1993 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 35th Parliament HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only. The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
WEDNESDAY, MAY 26, 1993
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 10, Number 9
[ Page 6531 ]
The House met at 2:06 p.m.
Prayers.
Hon. M. Harcourt: I have the great honour to welcome, on behalf of all members of the Legislature on this very historic day, a number of the leaders of the aboriginal people of British Columbia, who are here for third reading of the Treaty Commission bill. Seated behind me are Chief Gerald Amos, Grand Chief Edward John and Chief Joe Mathias from the First Nations Summit. As well, welcoming us to the traditional territories, are Chief Andrew Thomas from the Esquimalt band and Chief Norman George from the Songhees band. Representing the Assembly of First Nations is Chief Sophie Pierre.
Hon. A. Petter: I would like to join with the Premier in welcoming the representatives on the floor, but also would like to welcome to the House many representatives from first nations across the province who have joined us in the galleries today. I won't attempt to name them all, but I do notice Chief Danny Watts, co-chair of the First Nations Summit along with Sophie Pierre, and also a former MLA, Frank Calder, who will be well known to members of the House. In addition, in the galleries today are the five treaty commissioners appointed to serve as representatives on the B.C. Treaty Commission as well as a number of representatives from the third-party advisory group that has been working closely with the federal and provincial governments to prepare the way for treaty negotiations. I would like to ask the House to make all of them very welcome.
Hon. L. Boone: In the gallery today are several very important visitors: His Excellency the Ambassador of Greece to Canada and his wife, and the consul of Greece in Vancouver. Would the House please make them welcome.
Hon. J. Cashore: I am very pleased that on this historic day in the Legislature we have approximately 64 grade 7 students from Ranch Park Elementary School in Coquitlam present. With them is their teacher Armieda McDougall and, I believe, Barbara Patterson. These individuals are outstanding citizens in their own right in Coquitlam. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.
W. Hurd: I have the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard to thank for advising me that one of my constituents, Mrs. Jessie Winch, is with us in the precincts today. Mrs. Winch is, of course, the widow of the late Harold Winch. I am pleased to welcome her from the great constituency of Surrey-White Rock.
Hon. M. Harcourt: I would also like to pass on greetings to Mrs. Jessie Winch and help the House to give a very warm welcome to one of the early pioneers who worked in the CCF caucus in the 1940s and who was the provincial secretary of the CCF and the NDP in the 1950s and 1960s. The government side of the House would also like to extend a very warm welcome to this sunny visitor from sunny White Rock, Jessie Winch.
E. Barnes: I would like to welcome the former member for Atlin, Frank Calder. The reason I stand, hon. Speaker, is that I was elected in 1972, and Frank had been elected many years before I came here. If I'm not mistaken he was one of the longest-sitting members and may indeed be one of the all-time longest-sitting members. Frank, as you know, was the first aboriginal person to sit in this House. In those days we used to call him Little Chief; he used to call me Big Chief. So I just want to let Frank know that it's a pleasure to see him back -- although he did do a bit of moving around, as we all know. Let's make him welcome.
C. Serwa: As I don't want to take time away from the third reading speeches that will occur after question period, I am going to make an introduction now. Joining us between 3 o'clock and 3:30 will be 60 grade 7 students from Westbank Elementary School. Westbank is certainly one of the fastest-growing unorganized areas in the province of B.C. It's noteworthy to state that playing a significant part in that growth is the Westbank Indian band, which is very dynamic and entrepreneurial in nature.
The teacher accompanying that group of students is George Waldo. So on behalf of the member for Okanagan-Penticton, who now has Peachland in his constituency, I will introduce the dynamic Mayor George Waldo from one of the crown jewel cities in the Okanagan family of communities. Will the House please make them welcome.
Hon. R. Blencoe presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Railway Amendment Act, 1993.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. Speaker, this proposed legislation is a modernization of the Railway Act, which was first enacted in 1911. I think all members will agree that it's time for some modernization. It's part of the ongoing initiative to modernize all legislation administered by my ministry.
This bill contains several sections of the Railway Act. In general terms, these changes will allow us to move towards regulating railways by a safety code, which will allow for more flexibility and efficiency and make the rules for railways more understandable for all. The railway safety code will set operating standards in much the same way as the Building Code sets standards for construction. It's easier to keep a code up to date than to amend legislation every time we want to make changes.
Some amendments in this bill remove specific technical language and other requirements from the act, clearing the way for the writing of a relevant code for
[ Page 6532 ]
railway safety in British Columbia. Other amendments will accommodate technological advances and clarify responsibilities of staff who monitor and audit railway safety standards.
[2:15]
Bill 14 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.
CONSIDERATION FOR GRADE 12 STUDENTS AFFECTED BY LABOUR DISRUPTIONS
J. Dalton: My question is to the Minister of Education. On May 11, in this House, the minister stated that access for grade 12 students to post-secondary institutions would not be jeopardized by strikes. Now the minister has implemented a policy whereby exam results of students so affected will not be adjusted, as there is allegedly no evidence that strikes have any impact on such results. Is this minister telling us that classroom instruction at a critical time of the year has no impact on exams and other results of students?
Hon. A. Hagen: The effect of strikes on students, whatever grade they are in, whether they are in kindergarten or grade 12, is of course serious. Any loss of education time is a loss of education time and the grade 12 students are, of course, affected.
Let me come back to the presenting question, which is the issue of students' access to universities. The statement I made on May 11 still holds. Students have already applied to university. They have applied on the basis of the marks they have established over their school careers. They are in the last month of their grade 12 year. Sixty percent of their marks is based on their year's work, and those marks will be accorded to them. Those students will also have opportunities to write final exams, and those marks will be available to universities. Universities and colleges will accept the marks that come from our ministry, which are those that come from the school districts.
J. Dalton: Again to the Minister of Education, if I heard the minister correctly, she does admit that missing classroom time is bound to have an impact on exam results and otherwise. This government obviously has no game plan. Otherwise these strikes would not have been allowed to continue.
My supplemental question to the minister. You say that students who do poorly on their exams can rewrite those exams in August. But what good will it do for students to rewrite exams when the entrance requirements have already been filled? The colleges and universities will have taken their quotas by that time.
Hon. A. Hagen: The students who are going on to post-secondary institutions in British Columbia have in most instances already applied for and received tentative acceptance for their university entrance. That's the system that's in place and has been for some time. With respect to students writing exams, those exams will be marked. If the member is asking about the issue of how those exams will be marked, those students will be treated like all other students by the examiners. The examination protocols are very carefully reviewed by the examiners, and they will be marking those exams fairly, as they do for all students in British Columbia.
J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Minister of Education as well. The minister says that grade 12 students affected by the strike are not going to receive any consideration for the disruption of their education. Does the minister have no understanding of the impact of the disadvantage that her decision puts students to? Will the minister not reconsider this decision? Will she not think about the welfare of the students and the effect on their ability to compete with other students around the province and around the country in their attempts to get into university? Will she reconsider this decision?
Hon. A. Hagen: Like all members, I am very concerned about the grade 12 students who are currently affected by a job action. The issue of adjusting marks for these students is a very complex one. As minister, I have to consider a policy that is fair to all students. We have a number of avenues to assist students who may not do well in exams. Five times a year students may write exams; and they are able to rewrite exams.
I have no way of measuring the effect of this particular job action on the students in Vancouver in a way that will be fair to all students in British Columbia. Many factors influence how well students do in exams. Students might in fact, by virtue of knowing that they are on their own, do better in these exams than if they were in school -- that's a real possibility.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. I must ask the minister to conclude her reply.
Hon. A. Hagen: There are other students who will in fact -- maybe as a result of this job action or for other reasons -- not do as well. Opportunities exist for students to write exams again, and I do know that teachers and students are dealing with this situation. If I could deal with it in a way that would be fair to all students.... I cannot.
J. Weisgerber: What an incredible statement by the Minister of Education! Perhaps the students will do better being out of school for a month because they know that they're not going to be getting an education from the school system. Hon. Speaker, this minister is so callous and so uncaring about the welfare of students that she's willing to put forward the interests of the BCTF and her own political hide against the welfare and the well-being of students in this province. Will the minister reconsider this unacceptable position and start to make some adjustments? It was done in Fort St. John, in the school strike there, a couple of years ago. It can be
[ Page 6533 ]
done here if the minister puts her mind to it, and addresses the issue from a real sense of fairness. Will the minister do the right thing?
Hon. A. Hagen: There are a great number of grade 12 students who will be writing exams in June. I, as the minister, need to be fair to all of those students. This is a complex issue, and one that I have considered very carefully in adopting this policy. The decision that was made in the Fort St. John strike was simply a political decision without any reference at all to fairness to all students in the province. The decision we need to make today is the one I spoke about yesterday: the teachers and the trustees, who have a responsibility to find a settlement for those students, need to find it now so that those students can be back to school before the exams start four weeks from now.
The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.
J. Weisgerber: The decision made in Fort St. John was one that recognized that students who were put out of school because of strikes were disadvantaged and needed to have their marks adjusted. This minister could do exactly the same thing and should do the same thing. The minister fails to recognize that grade 12 students aren't all....
The Speaker: Order, please. The member knows that we cannot enter into a debate in question period, and I would ask the member to state his question.
J. Weisgerber: The minister knows full well that not all grade 12 students are going on to university or college; their marks this year may well affect their job prospects and their career opportunities in the future. Will the minister not recognize that she has an obligation to the students -- not an obligation to the BCTF, not an obligation to the people who support her politically, but an obligation to the students in this province?
The Speaker: The minister for a brief reply.
Hon. A. Hagen: The students who are currently not in school have received marks for most of their school year. That accounts for 60 percent of their marks. If that is their mark, that will be their full mark, and it will reflect their year's work. The students will in fact have marks that reflect their work, and those marks will be accepted by any post-secondary institution in the province and will enable those students to go on with whatever their post-secondary careers and plans may happen to be.
BUY B.C. PROGRAM
R. Chisholm: My question is to the Premier. In the previous week, after the confusion over the Buy B.C. program, the Premier said: "The approach is to hire British Columbia firms for everything." Could the Premier explain to us what constitutes a British Columbia firm and what his policy is when awarding advertising contracts?
Hon. B. Barlee: The member does not seem to understand that this is a Buy B.C. program, and the Buy B.C. program is from the ground up. It affects B.C. producers, processors and businesses. This program is entitled to a rational overview. We have given that. We have signed 12 different contracts in the last six months, and all 12 contracts have been with exclusively British Columbia firms.
This was not a departure; it was staying with the norm, and that's working very well. The firm that was excluded is a good firm and they do good work, but it does not originate in British Columbia. It is essentially an American and British firm, not a British Columbia firm. That's why this decision was made.
R. Chisholm: As the Premier doesn't want to answer the question about what constitutes a B.C. firm, I'll go to the Minister of Government Services. Tourism director Bill Shilvock stated that BBDO did not bid because they would not qualify under Canadian content. Yet this government is using McKim Baker Lovick of New York, owned by BBDO -- recognize the name? -- as its agency of record. Why the inconsistency?
Hon. L. Boone: I really don't know the company that the member was talking about -- BBDO and all those different initials. But if you'd be happy to give me the information, I would be happy to get all the information I can to you about why the contract was given.
The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.
R. Chisholm: To the same minister, the agency of record is the organization that controls the advertising of the British Columbia government in all ministries. BBDO happens to be the company that controls that agency.
Five months ago the Minister of Tourism said British Columbia companies only, yet the Lottery Corporation's advertising is being done by Scali McCabe Sloves, a New York- and London-based firm. Again, how can any company operate in this economic inconsistency?
Hon. L. Boone: I'm very happy to answer this. The British Columbia Lottery Corporation set an exemplary example as to how government business should be done. That contract -- for the first time ever -- was tendered, and that is a priority. They were not told by the government that they must give it to a particular firm, which is what the previous government did, hon. Speaker. We tendered it -- a fair, open tender. That's the way this government does business.
AFFORDABLE CHILD CARE
V. Anderson: To the Minister of Women's Equality. In promise No. 13 of the NDP election platform, the government promised "affordable child
[ Page 6534 ]
care for families who need it." Why is it, then, that a Vancouver woman, a single mother with two children, could not find affordable child care in her city during the time of the teachers' strikes and slowdowns and had to put her children out of her home in order to have them cared for?
Hon. P. Priddy: I am happy to stand and respond to questions about affordable child care for all families in British Columbia. In this past year there have been 5,000 new child care spaces created in this province as a result of initiatives by this government. Secondly, hon. Speaker, there have been initiatives such as the infant-toddler incentive grant that create more affordable, less expensive child care for families in this province.
[2:30]
Child care providers all over the province, including in Vancouver, have been very concerned about child care during this time. The YM-YWCA has provided emergency programs, and I believe that in this case that's the program this mother was involved with. The YM-YWCA -- the mother may not have been aware of this, and we could have provided that information if she had called -- does not turn away children because families cannot afford it. In fact, the Minister of Social Services has extended the subsidy for before- and after-school children to full days during this labour disruption so that families will not be in this position.
The Speaker: Supplemental....
Interjections.
The Speaker: In all fairness, I had called for the supplemental already, and I will allow this final supplemental.
CALL FOR ROYAL COMMISSION ON WELFARE SYSTEM
V. Anderson: Thank you, hon. Speaker. We appreciate your fairness.
My question is to the Premier. As we've been talking about, we're concerned about the welfare of people. On July 20, 1989, in this House, the present Social Services minister supported the British Columbia Association of Social Workers in their call for a royal commission. Will the Premier support her call for that royal commission now and have a royal commission appointed to deal with the social welfare situation in this province?
Hon. M. Harcourt: That is a very broadly interpreted supplemental question, but I am pleased to answer it because the issue of reforms in the welfare system is front and centre with this government. I'm glad it's finally sunk in, hon. Speaker, with the members of the opposition that there are steps that are being taken. They finally recognize the special prosecutor, the five members of the fraud squad, the 16 special auditors, the tightening up of the computer system, the protocols that are taking place with the department of vital statistics and police forces in this province to deal with fraud and administrative waste and error. Finally a government has listened to the auditor general's reports of 1980 and 1991 and is starting to clear up the mess that the previous government let sit for over a decade. Not only that, we're not going to let the waste and inefficiencies get in the way of the real issue, which is to get people back to work. Single parents, young people, displaced workers and the aboriginal people in this province all want to get back to work. I'm sure that the opposition will back those efforts to get people off welfare, train them and get them back into the workforce.
CANADA-U.S. PACIFIC SALMON TREATY
Hon. B. Barlee: I rise to make a ministerial statement on a matter of great concern to the commercial fisheries industry and to all British Columbians. On the eve of the salmon fishing season, negotiations for this year's Canada-U.S. Pacific Salmon Treaty are at an impasse. After weeks of negotiations, the United States has not formally tabled a position. Canada's position is clear. the United States' catch of B.C. salmon exceeds the British Columbia catch of U.S. salmon by approximately $65 million a year, and this imbalance is getting worse. In 1992 the United States unilaterally exceeded its share of the Fraser River sockeye catch by 361,000 fish.
We want to see a treaty that acknowledges a more equitable sharing of our salmon resources. British Columbia supports Canada's efforts to reduce the extended interceptions by both parties, provided that it is done in a manner that is consistent with the equity principle. Without a treaty in place, I have grave concerns that the season will open with a free-for-all attitude that will harm the salmon resources of both countries.
I fully endorse the firm federal stance on this matter. I'm very pleased that the Hon. John Crosbie has responded to the province's interest, to take an active role in the Pacific Salmon Treaty negotiations. The province has always supported and agreed with the principles of the Pacific Salmon Treaty since it came into affect in 1985. The treaty enables the two countries to negotiate agreements and to balance the values of salmon caught by one party but originating in the other party's country.
The treaty is important to British Columbia for three major reasons: it protects the valuable salmon resource from overfishing; it allows Canada and the United States to reduce interceptions of each other's salmon; and it enables both parties to receive benefits equivalent to the production of salmon originating in their own waters -- this is the equity principle, it means that we can recoup some of the investments that we have made in forgone hydro electric development and protection of salmon habitat in British Columbia. It is the equity principle that we are most anxious to see negotiated.
Five of the seven annexes of the treaty are up for renegotiation this year, and the outcome will have
[ Page 6535 ]
long-term ramifications for the future of British Columbia's fisheries and our coastal communities.
To bring you up to date on what has happened, after six months -- starting in November 1992 -- the parties have not made any progress. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has retained Yves Fortier, ex-Canadian Ambassador to the United Nations, as the lead negotiator. He has lobbied President Clinton's environmental policy adviser and Congressmen and Senators in Washington, D.C. The Hon. Barbara McDougall has written to Warren Christopher, United States Secretary of State. The Hon. John Crosbie has met with U.S. Secretary of Commerce, Mr. Brown, and others as recently as last week. Informal discussions are also being held between the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Vancouver, and Washington State fisheries managers. Premier Harcourt has raised this issue with Governor Lowry of Washington.
We expect the states of Washington and Alaska to conduct their fisheries in accordance with the principles of the treaty. We are willing to explore adjustments that may reduce interceptions of Washington and Alaska salmon in British Columbia waters, but will require compensatory reductions in interception of B.C. salmon in both Washington and Alaska. Cooperation is a two-way street; our joint efforts must result in a fair distribution of benefits. That is what the equity principle is all about. The treaty simply will not work if one side or the other considers the result of the treaty implementation to be unfair to their country. We cannot be expected to reduce our catches without offsetting compensation from the United States. We intend to exert our influence on the states of Alaska and Washington to assist the federal government to obtain a successful and equitable treaty for the future of our fisheries and to ensure the viability of our salmon resource.
Finally, the United States is currently receiving benefits exceeding those equivalent to its own production. A further shift in the balance of benefits in favour of the United States is simply unacceptable to British Columbia.
R. Chisholm: I must thank the hon. minister for the copy of the ministerial statement he sent me earlier.
I'm glad to see that the minister is finally getting involved in the fisheries after a year and a half of being in government. It's about time. Our fisheries are in rough shape, not only salmon but also hake, shellfish and black cod. Hon. minister, don't just talk about salmon. Start getting involved in it all. When you start talking about the Hon. John Crosbie, remember that his track record in the east is not so enviable. You must stay involved.
Our fisheries are in a state of decimation due to Americans overfishing. They are in it 28 percent; a fish grab is what it's called. I hope this minister will stay involved in all of our fisheries in this province, because if he doesn't we are going to lose a valuable resource -- and not only salmon.
H. De Jong: I wish to commend the minister for supporting the federal government in their active pursuit of this treaty, which should be fair to all parties involved. It's probably not too late, although I would have liked to have seen more action earlier. I applaud the minister for responding to the Hon. John Crosbie's interest on behalf of this province as well as other parts of Canada.
Perhaps the action of the Minister of Agriculture is not a bad example for the government on that side of the House, as they failed to take an active role in the NAFTA and the discussions leading up to the NAFTA. Had the same type of consultation and support been given by the Premier last year when the invitation was out, something could have been achieved. Certainly fisheries is important to British Columbia and to all of Canada; so is the NAFTA.
Therefore I'm pleased that the minister has taken this step of fully supporting the undertakings by John Crosbie. I wish the Minister of Agriculture, John Crosbie and all Canadians success in this endeavour so that a fair and equitable arrangement can be made between the countries.
Hon. M. Sihota: It's certainly a pleasure to call third reading of Bill 22.
TREATY COMMISSION ACT
Hon. A. Petter: Hon. Speaker, I move that Bill 22 be read a third time now.
It is indeed an honour to participate, indeed to lead off, the third reading debate on Bill 22. It is particularly an honour to do so in the presence of so many distinguished guests, in particular those from the First Nations Summit, who are seated on the floor this afternoon. They were introduced by the Premier. It is particularly fitting that we have welcomed these guests onto the floor of the House as representatives of aboriginal governments and that they are present for this debate. I am indeed very flattered, if not a little intimidated, by their presence behind me today.
The act before us amounts to a new covenant with first nations people of this province. With this legislation we have a stable and enduring body in place to oversee and facilitate the negotiation of just and honourable treaty settlements with first nations. It is a body that has been developed jointly by the provincial government, the federal government and the representatives of the First Nations Summit. It's a body that today will hopefully be approved by the Legislature of British Columbia and, through that approval, given status as a statutory entity in this province. The body will be given final legal permanency with the introduction of a parallel federal act in the Parliament of Canada and a resolution by the First Nations Summit.
By establishing the Treaty Commission in law, we are demonstrating to aboriginal and non-aboriginal people alike that we, as a province, are clearly and unmistakably determined to live up to the commitment we have made to negotiate modern-day treaties with first nations. That commitment is more than just
[ Page 6536 ]
fine-sounding words. I say this because I know that first nations people have spent more than a century listening to fine-sounding words and promises from a succession of governments and have experienced the despair and betrayal of seeing those promises broken again and again. The fact that first nations have persevered and retained their sense of identity and determination in the face of those betrayals is a testament to the enduring strength, faith and vision of aboriginal peoples.
Today represents both an ending and a new beginning. It marks an end to many years of struggle by aboriginal people in this province to have their voices heard and to have their identity as first nations with unique inherent rights recognized. For too many years, aboriginal people have been excluded from the same benefits of citizenship that other British Columbians enjoy. They have been denied their heritage and cultures. They have been deprived of their self-sufficiency and self-respect. The costs of that bitter legacy have been high. They include conflict and confrontation between aboriginal and non-aboriginal persons. They include high social and economic costs connected with the continued poverty and unemployment in aboriginal communities. We cannot, unfortunately, change that past, but we can begin now to build a better future. I'm proud to say that we have already commenced that work in earnest.
[2:45]
Today we are embracing a new vision of the future of British Columbia: a future in which aboriginal peoples can fulfil their aspirations for self-determining and self-sustaining communities within Canada and within this province; a future in which aboriginal and non-aboriginal people can move beyond misunderstanding and conflict to live side by side with mutual respect and trust. Under the auspices of the B.C. Treaty Commission, we are about to embark on one of the most ambitious modern-day treaty-making initiatives undertaken in this country. It's an initiative that is aimed at clarifying the complex issues of aboriginal rights entitlement in British Columbia, an issue that remains largely unresolved in this province. Unlike other provinces -- indeed, unlike most of North America -- very few treaties were signed with first nations in British Columbia.
How will British Columbians benefit from negotiated treaty settlements? As a government, we see a range of potential benefits. For aboriginal British Columbians, treaties will provide a formal, ongoing recognition of their status as the first citizens of this province, with their own established traditional social structures, languages and cultures and their own traditional territories. Treaties will also provide a formal acknowledgment that as first citizens, aboriginal people have traditional rights -- rights that must be respected. As well, treaty settlements will provide first nations with an economic base that will enable them to move forward to build healthy, financially viable, self-sufficient communities.
There are also benefits for non-aboriginal British Columbians. These benefits include a resolution of the land use conflicts between competing aboriginal and non-aboriginal interests that impose a tremendous cost on both. The creation of a more stable economic climate in this province will help increase employment and encourage investment dollars to the benefit of all. The growth of vibrant, self-reliant aboriginal economies will have positive economic spillover effects for non-aboriginal communities and businesses in the form of joint ventures and in the form of increased economic activity in non-aboriginal communities as well as in aboriginal communities. The establishment of the B.C. Treaty Commission ensures that we will have a workable process in place to help us meet those goals and attain those benefits through the negotiation of treaty settlements that are fair and just for all British Columbians.
The passing of the Treaty Commission Act today will be the culmination of a process that began some 17 months ago, when this government adopted the recommendations of the B.C. Claims Task Force. The key recommendation of that task force was to set up an independent treaty commission to oversee treaty negotiations in this province.
Last fall I had the tremendous honour of participating, along with the Premier, the Prime Minister and First Nations Summit leaders, in a very moving ceremony celebrating the signing of the treaty commission agreement. It was a day-long ceremony involving a tremendous amount of activity, including singing, dancing and other ceremonial activities. While watching those ceremonies, it seemed to me a tremendous testament to the strength of aboriginal nations that ceremonies that were practised thousands of years ago remain intact, meaningful and vital to first nation cultures today. I must say that I appreciated at a personal level having the opportunity to share in those ceremonies and, as a minister over the past number of months, to learn much about that culture and those traditions.
Last month I had the pleasure of being involved in a further step in the process of establishing the Treaty Commission, and that was in the announcement of the commissioners, including the chief commissioner and the four other commissioners. I'd like to take this opportunity to express the confidence of the government in the commission. The very high calibre of the team that has been assembled is an indication of the strong commitment that the federal and provincial governments and the First Nations Summit place in the process we are undertaking.
Let me briefly outline for you some of the background of the new commissioners. The chief commissioner, Chuck Connaghan, has built a very positive reputation in this province through both his extensive experience in industrial relations and his dedicated work in a number of B.C. institutions and organizations. His work is probably well known to the members of this House. He has served on boards at the University of British Columbia and at St. Vincent's Hospital. He has also served as a B.C. president of the Council for Canadian Unity and as a founding chair of the B.C. Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. As chief commissioner, he was appointed jointly by the First Nations Summit and the federal and provincial governments.
[ Page 6537 ]
Barbara Fisher, the province's appointee, has served as director and general counsel of the office of the ombudsman in Vancouver for the past two and a half years. She has a strong background in resolving complex and sensitive issues, and that experience will certainly stand her in good stead in the new task she has taken on as the provincial commissioner.
Joining Mr. Connaghan and Ms. Fisher are two first nations appointees. Carole Corcoran, a member of the Dene nation from Fort Nelson, is associate counsel with the Vancouver law firm of Lang Michener and sits as a member of the Musqueam Indian band board of review for taxation and property assessment. She has extensive experience in aboriginal government at the local, regional and provincial levels, and I may say, experience at the national level as well.
Doug Kelly, the second first nations appointee, is manager of operations for the Sto:lo Tribal Council. He has worked in a variety of capacities for Sto:lo communities, in the areas of community economic development, program planning, organizational development and management. He too brings tremendous talent to the commission.
The federal appointee is also no stranger to this House. Commissioner Dr. Lorne Greenaway is a British Columbian who most recently served as a private consultant with the federal treaty negotiation office of the Department of Indian Affairs. However, he has also served as a deputy minister and has been in public service as well as been an elected politician, and he brings a wealth of experience to his role as commissioner.
Over the next few months the commissioners will have the task of laying the groundwork for treaty negotiations to begin. We anticipate that it will take some months for the commissioners to establish appropriate mechanisms that will be acceptable to both governments and the first nations -- mechanisms that will stand the test of time and see us through the duration of treaty negotiations. There will be a process of consultation in which those processes are established. Our expectation, however, is that the commission will be fully functional by the fall and that the first treaty negotiations can commence shortly thereafter.
How will the Treaty Commission facilitate the treaty-making process? I think it's important for members to recognize that the commission will not take part in actual negotiations. It will, however, play a very crucial role in making those negotiations possible. It will serve in a role that has been described as "keeper of the process." It's role will be to coordinate the start of negotiations, to monitor their progress and generally to oversee and facilitate the negotiation process.
In addition, the commission will report annually on the progress of negotiations to first nations, to the B.C. Legislature through the provincial government and to the Parliament of Canada. It's important to stress that the commission does not serve as an agent of the three parties; it's not an agent of government. It operates at arm's length to ensure that negotiations are conducted fairly in the interests of all British Columbians. In that regard, one of the very important functions of the commission is to make sure that the public has ongoing information on the progress of negotiations. Under the Treaty Commission Act the commission will be required to prepare and maintain a public record on the status of negotiations.
The commission also has the authority to ensure that no treaty negotiations get underway in this province until effective processes are in place for consulting with third parties and other non-aboriginal interests. We as a government welcome that function very much. It supports the strong commitment that this government has made to third-party consultation and to public education, a commitment we are pursuing vigorously. Behind that commitment is the important recognition that if we in this province are to foster a new relationship, make a new beginning between aboriginal and non-aboriginal peoples and develop a new spirit of trust and harmony, it's critical that it be an enterprise in which all British Columbians share and feel included. I wish to assure the members of the House today that my ministry will continue to work hard to bring large and small third parties effectively into the process of change. The Treaty Commission will be assisting us in that very important task to ensure that third parties and municipal governments have a meaningful role as we proceed to the treaty negotiation table.
In developing the B.C. Treaty Commission we are very aware -- and indeed we take pride in the fact -- that we are breaking new ground. The report of the B.C. Claims Task Force made it clear that simply adopting some other model from some other jurisdiction would not serve the purposes that British Columbians seek. We needed a made-in-B.C. model and a made-in-B.C. process to oversee treaty negotiations in this province. That is, indeed, what we have with the B.C. Treaty Commission. That is what the federal and provincial governments and the First Nations Summit have succeeded in creating, and that is what this Legislature will assist in creating through the enactment of this legislation. It is a process that reflects this government's mandate to build a new, positive relationship with first nations in this province through negotiation and not through confrontation. At the same time, it is a process that supports our commitment to ensure that the interests of non-aboriginal British Columbians are recognized and respected in all negotiations.
Today, as we complete this important last step in the creation of the Treaty Commission, I feel tremendously privileged to be a part of this historic moment in the life of our province. I must say that I feel very hopeful as well. If I may borrow from George Bernard Shaw, I think we've been presented with a choice between looking at the way things are, and asking why, or looking at the way things could be in a better future, and asking why not. Today in this Legislature we are choosing to say: why not. We are choosing to say yes, we can move beyond the legacy of the past to forge a new, positive relationship with aboriginal peoples in this province; yes, we can create a society in which aboriginal peoples and non-aboriginal peoples have the same access to social and economic opportunities and the same opportunities to celebrate and share their
[ Page 6538 ]
culture and heritage; yes, we can build a stronger, fairer and better B.C. for all British Columbians.
To build a better future we must first of all have a clear vision. But vision alone is not enough. We must also have courage, commitment and the will to work together. Today we have the opportunity to show, not only to ourselves but to the rest of the country and to the world, that as British Columbians we have those qualities. Right now we have an unprecedented moment in history -- a moment in which we can effect real and positive change in this province, change that will benefit both aboriginal and non-aboriginal peoples. Such moments do not come every day. Let us all, as British Columbians, seize this moment. Let us move forward together to build a British Columbia that we will be proud to leave not only to our children, but to our children's children, and to their children as well.
V. Anderson: This is a significant time in the life of the people of this province and of Canada, and of indigenous people around the world. It is an occasion on which I would like to try to speak from my heart rather than from my head.
It has been my privilege to grow up not in this province but in Saskatchewan and to have the opportunity to share with the indigenous people, the aboriginal people of that community, some of my early childhood and youth. It was my privilege later to come to British Columbia and to have the opportunity to be on the staff of the Vancouver School of Theology. There, although I was normally thought of as the professor, I was taught first of all by one Don Robertson, an aboriginal who came from the Prince Rupert area and became a minister in the United Church of Canada. In the process of our seminars together, I learned a great deal.
I also learned a great deal from others who followed in his footsteps. John Williams, who has been a minister in the United Church of Canada for many years, was one of those people who came through the trials and tribulations of residential school. He became a leader and a band worker in his own community and at 42 years of age decided that he would like to become a minister within the church in order to better serve his own people. John came and got the necessary prerequisites of university education, which was not an easy thing for John to do at that time in his life, and then he went on to his theological studies.
[3:00]
We all learned a great deal from John in those years. When the professors asked him to write an exam, he would say: "Why would I write that? You already know it." So from his point of view, there was no point. So he would not write exams; sometimes he would write the essays because he had things that he wanted to express. But I remember very clearly in one of our preaching classes that John came to us and said: "If you can't draw it, you can't preach it." I had a problem with that, because I can't draw worth a darn. But it brought home to us the symbolism and the depth of the aboriginal community.
As a result of this, some of us tried hard to understand and learn from the members of the aboriginal community. I can remember sitting in the rooms there at the college where the aboriginals came together to try to help us understand. We would be awkward in our confrontation with each other. I say confrontation, because the aboriginal people would sit there in silence; and the more silence they expressed, the more uneasy we became, because we were used to talking. So finally, in desperation, we would ask a question, and they would look at us and smile and nod and grin. We'd try another question, and they'd look at us and smile and nod and grin, and grin at us again. They were very supportive, but were waiting patiently -- waiting until finally we discovered that we weren't even asking the right questions. We had to then begin to wait and listen until they were willing to share what they felt would be helpful to us. But that took time; it didn't come quickly to any of us.
I remember one of the graduating students who had been posted on behalf of the Anglican Church to go and serve among the aboriginal people in Saskatchewan. He went to John and said: "John, I've got this new posting. What can you tell me that will be helpful to me when I go to this new undertaking?" John stood and didn't say anything. Finally, in frustration, this fellow went away. He couldn't understand why John hadn't answered his question. Two days later John stopped this fellow in the hallway and said: "You asked me a question a couple of days ago. Would you like to sit down and talk about it now?" In John's mind, you had to have time to think about it, to mull it over, to be able to begin to share what this fellow might find helpful.
It was the same kind of realization that came when John was asked one time.... I'm sure John, being retired now, won't mind my sharing some of this with you. John was asked to take part in mission work in northern Manitoba. John told the committee something that was unheard-of from a student -- remember, he was a student of mature years. He said: "Sorry, I can't go there." They said: "What do you mean you can't go there?" He said: "I can't go there, because I don't understand their people, their culture and their customs. If I were to go there and make a mistake, it would be dreadful." Then he turned to me and said: "Well, if you went there, they wouldn't expect you to know. So you could make a mistake and it would be fine. I can't go there."
As we talked, I began to understand a number of things, and then I began to listen a little better. There was one phrase that came across to me consistently, again and again, when we would ask John or Don or some of the others: "What do the aboriginal people feel about this?" or "What do you people think about that?" They would quietly grin and say to us: "Well, I'm sorry, I can't tell you what the others would think. But as for me, this is what I feel and what I think." I discovered that they never tried to portray what somebody else felt or thought. They each had the private opportunity to do that for themselves, and they would only speak for themselves in that time and in that place.
I remember riding down from Naramata with a young aboriginal lady who had been there as one of the leaders of the conference. As we sat beside each other on the bus, I became more and more uncomfortable. I became uncomfortable because suddenly it had come
[ Page 6539 ]
home to me that through feelings she could express or feel or understand who I was, without my ever having to say a word. Out of my tradition, somebody being able to thus see through me, even better than I could see through myself, made me uncomfortable, until I learned to appreciate the validity of that way of communication. Then I understood the story of one aboriginal gentleman who had gone to visit another aboriginal gentleman in his home: he went in and sat down; three hours later he left, and not a word had been spoken. But they had communicated with each other. They had shared the validity and purpose of each other's lives, and they had been strengthened in the process.
When I bring those kinds of understandings, feelings and experience to this particular process, I realize that we're talking here about a legislative process, a legal process and a Western-oriented process, which is strange, foreign, unpredictable and almost incomprehensible within the philosophy, the thinking and the life processes of aboriginal people. I understand that it is also difficult for us, within this process, to understand aboriginal people as they live and work within their own communities and in their own ways of being.
The difference was brought home to me when we were working with some university law students in downtown Vancouver. The hon. Premier was involved in that process at the time, as one of the law students. From that undertaking, we discovered that there is no word in the aboriginal language or thought form for the term "guilty." That's not a part of their language at all. When an aboriginal person came into a courtroom and the judge asked, "Are you guilty?" the aboriginal person would nod. They were not saying that they were guilty; they were simply acknowledging that the judge had asked them the question; and in all politeness, they would nod that they had heard. But nobody thought to go any further, to ask them what they heard or whether they had understood it. So misjudgments were made again and again.
As we come into this gathering, this kind of process, I realize that we're at a new beginning, as the minister has indicated. Every moment of every day is a new beginning. I think of how long it has taken to get this far -- the many generations that have not been able to meet and talk in a formal sense. Although individually people from many of our different cultures have met each other, have known each other and have shared the wholeness of life together, it is when we become part of a formal structure that complications come before us.
We first came to the development of the recommendations first set in place by the Socred government. I give them credit and thank them profusely for starting to put this particular process in place, though many years ago. It's one thing I never believed they would do. They have also done some other things I never believe they would do, which were good. There are some other things I might go on to talk about, but I will only talk about those processes at the moment.
There was a struggle to get a claims task force report. From the task force report, we came to the Treaty Commission report, and then we came to the Treaty Commission Act. The minister says it's the starting point. It's one more starting point, of thousands yet to come.
I share some of this background, because the reality of what we will do in the next weeks, months or years will not finally be in the technical relationships that we establish or the legal ramifications that we put forward and resolve, as important as they may be. The final ramifications will be what the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs has indicated: that we will come to understand each other, to walk in each other's moccasins and to come to a common appreciation of our similarities and differences. Unconsciously perhaps, but nevertheless, as we live together in the community we will learn from each other, will become part of each other, and will share together in the common adversities, successes and failures that will come upon all of us.
Sometimes we in British Columbia may feel we are in a privileged position; in some ways we are. But with that privileged position comes responsibility not only for ourselves, but responsibility for the other people in this universe in which we live who are all a part of the common creative spirit at work in our midst.
As we come together today, I affirm that our Liberal caucus supports the movement which is symbolized today by this particular act. But we want it to go far beyond this act. We want it to include not only the technical, legal and legislative processes but also our personal sharing, coming together, coming to understand each other and sharing our family lives and our family homes.
[3:15]
I asked one of the aboriginal ministers in Vancouver: "How do I get to know the aboriginal people in this community in order that I might live and work with them?" He said: "There is only one way: go and be a guest in their home, go and let them be the host and welcome you, and live in that home with them. If you are prepared to do this, you will come to know and understand. If you are not prepared to do this, you will never know and never understand." So we must be able to invite each other not just into meetings, but we must be able to share each other's homes, each other's lives and each other's communities. This, I trust, is what we are doing today and putting into place in a formal sense. It is not primarily for us that we do this, it is for our common children, who will grow and live together in the universe of which we are a part, and hopefully discover together the spirit of creation at work in each one of them.
It is a privilege to share and to support the process in which we are engaged this day.
J. Weisgerber: It's a genuine pleasure for me to take part in this somewhat unusual practice in this Legislature; that is, speaking to third reading of a bill. It is a recognition of the importance of what we are doing today. As I look around and see familiar faces from the aboriginal communities around British Columbia, from the third party advisory groups and from the Treaty Commission, I am reminded of what was probably the most interesting, the most challenging and the most rewarding times in my life: the time that I spent as
[ Page 6540 ]
Minister of -- as it was then called -- Native Affairs. It was an important time for me, if for no one else, because I really gained an insight into an issue in British Columbia that far too few people really understand and appreciate.
The minister suggested in his comments that it was an important step, and indeed it is an important step. It's not a first step, it's not a last step, but it's an important step. It's one that started pre-Confederation -- probably one that started with the first white approach to this coast, but certainly pre-Confederation -- during the time of Governor Douglas and the agreements that were signed at that time. Treaty negotiations, or the desire for treaty and the need for land claims settlements, have been part of British Columbia for as long as B.C. has been a province. In fact, they started while British Columbia was a colony. Some of the questions that exist today existed in Douglas's time. While Douglas was here, he had disputes with London over who should accept responsibility for the cost of settling claims or making treaties. It's interesting that 130 years later we're still talking about which level of government should accept responsibility for those costs. Some things change; some things seem never to change.
We've gone through an interesting time in recent history in B.C. We've gone through a process over the last 125 years where successive governments of all stripes -- Conservative, Liberal, coalition, Socred, NDP -- looked at the complexity of the issue and the difficulties it presents and decided that denial was the best approach. Simply to pretend that there was not an issue and to hope that the issue would go away was the approach taken by most governments in the history of British Columbia. The aboriginal communities have been steadfast in their desire for and their insistence on treaties and land claims settlements. Certainly, the progress that has been made is a tribute to the stubbornness that was there -- determination is probably a better way to describe it.
So we moved through the process of the province first involving itself, in 1990, in the Nisga'a negotiations. There was the establishment of the B.C. task force. I want to commend those members who are present today, and those who aren't, for the tremendous amount of work and the accomplishments of that task force. It was another important step in the process. The recommendations of the task force for a treaty commission and the signing in Squamish was another important step. The debates that we've had in this Legislature over the last few days and the passing of this bill today is another important step. They're all steps -- steps in the right direction.
I'm delighted that we're in the Legislature today debating a bill that all parties have agreed to. Questions have been raised about it, and that's the purpose of this place. There will always be questions, but the support has been unanimous. To my knowledge, not one member has suggested that we shouldn't move ahead with the Treaty Commission or that the goals of the Treaty Commission are anything less that what we would all support. Now we move into the next step, which is the individual negotiations around the province. They're going to be tough negotiations. There should be no doubt in anybody's mind that these are difficult, complex issues and the answers are not going to be easily found. It's going to require goodwill on the part of all parties. Everybody involved in those negotiations will have to be willing to consider the positions of other parties, and there will have to be compromises by everyone. If any one of the three main parties goes to the negotiations with the idea that they're not going to give and simply be unyielding in their position, then the process won't work. It's also important -- if we are going to have broad, public acceptance of this process -- that people understand, from the time negotiations start until they conclude, the positions taken by all of the parties. These negotiations have to be open. They have to be open to the people of British Columbia. The people of British Columbia deserve to know the positions being brought, particularly by the governments that represent them. I believe if people are going to understand a process and accept the conclusion that's reached, they're going to have to understand the position brought to the table initially by all three parties. Then, as British Columbians understand the compromises that are made, I believe they will accept the resolution that comes out at the end of the day.
Let me put it this way: if governments don't understand from events like Charlottetown that you have to make these kinds of agreements and decisions in an open forum, then they have learned nothing. We could go behind closed doors, negotiate in good faith, come to some conclusion, present it to British Columbians and say: "Here is the conclusion we've come to. Here's the agreement we've reached. We ask you to support it." Clearly you won't get it. You won't get support from any court. Some will look at the agreement and say you gave too much. Others will look at it and say you got too little: "How did you sell us out? Why did you sell us out?" Look at the response to the Charlottetown accord. People don't trust decisions and agreements made by government in secret. There needs to be a very public process. That requires a certain amount of courage by all of the parties. The parties, first of all, have to have courage and be convinced that the demands and positions they're putting on the table are fair and reasonable ones. They have to be willing to go back and explain to those who question the rationale for the position that they're taking -- regardless or which level of government it is. In these negotiations as well, let's understand that British Columbians are going to have to depend on their elected representatives. Aboriginal people will have their own negotiators at the table. As I look around the room I recognize some who are going to be very tough negotiators on behalf of Indian people around this province. If the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs doesn't know it already, he soon will find out just how tough those negotiations are going to be.
The rest of us have to depend on our government. That may cause some of us a little bit of concern. Some of us may not be very comfortable having our government represent us there, but that's the way our system works. If it's going to work effectively, our
[ Page 6541 ]
provincial government and the federal government have an obligation to work closely with interested individuals and the communities and groups that are going to be directly affected by these negotiations. The government has an obligation to keep these so-called third parties informed about the positions they're taking to the negotiations -- not to tell them what they've agreed to, but to give people an opportunity for genuine input at the start of the process and throughout. If that happens, then I am absolutely confident in the ability of aboriginal and non-aboriginal British Columbians to come to settlements and treaty agreements and to finally, for the first time in our history, resolve an issue that has disadvantaged all of us.
I do believe that if these negotiations are carried out, and if the interests of all British Columbians are identified and addressed as part of the negotiations, then the uncertainty that will be removed around questions of land use and resource ownership will allow us to prosper. But a tremendous obligation goes with this decision to negotiate. I'm going to look to this government, the federal government and aboriginal people to go to these negotiations and seek solutions that serve this province well and serve the interests of the constituents of each of the parties well. And they are different constituents, but there is some similarity. We are in the process of taking one more important step. There are going to be a lot more steps before we finally resolve this issue. We've come a few steps, but we've got a long way to go. I'm delighted to be here formally taking part in the passing of legislation which endorses the province's role in the Treaty Commission process.
Let me close by wishing those five members of the Treaty Commission well. For them, I am sure that what they are embarking on will be one of the most interesting, challenging and rewarding times in their lives.
Hon. M. Harcourt: I'm sure I speak for all members of the Legislature when I say that we are indeed honoured to share the floor of our Legislature today with the first nations' leaders and representatives who were mentioned earlier. This is an historic occasion for the Legislature and for our province. For the first time in the history of our Legislature, aboriginal people have sat on the floor of the House in their official capacity as first nations representatives. I am sure we are all hopeful that this is indicative of a new government-to-government relationship which we are going to be building with first nations in this province.
[3:30]
When our government assumed office a year and a half ago, I made a commitment to form a more honourable and productive relationship between government and the first nations: a relationship based on mutual trust, understanding and respect; a relationship that will enable our first nations communities to move forward towards greater self-reliance and self-determination; a relationship that will allow us all -- aboriginal and non-aboriginal -- to move beyond conflict and confrontation and to work together to address common concerns and goals.
I pledge to build a relationship through recognition of aboriginal rights and negotiation of fair and just treaties. This commitment was a key point in our election platform and remains a fundamental priority of our government. The Treaty Commission bill marks a significant departure from the past. For too many years our schools, history books and governments have not recognized that the history of non-aboriginal settlements throughout British Columbia is inextricably tied to the history of first nations.
The new direction that we have embarked upon brings to an end 100 years of policies that aimed to deny aboriginal people their historic rights. The bill opens a new way to bring about a new, equal social order throughout our province that's based on tolerance, understanding and, most importantly, mutual respect. I'm proud of the progress along that path that we've all made in this Legislature over the last 18 months.
The establishment of the B.C. Treaty Commission as a legal entity represents neither a beginning nor an end, as others have mentioned, but a very important milestone. It ensures that we have in place an effective and enduring process to help us meet our goal of fair and just treaty settlements with first nations. It's an excellent example of what we can achieve through cooperation and mutual goodwill.
I want to particularly express appreciation to the summit chiefs and the many other first nations people who have worked so long and hard to bring us to this point today. I agree with the Leader of the Third Party; it's a question of determination. I say the stubbornness was on our side for far too long. That very resolute determination from generation to generation, the passion and the conviction with which the aboriginal people have held the belief that their communities could move back to being self-sufficient and self-governing in Canada have been a significant part of bringing us here today. The present leaders of the first nations should be very proud. Their parents, their grandparents, the many generations before, their children and their grandchildren all share in the history of this moment -- not just their determination but the wisdom, courage and vision they have shown over many decades and generations.
I also want to pay tribute to the members of the B.C. Claims Task Force, which was mentioned earlier. Their vision was set out in their report and helped give us the direction we needed. It pointed the highway in a different direction and set us out on the path we're travelling today.
I want to pay tribute to my colleague Andrew Petter, Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, and his federal counterpart, Tom Siddon, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the federal representative in the gallery today. I want to thank both of them and their staff for their hard work and commitment to working together with the first nations to develop an effective long-term process for negotiating modern-day treaties some 100 years after the last negotiations took place under Governor Douglas.
I also want to thank the five treaty commissioners for agreeing to take on this very challenging and daunting task as the keepers of the process we have
[ Page 6542 ]
talked about in this Legislature. Their combined abilities and wisdom are going to help us develop an approach that will allow us to negotiate treaties that are acceptable to all and that will endure the test of time, while making sure that aboriginals and non-aboriginals who are affected are involved in understanding the process and being part of it.
Finally, I want to express my appreciation, and the appreciation of the government members, to the members of opposition for their thoughtful comments, their feedback and their support for this initiative. On a personal level, I want to pay tribute to the Leader of the Third Party, who was the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. You could watch him growing in the job every day, as he understood the complexities and the personal tragedy of the aboriginal people in our province. He had the courage to launch the task force to start us on the road to finally getting some decisions to have this historic meeting at the Squamish nations longhouse where the Prime Minister and I and the aboriginal leaders signed the agreement that led to today.
I also want to thank the Leader of the Opposition and his Aboriginal Affairs critic for the manner in which they have addressed this issue, not just now but over many years. I remember the member for Vancouver-Langara when he was a young minister of the United Church and one of the sponsors of the inner city project. I had long flowing hair and a Fu Manchu moustache. We were part of the inner city project, a very exciting inner city action agency dealing with the many tough issues of the day. We talked long and hard with many aboriginal friends and participants in coming to that mutual understanding. It was very painful and difficult for a young lawyer who was used to talking and being paid by the word to listen and to hear not just the right questions, but the quietly spoken but very clear answers that I received from the aboriginal people whom I and the member were working with.
And I saw the start of what led us to today, the bringing of it to the fore in an articulate way using due process and the institutions of our democracy -- our courts. It started with a young and slim Frank Calder. The Calder case was taken on by Tom Berger and his associate, Don Rosenbloom, a young classmate of mine, on behalf of the Nisga'a. They went to the Supreme Court of Canada. That is where a very important legal principle was established in the 1830s in the United States. Yes, aboriginal title does exist. It hasn't been extinguished. It was a split decision, but it explained very clearly that this isn't something we should be afraid of. As the member for Vancouver-Langara says, if you listen to what the aboriginal concept of aboriginal title is, it's for the use, occupation and sustenance of the community. It's not that you own a chunk of land, and you draw lines around it. It's for the use, occupation and sustenance of the community and the sharing of the bountiful God-given resources that we've been blessed with. That's really what this is all about today: the sharing of British Columbia, the most bountiful part of this fragile planet, so that all of us will benefit.
So I say to the members of the opposition and the third party and their leaders: I'm proud of the way that we have brought about this latest milestone, as we move along this new path that I think is going to lead to a far better British Columbia, one which will benefit all of our citizens, aboriginal and non-aboriginal. Yes, we are going to have to be open. We're going to have to represent the third parties, as they're called, who are just fellow British Columbians, so that they can see that this is going to benefit all of us. I believe that is what this bill, the Treaty Commission Act, allows us finally to get on with: the fair, just and long overdue settlement of this issue, so that all of us can prosper in friendship and mutual respect, aboriginal or non-aboriginal.
Bill 22, Treaty Commission Act, read a third time and passed.
The Speaker: Hon. members, I am informed that His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is in the precincts and will shortly enter the chamber.
His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.
Law Clerk: Build BC Act Treaty Commission Act
Clerk of the House: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accept their benevolence and assent to these bills.
His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
Hon. A. Petter: Hon. Speaker, I would welcome members and invited guests to attend at the Lieutenant-Governor's mansion at 5 o'clock for a reception that I think members are aware of.
Hon. A. Petter moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 3:46 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]