[ Page 10815 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Health Statutes Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 61). Hon. J. Jansen

Introduction and first reading –– 10815

Education Statutes Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 41). Hon. Mr. Brummet

Introduction and first reading –– 10815

Seventh-Day Adventist Church (British Columbia Conference) Act

(Bill PR403). Mr. Crandall

Introduction and first reading –– 10815

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Native Affairs estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Weisgerber)

On vote 50: minister's office –– 10815

Hon. Mr. Weisgerber

Mr. G. Hanson

Mr. Guno

Hon. Mr. Davis

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

Prayers.

Introduction of Bills

HEALTH STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

Hon. J. Jansen presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Health Statutes Amendment Act, 1990.

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Speaker, Bill 61 contains a number of amendments to Ministry of Health statutes that are generally housekeeping in nature. The statutes covered by this bill are the Chiropractors Act, the Dentists Act, the Health Act, the Hospital Act, the Medical Practitioners Act, the Mental Health Act, the Naturopaths Act, the Nurses (Registered) Act, the Nurses (Psychiatric) Act and the Seniors Advisory Council Act, 1989.

I will elaborate on the nature of these changes during second reading of the bill.

Bill 61 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.

EDUCATION STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

Hon. Mr. Brummet presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Education Statutes Amendment Act, 1990.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, this bill provides amendments to three acts. The Pacific Bible College Act just has the reference from the Education (Interim) Finance act that has been appealed changed to the School Act — it's a consequential amendment. The amendments to the School Act concern a clarification of the section dealing with teacher qualifications and a refinement of the section concerning non-disclosure of student records. The third act, the Teaching Profession Act, has amendments which permit more flexibility concerning the election of council members, as well as permitting the council of the College of Teachers to delegate certain tasks to its employees. In addition, the amendments extend the powers of the council to make bylaws respecting the training and qualifications of teachers, extend and clarify the time-frame within which a council bylaw may be allowed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council and amend the section concerning the admission and certification of members.

Bill 41 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.

SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH
(BRITISH COLUMBIA CONFERENCE) ACT

Mr. Crandall presented a bill intituled Seventh Day Adventist Church (British Columbia Conference) Act.

Bill PR403 introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders, Private Bills and Members' Services.

Orders of the Day

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
NATIVE AFFAIRS

On vote 50: minister's office, $281,82.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: I am pleased to rise today to present the budget estimates of the Ministry of Native Affairs for the 1990-91 fiscal year.

It has been a particular honour for me, as Minister of Native of Affairs, to oversee a tremendous increase in the profile and priority of native issues within our government. In fact, British Columbia is the first and only province in Canada to have a ministry entirely devoted to native affairs. The 1990-91 budget for the Ministry of Native Affairs votes has increased by 23 percent, or $688,000, to an amount just over $3 million. This increase will accommodate the extra demand on the ministry for its services, and will reflect the government's commitment in dealing with native issues. Additionally, there is almost $2.5 million allocated from the First Citizens' Fund.

Our mandate is to provide interministerial and federal-provincial coordination of policy and service delivery related to native people, develop and recommend new provincial policies, negotiate self-government arrangements with native communities and administer the First Citizens' Fund and the Indian Cut-off Lands Disputes Act.

One key area of our mandate is to establish ongoing consultation with the Indian people of British Columbia. The Premier's Advisory Council on Native Affairs has been meeting with tribal councils and provincial native organizations across British Columbia since last July to develop a better understanding of issues and to make recommendations to government on social and economic policy. We are also anticipating recommendations from the council on the issue of land claims. The meetings so far have been informative and productive. They have generated discussions that are frank, straightforward and vigorous.

Mr. Chairman, the council has learned much about the goals and visions of Indian people in British Columbia and much about their concerns and problems. Not every issue raised at these round table meetings has been solved, but we have made progress on many issues. To mention just a few: a $375,000

[ Page 10816 ]

commitment to the Canyon City bridge; transfer of jurisdiction to the Ministry of Transportation and Highways to allow upgrading to begin, in consultation with the Nisga'a Tribal Council; the road into the Nass Valley.... It was formerly a forestry road; it is now known as the Nisga'a Highway.

There are improved police services by the RCMP at Telegraph Creek. Work has been started on a long-term solution to water rights issues in the Okanagan and other areas of the province. We've been able to facilitate discussions between the Similkameen bands and the regional district to solve a local waste issue. A $50,000 First Citizens' Fund grant was provided to the United Native Nations for an economic development officer to assist off-reserve natives to develop business plans.

This year the Premier's advisory council will continue its work throughout the province. My ministry will keep working hand in hand with the Premier's council to ensure that issues facing the native people of British Columbia are addressed. We will continue to develop policy which provides for local autonomy for Indian people. This coming year I hope to add to our impressive list of settlements of claims on reserve cut-off lands.

Last year, for example, the Ohiaht band from west Vancouver Island received $3.8 million and 588 acres of land. On the north end of Vancouver Island the Quatsino band received more than a quarter of a million dollars and more than 100 acres of land. Fourteen of 22 cut-off land claims have been settled since 1982, returning more than $100 million worth of land and more than $7.7 million in cash to Indian bands where land was wrongly appropriated by the government at the beginning of the century.

The Ministry of Native Affairs will maintain its support for the advancement and expansion of culture, education and economic development for British Columbia's native people. This ministry will continue to promote the delivery of effective social programs and services. In addition we will encourage and support native natural resource development opportunities. The Ministry of Native Affairs will continue its successful program of support for social, economic and education opportunities to native people through the First Citizens' Fund.

The loan program itself has been enhanced by $500,000, and commitments to date, under the program, have reached $1.8 million. Numerous successful businesses have benefited from the loan program, including the Tobacco Plains duty-free shop at the Roosville point of entry; the Mojo enterprise in Merritt, which sells and distributes construction supplies to industry; and the Ivy Green Mohawk convenience store and gas station on the Island Highway near Ladysmith, which is constructed and operated by the Chemainus band. These are just a few examples where the creation, expansion and upgrading of vital native businesses were made possible through this government program.

[10:15]

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like the opportunity to commend my colleagues for their continued commitment to working together to improve the quality of life of native people of British Columbia. I look forward to answering specific questions the members may have.

MR. G. HANSON: I listened carefully to the minister's introductory remarks. I know he is of good intent and well-meaning, but I'd like to point out to this House that the subject matter of this ministry is the biggest unresolved matter in British Columbia. It warrants the collective wisdom of this parliament to put forward the necessary resources and initiatives to break that yoke of colonialism — the legacy still surrounding our relationship with aboriginal people.

It's particularly timely that today, as we start our discussion in this Legislature about Native Affairs matters, a gentleman by the name of Elijah Harper is in Vancouver. He is a Cree Indian from Manitoba, an elected member of the Legislature who has played a significant role in raising the awareness of Canadians about the unresolved matter before us today.

In his remarks the minister made reference to initiatives in various areas — in cutoff lands and justice matters and so on — but the fundamental matter began here in Victoria in mid-1854 with the first governor of the province of British Columbia, James Douglas, who respected a proclamation from the United Kingdom, the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which stated that as indigenous people were colonized by the expanding United Kingdom, a certain process would take place: their title would be extinguished through treaty, compensation would be paid, and the Crown made an undertaking to take a certain responsibility for aboriginal people, not just in Canada, not just in Victoria or British Columbia, but throughout the entire Commonwealth. That process is a fundamental legal principle that underscored the establishment of treaties throughout North America, the subject of discussion in the Gitksan-Wet'suwet'en court case that has been heard at length in this province, both in Vancouver and in Smithers.

I refer to Governor Douglas because he understood the intent of that proclamation: that to have orderly development, to have orderly, profitable, secure, happy and harmonious relations among all the citizens, whether of European ancestry, Asian ancestry or the indigenous peoples — the aboriginal people, the first citizens of this land — it was necessary to sit down and undertake a treaty-making process. He started that process here in the Victoria area with the Fort Victoria treaties. I'll say more about that later, because that is a partnership that has never really been honoured. It wasn't the intent of the aboriginal people, when they put their Xs to that document and received their small compensation, that they would be condemned to live on postage stamp parcels of land in this region and be cut off from any economic opportunities and an economic base to fulfil their obligations to their children. They were given an undertaking by the Fort Victoria treaty that they could fish and hunt as formerly and have use of unoccupied lands. Those rights have recently been upheld by the Supreme Courts of this country.

[ Page 10817 ]

The Tsawout band with the Saanichton Marina case.... A whole series of court cases has upheld the treaty obligations and the treaty rights of the first citizens of this region.

Only in this area and in part of the Peace River are there treaties with the aboriginal people — Treaty 8 in the Peace and the Douglas treaties in this region. For over 120 years the aboriginal people have argued that they wish to sit down with the duly elected governments of the colonizers to discuss their relationship and how they share in the future of this province for their children.

The emergence of Elijah Harper on the floor of the Manitoba Legislature on June 22 and 23.... He has been a focus and a lightning-rod of attention on the status of aboriginal people in this country and their relationship with the broader society and its governments. Whether treaties have been signed on the Prairies, where land has still not been allocated, where the partnership that was implied in the treaty-making process, a partnership and a sharing in the future of the province, even though their numbers are relatively small.... That is not pertinent. The principle is that where the aboriginal people, the first citizens of Canada, signed treaties, those treaties need to be developed and honoured and that partnership negotiated and discussed in a modem context to ensure that those people have a just and honourable settlement.

Within British Columbia, where there are no treaties, no compensation and no extinguishment of title, we know what the social consequences have been as a result of the colonial subjugation of the aboriginal people of British Columbia. I have documents here that refer to their mortality rate; they don't live as long. They don't get as well educated. They make far less money. Most of their people are unemployed, and most of them have no resource base. Large numbers are incarcerated in jails. A larger number than in any other population commit suicide; a larger number of their youth commit suicide. Fewer have an opportunity to complete high school, to attend university and to have some say in their own educational system; to understand their own value system, their own beliefs, their own culture in the truest anthropologically defined sense — everything they know to be true about themselves.

Every statistic reflects the colonial subjugation of the aboriginal people of British Columbia, and I know the minister has made progress within narrow confines, and I've complimented him in this House. But my objection and our objection on this side of the House.... Our party faced this issue in the last few years in a most serious, methodical, comprehensive way, and we unanimously passed a policy. We know it's not simple; it's very complex. We know there's work to be done. But the policy of the New Democratic Party is to recognize aboriginal title, to recognize that it has not been extinguished, that British common law and the case law of Canada over and over indicate that aboriginal title has not been extinguished and that aboriginal people have an inherent right to self-government. We believe that the province has a role to play at the bargaining table.

MR. LOENEN: That's a very strong statement.

MR. G. HANSON: The second member for Richmond thinks this is a strong statement. I think he should listen. He may learn something in this debate.

Interjections,

MR. G. HANSON: The courts have told you over and over again to take your place at the negotiating table and negotiate.

MR. LOENEN: That's not what you said. You said you were willing to recognize title. That's different.

MR. G. HANSON: We recognize that aboriginal title has not been extinguished in British Columbia, and the Supreme Court of Canada....

HON. MR. RICHMOND: How much of B.C.?

MR. G. HANSON: You see, Mr. Chairman, they reveal themselves, as the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Richmond) did yesterday. "How much?" Not whether it's right; not whether British common law says that aboriginal people have a right to sit down and negotiate their relationship and that the unextinguished title of the province has not been negotiated. What they're concerned about is how much.

MR. LOENEN: One hundred and twenty-five percent.

MR. G. HANSON: They say 125 percent.

MR. VANT: Claims overlap.

MR. G. HANSON: Claims overlap. These fellows are so intelligent.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I've had enough of this.

MR. G. HANSON: The Minister of Transportation and Highways says she's had enough of this. We're going to go by this colonial period....

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell us more.

MR. G. HANSON: I'm going to tell you much more.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: What are you going to do about it?

MR. G. HANSON: We're going to take our place at the bargaining table, and I'd just like to alert the deputy....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would remind all hon. members that if they wish to speak, they can stand in their

[ Page 10818 ]

place, and they'll be recognized at the appropriate time.

MR. G. HANSON: This is an important matter, and I'd like to ask the deputy, while I'm making some introductory remarks, if he would think of giving this House a report on the fact that the province has been an observer during the land negotiations between the Nisga'a nation and the federal government. The province has been an observer for 12 years, or something in that order. Would the deputy please advise the minister so that he could give an accounting of what is occurring in the Nass Valley, where the Nisga'a people reside and have resided, in their words, since time immemorial? What has the province been doing for 12 years while those negotiations have been underway? The province has been a no participant. They've been there under observer status. After 12 years of the province sending staff — lawyers and high-ranking officials in the provincial government — I wonder what accounting can be made to this House about that activity. I think it would be very important to have such a report.

The members opposite say: "What would you do?" We would do what the federal government and the aboriginal people are asking for: that the province, because it has jurisdiction over education, health and land resources, sit at the table and undertake a modern, treaty-making relationship, and start discussions about how the aboriginal people will participate in British Columbia in the future.

HON. J. JANSEN: Tell us how much.

MR. G. HANSON: That is a subject of discussion and negotiations. The Minister of Health says: "Tell us how much." Don't you believe in negotiations? You have a certain policy for when the health industry is at the table and talking. Do you mention numbers then? But for aboriginal people, you want to use them against them. I think you should be fair.

[10:30]

Interjection.

MR. G. HANSON: The Minister of Health thinks the New Democratic Party, the official opposition in this House, lives in a fantasy world because we want to see fair, just and honourable settlements of the outstanding land claims of this province.

Mr. Chairman, through the course of this discussion, you're going to hear of a number of flashpoints around this province where there are blockades, opposition to resource development and opposition on the part of aboriginal people to plans that third parties have in mind. Industry and commerce in the province, too, want a negotiated, just and honourable settlement of the land question in the province. It's fine for members on that side to heckle and jeer, and dismiss it as fantasy, and so on. But I know that that minister knows what I'm talking about, because his constituency, the aboriginal people of this province.... He may not have the support of his cabinet colleagues, but surely, if he's listening at all, he's being educated, made aware and sensitized to the basic question that underlies all aboriginal issues in this province: the unresolved land question.

Our party policy is to accept our responsibility that the province has a role to play. That role is also the subject of discussions and negotiation with the federal government. We see that the province has a role in representing third-party interests; third-party interests, through discussions, have to be involved not at the bargaining table but must be aware of what is occurring in the province. Those are municipalities, resource industries, the public, fair-minded individuals — the citizens of this province, who realize that the aboriginal people have a legitimate beef that goes back 130 or 140 years and that will not go away.

As Elijah Harper was reported to have said today in Vancouver, aboriginal people will speak out and be heard. Canadians heard them and understood what was occurring through Elijah Harper's speeches and his position that aboriginal people will no longer be left out of the discussions about their role in Canada. They were here first. They do have a special role; they do have a special place.

MR. REID: How come they only want to talk about money?

MR. G. HANSON: I'm going to change my order for a second to respond to that. I want to read, if I can put my hand on it, what the Nisga'a people have said to the current Premier. I would like to thank the former Minister of Tourism for alerting me. Here are the words of the president of the Nisga'a Tribal Council to the current Premier of this province. That former minister wanted to know something about what the aboriginal people see. I'd like every fair-minded British Columbian to think of these words:

"Mr. Premier, we envisage the final discussions and negotiations of the Nisga'a land question to include:

"1. The types and the amounts of lands necessary to develop self-reliant, self-determining and useful Nisga'a citizens.

"2. Fisheries. Salmon and other seafoods are the mainstay of the Nisga'a diet. We expect a set of agreements to sustain a healthful, wholesome life for the Nisga'a, and a share in the commercial aspect of this resource."

The Sparrow case was recently heard and decided, and I would like the members to reflect on the Sparrow decision when they think of this paragraph in the letter to the Premier of this province.

"3. Forestry. While the prime timber has been harvested already, we expect a set of agreements to encompass economic development ventures in sustained harvesting...."

They want sustainable forests. They were present for thousands and thousands of years as the forest developed, and they understand the principle of sustainability. They want sustained harvesting and rebuilding, reforesting this depleted resource area.

"4. Other resources. At the time of actual negotiations we expect to discuss sharing in the harvesting of all other resources within our traditional lands.

[ Page 10819 ]

"5. Tourism. Our traditional lands are relatively unpolluted, and we expect to discuss practical and manageable schemes with B.C. in many areas of tourism for each one of our villages.

"6. Nisga'a government and delivery of services. We expect to discuss and negotiate with the federal and provincial governments our plans for Nisga'a government. We expect to be given the opportunity to make decisions on behalf of our people, and we expect to be responsible for the mistakes and the shortcomings of our inexperience.

"7. Participation with industry. We expect to share in the harvesting of the resources on our traditional lands. We expect to set up joint ventures, joint management schemes, etc.

"8. Participation with government. We understand that Canada has certain jurisdictions and that B.C. has certain jurisdictions, and we are aware that there is a working relationship between Canada and B.C. We expect to work out our working relationship with these multi-layered existing structures.

"Mr. Premier, the resolution-settlement of the Nisga'a land question issue will deliver economic benefits to all parties and all peoples, because the final discussions-negotiations will eliminate uncertainty, encourage investment in B.C. and, most importantly, create local incentives for environmentally sustainable resource development."

"Mr. Premier, we have a specific proposal to offer to you. Remember that our ancestors have been in the Nass Valley since time immemorial. We have never considered moving out of B.C. now or in the future. Therefore your government's participation in the final discussions-negotiations of the agreements in resolving the Nisga'a land question is vitally important to the successful conclusion of the unresolved situation of life of the Nisga'a.'

Mr. Chairman, any fair-minded British Columbian would see that letter as an invitation to have mature dialogue with the first citizens. They have a right to share in the future. They have a right to move their mortality statistics up to the average; to move their participation in education and post-secondary education up to the average; to have their children live as long as ours and to have them fed properly; and to have economic activity with the industrial sector of the province based on certainty — to provide forestry jobs, fishing jobs, value-added positions and other activities where they could get out of the circle and culture of poverty, the reliance.... They don't want to be wards of the state. They don't want to any longer be captive of a social welfare system. They are proud people. They want to break that cycle of poverty and get off welfare, have their own decisions and have their own government respected.

They have government now. They always have had their own government; it just hasn't been respected by the broader society. They have their tribal councils, leadership and hereditary chiefs who speak for the people. All they want is to sit down and discuss, to educate the broader society and to have us join together to educate the people of the province about the richness of their heritage and their cultures.

There is so much to say. We're going down a dead-end road at the moment, and the dead end is to deny their rights and that unextinguished title. We must sit down and bring this into a framework which both the broader society and the aboriginal people can work out in a working relationship. This province is blessed with resources and talent. One of the greatest untapped talent bases of our province is the aboriginal people — in athletics, in art....

The great French anthropologist, Claude Lévi-Strauss, said that the accomplishments of the coastal British Columbians prior to European contact rivaled those of Greece and Rome at their cultural apogees. When the Haida went to Paris to see the great exhibits of Haida art.... It's a world treasure. Why are they not respected or understood at home? The people of the province are ready now to see aboriginal people take their rightful place, to educate everyone and for non-native and non-aboriginal people to have an opportunity to understand the richness of that culture which has existed for 25,000 years in this region.

I'm going to ask a large number of questions of the minister. I'd like to hear about the Nisga'a land case. I'd also like him to report, if he would, on what is happening in the Chilcotin. What are his views on the situation with the Ulkatcho-Kluskus tribal council and in particular the Toosey band? What is the position of his ministry with respect to this dispute, where blockades have been put in place and lifted subject to some discussions beginning? I'd like to ask him to report to the House on that matter.

I would like him to give us a report on forestry matters in general. There are a number of flashpoints around the province. One of them is Ure Creek in the Lillooet Lake logging area. I understand that International Forest Products has stopped its proposed logging road, which was going to destroy a burial area, after protest by the Mount Currie band. That has been suspended. I'd like to ask him for an update on that particular matter.

I'd like to ask him what his views are with respect to the Nuu'chah'nulth land claim in parts of the Carmanah area, where a number of aboriginal people have indicated their intention to get an injunction because of the Carmanah Valley and the comprehensive claims portion of that.

[10:45]

I'd like to have some comments with respect to the Peace treaty association and their concern over the pulpwood agreements and treaty rights and their pursuit of their traditional lifestyle, including trapping, hunting, fishing and gathering; the Takla band and the intensive tree-farm harvesting plan on Takla Lake and the impact that will have there....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, the member's time has expired under standing orders.

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, I believe the member from Victoria is providing us a good context for these estimates, and it would be helpful to the House if he continued at this time. I look forward to the rest of his outline of his means of tackling these estimates.

[ Page 10820 ]

MR. G. HANSON: I wonder if the minister could report to us on the Nemaiah Valley band's concerns over impacts of clear-cut logging under pulpwood agreements proposed for their particular area, and on the Klahoose band's concerns over the extensive clear-cut logging operations of Weldwood in the vicinity of a watershed, with the potential to cause serious damage there.

Perhaps the minister could give us his report on the Iskut mine access road, on the status of the Cinola gold-mine in the Charlottes with respect to his ministry and on the Windy Craggy copper-cobalt situation. What are his views on the Sparrow decision, its implications for his ministry and how it impacts on the treaty rights of the Salish people within the Douglas treaty area and management of the fishing resources, beyond conservation? What role is he playing in assisting the First Nations of South Island in their access to Goldstream chum and processing of that resource? The Kitimat fishery...?

I'm referring to a number of problem areas in the province where there have been concerns expressed and action by native people. The South Moresby National Park. There have been concerns expressed by the Alliance tribal council of the lower mainland about pulp mill effluent. Has it come to his attention regarding the native fishery and food supply in the Fraser, and in the situation on the Esquimalt reserve, with the dioxins and PCBs where the Doman sawmill was located? The Langley band has concerns about toxic materials. The Site C hydro project. The Babine Lake pulp mill waste. Those are a few; we have a number of others.

Before I sit down and listen to the response of the minister, I'd like to continue by completing our party policy with respect to aboriginal people. There are five key points. I was interrupted before, and I departed onto the Nisga'a matter because of the interjections of the former Minister of Tourism.

These are the five key points. The New Democratic Party is committed to recognition of aboriginal title and aboriginal people's inherent right to self-government; to provincial participation in modern-day treaty negotiations to achieve just and honourable settlements of the land question; to third-party interests in negotiated treaties on the land question; to sustainable economic development initiatives, in both aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities, resulting from settlement of the land question; and to renewal of constitutional processes aimed at entrenching aboriginal peoples' inherent right to self-government in the constitution of Canada.

As I said when I started, it is time British Columbia removed the colonial yoke from the aboriginal people of this province — 27 distinct languages and cultures, among the richest on this planet; people who can contribute richly and greatly to our future. They want to be self-reliant; they don't want to be, as I said earlier, wards of the state. They don't want to have an Indian Act, drafted years ago in a colonial framework, dictate every action of their lives.

I have had top officials of Indian Affairs of Canada tell me that the present Indian Act is so ridiculous that for an aboriginal group to buy a car with their own money, by the time they've gone through the paper war with Indian Affairs to save Her Majesty harmless and to ensure that the minister or the Crown is not liable for some problem, the files are thick with paper. A tribe or a band living beside Vancouver, people with master's degrees, people who are bright and intelligent, can't buy a vehicle with their own money without a cubic metre of paper and correspondence to protect Canada and save Her Majesty harmless. If it is not the most ridiculous, archaic, atavistic and goofy bit of colonial trappings, I can't imagine what is.

No Indian persons in this province own their own land. There isn't a single person who can say.... George Watts, a great native leader, can't say he owns a piece of land and go to the bank and borrow money on it. They don't have the right. Every MLA in this chamber has property. Aboriginal people have no right to property; it's held in trust for them by the Crown. Think about it, Mr. Member. How would you like to be born an aboriginal member and never have the right to own a piece of property? I think that hits you where you live.

MR. REID: They can buy anything they want. What are you talking about?

MR. G. HANSON: They don't own reserve land. I am saying within their reserves. Think about that. He thinks that's amusing. We have a difference in philosophy that runs down the middle of this chamber, and it is nowhere more clear than on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, we have an opportunity to chart a new course, and that's what we're going to do in about six months' time. We expected there would be a provincial election, but somehow the Premier's feet are encased in ice. His own....

MR. REID: Your own member is abandoning you.

MR. G. HANSON: You are the side that abandons the Premier, and then you come creeping back on your bellies around nomination time.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where's your leader?

MR. G. HANSON: Our leader is going to make a great Premier. He's going to make you look like you're pre-Pleistocene. You guys are going to be dragging your knuckles compared to the kind of government we're going to have in about six months' time.

There is no more important issue in the province of British Columbia than the fact that the aboriginal land question has not been addressed. You can deny it. You can put your head in the sand. You can spend a fortune on court cases. You can have lawyers by the cubic mile. You've got court cases, hundreds of them, choking the courts — you lose every one. You go to the Supreme Court of B.C. and the Supreme Court of Canada, and you lose and you lose and you wait and you wait.

[ Page 10821 ]

As Elijah Harper said, aboriginal people will speak out and be heard. Today, in Vancouver, he's speaking out and he's being heard. He's being heard not by radical, off-the-wall types; he's being heard by fair-minded, decent, honourable citizens of Canada and British Columbia who say that for 15 years since the Calder case, since the Supreme Court of Canada split, since the establishment of the comprehensive land claims office in Ottawa and the policy established by the government of the day saying: "File your claims and we will start to talk, six at a time, one in British Columbia...." There's one going on for years and years and years that without the presence, without the province taking its responsibility to sit down and represent the broader community of the province in negotiating and making sure that the people of B.C. receive a fair shake, that aboriginal citizens receive a fair shake and that the federal government treats B.C. fairly, for 12 years....

We'd like to hear a report on that, and I'll just conclude my opening remarks there.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: It's been interesting to sit and listen to the comments of the opposition critic. I'm going to respond to a few points; he's mentioned a number of issues. I assume that what he wanted to do was alert us that he would be asking specific questions as we go through the process.

I was interested in his comments on the Indian Act. We as a government.... I personally have never been a particular proponent of the Indian Act. I think there are many better ways in which relationships between Canada and Indian people could be framed. However, you and I know that as there's an attempt to make those changes, there comes a great reluctance on the part of Indian people. There seems to be a love-hate sort of relationship with the Indian Act. They dislike, as you point out, the kinds of constraints that require a band to get permission from Ottawa in order to buy a vehicle — to have to call or write the minister and get permission. It's ridiculous. But also, when you talk seriously about changing the Indian Act it raises a great deal of concern. I'm interested in what changes you would see. I think it fair also for us in this Legislature to recognize, as we both do, that this is a piece of federal legislation, and that whether we like it or dislike it is of very little real consequence to whether the act is repealed, changed or left as it is. We can talk about all of the injustices of the Indian Act, but we all know that this is federal legislation.

[11:00]

The member talks about the frustrations of Indian people in their inability to pledge reserve property in order to expand or establish businesses. That's one of the specific concerns that we've run up against time after time, as I meet with Indian leaders and people who are interested in business, and as the Premier's advisory council meets with tribal councils to explore ways of economic development. That is a real obstacle, one that we run into day after day. I think it's fair to acknowledge that it's there.

However, you say that no Indian people in British Columbia can own their own property or pledge it. I know, Mr. Member, that you and members of your party don't particularly like the Sechelt model, but the fact is that the Sechelt model deals with that issue and provides Sechelt people with an opportunity to own their own property, to register it and to pledge it. That may not be the model that everyone wants to follow, but it has been established with federal and provincial cooperation, and it works. We were there very recently. The model works; it works for Sechelt. Whether or not it works for others is a decision that individual Indian bands have an opportunity to make, and I'm certain that in most cases both levels of government would be quite willing to enter into agreements and discussions with individual bands on self-government models, whether it be the Sechelt model or similar ones. That's something that we've been on record for some time now as supporting.

The member started off by talking a great deal about the need for treaties in British Columbia — the fact that the Douglas treaties on Vancouver Island and the Treaty 8 treaties were the only ones in British Columbia; that there should be a treaty-making process; that we should get on with making treaties. I refer him to the Sparrow decision, because I suspect we're going to hear a great deal about Sparrow in the next day or two. We're received a number of opinions on Sparrow, both solicited and unsolicited. People are using Sparrow, I suppose, to reinforce their own positions; I guess that's reasonable.

One of the things that came out quite clearly in Sparrow was that the government of Canada, and only the Canadian government, has the right, the authority, to enter into a treaty. The province of British Columbia, under the constitution of Canada, cannot enter into treaties, even if it wanted to. Treaty 8, the last one that was signed in British Columbia, was signed in the early 1900s — 1903 or 1904; sometime in that period. British Columbia was a province at that time. British Columbia took no part at all in the signing of Treaty 8. It was recognized then, as now, that treaty-making is a federal responsibility. So the lack of treaties in British Columbia.... You have to look to the federal government. That's a position we've held for a long time. This is a federal responsibility. As many things that Sparrow may or may not decide, I think one of the main thrusts of the decision was the responsibility it underlines — the special and unique responsibility — that Canada has to Indian people.

I suppose the other name we'll hear almost as often as Sparrow over the next couple of days is Elijah Harper. I have a great deal of respect for Elijah Harper. I think he's a courageous individual; I think he, probably more than anybody else in Canada in recent times, has indicated the power an MLA or an MP has on his own if he wishes to use that power and to be creative in its use. I think that Elijah Harper, while he will be an inspiration to Indian people, should also be an inspiration to MLAs from Newfoundland to British Columbia. He has shown us what it's possible to do, if you're prepared to do it.

[ Page 10822 ]

Mr. Chairman, I think also that Mr. Harper reinforces many of the positions we have held. Again, he understands that the responsibility for treaties, for dealings with Indian people as they relate to the Indian Act, to land claims settlements, is federal. I heard him on the radio this morning. He understands quite clearly that the government of Canada has the responsibility. If we're now using Mr. Harper as the guidepost, or as someone who is an authority on responsibility, then I would urge you to look to Mr. Harper and to listen to what he says. He says, as we have said, that this is a problem that begs the federal government to resolve it. That's the position the province has held for as least as long as I've been involved with it.

Certainly this opinion has been shared with us by many people who have looked at Sparrow, including a number of legal counsel around the province — not legal counsel for the province but legal counsel who work for Indian bands and tribal councils. People who make their living in the area of law as it relates to Indian people are telling us clearly that the Sparrow decision reinforces this position of a special and unique fiduciary responsibility that Canada has towards Indian people.

The member talks about the NDP policy — the new, broad policy that was adopted by the NDP. He didn't mention — but I think it's worth mentioning — that this comprehensive document received less than five minutes' debate at your convention and that the document was tabled and accepted without any discussion at all. So you can like it or dislike it. But when you talk about it having unanimous approval, you know and I know that it got unanimous approval because nobody discussed it.

One of the key items in your position is the recognition of aboriginal title. I'm a bit surprised, or maybe even amazed, that you would recognize something that I don't see a definition of. What is aboriginal title? If I were to recognize — and people continually call on me to recognize — aboriginal title.... But I would like to see your definition or the definition of aboriginal title that you recognize. What does aboriginal title mean in a paragraph or a sentence or a page or two pages? Whatever it takes to define aboriginal title would be of a great deal of interest to me and to a lot of people in British Columbia. I have yet to hear a clear and succinct definition of aboriginal title.

The member talks about the 12 years that the province has been an observer at the Nisga'a talks. I haven't been around for 12 years, but I can tell you that it's my understanding that after 3½ years of inaction by the NDP government from '72 to '75, during which time the Premier consistently and continually refused to meet or talk to the Nisga'a leaders, the Bennett government, when Allan Williams was the minister responsible, undertook to meet and start discussions in 1976. At that time, I understand that his series of meetings with the late James Gosnell met with a very strong and continuous position — and the words have become famous — that "We own British Columbia, lock, stock and barrel." After trying for some time to break that impasse, that government gave up in frustration as a result of that position.

In September of 1989, as you are aware, the Nisga'a signed their framework agreement to start a formal process with the federal government. The province has been an observer at those talks since then. That's as much as I can tell you about the Nisga'a talks.

I think it's probably an appropriate time to note that the current premier of this province is the first premier to have ever met with the Nisga'a people and leaders. We met in his office, in Aiyansh and at the lava beds.

It was noted on those occasions that he was the only premier who had ever met with the leaders of the Nisga'a people. We've heard that time and time again as we've made our visits with the Premier's advisory council. The Nuu'chah'nulth people noted that this was the first time a premier had ever visited them in their lands. The Tahltans noted that it was the first time a premier had ever visited Deas Lake to meet with the Tahltan people. We heard the same thing from the Shuswap people and from the Okanagan people.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sorry, Minister, your time has expired.

HON. MR. DIRKS: Mr. Chairman, I am very interested in hearing the rest of the explanation by the hon. minister. I would like him to continue.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: These members across the way — these folks who are full of good intentions — certainly look back on the period from 1972 to 1975 in shame. I am sure that they want to hang their heads for their performance — or more importantly, their lack of performance — when they had the opportunity. They hope, and they puff themselves up talking about what they are going to do if they get to be government again. I am sure most Indian people in this province hope they don't have to wait that long. Most of them are looking for a resolution to happen in this decade.

The critic mentioned a large number of issues ranging from the Toosey blockade through Treaty 8 through mining activity in various parts of the province. I'd certainly be happy to spend some time talking about specifics, if that's the way he would like to proceed in these estimates — certainly it's his call. I'm not going to provide a series of reports on issues. If you have some concerns with particular items, I'll be happy, along with the staff I have here, to provide you as complete an answer as I can. I think it's fair to note that a number of the issues you're going to touch on will involve other ministries as well. I'll try to give you information as best I can as it relates to my ministry. Some of the questions, obviously, will have to be referred to other ministers, from what you've outlined.

[11:15]

[ Page 10823 ]

MR. GUNO: I want to thank my colleague for allowing me at least the opportunity to respond to some particular issues the Minister of Native Affairs raised. One I really take exception to is his gross misrepresentation of the role of the Socred government when they allegedly took their rightful place in the tripartite negotiations in 1976. He mentioned that they gave it a try and gave up because the late leader, the great Nisga'a leader, James Gosnell, said something to the effect that we owned the land lock, stock and barrel. It's typical of this government to cast the honest efforts on the part of aboriginal people to try and deal with this in a fair and just way....

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

There has never been any change in the position of the Nisga'a people — and I think this reflects other aboriginal groups. It is to negotiate a longstanding grievance. We do recognize the fact that this is largely a federal matter; nobody has ever denied that. But there is a moral obligation on the part of the provincial government to take part in this. Your party said that in 1976, but after they made that commitment, they turned their backs, just like other, successive governments.

For you to say that there was this kind of hardline position on the part of the....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Please proceed, hon. member.

MR. GUNO: We have our position on record, and I think it's a fair one. It's workable; it's achievable. But as long as we have members — like the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Richmond) — asking what our bottom line is....

MR. REID: Let's hear your bottom line.

MR. GUNO: The bottom line is to start resolving this matter. For this government to retain its intransigent, racist stance will continue this conflict.

It's really obscene for the Minister of Native Affairs to say that Elijah Harper reinforced their position. In fact, one reason Elijah Harper took this stand was that there were three or four opportunities for the first ministers and the Prime Minister to resolve the whole question of the constitutional entrenchment of self-government. In 1987 the Premier of this province led the effort to stonewall the aspirations of native people, so for you to characterize Elijah Harper as reinforcing your position is really disingenuous, to say the least.

At any rate, I just wanted to set the record straight. I have more to say later on, but I wanted to address that particular issue about your characterizing the stance of the Nisga'a people as owning the land lock, stock and barrel. That is not true. They've always said they were willing to negotiate on a fair basis. We want our legitimate interests to be recognized, and at the end of negotiations we want a fair and just settlement, an honourable one. So if you feel that that means that at the end of the day we own 110 percent to 125 percent of B.C., that's really just clouding the issue and, I think, trying to raise fears and distortions.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: The comments the member for Atlin makes are interesting, and I suppose they're similar to what we hear from most Indian people when we visit them. In fact, they don't want 110 percent of the province; they want a just settlement. They would like to see a settlement to the land issue which would provide them independence, get them off the welfare system and improve the unhappy statistics, both social and economic, that the first member for Victoria referred to earlier. Those are comfortable things. We can talk about things like that, and I think we all understand what we're talking about.

However, we then go to court with the Gitksan-Wet’suwet’en, and in his closing arguments, Chief Delgam Uukw said that their settlement will bankrupt the province of British Columbia and the government of Canada and that we will pay, pay and pay until our hearts are happy. That's the difficulty we face.

Interjections.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: At the recent, and longstanding, Supreme Court trial, Chief Delgam Uukw stated that the cost of settling the Gitksan-Wet’suwet’en land claim — which covers an area the size of New Brunswick and contains about 15,000 people, both Indian and non-Indian — would bankrupt the governments of British Columbia and Canada.

It's important, therefore, that we understand a couple of things, and this goes back to my earlier remarks to the first member for Victoria. What does aboriginal title mean? When you recognize aboriginal title, what are you recognizing? What are you asking the people of British Columbia to accept? You're saying that if you, the NDP, were government, you would recognize aboriginal title. I say to you that you don't know what aboriginal title means, because you don't have a definition of it. I suggest also that the government of Canada has never recognized aboriginal title, although it has a comprehensive land claim policy. To my knowledge, no government in Canada has ever recognized aboriginal title.

It's easy when you're in opposition; it's easy to make these grave statements when you're sitting across the way. We heard them pre-1972. But when you finally got into a position of being able to do something, you did absolutely nothing. Your Premier wouldn't even go out onto the steps to talk to Indian people when they came to the lawns, so don't tell me what a strong moral position you have. Action is what counts.

I think it's important that we understand what this question is all about. There has been a great deal of

[ Page 10824 ]

criticism in this House about the province's involvement in the Gitksan case — comments from the first member for Victoria about hundreds of millions of dollars being spent by the province fighting aboriginal land claims. That member knows — or should know — that the province has spent less than $3 million in total.

MR. G. HANSON: Will you table all those numbers?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: I'll table those numbers for you any time you like. As a matter of fact, I think we have the numbers here. Expenditures by the legal services branch on the native title project amounted to $2,125,000 in 1989-90; $1,175,000 of that was spent on the Gitksan case. That's less than $3 million in 1989-90. The member has mentioned that hundred million dollars repeatedly. In 1989-90, other than the Gitksan case, the province spent less than $350,000 in total on land claims.

But whether we spent one $1 million, $2 million or $3 million, when we talk about a claim that the Gitksan, the people who brought the cases to court.... It wasn't the province who brought the issue to the courts; it was the Gitksan. When their chief says that the settlement will break not only the province of British Columbia but the government of Canada, then it would be unreasonable....

MR. LOENEN: Irresponsible.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: It would be irresponsible — exactly — for us to do less than vigorously put our position forward. I make no apology to you or to anyone else for our defending our position in that particular issue.

We do want to go on record as having said and continuing to say that we want to address the land question in a careful, thoughtful and prudent way that is fair for all British Columbians. The land claim issue is immensely important to the Indian people of British Columbia. No one could ever doubt that or deny that. But it involves more than Indian people and the government. It involves all of the people of British Columbia. We as a government, as legislators, have a responsibility to look for a reasonable and fair settlement. A settlement that would break or bankrupt the province of British Columbia and the government of Canada, I submit to you, is not a fair and reasonable settlement. It's something that should be challenged and will be challenged.

MR. GUNO: On one hand the minister talks about the need to reach a fair and honourable settlement, and at the same time he will quote the more outrageous statements made by certain leaders in moments of frustration. You've got to put this in context. These people say this after 130 years of frustration, and so you use that.

Interjection.

MR. GUNO: The member can laugh. Laugh away; it doesn't bother me. I will tell you one thing, though. I will read you a piece from the Nisga'a Tribal Council's letter to the Premier:

"From the early 1800s the Nisga'a leaders have been stating to the federal and to the provincial governments: (1) let us sit down and discuss ways and means that we can share the lands and the resources of the Nass River Valley; (2) let us discuss ways and means to coexist in peace; (3) let us be honourable in seeking a just and fair settlement."

This has been the position of the Nisga'a people since the early 1800s.

Elijah Harper explained the position he took. One of the things he said was that we have been the most patient, we have been the most accommodating.... We have endured years and years of brutal living conditions. We are not going to endure that any longer.

I think the cost of settlement is nothing compared to the cost of non-settlement. Today in social costs, in terms of....

Interjections.

MR. GUNO: The members over there say that I'm abandoning my party; I'm not. One of the reasons I've decided not to seek election is to not to have to take part in these kinds of obscene exchanges. When I entered politics, I thought there'd be some way we could sit down rationally and discuss things.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, I know we're all very excited about this subject, but perhaps it would be better to wait for a turn to speak on the issue rather than interrupting continually.

AN HON. MEMBER: What do you think of all this?

MR. GUNO: What do I think of all this? I think that the cynicism of this government and its members is just breathtaking. The hypocrisy I've seen exhibited by this government and its members is incredible. It has to be a benchmark in Canada.

MR. REID: When was the last time you went back to your constituency and...? When was the last time you were there? Talk about obscene!

[11:30]

MR. G. HANSON: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the remarks just made by the former Minister of Tourism, the member for Surrey-White Rock-Cloverdale, really are offensive and reflect on the duty, the status and the honour of the only aboriginal person in this Legislature. I ask that member to withdraw.

MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, I was repeating the words of the member for Atlin when he referred to this Legislature as an obscene place to work and to

[ Page 10825 ]

the activities that go on here as obscene. I was using the words he was referring to.

As a matter of record, if the word "obscene" used by me in reference to that member is offensive, I'll withdraw mine.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member.

MR. GUNO: I certainly wasn't casting any aspersions on the member. I said the exchanges were obscene, and they were. Maybe I'm being overly sensitive, I don't know. But this is a very sensitive subject for me. I feel I've experienced and lived the conditions of life that are everyday experiences for aboriginal people in B.C. I find it offensive to hear the kind of calls that I hear from across the floor. To suggest that I'm abandoning the party for political reasons is really misrepresenting my own particular and private reasons for withdrawing. I'm proud to be a member of this party. I'm proud to be a part of the team that developed this policy.

The minister said that this was passed without debate. In fact, the policy was vetted through the party in various committee stages and various meetings. So to just about every member and in every regional conference we had we presented the policy paper for refinement and discussion. When it finally reached the party's convention in Vancouver last March, it was unanimous. We endorsed it by the party because we felt and recognized that it was time to deal with this matter.

We can talk about definitions. I think that you're trying to put onerous preconditions before negotiations. Of course negotiations involve definitions. They involve trying to seek each other's positions. I think that we're being unduly fearful. I'm reminded of Jack Kennedy's statement: "Let us not fear to negotiate, but let us not negotiate out of fear." I think that's a dictum this government should adopt in trying to deal with this matter. The fact that you hide behind a constitutional argument that it's only a federal responsibility is a blight on the province.

There have been a number of people calling upon this government to start recognizing that it makes very good economic sense to deal with this matter and remove the cloud hanging over B.C., which is stifling investment in various parts of the province. Last year I quoted a report by the Canadian Bar Association, which stated that if the native people wanted to, they could tie up billions and billions of dollars worth of investment through various legal maneuvers, cases and actions. The fact that they haven't is a demonstration of their patience and willingness to sit down and negotiate this matter.

It's not just a crazy scheme that we want to continue to press; it's a very fundamental question of human rights. It is an effort on the part of people to say yes, we are a part of the human race; we have social, economic and political institutions; we have a history; we are a people. We weren't just part of the flora and fauna of B.C. when our white brothers and sisters came. We had title. We owned and dealt with these lands. It was land held in trust by various houses. For you to say that there's no such thing and to ask what aboriginal title is.... Aboriginal title is simply a recognition that the aboriginal people of B.C. lived and thrived here before the white man came. It has not been recognized. Those rights and interests have been proclaimed in courts, but this government has refused to deal with them. As long as it does that, we're going to continue to have these conflicts, and I think they're going to escalate.

For the minister to quote some of the more extreme statements made by various Indian leaders out of frustration is to raise fears which only block any opportunities to sit down and resolve this matter rationally.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER. First of all, I want to make it clear that I — and I think members on this side of the House — have a great deal of respect for the member for Atlin. He has been an outstanding representative not only of Indian people in British Columbia but of his constituents as well. I don't think it does any of us any good not to maintain that kind of relationship between members on both sides of the House.

The member talks about aboriginal title and about the fact that it's a negotiating position. I don't have any argument with that. I don't have any argument at all with Indian people adopting a negotiating position which says: "We have aboriginal title to the land." Whether you like or not, the statement by Chief Delgam Uukw wasn't from some obscure person making a comment in a moment of frustration. This is from a leader, a chief, making a presentation to the Supreme Court of British Columbia, so let's not try to wish it away as something overheard in a corridor somewhere. This is a thought-out, premeditated position which was taken to the Supreme Court of British Columbia. Let's understand that clearly.

My criticism is not of the Indian position. My criticism is of the NDP position, which accepts their argument before you start negotiations. It's lunacy to go into negotiations saying "Yes, we accept your position. We'll see where we go from there."

The member for Atlin recognizes that it's a question of negotiations. When we were up in Alberni, George Watts, the chief there, said: "Look, this is a real estate deal. Let's get on with the negotiations."

I don't have any difficulty with there being two positions — or three, if it's a tripartite negotiation — but I'll tell you what: I'm concerned, and the people of British Columbia should be concerned, about the position the NDP has adopted on this issue. It doesn't provide a balance. If you ever — heaven forbid — get to be government again, surely you'll understand that you have a responsibility for all people in British Columbia, and that your positions, when you negotiate, have to have a balance. I don't know, quite honestly, how you'll back-pedal from the hole you've got yourself into with this position you've adopted — and I hope I never have to find out how you back-pedal your way out of it.

That's the argument; that's my problem; that's the concern. You folded; you put yourself in a position

[ Page 10826 ]

that says: "Yes, we agree with Chief Delgarn Uukw." That's the problem.

HON. MR. DAVIS: I also have some difficulty with the NDP position. I want to go first to fundamentals. The New Democratic Party doesn't believe in property; at least, it doesn't believe that property rights, for example, should be entrenched in the constitution of Canada. In fact, the NDP — without exception — opposed the inclusion of property as a right of an individual in this country. It doesn't believe in property for individuals. It may — it hasn't been explicit — believe in property rights for groups. But it certainly hasn't endorsed property as standing up in any way equivalent to life or liberty or freedom to express oneself or religion, and so on. I find them totally inconsistent. There are members of this House sitting in the opposition benches who have, in times past, said that they were against private ownership of even homes and residences. And yet here, in the case of native land claims, they are endorsing a concept of property; they are endorsing property as some kind of virtuous right.

If you pursue it more closely, it's a right which will apply only to a particular group — call it a racial group or ethnic group. I think they tended to go along with the idea that the constitution spell out the rights of Canadians — other than property — and that those rights include the right of anyone to have equal treatment regardless of ethnic background, racial extraction, where they were born or whatever. In this case, on the other hand, they are choosing to support a particular group and its claims solely — as far as I can determine — on the basis of ethnicity, history or ancient lineage and not any other basis.

[11:45]

Certainly the aboriginal peoples' ideas before the white man came did not include the concept of property as we now think of it in modern society. It's an invention of modern times, as far as they are concerned. As far as the NDP is concerned, it's not a concept the NDP embraces for the rest of us. They only embrace it in this particular case, I suppose — if they are being at all logical or foursquare with the rest of us — for the convenience of winning a few votes. But it is discriminatory in its essentials, and it's limited to a group of people who can trace their lineage back farther than I can in this country.

I'm older than most native people in this province; I claim I was here first among people who are living here. I really don't buy much of this business of being here first. I assume my ancestors, if I go far enough back, were also alive when their ancestors were alive and crossed the Bering Sea. I don't see this as any particular reason to give those people, that group of people, a preferred share, a preferred position, in respect to property in this province. What's the property position of an immigrant who has just landed in British Columbia? Does that immigrant, who has now got landed-immigrant status, have less rights than I do? I don't think so. I think they have the same rights as I do under our constitution and under our law. So why should some group, because they can claim ancient lineage, have a claim that's disallowed for all the rest of us, including the latest landed immigrant?

I think the NDP, if it gets right back to basic philosophy, are all crossed up on this one. They really don't know where they're going. They like to say — and this doesn't really stand up to close examination — that they'll deal with all of the outstanding claims. Well, if you take the claims filed in Ottawa, they add up to considerably more than the land area of the province. So they're going to deal with claims which exceed the area of the province, mostly because the claims are overlapping in places. The native population of this province is less than 3 percent. Do they really believe, really think, that a very large part of this province can be turned over to 3 percent of the population? What really is their objective? Will they be explicit on this? Do they believe that in their egalitarian approach to most things, they're prepared to turn over 3 percent of the land area of the province to native people? Let's be logical about this. Let's have a bottom line. Let's know what we're talking about.

I don't think the Leader of the Opposition has the faintest idea. I think he has just struck a pose. It sounds munificent. It sounds good to some people's ears that he's on the side of disadvantaged people. Well, they are disadvantaged in lots of ways. The principal way is that they are scattered and not living in or close to the principal centres of population. I don't think that most native people want to live around or close to the principal centres of population, so they tend to be displaced from economic opportunities that the rest of us — especially the later immigrants who come to the big city and stay around the big city — enjoy.

It’s tough. It's difficult. I think we must, in all fairness to the native people, make sure that every break going to anyone else in this country and in this province also comes their way and that they are treated at least equally and in some instances, because fairness is called for in the modern view of things, even better than their ancestors or the rest of us were in the past.

But I really don't see the NDP position in logic, in basic philosophy and in approach. They have got to be realistic. They have got to come down to some definitive, bottom-line numbers, whether it be acreage or dollars or what it is, where our native people are enjoying the same rights as all the rest of us and the same opportunities, most importantly, as the rest of us, but without causing endless controversy and apprehension.

I know that outside the lower mainland area there are many people who feel this whole question is out of hand. They just don't know what they can invest in next or what they can do next, because almost anything they are inclined to do may involve some land or the development of a resource. There's a cloud over land and a cloud over the development of resources because of the native land claims issue.

It is an issue, and we have to deal with it. But I think we have to deal with it in proportion to not

[ Page 10827 ]

only acres and dollars but also the population of other Canadians, all of whom have the same rights as our native people must have.

MR. G. HANSON: The Minister of Energy has just affirmed what we are saying — that there is a problem. The problem is that the province, through its history, has failed to take its place and sit down with the federal government to represent all of the interests in the province and negotiate a just and honourable settlement with the aboriginal people.

The comment the minister made — and he can be so intelligent on energy matters and so ill-informed in areas such as this — that Justice Hall in the Calder case ripped apart the whole notion that aboriginal people didn't have equally valid notions of land title and ownership of regions and resources.... To claim, as my colleague said, that somehow the people moved at random like flora and fauna is absolutely absurd. I know he didn't use those words, but that was the implication — that somehow there was no sense of the periodicity of salmon runs; the utilization of resources as they occurred within their territory through the course of the year; the elaborate social systems and economic redistribution systems that were developed to deal with the availability of resources as they appeared at different points of time, whether they be races of salmon or species of fish spawning in different creeks, or the emergence of sturgeon or herring roe or various kinds of vegetable products; or hunting and so on.

This is a very complex settlement system and resource-extraction system, to occupy British Columbia with the kind of vegetation and the habitat and topography and so on that it has. It's a very sophisticated arrangement, an ecological adaptation to the environment, to develop the kinds of social structures and so on that were and are still in place. It is absolutely absurd to claim that somehow people lived without any linkage with the ground, that somehow they were floating in free space without any sense of ownership and occupancy and a relationship with adjacent peoples, with perhaps kinship or different cultures and different languages, and the way they met each other and arranged for the utilization of those resources. It is absolutely absurd to think that they didn't have a very sophisticated concept of their relationship with the land.

There are just so many spurious things that occur in this debate. It's been going on as long as I've been here, and it's going to go on until there's a change of provincial government. It's as simple as that.

The minister betrayed his ignorance in not even reading our party policy document. He hasn't read it. If he has read it, he hasn't understood it, because the third of the five points is that we are committed to third-party interests in the negotiated treaties on the land question: "In negotiating treaties, a provincial government will ensure that third-party interests are accommodated, including those of municipalities and others." Certainly the province has the mandate to represent all interests. But here we have a Nisga'a framework agreement signed by the federal Crown and I notice people here who were present as observers when it was signed — and references in this document are to the provincial government and the requirement, obligation, importance and necessity of the presence of the province here. In fact, there are time clauses whereby this whole document vaporizes if the province is not at the table within three years of the execution of this document.

It was signed on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada, represented herein by the Hon. Pierre Cadieux, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development; and by a former member of this House, Hon. Kim Campbell, who now occupies one of the most important posts in this land and who at that time was Minister of State for Indian and Northern Affairs; and on behalf of the Nisga'a nation by Chief Alvin McKay, president of the Nisga'a Tribal Council, and Chief Joseph Gosnell, chairman of the Nisga'a Tribal Council.

This document includes section 9, which refers to British Columbia's participation in the land claims agreement. In subsection 9(1) it says: "The parties have agreed that they" — Canada and the Nisga'a people — "will endeavour, as soon as practicable, and in any event within three years from the date of execution of this agreement, to persuade British Columbia" — the federal government and the Nisga'a people have signed an agreement to attempt to persuade British Columbia — "to agree to participate actively in negotiations and to contribute to the land claims agreement." This is a federal Conservative government. Are you saying that they are absolutely haywire? Maybe you are. Are you saying that they were fools to sign this agreement; that Kim Campbell and Pierre Cadieux don't believe in private property; or that Pierre Cadieux and Kim Campbell are willing to give away 125 percent of British Columbia? Of course not.

The comprehensive claims office of Ottawa asks for claims to be submitted if there's an overlap in terms of a fish resource, berries, hunting or something; that is an artifact of the claims process. All of that can be worked out tribally. That is not an excuse to not negotiate. To say that aboriginal people didn't have private property is nonsense, and it's not an excuse to not negotiate. This document says:

"Should British Columbia agree to participate in negotiations, the Nisga'a Tribal Council, Canada and B.C. shall forthwith negotiate revisions to this framework agreement in order to reflect provincial participation and set forth topics, process and target dates for completion of the negotiations.

"Should British Columbia not agree to participate in the negotiations, and at the cost of settlement within three years of the date of execution of the framework agreement, the Nisga'a Tribal Council and Canada will not conclude an agreement in principle pursuant to this framework agreement. In that event the matter will be referred back to the federal cabinet and the Nisga'a nation to consider possible alternative courses of action."

As a result of the Calder case in the mid-seventies, when the Supreme Court of Canada split three, three and one, a comprehensive land claims office was established. Since that time there have been six. The

[ Page 10828 ]

policy of the federal government is to negotiate six at any one given time in this country, and one is in British Columbia. The one is the Nisga'a, and it has been going on for a dozen or more years, where the province of B.C. has been sitting there as an observer like a crow on a fence-post without voice or vote or say. The province of British Columbia has not been privy to those negotiations.

The people of B.C. are not well served by a process where third parties are not represented. If you want, as we do, to represent all of the people fairly, the third parties must be involved. They can't be at the table, because the provincial government is representing the third parties within provincial jurisdiction. The three parties at the table are the federal government, the Nisga'a people and the provincial government. We each have our separate rounds of negotiations; the province with the federal government on counter-claim arguments — and the minister knows that. So much of the heckling coming from that side of the House is spurious and just designed to create confusion.

Interjection.

MR. G. HANSON: The minister wants to make a comment.

Before I take my place.... For the minister to try to communicate to this House or to the people of the province that this side of the House is not committed to justice, not only for native people but for third party interests, is totally false.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: Before adjourning for the morning, I want to recognize five people in the gallery today.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: With us today are five members of the executive of the United Native Nations. They were meeting with the Cabinet Committee on Native Affairs this morning, and I want to officially extend my apologies for not being able to be there and here at the same time.

With us today are Mr. Ron George, president; Mr. Ernie Crey, vice-president; Ms. Rosalee Tizya, self-government coordinator; Danny Fletcher, housing administrator; and Mr. Nelson Mayer, administrator. I would ask that the House make them welcome. I was pleased to understand that the cabinet committee submission was very well done and very well received. Thank you very much. Would everyone give them a welcome.

MR. G. HANSON: I'd just like to join with the minister, on behalf of this side of the House, in extending a warm welcome to our friends from the United Native Nations. We hope their deliberations will be fruitful. I'm sure that you're finding this discussion very interesting and important. Welcome to the House today.

I'd like to move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, prior to moving adjournment, and before I forget this evening, and inasmuch as this is Tuesday and pursuant to standing order 25, I'd like to advise the House that the Legislative Assembly will sit tomorrow.

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:01 p.m.

ERRATUM

Thursday, July 5, 1990, afternoon sitting (Volume 19 Number 3), page 10747, right-hand column, line 4: for "subsidies" read "subsea".