[ Page 431 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Presenting Reports –– 431

Tabling Documents –– 431

Private Members' Statements

Science World. Mr. R. Fraser –– 431

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy

Mr. Lovick

Report on unwanted pregnancies. Ms. Smallwood –– 433

Mrs. Gran

Ms. Campbell

Hanford nuclear reservation. Mr. Dirks –– 434

Mr. Clark

Hon. Mr. Strachan

Mr. G. Hanson

Proposed Island Highway. Mr. Lovick –– 436

Hon. Mr. Michael

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Bruce

Boundary Act (Bill 3). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 438

Mr. Williams –– 438

Sechelt Indian Government District Enabling Act (Bill 4). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 438

Mr. Skelly –– 439

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 440

Mr. Guno –– 442

Mr. Long –– 443

Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 444

Sechelt Indian Government District Enabling Act (Bill 4). Committee stage 445

Mr. Hewitt

Third reading

Appendix –– 446

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. JACOBSEN: It's my pleasure this morning to welcome a couple of very special ladies to the gallery. I'd like to introduce Lois Serwa, wife of the first member for Okanagan South, and my wife, Launi. Would the House please welcome them.

Orders of the Day

Presenting Reports

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to introduce a committee report.

Leave granted.

MR. R. FRASER: As Chairman of the Special Committee of Selection, I wish to present the second report of the said committee and move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

MR. R. FRASER: By leave of the House, I move that the second report of the Committee of Selection be adopted.

Motion approved.

MR. R. FRASER: By leave of the House, I move that the second report of the Committee of Selection be appended to today's Hansard. (See appendix.]

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Strachan tabled the eighteenth annual report of the activities of the Fraser River Joint Advisory Board.

Private Members' Statements

SCIENCE WORLD

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I'm going to take you and the members of the House through a quick, imaginary conversation. As you're walking down the streets of Vancouver, someone comes up to you and says: "I'm a tourist from California. Can you think of someplace where I might spend the few hours I have left in Vancouver?" The answer would be: "Get on the light rapid transit, go down to the geodesic dome and go to Science World." He says: "That's right, I remember that; I was here at Expo. I saw the wonderful Expo that you put on. It was great. I'm back here, and because you've given me this great advice, I'm going to go down to Science World."

So we will find our tourists going down there and looking at what we hope will be, or what I certainly hope will be, one of the finest science museums in North America. It will do a number of things apart from the tourism issue that we spoke about briefly. What I really want to concentrate on from my perspective, and for you, is what it will do to the children of the province who we believe, or I certainly believe, should be given a greater exposure to science so that they will become more inclined to get into science. Because science is where we're going today; science is what the children need to study.

Now we learned, in fact, from the years 1982 to 1986 that the school children of British Columbia became more aware of science and became better involved with science, which is kind of amazing. In fact, I think some people found that kind of incredible. But what we're going to do is expand their minds, because more and more the work that we do and the votes we take and the decisions we make are based on science, and therefore we need to have a greater awareness.

In the great municipality of Surrey, for example, I understand that we had a science fair which attracted 15,000 people. There is a growing awareness of science, and I think we want to work on that. According to some of the grade 6 and 7 children that were there, they said a science fair gives them an opportunity to express their knowledge in a certain area or subject which requires research. We've got the kids thinking into the future already.

In fact, the reason that is so important is that we also learn with a little bit of research that when children get turned off science, which occurs very early, about grade 8, they don't come back. We have been advised through some of our research efforts that many of our teachers fell into this as well. Luckily, most of them have come back, Mr. Speaker; luckily, most of our teachers now are aware of the science aspect of our world and want to work at it,

We find Canadians have done great work in science. We learned yesterday that some 20 years ago one of our Canadian scientists decided that dinosaurs might indeed have been warm-blooded. None of us had heard of that, I don't think, but if it was true — and we now hear that it might be — we are learning that the study of life history and of science is important, and we are learning in fact that the whole museum....

MR. BLENCOE: Speaking of dinosaurs....

MR. R. FRASER: Yes, that's right, you do took a bit like a dinosaur, Mr. Member.

We learn that the science museums are gaining momentum, and the participation in science museums is going up. People are becoming genuinely fascinated by this. That is why I want the Science World group to occupy the geodesic dome on the former Expo site, and that is why I would encourage our government — I see the minister is here — to support Science World in its approach to their project there.

I would imagine that if we were lucky enough to see that tourist again by accident just before he was leaving town, he would say: "You British Columbians are fantastic. I can't imagine how you could repeat Expo on a smaller scale, if you like, in Science World in the geodesic dome, but you've done it, and I am grateful to you. Not only will I come back again, but I will bring my friends and my family."

The Minister of Tourism will now be happy. Not only will they create jobs in tourism, but we will have our bright young students creating jobs because of their interest in science and leading the province into the new technological society that we have to move into. Can you think of any better and more enjoyable way to turn on the minds of the kids than with a project like Science World? That is why we should put it in

[ Page 432 ]

the building that is already world-famous and already accessible because of light rapid transit. What more could we do?

Interjections.

MR. R. FRASER: Do I hear opposition? Do I hear them saying: "Don't let the kids get exposed to science"? I don't think I do. Not from the members opposite — they wouldn't. But I know that our people want science. I know they want the kids to be educated, because the other day the member across the room said, in reading the rolls of the food bank: "They don't have a high level of education."

No wonder we're pushing science; no wonder we're pushing education here. That's Science World, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

MR. R. FRASER: You should be thinking about it, Mr. Member. I've convinced you. All right then, you're all for it. I hope the government will support it as well. I know they're short a few dollars.

MR. BLENCOE: How much?

MR. R. FRASER: Not enough to make a big difference, and I want the government to go along with this one.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I am so pleased to have this expression of enthusiasm, interest and excitement expressed on this great spring morning in British Columbia.

However, Mr. Speaker, it is a serious statement that the member for Vancouver South has just given us, because it expresses British Columbia's commitment and how we are looking to science and technology as the fuel and formula for generating job-creating investment, economic expansion and industrial development, and there is no way that we are going to be able to do that unless we have the young people of our province attuned. The young people today who are in kindergarten will be graduating in 13 years, in the year 2000, and what an important time of their lives to learn about science and technology.

I want to say that never before in this province's history has the commitment to science and technology been so clear. Our Premier has indicated through the budget speech and the throne speech the commitment to science and technology and has announced that there will be a Premier's committee on science and technology, and it will be given a very serious profile and very serious commitment.

[10:15]

I would like to address the suggestion of using the previous centre at Expo, the geodesic dome, for a science and technology centre. As you know, the group was given the first right of refusal until January 1, 1987, and it was contingent upon raising sufficient dollars, to have sufficient capital and operating funds. Unfortunately, they were unable to do that by that date, and so they lost their first right of refusal. However, I want to say to you, in the same spirit as I have said to them, that if they are able to meet that commitment, certainly the government has been very supportive and very excited about their proposal, and, of course, as in all things, is really very committed to making sure that before any suggestions are made the moneys are there.

I would like to say too that the enthusiasm within that group is very high. They have had support from all political parties. They have had support from all communities. They have had support from throughout the business/industrial sector, and from all walks of life. They have worked very hard. The member has expressed the commitment that they have shown. All I can say at this point in time is that their proposal is before the government, the government is very keenly supportive of their proposal, and now that we get down to the nitty-gritty as to whether or not it can be done, it is dependent solely upon the financial capabilities. It should also be known that when they lost their first right of refusal, other people are coveting that same property. All of those things will have to be weighed in their proper context, to do the best thing for the people of British Columbia, who of course are going to be paying the bill.

Mr. Speaker, may I just applaud the member for Vancouver South for the enthusiasm he has and say that with that kind of enthusiasm, science and technology will be alive and well for a very long time to come in British Columbia.

MR. LOVICK: I'm intrigued to discover that the Minister of Economic Development feels obligated to stand up and tell us this is a serious subject, after listening to the member for Vancouver South. I hope that's not too subtle.

There is no question that the concept of Science World is an exciting one and, I am sure, as somebody suggested, does indeed find support on both sides of this House. The point, however, is that we ought not to be blinded, by the exhibits and the exhibitions, to the reality of science policy in this province; because the predicament, sadly, seems to be that there isn't much of one.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I must inform the member that the time is up.

MR. LOVICK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Fortunately, I need few words to respond.

MR. R. FRASER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, indeed it was a serious subject that I presented seriously, and I would certainly agree with the minister that this particular issue has support from across the floor and from across the province, from Campbell River and Duncan and Trail and Parksville and a number of school boards and a number of councils. Indeed it will be valuable to have the support of the opposition members, along with the support of my colleagues on this side of the House.

Certainly we have to overcome what researchers call a pervasive lack of science literacy in Canada. I know we're making great strides, and I have no other thoughts than those of compliments to those working in it — in particular to the teachers who have taken the time to become involved.

But I would really wish to use my important few moments here to prevail upon all of us in this room, including the Premier and the minister responsible, to prevail upon the federal government to up their ante, so that this project can go ahead and so that we can get this building filled with that kind of activity to turn the children on, to make it work in a number of ways, specifically for the minds of the young, and also for those in the tourism business and others.

So with that I thank the members for their support.

[ Page 433 ]

REPORT ON UNWANTED PREGNANCIES

MS. SMALLWOOD: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to talk about the Health ministry's report on abortion, a report that was released to the public this week. I realize that not everyone in this House has had an opportunity to actually look at the report. There has certainly been a fair amount of publicity on it, but this time perhaps gives me an opportunity to look at some of the components and some of the recommendations that the report brings forward.

I'd like to state in opening that this report was a very well thought-out, rational approach to a very difficult problem. The recommendations in the report, I believe, are sound recommendations.

If I might go through them, the first recommendation talks about better educational contraceptive programs. I think this is a very important concept — a concept that many devoted community groups have been working on for a long time. The community groups have spent a great deal of energy and commitment trying to fulfil their role in sharing information and helping young people make rather major decisions in their lives. I'm hoping that the money that the minister has put aside for alternatives to abortion can go into backing organizations like the Planned Parenthood Association. Planned Parenthood is one of the organizations that has been working for a long time and has a very good reputation in the community, but, unfortunately, has suffered severe cutbacks with government funding over the last couple of years. I would deduce from the recommendations, if the ministry was indeed going to adopt them, that Planned Parenthood would be funded properly.

The second recommendation is a recommendation that talks extensively about counselling, about providing information to people so that they can make an informed decision. My concern about this area is that it does not talk about the type of information available. I believe that when there is counselling, all of the information should be put forward, and it should not be put forward in a narrow, ideological way. There should be counselling not only on support services that the government, hopefully, is committed to but also on the women's right to abortion services.

In the third recommendation it talks a great deal about programs and support, financial assistance; it talks about improved access to special programs to enable pregnant teens to continue their schooling. I believe this is a fundamental recognition of the fact that many young women in our society, if they felt that they had an opportunity to participate fully in mainstream economics in our province, wouldn't find themselves in the predicament of having an unwanted pregnancy. So I commend the report's recommendation on enabling young teens to continue their education, and I would look to the government to support such a program throughout all school districts, not only for the young women who are carrying unwanted pregnancies but perhaps with actual day-care facilities at the site so that they can continue their education afterwards.

The report goes on, for its fourth recommendation, to talk about a special panel on ethical issues in health. Again I think that this is a very important area. It's important because the report talks about the broad nature of such a panel. It talks about such issues as euthanasia, genetic engineering and the use of human embryonic tissue for scientific purposes. I would add to that list other areas of significance that such a committee should deal with. However, it's very important that the government, in its attempt to deal with these serious issues, deals with them in such a way that it can garner support and confidence from the majority of people in this province. Such a process must be a very open process; it must include all opinions, all valid information, so that the people of this province can be assured that such ethical decisions are being made and are reflecting the majority of the people in this province, not just narrowly on the view of abortion or the definition of hell.

The final statement I'd like to make is that in no way does this report recommend that the government take strong restrictive actions to limit or reduce the overall supply of abortion services. It goes on to point out, indeed, that there may be some legal complications if the government should decide to do so.

While this report fulfills its mandate and deals with the questions put forward to it by the Premier, it does not begin to address some of the remedies, some of the solutions, that I feel we should be looking at. It acknowledges the fact that many women off the lower mainland seek medical services in Vancouver not because of the facilities in their own community but because of their hospitals' inability to grapple with the issue of safe, accessible medical services for them. I feel that the next step for this government is to tackle the problem of accessibility, to ensure people of this province that indeed everyone has equal access and an equal right to safe, accessible abortions in this province. I would throw that challenge out not only to the Premier but especially to the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck), as this follows under his responsibility.

I look forward to a response. I see the Minister of Health is not here. Perhaps the Premier would have something to say.

MRS. GRAN: I have listened with some interest to the female members on the other side of the House for the past two weeks. I have some difficulty in being singled out in this society, as I've said before in this House. Women have rights and men have rights. The issue of abortion is an issue that isn't just a woman's prerogative. It has something to do with another individual also.

I think that the other side of the House is asking for — and please correct if I'm wrong — easier access to abortion and, in fact, encouraging women and young girls to have abortions. It's my understanding that there are long lineups of couples that want children, and I believe we should be encouraging those women and young girls to have those babies, if it is safe for them to do so, so that they can be adopted out to loving families.

Sometime in the very near future we as a society are going to have to decide when life begins. I believe, as many people on this side of the House do, that life begins before birth, and that we do not have the right as women or men to take the life of that unborn child just because it is an inconvenience to us. Nor on this side of the House are we saying that women shouldn't have the right to abortion. That is a federal law that is administered by the provincial government, and this government does not have the right to take it away. But I do not — and I would not — ever want to see us encourage women to have abortions if there is any possible way for them to have that child and have it adopted into a loving home.

In fact, if we in this society opened our hearts a little bit more and looked after the young women who are pregnant and cannot look after their children, it would, I think, alleviate the number of abortions that are done in the hospital. I

[ Page 434 ]

can't believe that a woman can stand up and say it is her right to destroy a life. It is not her right to destroy that life. If that service is available and she decides that she wants to do it, that is her decision to make, I guess; but I would hate for any government or any representative of any constituency.... In fact, I have a question for some of the members on the other side of the House: do you represent just the women in your constituency or do you represent everyone in that constituency?

[10:30]

MS. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to make some comments in this debate.

I agree with the proponent of the statement this morning that the report is a good one, an objective one, and I think it touches on an issue which is perhaps one of the most divisive in our society. But I would like just to draw the members' attention to something that is of great concern to me.

Yesterday morning I heard an interview on CBC radio where a young person indicated that they had in fact participated with young people in birth control clinics, but had themselves been pregnant as a teenager even though they had the knowledge. I think sexuality is one of the most important parts of our being. I am not a prude; I believe sexuality is a legitimate theme for literature and cultural expression because it is so intrinsic to the human experience. But I am deeply concerned that in our culture now, much more than when I was a teenager and trying to deal with the physical stresses of puberty, we have many, many cultural stereotypes of irresponsible sexuality, and I believe we must look to that as a society. It is very difficult for young people to deal with their emerging sexuality. I don't think that religious views or even family upbringing are sufficient in this day and age to deal with what is a very provocative and sexually loaded culture. I would hate to see this take the form of prudery or a failure to realize that there are very useful and in fact very instructive ways of dealing with sexuality in literature.

I am personally very distressed and very grateful that I am not having to deal with my adolescent sexuality in the 1980s, because I think it is very difficult for young people to develop responsible attitudes toward their own sexuality when they've only to turn on the television and see people engaging in sexual activity of the sort that gives no suggestion of the responsibility — I don't just mean the responsibility to use one's fertility in a socially acceptable way, but the emotional responsibility to other human beings; sexual relationships are deeply affecting emotionally — and I believe that that is a role model and an example that is very destructive to young people today.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I am very tempted to jump into a heated debate, as has been provoked by the initial reply from the government side. I am somewhat saddened by the fact the Minister of Health or, indeed, the Premier, who is the person who initiated this report in the first place, did not see fit to comment or to add their particular view or their voice to the information at this time. I'm very concerned that the response from the member for Langley (Mrs. Gran) was such an emotional one, such a biased view. I agree that this issue is an important one; as I said, I commend the report for trying to deal with the information in a very informed fashion.

The report points out very clearly that there are not abuses in this province, that the majority of abortions that are performed are performed in consultation with the woman and her doctor and therapeutic abortion committees. That legal process has not been circumvented. The report acknowledges that therapeutic abortion committees in this province are basically respecting the views of the doctors who have firsthand information about the situation. I want to make a very strong statement in this House that the issue, as far as I am concerned and as far as my colleagues are concerned, is an issue of democracy, an issue of choice and an issue of the right to safe health care in this province.

MRS. GRAN: The choice is there.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I believe that this report — and if some of the back-benchers on the government side would read it — is very clear that the choice is not there for all women in this province. I feel that it is incumbent upon this government to ensure that everyone in this province is treated equally and that everyone in this province has access to good medical services. It is clear in this report that that is not the situation.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. We're in the sector of private members' statements that deals with the proponent in reply. The proponent has finished; that statement is finished.

MR. SPEAKER: The time was up anyway.

HANFORD NUCLEAR RESERVATION

MR. DIRKS: The notice of private members' statements was very brief in my regard; it was simply one word — Hanford. For some people in this province, "Hanford" itself, the word, is a statement. To a lot of people in this province it raises deep concern, and therefore I bring it to the attention of the House this morning.

What is Hanford? Well, Hanford is a 1,450-square kilometre nuclear reserve consisting of a number of facilities: first of all, a fuel fabrication plant, where uranium is converted to fuel elements for a nuclear reactor; secondly, a nuclear plant, where controlled nuclear reaction produces plutonium and other radioactive byproducts; thirdly, a plutonium-uranium extraction plant, or purex; fourthly, a plutonium finishing plant, where liquid plutonium is converted to a solid state; fifthly, it is a temporary nuclear waste dump.

I don't want to be an alarmist, Mr. Speaker, but Hanford is of great concern to a number of British Columbians, because it is located only some 400 kilometres from this very House. Approximately 70 percent of the population of British Columbia lives within a 400-kilometre radius of that site. It is located right on the banks of the Columbia River. Although it has been used and is used as a temporary dump site, it is now short-listed as a possible permanent nuclear waste dump site. Last but not least, the nuclear reactor, the N-reactor, is presently undergoing a safety refit — although its life expectancy is estimated to be only three to seven years — due to a swelling of the reactor core.

So you say, Mr. Speaker, what is the problem that the reactor is undergoing a refit? Well, according to the independent six-member task force that was appointed by the U.S. federal Department of Energy, too little is being done in too little time. The 23-year-old graphite core reactor, similar in some respects to that at Chernobyl, has no steel and concrete reinforced containment building. It cannot be shut down by

[ Page 435 ]

remote control. There are no safeguards to ensure that the control room is kept habitable in case of an accident. The emergency cooling system pumps river water into the reactor and then dumps it onto the ground, to seep back into the Columbia River. There is no hydrogen-control system, nor does it have a hydrogen-indicating system in areas where hydrogen is most likely to build up.

These are perhaps the worst deficiencies. But that six-member task force found some 88 safety deficiencies. They claim the planned safety refit, to cost some $50 million and take six months to complete, will not be adequate, and therefore have recommended that the reactor be permanently shut down. However, in spite of this, the refit continues, and now the U.S. House defence appropriation subcommittee was told on March 10, just a couple of weeks ago, that the reactor would restart in June of this year, when this inadequately planned modification will only be some 60 percent complete. Measures to prevent a hydrogen explosion, and measures to correct the contamination caused by release of the emergency cooling water, may not be completed for another three years

Mr. Speaker, this reactor, of questionable safety, is located on a site that has been used as a temporary dump site for nuclear waste since its inception during the Second World War. It is not a clean site. Some contaminants are, and have been, stored in open pits; some stored underground in tanks; others simply dumped on the ground and later covered with dirt. The cost of the cleanup of Hanford, and its 40-year legacy of being a nuclear waste dump, ranges anywhere from $11 billion to $17 billion; and to do it properly, that sum could reach $100 billion.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Surely, Mr. Speaker, when one considers the present problems of site contamination, and then looks at the numerous fault lines and fracture zones in eastern Washington, which have now been detected by new radar mapping techniques, the suitability of Hanford as a permanent dump site certainly must be questioned.

Besides the need to have the Hanford site cleaned up, there are two issues presently of great concern. One, will the nuclear reactor be safe for restarting in June, after such a short refit? Secondly, will the suitability of the site be thoroughly investigated before a decision is made to make it into a permanent dump site, where much higher radioactivity material would accumulate? They estimate some 70,000 metric tonnes of highly radioactive material would be stored there.

We need once more, Mr. Speaker, to raise this issue with our federal government. We need assurances that our present safety and the safety of our future generations are not in jeopardy because of Hanford. I think it would be a timely move on the part of our government to approach the federal government, because it is my understanding that the U.S. Department of Energy presented to Congress a draft emission plan on January 29 of this year. That's an update of its May 1986 national policy of managing radioactive waste. This draft emission plan requests Congress to endorse a five-year extension of the startup date, from 1998 to the year 2003, for the first U.S. nuclear waste repository in the west. I think it is very timely that we again approach the federal government on our behalf.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to rise in this debate, and I think it's very timely. I want to deal first with the Hanford waste dump. As the member stated, it's shortlisted to become the repository of all of the nuclear waste in the United States. As we know, it has serious flaws in the geology of the region, and it has already suffered serious leaks into the Columbia River.

There has been, as I understand it, a referendum in Washington state that virtually overwhelmingly rejected Hanford as a repository for nuclear waste. There was a referendum in Oregon sponsored by citizens' groups that was overwhelmingly against the site. The governor has stated that he's concerned about the site, and where has the provincial government been? Absolutely silent on this critical area, the Columbia River, which we share with the Americans; the government has been silent.

They had a perfect opportunity last month when the federal regulatory body in the United States was holding public hearings. We could have gone there and presented our case against such a site so close to our borders, but we didn't. We've had opportunities to raise this at the federal level, with the Governor of Washington and at the federal government hearings that they held on the matter, and we've been silent. The member is quite correct: this is a very serious matter which we should be dealing with at the highest levels in this government, and they've been silent.

Similarly, and perhaps in some ways more importantly, the reactor that's about to restart . . . . As the member stated, it's the same kind of reactor as Chernobyl; but in fact it's not like Chernobyl. Chernobyl is a child of this reactor; it is an improvement over this reactor. This is the grandfather. This is one of the oldest nuclear plants in North America, one of the oldest in the world, and it has proven again and again to be unsafe. Eighty-eight safety violations, and they're going to restart it. And where has the government been on that question? They've been silent again.

[10:45]

As we know, we have fallout here because of Chernobyl — thousands of miles away. Whole areas of the Scandinavian countries have been decimated, and the consequences are even yet to be known in terms of some of the rural areas in the Scandinavian countries. So these things are serious, and it travels for thousands of miles. Here we have a plant that's less than 100 miles from the border. As the member stated, something like 70 percent of the population of the province of British Columbia is within 400 kilometres of this plant.

If anything happens down there, we're the people who are affected. And where has the government been? Silent again on this very important question. It's too important to be raised by back-benchers in this kind of debate. It should be a prime policy concern of this government. I hope the members in the government and the cabinet are listening to this, because it is of critical importance. We must raise it, and we must raise it again. They should be presenting their case before all bodies to try to stop this really insane buildup.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'll be brief, because I recognize that the first member for Victoria wishes to address this, but I can assure the House that extensive discussion has gone on with the federal government and the government of British Columbia, and I reviewed it with the first ministry I was with. For the record, Garde Gardom, as Minister of Intergovernmental Relations, had some lengthy and serious discussion with the Rt. Hon. Joe Clark, Minister of External Affairs,

[ Page 436 ]

regarding Hanford. I want it on the record that the government of British Columbia is very much aware of the concern that has been expressed and has acted in the best interests of all citizens of British Columbia.

MR. G. HANSON: With the brief time that's available to me, I want to indicate that my colleague in Victoria and I have raised this issue on a number of occasions, and we're heartened by the fact that the Governor of the state of Washington, Mr. Booth Gardner, opposes the Hanford development, as does the recently elected senator, Brock Adams, and the congressman for the city of Seattle, Mike Lowry.

Much has been said about the site itself. I'd like to indicate something about the transportation of the radioactive cores to that site. I wonder how many members in the House realize that that proposal is to deal with spent radioactive cores on the Pacific Rim as well — Korea and Taiwan — and that that material would be brought by ship through the Juan de Fuca Strait, less than one mile from where we sit today.

This Hanford proposal is of concern to the citizens of Victoria. My understanding from the governor and the senators in Washington state is that they are arguing that it should not be seen as the main depository for radioactive material, but that a moratorium should be placed on any increase of materials stored there. Members should realize that those ships coming through the Juan de Fuca Strait and into Puget Sound would be offloaded by rail. They would then travel by rail along level crossings, up the Columbia . . . .

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry, hon. member, time is expired.

MR. G. HANSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's a very important subject that's of concern to the citizens of Victoria, and I appreciate the opportunity to say something about it.

MR. DIRKS: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, that I caused an us versus-them type of debate. I didn't think that something like Hanford was . . . . I thought Hanford was above this "you haven't done it; we've done it".

This has been discussed in this House before, and I am pleased to say that there has been correspondence from this House to the federal government last year concerning this very issue. I simply wanted to raise it again in this House and ensure that the federal government was looking after our safety. In that regard I sent a telex this morning to my MP, asking him what measures the federal government has taken since August 1986 to inform the United States government about our concerns. I also wondered what assurances he has received that the refit presently being carried out is comprehensive enough to ensure that safety at that installation will be there in spite of the projected short refit.

I simply wanted to ask again and urge that the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Rogers) use his good offices to bring our concerns to the federal Minister of Externnal Affairs, Mr. Joe Clark.

PROPOSED ISLAND HIGHWAY

MR. LOVICK: I welcome this opportunity to stand before the House today and to talk about a subject that is very important to the people of my constituency of Nanaimo, as well as to all the people of Vancouver Island. I am talking once more about the Island Highway, and I make no apologies for doing that. Indeed, I will continue to talk about the Vancouver Island Highway until such time as we get some concrete — or asphalt — evidence that something is happening, or until we see money on the table. I think we have had enough promises and projections. The time has come for action. I know that people on both sides of this House recognize the need for work on the Island Highway. In fact, everybody who looks at the problem has recognized that.

It is also widely recognized that the people of Vancouver Island have not been served as well as they ought in comparison with other regions of this province. In fact, I would refer all of us to a document entitled "Vancouver Island Economic Strategy Discussion Paper." It was commissioned by the mayors of Vancouver Island. That document pointed out that the government spends less per capita on highway expenditure on the citizens of Vancouver Island than it does for citizens in other regions of the province. For example, in 1984 the per capita expenditure on Vancouver Island amounted to some $14. The amount was $87 for the rest of the province.

The Vancouver Island mayors made one of their themes the fact that Vancouver Island did not get its "fair share." Curiously enough, two of the mayors who sponsored and signed that document are sitting in this House today. One of them is the current Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier), and the other is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Mr. Bruce).

The point, it would seem, is that we are clearly agreed on two things. One, we all recognize there is need for both an improved and an upgraded Island Highway — the existing highway. Also there is need for an alternate route, what we have called an "inland Island highway." They also recognize that the Island has been underserved. We deserve more than we have had.

I want to commend the government on its stated intentions. It has promised that there will be a major highway initiative. It has stated that a full report will come out in June 1987 following consultation with various communities. "Good stuff," to use a phrase from the other side. I fear, however, that the stated intentions may be drowned out by the delays and inactions.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: Inaction, I would remind the member opposite, often speaks louder than words. I think we have to guard against a growing skepticism, because many people are looking to the promises. They are — perhaps understandably — suspicious. They are wary. They think they've heard those songs before.

For example, in 1979 the provincial government announced its estimation that it would take some seven to ten years to build a new Island highway. Guess what they're saying in 1987? In 1987 the government is announcing precisely the same thing. In 1982 the Minister of Transportation and Highways distributed a report for review by the municipal authorities concerning specific route selections, which sounds very similar indeed to what the minister is promising now. In 1984 the minister at the time stated that the new Island route would be given "top priority." We heard precisely the same thing in 1986, and we've heard precisely the same thing since. There are, in short, lots of signs that something is happening, but not much else. Because when

[ Page 437 ]

the minister in 1987 stands and announces that he is now seeking local input, one wants to simply say that we have had local input for more than ten years already, thank you very much. Lots of intentions but not much action. The reason seems to be that there is not much money available.

To my question in the House the other day the minister was, I think I can fairly say, evasive if not non-specific. I think people have reason to be skeptical, just because it also appears their queries and concerns are not being addressed.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: Thank you for restraining that person opposite, Mr. Speaker.

I want to refer, for example — and I say this with gentleness and understanding, I hope — to a letter, dated some time ago, to the Minister of Highways concerning a perceived problem at an intersection of the Island Highway in the South Wellington district. The letter-writer is a mother of small children who is concerned about a problem at that intersection of the Island Highway. If I can just make this point very quickly, Mr. Speaker, I shall. Her concern is that there is a problem at the highway. She hasn't had an answer. She claims the letter was written over a month ago. More importantly, the letter is not a single sheet that could be thrown away. Rather, it's a letter that has eight pages of signatures attached — 222 names. Those people, I'm suggesting, are skeptical, because apparently they can't even get an answer on that direct question.

I see my time has ended. I will therefore leave that for the moment to the minister.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: It gives me pleasure to rise and respond on this very important subject, the development of a four-lane highway on Vancouver Island. I certainly support a lot of the things the member said. I believe that anyone who has traveled the Island will recognize that we have a very cherished resource on this island. We have a beautiful island, an island with a lot of amenities, and an opportunity to develop an infrastructure that will further build on the economies of this province and this island and continue to attract large numbers of tourists — in even greater numbers in the months and years ahead.

It's imperative that we not make any errors in the engineering plans and design of this facility, this structure. It must be done correctly. We must have public input. This government has clearly committed itself that within ten years that Island development will be complete. We stand by that. We have committed ourselves to prepare an extensive report, having received public input, for delivery to the Premier no later than June 1987. We have already had meetings at Qualicum Beach, Courtenay, Campbell River and Nanaimo, and several hundred people have dropped in to express their views and concerns regarding the development of this highway. Future meetings will be held in Port McNeill, Port Hardy and Port Alberni, seeking further public input and advice. The meetings will conclude in Duncan in the latter part of April, and I expect to have an extensive report prepared for the Premier and the government by June 1987. So once again, I believe it's imperative that whatever we do there is done right. We don't want to destroy any of the beauty. We want to make sure that the design is done in such a way, with public input, that we serve the communities north and south, up and down, beautiful Vancouver Island.

[11:00]

MR. GABELMANN: In ten years hundreds more people will be dead, killed by that highway. The road should be started and completed within two years. There's no reason why it can't be done. The first studies, the first discussions, go back to the late 1940s. In 1980 a comprehensive proposal was put together by the Highways ministry. They commissioned an over-$100,000 study, with detailed routes and planning, and all of the environmental, ALR and other community problems worked out — solutions proposed. All the discussions had been held with all the communities. The AVIM has said it's ready to go. Council after council on Vancouver Island has said they're ready to go. The chambers of commerce, the labour councils, every organization that has an interest in the Island Highway, has said: "Let's go. We're ready to go." There are one or two tiny decisions yet to be made in terms of route selection; but they're small, they aren't very many, and they can be done in a matter of weeks. We need to get on with this immediately,

It is not just that lives will be saved; it is that the economy of Vancouver Island could be enhanced by this road too. If you are a skier in Victoria, and you want to ski on Mount Washington and help the economy of the Comox Valley and the economy of Mount Washington, you have to go through 22 traffic lights in Nanaimo. You have to go on a dangerous road; when it is raining at night, you take your life in your hands. As a result, people don't go; people don't travel. All kinds of other economic benefits are also hindered and hampered by the failure on the part of this government to build a road.

I could say a lot more, but I would like the member for Nanaimo to have another minute as well.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: There's a moment left for the member for Cowichan-Malahat.

MR. BRUCE: Mr. Speaker, it is action that the opposition wants, and it is action that this government is going to give in regard to the Island Highway. In fact, work is already beginning for those who drive the Island Highway regularly, as I do, and very shortly they will see construction occurring on Tunnel Hill, just south of the summit of the Malahat.

Only last night I was at another public forum in Nanaimo with a great number that turned out, approximately 200 people. It was not a question of studying it some more, but as the opposition always states, they too like to have input; so does the general public, and this government believes in the input and the comments from the general population of Vancouver Island.

Mr. Speaker, just in closing, it is very clear that this government is taking action in respect to the Island Highway, and indeed it will be built.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Speaker, I commend the parliamentary secretary for being specific. Let me remind this House, however, that one of the reasons we had that turnout in the meeting in Nanaimo last night — a meeting I attended — is that a week before we had a major newspaper headline telling us: "$80 Million Highway Project on the Way." The reality is that there is not a nickel to support that claim. That's the problem. That's why people are getting cynical and skeptical and fed up with the promises.

[ Page 438 ]

I am sorry I have to be as impassioned as I am. I would dearly hope one wouldn't need to do that.

Look — we agree on two things, as I have suggested. We agree that there is a need to upgrade and improve that highway, and we also agree that there is a need to build a new inland route. The question is timing. What the government continues to tell us is that we need more study and we need to talk to more people. As I and my colleague from North Island have pointed out, we have done those kinds of studies. We all know that more and more people are now sensing that the government has abandoned its responsibility. They are fed up, cynical and angry.

We all know that nobody disputes that a road construction program would provide a marvelous economic stimulus for our part of the Island. Indeed, one of the more prominent local Social Credit members stood up at the meeting last night and said: "What this island needs is a good $60 million economic stimulus." Fascinating stuff.

We also know, because everybody has acknowledged it, that the current highway is totally inadequate and dangerous. The question that we want to end on, though, surely is whether we are finally going to bite that bullet. Let's prove once and for all to the cynics and the skeptics that they are wrong. Let's prove that this is not a seven- to ten-year program designed for two elections. Rather, let's demonstrate that we are going to do it and we're going to do it now.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I call second reading of Bill 3, Mr. Speaker.

BOUNDARY ACT

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The bill is in my name, so I will move second reading. This is interesting stuff.

Mr. Speaker, British Columbia has always had a Boundary Act. However, when the constitution of Canada was ratified in 1982, it said in part that any amendment to the constitution of Canada in relation to any provision that applies to one or more but not all provinces, including any alteration to boundaries between provinces, must be made by proclamation issued by the Governor-General under the Great Seal of Canada, and only where so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and the House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province to which the amendment applies. Our former Boundary Act did not really fit with the language and intent of the constitution, so it was incumbent upon the government of British Columbia to redo the Boundary Act in a form that would comply with constitutional requirements, and that is the bill we have before us now.

I don't think there is much more I can say on this. I understand we will be doing committee at a later day, and if there are any technical questions, we will have staff available to answer those questions.

MR. WILLIAMS: The opposition has reviewed the bill and finds it acceptable and as interesting as the minister.

Motion approved.

Bill 3, Boundary Act, read a second time.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: On behalf of the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Rogers), I call second reading of Bill 4.

SECHELT INDIAN GOVERNMENT
DISTRICT ENABLING ACT

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I would like to make a few comments. I had charge of the bill for about a month and a half and became very close to the issue. There is an order of speakers today, but I'll make a few brief remarks before turning the debate over to the Legislative Assembly.

At the outset, I think it's incumbent upon me to recognize the good efforts of the former chief, Stan Dixon, and the Sechelt band and the assistance they had in initiating this legislation and also the federal legislation. I'd also like to further commend to the assembly and, for the record, compliment John Taylor, former Deputy Minister of Municipal Affairs, who worked on a consultant basis for the government in drafting this act, and also Bob Edwards, who will be here later today, who was with the Attorney-General's ministry and carried on serious negotiations with the government and Sechelt in terms of drawing up this act so it was acceptable to the band itself and to the government of British Columbia.

The history is that a couple of years ago the Sechelt band — and I should point out that the Sechelt band initiated this legislation and also the provincial legislation — lobbied the federal government to adopt this form of self-government, and the federal government did do it and introduced in June 1986 the federal Sechelt Indian Band Self-Government Act. It was then incumbent upon the government of British Columbia to write dovetail legislation that would enable the band to do what it was empowered to do under the federal act. This act before us is the result.

I think we should also commend the federal government for acting in good faith and acting rather quickly in drawing up their legislation.

This act enables the band council to make laws dealing with zoning and land use, expropriation, property taxes, health services on band land, education and social welfare services for band members, public order and safety.

I'm sure there will be other speakers speaking to the extent of the act, and when we get into committee later this morning we can further discuss and answer any questions there might be.

In finally moving second reading and entering into debate, I have to voice again my compliments and best wishes to the Sechelt band, who went through some problems in the province and with other bands in initiating this. They had in mind what they wanted to do. They lobbied the federal government extensively and with good intent, and then the provincial government. I commend them for their endeavour and their intent and their willingness to bring this type of legislation and this type of management to the natives of the Sechelt reserve.

They are to be commended, and it is notable legislation. There is only one other piece of legislation in Canada that allows for this type of self-government, and that's for the Cree in Ontario or Quebec. It does indicate good intent on the part of the province for aboriginal self-government. It indicates a good initiative on behalf of the band and also very good faith on behalf of the federal government.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

[ Page 439 ]

MR. SKELLY: I'd like to thank the government House Leader for his initial words in talking about the bill and the work that he did on the bill. The opposition will be supporting this piece of legislation, and we have indicated to the House Leader that we're prepared to have it passed as quickly as possible, because this legislation doesn't finish the business with the Sechelt tribe; what it does is enable them to get on with refining some of the details so that they can get down to the actual business of dealing with their community and expanding their economy and pursuing some of their economic and social objectives. So the opposition will be supporting this legislation, and hoping for its implementation as quickly as possible.

What this act does is not so much create self-government for the Sechelt Indian band — because essentially they come under the laws of the province and under the laws of Canada, and the legislation fairly carefully states that — as allow the Sechelt Indian band to free themselves from some of the constraints of the Indian Act which prevented and impeded the kind of economic and social development they wanted to see taking place in their area, on their lands, lands which they held under reserve status up to this point.

[11:15]

The minister has indicated that this legislation has come down relatively quickly. I want to point out to the minister — and I'm sure that successive generations of Sechelt band councils have done precisely the same thing — that it has taken almost a fifth of a century to get to this point. It has taken 15, 16 or 17 years to get to this point; this has not been done relatively quickly. It has taken generations of negotiations between Sechelt band councils and the provincial government and national governments to come to the position where we now are, in presenting this legislation both federally and provincially. I'd like to congratulate those generations of band councillors and chiefs for their patience in dealing with the provincial and federal governments to achieve what is finally on the floor of this House — and which will mean further negotiations prior to its implementation.

On behalf of the members of the New Democratic Party, who for many, many years have represented the Sechelt band council in the Legislature, and the interests of the Sechelt band council, I also want to wish the Sechelt people the very best. I hope that this legislation is the kind of thing that they're looking for in order to provide for their social and economic objectives, to expand their economy and to provide work and revenues for their people. I think that we can join with the government in wishing the Sechelt people the very best on this.

But there's one aspect of the agreement that this government has made between the Sechelt people and itself that has already been broken, and I think that's unfortunate. The Sechelt people have always indicated that they did not intend this legislation, or their model, to be the model imposed on other bands and other native communities around the province. I think that when we attended the first ministers' conference in Ottawa a few days ago, the point at which the Premier was booed at that conference was when he seemed to indicate that this model would become the model for other native bands or communities in British Columbia. I would hope that in the Legislature today the minister or the Premier will get up and indicate to the people of British Columbia and to the native people of British Columbia that that's not his intention, that he will begin negotiations with the native people to attempt to deal with their aspirations for self-government and to settle the outstanding native claims in British Columbia.

As many native people have said, this kind of legislation does not reflect their aspirations for self-government. In fact, it is not self-government as they see it; it's simply a way of opting out of a very repressive Indian Act, a way of opting out so that Indian bands that have a unique situation in this province . . . . Sechelt is located close to a substantial population centre, Vancouver. They're located on lands that are very desirable from a tourist point of view and therefore are attractive to the kinds of developments that the Sechelt people want to be involved in. So they're uniquely situated with respect to some economic development possibilities, and in fact those economic development possibilities were impeded by the Indian Act and the bureaucracy that has been established under the Indian Act. I can assure you, Mr. Minister, Mr. House Leader and Mr. Premier, that the kind of legislation that we're looking at here could never in a million years be seen to apply to, for example, the situation of the Hesquiat Indians on the west coast of Vancouver Island, or the Nuchatlets, or other native groups.

When the Premier was at the first ministers' conference, he said the situation in British Columbia — and I agree with him — is very much different from the situation elsewhere in Canada. He indicated that there were something like 350 native communities that would each have to be dealt with separately. But it appears that the government has gone along that route, and that rather than dealing with native Indian nations, they have preferred to deal with smaller communities on a band-by-band basis. I hope this does not mean that by dealing with one community on this basis, he intends to xerox many copies of the Sechelt Indian legislation, change the names to other band names and then try to impose it on other bands in the province.

I would hope that the Premier would begin approaching those native nations — and there's a small number of them, about 27 or 28 — based on linguistic groups and family and self-government traditions, and talking about the general land claims issue in the province. I think this Premier has a tremendous opportunity to change the way this province has been dealing this its native people and with the legitimate claims native people. Rather than advocating the Sechelt legislation as a model for those people in other parts of British Columbia, I would hope that the Premier would get up in the Legislature today and announce that he will be talking with native nations around the province about their aspirations for self-government, their aspirations with respect to land and resource claims, and their other aspirations, and that out of those negotiations and discussions will come resolutions to some outstanding problems that haven't really been dealt with by this provincial government or by the national government in Canada for many, many years.

Many native groups are now concerned that, rather than moving these kinds of concerns and negotiations forward, this legislation may in fact set them back, because the provincial government will use this as a model, whether they say they are going to or not. So I hope that the Premier will make that statement today: that he has no intention of trying to impose this model on other native groups in the province of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, there are land claims that have taken place all over the world, land claims that are still under discussion all over the world. I visited the United Nations in New York

[ Page 440 ]

recently, and one of the things that the people at the United Nations point to with pride, although they haven't been successful in a number of areas, is their efforts and achievements in the area of decolonization — taking people and nations that were subservient to other nations and establishing them as free, separate and independent countries in their own right.

In the case of the province of British Columbia, we have nations of people who, as a result of occupancy by non-Indians, have become subservient in their own lands. They recognize themselves as nations, they have a right to recognize themselves as nations, and yet the occupants of British Columbia have imposed a system of laws, land-holding and culture on them that they feel is inconsistent with their nationhood and with their aspirations. What they don't want is to take over this province, to take over the territory, and throw the rest of us out. What they want to develop is a way to share this province together in a way that recognizes the nationhood of Canada, the rights of the province of British Columbia, as well as their rights and their tradition of nationhood.

I think that capable leadership, good leadership, in a provincial government would be able to sit down with those native groups and with the federal government and work out a way in which we could share this province to the best benefit of all of us, recognizing the national status of native groups in this province. I think it's possible. I think reasonable people with reasonable proposals, sitting down at the table and discussing issues reasonably, can come to those kinds of decisions that will be best for all of us here in the province of British Columbia.

As I probably pointed out in this House in the past, my family came from Ireland, Mr. Speaker, and the Irish have had a land claim dating back thousands of years. They were invaded by an adjacent country, and the laws of that country were imposed on my ancestors. Their lands were taken from them without any rights whatsoever, without any recognition of Irish law, and it has taken a thousand years for Irish people to re-establish in the Republic of Ireland their rights, laws, language and nationhood. That doesn't mean they're going to solve all their problems, and Ireland today probably has as many problems as ever, but those people at least have the fight to determine in their own way, based on their own traditions and based on their own culture, how they will proceed in the future.

If the first minister in this government thinks that measures like the Sechelt land legislation are going to deal with that problem, he is desperately in error. It's not going to deal with that problem at all. Indian nations in British Columbia, very much the same as the Irish people, perceive themselves as nations, and as they have for the last two or three hundred years they are going to remember for the next thousands of years that they are a nation, and they are going to work hard, and generations of people are going to work hard until they can re-establish that nationhood again.

I think this Premier has a unique opportunity in British Columbia — a unique opportunity to approach the native Indian people on the basis that they are nations, on the basis that they do have a legitimate claim to the land and resources of the province. The Premier has an opportunity here to resolve those claims, recognize that national status and produce a province where we can all work together for the best economic and social interests of all of the people. If the Premier would at least make that statement, it would move us in the direction of resolving this problem that's been with us for many hundreds of years.

Again, on behalf of the official opposition, we will support the Sechelt legislation proposal. We will assist the government in moving this legislation through all of its stages of reading — today, if the government chooses to do that — so that the Sechelt people can get down to the business of implementing this legislation and achieving their economic and social objectives that require this legislation.

MR. BRUCE: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave of the House to make a very short introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. BRUCE: In the gallery today are eight students and Mr. Douglas, the teacher, from the Duncan Christian School, a very vibrant organization in Cowichan-Malahat, who are here today to visit and see the proceedings going on in the House.

Although I said it would be very short and I wouldn't mention individual names, another two friends of mine came into the House just a split second ago and are sitting in the other side of the gallery. Would you bid them all a very warm welcome.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'd like to read a telegram that was received only the day before yesterday:

I WOULD LIKE TO CONGRATULATE YOU ON YOUR PARTICIPATION AT THE FIRST MINISTERS' CONFERENCE. YOU REPRESENTED B.C. WITH HONOUR. I WOULD LIKE TO MEET AND TALK WITH YOU. IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE HAVE AT LEAST ONE HOUR WITH EACH OTHER.

It is signed by Stan Dixon of the Sechelt Indian band. I read that telegram, Mr. Speaker, because I think it's clear that there are many people — native people as well — who do support the initiative we see before us today.

This legislation, the Sechelt Indian Government District Enabling Act, is about two things: it's about rights and responsibilities. B.C. has aimed at these two principles. We aimed at these two principles at the first ministers' conference.

The points we made at the constitutional conference on aboriginal matters remain valid today. Nobody questions the need, the desire or the right for the aboriginal people of Canada, the first citizens, to have some form of self-government. And that right will be met. But everyone involved bears a heavy responsibility to make sure that the process and the end result is fair. The aboriginal people and all other Canadians deserve that.

In order for self-government to work properly, it needs the support of all British Columbians. At the constitutional conference in Ottawa we spoke a great deal about self-government and the entrenching of this in the constitution. What we objected to is that unlike what we have before us today, it was a proposal to provide some form of self-government without really saying what form or how it was to be.

[11:30]

When the Fathers of Confederation sat down many years back and talked about governing Canada, they outlined specifically the form it would take: how and what responsibilities would be given the federal government and the responsibilities and legislative powers of a provincial government. They recognized that this was extremely important. They

[ Page 441 ]

obviously went on for some years attempting to devise exactly what it should be, but when it was finally decided and confederation came about, it was clear as to how and what the responsibilities of those governments should be.

We again have in legislation today a clear statement of how this self-government will work and what it really is. The Ottawa proposal left too many questions. There were not enough answers. That in itself was not only confusing to the dissenting provinces; it was confusing to everyone, including the aboriginal people. That is why we not only had the meetings in the conference hall, but we kept going off as well to separate little meetings where various proposals or other alternatives were put forth; but each and every time, again a lot of questions were left unanswered.

There was some criticism because I questioned the cost of it all. Frankly, I think that is important. If we're to do our jobs properly as those who represent the people of British Columbia and Canada, we need to know the cost implications— how it's all to be paid for and who's to pay for it. In today's society, that certainly is extremely important. There's little we can do by way of social, education, health or other programs without knowing the cost and where the money is to come from. The impact of a third full level of government, as it was proposed there, was not known. Nor did we know whether in fact we would be creating whole new levels of bureaucracy, nor the effect of this not only on the aboriginal people but on all people in our province and throughout the country. The effects on British Columbia were particularly impacting. After all, on percentage of population we are way ahead of Canada in the number of aboriginal people residing in our province. We certainly don't compare with Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, the Prairie provinces, but certainly, even when compared to Ontario as a percentage of the total population, we rank far ahead. We also have 1,628 reserves, which is by far the largest number anywhere in Canada, and 350 separate native Indian communities.

Once more there was no definition of responsibilities between the provincial responsibility, the federal responsibility and this so-called — or as it was proposed — new level of government, which was never defined. No definition of responsibilities. B.C.'s rejection — along, incidentally, with three other provinces — for the reasons made clear, was based on a number of things, but largely the fact that there was no definition of self-government. Agreeing to the entrenchment was perhaps for some — at least for those present — politically popular, because the representatives in the conference hall in Ottawa were certainly almost single-mindedly, I think, very intent upon entrenching something even though they perhaps didn't know the definition. Many were prepared to take the chance as to the effects of it or the cost of it. We were not alone in finally rejecting the proposal. As a matter of fact, the final proposal was rejected not only by the four provinces but also by the aboriginal people representing the various groups present.

The responsible approach is what we see here today. Of course, our legislation complements federal legislation. The federal government has passed a bill endorsing the approach that we've outlined for self-government. They recognize the value of what we're doing in British Columbia. The Sechelt bill was mentioned a number of times in Ottawa, not only in the conference hall but also in the separate meetings, as being an initiative on the part of British Columbia which was a first, and which certainly was worth considering even by those who were pushing for the entrenchment approach.

It shows how self-government can come about without having to change the constitution. It's a model that can and will form the basis for self-government proposals and initiatives from other bands across B.C. It is our hope that we can soon begin negotiations with other groups to have them involved in the process as the Sechelt band has been. Of course, they took that initiative, and they've been very involved, and they're very supportive of what was finally accomplished, as you can see from the telegram that I read out before my opening statement.

Its passage will complete the process and allow the Sechelt band to meet its dream of true independence and responsibility for their own affairs. It sets up a form of municipality. It's fully endorsed and supported by the Sechelt band and, incidentally, by the Union of B.C. Municipalities. B.C. recognizes the band council as the governing body. B.C. will ensure that provincial laws that apply to municipalities apply to the Sechelt government. The Indian bands and the lands, or those bands on those particular lands and others, will now have a voice. They will have an advisory council to represent issues affecting non-Indians living on the lands, and that's fair.

Municipal benefits and provincial legislation that will apply to the Sechelt lands will be negotiated. It all takes effect on January 1, 1988, at which time Indians undertake full self-government. Most important, it removes the Sechelt band from the restrictions of the federal Indian Act. That act really has almost enslaved the people in some respect in that it certainly restricted them from doing that which they do best in their own way. The removal of this for the Sechelt band will certainly give them the opportunity to once and for all prove that they can not only provide self-government for themselves, providing social services, educational services, health services and other things, but also prove that they will and can do it extremely well. They can control their own future.

Mr. Speaker, they have not only gained the right of self-government, but they have assumed responsibility for their own destiny. B.C. is prepared and ready and willing — and this is in answer to the Leader of the Opposition — to sit down with other bands to negotiate similar agreements. I want to assure the House that we are flexible. We recognize that all situations won't be the same all over the province — no more than what they are the same across the nation. But we are prepared to sit down with the various groups and look at their particular needs and desires and work out something that is most acceptable to whatever the group, wherever in the province. We have that flexibility.

Native Indians will get their rights, and we will meet our responsibility. This, Mr. Speaker, is a process that works and that is fair. We know that as time progresses and we see the benefits come from the bill before us today, other bands throughout the province will be looking at this. In consultation with them and working closely together, we can provide other communities the same opportunity of self-government — of deciding their own destiny, of deciding their own development project and their own economic projects in order to give their people the opportunity they are deserving of and have a right to. This government will proceed to help them do it.

[ Page 442 ]

MR. GUNO: I do take it as a great honour to participate in this debate on Bill 4, the Sechelt Indian Government District Enabling Act. In light of the fact that the Sechelt people have expressed a desire to have this matter expedited, I do agree that we should come to some conclusion on this particular bill. However, in light of the Premier's statement about this bill, both in the recent first ministers' conference and also this morning, I want to make some general remarks about self-government, to put this bill in a proper perspective.

There is no doubt that this arrangement is one which the people of Sechelt want. They have fought long and hard for it. It is for them an important first step towards self-determination — and I emphasize that it is a first step.

It is a culmination of over 15 years of trying to extricate themselves from the yoke of Indian Affairs. It is interesting to hear the Premier state that he recognizes that this is a way of removing themselves from the restrictions of DIA and getting on with their economic development. Yet, in the same breath he states that this government recognizes the band council to be the legitimate government of Indian people. The band council is the creature of Indian Affairs under the Indian Act. So I think that he should be consistent when he talks about band councils.

The bill is a new beginning for the Sechelt people. The question now is: what does it mean for the rest of B.C.? I think it is important for the House to realize that this bill deals with a specific situation, and this has been recognized, as my colleague the leader said earlier, by the Sechelt people and other aboriginal groups. We all recognize that we have the right to shape our own destiny, that we are not going to be restricted by the experiences of others. This has happened too long to the native people: we are lumped together as this one group and have one solution offered. It was my earnest hope, until I heard the Premier speak and say that in essence this would be a model of negotiations on self-government, that the government would not again succumb to the siren song of simplistic solutions. I really hoped that they would collectively take off their blinders and see that the world has changed.

The matter of aboriginal self-government, as was demonstrated at the first ministers' conference on aboriginal rights in Ottawa last week, is a complex one, and it is even more complex in British Columbia. Everyone recognizes that. No one recognizes it more fully than the aboriginal people. We've been fighting for 100 years, and after 100 years this is the first really tangible result. It is indeed a very complicated process, and it is going to be a protracted one.

[11:45]

I want to say that as I understand it, from speaking to many of the delegates in Ottawa last week after the conclusion of the first ministers' conference, the majority of the aboriginal people in B.C. want a just settlement of Indian claims in British Columbia, based on the recognition of aboriginal title as a basic principle. This particular position is founded on any analysis of our history, of our laws, of what we stand for. There is a clear obligation on the part of both the federal and the provincial government to address this matter in a more honourable manner.

But along with that obligation, Mr. Speaker, lie many opportunities, and I think it is an area that we have yet to really examine. I think that it would be in the interests of British Columbians that there be strong, vibrant Indian communities. There would be important economic and political spinoffs for all British Columbians, not just for native peop1c. For instance, one of the things that the native people have always expressed their willingness to do is to coexist, to share. They have always expressed this since the time of contact.

We talk about — in the election the Premier did also; this was one of his promises — decentralizing political power, to attain greater community control and to really establish more effective local and regional government. The aspirations of the native people are no different. You can express them in those words. If this government is true in its intent to go down that road, then it shouldn't be afraid of the position of the native people in British Columbia.

In spite of the drawbacks, I've discerned from the native people, the leaders, that they are more determined to continue their struggle. The people of Sechelt, as I understand it, have not abandoned their traditional claims. This is an administrative arrangement that they want in order to get on with their economic development. For instance, the area in which this bill would contemplate Sechelt exercising self-government is reserve land. It's a parcel of land which would be transferred into fee simple so that the band can borrow against land for their economic expansion. Clearly then, Mr. Speaker, the traditional lands of the Sechelt have not been included and have not been abandoned.

Furthermore, many of the powers of the Sechelt people will be delegated, as has been pointed out — powers that can be taken away whenever the political climate changes. So by any analysis it is only a very limited form of local government, one that would prove to be unacceptable as any starting point in negotiations for self-government. In the federal counterpart, the federal government would retain incredible veto power over crucial areas of self-government, including their constitution.

There are other concerns, but I just want to say again that I acknowledge the effort that has been put into this by the Sechelt people, who are resilient and resourceful. They have, in this bill, an opportunity to improve their standard of life.

In terms of the broader question of self-government, it is clear, then, that as important as this bill is for the Sechelt people, it should not be used as some blueprint for dealing with the rest of the aboriginal people.

The failure of the first ministers' conference to arrive at some agreement last week on aboriginal self-government was due to many reasons. The Premier's negative and narrow approach was only one. But his failure to at least go to this most important forum with an open mind, a willingness to try to understand the positions of all participants, was a major disappointment to many aboriginal delegates from B.C., who were willing to give his claim to a fresh start at least the benefit of a doubt.

Mr. Speaker, the shame of the failure was that there was an historic opportunity to close a shameful chapter of Canadian history. It was an opportunity, I believe, to show the rest of the world that we have the moral stuff to right an ancient wrong. The Premier's performance at that particular forum, I would suggest, will only heighten further confrontation. It will instill in this province once again a climate of uncertainty that would surely dampen investment.

The Premier asks: "What will it cost, and who will pay?" I think that's a legitimate question, but in this context, taken in isolation, it is misleading. A more relevant question, I would suggest, would be: what does the status quo cost, and

[ Page 443 ]

who is paying? For instance, federally the total budget expended last year was $1.6 billion across Canada, of which the lion's share went to British Columbia. The bulk of this amount was administered by the Department of Indian Affairs to maintain the status quo. The status quo is a number of small, economically unviable reserves. The Premier talks about 165 reserves. What he fails to mention is that many of these are postage stamp-sized entities. They're not great land tracts. I wish they were; we wouldn't be here.

But the fact of the matter is that for the most part the opportunities for economic development on many of these reserves are just simply nonexistent. So the result is that we have, in spite of this $1.6 billion in Canada, institutionalized dependency and poverty, a poverty and condition of life so devastating that we can legitimately compare it to the Third World. Believe me, Mr. Speaker, you can take my word for it; I've experienced it.

Provincially, what is the cost to British Columbians? Because of the horrendous condition of life on reserves, we see every year thousands migrating to urban areas looking, often futilely, for a better life. Unfortunately many are unprepared to meet the demands of this kind of life, so then we have an increased demand on a wide range of services — education, law enforcement, prisons, health and social services. So there are significant and substantial costs to British Columbia today as a result of the status quo.

But there are intangible costs, too, costs in wasted lives — the many people who we see in the skid rows of all our major urban areas, their lives completely wasted, many who could be leading productive lives and contributing to the economy of this great province. And there are costs in wasted opportunities. Resource industries increasingly are becoming concerned about the uncertainty as a result of this whole unfinished business, again tending to dampen development in those areas.

Finally, what does it cost us as human beings, who supposedly live in a caring and tolerant society? I want to remind the House of the words of F.R. Scott, a great Canadian, who said that a society is judged by how it protects the interests of the least protected, and that if you diminish one segment of that society you diminish all.

In conclusion, I believe that this bill gives us a glimpse of larger possibilities, for it shows that if we are willing to deal with the hard questions, the complicated, complex questions, with a measure of vision and good will, it can be the best long-term investment in the economic and political potential of this province.

MR. LONG: I am pleased to have the opportunity to address an issue of significant importance — the concept of self-government as it is practised by the Indian band in Sechelt. The issue of self-government is addressed in the bill before us, Bill 4, the Sechelt Indian Government District Enabling Act.

Prior to discussing in detail the issue this bill addresses, I would like to comment on the recent first ministers' conference that our Premier attended in Ottawa. He is to be congratulated on doing a first-rate job. The inclusion of the members for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) and Atlin (Mr. Guno) as observers in the B.C. contingent is indicative of the Premier's commitment to provide open, cooperative government based on the constitution. I, like the majority of British Columbians, believe that our Premier truly represented the interests of both the native and the non-native British Columbian at the conference. Our Premier went to Ottawa with an open mind, willing to listen to all sides and to assist in developing a consensus that would benefit all Canadians. The fundamental purpose of the conference was to discuss the concept of self-government for natives and how the concept could be enshrined in the constitution. Yet no one other than our Premier really made a great effort to come up with a definition of self-government or discuss existing successful models of self-government. Our Premier, however, presented the conference with a successful Indian band model of self-government.

This government recognizes that the Sechelt agreement is a positive and progressive step in our attempts to address native concerns in British Columbia. It is a model that offers possibilities with some modifications, a means by which other bands in this province can achieve their goals. While everyone else in Canada is simply talking about the subject of native land claims, we in British Columbia are doing something about it. The Sechelt band is the first Indian band in Canada to be legally exempt from the federal Indian Act, which gives the federal government sweeping powers over Indians and their land. The Sechelt band will now be able to manage their own lands. The band has a unique form of self-government under its own constitution.

[12:00]

The Sechelt Indian band consists of 33 reserves in the Sechelt Peninsula, covering an area of more than 1,000 hectares, or 2,470 acres. There are approximately 640 members and the majority reside on reserve lands. Some 350 non-Indians lease land from the Sechelt band. This area has tremendous economic potential for the band. The area in and around Sechelt is ideally suited for recreational activities. Economic development projects planned by the band include a marina-hotel complex at Wilson Creek and a condominium complex at Porpoise Bay.

Unemployment among Sechelt band members is below the national average. Many residents work in this community. Some run their own businesses; others are employed on construction projects — housing and community facilities; others run a fish hatchery for the federal government with the Indians. The bank also operates its own pre-school, which a lot of the whites use as well. They integrate in this community.

Bill 4 is complementary provincial legislation to the federal Sechelt Indian Band Self-Government Act, which was given royal assent on June 17, 1986. The federal act is enabling legislation and involves the delegation of powers to the Sechelt Indian band. The federal act provides, among other things, for the transfer of fee simple title of Sechelt lands to the Sechelt band and for the management of those lands according to the band's constitution.

The legislation sets out the broad parameters for the definition of the particular powers and law-making authority of the band to be negotiated and set out in its constitution. The federal legislation also contains a provision for negotiation of funding agreements in the form of grants or transfer payments which will be administered by the band council, who will in turn be accountable to their own electors. The Sechelt proposal reflects that community's aspirations. It is not intended to be a strict model for others; of course, other communities will have different needs and different desires.

The federal legislation and the bill before us are extremely important, Mr. Speaker, since they represent the first significant self-government initiative to receive legislative

[ Page 444 ]

sanctions. They will form the basis for other bands' selfgovernment proposals. Bill 4 recognizes the federally created local government institution, the district council, for purposes of the application of certain provincial legislation normally applicable to municipal governments. The bill recognizes the band council as the governing body and ensures that various provincial laws that would normally apply only to municipal governments apply to the band. In addition, it provides a number of other powers. For instance, they will have the power to make their own laws in relation to the following matters: zoning and land use, real property taxation, health services on band lands, education and social welfare services for band members, public order and safety on band lands, and so on. They are in control of their own destiny.

An important reality of this bill and the form of self-government for the Sechelts that it provides is that the self-government is a local phenomenon, with different meanings for different communities. The diversity of aspirations and historic and political circumstances of the various native groups in B.C. represents a real challenge to our abilities to find satisfactory solutions to the claims of different bands, because each native community has its own unique goals, problems and expectations.

It is important to note that while this bill is a model which could be useful as a guide for other native people, it is designed with the specific interests of the Sechelt band in mind. To apply the definition of self-government as stated in this bill to all other bands in B.C. might be inappropriate. What one native group finds acceptable as self-government may not be acceptable to another group. For instance, as the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Rogers) has pointed out previously, the needs of the Sechelt band are met by this form of self-government, but it may not fully meet the unique needs of the native people in other regions of the province.

Certainly this form of government is more specific, comprehensive and far-sighted than anything tabled in the recent first ministers' conference. I personally am very pleased that under the capable leadership of our Premier this government has addressed this issue of native claims realistically and in a responsible manner that has met the expectations of all parties involved. This realistic and reasonable leadership of our Premier was strongly in evidence at the first ministers' conference. Unlike the Premiers of some of the other provinces, and unlike the Leader of the Opposition, our Premier refuses to make any rash decisions that may have serious and unforeseeable consequences. Stan Dixon, the outgoing chief of the Sechelt band, stated: "I congratulate the Premier on his presentation at the conference. If I was Premier, I would have to take the same stand." That's the former chief of Sechelt, and the Father of Confederation at that time.

Both the Leader of the Opposition and the Premier of Ontario seemed to believe that it was better to make an agreement, any agreement, in order to appease some of the native groups — and I emphasize the word "some." Such a solution is irresponsible and short-sighted, in the extreme. It ignores the realities and complexities of the issue. For instance, some of the Premiers were intent on entrenching the concept of self-government in our constitution without any adequate definition of "self-government" in existence and without any idea of who is going to pay for such a system, nor how much it will cost.

We recognize, Mr. Speaker, the importance of self-government as a means to provide greater self-reliance and self management for native people in Canada. However, owing to the importance of this issue, we refuse to hastily entrench in our constitution vague notions that have not properly been defined and could have a detrimental effect on our natives and non-natives alike.

As a result, Mr. Speaker, I fully support Bill 4. It is a major step in the government's overall commitment to the native groups in British Columbia. It provides an excellent model with which other native communities can negotiate a form of self-government that will provide them with a better chance for cultural autonomy and economic opportunities. This bill clearly indicates that our government is one of action and results, not rhetoric and grandstanding.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Just a few comments in closing debate. First of all, I'd like to compliment all speakers — the member for Atlin (Mr. Guno) and the Leader of the Opposition — on their debate. I think they're aware of what we attempted to do here.

The Leader of the Opposition commented on the time it took. Really, I would commend to all members that we were very fast on this. The federal legislation wasn't proclaimed until June 1986. I'll advise the House now that in late December we were at the final draft stage, and really right down to dotting the i's and crossing the t's in our negotiations with Sechelt. So I think we acted very quickly, and I commend Sechelt and the negotiating staff for that, and would comment to all members of the House, and for the record, that the government of British Columbia acted quickly and responsively in preparing this bill.

Also, I'd like to reiterate what the Premier indicated: this is not chapter-and-verse, cast-in-stone legislation for every form of self-government in the province. This is just one model, and we can use some of it or part of it in future negotiations with native groups as they come to us. But I also want the record to show that we are by no means going to impose this type of legislation on everybody else. We're open to negotiation, as native bands wish self-government, and they can come to us and indicate what they feel is good for them in terms of legislation, and what may be appropriate from this act, or what they may want to see added to this act, or really anything they want. We are in the position, as government, to sit down and simply discuss how they would like to see self-government legislation written. By no means is Sechelt cast in stone as being set up as the only model for self-government.

Thirdly, in response to the general comment about the first ministers' conference, as the members will know I attended two of these conferences as minister, one in Halifax and one in Toronto. Really, I commend the Premier and the western Premiers and some other Premiers for the position they took.

I'd like to quote a comment I heard in the maiden speech of the member for Atlin, which was memorable: "If you don't know where you're going, you'll end up somewhere else." You'll recall that; it's a good comment. That was the position the government of British Columbia was in when we sat down at the negotiating table. Really, it was a mystery area. I'm sure all members appreciate that. We didn't really know where we were going; it was a mystery proposal being presented to us and to the people of British Columbia. It's a difficult thing just to agree to everything when in fact you

[ Page 445 ]

have no direction and no sense of what's going to happen to you. I think it would have been improper for the provincial governments to just go into constitutional amendments blind, without knowing where we were going. All members should be aware of that and recognize that we were put in a very difficult position at the constitutional conference.

With that said, Mr. Speaker, I will again move second reading.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

[12:15]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I ask leave to refer Bill 4 to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill 4, Sechelt Indian Government Enabling Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

SECHELT INDIAN GOVERNMENT
DISTRICT ENABLING ACT

The House in committee on Bill 4; Mrs. Gran in the chair.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

On section 4.

MR. HEWITT: I want to speak on the detail in section 4. However, I'd first like to say that I support Bill 4, and I support the concept of the municipal structure of self-government for the Sechelt Indian band. By that structure the band is given the ability to provide services to their native residents, and they have the ability to manage their own affairs. It's a step in the right direction, and it's a vast improvement on the present system.

Section 4 calls for the extension of municipal benefits to the Sechelt Indian government district, and the definition of "municipal benefit," of course, is that that benefit would include a service, a grant of money, a right or eligibility to participate in a program, or any other benefit available to a municipality under an enactment. That's where I have some difficulty.

To my knowledge, at present there is no structured provincial funding made available to Indian bands in this province, primarily because they are a federal jurisdiction and come under the Indian Act. I'm not familiar with the federal legislation entitled Sechelt Indian Band Self-Government Act (Canada). I don't know what that act says, whether it allows for transfer of equity payment to the province, therefore allowing the province to pass the funding that normally comes from the federal government to the Indian band via the province . . . . I'm not sure how that structure works, but I can only assume that the Indian Act still applies and that there is no taxation on income and/or sales or economic activity on the Indian band land — no revenue, then, to the government; no contribution to provincial government general revenues.

That being the case, the question has to be asked: does municipal benefit under section 4 mean revenue-sharing grants, grants that are made to municipalities throughout this province to deal with municipal services? If the answer to that question is yes, then I have difficulty because of a possible inequity, whereby the taxpayer of B.C. who does not live on an Indian reserve will be paying to the Sechelt Indian municipal government funds generated from economic activity of the province, to which there is no contribution by economic activity on Indian band lands.

Madam Chairman, in his speech the member for Atlin (Mr. Guno) made the following comment — and it was raised by the House Leader: "If you don't know where you're going, you'll end up somewhere else." I recognize that section 4 does have the word "may" — "the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may prescribe requirements" in the regulations. I think it is important that we recognize that, and I understand what that section means. All I ask is that, prior to the proclamation of this bill, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council resolve the question that I have raised in this House before — and will continue to raise — with regard to equity, and therefore equity funding of services, grants, etc. to a municipality, which this Sechelt band will be deemed to be after this legislation is passed.

I feel there are services that would normally be shifted to the reserve. If that is the case and those functions are shifted to the reserve's responsibility — and I think the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Long) mentioned them — then funding should be shifted with them. What we are doing is giving self-government to the Indian band; therefore the normal funding we already provide through our provincial services should flow through. However, if we are talking revenue sharing under the Municipal Act, where funding really comes from economic activity by the municipality, then I would have difficulty if all other municipal economic activity — personal and corporate income tax to this province — was making contributions to a self-government that normally falls under the Indian Act and federal jurisdiction. So my point to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, to the government, is that while I recognize that section 4 does say "may," my concern is to ensure that what is provided is justified.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Briefly, to the member for Boundary-Similkameen . . . .

AN HON. MEMBER: That's an Indian name.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's right.

The member raises some very good questions. In terms of income tax and not having to pay sales tax, that will apply to natives on the reserve. That is the same throughout the province.

In terms of taxes established by the Sechelt that will apply for services being provided, all residents of Sechelt will pay those taxes equally. To that extent it doesn't differ from any other municipality. Of course, in terms of revenue-sharing and the type of municipal benefits that the province confers on a municipality, as the member pointed out, those will be set by the L-G-in-C by regulation.

Sections 4 to 8 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

[ Page 446 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Madam Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 4, Sechelt Indian Government District Enabling Act, reported complete without amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

Bill 4, Sechelt Indian Government District Enabling Act, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I have a little problem here: I didn't commit Bill 3, the Boundary Act, so I'd like to have leave to move that .... Can I have leave to commit a bill?

MR. SKELLY: Yes.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Thank you. [Laughter.]

I'd like to move that Bill 3, the Boundary Act, be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting after today.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to wish one and all a very fond "happy weekend," and move that the House do now adjourn.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:28 p.m.

APPENDIX

SECOND REPORT

SPECIAL COMMITTEE OF SELECTION

Legislative Committee Room
April 3, 1987

Mr. Speaker:

Your Special Committee of Selection appointed on March 9, 1987 to prepare and report lists of members to compose the Select Standing Committees of this House for the present session, begs to report that the following is the list of members to compose the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts for the present session:

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE
ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Ms. Marzari (convenor) and Mr. Hewitt, the Hon. S. Hagen, the Hon. R. Johnston, the Hon. C. Richmond, the Hon. E. Veitch, Messrs. Chalmers, Long and Peterson and Ms. A. Hagen and Messrs, G. Hanson and Lovick.

Membership on the following Select Standing Committees reflect changes agreed to by your committee:

LABOUR, JUSTICE AND
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

Ms. Campbell (convenor) and Mr. Chalmers, the Hon. L. Hanson, the Hon. S. Rogers, Messrs. Jansen and Weisgerber and Messrs. Gabelmann, Sihota and Skelly.

TOURISM AND ENVIRONMENT

Messrs. Messmer (convenor) and Serwa, the Hon. W. Reid, the Hon. B. Strachan and Messrs. Bruce and Pelton, Mmes. Smallwood and Edwards and Mr. Barnes.

FORESTS AND LANDS

Messrs. Bruce (convenor) and Vant, the Hon. J. Davis, the Hon. D. Parker, Messrs. Jacobsen and Long and Mrs. Boone and Messrs. Gabelmann and Williams.

ENERGY, MINES AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES

Messrs. Peterson (convenor) and Ree, the Hon. A. Brummet, the Hon. J. Davis, Messrs. S.D. Smith and Vant, and Messrs. Clark, D'Arcy and Guno.

Respectfully submitted,
R.G. Fraser
Chairman