1998/99 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 36th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, APRIL 22, 1999

Afternoon

Volume 14, Number 13

[ Page 11991 ]

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Hon. J.

Kwan: I'm delighted today to welcome and introduce, on behalf of my colleagues, members of the UBCM executive, who are having their meetings here in Victoria: first of all, UBCM president Mayor John Ranta, of the village of Cache Creek; UBCM second vice-president Jim Abram, Comox-Strathcona regional district director; UBCM past president Mayor Steve Wallace, the city of Quesnel; UBCM executive director Richard Taylor; Councillor Ed Gatzke, town of Creston; Councillor Janise Elkerton, district of Pitt Meadows; Aaron Dinwoodie, Central Okanagan regional district director; Mayor John Les, district of Chilliwack; Mayor Frank Leonard, city of Saanich; Hans Cunningham, Central Kootenay regional district chair; Ann Hancock, Okanagan-Similkameen regional district director; Councillor Bonny Hawley, district of Houston and NCMA representative; and last but not least, director-at-large Robert Hobson, Central Okanagan regional district chair.

I'd like to have the House give them a very warm welcome, as they are having their executive meeting here this week -- and also having visited Cache Creek yesterday to announce on behalf of the province the extension of small community protection grants for all small communities throughout British Columbia. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

Hon. G. Clark: On this historic day, it's my pleasure to introduce a group of Nis g a'a leaders who are here with us for the duration of the day to observe these important deliberations. I would like to introduce to the House today Chief Joe Gosnell, Ed Wright, Rod Robinson, Harry Nyce, Herbie Morven, Gary Alexcee and Nelson Leeson. There are other Nis g a'a leaders accompanying them for this discussion. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

S. Orcherton: There are so many people in British Columbia who have worked hard to make it a better place, not only for all of us who live here but for their families.

[1410]

Joining us today in the gallery are a number of members of Carpenters Union Local 1598 in Victoria. They are retirees of that union, and accompanying them are their family members. Many are joining us here for the first time in the Legislative Assembly, and many are here for the first time witnessing question period. Their names are Guy and Tillie Pickard, John and Pat Bex, Claudine Johns, Joyce Horsley, Leone Tessier, Bill and Kathy Weaver and Bob Grieve. I would ask all members of the House to make these retired working people of British Columbia very welcome to these chambers.

Hon. G. Clark: It is also my pleasure to introduce the constituency assistants in the gallery. All of the NDP caucus constituency assistants are down here in Victoria for their annual meeting, and they're here in the chamber today. I'm not quite sure why they're behind us, but it's because . . . .

An Hon. Member: They're always behind us.

Hon. G. Clark: They're always behind us; that's right. I think that members on both sides of the House would appreciate the fact that the constituency assistants working for members of the Legislature have a difficult job, and they are the reason why we are privileged to serve. They do outstanding work on behalf of all of us. We get whatever credit there is, and they take all the heat, but the truth is that they do most of the work. I would ask all members of the House to make them welcome today.

B. Goodacre: Hon. Speaker, I rise to share with this assembly a piece of very sad and tragic news. My part-time CA, Joe L'Orsa, passed away at work on Tuesday night. He was on the phone to me at 4:30, in the best of spirits. He was even making a joke with me about how life begins at 60, in reference to the fact he had his sixtieth birthday about a month ago.

Joe was born in Connecticut, but returned soon with his mother to the Smithers area, a rural

part called Driftwood, where they still have a family property that his brother and his son live on. He came to Smithers with his family when he was a very young boy and has lived in Smithers. He was an accomplished musician who, over the last 17 years with the Bulkley Valley Folk Music Society, affected the lives of thousands and thousands of people through his music and through his contribution to helping young people with their musical development. His contribution to our community is immeasurable, and we will miss him very much.

The Speaker: Thank you very much, member, for bringing us that news. We wish the family all condolences from the members of the House.

Oral Questions

LIONS GATE BRIDGE SIDEWALKS

T. Stevenson: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Highways that has to do with the Lions Gate Bridge. As the minister knows very well, I've been concerned about the Lions Gate Bridge for some time and the widening of the sidewalks, particularly for cyclists and pedestrians, at the north end. This has been a great concern of mine, and I've been fortunate to raise some attention about it in my riding. I was hoping to hear from . . . .

Interjection.

[1415]

T. Stevenson: Oh, my question to the minister -- thank you very much -- is: does he intend to move on this issue fairly soon?

Hon. H. Lali: This is the first real question we've had in the House since 1991. I want to thank the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard for his question. The people of Vancouver have been waiting for the Lions Gate Bridge for a very long time. I'm glad to say that it was an NDP government which finally responded to that particular issue.

I know that the hon. member has been working very, very diligently on behalf of his constituents. He just never lets up. I'll take the member up on his offer. I know that the biking coalition has asked me to come up and ride a bike across the bridge, so I make that commitment here. I would love to join the hon. member and go on a bike ride over the Lions Gate Bridge and take a look at that whole issue.

[ Page 11992 ]

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Vancouver-Burrard.

T. Stevenson: Actually, I challenged the minister some time ago to ride with me across the Lions Gate Bridge, as I have done recently, to see how dangerous indeed it is at the present time. I'm certainly glad to hear that now he is making a commitment to join me on a bicycle ride with a number of other cyclists. I'd like to know specifically, really . . . . How long, though, do I have to wait?

Hon. H. Lali: This is getting tougher by the minute. The one commitment I can make to the hon. member is that it's not going to take 60 years. That's for certain. In the next few days, I'll join the hon. member for a bike ride across the bridge.

RECYCLING OF TETRA-PAK BEVERAGE CONTAINERS

J. Sawicki: My question is to the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks. Last fall we extended the beverage container deposit refund system to all beverages except milk and all containers except Tetra-Pak, which was given a one-year exemption in order to work up their system to be included in the deposit refund system. Can the minister please tell the House today what she is doing to ensure that those producers who use Tetra-Paks and gabletops will in fact be ready to enter the deposit refund system this fall, as planned?

Hon. C. McGregor: I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to address what I believe to be a very important recycling and waste issue. In fact, I believe it was appropriate for government at the time, given the specific circumstance around the beverage container Tetra-Pak, to give an exemption for a one-year period, during which the producers would be able to have an opportunity to find an appropriate location in which to recycle their product. In fact, hon. Speaker, the problem was that there wasn't any available recycling opportunity for Tetra Brik.

So we formed a committee; we asked the industry to work with us and form a committee through which to respond directly to how to address this problem. That committee is doing its work. Staff is monitoring that on an ongoing basis. We expect a positive resolution shortly, so that they will be in the system on October 1.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Burnaby-Willingdon.

J. Sawicki: I do understand, from last weekend, that there are some producers who are preparing to put out a new juice product in Tetra-Paks this summer. Can the minister assure the House today that she will remind those producers that this container will in fact enter the system this fall?

Hon. C. McGregor: I expect every beverage container product to be recyclable as of October 1, and that, of course, includes any new products in Tetra Brik.

DEVELOPMENT OF TECHNICIAL UNIVERSITY

J. Smallwood: My question is to the Minister of Advanced Education. The people of this province and in particular the people of Surrey are looking forward to the hole being dug for Tech B.C. This should come as no surprise to the minister, but there's a great deal of enthusiasm around the minister's commitment to technology and to that university. We've seen in the last short while a story in the paper that indicates or casts some concern around that development. I'd like to hear from the minister about its progress.

[1420]

Hon. A. Petter: I'm very pleased by the question. This government has, within this ministry, made an important linkage between advanced education and technology, both in terms of providing training for young people and also in terms of encouraging growth in this very important and dynamic sector of our economy.

The technology university, Tech B.C., is a key part of that strategy. As the member will be aware, the municipality in Surrey committed some land to the project. We have been negotiating with the city and working hard to bring forward a plan that will give fruition to that university. I, frankly, am hopeful that the plan will not be limited just to the university but will also help in terms of enlivening a downtown development for Surrey that has been a long time coming. It always takes a little longer for these good things to happen. But we're working hard. I'm hopeful that we'll have an announcement in the very near future.

LAND CLAIMS SETTLEMENTS AND TOURISM GROWTH

E. Gillespie: In the spring of 1996 an agreement-in-principle was signed between the Nis g a'a people, the province of British Columbia and the federal government. Currently we are in the midst of debate and voting on the treaty that has come out of the agreement-in-principle.

I have a question for the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture. My question is this: how long will it take to ensure that we have some kind of certainty for people in the tourism industry who are looking to expand upon the opportunities in this province around back-country recreation, coastal navigation and those kinds of enterprises?

Hon. I. Waddell: I'm glad the member asked me that. You know, tourism is an $8.7 billion business in this province and is growing; it's the fastest-growing business. You know, just today a senior vice-president of the Royal Bank of Canada here in British Columbia said publicly to a conference that we should get on with the settlement of land claims, because if we don't, it's hurting the future possibility of tourism growth in British Columbia. This is -- perhaps he is a New Democrat, I don't know -- not usually associated with the party and so on, or with the government.

I asked the opposition -- if they were here, they might listen to this -- if they were here they might listen to this -- to consider that the business community, as they told our group . . . . Some of the members here on the government side were on the committee of the Legislature, which I have the honour to chair. We had 33 meetings across the province. We heard 800 briefs on Nis g a'a and other land claim settlements.

And we were told in no uncertain terms by the people of British Columbia -- not only tourist operators, not only small business people, but the general majority of the population that came before those intense hearings: "Get on with the settlement of land claims. Begin with Nis g a'a and get moving with the other ones, so we can have future growth in the province."

[ Page 11993 ]

PROSTATE CANCER RESEARCH AND TREATMENT

S. Orcherton: Many thanks to the Opposition House Leader for allowing us this opportunity today. I think we should look at this as a Thursday afternoon tradition for the future.

[1425]

The Speaker: Your question.

S. Orcherton: My question is for the Minister of Health. The minister knows there are many issues around cancer and cancer treatment and research that have been topical as of late in Victoria and in British Columbia. One of those issues is one where 500 people have lobbied me around prostate cancer research and treatment for prostate cancer, asking the ministry to move in new directions in that regard. I wonder if the Minister of Health could give me an update so that I could pass it along to those constituents of mine, in terms of what indeed is being done in terms of prostate cancer research and treatment in British Columbia.

Hon. P. Priddy: The member is correct: it has had a lot of discussion, here in Victoria particularly, with the fast-tracking of the Vancouver Island cancer clinic. As it relates to his question around prostate cancer, I'm actually quite pleased to say that in terms of the survival rate for prostate cancer in Canada, the survival rate is about 7 percent higher here in British Columbia than it is anywhere else in the country. This is, in a large result, a direct response to the kind of research and treatment that is being done here.

Brachytherapy is now being provided in British Columbia -- the only province in the country that is covering brachytherapy, which is a new treatment for prostate cancer. People previously had to go to the United States. There are new prostate cancer drugs on the market, and when I announced new money for cancer drugs, prostate cancer took up a significant amount of those dollars.

I would also say that we will soon have a very exciting announcement about new prostate research here in B.C.

HIGHWAY SIGNAGE POLICY

E. Conroy: My question is to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. It's been the concern of many of us, particularly in the interior part of the province, that our Super, Natural British Columbia is in some danger of the possibility of being turned into kind of a sign jungle. Could the minister comment and let us know if there's any direction in which our government is moving to try and deal with this situation?

Hon. H. Lali: It is an honour to stand up and answer questions. For the first time, we're getting some real questions here.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members.

Hon. H. Lali: I would like to assure the hon. member that there is a sign committee in place with members from the public service as well as people from industry. We'll be coming back with a very comprehensive sign policy so that we can have some uniformity throughout the province.

NORTH VANCOUVER ISLAND TOURISM

G. Robertson: My question is to the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture. Our government has made a tremendous investment in the inland Island highway -- about $1.2 billion -- and it's going to be a fantastic highway that will go all the way up Vancouver Island. We have made investments in the fast cats, and superferries will be bringing more people over to Vancouver Island. We have a great ferry service out of Port Hardy, both to Prince Rupert and up to the Discovery Coast.

The North Island, as we all know, is one of the most spectacular and beautiful pieces of real estate in North America.

The Speaker: And your question.

G. Robertson: The logical question, in my mind, is that since we have these wonderful transportation corridors, the next logical step is to move people up to the North Island. I was wondering what plans the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture has to enhance tourism on northern Vancouver Island.

Hon. I. Waddell: May I say, before I answer, that the hon. member for North Island has been a tireless advocate of getting tourists out of the lower mainland and other places up-Island, up to the North Island. I congratulate him for that. There are three ways we can do that, I think, to begin . . . .

The Speaker: Briefly, minister. You can see that the light's on.

Hon. I. Waddell: Yes, three ways. One is to help people with tourist infrastructure: get them some more money so that they can build more facilities. Secondly, we can work together on the ferry service to make it better and more convenient with more convenient times. Thirdly, I think we can market it more; we can advertise it more. We have a tremendous increase in American tourism and a tremendous increase in tourism coming in. Our challenge is to get them out into the regions, and we're going to do that for North Island.

[1430]

Ministerial Statements

EARTH DAY

Hon. C. McGregor: It is my pleasure to rise today and make a ministerial statement. Today, April 22, British Columbians are joining millions of people around the world in celebrating international Earth Day. Throughout the week, each of us has a special opportunity to review our personal commitment to a healthier planet through positive action in our communities.

In British Columbia we enjoy a natural environment of unmatched beauty and diversity and a quality of life second to none. Yet with these benefits come important responsibilities: to keep our land, air and water clean, healthy and safe; and to protect biodiversity and habitat. There are countless actions each of us can take in our daily lives to help sustain our province's Super, Natural legacy for future gener-

[ Page 11994 ]

ations. Many are being profiled this week through special Earth Week activities and events in communities across British Columbia.

As well, all British Columbians are being encouraged to look ahead and consider the many ways in which they can benefit the environment all year long through individual or group action. Whether it's planting a tree, restoring a stream or enhancing habitat, reducing waste and energy consumption, the careful use of toxic products or using environmentally friendly transportation, everyone can make a difference. I encourage all members to give their support and encouragement to the many thousands of British Columbians and people across the world who are celebrating our environment this week through Earth Week activities taking place in their constituencies.

M. Coell: I am pleased to offer some comments with regard to Earth Day and Earth Week. I think that all in this House, and indeed all in British Columbia, are grateful for the province that we live in, for the natural resources that we have and for the opportunities that they afford us.

Madam Speaker, I'm not going to comment on Six Mile Ranch decisions, Burns Bog theme parks or any of the other failures of this government. This is a day for volunteers. This is a day and a week for individual British Columbians to work hard and to enhance their own environment and the environment for their families. We on this side of the House encourage that. We encourage all British Columbians to take part and to recognize that what they have is great. It is their duty and obligation to ensure that when they pass it on to the next generation, it is enhanced and sustainable.

NATIONAL ORGAN DONOR AWARENESS WEEK

Hon. P. Priddy: I know the members of the House are aware that this week, April 18 to 24, is National Organ Donor Awareness Week. Today, April 22, is Organ Donation Discussion Day. Organ and tissue transplants are truly miraculous opportunities to restore and save lives. You will see many people wearing the green pin that is the symbol of the B.C. Transplant Society. We've distributed throughout the House a letter signed by my colleague Ed Conroy and me, along with the organ donor card and the pin, to both sides of the House -- because this is a non-partisan issue in the greatest of ways.

Across the country people are dying every day because of the lack of organs suitable for transplant. Right now 547 British Columbians are waiting for solid organ transplants. Some of these women, men and children will die while waiting. Last year 21 people died while waiting for an organ transplant. On that list of 547 people are about a dozen who are children. It would seem to me, as a parent, that every day you wait must feel like a month or two months when you are holding your child, who you know will not survive without an organ replacement.

So clearly there's a critical need to increase the availability of organs for transplants in order to save as many lives as possible. I am very proud of the fact that British Columbia has taken a leadership role to increase the rate of organ donation and decrease waiting times for organ transplant surgery. It's not a matter of financial resources. If there is an organ available, people receive the surgery immediately, obviously.

[1435]

Two years ago, in conjunction with the B.C. Transplant Society, our government established the first and only organ donor registry, where British Columbians can register, in a computerized database, their intent to donate. This new regulation, which took effect April 1, puts in place a universal referral system that makes sure that everyone is offered the option to donate, while respecting individual wishes.

These steps are a good start. The reality, however, is that potential donors are still being missed because we don't have a clear, simple, unambiguous national system for organ donation. Last month I was pleased to join B.C. Transplant Society executive director Bill Barrable and the member for Rossland-Trail in making a joint presentation to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health in Ottawa. What we called for was the creation of a national organ donor system. We recommended B.C.'s system as a model. The committee's report was released this week, although it has not . . . .

The Minister of Health will take time to review it, but I'm disappointed that the committee itself did not adopt B.C.'s recommendation. I believe strongly that the best way to increase transplants and reduce waiting times for people in all provinces in our country is through an integrated nationwide system.

Here in British Columbia we'll continue to support the important work of the B.C. Transplant Society and to encourage more and more British Columbians to register as organ donors. A priority for our government is improving health care and reducing wait times. I'm determined to ensure that we're doing all that we can to reduce those wait times for British Columbians who need life-giving organ transplant surgery.

S. Hawkins: First of all, I want to thank the member for Vancouver-Quilchena for allowing me the opportunity to respond. This is an issue that's very special to me. I ran a neurocritical intensive care unit and was responsible for not only looking after major trauma patients but also talking to families about making the gift of life.

I think organ donation is an issue which is literally a matter of life and death for many, many people. The number of patients in British Columbia and Canada on wait-lists for transplants continues to grow. People die in this province because of the lack of organ donors. There is no question that transplants save lives. In fact, the Canadian organ replacement registry is an academic repository of data on the treatment of kidney disease and the outcomes of many types of transplant procedures. The registry shows that patients on dialysis have a 50 percent expectation of five-year life survival.

A kidney transplant patient, however, has an 85 percent expectation of five-year survival. Transplants save lives.

In B.C. it costs in excess of $50,000 per patient per year to provide for dialysis needs of patients. On the other hand, a patient with an organ transplant has an initial expense of about $30,000 and then about $10,000 a year for anti-rejection drug costs. It is very seldom in medicine where one can see a treatment that is both economically and clinically superior. When that situation occurs, we should leap at the opportunity and encourage it in every possible way.

[1440]

Hon. Speaker, the death of any human being is a tragedy. But even if only 1 percent of deaths in B.C. resulted in organ donation, there would be an ample supply of organs for transplantation. Members on this side of the House share the

[ Page 11995 ]

disappointment in not proceeding with the national registry. We understand the importance of having a national system.

Members on this side of the House as well are disappointed in the way that this government initiated significant new changes in the Human Tissue Gift Act. These were introduced last year in the infamous Bill 50, in the form of regulations. Members on this side of the House are disappointed that the changes were introduced that way.

I'm aware of other jurisdictions that have done this, and their changes are quite extensive. They cover all kinds of areas -- from those who will be authorized to report under the legislated referral of organs, to the kind of training that is required for those who are required to report, to those who will be authorized to investigate and obtain permission for donor organs. There are liability considerations. There are police and emergency personnel responsibilities. There are even offence sections in the legislation in other jurisdictions.

These will be some of the most significant changes in this province, and as I said last year -- and I say it again today -- this House didn't get to debate some of the most significant and important changes to the Human Tissue Gift Act. I think that's disappointing. As the minister points out, it is a non-partisan issue. It's important to both sides of this House and to patients across this province. I think the responsible thing to have done is to have had the debate in this House, to make sure that all those kinds of considerations were debated.

I'm also disappointed, because the minister did make a commitment last year to share the draft regulations. As I pointed out last night and today, they weren't done.

Hon. Speaker, it is important. Organ donation awareness is important. We know that organs save lives; there's no issue there. I would challenge every member in the House, and I would encourage every member in the House and everyone watching in the gallery today, to consider being an organ donor and to consider giving the gift of life.

The Speaker: The member for Surrey-Cloverdale rises on what matter?

B. McKinnon: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

B. McKinnon: Visiting the Legislature today are a number of grade 10 students from Pacific Academy, in the Fraser Heights area of Surrey, and their teacher Mr. Douglas, along with three adults accompanying them. I ask the House to please make them welcome.

Tabling Documents

Hon. C. McGregor: I have the honour of tabling the 1997-98 annual report for the environmental assessment office.

The Speaker: The minister tables a report.

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call third reading of the Nis g a'a Final Agreement Act.

NIS G A'A FINAL AGREEMENT ACT

(continued)

J. Cashore: It's a great privilege for me to be able to speak on this occasion, as indeed it has been a great privilege for myself and others in this House to have served in the role of Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and, prior to that, Minister of Native Affairs and to be part of an unfolding story with regard to addressing a longstanding issue. For me, I have considered this partly a reason for it being a privilege.

In a political career there are very few occasions, I think, when it's very clear that it's an issue where you address it by downplaying the partisan political aspect and recognizing the justice-making aspect, you approach it with a passion for justice, but a passion for justice that involves all Canadians, all British Columbians.

Given that this has a very real pioneering element to it, I also have to say that those who have participated representing so many segments of our society, and especially the Nis g a'a first nation, have all been part of achieving something that is so very significant not only for the future of our society but for the future of hope within our society.

I have been reading some books by one of my very favourite authors, Rohinton Mistry. One of the books I'm just getting into is Such a Long Journey . It has been a long journey, and when you take the message of Rohinton Mistry's book -- I have read reviews of it, so I think I can say this . . . . In the midst of an amazing heroic struggle on the part of people who are oppressed, at the end of the day there's still an abiding feeling of hopelessness after all those efforts are expended. It's a story of oppressed people struggling to survive, struggling to give hope for the next generation.

In the case of the story -- another long journey -- of the making of the Nis g a'a treaty, we again come back to the theme of hope. Here, I submit, hon. Speaker, we have achieved that which, in a fair way, enables hope to be manifested among the Nis g a'a people for future generations.

[1445]

It is typical of the struggles of people throughout history. Especially in the context of the present time and what we are seeing on our television screens every night, we see the people who have had their yearnings with regard to their home, with regard to their place . . . . We've seen the kind of results of measures that are not consultative -- or they're not negotiated -- and the kinds of consequences, and the fact that those who are the weakest are often those who suffer the most.

Hon. Speaker, this is a very significant day. I want to say in the context of the discussion that we're having today that based on my experience, I have come to the conclusion -- perhaps I have some of the scars on my back to prove it -- that political expediency has led to the opposition strategy to extend the debate beyond any reasonable limit. That concerns me. It concerns me because the struggle to achieve a settlement, which is the result of more than 20 years of negotiation and more than five with British Columbia, is a struggle that has gone on for an awfully long time.

It's a struggle that has consequences not only for the Nis g a'a but for hope as it might be experienced in first nations outside of the Nis g a'a area.

With regard to the opposition, there are differences. There's no question about it. They have said that they see it as giving away too much. We see it as building a new relationship where it's not about giving away, but about recognizing historic reality. They say: "One law for all." We say, "Obey the

[ Page 11996 ]

law," and the courts are the law. They say: "The treaty must be watered down." We say: "A treaty is a negotiation, not a government decree."

This is a significant day, hon. Speaker, that completes the restoration of the honour of the Crown for British Columbia -- a very significant day. I'm very happy to be here at this time and in this place. No negotiated deal in the history of British Columbia has seen more scrutiny in this House and prior to coming into this House: more than 400 meetings in the region, years of meetings with the Treaty Negotiation Advisory Committee, the treaty advisory committee, the regional advisory committee.

The original framework did not provide for the openness in which this treaty was negotiated, once, as a result of discussions between ourselves and the Nis g a'a, it was decided to open up the process to the greatest extent possible. The Nis g a'a did not believe that it would be right, simply because they had been left out of negotiations when decisions were made to allocate land tenure in what they saw as their traditional territory . . . . They were not at the table. Nobody raised a fuss at that time. But believing that two wrongs do not make a right, they took the position that it should be opened up.

The official opposition's legacy, in my view, is one of seeking to exploit political opportunity. Their position kept changing, because they were trying to identify the political compass that would indicate the direction that would lead them on the path to gain the greatest possible support in terms of the body politic and help them with their electoral chances. I cannot say that in a self-righteous way, because I'm a politician; I understand that, and I do that too. But as I said before, I think this particular issue is one issue that rises above some of the issues that we deal with on a day-to-day basis.

[1450]

I'll just give you a few examples. In the '96 election campaign, the Leader of the Opposition said that he did not support the idea of a referendum. Then, when the time came a few months later -- when the now Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture led the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs in the work that they did throughout the province on this -- they were told at that time that the Liberal opposition did want to have a referendum. Then in the discussions that took place within that committee, it was decided and agreed upon by the government members of that committee that they would agree that it be a free vote in the Legislature.

I want to tell you, hon. members, that when I recommended to the Premier that there be a free vote in the Legislature on our side of the House, I did that knowing that I had personally met with each and every member of this caucus and that that in each member's heart of hearts, they supported this treaty. So obviously I had no question with regard to making that recommendation.

You know, hon. Speaker, they asked for that. That was, in a sense, a deal, and they got it. They got the agreement on the recommendation of the free vote, because at that time, that was what they wanted. They knew that there were members on their side of the House that would want to support it. They got it, and I think it's obvious for all to see that their members are under the whip. That indicates something -- without getting into it -- some comment on some of the points that have been made with regard to the kind of rhetoric that we're hearing in the House in the context of this discussion.

The fact is that they did not follow up on what they said they wanted at that time and what that committee enabled them to have in their agreement. They never followed through on it -- and we did. On this side of the House, each and every member is free to vote with his or her conscience.

Hon. Speaker, there are some real Liberals over there; there are a few. There are some over there that are part of a coalition, and they have chosen to define themselves under that banner. They have distanced themselves, for instance, from federal Liberals. But there are a few Liberals over there, and some of them, I believe, are uncomfortable. Isn't it amazing that those members over there -- the real Liberals that are under the whip -- are being forced to read scripted speeches because they are dealing with something that they find very, very difficult in the context of their real Liberal relationships.

Isn't it ironic, when you consider that surely they know that in a few weeks their colleagues in Ottawa will be giving speeches in favour of the treaty, that they -- the colleagues here in this House of those very same federal Liberals -- are giving speeches opposing the treaty. Isn't that an irony? The fact is that Hedy Fry will stand up in the House of Commons and speak glowingly in favour of the treaty -- and so will David Anderson, and so will Herb Dhaliwal, and so will Raymond Chan, and so will Lou Sekora.

Lou Sekora, the very good friend and party-mate of the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain, will stand up and say the 180-degree opposite in the House of Commons that she has said in this House. I point that out with sadness.

I know that most of them aren't the Liberals they say they are. And I know that there are some real Liberals over there. And I still hope that when it comes to the time for voting, they will listen to their hearts.

[1455]

We have heard many words about the support for the Nis g a'a people coming from the opposition, but when it came to the ceremony up in the Nass, whether it was the agreement-in-principle, when I was the minister, or whether it was the ceremony that took place several months ago, they did not see fit to accept the invitation to attend. Why was that?

Treaties are about building a new relationship grounded in recognition and respect. During this debate it's interesting to note that we've often heard quoted the words of the president of the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs, Stewart Phillip, a man that I know. And I have a lot of respect for his leadership ability. But let's be factual here. It wasn't many years ago that Stewart Phillip took out an ad in the Vancouver Province declaring sovereignty over the area that he considered to be the traditional territory of his people.

The fact of the matter is that the Liberals have found themselves supporting a chief whose very fundamental position is to not recognize the existence of the province of British Columbia. Those are strange bedfellows, hon. Speaker, strange bedfellows indeed.

I was privileged between 1993 and 1998 to lead this file. I'm part of this story, and what a privilege that is. And when it comes time for me to tell my grandchildren about this, I'm not going to be talking to them about this debate in the House, and I'm not going to be talking to them about some of the rhetoric that we hear coming from all sides within our political system. I'm going to be talking about what's in that treaty, because I feel really good about what's been crafted there. We can be proud about that.

I can remember that when I was the minister, I walked away from negotiations for a while because we had a dispute

[ Page 11997 ]

with the federal government over cost-sharing. And there were times when the Nis g a'a came to see me, and they were hot, they were angry. The fact is we've had our experiences on the road to hammering out this treaty where we've been very frank with each other with our feelings, but that was part of what led to hammering out a good agreement that people can feel good about. You can't have treaties by decree. That's not a treaty; that's not a negotiation.

You can't just say: "Okay, this is the way it's going to be." You have to have that foundation aspect of recognition and respect, and then you can craft something that is extremely worthwhile indeed, something that is the very stuff of hope.

The opposition has had the opportunity to do the right thing, and in my opinion they have not done the right thing.

Well, it has been such a long journey for the Nis g a'a -- a much longer journey, in a sense, than it has been for any of us. We just have to think of land conflicts that result in situations where we find refugees and victims of violent conflicts -- Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo, Serbia, Afghanistan, Macedonia and many places in Latin America. We see this in the news every day, and we see the results of these conflicts.

We have enjoined that journey in a negotiated way, which is a civilized way of achieving that which enables us to go on together upholding that respect that we have for each other. We're talking about first nations in this province where 60 percent of their population is under the age of 25 and desperately needs hope in order to have a future; where there's the highest suicide rate among adolescents; and where there's the highest infant mortality rate. We need to get on with the process of seeing that turn around.

[1500]

It is a fine balance -- as in the title of Mistry's book. That is another book which he has written -- A Fine Balance -- and, to me, it sort of ties in with the other story of Such a Long Journey . A Fine Balance is a story of loss. It's a story of people who have enjoined a heroic effort, and yet, at the end, they lose. In this process, it's a story about a fine balance which has been achieved through a negotiated treaty in which everybody in this province comes out of this as winners. My grandchildren and Joe Gosnell's grandchildren come out as winners.

In this case, because of what has been crafted, reflecting the needs of all British Columbians, justice will no longer be delayed, nor will it be denied.

J. Weisgerber: It's a pleasure for me to rise and to follow the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville. I think he demonstrates a very clear, very genuine and very sincere commitment to the land claims process, and he made a significant contribution to it.

For the first time in many, many years, I find myself hesitant to rise and speak. It's not the first time, because the first time I rose in this House was in 1987 to respond to the throne speech, and I was very much in awe of this place. I was eager, but I was hesitant. I was in uncertain territory, and I was in a new environment, and the hesitation that went with that I think is understandable to all members.

But I'm hesitant today because I find myself saddened deeply by the events of the last two days. I find myself hesitant to speak because I know that there are members on this side of the House and, I expect, members on the other side of the House who are not going to have an opportunity even to speak to third reading of this bill. There are a number of us who will have an opportunity, but we know that the clock is ticking and that time is limited.

I'm also hesitant to speak because I'm doing it in an environment in which we have brought in, for the first time in the experience of any member of the House today, a limit on debate. Never before in the brief experience of any of the members sitting in this House have we limited debate. It seems to me that we hear references to . . . . Well, we're now going to hear all kinds of debates about whether we brought in closure or there was no closure. But, madam Speaker, the point is that the government, in bringing in closure, didn't make references to precedents here in British Columbia.

They chose, instead, precedents in Ottawa, precedents in Alberta, and they used those as a rationalization for closure, for a limit on debate.

I suspect that we will see more of this. I think we now have seen the government try out closure and like the taste of it -- enjoy the mechanism. It was pretty evident to me last night. I honestly did not believe that the government would bring in closure on a closure motion. I certainly never expected, after five or six hours' debate, that the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast -- the member who sat here beside me as a defender of democracy and a defender of parliamentary practice -- would in fact be the person that would call closure on the closure motion.

If we are going to close that kind of debate and we're going to close debate on Nis g a'a, how many more times is it going to be easier for the government to call closure rather than to allow debate?

[1505]

I have an enormous respect for this Legislature and for the traditions and the practices of this Legislature. I see it being abused, and it makes me sick to my stomach to see what's happening here. We've heard talk about the fact that this should in fact be a happy day. I think, for those of us who have reservations about the treaty, for those of us who are hesitant to see areas of the treaty implemented, that shouldn't deny us the opportunity to celebrate the passing of the first modern-day treaty in British Columbia.

It's an achievement, something that I had an opportunity to play a role in at the start of the process. I would like to have seen the process come to a somewhat different conclusion. But I can't imagine that anybody sitting down in 1990 and 1991 would have believed that this treaty would wind up the way it has.

Look around, Madam Speaker, at the faces in this Legislature. They're not happy faces. They're not happy faces on this side of the House, and they aren't happy faces on that side of the House, because we instinctively understand that what's happening here is wrong.

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: The member for Prince George-Mount Robson says she's happy. Well, if indeed she is, I guess she's one of very few, because the faces across the way don't reveal . . . .

Interjections.

J. Weisgerber: Plaster on your smiles if you like. I've been watching this Legislature for the last 24 hours, and we are not engaged in an honourable process. We have come a

[ Page 11998 ]

long way. Then we've cut off debate, we've limited debate, we have allowed for no debate on some motions. We have left almost half of a treaty unexamined.

The former minister very genuinely talked about the time that was taken to develop the Nis g a'a treaty. He talked about the fact that negotiations had to be genuine, that there had to be give and take, that you simply couldn't ram a deal down the throats of the Nis g a'a people. But obviously that doesn't apply to the representatives of the people of British Columbia generally, because the government has said very clearly: "We're going to bring this deal in, and we're not going to change a comma.

We're not going to allow for this process to have any influence at all on the outcome." So I wonder why it is so important to engage in a genuine process -- and I believe it is, with respect to negotiating treaties -- but that this House simply be a rubber stamp for the decisions taken by this government. I wonder why it is that we are expected not only to rubber-stamp this thing but to rubber-stamp it and like it.

What we're hearing in this House is a reflection of what we're hearing across British Columbia. I don't know how many legislators have had an opportunity to get out of these precincts in the last 24 hours, but you should. You should have an opportunity to go to the coffee shops and the coffee klatsches, and you should have an opportunity to hear, not what your parliamentary assistants are telling you, but what the people of British Columbia are telling you. I have, and I can tell you that people are disgusted. People are saddened. This is not the way that this deal should have been concluded.

[1510]

In deference to those people who want to rise, let me say only that the Nis g a'a treaty is still the most important piece of legislation that has ever come before the House in my short time here. I believe it's probably the most important piece of legislation that has ever come before the province of British Columbia. I can't think of any particular piece of legislation that would have a more profound effect not only on the Nis g a'a, not only on the aboriginal people of British Columbia -- and they are important -- but on all British Columbians. Time wouldn't allow me or anyone else to rehash the treaty or to even give it a proper

summary.

But I do want to say to the Nis g a'a who are here today, to the Nis g a'a in the Nass Valley and to aboriginal people all around British Columbia: you and we and all British Columbians deserve much better.

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, I rise today to speak to this House about this place and what we do here, about how yesterday we watched, I think, one of the sadder moments in the history of the province of British Columbia. It's certainly a sad moment for anybody who believes in democratic institutions; it was certainly a sad moment for anybody who believes in the importance of the Legislature.

Over the last few minutes I've heard members of the government say: "Well, isn't this funny. We can get on with this, and people outside don't care what we do in here." When you think about that for a minute, you've got to understand that what you do is undercut all of the institutions, all of the democratic institutions, that we have. What we're seeing practised here today in this House, what we saw implemented last night by the Aboriginal Affairs minister, was not democracy; what we saw was despotism. What we saw was the worst form of despotism. What we saw was public policy that has been driven by one person's personal agenda, and that is simply wrong.

Everyone in this House is clear that this is indeed one of the most important pieces of legislation that we've ever had before us in this House. The denial of duly elected representatives' ability to talk about that treaty, to ask questions about that treaty and to learn about that treaty eats and will gnaw at the very heart of this treaty from the day it is passed till the day we pass from the face of the earth. From this day forth, it will gnaw at the heart of the treaty and the hopes that a member opposite -- like the former Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville -- may have.

Those hopes are going to be gnawed at, day in and day out, because this government has not allowed in this House a full, open, honest debate about all aspects of this treaty.

Treaties, by their very nature, are voluntary documents. They are documents that all sides enter into voluntarily. And if they are not voluntary documents, then they do not stand the test of time: they create problems; they don't solve them. This is not a voluntary document anymore. It is a document that is being imposed by closure on the people of British Columbia. This is a document that is being imposed without full debate. All of the work of the Nis g a'a leaders over the last century is being undermined by this government's rush, this rush for a personal agenda.

[1515]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members.

G. Campbell: We're having a document of this importance imposed on the people of British Columbia without full debate. The fact of the matter is that we've had approximately 33 days of debate on this treaty -- 33 days of debate on a treaty that will be there forever, that will be encased in constitutional concrete forever.

On the opposition side of the House, there are 35 members. There are 35 members in the opposition of this House, all of whom have interests in making sure that this treaty is at least fully reviewed, rigorously debated and fully understood. In fact, one of the advantages of legislative debate is that it allows us to build bridges of understanding. It allows us to build the kind of connections we have to between different parts of our community, so that they know where we're going. Yet the right to build that bridge has been taken away, because the understanding of people -- the answers to the questions that people legitimately ask -- has been closed off by this government.

I want to take my hat off to Frank Calder, the Nis g a'a elder who has said consistently through this government's efforts to close down debate that this government is wrong to do it. He understands the malignancy of this kind of politics for something that's supposed to last as long a time . . . . He understands that this imposition will lead to injustice. This imposition will lead to people believing that this treaty does not have long-term legitimacy. That -- I would suggest to you, hon. Speaker -- is a real disservice to the Nis g a'a people that this government pretends it is trying to serve.

This is no way to build a new relationship; this is no way to build a new relationship between the people of this

[ Page 11999 ]

province. The very essence of understanding this treaty, the very essence of understanding the codification of the rights of the Nis g a'a that are supposed to be reflected in this treaty, is undermined by this government's decision to close down debate and, worse still, to close debate about closing down debate. It's such an easy path to follow when you're in the majority. You say: "We don't care about what the minority thinks. We don't care about the opposition.

We don't care about actually having to answer questions and take responsibility for the decisions we've made." I guess the government isn't as proud of those decisions as they pretend, because if they were proud of them they'd be willing to stand. They'd be willing to answer quickly and directly.

To take four or five days to convince the Attorney General that he should come clean and explain to the people of British Columbia that this is not a municipal style of government is hardly the responsibility of the opposition. That is a very simple question: is it municipal-style -- yes or no? The answer is also simple: no, it is not. It's done like that.

But the government decides that 33 days is enough for the entire opposition to discover what's taking place in the debate. Yet for some reason, the government felt it was totally appropriate for the new Minister of Aboriginal Affairs to take over 50 days to figure out what was going on with this treaty. Now, I agree with the government: there is no question that every single member on this side of the House is far more intelligent and far more capable than the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs.

But surely we deserve to have the same amount of time, and the same amount of input, with the same number of questions, the same ability to learn about this treaty as the minister did. Let's be very clear: this government decided that those days were not important to the Nis g a'a people.

[1520]

They decided to close this debate down on February 1. People on this side of the House were urging the government to stay in session, were urging the government to continue debate on February 1, February 2, February 3 -- every day of February and every day of March -- until this government finally had the courage to call the Legislature back because they had no choice.

We know that the legislative debate is essential. It is particularly essential when we are passing a piece of legislation which is this vast, this broad, which touches the lives of people in so many different ways -- not just the Nis g a'a people but people across this province. It is critical that we get it right.

Let's just look at this legislation for a second. This is the Nis g a'a Final Agreement; it is 206 pages -- 206 pages of work. These are the Nis g a'a Final Agreement Appendices -- over 400 pages. These are the three side agreements -- over 100 pages. The government first pretends that it's got it all right -- no problems. We were told at first that there wasn't one mistake. Nothing would be changed in this document -- not one thing, not one comma, not one "t." Then what happens? We find that the government indeed has changed this.

But worse still, we know from looking at this government's record in the past that they very seldom have passed a piece of legislation in this House which has not had problems with it. The critical thing here is those problems. The members opposite don't suffer from those problems; they still get their paycheques. They still have their offices; they still have their employees. But there are thousands of other people who lose their jobs and lose their futures and lose their opportunities when this government is careless.

The best example of this government's carelessness or government carelessness goes back to a piece of legislation in 1990, Bill 64, as was mentioned yesterday by the MLA for Delta South.

I will stick with third reading, but the issue with third reading is to point out that this government has so much trouble getting anything right that the chance that they have got almost 1,000 pages of documents right in this final agreement is slim to none. The fact of the matter is that when you look at this government's work, thousands of people have unfortunately paid the price for their carelessness and their incompetence.

The motion to close down debate was brought forward on Tuesday morning. It was one page; it was less than a page; it was barely a paragraph. It was brought down on Tuesday morning. By yesterday afternoon, 81 percent of that had to be thrown out because it was wrong, made no sense and didn't work.

What happens if we have the same situation take place here? What happens to the Nis g a'a people? What happens to the Gitanyow? What happens to the rest of British Columbians? It is a serious issue, and this government has decided to close down debate, which closes off the people of British Columbia's opportunity to protect themselves from this government's incompetence. That is wrong.

Unfortunately, the government's decision to close down debate, the government's decision on how they would manage this bill . . . . Rather than help to build bridges that will unite us -- to build a road to reconciliation -- they've literally done just about everything they could think of to divide British Columbians. Listening to the members opposite speak, they would have British Columbians believe that unless everyone thinks exactly the same way as they think at exactly the same time as they think it -- for exactly the same reasons -- then somehow or other those other British Columbians do not care.

The fact is that British Columbians had a vast reservoir of goodwill with regard to treaty-making.

[1525]

We on this side of the House want to assure that we have treaties that work for future generations. We support them; we have always supported them. But we have supported treaties that reflect some fundamental values that I believe British Columbians still share: values of equality, particularly, and values of giving citizens the right to vote for governments that have the opportunity to regulate their lives. The government would have us think that those are not important values.

They are fundamental to the Canadian way of life, they are fundamental to our democratic institutions, and they are fundamental to this side of the House. And we will stand and fight for those values from now until doomsday.

A government that says it can do anything it wants, a government that has consistently flouted the law and, in some cases, broken the law, a government that has taken away rights from British Columbians with reckless abandon -- has retroactively taken away those rights -- sits and is somehow surprised that we on this side of the House think that it's important that a piece of legislation like this be constitutional. We suggested to the Attorney General of British Columbia last July that he take this agreement, the proposed agreement, to the courts and that he refer it to the courts themselves to assure that it was constitutional, to assure that all people's

[ Page 12000 ]

rights were being protected. Whether that side of the House likes it or not, the courts in Canada are there to protect the rights of every single Canadian, not simply Canadians that you may think are important.

So will this go forward? Will we carry this forward? Yes, absolutely we will. We want to be sure that this agreement and this treaty are constitutional and are within our fundamental law in Canada. It's not a law that you can simply put aside. It's not a law about which the government can simply say: "It's not convenient for us this year to deal with the constitution. It's not convenient for us this year to protect Canadians' rights." I can guarantee the government that we will continue to fight for all Canadians' rights, for equality for all Canadians. We will continue to fight for the rights of all aboriginal people to be able to define their future, together with the community.

We will continue to try and provide the people of British Columbia with access to the treaty-making process in a positive, constructive way, so we can build a future in this province that embraces the hopes, the desires and the concerns of the Nis g a'a people, the Gitanyow, the Musqueam and of all the rest of British Columbia as well. We believe in all British Columbians seeing a bright future. We believe in all British Columbians being able to walk forward together. We believe in all British Columbians reaching out to one another and building a future for their families and their children in a way that is done within the law.

As we close this debate down in this sorry fashion and this government forces this treaty through this Legislature -- without answering fundamental questions about how the treaty will work, without answering fundamental questions about how this treaty will be paid for, without answering the fundamental questions that British Columbians have asked from day one with regard to this -- I would like the government to know that on this side of the House we will continue to provide not just aboriginal people but also non-aboriginal people in this province with the hope that we can build a true road to reconciliation and open up a true process that will provide aboriginal children and aboriginal communities with the same level of hope and opportunity as non-aboriginal communities.

We want our children to be able to look to the future with pride and with confidence -- with one another, together. We will continue to strive for that hope. Our fundamental hope is that we will be able to restore the integrity of this chamber so that the people of the province will look to this chamber with pride and know that it's a place of open, honest, straightforward debate, where we learn from one another, share with one another, build bridges of understanding and build a future for our children together.

[1530]

Hon. A. Petter: The lessons of history are pretty clear, and the lessons of history on these kinds of issues are that whenever a people or a government tries to move forward in the struggle to advance social justice, that movement is never easy. Whenever there is an effort made to turn the page, to put behind us some of the injustices of the past and move forward, there are always those who are prepared to stand up and give reasons as to why it should not happen or why it should not happen now. I think we've heard from the previous speaker, the Leader of the Opposition, an example of exactly that process.

I must say that as proud and pleased as I am about what is occurring in this chamber today, as we bring this debate to a conclusion and hopefully support this very important development of social justice, I am saddened too. But I am saddened by a very different thing than some of the members opposite. What saddens me is that we continue to see this kind of sophistry, this kind of attempt by members opposite to pretend that this is all about process -- to pretend a deep concern for social justice -- while acting in every way possible to impede its development.

The Leader of the Opposition spoke the other day about the need to apologize to aboriginal people and to the Nis g a'a people. Yet he talks about that need to apologize at the same time as he makes every effort to ensure that the very injustices he would have us apologize for continue. He talks about the need for a new relationship based on goodwill, yet he and his party are doing everything in their power to get in front of the courts to prevent that relationship from occurring. He talks about the need for debate and enlightenment, when he and his party have made it crystal-clear that -- no matter what happens in this Legislature -- they, to a person, will vote against this treaty.

The struggle of history, the struggle for justice, is never without controversy. It is never free of those who say: "The time is not right." It is never free of those who are prepared to deny or delay justice. My colleague the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville, the former Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, quoted William Gladstone when he said: "Justice delayed is justice denied." Gladstone, I believe, derived that quote from a previous quote of Jean de la Bruyère, a French writer who wrote: "When it is our duty to do

an act of justice, it should be done promptly. To delay is injustice." That is something we should well consider in this Legislature. But there is no one who knows better the lesson of justice being delayed amounting to justice being denied than the Nis g a'a people themselves. For the Nis g a'a, the debate over this treaty has not gone on for more than 100 hours; it has gone on for more than 100 years. The Nis g a'a people came to this Legislature 112 years ago, in 1887, and they asked for the opportunity for there to be a debate. They were told to go away.

They were told that there was no time, there was no need, there was no validity to their request. The Nis g a'a people did not give up. They pursued the cause of justice. In 1913 they took their case across the water to Great Britain, to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council -- the final court of appeal at the time, for Canada -- only to be told that they could not have their case heard there either.

[1535]

The situation didn't get any easier for them over the course of that 100 years; it got worse. Federal legislation was passed, prohibiting them from seeking legal counsel in order to pursue the claim in courts in Canada. Meetings were prohibited of any group of three or more aboriginal people to even discuss land claims. Of course, as we all know too well -- and to our shame as non-aboriginal people in this province -- they were for many years, until the latter half of this century, denied the right to vote.

Even the turnaround, even the moment we have arrived at today -- in which we are about to turn the page -- has taken a quarter of a century from the day that we started on that component of their journey, when in 1973 recognition for their rights was provided by the Supreme Court of Canada. Three years later formal negotiations began. Finally, in 1990 . . . . I give credit to the former

[ Page 12001 ]

Minister of Aboriginal Affairs -- the member for Peace River South, across the way, who spoke earlier -- for having helped B.C. to join those talks in 1990.

Of course, we have seen, during the course of the last seven years under the current government, the progress that has been made. But that has also been made very slowly, with a cost-sharing agreement; an interim measures agreement in 1993; an agreement-in-principle in 1996; a treaty initialled, finally, in 1998; and the debate that leads us to this moment -- all, as the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville indicated, subject to extensive scrutiny and extensive debate.

Over 100 years of struggle and through that period, through that delay, in which the Nis g a'a sought to have their rights recognized, they were denied the basic rights that many of us take for granted. In addition, of course, they were denied their inherent rights, relegated to postage-stamp parcels of land -- reserves that they themselves did not even control but that were held in trust on their behalf by the federal government -- and subjected to an Indian Act that stripped them of their rights to self-determination and treated them as wards of the state. That situation exists to this day.

That situation will not end until we end this debate and pass this treaty. Then, and only then, will it end.

Now we have a chance to correct that historic injustice.

We have a chance to create a new relationship that is indeed based upon equality and a recognition of those historic rights, a treaty that respects the aboriginal people's and the Nis g a'a people's desire to have self-determination over matters that are of concern to them but to do so within the context of British Columbia and of Canada, subject to the laws that we are all subject to -- a form of self-determination that will ensure not only that they can act as a people within Canada but that they can achieve some economic self-determination, as well, and share in the bounty of this province.

How ironic it is that they, as the first people, have been denied that bounty while we, the rest of us, have enjoyed it to a much greater extent. Finally, of course, the treaty will cast aside the long shadow of the Indian Act, that shadow that has been cast for so many years upon them and continues to be cast upon so many aboriginal peoples. The recognition of these rights, as I say, doesn't come easily. It's much easier, frankly, to litigate, to obfuscate and to delay. I think that indeed is what we have been witness to in this chamber today and previously, and that does sadden me.

It does take determination and courage. And, yes, it does take some bloody-mindedness to press ahead and face the obstacles and overcome injustice. We've seen that elsewhere. The struggle to overcome apartheid in South Africa would not have been achieved unless there were people who were prepared to press ahead, notwithstanding the obstacles. Rest assured, there were plenty of people in that struggle who said; "No, no, it's a good idea, but not now. No, no, let's go to the courts. No, no, let's delay it," or just: "No, no."

The struggle in the United States to achieve civil rights and to overcome segregation was no different. It was a struggle in which there were plenty of people who were prepared to stand up and rationalize and talk about process and say: "Maybe just a little bit longer" and "It's too soon" and "It won't actually help things" and "There's another way of doing it" and "Maybe we should consult some more." But, fortunately, there were some people who said: "Enough." They said: "The time to put aside injustice has come. One more day of injustice is a greater injustice." That is the time that has come today.

[1540]

It also saddens me, because I share the view of the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville and others expressed on this side of the House that the opposition has mounted arguments that really do not, in many cases, reflect their true views and certainly don't reflect their prior commitments. In the last election campaign, the Liberal Party took the position that it was in fact time to get on with treaties. They did not, to my knowledge, attack the agreement-in-principle. In fact, they said: "It's time to move forward from that."

Now, when the opposition speaks, they talk about the need to protect traditional values, the values that will be displaced by treaty-making, the values that are somehow threatened by giving first nations their rights. It seems to me there's been quite a change in attitude. In the last election campaign, they spoke against the use of a referendum. Of course, I won't rehearse their flip-flop on that issue, when they now are apparently quite prepared to support the use of such an instrument.

Of course, they have supported free votes in the Legislature. In fact, I recall the Leader of the Opposition saying in the last election campaign that the one thing he felt was necessary in order to ensure that the treaty proceeded was that there be free votes in the Legislature. Now, of course, we see what's happened to that commitment as well.

The opposition party, even in advance of getting to the Legislature, has decided to marshal arguments in court to try to thwart this treaty and has put in every effort they can to ensure that every one of their MLAs is brought into line, is commanded to come and to oppose this treaty at all costs. So much for a free vote. So much for their commitment. So much for their high-minded principles and their concern about rights.

There is a time to debate, and there is a time to decide. I think that the time to decide has come. That may be very uncomfortable for members opposite, because it is easier to carry on and talk and avoid and obfuscate than to actually say what it is that one is prepared to do -- to actually say whether one is prepared to turn that page of history. I know that when I leave this place years from now and I look back, one thing that I will take such pride in -- both as having been a minister involved in this and as an MLA -- is that we as a government and I as a person were prepared to stand up and be counted and to turn that page.

I hope every member, including those opposite, think very carefully what they want to say to those who ask them in years hence what role they played in this process and in this debate. Do they want to be counted in the annals of history with those, elsewhere and now here, who will say no, who will rationalize, who will obfuscate and who will litigate? This is a very, very important question. It's not just a question about politics. It's not just a question about parties. It's a question about ourselves and who we are and whether we're prepared to move forward.

Are we prepared to delay justice further? Are we prepared, by doing so -- as William Gladstone said -- to deny justice? Are we prepared to tell those in the future that we were part of the reason why this process did not go ahead in the way it could have done, or that we tried to stop it when it did go ahead? I think each of us has to examine our own consciences.

What I want to say is that this is a very special moment in history; it is a very proud moment in history. It is a moment

[ Page 12002 ]

which I encourage all members of the Legislature to reflect upon, because the time has come to put politics aside and turn the page. Let's turn the page and support this legislation.

[1545]

R. Neufeld: I rise to speak to third reading to this historic bill, the Nis g a'a Final Agreement Act of British Columbia. In fact, when I sit in here I think back to the time when I was elected in 1991. I see many faces around here who were elected at the same time as I was. I see the now Attorney General, elected when I was elected in 1991. There are others that are sitting in the House right now that were elected with me.

I'm sure that they were as in awe of this place as I was when I came here, elected from a small community of about 3,000 to 4,000 people, one of the farthest-north communities in this great province of British Columbia. I came down here, and I entered this building, and I entered this room for the first time in my life. I looked around, and I thought. "My goodness, what am I up against? What are we here to do?

How's it going to be done?" In fact, there are days today, eight years later, when I walk in here and am just as in awe of what we've been entrusted to do by not only the constituents that elect each and every one of us but by the people in the whole province. I can tell you that I take that job seriously.

In fact, hon. Speaker, you will recall that you were elected at the same time I was. You probably never thought in your life that you would be presiding over a House as Speaker eight years later when we're facing a closure motion, a cutoff on debate about one of the most serious bills in the province, and that you would have to sit and rule this House on something as important as this bill and to actually witness debate -- real debate: questions, answers -- not forthcoming anymore.

It's a sad day not just for me but, I'm sure, a say day for you and for all those members that were elected in 1991 who came here with a sense that we were going to try, even though we each do it differently, something better for the province.

I don't think that what we're doing today and what we've done for the last two days is better for all the people in the province -- and that includes the Nis g a'a. I said in my second reading remarks that if we were going to have a treaty -- I agree with treaties -- it must be fully debated. People in the province have to know what's in the treaty. What does it really mean? What are we really talking about, and how will it affect me? How will it affect the Nis g a'a -- now into time immemorial?

That's the important reason why we came here. That 's the important reason why we should be in this House finishing debate on the Nis g a'a agreement, not closure on the Nis g a'a agreement. The Nis g a'a know as well as we do that when you push something like this through, as is being done by the NDP at this present time, it's going to be that much harder to work. Had we been able to discuss it, to lay out the issues on the table for each and every one -- whether you agree or whether you don't agree . . . . But, at the end of the day, most rational people will say: "Okay. At least I've had my time.

At least I understand a little bit more about it, and I'm going to work that much harder to make that treaty work."

[1550]

But when you start out with a treaty that is put into motion as we have seen in the last two days, it just makes it twice as hard for everyone -- Nis g a'a and non-Nis g a'a. That's not fair to either. We've heard all kinds of debate here today and yesterday about throwing darts at one another. I haven't had a chance to say this, but I'm going to say it. I'm offended by members opposite who, just because I have a different opinion about something, say that I am entirely wrong, that I am a racist, that I don't understand and don't care. I've probably spent more time than almost every one of those people -- not every one of them -- on that side of the House living in a community . . . .

Interjection.

R. Neufeld: If the Minister of Transportation and Highways wishes to speak, he can speak when his time comes.

I lived in a community called Fort Nelson. When I first went up there to work, there were probably more native people there than there were white people. I've worked for and with many of those people. They are all my good friends. And it's interesting. It doesn't matter who I talk to in the community of Fort Nelson, where I spent 30 years -- 20 full years and about 10 half-years. They tell me that something is wrong and that we should be carefully reviewing this bill.

It's also disturbing to listen to the last member who just spoke, talking about how terrible we are on this side of the House because we don't agree, or to listen to the previous Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, who stood in this House this morning and talked glowingly about my good friend from Peace River South -- how much he enjoyed listening to him and how much knowledge he had about aboriginal affairs and his stature in aboriginal affairs in this province of British Columbia. And those things I totally agree with. And how he respected that person . . . .

You know, he used to say the same thing about me when I sat down there with that person from Peace River South. But for some reason, I moved a little further down the row into the Liberal ranks, and do you know what? I totally changed, I guess. I'm not the same person any more. I find that offensive. I find that absolutely offensive, because I'm not.

Interjection.

R. Neufeld: The Minister of Transportation and Highways wants to continue to catcall. I would suggest that he make sure that he's very careful about what he says, because he has a cabinet colleague -- the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast -- who now sits in his cabinet, who used to sit on this side of the House and used to complain about how this government drove bills through this House without the proper procedure, without the proper debate.

That same member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast used to come to me to convince me to join his great party, the PDA, because it was such a great party and it had hundreds of thousands of people joining it and said that the NDP of the day were terrible. He now sits in that cabinet, in that caucus. So, about those issues, we should be careful. I caution members opposite not to talk too much about it anymore.

I also remember clearly the day Mr. Gosnell came to this House, stood at that Bar and gave an impassioned speech about the Nis g a'a -- what they had faced in their lifetime of trying to get a treaty, all the people that had worked so hard to try and get a treaty, and the hours and the years and the months that they spent trying to get a treaty.

[1555]

[ Page 12003 ]

If you just think about that person's patience, compared to the government of the day's patience . . . . Patience is not long-lived on that side of the House when it comes to political expediency. We witnessed that when this group that was so concerned about the Nis g a'a treaty adjourned us in January. They called us in November to debate the bill, then adjourned, then came back in January early, prior to when we had agreed to come back, because it was so important, according to the Minister of Finance. We came to the House, and we were discussing the bill. We were talking about it. We were asking questions.

Our critics were asking very good questions about the bill, trying to lay out what was in the Nis g a'a agreement and what wasn't in the Nis g a'a agreement, to try and get some sense of what this huge document is all about -- to try to get the government to explain to us how they decided that this was the right agreement.

We sat here for just a few days, until all of a sudden the heat got too hot for the government. The fire in the kitchen was too great for the Premier and the Deputy Premier and the whole cabinet. And you know, all those words about really being concerned about the Nis g a'a, about really being concerned about getting the treaty through, went out the window. Each and every one of them was happy to leave this House. And they did. They said that it was to bring someone up to speed on the treaty. We could understand that.

Having listened to that member for as many years as I have, I know that he had to have some extra time. I thought he was pretty well up on the agreement, to be honest. So we went away. It took two months before it was politically expedient for this government, who say they really care about all these issues, to bring us back.

Interjection.

R. Neufeld: But you know, as my colleague just told me, it wasn't because they wanted to come back and debate Nis g a'a. They had to come back to present a budget. That's why we came back. It had nothing to do with coming back for the Nis g a'a agreement. The last day of the month of March we came back here to discuss a budget and then go into the Nis g a'a debate.

I have a hard time choking back some of the remarks of some of these members that tell me I don't care, when I spent January and February at home waiting for the phone to ring so that we could come back and start debating this historic first modern-day treaty in the province of British Columbia. January -- well, half of January -- and February and March. And then they have the gall to come here and chastise us because we didn't want to sit at nights or on weekends. If you can imagine: all that time we sat waiting for someone to get up to speed on the agreement, and they chastise us.

I think the critic for Aboriginal Affairs said it all this morning when he said: "This is a sad day." Really, it is not a happy day. I don't see a whole bunch of happy faces over there. People should be happy today, but they're not. If you -- anyone in this House -- think back to last July . . . . There was a private member's bill that was passed -- put forward by the member for Richmond East -- on grandparents' rights. I saw smiles on everyone's faces. Everyone was happy. Guess what: we all got to discuss the bill. It was something good.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

But what have we done with the Nis g a'a agreement? We've gotten to

chapter 12 out of 22, plus the bill. The government has put a motion forward, one that has never been used in our parliament before and one that I hope never gets used again. Closure on something as historic as the Nis g a'a agreement is absolutely unacceptable to us on this side of the House, and it's absolutely unacceptable to British Columbians, regardless of where they live in this great province of ours.

[1600]

We had numerous promises from the government that we would be given the opportunity to discuss and debate all issues around this bill. The Premier, last November, talked about: "It could take a few months to pass . . . . We will give the opposition the chance to debate each and every clause." But why should we have believed the Premier? He's not been very forthright with us on many other things. On June 30, 1998, he said: "We won't rush it through. I want the debate. I'd like British Columbians to be involved in the debate."

The debate up until now has been productive. Our critics have found some profound things in the Nis g a'a agreement that weren't forthcoming without the debate in the House. We found out all kinds of things. One issue I recall very clearly is that the treaty contains no valuation for mineral resources on Nis g a'a lands; the government has no idea what the resources are worth. There are numerous things that we've found out, and there are other things that we would have liked to have found out on behalf of all British Columbians.

Chapter 12, "Administration of Justice" -- doesn't the government think it would be worthwhile for British Columbians to be able to see the debate on what's going to take place with the administration of justice in the Nis g a'a agreement or the Indian Act transition?

There is all kinds of debate around those issues that would have been helpful to British Columbians, who will now still be wondering about each and every one of those chapters, or the fiscal relations that are going to take place. Hon. Speaker, don't you think it would be wise for all British Columbians to at least have the opportunity, if they so wish, to read Hansard and find out what the minister's comments are on some of those issues, rather than just read the legalese in the bill? Wouldn't it be wise to be able to do that for British Columbians? How about taxation --

chapter 16 -- or capital transfer and negotiation of loan repayment? Hon. Speaker, those are all serious issues that this House has been cut out of.

The debate has been concluded not by will but by demand of the government. In fact, I think this government should be really ashamed, because again, closing debate -- closure on closure; something that's never happened before -- is all to help the political agenda of the Premier of British Columbia. This whole debate around the Nis g a'a agreement has been politically manipulated . . .

Interjection.

R. Neufeld: . . . for the benefit of the Premier of British Columbia. The Minister of Small Business can agree with me or not, but that in fact is the truth. It is the truth. You may not like that, but in fact it is the truth. It's obvious to all British Columbians.

[1605]

You want to end the debate; you want to conclude the debate on a treaty that will be cast in concrete forever. There will never be a change to this treaty. Never will the oppor-

[ Page 12004 ]

tunity arise to change. Here we are today talking about closure, about something that is foreign to us in this House, about something that should be foreign to us in British Columbia.

We should be talking about these issues so we can understand them more. In fact, some of the Nis g a'a people even talk about that right now, whether the government likes it or not. They would like to see it discussed; they would like to see it opened up. They would like to know, also, what is in the agreement.

The critic for Children and Families discussed her

chapter at length, about what happens with children and families, to put it on the record -- or the critic for Women's Equality. All the critics should have the opportunity to stand up in this House and ask questions that are pertinent to their critic area. Hon. Speaker, I talked about taxation just a bit. But wouldn't it be nice if we could have our Finance critic stand up in this House and be able to ask, I guess, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs about taxation -- how it will apply to the Nis g a'a, when it will apply and where it will apply? Wouldn't that be a nice touch?

Instead of everyone out there having different little opinions, you could actually -- I don't know how long it would take -- be able to extract that information from government so that we could get it out to people, so that the newspapers could get it out to people. I think that's valuable. I think that's why we're here in this House. That's why we've been elected to this House: to actually try to find those things out. That's my job; that's what I was elected to do. I am being told that I can't do my job anymore -- or others on this side of the House. The critic is being told he cannot do his job anymore.

The NDP thought 33 days of debate was enough -- 30 or 33 days -- irregardless of if we're talking about a treaty that's going to last forever. They're here for a long time. I come from an area where the treaty was signed over 100 years ago and is still in full force and effect -- Treaty 8, where I come from. Nothing has been changed in it. I suppose how it's interpreted has been changed over time, but the treaty is still there. I expect this treaty will be there for a long time. I can't for the life of me understand how a government that says it's open and honest wants to, and has, pulled closure on closure.

As I said earlier, it's unacceptable to me, and it's unacceptable to most British Columbians, especially if we go and look at more quotes. It doesn't matter which member of that caucus -- or, particularly, which member of cabinet -- you read about. They've all said that debate would be full and open -- as long as it takes.

[1610]

There are many issues that we'd like to deal with that we're not going to be able to deal with. I think the Nis g a'a know as well as I know that although they are happy to a certain degree that this bill has finally passed, they are sad in their own hearts that it had to come to this -- to closure on closure, to close out British Columbians, to close out the opposition as to what is in the agreement.

That's supported by Mr. Frank Calder. I don't know Mr. Calder. I'm going to be honest: I've never talked to Mr. Calder. But I have read comments of his, and my friend from Peace River South, who knows him, talks highly of him. I can only assume and would agree that he is a great gentleman. He has some reservation about what's taking place with closure today in this Legislature. Each and every one of you on the government side knows that. You've heard his comments as well as I have, and I think his comments are right. I think he knows that it's going to be tougher to initiate and put into place a treaty that hasn't been fully debated in the province of British Columbia. He knows that.

You folks should listen to those kinds of people. If you don't want to listen to the opposition, you don't have to listen to the opposition. You can go on your merry way. Most of you are so sanctimonious that you're right, anyhow, that you're going to do whatever you want to do, because it's the right way to do it as far as you're concerned. That's the way you've always been.

An Hon. Member: Or invoke closure.

R. Neufeld: Or invoke closure, because you think you're right and everybody else is wrong.

I want to leave the NDP government with a last message. Mr. Calder said that closure is not the way to introduce the first modern-day treaty in the province of British Columbia. He says that's not right, and we say that's not right.

Hon. I. Waddell: I rise to speak in third reading of this very historic debate. I want to just start by speaking as Minister of Small Business and Tourism. The members will perhaps be aware from one of the questions that was asked today in question period that Mr. Matt Vickers, a senior Royal Bank of Canada official for aboriginal banking, told a conference yesterday in Vancouver on the economic implications of land claims and treaties in British Columbia that unsettled native Indian land claims are the biggest constraint to tourism growth in B.C. Mr.

Vickers quoted from a cost-benefit analysis by KPMG consultants -- well respected -- of all potential treaties, including Nis g a'a, saying that the study concludes that investing in land settlements eventually pays off and British Columbians can expect $3 in financial benefits for every $1 cost to the taxpayer. That's a senior banker. And I quote that not just because I want to see tourism grow in British Columbia or I want to see business grow in British Columbia and I think that one of the great impediments is that we have unsettled land claims.

That's what people in the business community are telling us: to get on with the settlement -- to get on, and we'll have a bright future.

[1615]

I think that's obvious, and it must obvious to all the members of this House. But I cite Mr. Vickers because I think it illustrates the real world out there as opposed to the artificial world, sometimes, in here. I think the real world is saying to us: "Get on with the settlement of land claims." I don't take this away . . . . Because I've been in opposition, and I know that members have to and will debate parliamentary procedure. And it is important. But you know what? I'm not sure that the outside world out there really cares what happened in February of this year or whose agenda is what agenda.

I think that what they care about is that we get on and, first, settle the historic injustice to the Nis g a'a people and, secondly, in our own self-interest, get on with the first modern land claim settlement, so we can get moving in this province -- move into the twenty-first century -- and get the economic growth that both natives and non-natives desire. So I think that's the real world.

Hon. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition gave a speech this afternoon, talked about one person's agenda. I don't

[ Page 12005 ]

understand. This is a bigger agenda then one person's agenda. Don't give that person -- be it the Premier or anybody else whose agenda it's supposed to be -- that kind of credit. This is a bigger agenda, surely. This is a historic agenda, going on for a long time. The Leader of the Opposition said that people care. Yes, people do care about this matter. And people care about what goes on here -- that's true. But he then went on to say that democracy is in peril and that we in the government don't seem to care about democracy.

If I might say, I find that a bit insulting to the members over here, because we care too. We care about democracy, and we care about the procedure. You could hear it . . . . It rang out in the speech of the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville, the former minister -- that great speech he gave this afternoon. I find it particularly insulting. I sat with Stanley Knowles in a legislature -- the great Stanley Knowles, the expert on procedure. I have opposed closure, with Stanley Knowles, on occasions.

But you know what? When the constitution was repatriated in 1981 by the Trudeau government, our group, the federal NDP, stood at that time . . . . We had to make a difficult decision. It was a tough decision: should we support this or not? Should we, in fact, oppose the closure and the time allocation that they have in the House of Commons, or should we support something that we thought, in the end, would benefit the country? We stood for something that benefited the country. And, you know, 15 years later, after the Queen . . . .

I was there when the Queen signed the documents on the front lawn of the Parliament Buildings. I still think back and think how proud I was of the vote that we made, because we were on the right side of history on that one.

And so -- and I say this with respect -- I don't need a lecture from the Leader of the Opposition on the perils of democracy and how to deal with a matter like this. I ask him: does Alberta not believe in democracy? They had some time allocation. Does Ontario not believe in democracy? Does the Parliament of Canada not believe in democracy? Does Westminster, in England -- the mother of Parliaments, which has a time allocation after a proper debate -- not believe in democracy? I think his point is simply nonsense.

Has there been enough debate on this particular bill? Well, the Nis g a'a have waited over 100 years. They're still waiting, patiently, up in the gallery today. In British Columbia, we've been about -- what? -- 20 years; with the B.C. government, the last five years. I see Mr. Calder up in the gallery. Do you remember the case, in the early seventies, Calder v. Attorney General of B.C.? How could you forget it? That was when the Nis g a'a brought to the minds of Canadians for the first time: "Do you know what? There may be a thing called land claims, and they may have a legal case." The courts have told us: "Settle these land claims." That's why we're doing it in the House.

We are now in our 126th hour of debate. Has there been enough debate? Well, for them, 100 years; for B.C., 20 years; for the government of B.C., five years; for us in this House, 126 hours. I think it's time to make a decision. The time has come, and in one hour, we will make the historic decision for the first modern land claim treaty in the country.

The hon. member for Peace River South and the hon. member for Coquitlam-Maillardville were kind enough to mention that in 1996 I chaired a committee of this House, the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. We put out a report, and I'm going to quote from that report. "Towards Reconciliation" was the title we chose. All the members of the committee -- opposition and government -- chose "Towards Reconciliation: Nis g a'a Agreement-in-Principle and British Columbia Treaty Process."

[1620]

Let me quote, if I might, from that report. In the

preamble of our report, we said: "The committee made a special effort to reach people throughout British Columbia, aboriginal and others, so their voices could be heard . . . . " I heard the member who last spoke say: "Well, you've got to hear the voices of the people of British Columbia." In some cases, we locally televised to their neighbours who couldn't come to the meetings. We heard 560 oral presentations and received 232 written submissions. We visited 27 communities. We held 31 public hearings. We believe they were fair and balanced hearings; most of them were televised.

We debated the Nis g a'a agreement-in-principle. We had the Nis g a'a agreement-in-principle there. People read it; people responded to it. It came back to the negotiators when they made their final agreement. Those views of the people were taken to them. That's what came in the final treaty. So, surely to God, we can say that the people of British Columbia were consulted, and here's the proof: the report of the committee.

Let me read a little further, because it gets into the substance of the debate. Here's what the committee said: "There is public support for a major commitment by governments to settle aboriginal claims. The treaty process is overwhelmingly viewed as the best option, a better alternative to blockades or to litigation." So I ask the opposition: what do they want? Do they want litigation? Do they want us to go to the courts and let the courts order us? You wait and see what the courts would order. Look at the Delgamuukw case, for example, and see how strong they would be, compared to what we've got with a negotiated treaty.

Or do you want to have confrontation? Do you want . . . ? I noticed that the opposition was siding with the chief in Penticton, who, of course, had blockaded the road to the ski area. Do you want confrontation? Do you want litigation? Or do you want negotiations? If you want negotiations, you've got to come to a settlement of the negotiations.

The committee report says this, and all members signed this part of the report: "There is widespread support among first nations and others to eliminate the special status of the Indian Act and to move to full equality for aboriginal people in British Columbia." Here are people in our province who, when they want to make a will -- we were told when we travelled in the committee -- have to have approval by Ottawa. This is a people who are treated specially. As the member for Vancouver-Burrard -- he's not here, but he is usually -- would say, when people say that this treaty brings in a form of apartheid . . . .

He says he finds that insulting and intolerable, because this is getting away from the Indian Act. This is bringing true equality.

Now, we're taking some chances. We're doing a self-government in the treaty. That's what the opposition objects to -- and they're quite right to point out and quite right to ask questions . . . . They have asked questions about self-government. Self-government is something unique and it's something relatively new. But it's something that was put in by first nations. I believe strongly that we will see a renaissance in aboriginal communities when we take away the power from bureaucrats, the red tape and the patronizing attitudes, and give people freedom to govern themselves locally within the Canadian constitution, within the Charter of

[ Page 12006 ]

Rights. What's so radical about that? Isn't that Canadian? Isn't that equality? Isn't that where we want to go? That's why I think the treaty is worthwhile.

You know what? A treaty is a negotiation. I look at the Nis g a'a around here, and I know that they had to give up some things. You know, under the Indian Act you may have a patronizing status, an unequal status. But you also don't have to pay taxes. When I've travelled the country as a member of various committees, I've found that was the one thing that non-aboriginal people objected to. They wanted first nations to pay taxes, because they wanted a degree of equality.

[1625]

They wanted to tolerate cultural differences. They wanted, massively and wonderfully, first nations to retain their culture. Walk into Vancouver Airport. Do you see Emily Carr there? No. You see Bill Reid, you see first nations, you see totem poles. You see reflected now our culture of British Columbia, and it's mostly aboriginal art and culture.

But the Nis g a'a, in this treaty, had to give up the taxation powers. In other words, they have to pay taxes after a phase-in period. That's not easy. But that was part of the negotiation. That's what the hon. member for Coquitlam-Maillardville talked about today. You have a negotiated treaty, and you have to accept that.

I watched the opposition debate this treaty, and I don't put the opposition down. I think there are members of the opposition -- I know, and I saw them in the committee as we travelled the province -- who sincerely struggle with these problems, as we all do. I presume good faith in them. I think the opposition is sincere in this.

But what worries me -- I say this is only my own point of view -- is that the position the opposition has taken is on the substance, on the treaty, not on the procedure. I've been there. I know that when you have trouble with the major question, you get into procedural issues. But on the major issue of voting for or against the treaty, I unfortunately must say that I think the opposition is falling into the hands of and parlaying to the worst elements in British Columbia. They are pandering to the darker side of British Columbia.

I think they are doing it because they want the Reform vote in the election, but that's only my opinion. I believe sincerely that as a result, they're going to find themselves on the wrong side of history.

You know, the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville talked about his grandchildren. I don't have any children, and he has. I know his son; he worked for me in Ottawa. I know his son well. His son's got sons now, so he has got real grandchildren. I thought, when he was speaking, what will he say to his grandchildren, compared to what the opposition will say? Well, the opposition can say: " I took

part in a historic debate, and I voted against the closure or the time allocation. Yes, that's what I did." But this member and the members on this side will be able to say: "We voted for the treaty. We voted for the substance."

I want to address a little bit the concerns of some of the people in Vancouver-Fraserview, in my own riding. I've already said that this is a compromise, that you get things and you give up things. I want to say this to the people in my riding; I want to recall when I was a young lawyer.

I went up to Mackenzie, British Columbia. I worked for Chief Harley Chingy. I was about 25, had just become a lawyer. We were trying to stop some railway from going through the Indian reserve at the time. I think it was Lloyd McKenzie -- he was Judge McKenzie, a great man -- and he held a royal commission on this land and on railway lines going through there. I got a chance, actually -- first time in my life, because I came from a big city -- to stay with Chief Chingy and his people up there.

I got the impression, perhaps naïvely . . . . Perhaps it's a naïve overstatement, a generalization. But I got the feeling that what Chief Chingy and his people wanted was a piece of the action. They wanted to be in the system, not out of the system. There was logging going on all around them, and they weren't getting any contracts. Even their fish were getting killed in some of the mining that was going on. They wanted to be part of things. They wanted to be part of the system.

When I saw Joe Gosnell stand here at the Bar of the Legislature . . . . I'm glad he was there voluntarily. I appeared in the House of Commons at the Bar of the Legislature by compulsion, after I touched the mace, but he was there voluntarily. He said, as I recall, that his people want to be part of Canada. They want to be into Canada. They want to take

part in British Columbia. They want to be part of that economic system, and I think that's great hope. That's what the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville said today, and I say that to my constituents.

Many of my constituents are Chinese Canadians and Indo-Canadians, and they have felt discrimination, perhaps, in a way that I haven't, or their forefathers and foremothers have felt this discrimination. You know, the CCF . . . . In the 1930s there was a headline . . . . The leader of the CCF, J.S. Woodsworth and the great MP in Vancouver-Kingsway in those days, Angus MacInnes, stood up for Chinese Canadians to actually give them the vote. The Liberals of the day said that a vote for the CCF is a vote for the Chinaman. We stood up for that, and you know what? We were on the right side of history.

Think how history has come around. That's why many of my constituents, especially Chinese Canadians and Indo-Canadians, support this treaty. They support the Nis g a'a, because they know what it is like, what equality really means and what rights really mean.

[1630]

I want to conclude. I know I'll get criticized for this by the opposition, but since members have said some things personally today about their involvement as ministers or previous ministers -- even previous ministers in the Social Credit government -- I want to tell you that I had the privilege in 1981 of debating the concept of aboriginal rights with people like Pierre Trudeau. I can remember that we were negotiating the treaty in Ed Broadbent's office with some native leaders and some other people, and with Jean Chrétien, who was representing the Prime Minister. And Trudeau wouldn't accept aboriginal rights.

I remember the debate, and I remember that we weren't getting anywhere with him. And I want to say this when Mr. Calder's in the House. We were able to say to him: "Look, Mr. Trudeau" -- look, Prime Minister -- "when the Calder case went to the Supreme Court of Canada, who ruled for aboriginal rights? Who ruled for treaty rights? Who took the lead?" It was Justice Hall of Saskatchewan, a great Conservative, the father of medicare. He agreed. It was Justice Spence, a great civil libertarian from Ontario.

It was Justice Laskin, who subsequently became Chief Justice of Canada -- an enormous intellectual and a great Canadian. And Trudeau paused, and you could see his mind move. And he opened his mind to the

[ Page 12007 ]

possibility. After much more debate went on and on and on, after we had talked about the Calder case and so on, Trudeau finally yielded. He agreed to a draft that we drafted up, and it said: "The rights of aboriginal people are hereby affirmed and recognized." That became

section 35. The provinces changed it to "the existing rights," but that became

section 35.

So I had the opportunity -- and you've got to be lucky in your political career, I think -- to see the birth of

section 35 and, in 1983, to see it put in the constitution. And when we put that in -- when we put the Bill of Rights and

section 35 in -- after enormous debate, where the opposition stormed the Chair and, after it was passed, members rose and sang "O Canada" because it was so historic . . . . This today is as historic a debate. It is, in fact, the most historic debate I think we'll ever face in this House.

I want to conclude by quoting one of my favourite authors, who is a great CCFer and a great writer: F.R. Scott, who was a poet and a constitutional lawyer. His best description of Canada is contained in a poem called "Laurentian Shield." It's about the Canadian Shield and about the rocks and trees in Canada. He says Canada . . . . You can say this in British Columbia and the other provinces. He described it as "vast, cold, silent, awaiting the struggle." I am so proud, as all members on this side of the House are, that we in fact are part of that struggle, in enacting the first modern treaty in British Columbia.

This is it, this is now, and as the present Minister of Aboriginal Affairs said -- and I'll conclude with this -- when he was in opposition, when we first raised this in the House: "If not this treaty, which one? If not now, when?" I say right now, and I move third reading.

[1635]

C. Hansen: This is a very sad time for the Legislature. Here we are, with just barely an hour left to debate what the government has called one of the most historic pieces of legislation ever to come before this House. We are awaiting, in a little over an hour, the guillotine to come down on the debate -- to cut it off, end it in one fell swoop, without full debate.

The previous speaker was talking about the legacy that they would be proud of. The legacy that I think the government members will wear, as a result of this debate, is using this particular procedure in a way that has never been used before in Canada, in a way that really tramples the rights of 75 members in this Legislature and, in particular, the rights of the 35 members of the official opposition.

There is a very important anniversary coming up this Sunday that probably few in this chamber other than myself are aware of. On April 25 in the year 1599, there was an individual born by the name of Oliver Cromwell. Four hundred years ago this Sunday, Oliver Cromwell was born. Oliver Cromwell was known as someone who defended the rights of Parliament. When Oliver Cromwell was first elected to the British legislature in the mid-1620s, the Legislature never met. Now, does that sound familiar in terms of what we've been through over the last year? The Legislature had its opportunity to meet.

King Charles had the right to bring the legislature together to do the people's business, and he didn't. He didn't bring it together for years. I believe it was eight years, if my memory serves me right, that the legislature went without sitting.

What's interesting is that in the years that King Charles I refused to bring the British Parliament together, he was unable to bring in new tax measures to collect revenues in order to support the monarchy. As a result, do you know what King Charles had to do in those years? He had to raise fees. He used fees, illegal user fees, that he went out and collected from people with the force of his army. Actually, one of the people who was caught and fined by the King was Oliver Cromwell himself, and that was probably one of the motivations that got the anger up in Oliver Cromwell in terms of what the rights of Parliament were all about.

Doesn't that sound familiar here, in terms of what we've seen of government going after new sources of fees in order to keep it going, and then only bringing this Legislature back together again, at the end of March, not because we had to debate the Nis g a'a treaty . . . ? The only reason the House was brought back together when it was is because that was the last possible date the Minister of Finance could bring in a budget and still do the job that is required of her in this Legislature.

We had lots of opportunity to debate this piece of legislation in November and December of last year and in January when we came back together, thinking that we were going to be here long enough to see this process through. We knew it was going to be a time-consuming process, and the government knew it was going to be a time-consuming process. We came back in January, not when anticipated but in fact two weeks earlier, so that all of the questions could be asked and all of the answers could be given.

We only lasted two weeks, because this government got mired in scandal and pulled the pin. They didn't just pull the pin on this Legislature. They pulled the pin on the Nis g a'a people. They pulled the pin on the debate on the Nis g a'a treaty. Then we came back only at the end of March, because they were forced to come back in order to bring in a budget.

We have heard a lot about rights. We have heard much about the rights of aboriginal peoples in this province, and we have heard a lot about the rights of Nis g a'a people. We have heard a lot about how this agreement is going to start the process of addressing those rights that have been denied for so many years.

[1640]

But what this debate has become in the last two days is not a debate about rights being granted, about rights being realized and attained. What has happened in the last 48 hours is about rights being denied. I challenge the government to tell us and the people of British Columbia how they can achieve their goal of recognizing new rights. How can they achieve that goal of recognizing legitimate rights by denying the legitimate rights of others? In this chamber, in this very room, in this very building we have over 101 years of history, 101 years in which the rights of the members of this Legislature have evolved.

The rights of this Legislature are set out in our standing rules as they've been changed and evolved over the years. But they've changed and evolved with the cooperation of all parties in this House to make this place work in the interests of British Columbia.

This is not a chamber that is here to serve a government in power. It's not here to serve the political party that happened to win a provincial election or, at least, to come up with the most seats. This chamber isn't here to serve those interests. It's here to serve the interests of all British Columbians that all 75 of us represent. Because I was elected as a member of one political party, that doesn't mean I have the right not to speak for and represent those who live in my constituency who

[ Page 12008 ]

didn't vote for me. In the same vein, this government cannot only speak for those who just voted for them and run roughshod over the rights of this Legislative Assembly.

The motion that was brought in yesterday to curtail the debate in this House is not the normal closure motion that we have seen used in Canada. In fact, it's not the normal closure motion that we've seen used in the British Commonwealth. In fact, it is something that is not covered in our rules. It is something that has never been used before. It is a legacy of this debate, because now that it has been used by a legislature, it is a precedent that can be called on again.

I have no doubt that as the books of parliamentary procedure in the Commonwealth are written in years to come, what has happened in this chamber this week will become a part of those future books on parliamentary procedure in the British Commonwealth, because what we have done here . . . .

This government has broken new ground. They have broken new ground in terms of taking back the rights of parliament, the rights of legislatures, the rights of individual members of this chamber and taking those powers back into the government in power, taking those rights back to the Crown, in essence. They are the very rights that people fought wars over to establish -- the rights of a parliament, the independent rights of members of a legislature, the independent rights of Members of Parliament.

In this chamber in the last 48 hours, we have taken enormous steps backward in terms of what those rights are that each and every one of us should depend on and that protect the rights of each and every one of us in this chamber. It is the legacy of this debate.

The debate of this Nis g a'a agreement should have been an honourable debate. It should have been a thorough debate.

Let's go back to November of last year, when we were finally called together to debate Bill 51. I think we've got to ask ourselves, comparing where we were then with where we are now: "Are we farther ahead in terms of advancing the rights and the future of aboriginal peoples in British Columbia?" I know that many of us had questions, going into that debate, as to what the implications of this treaty were. I know that many British Columbians had questions as to what the ramifications were and what it meant for the long term in British Columbia. And I think we have to ask ourselves: "Do we now have fewer questions and more answers?"

[1645]

I honestly cannot say that we do. We certainly have had the opportunity to put many questions. As that committee process evolved, where we had the opposition put questions to government ministers, we got some answers. And as those answers were given, we were shedding light on areas that had never had light shed on them before. We had an opportunity to get answers to specific issues that, in turn -- certainly in my mind -- led to more questions that were raised in terms of what the implications of this treaty were.

We saw time and time again that the answers that we got to our questions in fact made us realize that even the cabinet ministers who are responsible for areas of this legislation did not understand its ramifications. It was clear, when we asked those questions, that the public had reason for concern about what the ramifications of this treaty were.

We certainly have had many questions; we have had many answers. But there are many questions that are still in the minds of members of the official opposition and, even more importantly, in the minds of British Columbians as to what the ramifications are and where we're going in the future.

What it has pointed to is the very essence of the problem, which is that we have a treaty that was negotiated behind closed doors by people who clearly do not have a mandate to negotiate from the public of British Columbia or from this Legislative Assembly. What we had, when this agreement was first presented to the public . . . . And it wasn't presented to the public by the government, hon. Speaker; it was presented to the public by the Leader of the Official Opposition. For the first time we could actually read through the words that were being proposed.

For the first time we could actually see what the negotiators had come up with. We had asked many questions up to that point as to the basis of the negotiations that our provincial government negotiators were taking into those meetings. This agreement, when it saw the light of day, gave us the opportunity to ask those questions.

This process of debate in the Legislature, the committee stage . . . . W