorsed the treaty based on fair and reasonable negotiations.

At this point in time I just want to say that I've made up my mind on Nisga'a; I'm going to support the treaty. I just want to say that I know that a majority of the constituents in Burnaby-Edmonds support it -- certainly all those I've talked to. We've also had public meetings. The religious leaders support the treaty. The B.C. Federation of Labour supports the treaty. The federal Liberal government supports the treaty. The Nisga'a support it, and our Premier supports it. I might also add that the former Leader of the Liberal Party of B.C. supports it, and the polls certainly support the treaty. I'm asking the Liberals to join with me in supporting Bill 51, the Nisga'a treaty.

E. Walsh: It gives me great pleasure this afternoon to stand here in this Legislature to support Bill 51. In the coming days and weeks in this House, we will continue to debate on what is a very, very basic question of fairness. It's a basic question of law. It's a basic question about the future of this province and all of her people.

I speak of this province as a maternal entity, and I do this not out of sexism but out of my experiences travelling around this province and speaking with aboriginal peoples. A common thread appeared in the fabric of all of the discussions that I had in this province, and that was the bond with the land -- the belief that Mother Earth could and would provide food for family, trees for shelter and space for communities. These are not new concepts, not for any of us that are gathered here in this House and not for any of us that live in the province.

The bonds between human beings and the land are global in scope, and they're also global in the very nature of human beings. The ethnic mix within this Legislature speaks to the diverse backgrounds of its members, the past and also the present. Yet I believe that all of our family trees are deeply rooted in the land from which our ancestors came, be it Europe, Asia, Africa or the Americas.

The bonds between the Nisga'a people of the Nass Valley and the land are threefold: they are historical, spiritual and cultural. They're economic in nature. The Nisga'a inhabited this region of the province for over 10,000 years -- over 10,000 years before it was even deemed a province by British law; 10,000 years of civilization; 10,000 years of self-government; 10,000 years of fishing, hunting and living off and with the land. The spiritual beliefs of the Nisga'a people are rooted deep in the mountains and in the valley bottom of the Nass River. Ceremonies to celebrate the land and its bounty are the very essence of Nisga'a tribal lore.

This historical tie to the land has been passed down from generation to generation, through oral tale and tribal dance, much of which we were able to witness and take

part in this past week. The lands of the Nass continue to provide for the Nisga'a people. I believe that it is essential in any treaty process to recognize and honour this spiritual bond. To ignore this tie to the land is to vanquish the spiritual healing that needs to occur for the Nisga'a people.

The economic ties to the land of the Nisga'a people are many. Stability for any nation comes in the ownership of fee simple lands -- lands to develop, lands to harvest and lands to hold. The people of the Nisga'a request no less than what you would request or I would request: the ability to own land, to provide a future for their children -- land which their children and their children's children can truly call their own. The treaty process which has developed over the past 30 years now has, at its core, been about land.

[4:15]

The issue of land claims settlement will be one of great debate and discussion in the coming months and for the coming years. As a province and as a country, we must move forward to recognize aboriginal title and to deal with the issues that are at hand. Generations of British Columbians have failed to address this matter. As MLA for Kootenay, I do not want to leave it on some back shelf for my children or grandchildren to face. I definitely do not want them to have to face aboriginal children who have been denied justice for yet another full generation.

The question of equality is key to this debate. Opponents of this treaty process have broadly compared it to apartheid in Africa, the plight of African Americans, the tragedy in the Balkans -- and the list goes on. This treaty process has been so fundamentally clouded and misrepresented by its opponents that the people of this province may very well not recognize it for what it is. This is an attempt by people to sit at a common table to address the common good.

Our system of native reserves has failed miserably. This system has turned healthy, vibrant aboriginal communities into poverty-stricken enclaves. Not only has this system curtailed financial opportunities, but the cultural identities of the first nations have been destroyed. In ignorance, early visitors to these shores interpreted the potlatch and tribal celebrations as a threat to the rule of the Empire. Imposed governmental models and religious institutions were established at the expense of native pride and sovereignty. With the implementation of the federal Indian Act came the loss of independence and the loss of the ability to vote.

However, many Nisga'a men, who were denied the right to serve as fathers to their own children in this province, volunteered to serve as soldiers in the two world wars. They fought not only for this country but for this province -- for the very people who live in this province -- defending a country that treated them as less than human beings. When they returned home, they found that they didn't even have status. They had been away for too long; they had been gone from the reserves much too long to even be considered Indian.

But, you know, even without their status, they were still considered Indian enough to be denied that very part of democracy that we hold very near and dear to us: the right to vote. In British Columbia, the degradation went even deeper: the loss of the right to gather, to seek redress and to seek legal counsel.

[ Page 10971 ]

Native children were taken from their families, from their communities and from their culture. They were forced to attend residential schools away from their parents for months and years on end in an effort to assimilate these young natives into the dominant European culture. Parents were stripped of parenting skills, and families were now virtually strangers. Parents didn't know how to be parents, and children didn't know how to be children -- let alone their children. We are only now learning the extent and the consequences of the abuse experienced by this generation.

In a country which is ranked worldwide as number one in standard of living, the plight of aboriginals in Canada is of concern, to say the least. A recently released United Nations study ranks the living standards of aboriginals living off the reserve at thirty-seventh in the world -- the same ranking given to people living within member countries of the former Soviet Union. For aboriginals living on the reserve, the ranking sank to sixty-third -- very similar conditions to those experienced in parts of Mexico and Thailand. I say that this is a shame and this is a tragedy.

As a population, natives live, on average, 12 years less than non-natives. They commit suicide at a rate two to five times higher than non-natives. Thirty-four percent more of their children die within the first year of their life. Unemployment at adulthood may range as high as 80 percent. We're not talking about 7 percent or 6.9 percent -- the 9 percent or the 14 percent that concerns us in our province in our daily lives or the 8 percent that concerns Canadians. It's 80 percent. Alcohol, drugs and abuse statistics are markedly higher across all aboriginal groups.

This treaty is a bold step into the future for our province. Concerns are being raised, however, by a wide spectrum of interests across this whole province. The logging companies worry about the capacity to log. Cattlemen are concerned about the ability to graze, hunters about the access to wildlife and lands, and fishermen about the volume of their catch. This treaty, I believe, attempts to address these concerns while at the same time meeting the needs of the Nisga'a people. This treaty is about growth, it's about stability, it is about investment, and it is about opportunity.

But most of all it is about fairness and the type of province that we want for future generations of British Columbians.

All too often MLAs are concerned with the next four- or five-year mandate and their ability to serve their constituents here and now. In this Legislature right now, we are being given the opportunity to assume an active role in the creation of a great legacy. All of the components are right here today: the past, the present, the future and the debate that's ongoing -- last week, this week and in the oncoming weeks. This is the same debate of 1887. These are the same native peoples from the Nass, who have come to Victoria to seek justice. There are the same naysayers. There is the same opportunity to change the course of history for our province.

Our actions in the coming weeks, the coming months and the coming years will be measured in another 100 years. How will that generation see us -- as the government of the day who locked the Legislature doors in the faces of the Nisga'a elders? Or will it view us as the political body who had the guts and the foresight to right the many wrongs experienced by this people and to set this province on a course for equality and equity for all native peoples.

If we don't settle this, I have no doubt that the courts will. And make no mistake, anyone in this Legislature: the courts are under absolutely no obligation whatsoever to protect the rights of the non-aboriginal peoples. The Nisga'a treaty does, however.

As my hon. colleague from Victoria-Hillside said this morning -- and I reiterate what he said -- the Supreme Court has given every signal that it is prepared to rule that aboriginal peoples have the right to the exclusive use and occupation of their traditional lands, as long as they can prove that they occupied the lands at the time Britain asserted its sovereignty. To reiterate, if first nations want to take their cases to court, judges are prepared to back them up. I too must ask: is this how we want to settle our land claims? This will take a long time.

It's taken over 100 years to negotiate this final agreement -- and at what cost. I'm not just talking about legal costs, I'm not talking about lost investments, and I'm not talking about jobs that are going to be lost to uncertainty. What I'm talking about is the cost -- those divisive costs -- to our society. Those divisions will only be exacerbated by every court case that comes forward. Yes, I do believe that treaty negotiation is the better option. It's a better option than being settled by courts, by a long shot.

Hon. Speaker, KPMG did a study in which they concluded that the benefits of land claims settlements here in B.C. will far outweigh the costs -- by a factor of three to one. On speaking with people from the north especially, they understand the benefits of the Nisga'a treaty. For example, Councillor Hull, of Terrace, said: "Anything that's good for the people around us is good for Terrace." This was in the Terrace Standard in August of this year. Then there's Don Manson.

I'm sure the opposition Liberals know who I'm speaking of here, because he's a Liberal riding association president for Prince George-Bulkley Valley. He supports the treaty and says: "The people are way ahead of the politicians on this one. The people of the north know how much the Nisga'a have given up and how reasonable this deal is." For anybody that wants to check that quote, it was in the Province , October 18, 1998. Do the people who live in the north know something that this Liberal opposition doesn't know?

When the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale was questioned by Province reporter Mike Smyth, "Do you support this treaty or not?" the member's answer was: "The question is somewhat rhetorical, and I don't think it is even possible to answer. It's too big a question." That was in the Province on October 25, 1998. Rhetorical? Too big a question? I don't think that's such a big question. I don't think that the question was asked just for effect, and I don't think that they weren't expecting an answer. I think that there was an answer expected. Maybe not; I don't know. There wasn't one given.

Yet about one-third of the opposition Liberals continue to remain silent on this very, very important historical discussion. I have to ask this -- and I'm sure people in British Columbia have to ask the same question: where do they stand? Are they for or are they against the Nisga'a treaty?

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Where is their accountability? On March 10 of this year the Leader of the Opposition said: "Everybody wants to resolve these, but let's give the respect and honour that aboriginal people need, by being upfront and honest with them." Okay, let's discuss that for a moment. Upfront and honest. So what happened? I have to ask the Liberal opposition a question: what happened? I could almost agree with him, except I'm always puzzled as to what the position is going to be. What is their position on this? Where are they coming from on the treaty?

[4:30]

Former Liberal MLA Allan Warnke, who also was Aboriginal Affairs critic, stated that the leader of the Liberal

[ Page 10972 ]

opposition has yet to articulate a clear alternative to the Nisga'a treaty. He further states: "One wishes that the Liberals would state their agenda more clearly, some of it crying out for public debate, instead of cleverly disguising their intentions and then springing a highly contentious and, in my view, very dangerous agenda on an unsuspecting public." I would challenge all Liberal opposition members to be upfront and honest with themselves and with all people of British Columbia. Fearmongering and misinformation do nothing in the continuation of the debate.

It does nothing in the continuation of this shameful state of affairs that our Canadian policies and laws have largely been responsible for.

How history views this government and this treaty is up to each and every member of this Legislature. Our government has called for a free vote to ensure that all members have the opportunity to exercise their very own moral and ethical sense of justice and that of their constituents in their constituencies. In this spirit, I encourage and challenge the opposition to do the same. I encourage every member of this assembly to do the right thing and not merely toe the party line.

Now is not the time to fortify the trenches of partisan politics; now is not the time to disagree for the sake of disagreement alone. Now is the time for each and every member of this assembly to look deep into their hearts and, I say, to look deep into their conscience -- I say again, to look deep into their conscience. I implore every member: do not allow yourselves to end up on the wrong side of history. Do not be the ones to lock the door. The legacy of this treaty will ultimately become a crucial

chapter in the history of this province, a

chapter about our values, about our sense of fairness, about putting people before politics.

This century has seen huge atrocities that have been committed by human beings. They've been committed by human beings against their own. Yet as and while we come near -- we're looking at the future, and it's around the corner -- a new millennium, we stand prepared to right many wrongs of the past. As a society, we have realized the rights of women for a safe and equitable role in our society, the rights of children to grow and blossom without fear of violence and sexual abuse, the rights of all people to participate on an equal footing in the workplace and in the courts. We have endured the Great Depression, two world wars and the nuclear age.

Throughout this century of evolution, the Nisga'a people have waited. They have anticipated the day when their claim to redress would be recognized and upheld. That date is upon us, and I would ask that all members of this assembly rise to this challenge. The Nisga'a treaty lies before us, tied to our past and calling us -- calling each and every one of us -- to our future.

S. Hawkins: I know that the negotiation and completion of treaties is a matter of great importance and interest to all my constituents and, indeed, to all British Columbians and all Canadians as well. I'm pleased to have the opportunity to rise and enter into this historic debate. I'm also grateful for the opportunity and the privilege afforded me by my constituents to stand in this chamber today. In doing so, I've committed to choosing my words with care and respect.

I'm sure it's a profound understatement to say that the treaty process has been a difficult journey for many. I've listened very carefully to the speakers before me, and there have been some memorable and moving moments for me. Certainly the recounting of the history that has brought us here today moves me. I'm reminded of and am especially not proud of the acts of intolerance and ignorance against aboriginal peoples attributed to past representatives of this House and the federal Parliament.

I'm moved by the stories of struggle, segregation and poverty, and I'm sickened by the grave injustices perpetrated against a people who found themselves stripped of their culture, forced to live on reserves, forced to place their children in institutions and denied the democratic right to vote. Those have not been proud moments in our history, and, for the record, I too want to say most sincerely that I am sorry for all the injustices against aboriginal peoples.

Interjection.

S. Hawkins: You know, hon. Speaker, I really looked forward to this debate, because I believed that this was the place where information should be shared without fear, without intimidation. And in this chamber, we as democratically elected representatives should have the opportunity and the freedom to put forward our points and concerns without fear of retribution. The subject of this debate, the first modern-day treaty negotiated in B.C., is not simple. As such, I honestly believe that this debate should not be allowed to be reduced to such a low level as I've seen with some of the speakers that have gotten up.

I had hoped that all members of this House would be respectful of other members' views. I had sincerely hoped that the language used in this chamber would reflect the significant nature of the subject of this debate and the importance that this treaty will have on the future of this province and the society we want to live in and want our children to enjoy. I guess it's particularly disturbing to me to hear the kinds of words that have been tossed about this chamber.

This is the one place where I believed that we had the right to hold differing views and that they would be respected and upheld as a democratic right.

Growing up as a member of a visible minority, I was called a lot of hurtful names. But I must admit that I've heard some new ones and I've been called some new ones during this debate. Frankly, I find the kind of name-calling that's taken place here rather shocking, and I don't think it has any place in this chamber. It's inappropriate and certainly unbecoming to members of this House to toss about the kind of hateful words that I have personally experienced and heard in this chamber within the context of this debate. I sincerely and honestly hope the level of debate can be elevated beyond the point of that kind of name-calling.

This debate, in my mind, is not about whether land claims issues should be resolved or not. They should be. I know that; we all know that. There is strong agreement across the province that recognizes that very need. That need is for negotiated, workable, affordable agreements -- treaties which will truly embrace the goals of certainty, finality and equality. I believe that this treaty in its present form falls short of meeting some of those goals.

This treaty, in my opinion, falls short of meeting the goal of equality -- in particular in

chapter 11, in the governance sections. We've been led to believe that self-government as laid down in this

chapter can be described as municipal-style. In fact, we've been fed a daily diet of government advertising -- a multimillion-dollar NDP ad campaign -- to try and convince us of that.

I'm convinced, as are most of my constituents, that British Columbians support the concept of self-government for aboriginal peoples. And I am sure that a true municipal-style model is one that would get the most support. I truly believe that. I'm sure that's what the Premier's polling suggested. I'm sure that when the Premier and the NDP did their polling, they understood that too. I'm convinced that that's one of the

[ Page 10973 ]

reasons why the NDP and the Premier have been spending millions in misleading advertising in order to get public support for this treaty. All the ads and all the dollars spent so far don't change the fact that the self-government provisions in the Nisga'a treaty are far different from municipal-style government, as we currently know it.

Municipalities are creatures of provincial legislation. They get their powers from the province and can only exercise the powers they are given -- no more, no less. Municipal governments must operate within the boundaries of the provincial legislation under which they're created. In no way, shape or form can those municipal councils create laws that are paramount to the provincial or federal laws. Under the Nisga'a treaty, the Nisga'a government is granted paramount legislative authority in at least 14 areas of jurisdiction, and I understand that these laws will primarily impact Nisga'a citizens.

However, some of these laws will arguably have a broader impact. In the event of inconsistency or conflict with federal or provincial legislation, Nisga'a law will prevail.

Nisga'a laws reserve the right of paramountcy in the areas of adoption, child and family services, preschool-to-grade-12 education, advanced education, and organization and structure of health care delivery. It's probably more than obvious by now that municipal councils today do not possess that kind of power. So there's little doubt that this treaty creates an order of government somewhere between a municipal and a federal-provincial creature -- something I understand that federal negotiators don't call municipal-style but when they're pressed call "municipal-plus" government.

If that is the case, why can't the government just be honest and admit that? Why won't this government give British Columbians the information they need to understand what is really in this treaty, instead of trying to sell us something that isn't there? It's no wonder that this Premier and his members -- his cabinet -- have lost the trust of the majority of British Columbians.

A fundamental flaw in this treaty -- and one that I personally feel strongly about -- is the lack of provision for non-Nisga'a to exercise their free and democratic right to vote. The right to vote is based on ancestry in this treaty. That was wrong 100 years ago -- we heard that in this House from several speakers -- and it's still wrong today. I know that, because I come from a history of a people that were denied the right to vote in this province and in this country until only 50 years ago. We were denied the right to vote because we were from India; we were of Indian ancestry instead of the favoured European ancestry.

My people fought long and hard for the right to vote. They believed it was a fundamental right. They believed it was ours, as hard-working, law-abiding, taxpaying citizens of this country. I recognize that my people's long struggle and battle with federal and provincial governments finally resulted in successfully attaining the right to vote in 1947. This right was not extended to Asians and aboriginal peoples until 1949.

I just want to read . . . . I was going back through the papers of the day, and on April 3, 1947, the Province newspaper reported the following: "The new Elections Act holds promise that some day B.C. will enfranchise all its citizens no matter what the colour of their skins." From the Province newspaper on March 9, 1949 -- two years later -- here is a quote: "Last year Chinese, East Indians and native Indians outside of reservations were given the vote.

An Elections Act amendment now before the provincial Legislature will extend the franchise to the Japanese and to Indians living on reservations." B.C.'s second-class citizen setup has been particularly embarrassing and shameful at a time when the world's tendency is toward recognition of human rights. The United Nations charter of human rights, to which Canada has subscribed, states specifically: "Everyone has the right to take

part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives."

[4:45]

I'm grateful for those who fought for my right to vote and stand for office. I'm also very much aware of the fact that I as a woman of colour would not be standing here today if it weren't for the tenacity and dignity of my people and the strongly held belief in equality that they fought for. Unpopular as it was then, they knew that it was the right thing to do; they knew that. Everybody deserves the vote.

I happen to believe very strongly in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was passed 50 years ago on December 10 by the General Assembly of the United Nations. I know it's been quoted before, but I too would like to quote from it, if I may. Here's a quote from it:

"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood . . . . Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this declaration without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty . . . . Everyone has the right to take

part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives . . . . Everyone has the right to equal access to public service in his country . . . . The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government. This will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures."

In my opinion, this treaty falls short of adhering to the standards set in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This treaty doesn't address the concerns of that small minority of non-Nisga'a who will be affected by the decisions of the Nisga'a government.

Interjection.

S. Hawkins: But you know what? They'll have no opportunity to vote for the government or the laws that they have to live under. I've heard members, and I hear them now . . . . I hear members from the benches opposite saying things like: "It's time to move on. Move forward. Move ahead." I have to think about this. How can I move forward with any good conscience and leave behind what my people worked so hard for? How can I, personally, move fo