[ Page 6177 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

The Whistle Blower's Protection Act (Bill M208). Mr. Cashore

Introduction and first reading –– 6177

Oral Questions

Proposed minister of state for women. Ms. Marzari –– 6178

Television broadcasting of debates. Mr. Rose –– 6178

Funding for alcohol and drug treatment centres. Mrs. Boone –– 6178

Doman Industries Ltd. Mr. Williams –– 6179

Tabling Documents –– 6180

Residential Property Tax Increase Limitation Act, 1989 (Bill 17). Second reading

Hon. Mrs. Johnston –– 6180

Statutes Repeal Act, 1989 (Bill 2). Second reading

Hon. S.D. Smith –– 6181

Mr. Sihota –– 6182

Hon. S.D. Smith –– 6182

Provincial Symbols and Honours Act (Bill 4). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Reid –– 6182

Mr. Williams –– 6183

Mr. Rose –– 6183

Hon. Mr. Reid –– 6183

University Endowment Land Park Act (Bill 16). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Dirks –– 6184

Mr. G. Hanson –– 6185

On the amendment

Mr. Perry –– 6187

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 6191

Ms. Marzari –– 6193

Mr. Harcourt –– 6194

Mr. R. Fraser –– 6195

Ms. Smallwood –– 6195

Mr. Sihota –– 6196

Mr. Miller –– 6200

Hon. Mr. Weisgerber –– 6202

Mr. G. Janssen –– 6202

Tabling Documents –– 6205

Ministerial Statement

Electoral boundaries decision. Hon. S.D. Smith –– 6205

Mr. Sihota

TUESDAY, APRIL 18, 1989

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

HON. S. HAGEN: I am pleased to have on the floor of the House today the Minister of Education for the Northwest Territories, the Hon. Stephen Kakfwi. Earlier today Mr. Kakfwi and I signed an agreement between the Northwest Territories and the province of British Columbia which will deal with pooling our knowledge and resources in order to improve access to education for people living in remote areas of our province and of the territories. We will also be exchanging curriculum and resource materials for adult education and apprenticeship courses. Accompanying the minister today are his deputy up in the gallery, Joe Handley, and his assistant, Lynda Sorensen. Would the House please join me in bidding them all welcome.

Also today I have the pleasure of introducing a constituent of mine from Parksville. I am pleased today that Howard Fowler has come down to watch the proceedings in the House. He is a strong supporter and a good constituent. Please help me make him welcome.

MR. ROSE: I take pleasure in introducing someone well known to this House and to the whole province: the former Premier who's sitting there in the back row in silence, but not quite a stranger to this House. I earlier had an opportunity to ask him what I felt was a crucial question. When he invited me to come back from the federal House as an MP to sit in the provincial House, why was it that as soon as I got here, he decided to leave it and go to Ottawa? So there he is: Dave Barrett.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I also want to extend a welcome to the former leader of the NDP and Premier of the province. It's nice to see him there. As a matter of fact, I think I miss some of the debates we had back then. But I realize as I look across, that there is one leader missing. There is an intervening body, the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams), and then the former Premier. I notice he has more hair than the rest of them, even though it's going a bit grey. Obviously Ottawa is treating him well. We are appreciative of what you are attempting to do for us in Ottawa, and we will continue to tell you about some of the concerns we have here. We know you'll fight for the people and the government of British Columbia in what we're attempting to get from Ottawa and some of the considerations that we would like to have at least viewed by the people in politics there. We thank you, and we're happy to have you here today.

MR. KEMPF: In your gallery today, Mr. Speaker, are two groups of visitors. First, from my own constituency of Omineca — in fact, from Burns Lake — Archie, Viola, Marvin and Karen Strimbold; almost the whole Strimbold family here today. Archie and his family are longtime loggers in the Burns Lake area who are now ranching. Hopefully, some of that cow welfare will pay for their logging operations of the past. In the gallery as well are Ken and Ronny Lane, prominent Victoria business people. I would ask the House to make them all very welcome.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: It's my pleasure today to introduce, in the members' gallery, two directors of Tillicum Haus native friendship centre, Nanaimo: Mrs. Grace Nielsen, director of social services, and Mr. Tony Schachtel, the executive director. Tillicum Haus is involved in a very exciting undertaking, funded through the off-reserve drug and alcohol awareness program, to increase the knowledge in the native community with regard to fetal alcohol syndrome. Please join with me in making them welcome today.

HON. MR. DIRKS: In the precincts today to listen to this afternoon's proceedings is a lady who has worked very long and hard for the community she loves. She is none other than the director of electoral area A of the Greater Vancouver Regional District. Would the House please give Iva Mann a warm welcome.

MR. PERRY: I would also like to welcome Iva Mann, someone who has worked very hard for many years for the conservation of the Endowment Lands regional park and who has served my community admirably for probably longer than I've been alive.

I would also like to welcome some special guests in the Speaker's gallery today, constituents of mine and the first member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Ms. Marzari), from the Musqueam Indian band: Delbert Guerin, George Guerin, Myrtle McKay, Susan Point, Marilyn Point, Rose Point and Chris Robertson. We're very pleased to have them there. Would the House please welcome them. I would also like to welcome, if he's here in the House right now, Lewis Harvey, their attorney from Davis and Co. of Vancouver.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I'd like to introduce to the House three young gentlemen who are on holidays and decided to see how this place works — or doesn't. One of them is from Kamloops and works for that great television station up there, CFJC; that's Kevin Mills. Two friends from out of province are visiting with him, John Molter and Jim Zelinski, and I'd like the House to make them welcome.

Introduction of Bills

THE WHISTLE BLOWER'S PROTECTION ACT

Mr. Cashore presented a bill intituled The Whistle Blower's Protection Act.

MR. CASHORE: This act provides protection for workers who report pollution violations by their employers, and also gives workers the right to refuse to work in situations involving pollution violations. A worker is protected from being dismissed, disciplined, penalized, coerced or intimidated for complying with or seeking enforcement of environmental

[ Page 6178 ]

legislation or giving information to the Ministry of Environment or the appropriate ministry. Where a worker refuses to carry out work due to pollution violations, a complaint and investigation procedure is set out. The burden of proof that an employer did not dismiss, discipline, penalize or intimidate an employee who reports a pollution violation or refuses to work is on the employer.

[2:15]

Bill M208 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

PROPOSED MINISTER OF STATE FOR WOMEN

MS. MARZARI: This is a question to the Premier, Mr. Speaker. Can the Premier advise this House whether he has decided to follow through on his plans to have a minister of state for women before the end of this session?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The throne speech speaks for itself, and we're making great progress on all of the proposals in the throne speech, as we have done every year and will continue to do. I can definitely assure the hon. member that we will be pursuing those things that were mentioned in the throne speech. In the meantime, there are many issues that we're dealing with on a daily basis right here.

MS. MARZARI: The Premier said last week that he may not be appointing this minister of state for women until the end or maybe even after this session is over. You can't be partially pregnant, Mr. Premier. Is there going to be a minister of state for women while we're sitting or not?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It will be a decision for the Premier as to the timing of the establishment of the ministry. Obviously there are things to be done in order to prepare for that event. And it will be done properly. We won't, as is being suggested, rush into it blindly, without having made proper preparation. So it will be done. I can assure the member that we'll see through that commitment. As I said, in the meantime we can talk about some of the suggestions that you've been making here in the House.

TELEVISION BROADCASTING OF DEBATES

MR. ROSE: I'd like to address a question to the Premier, as well, concerning throne speeches and promises therein. Two or three years ago, in the first throne speech, there was television promised for the House. That was a solemn promise. The board looked into the matter and, I believe, made recommendations. Then I look in vote 1 of this year's estimates; there's no budget item for the television. I wonder when the Premier plans to introduce television in the House.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, the question period, as the member is aware, is being broadcast live. We've certainly made some considerable progress, and we're continuing to make progress. As the member must be aware, we've been attempting to determine the best system for the House, without having to break out the walls or set up huge structures. We want to make sure that it's one that fits in with the decor. Certainly, as well, we want to make sure that when we get a price for whatever installation, it will be appropriate and reasonable, and one we can defend with the people in the province. We're making progress, and we're carrying on.

FUNDING FOR ALCOHOL AND DRUG
TREATMENT CENTRES

MRS. BOONE: A question to the Minister of Labour and Consumer Affairs. Can the minister confirm that his ministry has decided to change the basis of funding for residential alcohol and drug treatment societies, thereby threatening the continued existence of residential treatment in B.C.?

HON. L. HANSON: That's an interesting question. The negotiations are going on right now with the various societies that are providing service through contractual arrangements with the government. In her suggestion that we're cutting back on spending, the member is less than educated on what is actually happening. We're not cutting back. As a matter of fact, in many instances we have provided much more money than we have in the past.

The member is suggesting that we are currently in the process of negotiating a fee-for-service basis as opposed to a total grant in total dollars. In all cases, that is being negotiated honestly and fairly with the  societies. I think the end result will be a better utilization of the public's funds and will, in fact, provide a better service to the citizens of British Columbia than we have experienced in the past.

MRS. BOONE: The minister's words were "cutting back." I referred to the change in the basis of funding, and the minister has confirmed that there is a change in the basis for funding.

Can the minister assure this House that Peak House, which is the only alcohol and drug residential treatment centre for teenagers in British Columbia, will not be forced to close its doors?

HON. L. HANSON: Again, that is an interesting question. Peak House is a private society that has the jurisdiction of making their own decisions. I can certainly assure the members opposite that the provincial government's funding provision to that society is fair and equitable and will at least match what is there from last year. As a matter of fact, there is a fair increase. Again, those negotiations are going on right at the moment. I know that Peak House has suggested there is a shortage of funding, but that is not a fair assessment at this point, because no finalization of that has been determined.

[ Page 6179 ]

During this negotiation period we have, in fact, offered Peak House a continuation of the contract we had in place last year until these negotiations are finalized.

MRS. BOONE: The minister states again a change in funding. But Peak House is saying the change in funding is due to the change to fee-for-service. If Peak House is not able to operate under the fee-for service or to provide the service under the funding formula that the ministry is changing right now, can the minister tell us how he will be providing that service to the teenagers in this province, seeing that Peak House is the only facility that does provide residential treatment for teenagers? If Peak House is not able to remain in operation, where will the teenagers of this province go, Mr. Minister?

HON. L. HANSON: Again, we are in the process of negotiating with Peak House; we are not negotiating here in the House for next year's budget. I assure the members opposite that the funding being offered to Peak House and the negotiations going on are fair and equitable, and that Peak House will be dealt with in a fair and justified manner.

The services that Peak House is providing will be provided; whether that will be through Peak House or through another organization remains to be determined. Peak House is a society on their own. They will make their own decision based on the funding we have negotiated with them. My knowledge at this time is that an agreement is going to be reached. Both parties feel very positive about it at this time, but negotiations are still going on.

DOMAN INDUSTRIES LTD.

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Minister of Forests. It's now a week since I asked the following question — "Did you meet with Doman Industries to discuss their cut position?" — and you took the question as notice. Could you advise us of an answer today?

HON. MR. PARKER: We will be tabling the answers to those questions in the very near future.

MR. WILLIAMS: Is it asking too much, Mr. Speaker, for him to read the provided answer?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

MR. WILLIAMS: It obviously is. I guess we might as well begin a new list, seeing as the lesson is completed for today.

The minister said he wasn't getting involved in this matter, when he was freely discussing it out in the corridor. Is it not true that the minister sent the letter regarding Doman's cutting rights? Wouldn't you say, Mr. Minister, that that indeed was involvement?

HON. MR. PARKER: The discussions we had subsequent to the questioning in the House were a result of further discussion with my staff. The discussions I had in different parts of this building were after I'd had appropriate advice from staff.

MR. WILLIAMS: I have trouble with that answer, but not as much as the minister. In the last week, staff in the Ministry of Forests said regarding the atrocious trespass that they "beat the living hell out of the area." I quote Mr. Steve Schmidt, in effect, on the area that was high-graded. Given this background, this further confirmation from your staff, can you explain why you did not penalize Doman Industries?

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Smith didn't address his correspondence to me, so I'd have to take a look at the file and see what the substance of that particular memo was. At that time, I would be happy to return a reply to the House. I'll take that as notice.

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Minister of Forests, isn't it true that Doman Industries, in fact, had the assets and ability to buy into another pulp mill in the form of Western Forest Products, when they were non-performing in terms of the mill promised with respect to the mid-coast cut?

HON. MR. PARKER: It's public record that Doman is a partner in the Western Pulp Ltd. Partnership.

MR. WILLIAMS: Last Friday, Mr. Minister, you said to the press: "You'll have to ask other people of the day, not me, regarding the Doman Industries deal." But isn't it true that in November 1988 you agreed to the change in the contract and created the golden loophole clause that was big enough to drive a Doman Industries truck through in terms of not requiring performance on the pulp mill?

HON. MR. PARKER: One thing Mr. Roger Stanyer, Mr. Jack Munro and the IWA are happy about is that the Doman trucks are driving, have been driving and have driven through the most difficult times that we've experienced since the thirties, economically speaking. Doman Industries did not shut down during the depression of the first part of the eighties. It continued to operate; it did not lay off. The IWA membership was most grateful for that. As a matter of fact, we have a letter on record from the IWA thanking the government for not reducing Doman's cut and making it possible for them to generate new jobs in British Columbia. We understand that; we're working to that end. We work for the betterment of British Columbia, not for one person's vengeance.

MR. WILLIAMS: Given the litany of information in terms of your staff's concern about non-performance, pathetic performance and the rest of it, how on earth, before the people of British Columbia, can you explain how you could have traded off the $300 million obligation that Doman Industries had for less than $10 million? Can you explain that, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. PARKER: The obligation in the contract was for the equivalency of employment, and the thermal-mechanical mill proposed by Doman Industries

[ Page 6180 ]

back when they achieved their licence indicated an employment level of approximately 80 people. The establishment that Doman is creating at Duke Point will employ all of that number and more. That's what we're after: the equivalency of jobs, not the equivalency of dollars invested. If you're buying the type of equipment that Doman is using at Duke Point, it can be fabricated right here in British Columbia, for the most part. If you are looking for a TMP mill, most refiners are built in northern Europe, so all that money goes overseas. It's better to see it right here in British Columbia creating jobs in British Columbia. It's for the betterment of British Columbia, and how that member cannot understand that is beyond me.

[2:30]

Hon. Mr. Savage tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries for the period April 1, 1987 to March 31, 1988.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 17.

RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY TAX INCREASE
LIMITATION ACT, 1989
(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: The minister closes debate.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I am very pleased to take my place to close debate on second reading of this bill, but prior to concluding my remarks, I would like to make reference to some of the comments brought forward by members opposite.

There was a comment made earlier by the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark): "The most fortunate receive the benefit. They're asset-rich and cash-poor." I would like to suggest to that member and others opposite that in the city of Vancouver alone, we are looking at capping approximately 16,000 properties.

The second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) spoke up a couple of weeks ago when I suggested that Vancouver should be looking at a variable rate to address the inequities in pockets of the city. The member asked why I wasn't working with the city of Vancouver to resolve their dilemma. I would like to quote some comments he made:

"In light of the concern of those who have pronounced this plan ridiculous" — the member was referring to my variable taxation suggestion — "has the minister decided to abandon her erratic idea and have meaningful discussions with Vancouver city council on real alternatives?" Well, Hon. Second Member for Victoria, I would like to tell you that we did work with the city of Vancouver, with the UBCM and with several of the mayors on the lower mainland. Don't blink your eyes....

MR. MILLER: Stop that right now.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Yes, stop it right now. We did work with them and I want to tell you that Bill 17 represents these deliberations. It seems that members opposite like to talk an awful lot about local autonomy and giving local government a greater role in decision-making, but when the chips are down — does it sound familiar, hon. member? — and they are called upon to support local government, they turn their backs on them.

I would like to refer to a couple of other comments made by the hon. second member for Victoria. On April 17 in the afternoon in this House, he said: "We believe local government has a far greater role to play in decision-making in the province than it has today. Despite what this government says about the minister-of-state system...." He goes on to say: "We're answering the topics by suggesting that local government, despite what this government says, have a greater role to play in decision-making in the province." Then he goes on to say what they would do if they were government.

Somewhere along the line — although these comments were just made on April 17 — they've obviously already been forgotten. The Leader of the Opposition and the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Perry): I would like to ask what you will say to the seniors in some of these communities, the young families, the middle-income workers who live in the areas hardest hit by these high assessments. Will those people in your city — the people you supposedly represent — accept your arguments about being asset-rich and that they should further mortgage their future to pay their property taxes?

Will you, Mr. Leader of the Opposition and the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey, support a municipal income tax or a further 80 percent tax on profit when the property is resold in a short period of time, even though the property may have to be sold by someone who, through death or illness, is forced to relocate and sell? Is that what we call flipping — because they have owned it for a short time?

There has been reference made by members opposite that this is a political move. Well, I really can't understand any suggestion of its being political or to help our friends. The majority of the MLAs in the Vancouver city area are sitting on the opposite side of the House. What is the suggestion that this is political? That's another problem I have.

I think it's very important that all members of this House realize how this legislation will impact on the taxpayers in Vancouver. I am going to give you some specific examples that were sent over to us by the mayor of Vancouver to use for reference.

In the west end of Vancouver: 1988 taxes on a piece of property — these go from average right up to the higher properties — were $7,165. Without a cap they would be $7,756; with the cap, a little higher at $7,918. I doubt if there is anybody on that side of the House who is concerned about somebody paying those kinds of property taxes, who see their taxes going up $150.

Property 2 in 1988: the taxes were $8,484; 1989 taxes without a cap, $11,815.87; with a cap, $11,627.

[ Page 6181 ]

We see there roughly a $200 difference. Property 3 in 1988.... Are you interested in this, Mr. Second Member for Victoria?

Interjection.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Could we please give you some information...?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I might remind the minister to speak through the Chair, but I would advise other members to let the minister finish her remarks.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I believe the information is important, because this is the information that was drawn together by the city of Vancouver in order that the council of the city of Vancouver, by unanimous vote, request this legislation.

In Shaughnessy we have a piece of property that in 1988 paid taxes of $2,744. Without the cap in 1989 they would be looking at $3,991; with a cap they're still going to be looking at $3,075. In south Granville we have a piece of property that in 1988 paid $2,195; 1989 without the cap, $3,130; with a cap, $2,411. In Grandview we have a piece of property that in 1988 paid $403.26; in 1989 without a cap they would see a small reduction to $378.24; with a cap, $386.12. These to me are the important numbers. With the cap there's an $8 difference — $378 to $386.

Property No. 8 in Grandview: taxes in 1988 were $437.38; 1989 without the cap, $403, a $34 reduction; with the cap, $412. So they're going to see a $9 increase because of the cap. Fraserview: 1988 taxes, $458.32; 1989 without the cap, $523; with the cap, $534, an $11 difference. Property No. 10, Fraserview again: 1988 taxes were $853.83; without the cap in 1989 the taxes would be $853.06; with the cap, $870.83, a $17 difference. The median property: 1988 taxes, $590.14; without the cap in 1989 they would go to $592, a $2 difference; with the cap they will go to $604, a $14 difference. So to me there seems little to all the arguments put forward that we're more or less taking from the poor to transfer to the rich.

If you look at the numbers that we're talking about, the legislation is certainly not out of line. It's not taking unfair advantage of any taxpayers in the province. I think we should remind ourselves once again that this is permissive legislation. If any council in this province feels the slightest bit uncomfortable about it, they are not obliged to utilize it.

In summing up, I would like to say that we truly believe local government has been elected by the people in their community to make these localized types of decisions. We respect the fact that the local elected members are honourable members and they are going to do the best for their community. I believe we have a responsibility, when requested by unanimous vote of the council of the largest community in this province, to do whatever we can to assist them in resolving concerns that they feel they have.

Accordingly, I now move second reading of the bill.

[2:45]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 31

NAYS — 23

Bill 17, Residential Property Tax Increase Limitation Act, 1989, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

MR. SPEAKER: The Minister of Tourism seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, it's with a great deal of pleasure that the House recognizes today, on your behalf, students from West Vancouver Secondary School and their guests from the province of Quebec. Would the House make these students and their guests especially welcome.

Mr. Speaker, may I also recognize on your behalf students in the precincts from Howe Sound Secondary School in Squamish. Would the House also make these students welcome.

HON. MR. VEITCH: As House Leader, Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 2.

STATUTES REPEAL ACT, 1989

HON. S.D. SMITH: In opening what I know will be a very brief debate on this matter, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that the government is committed, in addition to bringing in new and necessary pieces of legislation, to revising and updating laws on a regular and periodic basis. This bill is consistent with that commitment because it repeals a number of statutes that are no longer required. Not only do we bring in new laws, but from time to time we review those that we have and get rid of those that are no longer needed.

[ Page 6182 ]

For several reasons, the statutes repealed by this bill are no longer necessary. Some of the statutes are no longer required because of the development of new programs; others because the concerns of the statute are not dealt with by other laws. Some statutes were enacted for specific purposes which have now been fulfilled.

Mr. Speaker, the statutes in this bill are in the fields of health care, agriculture, transit service, school services and consumer affairs.

The Health Science Centre (UBC) Act is repealed by this bill, because the hospital authorized under that act is now governed by a new society constituted for that purpose. The Tuberculosis Institution Act is no longer necessary. The Hospital Insurance Act presently provides the authority to pay for out-of-province treatment received by B.C. residents. The Heroin Treatment Act is no longer required, as treatment for heroin addicts is available through existing alcohol and drug programs. The Margarine Act is no longer required, as its original purpose was to ensure that margarine is clearly identified as such and is never mixed with butter for retail use. This purpose is now met by the Milk Industry Act of British Columbia and the Food and Drugs Act of Canada. Three transit-related statutes are repealed, as they have been replaced by the British Columbia Transit Act. The title of the Pyramid Distribution Act is changed to the more descriptive Multilevel Marketing Regulation Act. Part 2 of the act, which deals with the selling of distributorships rather than products, is no longer needed; the competition act of Canada provides adequate regulation for those sales.

Mr. Speaker, the provisions of this bill repeal outdated statutes and are of a housekeeping nature, I assure you. In conclusion, I move second reading of this bill.

MR. SIHOTA: Speaking to the Statutes Repeal Act, and the repeal of statutes generally, I am going to make a couple of very quick comments. The first is that not in the list is another piece of legislation which we think ought to be in there, and that is the annex to the Election Act. I understand that a short time ago the court declared unconstitutional the....

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, this member has been around this House long enough to know that he is completely and absolutely out of order, and I would respectfully ask If you would declare him so.

MR. SPEAKER: The member knows that he cannot speak on what is not in the bill. Please continue.

MR. SIHOTA: Sorry, Mr. Speaker. I thought I could talk about what I thought should be in the bill, but if that's the case, then....

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: I can? I am taking direction from the Speaker-to-be here. That's fair enough. I think we've made our point in terms of the Election Act, and I'll have some questions to the minister later on on the Pyramid Distribution Act.

MR. SPEAKER: Pursuant to standing orders, I advise the House that the minister closes debate.

HON. S.D. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Bill 2, Statutes Repeal Act, 1989, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I call second reading of Bill 4, Mr. Speaker.

PROVINCIAL SYMBOLS AND HONOURS ACT

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I would like the members on the other side of the House to know that I came appropriately dressed with a nice, bright tie, and I request the decorum of the other side of the House while I go through this very symbolic presentation.

As it states in the title, the two distinct purposes of this act are symbols and honours. First and most importantly is the creation of the two new provincial honours. Excellence, distinction and rewarding of achievement and recognition of selfless service is the purpose. The government must take leadership, and these two purposes are to recognize the recipients, and it inspires others.

Other than the Order of Dogwood, we have no dignified and formal way for the government to recognize outstanding achievements of service in the province. Since it was first awarded in 1966, there have been 13 recipients of the Order of Dogwood, but it has become obscure. Therefore we are creating two distinct but complementary awards, the orders of British Columbia's highest honour. Recipients are recommended to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council by an advisory council, and legislation states its purpose succinctly. It's for persons who have served with the greatest distinction and excelled in any field of endeavour benefiting the people of the province of British Columbia or elsewhere.

The medal of good citizenship also proposed is awarded to those persons who have acted in a particularly generous, kind or self-sacrificing manner for the common good without expectation of reward. We will ensure by promotion and advertising that the people of British Columbia are aware they can submit names for consideration by the advisory committee.

The legislation also consolidates, defines and describes all of British Columbia's official symbols, and it updates the provincial coat of arms and incorporates the emblem and the tartan. Moreover, it protects our symbols from misuse and misrepresentation. We have a wide range of symbols: a complete coat of arms, the provincial tartan, the Pacific dog-

[ Page 6183 ]

wood flower, the western red cedar tree, the Steller's jay and the jade emerald. These are beautiful symbols for a beautiful province, all either granted by the monarch or adopted by convention, voted for or selected as official symbols.

In summary, this legislation gives our province a new sense of identity and it recognizes our distinguished citizens in a very unique, memorable and very appropriate way. I move second reading.

MR. WILLIAMS: I am pleased that the government has its sense of priorities so correct. It's appropriate that the member for White Rock should be the one who brings forth this very important legislation. I think it's momentous, indeed, but I just don't think you've gone far enough. I mean, when I think of the talent in the government ranks and the kinds of actions of this administration, it kind of draws the imagination out a little, and you....

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes. One almost chokes up.

I think you could consider other awards, like the order of Lennon — John Lennon, that is — for those that are great singers, for example. The member for Little Mountain who sang so much about Mr. Toigo last year probably deserves the order of Lennon from the minister. I think the range of opportunities here is almost boundless. For example, the order of the dinosaur — I'm sure the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker) might think about who might be the first recipient. I think the Giordano pin for embroidering the truth would be an interesting award as well.

I'll leave it at that, Mr. Speaker, before I'm out of order. I hope we can think of other important awards today.

[3:00]

MR. ROSE: First of all, I think this bill lends itself to some satire. Not that I don't think the intentions are good; I can think of all kinds of photo opportunities that will come with this bill. We could make all kinds of presentations of one kind or another with it. To recognize British Columbia citizens is a worthy endeavour, in spite of the photo ops. I notice, though, that the Good Citizenship award goes only to "particularly generous, kind or self-sacrificing" citizens, so I don't imagine that any MLA or cabinet minister would be eligible for that kind of award — only if he's not living.

I was thinking about the coat of arms, for instance. The current coat of arms of Canada is the U.S. eagle rampant with the beaver in his claws. I suppose for a British Columbia angle to that we could add a Socred with his snout firmly in the public trough. That, I think, would be very visually interesting.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: At the Premier's suggestion, alongside the Socred with the snout in the public trough, we'll add the socialist with his hand in the public purse.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Pocket — all right.

I was thinking, for instance, that the provincial flower might be the bleeding heart and the provincial bird.... There's been no legislation. We've had these little badges around for a long time. Something that's done outside the House, as if it were official, before it's done inside the House is not really good parliamentary practice.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I know it's in here now, but the badges were made a long time ago.

I was thinking the provincial bird could be the ostrich, or perhaps even the unrequited plover, or the belted seersucker, or something like that.

The provincial animal has been overlooked as well. I think there's a little rodent called a mugwump that runs along fences, with his mug on one side and his wump on the other.

At the moment we don't have a provincial tree.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: We're not talking about the one that fell on you. [Laughter.] I was going to suggest that we might add the weeping willow. That would be appropriate.

For all those people on the west side of Vancouver who are figuring how to avoid their taxes, aided and abetted by this government, the golden loophole award might be useful.

Finally, as the most outstanding award of all we could have the Vander Zalm memorial award. That didn't seem to get much of a laugh.

MR. SPEAKER: As the member knows, he can't name a member in the House.

MR. ROSE: Oh, I'm sorry.

Anyway, those are my thoughts and suggestions. I wasn't going to suggest the order of the garter snake or anything like that, because I don't think that would be appropriate.

We wish this bill Godspeed, and I hope we don't have too many speeches like this to send it on its way.

HON. MR. REID: After all that stirring debate on the subject, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Bill 4, Provincial Symbols and Honours Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I call second reading of Bill 16, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 6184 ]

UNIVERSITY ENDOWMENT LAND PARK ACT

HON. MR. DIRKS: I am pleased to rise and begin debate on second reading of this bill. It allows for the transfer of land within the University Endowment Lands from the Crown to the Greater Vancouver Regional District.

This land is being transferred to enable the creation of a new greater Vancouver regional park, which will be for the use and enjoyment of all British Columbians. This new regional park comprises some 2,000 acres. It will be the largest urban park in Canada, and one of the largest in the world. By comparison, Mr. Speaker, Stanley Park in Vancouver is 1,000 acres, Central Park in New York is 840 acres, and that famous Hyde Park in London is 615 acres. So this is truly a large urban park.

The new regional park, although large, is needed to better meet the park needs of the Greater Vancouver Regional District. The present GVRD standard is 6.68 hectares per 1,000 people. Yet the present area of existing regional parkland in the lower mainland is three hectares per 1,000 people.

There is a shortage of regional parkland in the Burrard peninsula. The only regional park in this peninsula established prior to this was the 253-hectare Burnaby Lake Park, which provides 0.41 hectares per 1,000 people. There is no other opportunity to create a regional park in the Burrard peninsula, the most heavily populated area of the region. This transfer will resolve more than 80 years of discussion about the use of these valuable lands situated in the Point Grey area of the Burrard peninsula.

Referring to these lands as the University Endowment Lands is a bit of a misnomer that has persisted through popular usage. The truth is that the university has never held title to this property, other than to use those lands specifically granted to UBC for the purpose of operating a university. The name dates back to 1907, when the University Endowment Act was given assent. This act gave the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council the authority to reserve up to two million acres of Crown land. It was proposed at that time that the proceeds from the disposal of this land by the province would be used for the purpose of maintaining the university.

A time-period of three years was established for the province to choose the land to be reserved. No choice was made in the first three years, so the period was extended for another three years. There were three extensions made, each requiring amending legislation, and no final decision was made. During this period the provincial government reserved 175 acres for a university site at Point Grey. This location was confirmed by the British Columbia University Site Act of 1911.

The federal government held title to a large portion of land at Point Grey, stemming back to the colonial admiralty reserve created about 1860. The province obtained this land from the federal government in 1912, in exchange for land in the interior of the province and permission for the federal government to maintain several key military sites in Point Grey.

During this period the province abandoned the idea of a two-million-acre land reserve pool for the support of the university. It soon became clear that such income would be insufficient to support the university, and the university became funded by direct cash grants from the government.

A second land endowment scheme was substituted under the British Columbia University Loan Act of 1920. This act allowed the provincial government to survey, subdivide, undertake works and sell through public auction approximately 3,000 acres of Crown land at Point Grey. This act, cancelling the original two-million-acre reserve, was revised again in 1923 to also allow for the lease of lands.

It was in 1925 that the University Endowment Lands Administration Act established the structure by which the Endowment Lands were to be administered and regulated. Subject to several amendments since, this act has remained the governing document for the University Endowment Lands.

Over time, because of the prime location of these lands, a variety of proposals for use of this property have been considered. These have ranged from housing and shopping developments to senior citizen and student housing to a park. In fact, I understand that when the former Nelson-Creston MLA was the Minister of Housing, he studied a community development of Helsinki with a view to creating a similar model community on the UEL.

The area was first proposed as a park in 1966 by the Greater Vancouver Regional District. The GVRD has actively sought regional parkland designation of the UEL since then. In 1976 a joint GVRD–city of Vancouver report entitled "The University Endowment Lands: A Special Kind of Regional Park" was prepared. Numerous reports followed, including: a 1977 study by the provincial government that recommended 98 percent of the land become park; a 1980 GVRD park concept plan; and most recently, a review requested by the Minister of State for Mainland Southwest (Hon. Mr. Veitch) and prepared by the present Minister of International Business and Immigration (Hon. J. Jansen) last year.

I would be remiss if I did not mention the dedication and commitment of Iva Mann and the Regional Park Committee. This group, incorporated as a benevolent society in 1972, has been working toward saving all of the Endowment Lands as a major regional park since that time. It has a board of 20 directors and a membership of over 1,000 people. They have organized public meetings and press conferences and sponsored and supervised job creation grants to upgrade trails in the proposed park. They have literally contributed thousands of volunteer hours, rallying various elements of the community in a constant effort to improve access to the land.

Iva related to me just the other day how the Teamsters' Union hauled many loads of gravel free of charge in order to raise the elevation of trails through the low spots. Garbage collection companies made containers available at no cost for cleanup drives.

[ Page 6185 ]

This has really been a cooperative effort between the community, the GVRD and UBC.

The park concept has had strong and growing support over the years. Mention should also be made of the efforts over the years of members of this government to see this concept come to fruition. My colleague the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) has been involved for a number of years in the management and operation of these lands. Also worthy of mention for her hard work on behalf of the park is our former MLA for Vancouver–Point Grey and now federal Member of Parliament, the Hon. Kim Campbell.

There have been many other strong supporters over the years, and I am certain they are delighted to see this bill before the House today. By choosing to allow the transfer for the use of the park in perpetuity, the government has accommodated the desires of the majority of British Columbians. Dedication of the park on April 23 will be a celebration for the whole province. It will not only mark the creation of a new regional park but will signify this government's continued commitment to the recreational needs of the people of British Columbia.

The proposed regional park has tremendous inherent natural and recreational potential. Nowhere else in British Columbia is there an equivalent combination of foreshore, riverfront and diverse forest. The adjacent university, with its activities, gardens, cultural facilities and staff resources, is an excellent complement to the park.

This area is unique for a new park in that it already has an established visitorship and a pattern of use. Not only is it within an hour's drive of 1.4 million British Columbians; it is serviced on all sides by public transit. Five major roads cut through the area, and there are 52 pedestrian entrances. Horseback riders, joggers, mountain-bikers and walkers all share trails at this site. There are 58 kilometres of surfaced trails in the park.

[3:15]

These factors, combined with anticipated heavy year-round use and the size of the park, will make it a challenge to operate. The GVRD has an excellent record of administering its regional parks system. This government is confident that the GVRD will be an effective manager of the area and will provide the necessary improvements and regulation to create a unique urban recreational environment that will be of lasting value to the people of this province.

The transfer of the land will be subject to conditions that will ensure the protection of this special environment and the necessary requirements to continue to meet the needs of existing settlement. The primary condition of the transfer is that the lands be used for park purposes only.

The park will be unique in another way. An existing ecological reserve of 90 hectares and Camosun Bog within the park boundary will be transferred to the administration of the GVRD. This area will retain its designation as an ecological reserve and will be administered in accordance with the Ecological Reserve Act. This ecological reserve was established in 1975 because of its special significance as a representative example of coastal second-growth forest. Its proximity to the University of British Columbia makes it of significant value as a research and educational site. I understand that seven departments of the UBC conduct research and teaching activities here.

Special recognition must be given, I believe, at this time to the work contributed by Dr. Vladimir Krajina, former professor at UBC, with respect to this important ecological reserve. His work and dedication to create and maintain this ecological reserve were outstanding. Retention of the reserve will provide a unique ecological and educational dimension to the park.

This land transfer will mark the birth of a new regional park in Vancouver. The size and special characteristics of the area alone are worthy of note. But most important is the acknowledgement of the special attachment and relationship that the people of Vancouver have with this natural area. This area has long been considered a park in all but deed. In fact, it was listed as a regional park in a GVRD publication. Its natural beauty and tranquility have provided an oasis within a rapidly expanding urban area.

With enactment of this legislation, the future of this land will be protected as a natural area with the necessary management to ensure that its unique qualities are preserved for the use and enjoyment of future generations. While there is a long history in this province of granting Crown land for public purposes, rarely does the opportunity present itself to undertake a disposition that has the significance and the potential lasting benefit of this transfer.

The creation of a new regional park is reason for celebration by all British Columbians. This government is to be commended for its commitment to resolving the long outstanding issues surrounding this land and for actively pursuing this beneficial solution for the benefit and enjoyment of all people of the province — a regional park, an ecological reserve in perpetuity for the benefit of all British Columbians.

I move second reading of Bill 16.

MR. SPEAKER: Before I recognize the first member for Victoria, the second member for Okanagan South seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. CHALMERS: On behalf of the Minister of International Business and Immigration (Hon. J. Jansen), it's my pleasure to ask the members of the Legislature to make welcome two visitors from the city of Chilliwack, Isobel and Norman Brown. Would you please make them welcome.

MR. G. HANSON: In rising to speak on Bill 16, I would like to acknowledge the tremendous achievement of the people of British Columbia who have worked to preserve these lands: namely, a couple of members on this side of the House, the first and second members of Vancouver–Point Grey (Ms. Marzari

[ Page 6186 ]

and Mr. Perry), who worked long and hard to protect these precious lands in the greater Vancouver area.

There is one concern that we do have, and I think it was obvious to anyone listening to that minister's remarks. There was one group of people not mentioned in his prepared text. There were people, there were dates that he alluded to in 1860, colonial admiralties, dates of 1912 and so on, but the people that have been left out — it is a concern that we wish to acknowledge on the floor of this House — are the Salish people, the Musqueam people, who have lived in that region, as they describe in their own words, since time immemorial.

I know that some of the members of this House are aware that their history goes back 3,500 to 4,000 years that we know of in that particular area, and anyone who surveyed the Supreme Court of Canada decisions since the Calder case knows that there is a case-book of evidence that this particular jurisdiction in North America seems to be oblivious to. Those signals that are coming from courts indicate that the aboriginal people of our country, of our province, do have rights. They have rights that have not been extinguished in common law practice, by treaty and by compensation.

There is unfinished business in this province that affects native people, and all members of this House must be aware of those concerns. After the Calder case in the mid-seventies, when the Supreme Court of Canada split three in favour of aboriginal title, three against and one on a technicality on the fiat — the ability to sue the Crown — the whole orientation of the federal government of Canada changed. There was an understanding that past grievances exist and that the modern and sophisticated approach to dealing with those grievances was to sit down at a table and negotiate those claims.

I'd like to read into the record some remarks from the Coolican report of 1985, which I think is very eloquent in the way it explains in common language what the situation is: "Canada's history of acquiring aboriginal title through land cession and purchase has established the principle of compensating aboriginal peoples for the cession of their lands, which is consistent with the common law principle of compensation for expropriation." All members of the House know that when lands are expropriated, compensation is expected. "The continued application of the superseded-by-law concept results in the denial to the aboriginal society of this well-established legal principle. The application of this concept also results in a non-compliance with the firmly established practice of the acquiring of aboriginal title lands with aboriginal consent."

The Guerin case. I might make the aside that Delbert Guerin and George Guerin, I believe, are in the gallery today because this is a matter of concern to the councillors of the Musqueam people. This is a historical day for their claims, because they have concerns that we are hoping will be rectified through the course of this debate and through the course of amendments which can occur, which will not prejudice either side — native in terms of aboriginal claim, or the existing government policy; in other words, an amendment that would allow for the passage of this bill but at the same time not by precedent create a situation where the Musqueam people, through a third party....

Interjections.

MR. G. HANSON: If you would listen to what I'm saying you could make a contribution to the history of this province.

I'll continue with the Coolican document:

"In the Guerin case, a justice of the Supreme Court determined that this practice is firmly entrenched in the royal proclamation of 1763 and that the Crown obligated itself to maintain and observe the policy. Mr. Justice Dickson — now Chief Justice Dickson — concluded that it is a responsibility that continues today in a relation to reserve lands or unrecognized aboriginal title lands. The superseded-bylaw concept should no longer be applied to exclude, from the comprehensive claims process, those aboriginal societies that have not been a party to a treaty or the subjects of extinguishment legislation. Nor should it exclude those aboriginal societies that have engaged in treaty relations, but that have not specifically dealt with lands in those treaties. The proposed claims policy would enable the parties to negotiate an agreement based on consent in accordance with firmly established practice."

As I said initially, the Musqueam people were not consulted when this park was proposed. The Musqueam people have a claim they are advancing through to the Supreme Court of Canada that their rights have not been extinguished by treaty, nor has compensation been paid. There is some alarm that the ceding — the patenting — of lands to third parties could jeopardize their claim. The Musqueam people and their ancestors exercised jurisdiction and control over those lands and resources of the lower Fraser River delta for thousands of years prior to European contact. That is a well-acknowledged fact in all jurisdictions of Canada outside British Columbia. The University Endowment Lands have been and still are an integral part of Musqueam's culture and land use. Musqueam has never sold or been compensated for its interest in the land and resources within Musqueam traditional territory. No government has entered into a treaty with Musqueam.

Musqueam has been attempting to have its rights and title recognized for 100 years. All they are asking is that they have their day in the Supreme Court of Canada for a decision to be made, unencumbered by a decision made today on the floor of this House which may adversely affect that process. They are not asking for this House to adjudicate their claim. They are asking for their right to negotiate and have the court of the land make the determination whether their aboriginal title is in existence. Clearly there are a number of cases that point that aboriginal titles still exist. In the Sparrow case, in terms of aboriginal fishing rights, that determination will be made sometime this fall.

B.C. is the only province in Canada which does not recognize aboriginal rights. Even the constitution

[ Page 6187 ]

of our country, in section 35, recognizes and affirms aboriginal rights.

HON. S.D. SMITH: Read all of section 35.

MR. G. HANSON: That's being determined by courts as well.

HON. S.D. SMITH: That's the whole point.

MR. G. HANSON: But that's for the courts to decide.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the member put his debate through the Chair.

MR. G. HANSON: Musqueam has been willing to enter into land claims negotiations with B.C. and Canada for years. Musqueam is in a position of preferring to enter into negotiation rather than litigation. Neither B.C. nor the GVRD has done a heritage resource impact assessment of the archaeological resources of the UEL, and Musqueam has shown there are archaeological sites in the UEL.

[3:30]

Provincial and federal lack of political will to resolve aboriginal issues has forced many Indian bands, including Musqueam, into courts. B.C. is openly and adamantly opposing many legal cases brought to the courts by native people. This opposition is costing the people of B.C. millions of dollars. There is no substantive reason why B.C. and Canada cannot enter into discussion with Musqueam. It's of concern because of a policy, not a law, of the federal government arguing that third-party transfer of lands — patenting of lands to third parties — in the past...that indication was given to the Musqueam that their claim was rejected by the comprehensive claims office in Ottawa.

The Musqueam people should be given the opportunity to proceed to court, as they are doing, to make that determination, and should not have their rights impeded by this House. The Musqueam people have a claim that goes back millennia on those lands. All they are asking is an amendment that nothing in this bill would prejudice any future aboriginal title claim on that land, something that would not discriminate either way.

To reiterate the main point, we celebrate the preservation of those lands, but we don't feel it has to be done at the expense of the Musqueam people's legitimate right to their day in court. Because a total lack of consultation occurred with no reference to the Musqueam people at all, I wish to move that the motion for second reading of Bill 16 be amended by leaving out the word "now" and adding the words "six months hence."

On the amendment.

MR. PERRY: It's a challenge but also an honour to speak to the amendment from the first member for Victoria. When we look back to this date, I think we will consider this to have been a debate of major importance in the history of British Columbia. I know the legislative history much less well than many, but to the best of my knowledge this will be the first occasion on which the aboriginal land claim issue has been seriously dealt with in the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. If I'm wrong, I will welcome any correction from members and historians of the assembly.

We have in front of us the very challenging issue that the government has laid before us, a bill to achieve a goal for which I personally have worked hard for at least 20 years. My colleague the first member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Ms. Marzari) has worked hard since she was elected. Many hundreds, if not thousands, of citizens have worked hard, and in a purpose for which those of us who have done so rejoice. I have no hesitation in saying that I rejoice in the overall intent of the bill to conserve the Endowment Lands as park for the people of British Columbia.

Before going any further, I want to read into the record the names of some of the individuals who have worked on the conservationists' side in this issue and who have won this proposal for a park — the de facto park which has existed for decades now; who have wrested it, may I say, from successive governments of this province. I will submit the names in writing to Hansard so that they are not forgotten in the history of this province. Some of them have played more important roles than others. One of them was introduced to us earlier today, and although I can't see her, I know she has played a particularly significant role over the years.

The names are: Ian Bain; Jim Bavis; Adrian Belshaw; Leslie Bohm; Dr. Bert Brink; Dr. Lawrence Brown; former alderman of the city of Vancouver May Brown; Prof. Frank Buck of the faculty of agriculture, who originally laid out the plans for the UBC campus; Doug Cameron; Dr. Sam and Meredith Coval; Jacquie Cronin; Maggie Cumming; Dr. Maria Furstenwald; Elsie Guglick; Henry Hersog; Tom Hetherington; Ken Hewett, Joy Hurren; Jacklyn Johnson; Bowie Keefer; Janet Land; Dr. Cort MacKenzie; Marjery Maddigan; Iva Mann; Don McClure; Dr. and Mrs. Jim and Evelyn Murray; Dr. Tom Nichols; Nora O'Grady; Dr. Dan Overmyer; Bernice Ramsay; Hilda Thomas; Dr. George Volkoff, who last year, at the hearings of the member for Chilliwack (Hon. J. Jansen), spoke eloquently against the university's attempt to cannibalize the lands; Judy Williams of the Wreck Beach committee, who in her own way has fought for the conservation of Point Grey; Dr. Henry Esson Young, who way back in December 1911 arranged for a trade of the six square miles of military reserve in Point Grey for two million acres in the interior desert of British Columbia.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I'd like to acknowledge some of the politicians who have had an important recent role. Many others have played roles, positive and negative, in the past. Recently, Mayor Gordon Campbell of the city of Van-

[ Page 6188 ]

couver played an important role. The Vancouver city council has done so; the Vancouver parks board; Mr. Rick Hankin of the GVRD; and some organizations — the UEL Trailriders, the Save our Parkland Association, the Sierra Club of Western Canada, the Vancouver Natural History Society and the Federation of Mountain Clubs of British Columbia.

There are many more people undoubtedly not named in this list, thousands who signed petitions and many others unknown to me or to the members of the Endowment Lands Regional Park Committee who have worked for this goal.

I think most of us in British Columbia recognize the merit of preservation of the land as a park and rejoice in it. Let me then deal with the difficult issue before us: why should there be any reservation about this bill? Frankly, I think the government has more on its agenda than meets the eye and that this bill represents, in its present unamended form, an assault upon the legitimate aboriginal rights of the native people of British Columbia and an assault upon the common sense and decency of the people of British Columbia.

I wish to remind the government that in Canada, as opposed to some other countries, we enjoy a system of responsible government in which justice resides not only in our courts. Fortunately it ultimately resides there, in some ways. But justice is intended to reside right in this House. In responsible government, this House is the highest servant of the people, and the people of British Columbia, in my view, demand and expect justice from us. They expect a government dignified enough to recognize that the people want fairness. They do not want to see a repetition of the historical injustice committed in Canada to the Japanese-Canadians, to the Chinese-Canadians, throughout our history to the native Indians, to the Indo-Canadians and to many other ethnic groups who did not have the virtue of being born with a white skin.

I spoke of this earlier in my remarks on April 5, and I'd like to remind the House of them, at page 5883 of Hansard, where I said: "I am aware of no principle of justice which suggests that the native people, simply because they were here first, should not be entitled to fair compensation for loss of what was indisputably their land." I think that recognizes an even higher principle, that simply because they were here first or because of the colour of their skin or their ethnic practices they are not entitled to less justice than any of the rest of us. I hope the Attorney-General (Hon. S.D. Smith) will take that into consideration when he considers measures that we will propose subsequently to deal with this injustice in the bill.

If I may, with the consent of the House, I would like to table a document, the official claim of the Musqueam Indians to territories in the lower mainland. The document is entitled "Musqueam Declaration." It's dated Vancouver, June 10, 1976, and it's signed by Chief Delbert V. Guerin, who is in the gallery today, and five councillors of the Musqueam Indian band. With the permission of the House, I'd like to table this and make it part of the official record of the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the House be prepared to grant leave to the hon. member to table the document?

On a point of order....

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member is probably not aware, unless he's alluding to it or reading from the document in the context of his address to the House, it would not be appropriate to table it. But if he is....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. member was reading from the document which he wants to table with the House.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think leave was granted to table the document, and so we'll have it tabled.

MR. PERRY: I'd love to read from it, Mr. Speaker, but I will respect the time of the House and simply table it as part of the record and verbally make the arguments that I think are contained in it.

Let me simply refresh the House once again, since some members such as the Premier and the Attorney-General were not, I believe, present during my remarks during the budget debate. Let me refresh them on some of the historical evidence I alluded to, at page 5883 of Hansard for April 5, 1989. "Capt. George Vancouver's diary of June 1792 records his meeting with what we now call the Musqueam Indians.... 'Here we were met by about 50 Indians in their canoes who conducted themselves with the greatest decorum and civility...."' And of Simon Fraser in his diary, describing the village of Musqueam, at the mouth of the Fraser River in 1808: "'The fort is 1,500 feet in length and 90 feet in breadth."'

There is unequivocal historical evidence from the record of the European explorers that the Musqueam lived in those territories. Let me cite a little bit more of it, available in the library of our Legislature, through the simple expedient of a note to the librarians asking them for this information. In a book, The Salish People, the local contribution of Charles Hill-Tout, volume 3, published by an Englishman who immigrated to Canada in the nineteenth century and conducted amateur archaeological investigations, refers at page 11 to a map published by the great German anthropologist Franz Boas; a map published in 1887, which apparently is in the special collections division of the UBC library, showing the boundary of the Squamish and the Musqueam "as a skewer through the middle of the Vancouver peninsula." In other words, they inhabited the territory we now call Point Grey.

Let me show you some other historical evidence. A map entitled "Indian Villages and Landmarks, Burrard Inlet and English Bay, Before the Whiteman Came," by Major J.S. Matthews, city archivist of Vancouver, labelled "from information given verbally by

[ Page 6189 ]

aged Indians of the Squamish and Musqueam tribes in 1932, "shows the territories of the Musqueam consistent with the map on the claim I tabled a moment ago, and the name Ulksen for the Point Grey peninsula. That's in a publication in our library, entitled "Before the 'Whitemans' Came: Some Indian Place Names of Vancouver, " at page 61.

Let me give you another reference to establish the authenticity of this claim, from a book entitled Vancouver's Past, also in our Legislative Library, at page 6: another map showing the Indian villages and landmarks in the Vancouver area before the white man came, including the name Ulksen for Point Grey.

[3:45]

Let me, with the consent of the House again, table these documents, since I've referred to them, for the record.

Leave not granted.

MR. PERRY: These documents are in the library of the Legislature. They are public documents, and those who are more interested in learning the historical facts will have access to them through the public record.

There is archaeological evidence referred to in the book by Charles Hill-Tout of an enormous midden at the site of the present Fraser Arms in south Vancouver — well away from the sea at that time — indicating that the native people had lived there for perhaps millennia before the arrival of the Europeans.

Let me now turn to some of the legal problems raised by the Musqueam band and by the courts of British Columbia. This is where I believe we are seeing a historical confrontation between the law of Canada and the principles of fundamental justice, as expressed in the courts of British Columbia, and the arrogant pursuit of an ignorant policy by the present government. This policy is calculated to pursue a historical injustice which can only result in the squandering of the resources of British Columbians in persistent and lengthy court battles until the issue is resolved at the level of the Supreme Court. I think this is a disgrace to our democratic system and warrants being labelled as such.

Let me turn to the arguments made by Mr. Justice Hutcheon, on February 9th, 1989, in his Court of Appeal of British Columbia judgment. I would request leave of the House to table this after I read from it.

Mr. Justice Hutcheon wrote in that decision on page 3:

"The legal problem that lurks behind the conveyance of the University Endowment Lands from the Crown to the GVRD is that once the conveyance is granted, section 23 of the Land Title Act may preclude any remedy of the plaintiffs to obtain their claim to aboriginal title. That possibility, in my mind, approaches irreparable harm, and for that reason, I think the appropriate order is to direct that there be an order restraining the implementation of the conveyance as proposed."

Subsequently, when that injunction was lifted by Mr. Justice Anderson on April 6 in chambers of the Court of Appeal of British Columbia, he recognized that counsel for the Musqueam Indian band had contended that registration of those lands with the GVRD might have the effect of extinguishing the appellants' aboriginal claims.

Mr. Justice Anderson wrote in his judgment on page 3: "In my view, such a contention would have little or no chance of acceptance by any court." Perhaps so, but the concern of the Musqueam band is a legitimate concern and having listened to them as their representative as well as the representative of the rest of the people of my constituency, I feel that I have to speak of their concern to this House.

Let me tell you why some of this concern arises. In his verbal discussion of his judgment in the open court, as reported in the Vancouver Sun of April 6.... No transcript was kept in the court record, so these were verbal comments heard only by witnesses in the court and by the reporters from the media. Mr. Justice Anderson argued that it would be "dishonourable" — those were his words — for the provincial government to now argue that transfer of title from the province and the Crown to the GVRD would extinguish any aboriginal land claim to the endowment lands, if such a claim exists.

The words of Mr. Justice Anderson of the appeal court were that it would be "dishonourable" to do so. He clearly invited the comments of the lawyer representing the government of British Columbia to agree to that, and the lawyer representing the province did not agree to do so.

When we raised these issues with the Attorney-General, the highest law officer of British Columbia today, he also would not agree that it would be dishonourable to argue this way. In fact, he pointed out to us that those words are merely reported in the Vancouver Sun and not included in the official court judgment, therefore they have no meaning.

I submit that Mr. Justice Anderson would not be amused to think that his words in court have no meaning. I think they are very meaningful, and I think the people of British Columbia would agree with me on that.

With leave of the House, I would like to table those two judgments so that they are a permanent record of the House.

Leave not granted.

MR. PERRY: These documents are part of the public record of British Columbia, and it was merely for the convenience of the House that I offered to table them. I think it is disturbing that the government would not want these to be a part of the record of the House.

Let me continue to explore some of the problems raised by the Musqueam Indians and their lawyers — very distinguished lawyers, I might add, one of whom is in court today on another side of a political divide.

Some of their concerns. The federal government, under its current comprehensive land claims policy of 1987, persists with the policy of a former federal government dating back to 1977, subsequent to the

[ Page 6190 ]

filing of the Musqueam land claim, which I previously tabled. That current federal policy is that the government recognizes the plausibility of some native claims but will not negotiate claims to aboriginal title where they have been extinguished by treaty or where they have been "otherwise superseded by law." The concern, naturally enough, of the Musqueam, which led to the court cases I've just referred to, is that the bill transferring title from the Crown to the GVRD will otherwise supersede by law the claim of the Musqueam Indians.

I'm not arguing to the government or to the government of Canada whether or not it should concur with the Musqueam claim; I am arguing that the Musqueam are in the unique position that their claim to aboriginal land, to which the historical and archaeological record bears ample evidence, is unique in that it has not been accepted for consideration by the federal government. Their primary concern is that passage of this act in its unamended form would potentially extinguish the possibility of their claim being accepted by federal governments current or future.

Similarly, the act demonstrates once again the intention of the provincial government in British Columbia not to deal meaningfully with what I have previously referred to as the festering problem of aboriginal land claims, which we on this side of the House feel must be addressed by negotiation rather than exclusively through the courts.

I'd like to point out that I called on the Premier to consider this — since the Premier is here today — in my speech in this House on April 5. I made a very simple suggestion to the Premier. I quote from page 5884 of Hansard: "If the Premier could see and hear what I had seen and heard at Musqueam — and he can — perhaps he would begin that process of reconciliation which ultimately is inevitable, rather than forestall it further...."

I think what we're seeing in this bill is the further forestalling of the inevitable process of granting the same justice to the native people of this province that we expect for ourselves, the same we would expect for the new owners of the Expo land site, were the government to attempt to change the property status there in any way, and the same we would expect to see for the current owner of the Terra Nova lands, were the government to recognize the public will of that community and restore those to the agricultural land reserve. We would expect the government to negotiate fairly with the current owners of lands in the same way it traditionally does with any landowners.

What we see here is a unique exception based solely on the fact that the native Indians were here before the rest of us; solely on the fact, perhaps, that they have different traditions, different genes, different-coloured skin and that they're not "like us." But they are like us, and they're entitled to the same justice as anyone else.

I could go on at great length developing the arguments that the Musqueam have made in court and in public on many occasions chronicling their attempt to achieve a fair recognition of their right even to file a land claim. That's all they're claiming right now: the right to file a legitimate land claim and have it recognized for consideration by government. Right now they are in the unique position....

I see the Premier frowning. I don't think the Premier, when he is familiar with the details of individual human beings' lives, is an unfair person. He has demonstrated this frequently, that when he knows the details of a personal situation, he has the capacity for justice and fairness. I see him frowning as he listens to what I am saying, because I think he is beginning to realize that perhaps the province has been unfair in this case. Not perhaps, but definitely the province, the federal government and the majority of Canadians have historically suppressed the rights of the native Indians, and we have to face up to that. We have to face up to the fact that in 1989 they are entitled to the same justice as anyone else.

My colleague the first member for Victoria (Mr. G. Hanson) referred to the arguments in the Coolican task force, appointed by the Mulroney government in 1984 when it was elected, to review the issue of land claims. The arguments stated at page 45 — I quote again because it is so important: "The superseded-bylaw concept should no longer be applied to exclude from the comprehensive claims process those aboriginal societies that have not been a party to a treaty or the subject of extinguishment legislation."

In other words, simply the fact that you happen to live in prime real estate like Vancouver, or the forerunner of Vancouver, Ulksen, and because people came and took the land away from you and built on it, does not mean that you shouldn't be entitled to the same fair chance of a claim as anyone else.

That's all the Coolican report called for, and that report was rejected by the federal government, which went back to a "new" policy, its 1987 comprehensive land claims policy. It retains the argument at page 6 of the 1987 federal policy: "The basis for any comprehensive land claims policy, therefore, is self-evident. It is the fulfilment of the treaty process through the conclusion of land claims agreements with aboriginal groups that continue to use and occupy traditional lands and whose aboriginal title has not been dealt with by treaty or superseded by law."

That is the current federal policy, and that's why the Musqueam band is so upset. That's why they've gone to court and why the Attorney-General (Hon. S.D. Smith) has spent so much of our taxpayers' money fighting those cases in court and refusing....

I see he turns his back on me. He is not even gentleman enough to listen in this House to what I am saying to him.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, that is completely unacceptable, and I would have it withdrawn, please.

MR. PERRY: I apologize if I have offended the House.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, a simple apology will not do. This hon. member does not seem to have learned anything in this House in the time he

[ Page 6191 ]

has been here. He must completely and absolutely withdraw the statement.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the member withdraw it, please.

MR. PERRY: I am prepared to withdraw it. I am not sure which statement it was, but I withdraw it.

What I was attempting to say, and will say again, is that the Attorney-General does not seem to understand or has, in my view, deliberately ignored the arguments made in the Court of Appeal by the Musqueam band, which amount to arguments for fundamental justice.

[4:00]

Let me tell you what we on this side of the House have attempted to do to deal with this situation. Aside from informing ourselves about the facts and the historical record, what has our response been? I argued constructively, both in my election campaign and in this House. I've reread my remarks to the Premier right now that it was time for a historical reconciliation, that this situation should be viewed not as a problem, not as an opportunity to put the official opposition in an embarrassing situation or to play political games or tricks with those of us who have worked much harder than the government for the establishment of this park. In my view, this is exactly what the government is doing: playing political tricks with this bill. They are not interested in the preservation of the environment in British Columbia I think that has been made painfully clear.

But what have we done to attempt to achieve a reasonable solution, aside from speaking to the government and making those suggestions? We arranged a meeting this morning for the Musqueam Indian band with the Attorney-General, a meeting that was impossible for them to obtain for years. No official of the government was willing to meet with them. That has been repeatedly documented on the public record.

Interjections.

MR. PERRY: Order, please, Mr. Speaker.

MR. BLENCOE: On a point of order, the Attorney-General is accusing the member of lying. I think you should ask him to withdraw that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I do believe that the Attorney-General should withdraw that remark, please.

HON. S.D. SMITH: I am happy to withdraw whatever should offend this House, but I must correct the record — on a point of order myself. The suggestion and inference that people who wanted a meeting with me required some intervention because of a refusal on my part is simply untrue, and I want the record to state that I was, in fact, thanked by the chief of that band, who is sitting today in this gallery, for taking that meeting on short notice. I must say that I resent the remark by that member.

MR. PERRY: I think the Attorney-General's lack of — to be very parliamentary — acquaintance with the facts is exemplified by the fact that the chief of the Musqueam band was not in the meeting today. He is thinking of a different person.

Let me just finish my point, Mr. Speaker, if I may....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I'm sorry, but your time has expired.

MR. PERRY: I'll continue my remarks tomorrow.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I just wanted to speak briefly on the amendment. We've heard a great deal said by the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey about native land claims. He has read from the history that's available from the various libraries and showed us a map. Though we've not seen this map, I assume it shows the extent of the claim that has been made by the Musqueam people.

Frankly, I don't argue that process. If people wish to proceed with a claim, there's a mechanism available. This has already been commenced by some not only in this province but elsewhere too.

What we need to talk about is that this in some way is being used — because the claim obviously, if there is such, could proceed in any event — as a bit of a stall. We've heard the Leader of the Opposition say immediately after the throne speech that he was concerned about studies and delays. As a matter of fact, all we've heard from the NDP for the last month is requests for studies, requests for task forces and requests for commissions. Now we have hoists and delays. This is, in effect, what they are attempting to do here.

Will it be six months, will it be six years, or will it be forever? Those are the questions we have to ask. You start with six months. I would suggest there is an attempt here to kill the park plan. We've made a commitment to have a park for all of the people of the province. We've made this commitment time and time again. We said we would proceed with the park. We've already planned the announcement of it in a way that all people might be proud and know that they are much a part of this the largest urban park in the world.

Again now, in this Legislature today....

Interjection.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I've got meetings upstairs I should go to as well. I realize perhaps we all have that, but I believe this is sufficiently important that I want to stay here and get this message out.

I'm sure that member, who was just recently elected in a by-election, did not tell the people of his constituency only a few weeks ago that he would be sitting in this House today supporting a delay for the establishment of the park, a delay which could in fact see no park at all.

MR. PERRY: On a point of order, the Premier knows perfectly well what I told the people in my

[ Page 6192 ]

campaign, and I ask him to withdraw that remark. It amounts to calling me a liar, Mr. Speaker, and I ask him to withdraw it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I'm sorry to advise you that that is not a point of order.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: This is important to the people not only of Point Grey. I appreciate that I said things that I expected you might have said or not have said in Point Grey during a by-election. I wasn't there to hear what you said or didn't say. I said, however, that you probably did not tell the people that you'd be sitting in this House today seeking a delay for the establishment of this the greatest urban park in the whole of the country. That's what I said, and I'll say that again, because I feel shame for what I'm hearing from the other side.

This is a park for which all people, regardless of their heritage, regardless of where they're from or of what they're doing today — whether they live in Dawson Creek, Prince Rupert, Penticton, Cranbrook or Surrey or Coquitlam or Richmond — ought to be proud. They should be pleased we are able to get on with this park. If I thought you were serious, members of the opposition, in asking that some sort of delay be given so a study could be done, I might say I'd like to know a little bit more about this.

We've heard the Leader of the Opposition complaining about studies. He didn't want task forces and commissions or delays. I can only assume from that and from what else I've heard and from the remarks made by the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey that this is some attempt to kill what will be the greatest park in the whole of this province, in the whole of this country, and I will fight that.

I want to see this park for our people. I want to see this park for all of the people. It's not just for Point Grey, and it's not just for a few people in Point Grey. It's not just for some people who belong to a very distinguished and respected group in Point Grey or anywhere else. This is for all of the people in the whole of the province, and we on this side will not see a further delay in the establishment of this park.

This park will be a reality whether the socialists today want it or not. We've made a commitment for this park and this park is going to come about, regardless of how many amendments you wish to present to this House. We're going to have this great park.

I want to be there this weekend; I want to be there at the opening; I want to stand proudly before these people. I want to tell these people how it is we as a government, we as a party, members here, fought for the establishment of this park and are proud to be a part of it. I want to see if in fact these same members from Vancouver–Point Grey will be there standing near the stage and if they'll tell the people then that they attempted to delay the establishment of the park six months, six years, forever. We'll not be a party to that. We are going to be at an opening. No amendment will delay the establishment of the greatest park in British Columbia.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would just remind hon. members before we proceed that we are debating a hoist motion and that the debate should be directed to whether or not this bill should be lifted and put aside for six months.

MS. MARZARI: A hoist motion, the Premier should know, is a technique that has been used over hundreds of years in a House where the opposition wants to raise concerns. Okay?

How many months, how many years, how many decades? A good question for all of us. I see Iva Mann sitting in the gallery, and I would like to remember for a few minutes how many months, how many days, how many years she has sat in that gallery thinking about this park. I'd like to remember for a few minutes how many months, how many years, how many decades — a decade and a half — we have had five or six studies and have talked with the GVRD parks development branch about developing this park. I want to talk about the dreams of thousands of people in Point Grey, in Vancouver and in the greater Vancouver area who have thought about the University Endowment Lands as a place to be preserved, as a natural forest.

Mr. Member, I sat through a very eloquent speech by one of your people — by a minister of your party — who talked at great length about the nature of this park. I think that one of the reasons I stand in this House today is that the person I replaced in Point Grey systematically tried to prevent this park from going through. I dare say that in '86 the election had a great deal to do with this park, and that the people who have worked on it for 15 years very much pushed for this park and in fact helped me achieve the place where I am sitting now.

I have sat through many meetings where I have heard about the government side of the House taking this park into cabinet meetings time after time, having the plans signed by various ministers, and then the plans emerging from the cabinet room without having the final signature. I have heard that this has happened many times, over months, over years.

So then, as I stand here today, having exposed as best I can attempts by the university to develop that park, attempts by your government not to sign it over previously.... I have worked with the people from 1975, when I remember that Frank Low-Beer circled city hall with a petition of 30,000 signatures, all the way through to a meeting at Southlands school two springs ago where 1,500 people showed up on a hot June night to express their desire that the UEL not be developed by the university, by the province, by anyone. People want that park intact. They want the UEL to remain an intact piece of forest in our city of Vancouver.

I stand here feeling very proud of that accomplishment over the last decade and a half. But I must ask....

MR. WILLIAMS: It's a victory for Point Grey.

[ Page 6193 ]

MS. MARZARI: It is a victory. Why does the victory not smell as sweet as it should? Why, then, the rancour in this House? Why, then, the inability of your side of the House to even accept a tabled document which exists in the library? Why the inability of this House to accept for tabling decisions made by the courts of this land, of this province? Why the rancour? Why the name-calling? Why does the victory not smell as sweet as it should? This is from somebody who was somewhat involved with the fight itself.

It has to do, I say to the Premier — who isn't there any longer — with the days, the months, the years and, yes, the centuries that another party has waited for justice. That is why the victory does not smell sweet. This takes a lot of thinking about, especially for someone who stands here knowing that she is here in this job because of that particular park.

I told my children a bedtime story last night which I am about to tell you.

[4:15]

HON. MR. REID: Oh, no. No bedtime stories.

MS. MARZARI: Yes, I'm going to tell this story, and it has something to do with why we have to think a bit more, why I think there is a way around this problem, and why I think there is hope both for the park, for the sweetness of victory and for the people who have waited for centuries for justice.

I give thanks to a woman named Leona for giving me the idea for this story, although I don't think she knows she did.

Once upon a time there was a people who lived at the place where the river joins the ocean. They lived happily there, and a young woman, who lived happily in the family, decided that she would leave to make her fortune and see the rest of the land. On her return to her place by the ocean, she found that the land on which her family had lived for years had been divided into three. She found that her family was living on the smallest part of that land by the river, and a large part of the land which her family had inhabited had been filled with tall buildings and filled with a different kind of people. She found that the large forest area that her family had used for many years had been parceled off and called an endowment for someone other than her and her family.

She found that the rulers of this new land played games by tossing issues of social importance back and forth to each other across a room called a court. She found that in order to reclaim her land on behalf of her family, she had to go to — I called it for my children's sake — an ugly old gnome.

The ugly elf told her that in order to reclaim her land for her family, she had to do three things: the three famous tasks that most fairy stories seem to have enclosed within them. She had to do these things: she and her people had to prove traditional use of that land. "That's fine, I can handle that, " she said to the old elf. "I can prove traditional use. I can prove that we have been there for many thousands of years."

The second task was that she had to prove that there were no treaties against that land, and that there was no law that would supersede her claim to that land. "I can do that, " she said. "My people and I have thought of this for many years. We know that there is no treaty against our land. We never claimed it; we never gave it away. We have no law that supersedes our claim to that land."

"Third, " said the old gnome, "and the third task is the hardest: you must prove that the land has not been given away without your consent. You must prove that the land has not been alienated. Then when you prove that to us, we may consider your claim."

"Well, " she said, "it may be true that the part of our land with the high-rise buildings on it has been alienated, but there are 2,000 acres of property still filled with virgin forest which we use. This land has not been alienated." But even as she said these words, the elf turned and gave away the land to a happy group of people who only wanted to save the trees and save the forest.

The happy group of people had no knowledge of the thousands of years that the young woman had lived on the land. But the elf, knowing that he would firmly and irrefutably alienate the land, turned and handed it away in the middle of the third task being accomplished by the people. Both the friendly people who wanted to preserve the trees and the young woman had good will in their hearts. Using the court — using the game — they actually came to an agreement that the people who were using the land as a park would not alienate the land. They made that agreement using the court. But the old gnome decided no, he would not make that claim. He would not claim that the land would not be alienated when push came to shove.

So here we are three days before the grand party in the park — three days before the park is about to be turned over. Many of the hundreds of people who will be there will be happy. They will be victorious; they will be feeling festive. They will not be aware that what is happening in the process of that land being turned over happens in the middle of the third task for a family of people who have been asking for the reclamation of their family land for many years.

The situation that we find ourselves in today puts us in an interesting bind. We basically want to say: "Yes, we want to preserve the land; yes, absolutely. And the park may well be the way to go. The park is something to be proud of, something we fought for."

At another level, not dissimilar to this story, the Musqueam have been engaged in their tasks. Those tasks have been given to them over the last 20 years by the courts and by governments. The courts have told the Musqueam that they must fulfill certain requirements; the federal government has told the Musqueam that they must fulfill certain requirements. The Musqueam are trying to fulfill those requirements. They are trying to say at this very moment that the UEL is their piece of unalienated property which constitutes their claim to having a claim in the first place.

[ Page 6194 ]

Other bands, other families across this country, have been given the right to claim since '76. The Musqueam have not. This is an anomaly, because the forest lands stand there. They do have the possibility of making a comprehensive claim. This constitutes alienation. Here, perhaps, is the golden ring in our story. Here, perhaps, is the way for this government to deal with this situation in good faith. Here is the possibility that would bring together with good will the parks committee, the GVRD, the Musqueam and us. All that need be done is that within this act we incorporate a clause that says that this land is being handed over without prejudice to any land claim made by Musqueam. That is the golden ring; that is the bit of opportunity; that is the tiny window that exists.

Everyone has agreed. The GVRD has agreed that they will accept the land without prejudice. The parks committee understands somewhat what is going on and is sympathetic. The Musqueam understand that if it's done without prejudice, they can proceed with their claim. All that remains is simply for this government to say somewhere in the body of this act that it's happening, that the transfer is taking place without prejudice.

That is the reason I speak to the hoist motion. You don't have to hold it up for six years; you don't have to hold it up for six months. Six minutes will do to write in the appropriate words, and we will give you the words. We will probably give you those words tomorrow when this comes to committee stage.

I would ask the members of this House to consider this story. When I finished the story last night, my six-year-old said: "Why can't they start again?" It's a wonderful question from a six-year-old. Wouldn't it be wonderful to start again? Wouldn't it be wonderful not to carry this albatross of injustice around our necks?

We have the opportunity to start again simply by adopting a few words that say that this bill happens without prejudice to the Musqueam claim.

MR. HARCOURT: This park is a triumph to a number of people like Iva Mann, who has been working for decades to bring about this park, Bowie Keefer and many others whose names the member for Vancouver–Point Grey very properly read into the record, because they are the ones who brought about this park. It's a victory for the first and second members for Vancouver-Point Grey (Ms. Marzari and Mr. Perry), who fought for this park. They fought through elections, and they won through those elections.

I heard from the Premier, who didn't want to stay around after his auto-rant — that's two today. He talked about studies and delays, and about that being what this side of the House is all about. I want to tell him what this side of the House is all about on this issue: simple justice. That simple justice can be carried out by the Attorney-General (Hon. S.D. Smith) and by the Premier if they're concerned about it. We don't see that a lot. If they would give a very simple undertaking that the transfer of title from the people of British Columbia from the Crown to the Greater Vancouver Regional District will not jeopardize the legitimate claims of the Musqueam people.... That is all we are saying today, Mr. Speaker.

We celebrate the fact that there's a park being put into an act. It simply confirms the park that was put together by the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) and the New Democratic government in 1975, the Frank Buck Park. Eleven hundred acres were put aside as the Frank Buck Park in memory of a very fine forester at the University of British Columbia. The other 600 acres were put aside because the university wanted to look at their requirements, and that study has gone on and on. For 15 years this government has studied and delayed the rest of that land becoming a park. You want to talk about delays; we're talking about you making one simple amendment here in the next 30 seconds, and we could, after 15 years of delay by this government, declare it a park unanimously.

I find it appalling that this government isn't able to do that very simple gesture of justice for our friends visiting here from the Vancouver Musqueam. Chief Campbell would have liked to be here, but Chief Guerin, whom I've been dealing with for years, arranging the servicing between our city, the Musqueam people and all the other activities we carry out in the Point Grey area, as friends.... Chief Campbell couldn't be here, but the rest of the band was ably represented. They came to the Attorney-General and asked for simple justice, a one-line amendment, an undertaking that the claims of the Musqueam people would not be prejudiced by this act, and to hear an auto-rant from the Premier and the disparaging remarks from a number of other members of the government was indeed very discouraging.

Those who should be named should be ashamed of themselves for not being able to give that very simple undertaking. I hope the Attorney-General will be able to do that today and that we can give unanimous approval to this bill.

[4:30]

I want to turn to the Attorney-General — who's busy reading Madam Justice McLachlin's judgment, I'm sure, and who should follow it and carry out the very fine work done by Mr. Justice Fisher. He should do that and be interested in justice for a while.

Interjections.

MR. HARCOURT: Read it! More importantly, instead of just reading it, why don't you bring about justice for the Musqueam people?

We gave the Attorney-General a guided tour of Point Grey in the by-election. He came into the by-election, and he made the native issue an issue and the Musqueam park an issue and tried to tie the two together in a cynical way to aid his candidate, who used to go to high school with me. He tried, in the way he moves these things around, to make the native people and New Democrats cannon-fodder for his electoral hopes in this by-election. Do you know

[ Page 6195 ]

what happened? Your candidate lost 12,000 votes with that kind of performance by you. Any time the Attorney-General wants to visit Vancouver and Point Grey, please be our guest as much as possible — the Premier too, as much as possible.

Again, into the by-elections, that very cynical trying to tie this park together with the legitimate aspirations of a small community, the Musqueam community, was as disgraceful then as it is now. This bill tries to inflame and divide natives from non-natives. We don't stand for that. This party has never stood for that kind of division among our people and never will. That kind of anti-aboriginal attitude and actions we will never condone. We will never condone wasting $100 million of taxpayers' money on court cases.

You could do the simple thing and sit down and negotiate a fair settlement with the aboriginal people of this province instead of turning them into cannon-fodder for your own cynical political purposes. It's not going to work in the general election, just like it didn't work in the by-elections. I want to make that very clear to this government: goodbye.

We are saying: "Bring in this undertaking. Bring in this amendment today, and we will pass this bill unanimously. Do the right thing instead of the cynical, bitter politics you've displayed so many times by turning your back not just on us but on the aboriginal people of this province, Mr. Attorney-General. You won't get away with it. Justice will be done, and you'll be gone, and we will settle fairly on behalf of all British Columbians.

We think it's about time you remembered the justice part of that portfolio of yours and gave an undertaking right here in this Legislature today that the transfer of title will not prejudice the legitimate claims of the Musqueam people. Then do you know what would happen? All of the people of British Columbia would be proud of that park opening on April 23, and the Musqueam could be there. Natives and non-natives could be there together in a celebration of what this province could be, instead of what you're trying to turn it into. Instead of dividing citizens against citizens and turning a fine act into a cynical political issue, we could have made it a triumph for everybody.

That's why we're putting this forward. It's very simple. It rests with this government, with one simple undertaking here today, to turn April 23 into a triumph not just for the Iva Manns and the Bowie Keefers of the world, but for the Musqueam and all the citizens of British Columbia.

MR. R. FRASER: I have listened with some interest — in fact, great interest — to the propositions put forward by the opposition party with respect to this park. Maybe there are reasons that I would vote for a hoist motion of six months, six years or forever. It might have something to do with who controls the park, not whether I want to transfer it.

I remember being involved with a community organization in the early seventies when the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams), when the NDP was government, was planning to build housing on that land. Do you know what happened? There was a huge outcry. They said: "No, don't build any housing out there." Then there was a little reversal: "Maybe we won't do it." It wasn't done, because people didn't want it to be done. They wanted a park out there.

I don't think the issue is actually between me and any particular member over there. The issue is: what do you want on that site? Do you want a park, or do you want a problem? That party over there wants to compromise the park. They say: "If we can just put this one little clause in on behalf of somebody, we might be able to transfer the title out of park and into the band." What's the band going to do if the title is acknowledged, for example? Would they build housing? Maybe they would. Would the band log the park? Maybe they would. The real answer is that if you want a park, leave the act the way it is. If you want to compromise the park, then go ahead with that hoist motion and the plan that group wants.

What this side of the House wants, what the residents of Vancouver want and what the residents of British Columbia want is a designated park with no encumbrances. I will vote against the hoist.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I rise to speak in support of the hoist motion. I take exception to some of the comments of the previous speakers; in particular, those made by the Premier. The Premier accuses us of delay. I'd like to look at the situation of the Musqueam and other native groups in this province.

Native groups in this province have waited more than 100 years to see simple justice. We are asking for some consideration and recognition of their needs. We're asking this government to sit down and negotiate. We're asking that the government receive an amendment to this legislation that very clearly says that this legislation does not inhibit in any way the negotiation around land claims.

Take a look at the situation in this province: the government's history and the history of native rights, and how those native rights have been ignored. Beyond being ignored, they have been frustrated by a government that says it will not become involved. In the last couple of years, my involvement with environmental issues around the province has been a tremendous opportunity to take a look at the situation of native rights. It more or less culminated in a conference I attended at Tin-Wis. That conference in the fall of this year had native people, environmentalists, peace groups and justice groups sit down together and talk about the crisis we face in this province because of a government that is more interested in confrontation than in dealing with the people's needs.

When those very different groups sat down and talked about the needs of the province, talked about their concerns for preservation of land, the values, the style of life, the quality of life in this province, it was a tremendous sharing of interests. Native groups shared with the rest of us some of their reality, what they face every day: the number of teenage suicides,

[ Page 6196 ]

the poverty in their communities, their striving for education and for equality. Many of their needs are being frustrated by a government that says that they have no role in the negotiations. For many native people, their well-being is tied to the land. That's a reality that this government seems unwilling to recognize, and because of their blindness, they are prepared to see the standard of living and well-being of a whole group of people in this province deteriorate.

I look at a list that was just given to me, a brief that was prepared as a presentation to the chiefs of British Columbia. This was a list that outlined the litigation currently before the provincial courts involving native peoples. The list is extensive, and it doesn't even begin to deal with many cases before the courts dealing with hunting and fishing claims. The list that I have here runs from the sale of land, aboriginal title, breach of trust, the rights to reserve ownership, and on and on. There are 100 court cases on this list, and the report goes on to explain that there are at least 100 more civil cases dealing with hunting and fishing.

This government, in saying that they have no place in negotiating, or refusing to negotiate, has cost the native peoples of this province a great deal in costs that I would suggest many of the tribes and councils are unable to afford, tying up their energy and their time to an extent that it detracts from other needed business.

[4:45]

About a year and a half ago, during the estimates for the Minister of Environment, I brought a report to the attention of the Legislature that outlined a marketing proposal, a strategy for the government, that dealt with the issue of the park on South Moresby. The report suggested that the government should put in place a strategy using Beban Logging as the third party so that the government's policy on native land claims could be at arm's length. It became very clear, through that report, that the government's aim — behind closed doors — has been not purely to stay out of the issue of land claims but, more importantly, to frustrate.

I think it is because of the history of this government, because of their actions in the past, that many people on this side are extremely skeptical as to the government's intentions around the transferring of the title of this land to the GVRD. The request that the members of the opposition have made, to put a very simple clause in this bill assuring people that the native people's claim to this land will not be frustrated, is a very practical request. I would hope that the government would see the wisdom of that — a government that at this point in time is saying that they have turned over a new leaf, that they no longer are confrontational and indeed that they care about the environment.

As I was sharing with you, Mr. Speaker, the experience that I had at Tin-Wis, it became very clear to all of those at the conference — the environmentalists — that the only way we are going to get on with the preservation of some of the values in our province, the only way the confrontation that we have seen in the past will be ended, is if the government recognizes some basic principles of justice and goes to the table in a committed w ay to deal with this hundred years of frustration.

Through the last couple of years, in addition to working with many community groups, I've met with different corporate groups. Those are corporations in several resource industries, whether logging, mining or fishing. Time and time again I have been struck by the consensus there is in this province, the consensus within the corporate sector that says that things have gotten to the point that they are so difficult that we find it almost impossible to do business in this province because we are constantly coming up against the issue of native land claims. They too would like the government to deal with native land claims, perhaps from a different perspective, but I think they too are tiring of the confrontation.

With some pride and some commitment, I stand in support of the motion put by the opposition in the hopes that I can make a public statement in support of the rights of aboriginal people: to sit down at the table, to bargain in good faith and to in some way receive and have justice recognized to the plight of the families and the children around this province, the aboriginal children who live in poverty because of the policies of this government and the policies of previous governments where Socreds have been all too willing to ignore the just needs of these people.

Mr. Speaker, I will sit down now and hope that some others may be able to convince the government that this very simple and straightforward change to their legislation will meet all peoples' needs. This is an opportunity for them to act in the interests of all British Columbians rather than continuing their history of neglect and confrontation, a history that I for one want to stand on record as opposing.

MR. SIHOTA: I rise to speak on this matter, and I'm somewhat disappointed to see that members of the government side feel so defeated that they are not even prepared to enter into the debate as to whether or not this legislation ought to be hoisted. I would encourage them to come in. I see that the Attorney-General (Hon. S.D. Smith), who took some heat from my good friend the Leader of the Opposition, can't stand it in the kitchen and has now left for his office.

I want to make some lengthy comments, and I have some comments reserved for the Attorney-General which I will hold back and reserve until such time as he sees fit to come back in this House and listen to what we are talking about, and maybe get a bit of an education in terms of basic justice in native title in this province, because he seems to be poorly equipped to deal with the issues.

I want to talk about some of the historical circumstances in this province that bring us into this debate — a debate which, in my view, focuses on the inadequacies of this government and the wrong of this government in its failure to deal adequately with the native title question.

This is legislation that goes beyond just simply dealing with a park. It brings into sharp focus before

[ Page 6197 ]

us the question of native title and the behaviour of the current regime in terms of how it wishes to deal with the question of that title.

I took the liberty a few minutes ago, knowing that we were going to engage in this debate, to take a look at the Calder decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, which is, of course, the pre-eminent decision with respect to native title in Canada. I think most people who follow these things — and I would trust that the Attorney-General knows this as well — are well aware of the Calder decision and the significance of that decision. That decision came perilously close to resolving the matter of native title. Three chief justices of the Supreme Court went one way, three went another and another, the seventh, dismissed the action on technical grounds.

I think that was the court's own way of sending a signal to the politicians that they would ask that the politicians take some leadership in endeavouring to resolve these native title questions, feeling appropriately, in my view, that it is a matter that is far more germane in the political realm than it is in the judicial realm. Having been given this signal by the courts, this government has chosen still not to exercise the leadership which the courts have requested that it engage in.

We are now seeing — and I don't want to belabour the point — the frustration the courts are feeling from the lack of political action and the absence of political will here in this province to deal with the native title. We saw that, as I know my good friend from Prince George knows, with respect to the McLeod Lake decision, where the court is now beginning to take some leadership, saying, "Yes, you must resolve these native title questions," and taking some leadership in terms of defining some of those vested rights which our native population has.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

We are seeing it also in the decision that I know my good friend the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Perry) also referred to in terms of the Musqueam decision. I want to come back to that Musqueam decision in a few minutes.

While I was reading the Calder decision I was struck not so much by the eloquence of the courts in laying out the parameters of debate on native title as by some of the historical facts that I had not known about. I want to share some of those. It brought home to me the fact that this whole debate as to native title is not one that we've seen during the sixties and the seventies, during the course of my generation, but one that has been going on in this province for some time.

I want to bring to the House's attention, as a method of demonstrating to this government why it ought to hoist this bill and deal with the native factor and the matter of native title in this province, that in 1888 the government set up a royal commission to deal with native title. I want to quote from the submission that was made at that time; it's a lengthy quote, and I would ask for your indulgence in this. I want to quote from what the representatives of the Nisga'as had to say during the course of that 1888 hearing. I think it's germane not only to the legislation before us, but particularly germane to why we ought to be hoisting this legislation and dealing with the real issue here, which is native title.

HON. MR. REE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I'm having a great deal of difficulty relating the debate to the subject matter of the bill and the hoist motion as such. I appreciate the member's concerns, but I think he is way out of order in his debate at this time. I would ask you to bring him to order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: With those comments in mind, I'd ask the hon. member to proceed.

MR. SIHOTA: The Solicitor-General has trouble with most things. For the record, my point here is that I want to quote this because I think it explains why I would support a motion to hoist. Here is what was said by the Nisga'as at a royal commission in 1888 into the matter of native title in this province:

"What we don't like about the government is their saying this: 'We will give you this much land.' How can they give it when it is our own? We cannot understand it. They have never bought it from us or from our forefathers. They have never fought and conquered our people and taken the land in that way, and they say now they will give us so much land — our own land.

"These chiefs do not talk foolishly. They know the land is their own. Our forefathers for generations and generations past had their land here all around us. Chiefs have had their own hunting grounds, their salmon streams and places where they got their berries; it has always been so. It is not only during the last four or five years that we have seen the land; we have always seen and owned it. It is no new thing; it has been ours for generations. If we had only seen it for 20 years and claimed it as if it were our own, it would have been foolish. But it has been ours for thousands of years. If any strange person would come here and saw the land for 20 years and claimed it, he would be foolish. We have always got our living from the land. We are not like the white people who live in towns and have their stores and their businesses, getting their living in that way. We have always depended on the land for our food and clothes; we got our salmon, berries and furs from the land."

That comment was made in 1888. I want to put in one more quote, from 1915, because the government, perplexed over this matter of native title, wanted to hear again from the native groups.

"We haven't got any ill feelings in our hearts, but we are waiting for the thing to be settled, and we have been waiting for the last five years. We have been living here from time immemorial. It has been handed down in legends from the old people, and that is what hurts us very much, because the white people have come along and taken this land away from us."

[5:00]

I see that certain members, including the member for Vancouver South, would prefer to chuckle.

"I myself am an old man, and as long as I have lived my people have been telling me stories about

[ Page 6198 ]

the flood. They did not tell me that I was only to live here on this land for a short time. We have heard that some white man — it must have been in Ottawa.... This white man said that: 'They must be dreaming when they say they own the land upon which they live.' It is not a dream. We are certain that this land belongs to us. Right up to this day, the government never made any treaty, not even to our grandfathers or our great-grandfathers."

That was in 1915. Since then, there have been debates and royal commissions, and yet no resolution as to the matter of aboriginal title.

What struck me was not so much the content of the quote, but I started to think about my own heritage as someone who comes from the Sikh community in this province. It was around the time of that second royal commission in 1915 that the people of my ethnic community first came to the shores of this great country.

I don't want to go into the history of the Komagata Maru incident, but as I was reading the decision and thinking about this matter of title and reflecting on the history of my own ethnic community, it struck me how far in terms of basic rights my own ethnic community has come and yet how poor we have been in dealing with the basic rights of the people who own this land.

In 1918, when people from my own community came here to British Columbia, there were laws that said that we could not own land in the city of Vancouver. That has changed, and it seems peculiar today that those types of laws would have existed.

When people of my ethnic community came, they were told and there were laws passed stating that if you were Asian or Oriental in this country, you could not become a doctor or a lawyer or an engineer. It seems peculiar that there would be laws like this, but again we were able to overcome those barriers and extinguish those arguments. But all along, the matter of native title has persisted.

When my own people came to this country, they were not given the right to vote. Asians and Orientals in this country were not given the right to vote, and they fought for that change. And I must say that the record is clear as to which parties were supporting and which weren't supporting the provision of those rights to Asians and Orientals. But I don't want to get into that matter today, except to say that those rights and those victories were secured by people from my ethnic community, and eventually we were able to gain the right to vote.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

In 1949, finally, after decades of argument and debate, the people I represent in terms of my ethnic community were finally given in this country the right to citizenship, when they had argued for years that they were British subjects.

Those are basic rights about which we now say to ourselves that it's peculiar they were even debated during the twenties and the thirties and the forties. It's peculiar that we actually had to fight to change those laws, laws saying that if you were Asian or Oriental during the thirties in this country, you were paid ten cents an hour less to work in the sawmills than everybody else. Those were fought, and those victories were won, and a lot of people sacrificed a lot of things. Thank God, from what I know about that history, there weren't a lot of lives sacrificed, but I know relatives of mine who had their skulls busted to fight for the types of rights that I am talking about.

We've come a long way as a society from those days, giving to people from the ethnic community that I represent some of those very basic rights. Some of those, sure, we continue to fight for, but those basic rights that everybody else enjoys in this country, we as an ethnic community have come to gain. Therefore it strikes me as disheartening and unbelievable that we as a society here in British Columbia have been unable to deal with one of the most fundamental rights, the right of the native community in this country to have some title to the land that they own or a resolution as to the land that they own, that has now been occupied.

You think about it, Mr. Speaker. Think about the condition that my ethnic community found itself in in 1918 when it first came to this country. We've come a long way. Then reflect on the type of language used by the Nisga'as in 1915 during the course of a royal commission into native title. Mr. Speaker, you would have to agree with me that it is indeed tragic that we haven't dealt with the basic issue of justice that they were asking be dealt with back in 1915, some 75 years ago.

Surely it is time for this government to begin to deal with the matter of aboriginal title. Surely it's time for this government to begin to deal with one of the basic traditional issues before the courts in this country. Surely it is time to accord some level of justice to our aboriginal people in this country.

With that type of backdrop, the Attorney-General (Hon. S.D. Smith) of this province has the audacity to introduce this legislation without dealing with the matter of native title. If that was all, that would be contemptible enough, but in this instance, the Attorney-General — who chooses not to be in the House now — has before him a decision of the Court of Appeal of British Columbia rendered on February 9, 1989, a case known as Grant v. Her Majesty.

It's contemptible enough not to deal with the matter of native title, but I want to suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the introduction of this legislation by the Attorney-General without a clause dealing with native title is in contempt of court. Let me explain why. I don't use those words lightly, knowing full well the implication of what I'm saying.

I would ask that the Attorney-General at least adhere to what the Court of Appeal has to say. Here's what our Court of Appeal had to say in what is known as the Musqueam decision. I want to put on the record, as I know my friend from Point Grey did a few minutes ago, the essence of that decision. The court said:

"I turn then to the application to restrain the implementation of the conveyance of the property."

[ Page 6199 ]

We're talking about the property that this legislation is dealing with.

"The legal problem that lurks behind the conveyance is that once the conveyance is granted, section 23 of the Land Title Act may preclude any remedy of the plaintiffs to obtain their claim to aboriginal title."

The court put forward the issue and then rendered its opinion with respect to that issue:

"That possibility, in my mind, approaches irreparable harm. For that reason, I think the appropriate order is to direct that there be an order restraining the implementation of the conveyance as proposed. That order would be in effect until the hearing and the determination of the appeal, but is subject to two conditions. The first is that the appeal be pursued with due diligence. The second is that at any time the Greater Vancouver Regional District agrees to accept title without prejudice to the aboriginal claims of the plaintiffs, an application may be made to set aside the restraining order."

What that decision is saying, as I read it, is that the native community, the Musqueam band, has a legitimate and appropriate right — or claim; shall I put it that way? — to the lands in question, and there ought not to be a clog on that claim. The band in question ought to be entitled to pursue its claim with vigour, and any action taken ought not to prejudice that claim.

The Attorney-General, mindful of the ratio of this decision; informed, I would suggest, of the decision of the court; aware of its implications, has chosen to introduce legislation in this House that prejudices the claim of title which the Musqueam band has to the UEL. I would suggest — and I'm prepared to suggest this outside the House as much as inside — that the Attorney-General is in contempt of what the court is saying here. He is showing contempt to the court.

There's no need for it. As speaker after speaker on this side of the House has indicated, the Attorney-General could pay homage to this court, pay homage to the claim of the Musqueam band and pay homage to the principle of aboriginal title through the introduction of one sentence, one clause, in this legislation. That's why we say that the Attorney-General himself ought to lift this legislation, hoist it, and if he wants to bring it back, he could bring it back with an appropriate amendment that shows some basic respect to the native people of this province.

That would be a welcome turn of events, given the history of this province, which goes back as far as 1888 in terms of people grappling with this issue. It would send a strong signal by the Attorney-General to the native community that the government is now prepared to end the confrontation in the courts that we've been seeing, to put an end to all those things which represent irritations and frustration for all of us in dealing with native title: blockades of roads, blockages of salmon runs and denial of hunting regulations in this province. We can put an end to all of the confrontation caused by this government, if we take the first step in sending an appropriate signal. That first step would be the introduction of the type of amendment that we are talking about.

As the Leader of the Opposition said, everybody would like to see a park in that area. Of course a park is appropriate. Of course this legislation is no more than a cynical attempt by those who sponsor the legislation to put people into an anti-park, pro-park head space. That's not what it's all about. There is a larger issue here — a significant issue to which the government ought to pay some heed.

Mr. Speaker, I want to comment with respect to the practices of this government. I want to comment with respect to the attitude and approach of the Attorney-General, not only to native title but to this House. I'll deal first with the House and secondly with the matter of native title.

With respect to this House I see that the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head (Mr. B.R. Smith) is not here.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: I think we are all aware of the new temperament in this House, and those members from Yale-Lillooet and Okanagan who would yelp now ought to be able to see the changes in the temperament in this House. For the last two years I thought we had a good functioning House and a good atmosphere in here. I've enjoyed the relationship I've had over the past two years with the former Attorney-General, the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head. Sure, we've had our philosophical disagreements on issues like native title. We've had our differences of opinion on other matters of policy. We've been able to dispose of those differences in a gentlemanly way.

[5:15]

Since this Attorney-General has assumed office, we have seen a change in temperament around here. I want to suggest that the Attorney-General is wholly responsible for the change in temperament around here. I think there's been a conscious decision by the Attorney-General — hence, I take it, supported by his caucus — to change the decorum that used to exist here. I find that most disturbing. I regret that the Attorney-General is not here to listen to some of the comments I'm making, because I thought we had set some pretty good parameters in this House with respect to how judicial issues were raised.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member's points may be well taken, but I think he could canvass them with the Attorney-General during his estimates and get back onto the hoist of this bill.

MR. SIHOTA: I will. I'm coming to the conclusion of my remarks, Mr. Speaker.

I notice that the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head (Mr. B.R. Smith) is here. I did enjoy the relationship I had with the good gentleman, and I'm sorry to say that judicial issues will now be argued in this House at a different, hotter and more political temperature than has been the case in the past. I hold the current Attorney-General wholly responsible for that.

However, as I said, getting to the reason for the hoist, I had thought that with the invocation of a new Attorney-General in this Legislature we would see a change in the government's attitude with respect to

[ Page 6200 ]

aboriginal title. Obviously, in light of the legislation we have before us, that has not been forthcoming. It seems to me that by hoisting this legislation we could maybe afford the Attorney-General the six months he'll need to be able to come to grips with the matter of aboriginal title.

I see that the Premier is back in the House. I listened with some interest to what the Premier had to say during the course of his comments with respect to this legislation.

MR. BLENCOE: Auto-rant.

MR. SIHOTA: The rant, as some have described it.

The total inability of the Premier to recognize that there are things that are more important than his schedule; that sometimes we have to put aside a scheduled event so we can deal with some critical issues of the day.... It may be part of the Premier's itinerary, part of the good-news package the Premier is trying to come up with, and part of the new packaging of the old product to have this event on April 23. But if this government and the Premier had any respect whatsoever for native title, they would introduce legislation to establish the park without prejudice to native title.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You're against the park.

MR. SIHOTA: In response to that, Mr. Premier, it's very easy to be pro-park. It's very easy to introduce legislation that is in favour of the establishment of the park. But true leadership, in a non-partisan sense, requires government to make some fundamental decisions and to recognize that when there is a higher claim to a piece of land, that claim ought to be respected. When there is a decision of the courts which recognizes the legitimacy of the right of those people to make the claim, that ought to be respected. I'm sorry the Premier missed this: when there are issues outstanding as far back as 1888 in this province, true leadership demands that those issues — fundamental issues of justice and respect to native people — be addressed.

While I'm on my feet and addressing my comments to the Premier, I want the Premier to reflect back on the 1986 election campaign. I want the Premier to cast his mind back to where he was, with his wife, for the first three days of that election campaign. I want the Premier not to think about the visual images that were transmitted on TV in terms of his....

MR. SPEAKER: I regret to inform the member that his time is up.

MR. SIHOTA: Let me end by saying that the Premier should reflect on that and then deal with this legislation.

MR. MILLER: I had not intended to speak in this debate, but it has, I think, become an important debate, and I want to add a view of the situation that is brought not from downtown Vancouver or the lower mainland but from the regions of British Columbia.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Wasn't it important from the beginning?

MR. MILLER: I think I have an appreciative audience for what I'm about to embark on. No, Mr. Premier, it didn't just become important. I presume this issue has been of some importance for 20 years or so. I wonder about the statement you made earlier with regard to the haste this afternoon. You were complaining that you had appointments in your office and you didn't want to waste time sitting in the House discussing this matter. It seems to me that's not a very good attitude in terms of our responsibilities as MLAs and in terms of debating these issues.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the member take his seat for a moment?

Members from both sides have commented today about who is in the House and who is not in the House, and when somebody is here and why they are not here. I think it is very unparliamentary. I think both sides could keep to the debate and not talk about who is here and who isn't here. Most members know that members have guests in this House or in their offices, and they have other committee meetings to attend. I think it is totally unfair to comment on who is not here at any time.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, I was thrown off-stride by the Premier's heckling, and I didn't intend to say those things.

Nonetheless, I do want to reflect back to the issue, to the reason we are making the motion to hoist and to a document that I have quoted from time to time, because I was impressed at the time by the statements in the first throne speech of this government on March 9, 1987. The words from the throne speech are as follows: "My government seeks a new mutually productive relationship with the native Indian people of our province."

I consider those words in light of the bill we are dealing with, and the reasons we've made a motion to hoist this particular bill. I reflect on the long series of disappointments that native Indian people have had in this province in terms of successive provincial governments dealing seriously with the issue of prime importance to them — the issue of aboriginal title — and their desire to negotiate on that issue. These major disappointments were followed by promises and commitments that were made and not kept.

I recall a former Attorney-General journeying up to the Nass Valley in 1975 — if I'm not mistaken — and making commitments about the government's willingness to sit down and discuss these issues of importance to native people. Allan Williams, the former Attorney-General, was a gentleman who occupied that position with some class and flair.

I recall reading resolutions adopted in Social Credit conventions urging the politicians in the Social Credit Party to get on with the business of sitting

[ Page 6201 ]

down and negotiating. Those really have not been fulfilled at all.

I recall, a very short time ago, traveling around this province following the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker), who was holding public information sessions in various parts of British Columbia to discuss a policy that the government had. It was a policy of turning over, in the form of long-term tenure — really perpetual tenure — a significant portion of the timber land base of this province to a series of large corporations that have become more and more concentrated, have grown larger and larger and have, indeed, stifled some economic activity in this province. It struck me, in drawing a comparison between those two, that here we have a government prepared to turn over to major corporations, by my rough calculation, about 75 percent of the active timber lands of British Columbia; to transfer the assets of British Columbia.

This is fairly fundamental, and I think it does relate to the issue at hand.

In the case of South Moresby, and in previous cases, it has been shown that when the province creates that type of tenure, they are then liable to compensate the party that they originally granted the licence to. In the case of South Moresby, we are looking at paying out to a forest company something in the magnitude of $30 million, if not more. Look at the application by Fletcher Challenge Canada for the entire Mackenzie timber supply area. If the government had followed through on that policy, six million hectares of British Columbia would have been transferred in perpetual tenure to one corporation, not headquartered in British Columbia. In the future, because of changes in the forest industry or other changes that we might desire, whether that be to create parks or whatever, the province would be in the position of having to compensate a large integrated forest company not headquartered in British Columbia.

I contrast that with the government's refusal to sit down with a relatively small native band in the lower mainland and discuss the issue of their title to the UEL.

This hoist motion is not an attempt to delay or somehow impede the development of a park. It's an attempt to try and convince the government that they have an obligation; that they cannot just keep talking about it and paying lip-service to it; that they actually have to do something.

It seems to me it doesn't entail a great deal of expense. I don't know how some of the government members.... I would welcome an explanation, for example, from the Minister Responsible for Native Affairs (Hon. Mr. Weisgerber). How does he jibe these contradictions in terms of his own role? How could we, on the one hand, justify a policy that would see the transfer of six million hectares of Crown land to one corporation in licence form that would make us responsible to compensate that company, and at the same time refuse to sit down and in a meaningful way discuss an issue of title with an aboriginal band in this province?

History does eventually catch up to you. You can't, as I said, keep offering these tidbits of hope. You cannot do that and develop a feeling of trust. It impedes your progress in so many other directions. To try and suggest that an issue that has existed in British Columbia for 20 years....

[5:30]

As I said, I originally had not intended to enter the debate, because I simply was not that familiar with the UEL situation. But the debate has taken on a different cast. We cannot continue to simply offer these tidbits — these hollow words about wanting to develop new and meaningfully productive relationships, and at the same time refuse to sit down and discuss the issue. I've yet to hear a defence offered by any member on the government side as to why the matter could not be resolved through that type of negotiation.

Certainly the government is well aware of the pressure that can be put on it. I recall quite clearly the debates and questions in this House surrounding the creation of the South Moresby national park reserve. We on this side of the House pressed the government, and rightly so, about what their intentions were. We urged them to get on with speed and dispatch to negotiate an agreement. I think we played our rightful role in that issue.

The government resisted the speed. Particularly, I recall, they kept saying over and over again: "Look, we're negotiating. We've got to have this room to negotiate with the federal government. We want to make sure we get the proper compensation for British Columbia. It takes time. It doesn't happen overnight." That was the government's position with regard to the pressures we put on regarding South Moresby. We had our debate, but the ultimate result was that an agreement was reached and some compensation was put in place.

Now the table is turned. The government and the Premier are castigating the opposition for delay on an issue that's existed in this province for 20 years.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Delay, delay, delay.

MR. MILLER: That's right. There's the Premier yelling out, "Delay, delay, delay" — on an issue that's existed for 20 years. I don't know why the Premier, in terms of the issues we've raised in our hoist motion, has not dealt with them substantially. It's fine for the speechwriters to pen the fine words in the throne speech, but if you don't deliver, Mr. Premier, your credibility suffers. You should know that better than any politician in this province today.

I think there's ample reason for our motion to hoist and ample opportunity for the government to put some real commitment behind these fine phrases that they trot out occasionally. They are either committed and prepared to make commitments or they're not. So far, the conclusion we'd have to draw is that all they've ever done is put something on paper and not follow through with it. We're really giving the government an opportunity to salvage their credibility. Their credibility is somewhat in tatters on a

[ Page 6202 ]

number of issues in this province today. If they want to characterize every debate in those extreme terms, I would suggest that their credibility is going to remain in tatters. If they're prepared to sit down with the native people and enter some serious discussions, just to see what kind of accommodation can be reached, then perhaps people will start to pay attention to them in other areas as well.

I'll conclude my remarks with that, Mr. Speaker. I look forward to at least some representation from the government side justifying their position of refusing to discuss these issues with the native people of British Columbia.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: I thought perhaps it would be worthwhile to try and focus the debate back on where it started: the UEL. We've heard all kinds of discussions about all kinds of issues, but we haven't heard much about the UEL. It seems to me also that perhaps the members across the way didn't listen when we spoke in the House before about our position on aboriginal title. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, as you well know, the position of the province of British Columbia is that if aboriginal title did exist, it has long since been extinguished. The courts have not denied that; in any application to the courts, that has never been overturned. Indeed, it's also the position of the province of British Columbia that should the courts decide at some time in the future that aboriginal title does exist, then by the Terms of Union it is quite clearly the responsibility of the government of Canada.

The other thing the members across the way know, I believe, is that the Musqueam claim is one of the few claims — if not the only claim — ever turned down by the government of Canada.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: The member across the way says two, so there is one other claim that Canada has not accepted. All of the rest — and there are hundreds — have been accepted. So there has to be some question about the Musqueam claim. We're not denying it; we're just not suggesting that it, any more than any other claim in British Columbia, has validity.

It seems to me that the action of the government today, in moving to transfer the UEL to the GVRD, is a way of ensuring that for time immemorial this land remains as a park, a park that's available not only to British Columbians generally and to people within Vancouver, but particularly for Musqueam people. It's there; they live beside it. It would seem to me to be in the primary interest of Musqueam people to see that this land, more than anything else, is preserved in its particular state. By transfer, the government in fact ensures that. It ensures that some successive government — perhaps even you folks at some future date, heavens knows when — doesn't change its mind about what the use of this land is. It is to be preserved forever as parkland. That seems to be the nub of it.

What, other than traditional use, would the Musqueam want with the land? I'm sure that if they were to win a case and obtain title to the UEL, they would preserve it in its present state. The issue, then, is one of ensuring preservation of the land, ensuring the use of the land for the Musqueam people. We believe that this move to the GVRD ensures the use of this land in perpetuity as a park. I think that's got to be good not only for the people of Vancouver but particularly for the Musqueam people.

If we must debate this issue — and I think we're debating something as a means of bringing out a platform rather than dealing with the issue at hand — then let's debate the alternative uses of the land. If you don't want to make it a park, then want do you want to use it for?

MR. PERRY: We do want to make it a park, and you know it.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: Then why would anyone...?

MR. PERRY: Make the amendment and we'll pass it right now.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: If we were to accept this amendment, it would then be a hindrance on the absolute preservation of that land as a park. It would provide an opening that could, at some point down the road, overturn the use of this land as a park. If that's what you want, then let's carry on with this. But I think the member across the way from Point Grey wants this land preserved as a park, but he wants his cake and he wants to eat it too. He wants to stand up for his constituents and pretend that he'd like to see some kind of an amendment brought forward. In fact, I seriously doubt....

Gentlemen, I believe that this solution is a good solution, a proper solution and one that is not mean-spirited. In fact, it looks toward preservation of this land, which I appreciate is important to the Musqueam people. This land will be preserved in perpetuity by this bill, and I won't vote against it.

MR. G. JANSSEN: May I have leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

MR. G. JANSSEN: I'd like to introduce a former constituent of mine who in is the House, Joanna Wright, who is now living in the fair city of Victoria and helping to run ICBC a little more efficiently.

I'm glad the Minister Responsible for Native Affairs has had some input. I'm glad he brought up the question of the court case. I'm glad he brought up the question of the University Endowment Lands and the Musqueam claim to it. I would like to read into the record a little history of the University Endowment Lands so that he, along with other members on the other side of the House, might be a little more acquainted with why we on this side of the House are asking for a small amendment.

[ Page 6203 ]

In 1792 the first Europeans made contact, and in 1808 Simon Fraser came down the Fraser River to these shores of the Musqueam. In 1827 the Hudson's Bay Co. established a fort at Langley, and in 1858 gold discoveries were made and the Royal Engineers established a camp at New Westminster.

MR. LOENEN: Get back to the hoist.

MR. G. JANSSEN: I'll get to the hoist. As the member is from Holland, my native land, I thought he might be interested in the history of his adopted land — a land that wasn't adopted by the Musqueam; a land that was theirs.

In 1870 a Musqueam reserve was surveyed, and in 1871 the Terms of Union between British Columbia and Canada included provisions to appropriate and convey land from British Columbia to Canada for the use and benefit of native peoples. A Musqueam reserve was confirmed by the reserve commission, but it was inadequate in size in 1876. In 1885 a timber lease was renewed on their land. All of this was done without consulting the Musqueam Indians. In 1912 provincial and federal governments determined the title of Point Grey without consultation with the Musqueam. The history is there. Time and time again their lands have been discussed without adequate compensation to or consultation with the Musqueam band. We have had studies on what to do with the University Endowment Lands. We've surveyed them, but never have we asked this band of original owners whether or not they agree with the proposals.

The minister made reference to a court case. In fact, the Court of Appeal dates for the July 1987 decision are set for June 26, 27 and 28 of this year. Are we not to wait for the courts to adequately ensure that they can hear from the original owners of this land?

[5:45]

On April 6, 1989, the GVRD agreed to accept the University Endowment Lands from the province without prejudice to any claim the Musqueam may have, and a restraining order was lifted. Time and time again aboriginal people have been denied their rights — not just on the Musqueam reserve, but throughout this province, throughout this country and throughout the world. Israel is at war now because of the Palestinian land claim. Ireland has problems because they have land claims. The Americans settled with the Indians in Alaska. They settled many years ago with the native community in the Dakotas — one of the first settlements made. This government continually refuses to recognize that native people were the original inhabitants of this land, and we simply took it over.

Must we come to a situation such as the Lubicons were forced into recently in Alberta, where they actually had to set up roadblocks to get action and recognition? The natives of British Columbia have been peaceful. They have begged; they have pleaded; they have taken to the courts. Now this government is trying to circumvent their right to court action.

There is a similar case on Meares Island in my constituency. The land was given away for logging to a corporation, and when the Nuchatlet tribal council went to the courts the logging was stopped — not because this government acted in the interests, as they say, of all British Columbians, including native people. They didn't act on behalf of the native people. They didn't act on behalf of the logging community. They stood idly by.

If in fact the logging community had a right to log that land, if in fact it had legal opportunity to log that land, why did this government not stand up? Because they were afraid of public opinion. That's the issue here, and that's why we're asking for a delay. This government is trying to circumvent the courts by entering into third-party agreements.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: What are you saying you would have done?

MR. G. JANSSEN: Enter into negotiations, Mr. Premier. We're asking that the native community receive a hearing and that compensation be granted. We're not determining what type of compensation. The members on this side of the House are not saying we're against the park. The government members would like to have it seem that way. We're in favour of a park, but we're in favour of adequate compensation for the original owners before its made a park.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: How much compensation?

MR. G. JANSSEN: Start the negotiations and the compensation will be determined. This government even refuses to get into the simple negotiations. It simply denies out of hand the rights of original owners of pieces of land. How would it be if we decided that for the good of British Columbians Fantasy Gardens be turned into a park?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It is a park.

MR. G. JANSSEN: For the good of British Columbians, people will enter into it free of charge to walk around and enjoy the flowers, enjoy the trees, and will simply remove the ownership from its present owners.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: That's what the socialists would do.

MR. G. JANSSEN: That's what this government is doing. Is the Premier admitting he's a socialist, because he's taking land that was originally owned by the Musqueam band away from them? Is that what you were saying, Mr. Premier?

If in the future the natives do receive compensation, will our children have to pay? Will we enter into the same type of situation that our forefathers entered into with the Japanese community when their land, their boats and their property were taken away? For over 40 years that was denied. Finally, the children and grandchildren of the people who did that had to cough up the money and had to offer an apol-

[ Page 6204 ]

ogy to the Japanese people of British Columbia. Is that the situation we are going to be in in 40 or 50 years down the road, if we continue on this path of denying people rights, denying people compensation and denying them even a hearing?

Mr. Speaker, we are asking for this to be hoisted so we can enter into simple negotiations, so a wrong can be rectified and so we can recognize original owners of property and say to them: "We didn't defeat you in a war...."

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: How many years? Six years? Ten years?

MR. G. JANSSEN: Can you do it in three days? Can the Premier of this province sit down and negotiate with the native community in three days? Has he attempted to negotiate in the past?

MR. PERRY: Can he write an amendment in three minutes? We can.

MR. G. JANSSEN: We have offered an amendment. He can copy it verbatim, but he refuses to do that, because he refuses to say that native people in this province have any rights to land-ownership.

Was there a study done? MacMillan Bloedel has done a study on the Carmanah Valley, which involves historical and native rights. A small valley.... Three volumes thick they came out with, and not one scrap of paper on the University Endowment Lands from this government; not one look-see — denied. They say they want to treat all British Columbians equally. I say treat the native community of British Columbia equally. Treat the Musqueam band equally in this province, and give them the same rights to property entitlement that the rest of us enjoy in the province.

The reserves were established without consultation with the natives. In the early 1900s a commission simply came by and said: "You'll live here, you'll live there, and you'll live over there." The natives voiced their protests at that time; they weren't heard. They've been voicing their protests ever since. They've been asking to be heard by this government and by previous governments. The federal government is willing to negotiate, but this government stands in the path of land ownership for all British Columbians. In fact, natives in this province are also British Columbians, but they are not being recognized, because this government wants to deny them ownership of land. It wants to deny them their rights under the law. Enter into negotiations — that is all we ask. That is all the native community has been asking for many years.

This government should know, Mr. Speaker, that in British Columbia the law should apply equally And we as elected members in this House were elected to see that everybody was treated as equally and fairly as possible. That is our mandate. That is why we were elected. That's why people voted us into office.

Tommy Douglas told me a long time ago that once you are elected, you don't just represent the people in your party or the people who voted for you, but you represent all the people, whether they voted for you or not, whether they support you or not. You have to recognize them and represent them.

The Premier of this province has a special responsibility because he not only represents the people in a particular riding, but has to represent all the people, as the Minister Responsible for Native Affairs (Hon. Mr. Weisgerber) should be recognizing the native people, because they are his responsibility. Yet you refuse to enter into negotiations. You refuse to admit the fact that the native community in this province may in fact have the right to some land. Those rights were denied by the previous government in the Arrow Lakes, where land was taken away, and court action had to be taken to receive adequate compensation. We have that avenue of going to the courts if, in fact, the government rides roughshod over its citizenry.

As I said, it happened in the Arrow Lakes; it happened with various communities that have expropriated land; it happened with agencies of the government such as B.C. Hydro. By the actions of this government on the University Endowment Lands, that simple last avenue of democracy is being taken away. They are circumventing the courts by entering into a third-party agreement.

All the native community is asking for — all that the members of this side of the House are asking for — is that democracy be done, that that avenue be left open and that this government sit down and negotiate and say: "What is it that the native community wants? How can we accommodate you? How can we recognize your rights to not only compensation for the land...." That little piece that is left is called the University Endowment Lands; the rest has all been taken into other parks, housing developments and commercial operations.

Members of the government side of the House say: "You want to give the whole province to the natives." The NDP has never said that. The native community has never laid claim to privately owned lands. This is the last little piece that is left of the Musqueam reserve that is not encumbered.

They're simply asking for you to sit down, write a few little words in, and everybody could vote for this park. We are in favour of this park. Two members for Vancouver–Point Grey riding on this side of the House worked harder for that park than almost anybody else. They received their reward when they were elected. The people in Vancouver–Point Grey, in the by-election that just took place, recognized the members' stand and supported it. They obviously didn't support the government's stand. Write those few little words into the bill, negotiate with the native community — the rightful owners of that piece of land, the original inhabitants of that land.

We could end this debate; we wouldn't have to continue it. We wouldn't have to go on for hours on end simply to see that simple rights that are guaranteed everybody in a democracy, not just in Canada but around the world, as I said earlier....

Interjection.

[ Page 6205 ]

MR. G. JANSSEN: We want the park, but we don't want to take it without compensation for its original owners. That is what this government does not want to do. It wants to take it away without compensating anybody. Is that socialism? Is it socialism I hear from the other side of the House? Taking land without compensation? I've heard it said by members opposite, Mr. Speaker, that only socialists take land without compensation, for the public good. That's what's happening here. Are we getting an admission from members opposite?

Half of Vancouver Island was given to the E&N Railway, the CPR. They said they would run a railroad up and down. In fact, they didn't even build a railroad. They stopped at Courtenay. The railroad was supposed to go on to Campbell River. They didn't build it, but they still got the land.

HON. MR. REID: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the Premier and our colleagues would ask that we allow the speaker to continue for a few more minutes, but I draw your attention to the clock. It's such an interesting debate, we'll let him continue.

[6:00]

MR. G. JANSSEN: I thank the hon. member.

They didn't finish the railroad to Tofino, yet they got to keep the land. Is this government willing to go there and say: "Let's have the land back"? You can't do that anymore, because we've got a third-party agreement there also. The E&N gave the land to a forestry company and took back some shares; they in turn sold those shares. Sorry, you can't take that back either.

That's a parallel that should be considered in this case right now. Once this agreement is made, the natives' claim is virtually extinguished, just as our claim was extinguished to the land on Vancouver Island where the railroad didn't build and yet received.....

Interjection.

MR. G. JANSSEN: Many people made a claim. It was ignored.

In fact, we should be recognizing the wrongs of the past and looking towards the future and seeing that those wrongs aren't repeated. This government has an opportunity to do that now. I ask them to search their consciences, to look back and say: "Yes, I can do something good for the people of British Columbia. I can do something for the Musqueam Indian band, who have waited so long." You can set a precedent. You can change direction, The government may even lift its sagging fortunes.

Mrs. McCarthy moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

HON. S.D. SMITH: I beg leave of the House to table the decision rendered today from the Supreme Court of British Columbia in the matter of John Dixon and the Attorney-General of British Columbia

I wish to make a brief statement before tabling, if I may have leave.

Ministerial Statement

ELECTION BOUNDARIES DECISION

HON. S.D. SMITH: I wish to advise the House that judgment was delivered today in the case of Dixon v. the Attorney-General of British Columbia. Former Chief Justice McLachlin of the British Columbia Supreme Court found that the electoral boundaries provided for by schedule 1 in section 19 of the Constitution Act of British Columbia are unconstitutional in light of section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court rejected the petitioner's argument that the Charter required that all electoral districts be precisely equal in population. The court held that deviation from the electoral quotient of up to 25 percent plus or minus was acceptable and consistent with Canadian electoral traditions, history and practice.

Members will be aware that the report of the Fisher commission has been referred to a committee of the House for consideration. That committee, no doubt, will give consideration to the judgment of the court.

The court recognized that a legislative response to the court's findings may take some time and has indicated that the current electoral boundaries will remain in place pending attention to this matter by the Legislature.

In addition to that, the court rendered judgment with respect to the impact of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms on this House, on this Legislature and on matters considered by this Legislature.

I will be delivering tomorrow to each member of this House a copy of that judgment. I would commend to them to read particularly those sections which deal with the powers and rights of this Legislature to make laws in the face of the Charter, because I have no doubt that while the Charter assists many individuals, it does indeed render a great change to the way in which our Legislature may operate and to the powers it may ultimately have. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that it does more to Americanize Canada than any other single document I could ever imagine in this country.

All members will no doubt be interested in reviewing the lengthy judgment of the court, the implications of which are presently being considered by the government.

MR. SIHOTA: We received notice of this at about six minutes to six, so I will make some comments with respect to what the Attorney-General had to say.

The first is that I have taken the liberty to read this decision, and it is a condemnation of the unfair electoral boundaries instituted by this government. Secondly, let me say to the Attorney-General — because I have read this decision with care — that it goes out of its way to ensure that we do not have an Americanization of law in Canada. It upholds a lot of the tradi-

[ Page 6206 ]

tions that come from our British heritage. It goes out of its way to ensure that Canadian jurisprudence proceeds in an evenhanded way. Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, the decision says "that it is unconstitutional...pending submissions on what time may be reasonably required to remedy the legislation. The expiry of that period is something the court will be seeking submissions on."

Let me say from this side of the House that we stand for fair electoral boundaries, and that means: (1) no further submissions — let's get on with dealing with the problem; (2) no appeal; (3) that the committee of the Legislature ought to deal with this as its first order of business — that is, no discussions on judges' salaries or builder's liens in preference to this matter. Let's deal with this first. Fourth, it means that the committee ought to embrace the principles of the Fisher commission. And finally, this matter should be resolved by the Legislature and by the committee before we engage in the enumeration process. It's quite easy for us to do that, given the Fisher map.

Mr. Speaker, this is a decision which ought to be applauded. This is a decision which invites leadership from this government with respect to finally getting on with the job of having fair electoral boundaries in this province. I invite the government to meet that challenge and to work with us cooperatively to bring about fair electoral boundaries in British Columbia.

HON. MR. REID: Everybody wants to speak on this, but I would now draw the members' attention to the standing orders which indicate that we will meet tomorrow.

Hon. Mr. Reid moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:10 p.m.