1983 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 33rd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1983

Morning Sitting

[ Page

2921 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Motion 1

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 2921

Mr. Passarell –– 2924

Mr. Davis –– 2928

Mr. Howard –– 2928

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2931

Mrs. Wallace –– 2932

Mr. Lockstead –– 2932

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 2933

Supply Act (No –– 2), 1983 (Bill 37). Hon. Mr. Phillips

Introduction and first reading –– 2935

Supply Act (No –– 2), 1983 (Bill 37). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 2935

Mr. Howard –– 2936

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 2937

Supply Act (No –– 2), 1983 (Bill 37). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Phillips)

Report –– 2938

Royal assent to bills –– 2938

Supply Act (No –– 2), 1983 (Bill 37). Report.

Third reading –– 2939

Royal assent to bill –– 2939

Appendix –– 2939

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1983

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask leave to proceed to resolutions, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

MOTIONS AND ADJOURNED DEBATES ON

MOTIONS

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call resolution 1 standing under my name

on the order paper. [See appendix.] In view of the acceleration of

debate that has developed in these dog days of this present sitting, I

should perhaps move the motion and sit down.

Interjections.

HON. MR. GARDOM: However, I'm happy to hear that my colleagues are responding in the negative — though not that enthusiastically.

On motion 1.

In the spirit of onward and ever onward, I should have perhaps

respected the sentiments of those people who said that this should be a

short debate, but I do have to make some remarks, because in this

motion we're dealing with people who preceded us into our country —

and, indeed, their beloved Canada — by centuries beyond their or our

recall. Hence, Mr. Speaker, I would request your indulgence, and that

of both sides of this relatively new parliament, to express our views

on a resolution which will in history, and in the passage and leavening

of time, be chronicled as being one of marked significance.

I worked for many years for and with our Indian community, and they

were certainly among the most loyal and fair-minded people I have had

the honour and pleasure of dealing with. At the outset I asked one of

their leaders: "How do you wish me to do my job?" And the response that

I received was two words. He said: "Think Indian." I gave my efforts

and did my best within those parameters.

I well remember July 1, 1967, when Canada feted its one hundredth

birthday. On that day I did one thing: I wrote a speech about the

Indian community of Canada and its many reasons for lack of celebration

on that one-hundredth birthday. But I'm pleased to say that a lot has

transpired since 1967, and much for the good. I'm not saying that

there's still not a lot to be done, but there has been good headway,

and this resolution itself is another example of that headway.

It is a great privilege for me to be able to rise and introduce this

resolution, both of and for itself, and on behalf of the government of

our province, which has played a very important role in creating the

process that brought that resolution here today, but most of all, I

would say, because of its great significance for this nation and for

its native people.

The resolution, Mr. Speaker, and the events preceding it represent a milestone

achievement in Canadian nation-building. It arrives out of an historical occasion

that is doubly significant: the meeting on March 15 and 16 of this year of the

first ministers of the 11 governments of Canada and the representatives of the

native people of our country. I say doubly, Mr. Speaker, because it was the

first time that Canadian government leaders met to discuss amendments to our

new Canadian constitution — then less than a year old — and secondly, that the

meeting was unique in Canadian history because it was the first time that the

first ministers, the Prime Minister and the Premiers, were joined at the table

fittingly by the leaders of Canada's aboriginal people and also by the government

leaders of the Yukon and Northwest Territories.

I would like to give hon. members some background and detail to put

the importance of this resolution in proper perspective. Members will

recall that the Constitution Act, 1982, proclaimed by Her Majesty the

Queen of Canada in Ottawa in the rain on April 17, 1982, contained

three distinct and brand-new provisions specifically related to the

aboriginal peoples of our country.

[10:15] First,

section 25, which is a

Section in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, provides:

"The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and

freedoms shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any

aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the

'aboriginal peoples of Canada' including

" (

a) any rights or freedoms that have been recognized by the Royal proclamation of October 7, 1763; and

" (

b) any rights or freedoms that may be acquired by the

aboriginal peoples of Canada by way of land claims settlement."

Secondly, Mr. Speaker,

section 35, which is entitled "Rights of the

Aboriginal Peoples of Canada," provides for the recognition and

affirmation of the existing aboriginal and treaty rights of our

aboriginal peoples. The

section also provides that the existing

aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples be recognized

and affirmed and defines the aboriginal peoples of Canada as including

the Indian, Inuit and Metis people of Canada. Thus for the very first

time, Mr. Speaker, the aboriginal people of Canada are generically

identified and included in the constitution of our country.

Thirdly,

section 37. This is the third reference to the aboriginal

peoples, and it is found in

Part IV of the Constitution Act. It

provides that a constitutional conference composed of the Prime

Minister and the first ministers of the provinces be convened by the

Prime Minister before April 17, 1983, and that the conference have

included in its agenda an item respecting constitutional matters that

directly affect the aboriginal peoples, including the identification

and definition of the right of those peoples to be included in the

constitution of our country, and that the Prime Minister invite

representatives of those peoples and also of the Yukon and Northwest

Territories to participate in the discussions.

The commitment to hold that conference was met, and the first

ministers' meeting was held in Ottawa on March 15 and 16 of this year.

The resolution which is before the House today is the result of those

meetings of the first ministers and the aboriginal groups.

Now let me describe, Mr. Speaker, some of the work leading up to

that conference. Months before it started, a series of preparatory

meetings was held at the federal-provincial level, and with the

representatives of the aboriginal

[ Page 2922 ]

people, to identify and define the subject areas

which the native leaders wished to address. And these meetings produced

a very lengthy list which included such things as a charter of rights

for the aboriginal people; a

preamble; a statement of particular

rights; a statement of principles; constitutional formula revisions —

in fact, what was proposed was a provision that would not permit a

constitutional amendment affecting them in any way without their

consent; their request also, Mr. Speaker, for their own self-government

and autonomy; and constitutionalized cost-sharing service-delivery

arrangements, plus an ongoing process and other matters.

It became mighty apparent during this series of discussions and

meetings before the first ministers' conference that there was far, far

too much on the plate for any two-day conference. The issues were too

many and far too complex for all of them to be adequately, let alone

effectively, dealt with. The representatives of the aboriginal

organizations were legitimately concerned, because the constitutional

obligation under

section 37 was just to hold one first ministers'

conference on these issues within a year of patriation and nothing

more. If the conference ended and the constitutional obligation itself

was spent or discharged, that would be it — one meeting to get the job

done. If it wouldn't have been done, then essentially it would have

been game over. Certainly that would not have been right.

I and my former colleague, the Hon. Allan Williams, with senior

staff of my ministry, met with and proposed to native leaders in

British Columbia and across Canada a way out of this dilemma. We

recommended that at the approaching first ministers' conference, which

was set for March 1983, the way out of this possible impasse was to

seek an accord, an agreement in writing, which then and there be signed

by the heads of all of the governments, guaranteeing an ongoing

process. We assured them that we would fully support them on that point

at the conference table. The government and the native community would

then have the opportunity to commit themselves to future meetings over

a fixed period of time so that this number of extremely complex issues

could eventually be properly addressed.

It was discussed then and there that legislative and parliamentary

resolutions alone could not achieve this, because it was recognized

that there would be a considerable hiatus between the expiry date of

the constitutional provision in the constitution requiring a conference

to be before April 1983 and any passage of resolutions by the required

two-thirds of the provinces and the federal government to

constitutionally guarantee additional talks and conferences. So the

process had the capacity — this is the point I'm emphasizing — to flop

completely with nothing productive flowing from it. That, indeed, would

have been tragic. I'm very pleased to say that this British Columbia

initiative was eventually accepted by the conference as the only way to

proceed.

The conference came next. This meeting on March 15-16 of this year

has been rightly recorded as an historic event of great importance. For

the very first time the descendants of the original peoples of Canada,

the Indian, Inuit and Metis, together with representatives of the

territories and all governments, met in a first ministers' conference

to discuss constitutional matters of particular concern to them.

As I've indicated and as was stressed by a number of participants,

one conference could not resolve all the important issues, but it was

the first step. The accord on aboriginal rights which resulted from

those meetings was a cardinal achievement and is the product of the

resolution that we have on the table this morning. Regrettably it was

not signed by all of the participants, but it was signed by 16 of the

17 participants — other than Quebec — including the Yukon, the

Northwest Territories and the leaders of the national aboriginal

associations. By signing this accord, the Prime Minister and the

premiers of the nine provincial governments made a commitment to lay

before their respective legislatures, before December 31 of this year,

the resolution attached to the accord, which I tabled in this House on

the first day of this session.

In order to achieve amendments of this kind under the new amending

formula, as I'm sure all hon. members know, a resolution containing the

proposed amendments must be passed by the federal Parliament — Senate

and House of Commons — and the legislatures of at least seven provinces

representing 50 percent of the population. After the requisite

resolutions are passed, the next step is for the Governor-General of

Canada to issue a proclamation amending the constitution accordingly.

The purpose before us today is to have our Legislature do its part to

implement these amendments that were agreed to at the constitutional

conference in March.

Turning to the substance of the amendments, it should be noted that

the native leaders, greatly to their credit and with much tribute to

their negotiating powers and skills, were able to obtain agreement on

four constitutional amendments, which is really a measure of success

unparalleled by all of the efforts of the governments of Canada to

amend the constitution over many decades — indeed, generations. It was

really quite an accomplishment and they're to be congratulated and

commended for that.

There are four amendments. The first amendment is an amendment to

section 25(

b) designed to protect any rights or freedoms that now exist

by way of land claims or that may be acquired in the future. The

previous wording in the constitution proclaimed by Her Majesty on April

17, 1982, was of concern. While it may have protected future land claim

agreements, there was uncertainty regarding the protection of existing

land claim settlements. This amendment will provide greater certainty

and protection for both.

The second one is an amendment to

section 35. Two amendments are

proposed here. The first is similar to the one to

section 25, which I

referred to. The effect of it is that any existing and future land

claim settlements are recognized by including them in the definition of

"treaty rights." The second addition to

section 35 —

section 35(4) to

be precise — is designed to guarantee that the aboriginal and treaty

rights referred to apply equally to men and to women. It was considered

by many that the present provisions of

section 15 of the Charter were

adequate protection in this regard. However, it has to be noted that

section 15 in the Charter, "Equality Rights," does not come into full

force and effect until April 17, 1985; in any event, and for greater

certainty, it was agreed that there would be this new clause

specifically guaranteeing that the rights acquired by treaties and land

claims do apply equally to women and to men. It was fairness, and a

deserved fairness.

The third item was a commitment to participation in future

amendments directly affecting the aboriginal peoples. This is an

amendment which will allow for the full participation of those

aboriginal peoples in future discussions to amend the constitution in

respect of amendments directly related to them. This type of

participation would be achieved through a first ministers'

constitutional conference to which

[ Page

2923 ]

representatives of the aboriginal peoples would be invited by the Prime Minister

of Canada. This new

section does not go as far as providing for consent of the

aboriginal people to constitutional amendments — something, I might say, that

would not be possible without the unanimous consent of all eleven governments

in our country, because it would change the amending formula contained in the

constitution. Unanimous consent of the eleven governments would be required

for that. But it does provide to the aboriginal people — the native Indian community

— the enshrining of the principle of participation. I would say that is fair,

I would say it is necessary, and, from the perspective of the native people,

a valued proviso, and unique indeed to them.

The fourth amendment relates to future constitutional conferences,

the new

section 37.1. It extends the review process begun by the

original

section 37, which I previously referred to. At least two more

first ministers' conferences, to attend to unfinished business, will be

constitutionally required to be held by no later than April 17, 1987.

There are many more issues yet to be addressed, Mr. Speaker, but I

would point out very clearly that the needs and aspirations of our

aboriginal people can never be met by constitutional amendment alone. A

reshaping of public attitudes, new government policies and other

initiatives may prove to be just as important, if not more important,

in addressing the legitimate concerns of the aboriginal peoples. For

that matter, I don't suppose that they themselves conclude that their

attitudes and concerns for their aspirations are cast in stone either.

As all our members know, throughout the history of Canada only the

Parliament of Canada has had the jurisdiction or legislative authority

to enact measures with respect to Indians and lands reserved for

Indians. The provinces have had to accept the relationships that have

been worked out between the federal government and the native peoples.

Section 91(24) of the BNA Act, as it used to be known, and now the

Constitution Act, 1867, which holds Canada alone responsible for

Indians and land reserved for Indians, remains still unchanged today.

Yet the resolution before us this morning, requesting very significant

amendments to the constitution, does involve the provinces at the level

of first ministers in the ongoing process of reshaping the

relationships which exist and are to exist among Canada, the provinces

and the indigenous peoples of this country.

I've talked about the amending formula. This is why I'm repeating

that point: because we cannot today amend the Constitution of Canada,

and rightly so, without the consent of the provinces. There cannot be a

unilateral amendment just by the federal government or just by the

provincial government, save in matters that are totally and

specifically related only unto them. This is an area wherein that

degree of provincial consent would be required. Without Canada having

this kind of provincial initiative across Canada, any of the proposed

new constitutional amendments that we have before us at this time just

would not happen.

[10:30]

Also empowered by

section 91(24), the Parliament of Canada enacted the Indian

Act and made various amendments to it over the years, the major and overall

effect of which was to give the federal bureaucracy and ministers of Indian

Affairs almost complete control over Indians, their lives and even their affairs

after their death. As is now well known, the Indian Act today, and since 1951,

has even included a complicated set of criteria determining who qualified to

be known and registered as an Indian, and those provisions established one set

of rules for the men and another set of rules for the women. This federal discriminatory

measure still continues at the present time as perhaps one of the most patronizing

pieces of legislation that has ever been developed in this country. Hence it

is very significant that parliament and the provincial legislatures are now

engaged in amending the aboriginal provisions of the constitution, which itself

is less than one and a half years old, when the Parliament of Canada itself

has been unable to make any substantive amendment to the Indian Act for the

last 32 years.

The provinces, in entering the constitutional field of aboriginal

affairs for the first time in the country's history, are attempting to

see that these descendants of the indigenous people fair far better

from our constitutional enactments than they have faired historically

through federal initiatives.

All of those who have a knowledge and understanding of native

history will appreciate that Canada has not embarked upon an easy task.

This is clear from observing the agenda that is set out in the accord

achieved last March. That agenda clearly illustrates that the job at

hand is to seek to find a means by which native rights and aspirations

may be identified and provided for first in the constitutional

framework, then whatever flows from that in the legislative or

administrative sense. Implicit also is the search for social and

economic equality for the descendants of our indigenous peoples.

Whether that is to be found in the north or in the south, in rural

Canada or in urban Canada, within our existing institutions or within

some kind of a framework that is not yet to be devised, it is a big

task. Given that task, discussions with the native peoples must be at

the most senior level and highest political plateau in Canada — that of

the Prime Minister and the ten premiers.

The leaders of the native people have now succeeded in taking their

case to this most senior of political forums. Those leaders will have

the opportunity to negotiate the best arrangement they can respecting

their future relationships with and within Canada. But they must do so

realistically and pragmatically. If that which they seek is extravagant

or unpalatable, or in conflict to the extent that it is not realizable

or achievable from the perspective of Canada as a whole or from the

perspective of its twentieth century institutions, then they and

everyone else may have to risk a strong probability of lack of

appreciable success at these conferences. I say that would be a loss to

all. I refer to this possibility, Mr. Speaker, not because of any

degree of personal pessimism but because of what a lot of Canadians can

perceive as perhaps an already inflated expectation on the part of some

as to what the ongoing process may hold in store.

The Prime Minister and the Premiers have agreed to discuss every

issue which the native leaders have sought to have placed on the

agenda, including matters such as aboriginal rights, native title,

native self-government, funding of aboriginal governments, native

consent to constitutional amendment and so on. And they wish to hear

the articulations of the native community and

definitions that they

will give to these concepts and how they think they could be applied.

I want to emphasize the point that agreement on an agenda does not

necessarily forecast in any way the outcome of negotiations. In

accepting topics for negotiation which are so far reaching in their

implication for all of the people of Canada, the first ministers have

done so to illustrate to the native peoples that the governments of our

country are not attempting to set their own parameters for discussion or

[ Page 2924 ]

otherwise constrain debate. The message, I hope, is

clear: that governments realize Indian grievances are genuinely felt

and that native aspirations have not been met. Only in the fullest

discussion of concepts, such as native title or autonomous

self-government, will it become clear to the parties and to Canadian

taxpayers whether there can be agreement on a lot of

definitions, which

in turn might lead to the fulfilment of native demands for entrenchment

of certain concepts in our constitution, or — and I would underline the

word "or" — as to whether they might be better addressed in other ways.

Certainly everyone must hope that no one's expectations have been

elevated to the degree that the acceptance of an agenda itself is the

precursor of complete agreement on the concept. That wouldn't be fair

and I would certainly hope there would not be any misconceptions on

this point. But absolutely in no way does that suggest that any party

should or will go forward to these next or future constitutional

conferences with closed minds or with fixed positions. All must be

willing to listen, and all must be prepared to search for realizable

and achievable solutions. But be aware, as well, that now and in the

past certain positions taken and certain demands expressed by some

leaders have been seen by successions of Canadians and administrations

as unreconcilable with the tenets of Canada as a whole.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion I wish to report that according to the

best information I have, six provinces have already passed this

resolution. We in this House, therefore, this morning, stand on the

threshold of a very special moment in Canadian history. The passage of

the resolution today will make British Columbia the seventh province to

do so, thus fulfilling the provision of the constitutional amending

formula requiring successful amendments to receive the support of at

least seven provinces, with a total of at least 50 percent of the

Canadian population, as well as the support of the federal Parliament.

B.C. will therefore be the decisive seventh province supporting these

prospective first amendments to the constitution of Canada.

I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, and indeed do hope, that all members of this

House will want to join in this historic occasion by unanimously

supporting this resolution and providing for these amendments to our

constitution relating to the first inhabitants of our nation. I move

the resolution.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, this is a very important day. It

is an honour to be able to stand up for Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition

to debate this and bring forth some ideas regarding this constitutional

amendment.

The previous speaker, the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations,

mentioned that this was an important day, and it is. But what was

lacking to make this a very special moment in our history is that there

was no notification that such an important aspect as a constitutional

change regarding the first citizens of this country was going to hit

the floor today. We should have every seat in this gallery full of

first citizens of this country and this province, witnessing such a

dramatic event as today: a change in the constitution, something that

should have been changed back in 1867. And here we are today, in 1983,

when this Legislature is going to be adjourning, with no notification

whatsoever, debating such an important resolution as this in front of

us today. Mr. Speaker, this would be a very important day to allow the

native people, the first citizens of this country, to witness what is

happening today. There is going to be agreement between the government

and Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition on this. They should have had the

chance — the children should have had the chance — to have been

notified before this hit the floor this morning, with this Legislature

adjourning this afternoon, to be able to witness it firsthand.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, a matter has been

brought to the attention of the Chair which in the opinion of the Chair

requires a brief recess. I would ask all members if they would leave

the chamber, and the Sergeant if he would clear the galleries. We will

return at the ringing of the bells.

The House took recess at 10:42 a.m.

The House resumed at 11:05 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair would first like to extend its

apologies to the member for Atlin for having to interrupt his remarks.

I am sure members understand the reasons behind the move. Prior to

continuing with the member for Atlin, the government House Leader

wishes leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I also

thank the hon. member for Atlin for his courtesy in relinquishing his

place to permit me to make this introduction.

We are extremely honoured in British Columbia today to have visiting

us the Governor of Shandong province in China. The Governor and ten

officials of the People's Republic of China are making a goodwill visit

to our province, and they have expressed great interest in

reforestation, papermaking, timber processing, urban construction,

agriculture and animal husbandry. As hon. members may know, Shandong

Province is situated in East China, in the lower reaches of the Huang

River, with a population of 74.5 million people and very large mineral

reserves, and their oilfield at Shengli is the largest oilfield in

their country. We have with us, in our galleries, the Governor, Mr.

Liang Buting; the secretary general, Mr. Liu Tong; the director of

foreign affairs, Mr. Xu Tianrui; and the

section leader of the

administrative office, Mr. Xu Zhenji. I would like all members to join

with me in saying to them that we wish them to have a good time in

British Columbia. We welcome them. We're very glad that they're here.

And may I say, as well, huan ying ge wei, zhu nimen cheng gong.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, not having had a previous

opportunity to practise any of the language of our distinguished

visitors, I am not able to equal that welcome by the Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations. But I do want the members of Her Majesty's

Loyal Opposition to join with the government in welcoming the Governor

of Shandong and the other distinguished visitors. I hope their stay

here is socially very pleasant and their return home is safe, and to

the mutual benefit of both the People's Republic of China and British

Columbia and Canada.

HON. MR. GARDOM: The translation, Mr. Speaker, is: welcome, honourable persons, we wish you success.

On motion 1.

[ Page 2925 ]

MR. PASSARELL: At times, I've brought the roof down in this

place, but never have I started making a speech and had the galleries

and the House cleared. Back to a more serious....

Interjections.

MR. PASSARELL: I would like to have a bit more joking, but

this is too serious at this stage to be making pleasantries across the

floor. I think, as I started to say in my introduction, that we will

have unanimous consent on this resolution, but there are some problems

that have to be brought forward in this debate. As I said earlier, this

is an important event because we are discussing the constitution. We're

bringing in an amendment to the constitution that affects the first

people, the first citizens of this country. When he was making his

introductory remarks, the minister said, "the people who came first."

What they said to him, when he asked what he could do, was: "Think

Indian." Here we are, fifty-seven non-Indians — and our federal

Parliament has one native sitting in it — making a very important

decision for our history and country, regarding something that should

have happened years and years ago. Look at our policy regarding

Indians, or natives or first citizens — or whatever term you want to

use — in this specific province. To use the words of a famous chief,

Taku Jack: "British Columbia's policy towards us is fraud and theft."

That's not Social Credit, NDP, Liberal or Conservative; it's the policy

of the governments of this province and this country. For over 100

years the policy towards the first citizens of this country has been

fraud and theft. That is not an exaggeration by Chief Taku Jack; it's a

fact. Indian lands were taken without treaty. Indian fishing places

were taken without due compensation to them. One of the first laws

regarding native people in our great country was King George III's

declaration in 1763, in which he said the native people, the first

citizens of our country, own the fish, own the land; it is their

country.

We became the country of Canada in 1867, and it wasn't until a

generation ago, when I was born, that native people, the first citizens

of this country, started to have a right that we took for granted for

years, a right that our ancestors had for years: that is, the right to

vote. They were denied that right for years and years, and it wasn't

until I was born in 1950 that the first citizens of this country were

entitled to vote. Now, 33 years later, here we are discussing an

amendment to the constitution — a constitution that was brought into

this country just a few short years ago — regarding further rights of

native people. How long is it going to be, Mr. Speaker? Are my children

or my grandchildren going to be alive when it finally comes forward in

this Legislature to give native people the rights that were taken away

115 years ago?

What we did to the native people was a shame. We took their lands

and put them into allocated reserves, and after giving them these

reserves we came back and took a little more land away from them. The

1913 McBride commission is an example, if I'm not mistaken, of where we

took this land away from them once again. It was not until a few short

years ago, 60 or 70 years after it happened, that we relinquished some

of this land back to them through cash. Some of the best land in this

province was again taken away from the native people. Laws were made

that to a certain extent forbade native people from organizing

politically against what was happening to them. The parliaments of this

country formulated laws that the first citizens of this country

couldn't organize to fight politically against what was happening to

them. They forbade native people from raising money, from pre-empting

land; and the major thing was that they forbade native people from

voting.

In view of this shocking record, Mr. Speaker, you would expect the

political leaders of this province to be a little hurt about what was

happening and to take the lead in rectifying these problems. As the

hon. minister said, we are the seventh province to be debating this,

and after the debate this morning and this afternoon we'll be the

seventh province to give unanimous consent to this motion. But why in

1983? Because of B.C.'s poor record in dealing with native people,

probably the worst in the entire country, we should have been the first

province in this country to accept this resolution.

As I said earlier, it's not a simple political thing between the NDP

and the Social Credit Party; this goes well beyond political labels and

lines. This province, of any province in the country, should take the

lead in campaigning for a new deal that would acknowledge native

rights. In acknowledging native rights, B.C. should give an example to

the rest of Canada by showing how native people, with the opportunity

and the economic means, can be self-reliant, by restoring them to good

measure by giving back the lands and resources that we confiscated from

the native people and giving back their right of possession and

use...by the example that they use this land and the resources over the

years.

On to the amendment itself. The minister stated earlier that B.C.

played a very important role in the negotiation of this resolution to

authorize His Excellency the Governor-General to issue a proclamation

respecting amendments of the constitution of Canada. But, Mr. Minister,

let us remember that when these discussions originally took place, it

was not Alberta and British Columbia but other provinces who were the

leaders in bringing forward aboriginal rights and title. Unfortunately,

B.C. did not play that major role in starting off this important

resolution with regard to the original constitution debates, and, as

the hon. minister stated in his address: "How can we get out of this

dilemma?" He used the word "dilemma" and talked about this written

amendment before us today.

Mr. Speaker, over the years we have had written agreements with the

native people that haven't held water. Hopefully — and I know this will

be a major breakthrough — we will have an agreement that non-Indians

will sign with the first citizens of this country and this province

which will not be pushed aside, as previous treaties have been over the

years. It's the old bead-and-trinket routine. Hopefully, this amendment

by the government, with unanimous consent by Her Majesty's Loyal

Opposition, will show to the native people in this province and across

this country that we really believe in what we're bringing forward here

and that we will not change our position two or three years down the

road — or ten years or five or six generations. This is a beginning.

As a country that is 115 years old, give or take a year, it's about

time that we bring a resolution into the constitution regarding native

people and their rights. What should the government have done? Mr.

Minister, let's look at the reasons why we are the seventh province to

accept this resolution. I remember my maiden speech to this House in

1979; one of the things I brought forward was the people I represent,

the Nishga people. If there's any band in this country which has been

denied rights, it has been the Nishga. The Nishga were the first native

band in this country, 112 years ago, to bring

[ Page 2926 ]

forward a court case against the federal and

provincial governments regarding land claims and aboriginal title, and

they've been fighting this battle for the last 112 years, going all the

way to the Supreme Court with the Calder decision — a 5 to 4 decision

that denied them the rights that they have been fighting for since time

immemorial. I remember stating in that maiden speech that I would

challenge the government of the day to bring forward resolutions — what

we're talking about today — and I remember that the then

Attorney-General, Allan Williams, stated the position of this

government toward aboriginal title, land claims and the entire issue.

It is reported in the public record in Hansard what he said in this House regarding the belief and philosophy of the government in regard to aboriginal title.

Secondly, what we have to look forward to in this resolution are the

statements that were made in the last election, particularly around the

Smithers area, by the Premier. It was touched upon briefly yesterday in

question period. It is ironic, Mr. Speaker, that I led off in question

period yesterday talking about a very similar issue to what we're

talking about here today — the response from the government regarding

issues that we're discussing in this amendment and what they said

yesterday.

I would hope that the negotiating strategy of this government is not

to pretend, not to just go through the motions of negotiation. To a

certain extent it has worked against aboriginal rights. What are we to

say now, Mr. Speaker, after seeing what we, as non-Indians, have done

to the native people of this country? I think all of us should really

think before this resolution is passed. It has to be passed. It should

have been done years and years ago.

The native people have accepted the constitutional accord as the

best deal they could work out from non-Indians, and what they could get

at that time. They accepted it in negotiations in Ottawa as a

starting-point, hopefully a springboard. We of the NDP also accept it

on that basis for the time being. We will accept the resolution in

front of us today on that basis, in the same way, as a starting-point,

because we have to remember the Social Credit government is still on

record as opposing aboriginal title. We also remember what the federal

Liberal government did when they were ready to sell out aboriginal

rights to make some kind of deal with a reactionary provincial

government such as Alberta or British Columbia in the initial

negotiations.

We also have to remember that it was only because of the

determination of the first citizens of this country, through

negotiations in Ottawa, of the native people and their allies,

including the New Democratic Party, that any kind of aboriginal rights

clause was put into the constitutional agreement in the beginning. On

that basis of a resolution as it stands now before us, we will have to

wage a hard fight to make reactionary governments recognize aboriginal

title.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

In this accord, in this document before us,

section 35, you will

notice that it makes it conditional on land claim agreements. The

question I put forward to you is: what happens if there is no

agreement? Does

section 35 still stand? We already know, in fact, that

the courts have decided against aboriginal title, as the Calder

decision has shown. Now we have

section 35, and it makes it conditional

on land claim agreements.

1 know he has a deep feeling on what we're talking about today, but

I still have to refer the hon. minister to what happened yesterday with

the Exell problem. I also have to refer him to the Kitsault problem

that we have discussed in this Legislature in regard to what we're

bringing forth today. I also have to direct the minister to the Stikine

and Iskut hydro project that would take away native rights — rights

that they, to a certain extent, have had since time immemorial. What we

should be doing today, prior to passing the resolution and closing down

the House for a couple of weeks or whatever....

MS. SANFORD: A couple of years.

MR. PASSARELL: It could be years. I doubt if it will be, but

who knows? The Premier in his address last night was pretty ambiguous

on when he was going to recall the Legislature.

What I would like, Mr. Speaker, once we've passed this with

unanimous consent this afternoon, is that we form a legislative

committee to address the entire problem of aboriginal title, land

claims and rights in this province. The minister said earlier he wanted

to show B.C. as being in the forefront of this issue. Let's show the

rest of the country that we can lead the way in resolving this issue,

by putting together a legislative committee to deal with the entire

issue of aboriginal rights. Let's show the other provinces our

understanding and our feeling for native people, our commitment to

resolve the dilemma that has faced the first citizens of this country

since 1867. Let's put together a committee to go out and talk to the

native people, to listen to the ideas and suggestions they can give to

us, as non-Indians, for dealing with the problems before us.

[11:30]

The hon. minister also said there are more issues to be met and that there

should be changes in government policy. I would certainly hope that by unanimous

consent to this important constitutional amendment, there will be a change in

government policy, specifically by the Social Credit government in regards to

its previous statements about aboriginal title, land claims.

Let's review the idea, the statement we use: "Let bygones be

bygones." We've done this for years and years to the native people; but

we still have the position put forward by the then Attorney-General,

which has never been rectified, never been changed, that you as a

political party do not believe, philosophically, in aboriginal title.

There has to be some kind of a change in regard to this; we can't

ignore the problem any longer.

The Indian Act which was referred to by the minister is an ancient

piece of bureaucracy, as my hon. friend from North Vancouver–Seymour

(Mr. Davis) stated, and it should have been thrown away, destroyed,

years ago. The Indian Act is racist and it's paternalistic. If we want

to bring forward a resolution to go along with this negotiation paper,

this constitutional accord, it should be to take that Indian Act and

burn it. Allow the first citizens of this country to take that racist

document and burn it, get rid of it. Let's start anew with this

constitutional issue.

I take a great amount of pride in being able to lead off for the

opposition on this issue. Something I have looked upon as very

important in my political career is a feeling for native people, for

people I live with in the far north, and being associated with people

like Chief Taku Jack, who is in his

[ Page 2927 ]

eighties now, Chief James Gosnell of the Nishga,

Chief Henry Tashoots of the Iskut band, Chief Ivan Quock of the Tahltan

band, Chief Peter Stone of the Kaska-Dene. From these four or five

individuals that I have been able to learn from in my brief career in

politics I have an understanding of what these people believe in, and

it always comes back to the fact that we, as non-Indians, are the

immigrants of this country, regardless of whether they're new

immigrants like myself, or an immigrant like any individual sitting in

this Legislature was at one time. We're all immigrants in this country.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: I hear the hon. member across from us making

statements. But, Mr. Member from North Vancouver–Seymour, I'm saying

something that I believe in. If we had a little bit more honesty like

that in this House on what you stand for and really believe in,

regardless of the political colours or the labels that you have, maybe

you would be a better man.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, withdraw that, please.

MR. PASSARELL: I will.

I stand in my place because I believe in aboriginal title and rights

in the land claims issue. I care. I feel that what I've seen happen to

the first citizens of this country has been disgraceful when it comes

to legislation and negotiations. I would hope that by starting off with

this constitutional amendment and having unanimous consent in this

Legislature, being the seventh province in this country to endorse this

resolution, this could be a starting-off point. Maybe this is a nova;

maybe this is something new for this province and our ancient political

beliefs, understanding and philosophy when it comes to aboriginal title.

As the designated speaker I could go on. But I think if you say

something in 40 minutes, the time that I've had.... I would hope that

all hon. members of the Legislature and the public who are sitting here

today in the galleries know that we are embarking upon a very important

time in our history. Once we have passed this legislation and it

becomes part of the constitution, it's a starting-off point for future

negotiations to resolve the long-standing problems that we have put

upon the native people, the first citizens of this country.

Hopefully in the very near future the problems that I've addressed

today regarding native people — education, health, land and wildlife —

will be resolved, and one day we will all become first citizens of this

country.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, we all know that this is a very

important subject. I'm going to vote for this resolution, not so much

because of what it says but because of the importance of the topic

which I believe it really only brushes on.

There is one particular part of the resolution which I think is

important. It will end up by giving native women equality before the

law and equality otherwise with native men. If it ends up in our

constitution, it will override the Indian Act in that respect; that

change is long overdue. I think that we all will agree in this chamber

that that is one part of the resolution on which there can be no

disagreement.

There are some fundamental aspects of the subject matter, however,

which are not clearly addressed. The term "land claims" appears several

times in these different clauses. Essentially land claims have to do

with property. In the case of British Columbia, if one were to take all

of the aboriginal land claims seriously, it would add up to at least a

third of the land area of British Columbia being turned over to one

Indian band or another. So it's a substantial and very important

subject, particularly in this province where aboriginal land claims are

numerous and involve a great deal of territory.

Property is not in our bill of rights and freedoms. It has been

exhided from our bill of rights and freedoms. Under the old British

North America Act, property and civil rights were substantially a

matter over which the provinces alone had control. Property was not a

federal matter; property was a provincial matter only. There have been

attempts to include the right to property in the bill of rights and

freedoms, in much the same fashion as the right to enjoyment of

property is included in the United States Bill of Rights.

I believe that the right to property, like the right to have a few

dollars in your pocket, the right to own your own knowledge, is

something which is a right which should belong to every individual in

this country. I believe that property is not simply vast acreages or

large factories or steel mills or oil fields; it can take many forms.

There should be, however qualified, a right to property in the

constitution. I know that this Legislature has, within the last two

years at least, passed a resolution to the effect that the right to

property should be included in the Canadian constitution. I don't think

that the New Democratic Party members who voted in favour of that

resolution had their heart in it; nevertheless, they did side with

members on the government benches, and we passed a resolution

unanimously that property would be a right that all Canadians enjoyed

and it would be protected in the Canadian bill of rights and freedoms.

If property was in the bill of rights and freedoms, then land claims

could be made under that heading, among others. There would be grounds

within the constitution on which the native peoples of this province or

other provinces or the Northwest Territories could negotiate, to their

betterment, their land claims, historic and otherwise.

I therefore argue that we have some further way to go in order to

enforce, in order to bring about, in order to realize the land claims

of the native people. We have to also get the right to property

embedded in our bill of rights and freedoms, embedded in the Canadian

constitution. I'm arguing essentially that land claims are the guts of

this resolution, that land claims are what the current change in the

constitution is all about. It's property, not people, not differences

between people. I believe that our constitution, while it's wordy, too

long, is essentially aimed in the right direction when it deals with

rights and freedoms. We are, at least in terms of opportunity, all

equal, regardless of who we are, where we live, our age, our sex, our

ethnic background, our historic origins, our religion. I have

difficulty with the arguments advanced by many people who talk on this

issue — the issue of our Indian people, their aboriginal land claims

and so on — that somehow they are different. They are the only peoples,

if this resolution proceeds into the constitution, who have a special

deal. They will have a special deal, or may have as a result of this

resolution succeeding here, in other legislatures and in the Parliament

of Canada.

[11:45]

I don't think that our native people are of a different class or category

than other Canadians, and I don't believe that many of them will argue that

for long. They will, I think, rightly argue that they have not had equal opportunity,

that

[ Page 2928 ]

there are situations in which they find themselves

which are disadvantageous to them personally, to their people, to their

area, to the activities which they traditionally follow, but I do not

believe that in our constitution we should have two classes of citizens

— the advantaged and the disadvantaged — the native or aboriginal

people and all the rest. Our laws apply, at least in this degree,

differently in respect to our aboriginal people than to the rest of us.

I think that's wrong and I think that implication, to the extent that

it is in this resolution, is wrong. I have that reservation, Mr.

Speaker, and I feel I must express it. I believe, in other words, that

aboriginal land claims, if they are the guts of this issue, should be

addressed through the property rights that the native peoples have as

citizens of this province and, through amendments to the constitution,

have as citizens of Canada. Land claims is a property issue, not a

people issue. It is a property issue in legal and constitutional terms.

I would not set the native people apart.

I have great difficulty in reconciling Canadian citizenship for

someone who has arrived from another part of the world three years ago

and is now a Canadian citizen, and some native individual who is three

years old. I don't really believe that because my grandparents came to

western Canada and owned an acreage in another part of this province, I

should be able to go back, and by snapping my fingers, claim that that

is mine. I don't believe something that happened 100, 200 or 10,000

years ago, when the ancestors of many of our aboriginal people came

across the Bering Strait, is relevant here and now to relations between

you and me, or between my family and the families of the aboriginal

peoples. We are all equal, or at least we should start equal. We should

have equal opportunities, and I don't....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Please proceed.

MR. DAVIS: When I was a young boy I was barefoot six months a

year. I have worked my way up, because my parents died when I was

young. I don't claim any particular advantage. I don't claim that I

should in any way have an advantage in law over any of the members

opposite, or you, Mr. Speaker, or any members on this side of the

House. I don't think anyone else, even if he's a descendant of

aboriginal people, should have an advantage over me or any of the rest

of us. That is a point which I think members opposite, if they stick to

the point, will have difficulty dealing with.

In this province this issue is essentially one of land claims. It's

an issue of property. I contend that property is a right which we all

should enjoy, however qualified or conditioned, and it is a right which

should be recognized in the bill of rights, nationally as well as

provincially, and one that the native peoples of this province, because

of their historic and other claims, should enjoy. That's my point and

that's my reservation.

I'll vote for this resolution. In some ways it is innocuous. It

will, fortunately, have some impact on the Indian Act, which hasn't

been significantly altered for decades. It is paternalistic and out of

date and needs a total rewrite. But in its rewriting I hope it will

conform to a revised Canadian constitution which has in it a bill of

rights and freedoms which gives every Canadian, every British

Columbian, equal opportunity and access to government, equal

opportunity to participate in the political process, and equal

treatment when it comes to land claims, property and so on.

Those are my main points. I would recommend to some members

opposite.... I know that one or two — perhaps the hon. member for

Skeena (Mr. Howard) — have read the White Paper produced for the then

Minister of Indian Affairs back around 1970. That White Paper, written

largely, I suppose, by bureaucrats in central Canada, preached not only

equality between native people but a very rapid transition from their

reserve status and their different circumstances across Canada to

equality with all Canadians, to be treated under the law like everyone

else, on and off their reserves. That White Paper rapidly descended

into the wastebasket, but it did make some very cogent arguments, some

of which I've advanced here this morning.

Transition is important. It will take decades. The different

qualities and ways of life of Canadians should not be dramatically

changed overnight, and certainly not by government, laws, programs or

administrations from provincial and federal capitals. But there will be

transitions, and I hope that in the case of our aboriginal people there

is plenty of time for them to live out their lives in an equitable,

rational and reasonable way in this country, to make their own way in

their own particular fashion. I think they're as good as every one of

us, but no better and no worse under law. That's the way I would have

it, and I would have their land claims solved and settled under an

amendment which would include in our constitution property rights for

every citizen of this country.

MR. HOWARD: I listened with a great deal of interest to what

the member for North Vancouver–Seymour had to say. I hope the House

won't mind if I comment on that as we proceed along. Perhaps it was a

slip of the tongue, a true reflection of the hon. gentleman, who was

associated with the federal government at the time of that 1969

document released by the Hon. Jean Chretien, the then Minister of

Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The slip of the tongue, which

is what I hope it was, was that the member for North Vancouver–Seymour

called it a "White Paper." That is highly unfortunate. Any reference of

that nature within the context.... If the member will hark back in his

mind to the discussion that took place in Canada following the

introduction of and revelations in that document of 1969, he will know

how native people from one end of this country to the other, regardless

of their nation, their language, their geography — the area in which

they lived — or their age, felt highly incensed at the use of the words

"White Paper" to identify that particular document. But as I say, maybe

that's a true reflection of what the attitude was at that time.

MRS. JOHNSTON: What was it called?

MR. HOWARD: Well, if the hon. member for Surrey wants to know

what the document is called, just out back here there is a library.

They'll be able to find it for you, and you will read it on there.

Nowhere does it say "White Paper." The only white paper concept is in

the minds of the people who had a prejudice about that particular thing.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The House will come to order. To the resolution, please.

MR. HOWARD: I am.

[ Page 2929 ]

This, I want to submit, deals not with property, but with human

dignity; not with possessions, but with human beings who have a

different inheritance than we who are not of native Indian extraction,

with individuals who have a different culture, with individuals,

families and tribes who have a different perception of ownership of

land than other Canadians have. In a non-Indian society we tend to talk

in terms of ownership being an individual thing with a piece of paper

saying: "Here are the metes and bounds of this particular piece that is

yours. But basically you're only renting, because it's still held in

the name of the Crown in the final analysis." With native Indian

people, possession of land — or of property, which is something far

beyond what we normally identify as land — is tribal or familial. They

have property rights within the culture of the native people, and they

know precisely what they are. They're inherited and they can be

identified, talked about and pointed to. I think it's improper for us

to impose the European concept on the concept of property rights that

the native people have as an inheritance and as a part of their culture

— very fundamental to their way of life and to their history. That's

how we have got into a great deal of the historic difficulty of

relationships between governments and native people in this nation.

When the Europeans came to this land, they embarked upon a program of

imposing European concepts and culture and religion upon the native

Indian people without regard to what their views might be about the

subject matter. The longer we continue saying the same kind of thing,

the longer we are postponing the inevitable conclusion of this

particular matter.

I want to read something into the record, Mr. Speaker.

"...the Legislative Assembly of the province of British

Columbia, declaring that the land claims and aboriginal rights of the native

Indian peoples in this province can be dealt with through a process of tripartite

negotiations involving the said native Indian peoples, the government of the

Honour the Lieutenant-Governor of the province of British Columbia forthwith

appoint a member of the executive council, whose responsibility would be to

arrange and expedite such tripartite negotiations to the end that a mutually

satisfactory conclusion may be reached with respect to such land claims and

aboriginal rights."

[12:00]

If we move from motion 1 to motion 6 in my name on the order paper, we will

be able to debate what I just read. I would think it would be a necessary companion

to the constitutional amendment that is now being considered by the House. The

House would take two distinct steps. One would be to say: "Yes, we are

in favour and unanimously supportive of the constitutional amendment."

We are also in favour of taking a companion step of saying that we recommend

that the province of British Columbia should engage itself in tripartite negotiations

about the very subject matter that is being dealt with there.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: That's a possibility. If the Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations wants to do that, I'm sure that we could

deal with motion 6 by agreement and without debate so that we don't

take up unnecessary time in the Legislature dealing with it. Inasmuch

as it is my motion, I would be quite content just to move it. I'm sure

my colleagues would agree not to enter into debate if the government

did not want to, and we could make another forceful, positive, helpful

declaration of this Legislature about a very fundamental and

long-standing question.

The record of this government is rather miserable in the area of

Indian affairs. The member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) has placed on the

record, briefly, the historical references to what the government said

before an election, what it said when it went through the.... I believe

the gentleman was the Minister of Labour at that time, Mr. Allan

Williams. At the Nass River in January 1976, at a meeting arranged

beforehand, but he attended representing the government at that time,

he declared the desirability of negotiating with the Nishga over land

claims. Then a short while later he had second thoughts about that and

declared on behalf of the government just the contrary.

Interjections.

MR. HOWARD: Perhaps the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith)

would take his

part in the debate and provide the House with the

information he might have about the government’s current position with

respect to land claims and aboriginal rights.

The record of the government is not a very happy or pleasant one, as

far as the native Indian people are concerned. The Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations has spent a considerable amount of time

talking about federal provincial conferences, first ministers'

conferences and the prelude to the current agreement on the

constitutional change that's before us. In that regard I want to make

mention of a paper. I wouldn't identify it as a white paper; more a

black paper. The title page is dated January 17, 1983. It was prepared

by Constitutional Affairs, Ministry of Intergovernmental Relations.

It's for the first ministers' conference on the constitution:

"Aboriginal issues. Overview paper. A negotiating strategy for the

section 37 conference." That was this year. Let's read what the

position of the provincial government was at that time. I maintain it

still is, because we've heard no declarations to the contrary. This

reflects exactly what Allan Williams said in this House in 1979,

referred to by my colleague from Atlin. Let me read from page 26:

"With regard to the issue of aboriginal rights, it should

be noted that British Columbia's position is much tougher than any other

government's position on this issue. Very simply, British Columbia's

position on aboriginal land claims is that 'native title' has never

existed in this province, but if it did, it was extinguished by pre-Confederation

legal actions. And further, that even to the extent that any unextinguished

title might still remain, it is now the total responsibility of the federal

government for settlement." *That's substantially what Allan Williams said

in 1979. His words are in Hansard . This wording is a little bit different, because

there are different people speaking. I don't know who it was who wrote this,

but it says clearly that B.C.'s position is that native title, and therefore

aboriginal rights, never existed.

The document goes on to talk about strategy — recommended provincial

negotiating strategy. These are documents from the Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations' ministry. After first saying that this

government’s position is that there are no rights, that they don't

recognize them, and even if they

[ Page 2930 ]

did exist they were extinguished before

Confederation.... It may well be that some visitors here today are

reading the same thing that I'm reading. Maybe some visitors wrote what

I am reading. It says on page 32: "

(4) During the preparatory phase,

the provincial government should be seen to be genuinely working hard

towards the 'identification and 'definition' of aboriginal rights."

First they say they don't have any, but the government should be seen

to be working hard towards identifying something that the government

says doesn't exist. What was that in there for? I say it was in there

to deceive people, particularly native Indian people, about the true

intentions of this government.

It continues: "

(5) The provincial government should appear receptive

to all statements and proposals of native organizations and should

expect that aggressive statements will be made and that radical

proposals put forward by native organizations...." But whatever those

proposals are, radical or what, the provincial government should appear

receptive to them. Isn't that deception? In my view it is, when you

proceed to a first ministers' conference with a document like this in

your pocket, Mr. Minister, prepared by your ministry.

It goes on further. There isn't any point in quoting additional

parts of it. That's sufficient to point up this particular document,

which I would ask leave to table, because it is a state paper. At the

conclusion of my remarks I'll make that particular request. I may want

to refer to it again, but I would like to table it.

I would say that if I were the minister, and somebody in the public

service prepared this kind of document of a deceptive nature to go to a

first ministers' conference about anything, the person who prepared

that document would no longer be working for me. They'd be fired

outright, because you cannot condone deception, whether it's at the

ministerial level or at the administrative level. And that's what that

document does; it sets out to deceive.

Let me make one other quotation from Hansard of June 29 of

this year. The Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) is speaking. He

was talking about re-fighting the election, I guess. He said: "Our

candidates were straightforward enough to tell the native people: 'No,

when we are government, re-elected in British Columbia, we will not

recognize aboriginal title claims.'" That's right. They were clear on

that. They were equally clear in the opposite direction in 1975, but

that was before the election. And then when the switch came — by Mr.

Williams, who's no longer here — they went off on another course. But

here's something that the Minister of Forests said that I think

requires some kind of explanation that either the minister did not know

what he was talking about, or some things do exist that have not yet

been revealed by this government, because the minister went on to say:

"Many of the aboriginal rights of native people as claimed are

recognized by this government." What are they? That is not a true

statement, Mr. Speaker, according to the information that I've been

given. Following the making of this statement, I checked with as many

native Indian people as I could — the provincial level of

organizations, the band level and at the tribal council level — and no

native Indian people that I know of in this province know of any

aboriginal right that the government has recognized. What's the

Minister of Forests trying to do? If there are any that are recognized,

I think it's incumbent upon the government to indicate them. Perhaps

the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) can do

that if and when he closes the debate today.

We made our position rather clear on this whole question. I have in

my files in the office — I don't have it with me here — the original

hand-written draft that was subsequently typed and signed by the Leader

of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition in 1979, directed to Mr. James

Gosnell of the Nishga tribal council, because he and other members of

the Nishga tribal council were in a meeting at that time — although the

declaration was to others as well — in which he said that if he was

elected he would take the position of appointing a minister to deal

with and try to establish three level negotiations about the land

claims question. That was reiterated earlier this spring, and that has

been a consistent view.

Mr. Speaker, in just a few closing remarks about the subject matter,

when I had the privilege of being elected first to the Parliament of

Canada in 1957, one of the most regretful parts of that was that the

area that I was elected to represent, Skeena — the same name and area

as the provincial riding — had within it then, and still does, a very

large number of native Indian people comprising quite a number of

nations, quite a number of languages. In 1957 the very people I was

elected to represent in the Parliament of Canada had no voice or vote

or say in who it was that was going to represent them. The Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations has referred to the

section of the

Constitution Act — 91(24), or whatever the number is — that says that

the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada shall be exclusive, in

that subject matter anyhow, over Indians and lands reserved for the

Indians. So here was I — and other people all across Canada — elected

to the legislative body that had the exclusive jurisdiction with

respect to a group of people who had no say in who it was that was

going to go to Ottawa to represent them.

One of the first things that I undertook to do, by the introduction

of bills in the House of Commons for three years in a row and the

distribution of those bills to all of the native Indian names I could

get hold of across Canada to draw to their attention what I was

proposing to do, was an amendment to the Indian Act and an amendment to

the Canada Elections Act to remove that restriction and that denial of

the right to vote for native people. It subsequently came to pass that

the House of Commons did make the necessary change to the Elections Act

and to the Indian Act removing that restriction. Hon. Ellen Fairclough

was the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in the Conservative

government at the time. I had a very large part to play in developing

some perception among native Indian people that it was possible to

remove some of the restrictions and denials that were visited upon them.

[12:15]

We accomplished the same thing by tackling the provision in the Indian Act

that related to compulsory enfranchisement which at that time gave the federal

government the right to force Indians or whole bands of Indian people off the

reserve by order-in-council, whether they wanted to go or not. The compulsion

factor was subsequently removed as well.

I had the pleasure of participating in a joint Senate and House of

Commons committee dealing with Indian Affairs matters from 1958 to

1960, and that set of hearings by that joint committee set the tone,

the activity and the pattern for the consideration by governments and

the general public of concern about what had been happening

historically to native Indian people and to their rights. The movement

from that time to now has been slow and tortuous and difficult for the

[ Page 2931 ]

native Indian people, especially when faced with

obstacles like this document that I referred to a while ago prepared by

the Ministry of Intergovernmental Relations in January of this year.

Obstacles like that have been placed in the way of progress by the

native people fairly consistently over the years. For a long time the

native Indian was the invisible man: he couldn't vote, nobody listened

to him, nobody saw him. But dedication by the native Indians themselves

— men and women and children united — grew up with the determination

and the knowledge of their own history; a revitalization of their

cultural aspects, an attempt internally to turn around the demoralizing

feeling that existed among reserves. For many, many years they had been

a segregated and demarcated people. They were a people who were denied,

by the very law of the land, an opportunity to participate fully in

what was going on in this country. They have worked hard and diligently

at that. They've been persistent. They'll be persistent in the future,

and it's inevitable — regardless of what anybody in this chamber may

think within their heart about the subject matter, whether one agrees

fully with the need to recognize and negotiate aboriginal rights on a

mutually acceptable basis or whether one believes the contrary view of

the idea of an imposition of one ideal upon another — that there will

be a solution to land claims in this province and in this nation

because of the very simple, undeniable facts that, exist. The native

Indian people are universally committed to finding a solution. There is

a unity among native Indians on this particular subject matter that

cannot be shaken. Children are born into the culture; they team from

the cradle and their mother's arms what their history is all about.

This is why it's unshakeable. That's why that unity and dedication

exists; that's why the native Indian people will exist.

Truth is on their side. History is on their side. Justice is on

their side. I wish to heaven a great many people in this Legislature

and in this province — not exclusively in this Legislature — would

recognize those undeniable facts of truth, history and justice and ally

ourselves with the native Indian people in their common cause and

desire of finding a mutually acceptable solution to land claims and

aboriginal rights. It's going to happen anyway. We can help it or we

can hinder it,

I hope today that a unanimous vote of this House isn't just a

stand-up vote because it seems the thing to do, but a vote from the

heart. If it is a vote from the heart in a solid way, then we're

embarked upon a course that will be helpful to the native Indian

people. If it isn't from the heart in all instances, then the

inevitable will just be protracted a little bit longer.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I won't talk long, but I did

want to enter this debate. My maiden speech back in 1976 dealt with

some of the problems with regard to Indians in British Columbia, and I

believe that in his 1966 maiden speech Allan Williams indicated the

concern he had for native Indians in this province and in this country.

I must admit I'm not too well informed on this subject. I haven't

been as close to the subject as the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell),

the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith), the Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) or the member for Skeena

(Mr. Howard). But in my riding I have the Penticton Indian band, the

Lower Similkameen Indian band and the Oliver-Osoyoos Indian band. As a

politician I'm aware of the problems and the concerns about the

McKenna-McBride Commission. I know of the land claims concern and the

cutoff lands. I know the conversation and debate that's gone on about

aboriginal rights. But I don't want to approach that. I would like to

speak as an MLA as opposed to a member of government. I would like to

think that I have a goal as an individual resident of British Columbia

and as a Canadian. I think it's fair to say that we all should have —

and I think we all do have — the same goal: that is, that Indian and

white men are equal and should have equality in the true sense of the

word both today and in the future. I cannot address the past with any

intelligence, but I think equality is where we should be going. We

should do our damnedest to get there and to do it in such a way that it

can be said in the future Journals

of any House that the decision was reached after fair discussion

unbiased with regard to political affiliation, but discussion which

includes all concerns. When we end up, we should have Canadians in

British Columbia and in Canada — not communities of Indians and

communities of white men.

I think it's fair to say it's important that the native culture must

be maintained: that's their heritage. I think that will be achieved as

well. When I look at some of the things that we get involved in, and

some of the rhetoric that has been carried on in the past, how can you

consider equality when you have a group of people who have to relate to

an Indian Act and a Department of Indian Affairs, and who have in many

cases been discriminated against because "they are Indian"? I'm sure

that isn't what they want. Some white men will tell you that is

discrimination against the white man because of this certain class and

some protections that go to the Indian under the Indian Act. If you put

two children side by side, a young Indian boy and a young white child,

they're equal in their own eyes. They don't understand what the adults

have done or are trying to do to them. They're two equal young people

trying to enjoy their lives and this beautiful province we live in.

It's only when we get to the adult stage that we start to get a little

fuzzy in our thinking.

By working together in this province and in this country we should

have a goal to resolve this problem. We as "white people" should not be

leading; we should be working together. We should not be debating on

philosophical grounds what one party has done or what one politician

has said. I think we are beyond the time for a play on words. I think

we had better get down to resolving the problems, as I believe Allan

Williams said in his maiden speech in 1966. He worked awfully hard to

resolve some of those problems. I would like to say that he was one of

the leaders in addressing this problem in Canada, and one of the men

who spoke out in an attempt to address the problem in a non-biased,

fair way, which was his style.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Then I'll also give credit to my colleague the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom).

The goal, Mr. Speaker, is equality in way of life. Hopefully

sometime in the future, when people address the question of residents

of British Columbia, citizens of Canada, they'll see no difference

whatsoever between the Indian and the white man. If we are able to work

partway down that road by passing this resolution, I for one am totally

in support of it. The goal we should be achieving is equality, not

something more for either side: equality for those who are alive in

Canada today and for future generations, whether they be Indian or

white man.

[ Page 2932 ]

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I'm reminded this morning of the

old saying: "Beware of Greeks bearing gifts." My reaction is to beware

of government members expressing a lot of fine-sounding words.

Yes, this is a step, and certainly I will support this resolution,

but it's a mighty small step. Sometimes a small step can be exaggerated

into meaning a lot more than it really does. It can be used as a

document to try to persuade, in this case the Indian people, that we

really do care and are going to do something. It can be used as a salve

for our own conscience or as an attempt to solve the problem, and

simply voted on and shelved. It's a proposed amendment, but it really

doesn't make that many changes to the present situation.

Other members have stood in this House and indicated that they want

to get involved because they represent a group of Indian people, and

certainly that's true of my position. I happen to have the honour and

privilege of representing the largest Indian band in British Columbia,

together with four other Indian bands. It is important that my position

be known, and that I make the point that this resolution is not going

to resolve the problems of the native Indian people. It is a lot of

fine words, and that's about all. I would like to see an amendment

discussed here today which ensures aboriginal people a full partnership

and an equal voice in all discussions. This amendment does not do that.

It just assures that they'll be there. Or it may assure that.

[12:30]

I think my colleague from Atlin made an excellent point: that here

we are, in the dying hours perhaps of this particular legislative

session, without any notice, talking about a resolution that affects a

group of people who have been used abominably by non-Indians. The

member for North Vancouver gets up and talks about Indians and

non-Indians and equality. We, as non-Indian people, have destroyed the

culture of the Indian people. We, as non-Indian people, have destroyed

their means of livelihood. We, as non-Indian people, have attempted to

mould Indian people to our culture, to mould them into our version of

how they should live, how they should act and what they should do.

We've attempted to assimilate them rather than to live in harmony with

them and their culture. And now we say: "Well, we'll let you come to

our meetings." That's about all we're saying in this resolution. We're

pretending that we're going to give them full voice and full

participation, and that makes me just a little bit angry, Mr. Speaker.

It's time both the federal and the provincial governments moved away

from the practice of attempting to extinguish aboriginal rights, and

that's what we've been doing. It's time we moved into a position where

we begin to support a definition of aboriginal rights that will

guarantee a social, political, economic and cultural future for

aboriginal people. This resolution does not do that, Mr. Speaker. It's

important, in dealing with our aboriginal people, that any decisions we

make are based on native values, not just on non-native values. This is

what we have been doing, yea these many years. We have been ignoring

native values. We have simply been saying: "Look, you be like us and

then things will be fine." That is not the answer. That will never be

the answer. We have to ensure that the native culture and customs be

allowed to continue; that their whole structure be allowed to thrive,

as they would have it thrive, within the greater mosaic that makes up

our Canadian culture.

We talk about them starting out on the same basis as anyone else.

They come from a different background, different lifestyles; we take

that little six-year-old child out of that background and say: "Okay,

come into the school with 30 other children. Get in there and compete.

Do your thing." Sure, if kids were left alone they'd be okay. The

member said that little children have no prejudice of their own free

will. If they were left alone that would be the case; you have to be

taught to hate. Unfortunately, that's what happens. Believe me, I know.

I know what happens in the Koksilah school when those little Indian

children come in. It's a mixed school; and if a non-Indian child

attempts to get away from the kind of prejudice that exists in that

school, that child is simply cut off by the other white children. That

prejudice is there because we as non-Indians have instilled it in our

children, and that is most unfortunate.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

The only way we are ever going to resolve this situation is to

accept the fact that we come from different backgrounds and have

different cultures. We must accept the fact that aboriginal rights do

exist and aboriginal people have a claim that has to be met. If you

look at the history of every other country, those aboriginal rights

have been settled. We have not settled them here in Canada, and until

we do we're going to have this continuing problem.

This resolution at least says a little bit, but it says very little.

While I will support the resolution, it is my hope that it doesn't

blind us to the fact that we have done little or nothing by passing

this resolution, and we must go many leagues further in settling the

situation between Indian and non-Indian people.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I would like to take a few minutes of the time

of this House to, first of all, endorse the words and debate presented

by the members for Atlin, Skeena and Cowichan-Malahat. I will, of

course, support this resolution, although it's a small, token step

towards some equality. At least it's a first step towards bringing our

native Indian people closer to some equality under our constitution

some 115 years after our constitution was drafted. This is a small step

in that direction.

I might point out as well, as an aside, that 11 percent of the total

number of people in my riding are native Indian people. I think some

gains have been made over the last 12 years in terms of living

conditions and these kinds of things with native Indian people, as

small as they may have been. A large part of that credit goes to the

federal government. I think the provincial government has, in fact,

largely ignored the needs of our native Indian people in this province.

I could tell you stories that you would not believe about living

conditions and unemployment, which is very high in the native Indian

villages around this province, and these kinds of things. I know that

is not the purpose of this debate so I won't get into that at this

point.

It seems to me that the present government is taking a small, token

step, which is only a step, because this resolution has to be agreed

to, as I understand it, by the other provinces and the federal

government.

Interjection.

[ Page 2933 ]

MR. LOCKSTEAD: We're the seventh, as the House Leader tells

us. That's fair enough. It still has to be agreed to by the federal

government, and we know how....

HON. MR. GARDOM: It has passed through the House of Commons. It's in the Senate now.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: That's good to hear. So presumably at some

point there will be a constitutional conference and native Indian

people will have a voice in that conference.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: "Next year," the House Leader says.

One of the reasons I got to my feet is that I haven't had an

opportunity during the course of this session to mention a couple of

things in regard to this present government's almost negligent

treatment of our native Indian people in this province. For example,

just a week ago today I met with a large Indian band in my riding, the

Sechelt Indian band. I was informed at that meeting, Mr. Speaker — and

you're not going to believe this — that this band.... I should give you

a bit of background. This band is one of the leading bands in British

Columbia working towards self-government. The House of Commons native

Indian affairs committee is presently working on the third draft of

legislation to allow that band to be the first band in Canada to enjoy

self-government. Jim Manly is one of our people on that committee, but

that's all beside the point. The point I'm making is that the grievance

that was laid before me a week ago today, when I met with members of

the band council in Sechelt last Friday, was that this present

government has taken no responsibility in the issue and no effort

towards assisting that band whatsoever. I raise that as a very serious

issue.

It was the feeling of the band members that had this government

taken a direct interest — although there have been many requests put,

particularly through the Attorney-General, who is the minister

responsible to this Legislature for native Indian matters.... No

interest whatsoever was displayed, no comment whatsoever. The

representative, Mr. Exell, was not directed nor empowered to attend any

meetings or in any way interfere on behalf of our own native Indian

people of this province in that matter. Yet here we are now putting

forward a resolution, a token step. That is one example. I could give

you many others.

I don't intend to speak long, but I'm giving this House one example

of the negligence of this government in dealing with aboriginal peoples in this

province. Every Indian band in this province knows it. There's no access.

There is no direct communication between the government and the native Indian

bands. One of the most important developments in native Indian affairs in this

country is taking place, which happens to be in British Columbia — and in my

own riding, it just so happens — and that government is not paying any attention

whatsoever to these people, a band that could lead the way for other Indian

bands across Canada. Here we are debating a resolution which, in my view, is

in effect — I hate to use the word — a sop to our native Indian people, so that

this government can go out and say: "Look, we really think so highly of

you that we've passed a resolution." Well, I am not sure that that

is going to impress the native Indian people of this province. But I will support

the resolution because it is a small step in the right direction. Other provinces,

as the House Leader has pointed out, support this resolution as well, and I

suspect the conference will take place.

My concern is the attitude of people at these conferences. The

native Indian people, under this resolution, are going to be asked to

attend. But are they really going to have a voice? Mr. Speaker,

frankly, I doubt it. Are they going to sit around the table, or be

allowed inside that conference? Or are we going to have the Premiers of

this country once again sitting around a table making decisions

affecting our native Indian people without any real, meaningful input

from those people?

[12:45]

HON. MR. GARDOM: I think this was a very thoughtful debate

this morning. I think all members on each side of the House should be

congratulated for their contribution. I must confess that I have some

difficulty agreeing with all the premises that were raised, but I would

like to refer in closing, if I may, to some of the matters that were

raised by the members. I shall perhaps work backwards, because that

would be easiest. I'll start with my friend the hon. member from

Mackenzie.

I notice that he stated at the outset of his remarks that there was

some gain made over the last 12 years vis-à-vis the Indian community. I

certainly agree with that. He did articulate the fact that he

considered there was precious little — or words to that effect — done

by the provincial governments, and I must confess that I have to

disagree with that. I would like to elaborate a little more on that

before I close. At the termination of his remarks, he said that he is

supporting, as everybody in the House has indicated — and, unless there

are some people who have not spoken and intend to vote against this

resolution, I am more than delighted to see that it appears it will be

passed unanimously.... He asked whether the Indians will have a voice

at these constitutional conferences. I can assure the hon. member that

at the ones that I have been to to this point in time, they indeed have

had a voice, and that is the object of the constitutional amendment.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: After the constitutional conference, they marched on Ottawa.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I can't talk about what marches occurred

after the conference, but I can certainly assure him that there was an

opportunity for full, free, frank and open discussion by the aboriginal

community during those last constitutional conferences. I cannot see

and certainly would not support that type of approach being taken

again. I would also mention to the hon. members that the Indian

community is party and signatory to the accord that resulted in this

resolution.

The member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) stated that more has

to be done, and I think that that is perhaps a good summation of pretty

well all the comments that we have heard on both sides of the House

this morning. But I must, with every respect, reject her implication

that only one side of the House has a monopoly on virtue concerning

this very intense topic.

My colleague the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon.

Mr. Hewitt) made exceptionally valid points when he indicated that

cooperation had to be practised and that we have to get on with

resolving the problem. We have to work together, and there has to be

equality.

[ Page 2934 ]

The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) made some valid points, as

one would anticipate. He is extremely knowledgeable in this field. He

did, I must say, stoop regrettably to a degree of inflammatory

rhetoric, which I found unfortunate. I don't think anybody should be

attempting to use or to give the appearance of using the Indian

community as political pawns, offering them promises beyond anyone's

capacities to deliver. That is not playing the game fairly, nor is it

being upfront with the Indian community, or with the Canadian community

that is not fortunate enough to have aboriginal origins. The hon.

member also referred at great length to a staff document that was

prepared in British Columbia prior to the last round of constitutional

discussions. I'd like to inform the hon. member that there was a lot of

good material in that document, and also some of which I did not

approve. There was no way that it was intended to be followed like Holy

Writ, or that the set of guidelines would have to be tracked down

verbatim, and it certainly was not. That was not the route that was

taken. To suddenly get heated up and imply that there was bargaining in

bad faith on the part of this province, or any of its representatives,

is totally unfactual, and I completely reject that concept.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Next we have the thoughtful remarks of the hon. member for North

Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis), who talked about property rights and

made some very valid points. I think it is an equally significant and

historic step that this Legislature, on September 21, 1982, passed the

first resolution in Canada requesting an amendment to our constitution

to see that property rights were enshrined therein for every Canadian

from coast to coast, from sea to sea — the Indian community and the

works. Today we have in our constitution the right to life, the right

to security of a person, but we do not have the right to enjoyment of

property. That is missing, and it is glaringly absent. Property rights

are a part of our political, socio-economic, legal heritage and must

surely now be a part of our constitutional heritage. In those countries

of the world that have written constitutions, we do find that property

rights are enshrined in about 22 countries. They are in the United

Nations Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, in Mr. Diefenbaker's

Canadian Bill of Rights and in Mr. Trudeau's Bill C-60.

I'm most encouraged to hear that the federal administration is again

going to propose an introduction of that resolution, and the sooner the

better. I hope that Mr. Mulroney, the new leader of the Progressive

Conservative Party, will follow the position that was taken by his

predecessor, the Hon. Joe Clark, and support that. I would also be

delighted to see, but I'm not going to hold my breath, the federal New

Democratic Party support it, because they've given every indication

that they will not. Why they don't wish to have property rights in our

constitution which will protect the Indian community and the rest of

Canadians is completely beyond me.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

There was a reference to the Indian Act by the hon. member for Atlin

(Mr. Passarell), who I believe gave a very thoughtful discussion this

morning, with a strong message to the federal government about the

Indian Act. I think the debate in the House today indicated an

extremely high degree of accord vis-à-vis the Indian Act: that it is

considered to be a disgraceful document. But there is a point which the

hon. member for Atlin did not make, and which I wish to make and to

emphasize. If there are going to be changes to the Indian Act, those

changes cannot come about without complete approval, without full, free

and frank discussion and without the consent of those people who would

be most affected, and that is the Indian community. I would like to

know precisely what the position is of the men and women in the Indian

community of Canada. Please, Mr. Member, don't suggest changing the

Indian Act without consultation with or consent of the Indian

community. That would be a most retrograde step, and I hope you will

agree with me.

MR. PASSARELL: Set up a legislative committee to go out.

HON. MR. GARDOM: He talked about a legislative committee, and

mentioned it again just now. I don't think that's an unrealistic

observation, but it may well be premature at this time. The object of

these constitutional discussions is to attempt to define these very

difficult concepts and terms that have been besetting us, and indeed

all of the indigenous people. What precisely does aboriginal title

mean? If it means that one Indian band owns all of British Columbia, I

don't think that would be acceptable. I think the hon. member from

Atlin will agree with me. He's not nodding his head; he is sort of

sitting tight and keeping his options open. Mind you, Mr. Speaker, he

is seeking the leadership of the New Democratic Party in British

Columbia, and I see he's getting strong support already from his few

colleagues who are in the House. I think perhaps we should have a hand

for him, if nothing else; he's a good fellow. [Applause.]

Yes, hon. member for Atlin made some very strong observations about

the record of British Columbia, as did my friend the hon. House Leader

from Skeena; and I cannot agree with those either. During the term of

office of Premier Bill Bennett's administration, I think considerable

strides have been taken. I'm not going to go through these in a degree

of particularity, but I certainly would like to speak to some.

First of all, the province dealt in 1977 with the cutoff lands

dispute in its first settlement with the Penticton band. That involved

a return of about 12,000 acres and a payment of $1 million. There was a

subsequent settlement with the Osoyoos band and a payment of $360,000.

Agreements are now being finalized with other bands, and I gather there

are approximately 18 claims now under negotiation. In 1982, Tanizul

Timber, a company owned by the Stuart-Trembleur Indian band, was

awarded a tree farm licence that occupies an area of 60,000 hectares

and includes both Crown land and Indian reserve land. You're not

telling me those aren't positive steps by this administration. The

province also negotiated a natural gas revenue-sharing agreement with

the Fort Nelson Indian band to split the revenues accruing from natural

gas pools. The agreement was signed not during the administration of

the New Democratic Party, my friend from Atlin, but within this

administration, in January 1980. I am told the band's share of revenues

to date totals more than $20 million. I would say that is doing

something for the Indian community.

The province has also negotiated reserve right-of-way issues with

areas such as Sechelt, Squamish, Westbank and Penticton. The question

of reserve local government and taxation of non-Indian lessees of

reserve lands had been

[ Page 2935 ]

addressed through mechanisms of consultation involving about five

bands. In 1979 the province renewed the Burns Lake Native Development

Corporation funding agreement for a 13-year term. The agreement

provides for a second $500,000 capital loan and for annual operating

grants of $360,000 until 1992. Mr. Speaker, that's progress!

In 1980 the Ministry of Attorney-General introduced a new policy of

considering Indian subsistence needs before proceeding with charges

against Indians hunting out of season for food purposes, and the

Ministry of Environment only last year broadened its sustenance permit

policy. Family first home grants have been extended to status Indians

on reserves. My colleague, the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), has participated with Canada in the

extension of loans through the industry development subsidiary

agreements. Kamloops received $2.645 million for the development of an

industrial park; the Osoyoos band received $1.6 million for the

construction of a winery and the planting of vineyards. And you're

telling us that this administration has not done anything, sir? The

record does not support that statement, with every respect.

The Canada-British Columbia special rural development agreement was

renewed in 1977 and again in 1982 for some years. Under the new Forest

Act there are provisions for a form of tenure called a woodlot licence,

which may indeed be a very primary benefit to Indian bands in our

province. Also, we proposed to the bands that a formula be worked out

for reimbursement to them of sales taxes collected by B.C. Hydro.

Mr. Speaker, this administration has done something for the Indian

community and is committed to continue doing things for the Indian

community. Apropos your specific question vis-à-vis the Nishga, the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) has informed me this morning that the

province will have a representative at the Kincolith meetings next

week, and I am happy to hear that.

Now the last response I wish to make was again a statement by the

hon. member for Atlin, and he made a very good point. In his opening

remarks he mentioned the question of notice of this resolution and said

the gallery should have been full. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I agree with

him. I would have far preferred that we'd all had an opportunity to

give notice for this resolution, but unfortunately, by virtue of the

House adjourning....

Interjection.

HON. MR. GARDOM: My friend from Skeena is laughing. The

requirement was to have this resolution passed before the end of the

month. That is why it came up today. Otherwise I can assure you, my

good friend, you would have had more notice than perhaps you would have

desired.

[1:00]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the members for their debate, and I move passage of the

resolution.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I move that we proceed to orders of the day.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call Committee of Supply.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I move that in addition to

the amount authorized under Supply Act (No. 1), 1983, from and out of

the consolidated revenue fund there may be paid and applied in a manner

and at the times the government may determine the sum of $672 million

toward defraying charges and expenses of the public service of the

province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1984, and being

substantially one-twelfth of the total amount of the votes of the main

estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1984, as laid before the

Legislative Assembly at the present session.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports resolution and asks leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the resolution as reported be considered?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the report of

resolution from the Committee of Supply on October 21, 1983, be now

taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I move that the resolution be now read a second time.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the committee sit again?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: At the next sitting, Mr. Speaker.

I move that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of Ways and Means.

Motion approved.

The House in Committee of Ways and Means; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I move that in addition to

the amount authorized under Supply Act (No. 1), 1983, from and out of

the consolidated revenue fund there may be paid and applied in the

manner and at the times the government may determine the sum of $672

million toward defraying the charges and expenses of the public service

of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1984, and being

substantially one-twelfth of the total amount of the votes of the main

estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1984, laid before the

Legislative Assembly at the present session.

Motion approved.

[ Page 2936 ]

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports resolution and asks leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the resolution as reported be considered?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the report of

resolution from the Committee of Ways and Means on October 21, 1983, be

now taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the resolution be now read a second time.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the committee sit again?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: At the next sitting, Mr. Speaker.

SUPPLY ACT (NO. 2), 1983

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I present Bill 37, intituled Supply Act (No. 2), 1983.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I ask you to remain in your seats for just a moment while the bill is circulated.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill 37 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

Motion approved.

The House in Committee; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report recommending introduction of the bill.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports, recommending the introduction of the bill.

[1:15]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the report be adopted.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be introduced and now read a first time.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: With leave, I move that the bill be now read a second time.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, this supply bill is the

second for the fiscal year 1983-84, the first having been introduced on

July 11, 1983, when the Legislative Assembly authorized the value of

expenditure for nine months, April 1, 1983, to December 31, 1983. The

bill is in the general form of previous years' interim supply bills. It

requests a further one-twelfth of the tabled estimates to provide for

the ongoing expenditures of the government.

I move second reading.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, doesn't this make that great 1979 —

or whatever year it was — declaration of "not a dime without debate"

seem pretty flimsy and transparent and dishonest? Here we are again.

We're not talking about "not a dime without debate"; we're talking

about billions of dollars without debate. By the time the end of the

tenth month rolls around — and that's what interim supply is doing to

this legislature; it's not one month we're talking about, but a ten

month period — this government will have dug its hands into the

taxpayers' pockets, they will have gone to the money markets and

borrowed much more than $7 billion and they will have squandered it,

spent it, travelled with it and lived it up on it without examination

by this House, except for the few instances that have been called up

until now.

This proves, if proof is needed, that the budget was a lie. The

budget itself was the biggest lie presented in this Legislature since

this government has been in office. This shows that the government is

not interested in or prepared to subject its spending program to public

scrutiny, that it wants to spend the money first, and then maybe come

back — who knows? There was no hint last night, in that mismanaged

Hollywood production that we saw, of how long; just that the

Legislature was going to disappear for a while.

The budget, Mr. Speaker, as has been said before in this House,

presented an untrue and a falsified picture of the finances of this

province. Even a scant examination of the statistical information in

that budget speech would indicate that what I have just said is

accurate as can be.

There will be no opportunity until maybe sometime next year, maybe

sometime close to the end of this fiscal year.... Even though we

have interim supply now in the works for a ten-month period, without

examination of the estimates in a full sense, there's no need to come

back to the Legislature again before the end of that ten-month period

if the Premier isn't suited to do that. He can still operate as he has

before by Lieutenant-Governor's warrants, and end up with the near full

fiscal year total budget spent and no opportunity for the public,

through the Legislature, to make inquiries as to what is happening.

There will be no opportunity to examine that nefarious scheme that

was entered into by this government and the private corporation to

which they sold, or gave, Beautiful British Columbia. No opportunity to

examine the manner in which this government strongarmed B.C. Hydro to

spend taxpayers' money to mail out subscription notices for a private

corporation, a subsidy of some $200,000 estimated. No opportunity to

examine the relationship between this government and previous Ministers

of Tourism and McKim Advertising. No opportunity to examine the absent

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) as to what he's been doing with

the debt load of this province, or to examine him on the course of

action that he has followed of borrowing millions and millions of

dollars every Wednesday of every week since at least the beginning of

this year. No opportunity to inquire into the

[ Page 2937 ]

blatant, cruel mismanagement of the forest industry in this province

by the absent Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland). No opportunity

to inquire whether the declarations made by one of the most respected

foresters in British Columbia, Ian Mahood, have got any foundation. The

government stands condemned by the declaration of Ian Mahood, and there

is no opportunity to see that.

There is no opportunity, Mr. Speaker — and you should be the first

person to protest this — to look at notice of motion number 32,

standing in my name on the order paper, relating to a subject matter

that needs to be examined....

MR. SPEAKER: It is not relevant to the debate at hand, hon. member, as the member is well aware.

MR. HOWARD: The public funds are being used to print the

Orders of the Day. Taxpayers' money is being asked for in this

particular bill to print these particular documents, containing a

motion by me relating to censuring Mr. Speaker. There is....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, I would advise the

member for the very last time that reference to that particular motion

is not in order in this debate.

MR. HOWARD: It's only in order if the government would have

the guts to call it, which it doesn't have. And by not calling it, we

know exactly what they are doing.

There is no opportunity to examine into the political corruption in the Ministry of Provincial Secretary.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. HOWARD: Yes, indeed, no opportunity to examine that.

MR. SPEAKER: I would caution the hon. member that

notwithstanding the feelings that members have, we are still under the

constraints of parliamentary language, and that when terms are used

that do not fall within that category, it is up to the Chair to bring

that to the attention of hon. members. In that regard, I would ask the

member to withdraw a term which the Chair finds offensive. I'm sure the

member, in the heat of the debate, and on reflection, would so do.

MR. HOWARD: There's no reflection at all. But I will withdraw it.

There will be no opportunity at all to examine this particular

report here, within the Ministry of Labour, telling the Minister of

Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland) that consumer confidence in British

Columbia and retail spending are seen as question marks for 1984,

because of anxiety over the restraint program, higher sales tax and

continued high unemployment. No opportunity to examine the extent to

which this government has driven down the average earning levels in

this province to the point where they've lost ground to inflation over

the last three years. No opportunity to examine what this government

has done to contribute, so the report says, to the increased number of

receiverships and bankruptcies, which has resulted in a marked increase

in uncollectable wages, which highlights weaknesses both in federal

bankruptcy laws and in provincial wage protection provisions — no

opportunity to look at the lack of any protection. No opportunity to

examine the fact that the showcase for employment development of this

government is northeast coal, B.C. Place and Transpo 86. No opportunity

to inquire about the fact, so this report says, that those are

capital-intensive, government-sponsored projects, and not

labour-intensive. Labour-intensive projects employ people;

capital-intensive projects employ machines. No opportunity to look at

the misery that is going to be visited upon families in this province

and the delayed social effects of the prolonged high rate of

unemployment, such as increased alcoholism, suicide, family violence,

delinquency, etc. No chance to look at that. No chance to look at

anything.

I'm glad the Premier left. It indicates the degree of shame and

disgust I'm sure he has about his own declaration of a few years ago

about "not a dime without debate." Probably that is why he is not with

us now: he didn't want to hear that declaration again. As I said

earlier, here you are talking about over $7 billion of taxation and

squandering and expenditure, without any opportunity to examine the

mismanagement of our fiscal reserves in this province. No opportunity

to examine anything, except whenever the whim of the Premier bestirs

him to think that perhaps he might deign to call the people's

representatives back to consult him once more.

Normally and usually we support interim supply bills because they

are necessary to carry on the business of government, pending the

examination of estimates. But there is no way on this black fiscal day

that we can support this particular bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The minister closes debate.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In closing debate I would like to say that

the verbiage from the member for Skeena rings pretty hollow in this

chamber, when the NDP opposition spent the months of July and August

doing absolutely nothing except stopping the passage of legislation in

this chamber. I would suggest to you that some of the things that he

has brought up — that there was "no opportunity" to debate — they had

the opportunity to debate in my estimates the other day, and not one of

them was brought up. I would suggest to you that last night in the

Minister of Human Resources' (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy'

s) estimates, $1.6

billion passed through this House without one word of debate. And that

member has the audacity to stand on the floor of this Legislature and

say there has been no opportunity to debate. I tell you that his words

ring hollow.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The words of the second member for

Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) ring hollow. The people of this province

understand what you NDPers are up to. Hollow words, that's all it is.

You're not interested in this province or the people of this province.

You're a leaderless little rump group that's going nowhere but down, my

friend, and the people of this province understand it.

I move second reading.

[1:30]

Motion approved on the following division:

[ Page 2938 ]

YEAS — 25

Brummet

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Pelton

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Strachan

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Bennett

Phillips

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Veitch

Segarty

Parks

Reynolds

NAYS — 9

Howard

Sanford

D'Arcy

Hanson

Lockstead

Wallace

Mitchell

Passarell

Blencoe

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, with leave, I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Motion approved.

The House in committee on Bill 37; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Section I approved.

Preamble approved

Title approved.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee on Bill 37 reports the bill complete without amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: With leave of the House now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave not granted.

MR. SPEAKER: Standing order 81 states: "Every bill shall

receive three several readings, on different days, previously to being

passed. After the second reading it shall be ordered for committal on a

subsequent day. On urgent or extraordinary occasions, a bill may be

read twice or thrice, or advanced two or more stages in one day." Hon.

members, the Chair is not aware of any urgent or extraordinary

occasion, and therefore leave is not granted. The motion then, hon.

members, would be the usual one.

The question then, hon. members, would be: when shall the bill be read a third

time?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: At the next sitting, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: So ordered.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I gather that His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor is either within or extremely close to the

precincts, and I would request we have a short recess.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, upon being advised that His Honour

is prepared to enter the chamber, I will ring the bells three times

summoning the members. I don't know exactly how long that might be, but

I understand it will be a very short period of time. Possibly members

would like to remain in their chairs, but the bells will summon members

to the chamber.

The House took recess at 1:39 p.m.

The House resumed at 1:44 p.m.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

[1:45]

CLERK-ASSISTANT:

Public Sector Restraint Act

Income Tax Amendment Act, 1983

Education (Interim) Finance Amendment Act, 1983

Property Tax Reform Act (No. 1), 1983

Alcohol and Drug Commission Repeal Act

Municipal Amendment Act, 1983

Compensation Stabilization Amendment Act, 1983

Property Tax Reform Act (No. 2), 1983

Gasoline (Coloured) Tax Amendment Act, 1983

Social Service Tax Amendment Act, 1983

Employment Development Act

Institute of Technology Amendment Act, 1983

Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1983

Employment Standards Amendment Act, 1983

Provincial Treasury Financing Amendment Act, 1983

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1983

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to these bills.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. House

Leader of the official opposition if he would be prepared to waive his

non-consent to the third reading of Bill 37, and if so, I would propose

to advance a motion that the motion be rescinded and that the bill be

read a third time at this time.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, how lovely it is to be asked something by this intransigent, brutalizing government once in a while.

In the depth of my generosity and grace, on behalf of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, I will accede to the request.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I would like to thank the hon. opposition House Leader for his demonstration of grace.

[ Page 2939 ]

Mr. Speaker, I move that the motion that the bill be read a third time at the next sitting be rescinded.

Motion approved.

Bill 37, Supply Act (No. 2), 1983, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, with the hope that His Honour has not left the premises, might we have a short adjournment?

The House took recess at 1:48 p.m.

The House resumed at 1:50 p.m.