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)
THURSDAY, JUNE 10, 1993
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 11, Number 1
[ Page 7051 ]
The House met at 2:07 p.m.
F. Gingell: It is my pleasure today to introduce an old friend who was a member of this House from 1974-1979. He's here to look at the furniture on that side of the House, not on this side. He has already sat on this side of the House, and he wants to do something different next time. I would ask the House to please welcome Gordon Gibson, who was the MLA for North Vancouver-Capilano from 1974-1979.
Hon. M. Harcourt: I would like the House to give a very warm welcome to 33 grade 5 students from St. Michaels University Junior School who are in the Speaker's gallery. You should be aware that they have been writing exams all morning -- successfully, too, I would take it. They are here as part of their studies on parliamentary democracy. They are accompanied by the school director and social studies teacher, Gaye Stone; the assistant director and computer sciences teacher, Cliff Yorath; and assistant teacher, Ms. Cook. I understand they are also accompanied by some parents. Could you give these students a very warm parliamentary welcome.
J. Weisgerber: I'd ask the House to welcome Mr. Paul Keenleyside, a good friend from Burnaby-Edmonds, who is in the chamber with a business associate of his, Mr. Kellan Newsam. Would the House please make them welcome.
E. Barnes: I understand that attending with the group of students just introduced by the hon. Premier is a son of a former long-sitting MLA, Frank Calder. I'd like to ask the House to welcome Frank's son Erik, to whom I would like to designate Frank's former name, "Little Chief Junior." Wherever you are, Erik, we are pleased to see you here. Your dad did a good job. Let's make him welcome.
L. Reid: I'd like the House to please welcome 50 students from the Thomas Kidd Elementary School in the riding of Richmond East. They are accompanied by their teachers Ms. Patti Carpenter, Mrs. Marylou Topp, Mrs. Leslie Brown and Mrs. Stephanie Chessa. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.
A. Warnke: In the gallery today visiting from Chilliwack is my mother, Mary Warnke, as well as my aunt and uncle, Margaret and Helmuth Warnke, and my cousin Wilfred from Wetaskiwin, Alberta. Would the House please make them welcome.
J. MacPhail: I see in the gallery today a good friend of many of us in the government. She is a community activist from Surrey and now a member of the investment business community. Would you please welcome Susan Sanderson.
R. Chisholm: Today in the gallery we have Mr. Scott Wallace from Robertson Annex School in Chilliwack, with approximately 60 students from grades 5 and 6. They are here to observe how parliament works. Would you make them most welcome.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I would like to add to the welcome of Susan Sanderson, one of my constituents. I would also like to welcome to the House two additional friends, Fred Storey and Hazel Peters.
Hon. C. Gabelmann presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Notaries Amendment Act, 1993.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce this act today. The proposed amendments will allow notaries to provide their services through companies incorporated under the Company Act. The existing professional responsibilities and liabilities of individual notaries to their clients will in no way be diminished by practising through a notary corporation. These amendments will provide notaries with the same advantage of incorporation available to other professions such as lawyers, dentists and architects. An additional minor amendment to the act will rectify a past error by increasing the number of members permitted to practise in the Quesnel notarial district from two to three.
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.
[2:15]
CORPORATION CAPITAL TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1993
Hon. G. Clark presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Corporation Capital Tax Amendment Act, 1993.
Hon. G. Clark: Bill 40, the Corporation Capital Tax Amendment Act, 1993, implements certain changes to the corporation capital tax announced in the budget speech on March 30 of this year. In moving first reading, I'll state the primary purpose of the bill.
This bill increases the exemption threshold for the corporation capital tax to $1.25 million of paid-up capital from $1 million of paid-up capital. It also implements numerous technical changes to the capital tax. Many of these changes were recommended by the corporation capital tax technical committee, an industry-government group convened to provide the government with advice on technical improvements to the capital tax. These changes will improve the fairness of the tax and reduce its compliance burden, particularly on small businesses.
[ Page 7052 ]
Bill 40 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.
PROPOSED GUARANTEE OF LOAN TO NATIVE BROTHERHOOD
R. Chisholm: My question goes to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. Does the minister have a policy on providing loan guarantees; and if so, could he please disclose it to the House?
Hon. A. Petter: My ministry does not provide loan guarantees.
R. Chisholm: To the same minister. The federal government approved a $5 million loan subject to private sector participation. The Penfund in Ontario authorized $10 million if the provincial government would guarantee a 75 percent loan to the Native Brotherhood of B.C. They are requesting it for the fisheries. To date, they claim that they have heard nothing from this minister. Is it the policy of this government to disregard the public's needs and prevent viable economic development?
Hon. A. Petter: On the contrary, I have met with the proponents of this proposal, as has the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries. That proposal has been considered by the government and will continue to be considered by government. If the guarantee is provided, it will be done in the normal course of approvals -- through Treasury Board, etc.
The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.
R. Chisholm: If that is the case, would the minister commit a time line so that this native brotherhood can start making plans about how their economic development is going to go ahead?
Hon. A. Petter: This proposal has been given very searching inquiry by the government. It's one I'm well aware of. We will continue to evaluate it. An answer, with respect to their request, will be forthcoming in due course, but the member can be assured that we as a government take the proposal seriously and will act on it in due course.
PRIVATIZATION OF HIGHWAYS MAINTENANCE
J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Premier, in the absence of the Minister of Transportation and Highways. The Minister of Transportation and Highways has indicated that he doesn't believe the privatization of Highways maintenance has been cost-effective. How does the Premier expect British Columbians to believe that the review that has been ordered will be impartial and fair, given the prejudice that the minister has already shown toward the review?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I'll take that question on notice.
CANADA-U.S. SALMON NEGOTIATIONS
A. Warnke: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. This summer is expected to bring a record run of salmon back to harvest. To date, we have yet to sign an accord with the United States over allocations, while the United States is trying to grab an extra 28 percent of British Columbia salmon. To the minister, what is the ministry going to do to help the British Columbia fishing industry run smoothly this summer and see that British Columbia gets its fair share of fish?
Hon. B. Barlee: For the first time in history, British Columbia has an individual at the table. His name is Bill Lefeaux-Valentine, and he's very knowledgable about the fishing industry. The Americans, unfortunately, are being very hard on this initiative of ours. They took approximately 361,000 sockeye last year. They receive an average of about $65 million of extra fish every year. We're addressing this at the international table. We have a representative there. He represents us extremely well.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
A. Warnke: To the same minister, I'm wondering what the time frame is. Is it a fact that the whole summer will go by and we will essentially lose our fair share of fish? What's the time frame?
Hon. B. Barlee: Of course the time frame is under the aegis of the federal Minister of Fisheries, the Hon. John Crosbie. We are players at the table. We have one representative out of eight. There are eight American representatives as well. We have been in a stalemate position for approximately eight weeks. We are not budging from our position and do not intend to. We think we should receive our fair share, and I think in the end we will.
POACHING OF CONTAMINATED SHELLFISH
K. Jones: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. We've been informed that there is a large operation poaching contaminated shellfish on the east coast of Vancouver Island. What is your ministry doing to assist federal Fisheries to correct this situation?
Hon. B. Barlee: I think the hon. member knows that this is under the aegis of the federal Fisheries, DFO, and not under our aegis. We were reading about it the other day. Fisheries officers are checking the situation, as they have been for the past two decades.
K. Jones: Federal Fisheries already laid charges in the last two days in that case. If you were thinking that they're ongoing, they have advanced. They've indicated
[ Page 7053 ]
that they need the help of the provincial Fisheries people in order to make this effective.
INSPECTION OF SEAFOOD PROCESSING PLANTS
K. Jones: Your ministry is in charge of food inspections. We've been informed of a case in the Cowichan-Ladysmith area where red tide was found in 9 percent of the clams. When was the last time that seafood processed in plants on the east coast of Vancouver Island has been inspected for this life-threatening disease?
Hon. B. Barlee: Unfortunately, the member has it a little mixed up. We are not in charge of inspection of foods of Fisheries.
The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.
K. Jones: If the Minister of Fisheries is unwilling to take responsibility for the health of the seafood coming from this coast, who is responsible?
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. B. Barlee: I'm not unwilling to take charge of it, but unfortunately the federal government won't let us. I'd love to be able to answer your question, but we can't do it.
FOREST SERVICE SUMMER JOBS
L. Fox: My question this afternoon is to the Social Services minister. Tuesday's announcement on the forest worker development program promised 850 jobs in the Prince George area. Can the minister advise us what procedure will be used to fill these positions, and how an applicant goes about obtaining one of those jobs?
Hon. J. Smallwood: As the member may know, this program is an enhancement of a considerable amount of work that has gone on in the past. Through our income assistance offices we've targetted the program to people most in need, so our office has been assessing people in preparation for this announcement. We have a number of people ready to go into the program. Indeed, we have a waiting list not only in Prince George but in some other parts of the province as well.
The Speaker: A supplemental, hon. member.
L. Fox: Can the minister then confirm that every one of these jobs was in fact filled as much as a week in advance of the program being announced and that new applicants need not apply?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm tempted to say that this is what's called hitting the ground running. It's a very good program, and we're pleased to be part of it. It provides training and support for people on income assistance and is a considerable investment by our government for the people of B.C. As the member indicated, we have been able to fill many of those positions, and it will provide opportunities for those folks. As we announce further initiatives through B.C. 21, we intend not only to ensure that those jobs are filled but that this program is a success.
The Speaker: A final supplemental, hon. member.
L. Fox: Can the minister tell us how many of the 3,300 jobs announced for all of B.C. were filled before the program even started? Can she confirm that these people will only be employed long enough to collect UIC -- or will they be employed for the full term of the project?
Hon. J. Smallwood: This extensive program is a partnership with the Ministry of Forests. It has three different levels. The entry level will be filled 75 percent by income assistance recipients and 25 percent by additional target groups, and it will be supported by and through the Ministry of Forests. Our involvement with that project supports income assistance clients in training to ensure they can successfully be attached to the work force and can take the next two steps in the program toward the possibility of actually running their own companies in every community this project has been targeted for. This not only invests in people on income assistance but provides a future for communities in general. I would hope this member would get on side and support the program.
JOB ASSISTANCE
A. Cowie: To the Minister of Social Services on the UIC question. The leader of the NDP in Prince Edward Island is stepping down for a few months to go on UIC in order to save the party a few dollars. Does the minister have the leader on her list for one of these new UIC jobs?
Hon. J. Smallwood: This gives me another opportunity to talk not only about the investment that our government is providing to people getting back to work in British Columbia but also about the strength of our economy. At a time in Canada when there is such phenomenal restructuring underway, when all provinces are pressured by caseload growth, we are best positioned with this initiative to support people in that transition.
A. Cowie: I take it the answer is yes. Will the leader of the NDP in Prince Edward Island be getting travel costs?
COMPENSATION FOR HEMOPHILIACS
L. Reid: A leadership question to the Premier. Since we last spoke, four provinces have reached a decision to compensate victims of HIV-contaminated blood. What
[ Page 7054 ]
is this province doing? What are you prepared to do today in terms of demonstrating some leadership on this question?
Hon. M. Harcourt: Hon. Speaker, I think that question was asked previously, and I took the question on notice for the Minister of Health.
The Speaker: Unfortunately, hon. member, that question has been taken on notice.
Interjection.
L. Reid: I find it difficult to...
The Speaker: Unfortunately, there's no supplemental on a question taken on notice, hon. member.
FAIR WAGE POLICY AND GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
G. Farrell-Collins: I won't direct my question to the Premier, because I know he won't have an answer. I will direct my question instead to the Minister of Government Services. Will she commit today to table all of the pre-tender cost analyses that were done for all government contracts that fall under the fair wage policy in this province since this government took office?
Hon. L. Boone: All of the tenders that have been taken by this government come under the Freedom of Information Act. If the member would apply through the processes of freedom of information, we would be happy to supply you with as many as we can, but really, hon. member, I don't think tabling everything in this House is the way to address this problem. The Freedom of Information Act was put in place to address situations such as this and give members such as yourself and other members of the public access to government information. We in this government have nothing to hide from the public.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
G. Farrell-Collins: The Freedom of Information Act is an act in name but certainly not in practice by this government, because the independent contractors in this province have been trying to get that information for some time. Will the Minister of Government Services table in this House, so that all British Columbians can look at it, what these pre-tender documents are and how much the fair wage policy is costing the taxpayers of British Columbia?
Hon. L. Boone: I guess the member has difficulty hearing. I've indicated to you that those documents will be provided under the Freedom of Information Act when you request them, but I do not intend to stand in this House and table every document that is a tender for this province.
[2:30]
B.C. TRADE DEVELOPMENT FINDER'S FEE
Hon. M. Harcourt: I would like to answer a question I took on notice from the Leader of the Opposition on Tuesday. The member suggested that the B.C. Trade Development Corporation charges a non-refundable fee to broker bank loans to small business. If the hon. member had done his homework, he would have known that B.C. Trade does not broker loans. B.C. Trade guarantees loans of small and medium-sized exporters who might otherwise not qualify for financing and would not be able to compete for, and therefore fill, export contracts.
He asked what kind of incentive a small business would have for even bothering with B.C. Trade. The incentive is considerable. During the past four years, the corporation has provided over 89 export loan guarantees worth $50 million. This program has helped generate over $300 million in export sales and saved or created 2,300 direct person-years of employment. Small and medium-sized exporters benefit from the program and are asking taxpayers to backstop their borrowing following a risk assessment conducted by B.C. Trade. We think that it's appropriate that a fee be charged to help recover the cost of administering the program.
JERICHO HILL SCHOOL FOR THE DEAF
Hon. A. Hagen: I rise to make a ministerial statement. Assisting me this afternoon is Caroline Ashby, who will be interpreting for me. She will also be joining members of the opposition who respond to the statement.
Former students of Jericho Hill School for the Deaf in Vancouver have come forward and told of their experiences there. Some of these former students have told of wrongdoing and have talked about the distress that has resulted from events at the school. The provincial government recognizes and acknowledges this distress. We are deeply concerned about the issues that have been raised, and we are committed to ensuring that they are fully reviewed and properly resolved. I want to tell the House what actions we have taken in response to this issue and to announce several new initiatives that we will extend into the future.
[E. Barnes in the chair.]
In February 1992 two processes were initiated to review historical complaints about Jericho Hill School. First, the Jericho Hill intervention team was established, which includes child protection workers, mental health workers, members of the Vancouver police sexual offence squad and interpreters. This team has been carrying out an investigation of allegations of criminal wrongdoing at the school. It is also coordinating ongoing therapy and support services to complainants and their families. As the investigation is still in progress, I am precluded from making further comment on it at this time.
[ Page 7055 ]
Secondly, early last year the ombudsman's office agreed to our request to investigate complaints that the government did not properly respond to reports that some children were abused while attending Jericho Hill School. The ombudsman has indicated her intention to release her final report on this matter regarding the wrongdoing at Jericho Hill School to the public in the next short while.
We have taken a number of other steps in the last year to address the issues regarding Jericho Hill and to plan effectively for present and future operations. We are ensuring that parents and students are kept fully informed about all initiatives relating to the school. They are also encouraged to be involved in decisions affecting the school, and they were, along with other members of the deaf community, involved in public meetings that resulted in valuable input into future living arrangements for Jericho students who must live away from home.
The Education ministry has initiated a program to loan TTY machines to parents of children currently living in the Jericho Hill residence so that they can communicate with their children by phone. The Ministry of Education has also initiated an external review to examine policies, procedures and practices of the residential program, with input from students, parents, staff, the ombudsman and the intervention team. The report will be completed and acted upon within the next few weeks.
As planned, the original school facility has been closed. The new South Slope Elementary, which opened in September 1992, and Burnaby South 2000, which opened this year, have facilities and programs designed to address deaf students' needs in a school setting for both deaf and hearing students. From both physical and program perspectives, these schools offer the broadest possible range of quality education options for deaf students, whether they live at home or in the Jericho Hill residence. Finally, Jericho Hill School students are eligible for the residential historical abuse program, which was created in July of last year to provide counselling support to B.C. residents who state that they were sexually abused as children while living in provincially operated or funded facilities. We also recognize that we need to continue to provide additional services and assistance to the students and former students of Jericho Hill School.
I want now to tell the House about several new initiatives we're undertaking to help us achieve that goal. Today the government is opening a new deaf access office for Jericho Hill respondents. This independent office for deaf people and their families will provide information on the government's response to allegations of wrongdoing at Jericho Hill. It will also provide referrals for follow-up counselling, a 24-hour help line for the deaf and health and vocational services. This office, as I said, is open today and is taking inquiries.
As well, the government is committed to investigating and resolving issues arising from civil claims of former students of the school. We are pleased to confirm the appointment of Tom Berger to provide legal advice to the province on these issues. Mr. Berger is a senior lawyer in private practice and a former justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia. He has provided notable service to both the provincial and federal governments on the commission on family and children's law, the Mackenzie Valley pipeline inquiry and the commission on aboriginal and Inuit health care.
Mr. Berger will review the civil claims of former Jericho students, and he will also provide recommendations and advice to government on how these claims can be resolved. Mr. Berger will begin his work as special counsel at the beginning of July. Additional support for former and present students is being provided through the well-being program, jointly funded by the Ministries of Health and Education. This program provides mental health services to current students at the school and residents' and coordinates' counselling for any former students requesting services.
This year the well-being program will expand its community outreach and operate a mental health services program for the deaf. Priority will also be given to the following services: counselling for deaf children, youth and adults who allege they were sexually abused; individual and family counselling for deaf clients with multiple or severe adjustment problems and disorders; school mental health services for children currently attending the Provincial School for the Deaf and their families.
I want to reaffirm this government's commitment to helping former students of Jericho Hill resolve the issues they have raised with us. We respect their views, and we understand their concerns over the past as well as their hopes for their own futures and the future of Jericho Hill School. We are working, and will continue to work, to help students and former students move forward with their lives and to ensure that Jericho Hill School provides a positive educational experience for students and their families.
Deputy Speaker: The Opposition House Leader responds for the official opposition.
J. Dalton: I am pleased to respond to the statement of the Minister of Education. I would first like to thank the minister both for the briefing that the Third Party House Leader and myself received this afternoon and for a copy of the statement in advance. It was certainly helpful.
This topic, unfortunately, is one that is becoming far too common in our society. It's unfortunate that this type of issue has to be addressed. I want to assure the government that we certainly applaud the efforts they have undertaken to date and the efforts that are being initiated from this time forward. We -- and the public in general -- certainly look forward to receiving the ombudsperson's report on the Jericho Hill situation. We also look forward, as the minister commented in her statement, to the external review report that will be forthcoming soon.
In addition, I would like to compliment the minister and the government for the opening, as of today, of the deaf access office. That will certainly be helpful for both former students and their parents in the ongoing
[ Page 7056 ]
support, which is certainly needed in an issue like this. We also are encouraged to see the appointment of an excellent person by the name of Tom Berger to deal with the civil claims. Everyone in this province knows well the credentials of Mr. Berger. We have every confidence that his assistance will go a long way toward alleviating at least part of these very difficult times for the affected people.
I would comment in particular about this well-being program that the minister has announced, because I'm very pleased to see a joint effort between the Ministries of Health and Education on this topic. I think that is certainly to be applauded. I'm hoping it is evidence that ministries, more and more, are collectively coordinating their efforts on issues such as this one. The counselling and other services that will be provided by the well-being program certainly are to be applauded.
[2:45]
Again, we in the opposition are supportive of the efforts of the government. I do thank the minister for the information she provided today, both before and in the House itself. We are assured, and I can assure the minister, that we will be kept up to date on the ongoing issues. We will certainly cooperate in any way we can to ensure that these types of difficulties are addressed in an objective and meaningful manner, so the people affected are assured there is support out there. Again, I thank the minister. I know all members of the opposition are very concerned about the issues that have been raised.
C. Serwa: It's a pleasure to respond to the ministerial statement with respect to the Jericho Hill School for the Deaf. It's not often that we on this side of the House can stand united and even deliver a verbal bouquet and have a sense of pride in an initiative of this government. I'm particularly grateful for the opportunity to be present at the minister's briefing session and also for the sensitive and realistic actions the ministry is taking in a very difficult and unpleasant situation. The actions and ongoing support that the government is providing to students who were at the Jericho Hill School and their families is indeed very positive. I feel a strong sense of pride in this most meaningful initiative that the government is undertaking, which is very important not only for the students and parents involved but also for all British Columbians. A great deal has been stated on the details by the minister and the official opposition critic, and I won't dwell too long on it other than to applaud the initiative, especially the one to put deaf and hearing-challenged students into a traditional school environment. Through that type of integrated facility, they can mix with other students and perhaps have a greater opportunity. I heartily applaud that. I think many of us yearn for the day that we are able to do even better than that. Hopefully that day will come, where, for example, the children will not be displaced from their homes and have to travel to and from Vancouver for the school week. On the whole, this is certainly one of the most positive initiatives the government has taken. I applaud the Minister of Education and the government, indeed.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: In Committee of Supply A, we will have the estimates of the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs.
I call second reading of Bill 33.
HUMAN RIGHTS AMENDMENT ACT, 1993
Hon. A. Hagen: I rise in second reading debate on the amendment to the human rights bill, first of all, to put this amendment in a context -- a very important context for us in British Columbia and Canada.
Hon. Speaker, racial violence and racially motivated attacks are on the rise around the world. Acts of discrimination, distribution of hate propaganda and racial violence appear to also be increasing in our own province. In the past two years alone we have witnessed cross-burnings, organized hate fests, hate hotlines and the targeting of young students as potential recruits by white supremacist organizations.
Groups which perpetrate organized hate activities in communities and schools are also sometimes connected to sophisticated worldwide networks. In Canada, more than 50 organizations are known to promote white supremacy and hatred against identifiable cultural and racial groups. We do not want this kind of hatred to take root in British Columbia, a province whose long history is one of ethnic, cultural and religious diversity. Hate activities and propaganda present a very real threat to our society and its values. They undermine the dignity and self-worth of all of us, but especially those who are often the most vulnerable in our communities. Hate activities and propaganda contribute to disharmony; they erode the tolerance and open-mindeness that must flourish in a democratic society. Our Canadian courts have recognized that hate literature victimizes and brutalizes people.
People subjected to hatred or contempt because of their race, religion, gender, sexual orientation or other characteristics suffer fear, humiliation and a loss of self-esteem. Hate propaganda depersonalizes people. It can even cause people to renounce personal differences that mark their diversity. Regrettably, it can operate to convince listeners -- sometimes subtly, sometimes loudly -- that members of particular groups or classes should be despised. The result may be an increase in acts of discrimination; and we all know how some of them manifest themselves in our society as a denial of equal opportunity in the provision of employment, housing, goods and services, and the feeling of being able to move freely, confidently and with dignity in our society and in our communities. In its extreeemist form, hate propaganda may even result in incidents of violence.
It is not enough for government merely to speak out against discrimination and hate propaganda. Government must take a lead through legislation, sending a strong message to those who promote or advocate racism and acts of hatred -- a message which says that these organizations and activities are not welcome in British Columbia.
[ Page 7057 ]
This legislation provides for meaningful and real protection to individuals and groups that are victims of hate propaganda and hate activity. It provides a remedy that does not now exist within our laws, and the fair processes that are available to the citizens of our land who emanated from very diverse realms.
In bringing forward this amendment, I want to emphasize that similar legislation exists in other jurisdictions. It is legislation that the international community considers to be an important tool against racial and religious intolerance wherever such legislation is in place.
Legislation such as this amendment brings to our debate has been used to curb hate activities, including the operation of white power telephone messaging services that promote such things as Jewish conspiracy theories. It has been used to curb the holding of hatefests by supremacist organizations, and it has been used to curb the display and distribution of hate propaganda and symbols used by those who would undermine our fundamental commitment to equality and the dignity of all persons.
This legislation that we begin to debate this afternoon in second reading, on the in principle of the bill, is an important tool against hatred and intolerance. I want to state also, because there has been some suggestion that this bill does something other than that, that this bill is not a law which suppresses the freedom of expression. There have been concerns that this amendment will impede such expression. It will not. The free and vigorous debate on policies and issues of importance to us as a democratic people is one of our most important and highly cherished traditions. The debate that we have in this House is a reflection of that vigorous debate, where we can have widely ranging and strongly held views and conduct those discussions within the bounds of fair comment and free expression of ideas.
Let me state further, hon. Speaker, that this amendment expands the individual's freedom of expression, compared to the current human rights legislation. There is a section of the Human Rights Act, section 2 as it currently exists, that I want to describe briefly. Section 2 is subject to the provincial Civil Rights Protection Act. This punitive act, which relates to criminal law, prohibits any conduct or communication which promotes hatred or contempt of a person or group, and does not expressly make a distinction between public and private conduct or communication. The amendment that we have put forward replaces this section with wording that expressly protects private communication between individuals or between individuals who are part of groups. The amendment states very clearly that the prohibition against hate propaganda does not apply to a private communication or a communication intended to be private.
Let me take this opportunity to emphasize that this amendment -- indeed, any legislation in Canada -- is subject not only to its own framework but also to the rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including very specifically, and at the very heart of that Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the freedom of opinion and expression. Although the Charter is relatively new in our laws, going back only a matter of around ten years, it supersedes all laws. It's the framework in which our laws are cast, and it guarantees freedom of expression. Let me read one of the clauses -- the framework statement -- that is particularly significant as we debate this legislation. Section 2(b) of the Charter recognizes "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication" as fundamental freedoms.
Let me state again, then, that the free and open debate we are having on this amendment is a reflection of the freedoms that we enjoy. As we look at the ways in which human rights and the rights of minority groups in parts of the world are being harmed, damaged and violated, we come to recognize how important the freedom for us to have this vigorous debate is. Fair comment and public debate of issues important to our society continue, and will continue. But as a free and democratic province, we draw a line at allowing people to be attacked by hatred and contempt.
I want to just take a moment to speak to those words, because they are not words we normally use in this House. I believe that they refer to strongly held emotions that are often expressed in vilifying words that are harmful to those to whom they are addressed. All of us have seen those words, depictions and signs. I believe that all of us agree that when that language, those symbols and those signs express the strong emotions of hate, contempt and vilification of an extreme nature, we do not tolerate that, and we would not want to have that as part of a free and diverse democracy.
There is also strong jurisprudence dealing with these issues. For example, in 1990 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on a case involving John Ross Taylor and the Western Guard. It was a federal case tried under the Canadian Human Rights Act. The Western Guard produced telephone messages that exposed Jewish people to hatred and contempt. The court ruled that the right of equality must be balanced with the right of freedom of expression. This case provides us with one of our most recent and significant rulings in jurisprudence on this important issue of drawing the line with respect to extremes of behaviour through speech, writing, symbols and signs, which this amendment addresses. The Supreme Court of Canada made it very clear that courts and human rights tribunals must balance freedom of expression with the rights of individuals not to be discriminated against nor to be objects of hatred or contempt. It is up to our courts and tribunals to determine that balance on the merits of each case.
[3:00]
I want to put this in the context of our tribunal, the B.C. Council of Human Rights, and its responsibility for our human rights legislation. I would like to say -- and I know I say this with the support of many, because I have heard it spoken about in the discussions about this amendment over the last few days -- that our B.C. Council of Human Rights has an excellent reputation for fairness not only in Canada but also internationally.
[ Page 7058 ]
I want to take just a moment to describe the process that would take place if a person or group believed that they had been exposed to extreme hatred and contempt and wanted to seek the remedy available to them through the proposed amendment to the Human Rights Act. First of all, there's a very careful procedure for filing a complaint. The very first test is that the complaint must fall under the council's jurisdiction. Complaints are only accepted when they have passed those good and thoughtful threshold tests in the context of jurisprudence: the rulings of human rights tribunals and courts across the country and, as I said earlier, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
This is not a place for frivolous complaints; those are not accepted by the council. The complaint process is fair. We deal here not only with the person who is making the complaint but also with the respondent -- the person or group against whom the complaint is laid. If the council finds that the complaint is within its jurisdiction, it will first inform the parties and ensure that they are fully advised about the nature of the complaint and that the respondent has all of the information. Its first approach is to mediate the complaint, because in many instances there are people who do not recognize the effect of their action, and through a process of discussion and mediation very often there is a means of resolution. It may then pursue the complaint further to deal with verification and refuting of the allegations. Following that investigation, both sides are provided with a report and have an opportunity to offer any additional information. Again, discussions can occur between the complainant and the respondent with the assistance of the council and its staff. Only then does the council refer the complaint to a hearing or dismiss it for insufficient evidence.
If the complaint is upheld through a hearing, then the council has certain remedies available to it. I want to emphasize that we're not dealing here with criminal proceedings involving jail sentences or heavy fines. The council can assign damages; it can provide compensation. Most importantly, I think, in respect to this amendment, the council has the power to issue a cease-and-desist order. It has the power to say: "You must stop this behaviour that is of such a nature that it offends the dignity and basic equality of the person or group against which actions in words or signs or symbols have been taken."
As you can see, if a person makes a complaint about hate literature to the council, the complaint process is fair. It's a process that is exercised in the context of our jurisprudence and the supremacy of the Charter in respect to the freedom of expression around fair comment. Finally, if the complaint goes its full course through a hearing and a decision of a member of the council, the legislation provides for remediation remedies rather than punishment. As a further protection and procedural safeguard, all or any of the council's rulings are subject to judicial review by the courts.
Going back to my comments when I began to describe this process, the council's decisions have a record of being fair and balanced. There are very few occasions when its judgments have gone to judicial review. The amendment that we are debating this afternoon does not change this fair and democratic process. And it certainly does not eliminate freedom of expression; far from it. It celebrates that freedom around the vigorous debate that we need to be able to have on any and all policy and key issues of the day. But it does strengthen the ability of individuals and communities to deal with hatemongering by providing them with a fair and balanced course for seeking a remedy.
The other day in this House the Premier spoke about the balance of free and fair comment and expression, and he used an old example -- it's a very simple and graphic example, and one that we've all heard -- when he said that freedom of expression does not allow a person to stand up in a crowded building and yell "Fire!" In the debate on this amendment we are talking about a very significant number of people in our province who, with the rise of hate activity, feel personally vulnerable and may be personally affected by hate activity and hate literature. This amendment is a way for us as government to take leadership in saying that we as a society do not tolerate such activity, and we take that leadership to a fair and due process of law.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
I want to conclude by saying that legislation -- no matter how careful and well thought out, no matter how fair the process is -- will not eradicate the kinds of activities that we are talking about. We have had debate in this House before about what we, as legislators and as leaders, need to do to support communities in making our society a place where messages of hatred are not tolerated; ones where people are able to take action on their own to deal with those issues. Those kinds of efforts on the part of our communities need to continue.
I believe we all, through our lifelong learning, seek to educate ourselves to become more knowledgable and more understanding of people in our global community, many of whom are a part of the diversity of our province. We want to teach our children to value their classmates as friends, learners with them, people with whom they will work and with whom they will have citizenship responsibilities. As a fundamental value, we want recognition that every human being has dignity and potential, and that our society is designed to support every person, regardless of race, colour, ancestry, sexual orientation or group characteristic. We are a part of community-based, worker-based, business-based action groups who speak out and act against hate groups.
I particularly want to speak about the work that goes on -- and must go on -- in our schools in that regard, because that's the place where children, in their own inimitable way, learn how to deal with these issues. Very often they teach us; they teach the older people about living with diversity, recognizing and celebrating that diversity, and embracing it as part of the health and potential of our society. Our ministry, teachers' organizations, schools and communities do a lot of work in support of that initiative.
[ Page 7059 ]
I particularly want to pay tribute to some of our schools who have taken the leadership and said: "Our tolerance of hatred expressed in our school community is zero. Our tolerance is that where we find those expressions, we will act." That is where we take this into the wider arena of our communities and institutions, and we live the kinds of things that we are speaking out against; we live the acceptance of every person as a full and participating member of our society.
I say this again because it needs to be emphasized: we are a province of enormous diversity and richness. Our future lies in our ability to embrace that diversity. As a province, we need to provide -- with our laws, our leadership and our education -- the opportunity for men and women, young and old, of all beliefs, cultures and lifestyles, to be welcome and a part of the fabric of our society. The amendments that we are looking at today provide us with one of the tools for people to take action with when we have extreme expressions, and the tool to say that those expressions will not be tolerated and must be eradicated. They also provide a remedy for individuals and groups who may be the victims of such expressions.
[3:15]
Hon. Speaker, the amendment that we are debating here values the traditions of our freedoms, diversity and respect for humankind, and is a celebration of our children. To people who may be innocent victims, it says that we will provide a fair and due process for them to be protected against activities that we all deplore and abhor.
F. Jackson: I ask leave of the House to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
F. Jackson: On behalf of my friend and colleague the hon. Minister of Transportation and Highways, I'd like to welcome to the House today a group of students from Kay Bingham Elementary School, accompanied by their teachers Miss Sharpe and Mr. McGarry. They have come here to get a closer look at our history and our government. In order to show them that they've come to the right place, I ask the House to join me in making them welcome.
V. Anderson: I rise to speak on Bill 33, the Human Rights Amendment Act. Let me say at the very beginning that the official opposition supports the principle of controlling hate literature, but we are strongly opposed to this bill, for it seeks to control much more than hate literature and jeopardizes the freedom of expression.
I find it interesting to enter into this particular discussion, because I have spent most of my working life concerned about exactly what this bill is intended to address. I have been concerned about hate literature, hate comments and hate expressions whereby one group in a society attempts to downgrade others, attempts to control others, suggests that others are not worthy of being full members of a society and, in one way or another, tries to elevate themselves as being superior. So I am particularly concerned, as is our caucus, that whatever can be done fairly, legally and in an open way should be undertaken to suppress hatred and hate organizations, as we tend to call them, within our communities.
As we approach this topic, one of the difficulties that we come to very quickly is the realization that a hate organization is a group that we classified as such from our particular point of view. The point of view of that group may be quite different. That's where we come into disagreement. We come into disagreement particularly since we have become a multicultural society and are becoming increasingly more so. What has been regarded as hateful or inappropriate in one society is not necessarily regarded as hateful or inappropriate in another society. So our multicultural awareness puts us into a bind to be able to come to common agreements with the people within our community.
Particularly since we are a multicultural society, we also are in the position of having words that we use in common but that have quite different meanings. Therefore, to be able to understand each other, we have to be very clear -- and clear with each other -- about the meanings of the words that we use. Unfortunately, the bill before us does not make those meanings as clear as we believe are needed.
In her statement, the minister indicated that there are groups within our society that we regard as expressing hatred unto others. Quite properly, we would like to control those groups and defend those people who are being unjustly hurt and whose dignity is being taken away -- if not, in the end result, their lives -- because of those actions. Those groups need to be controlled, but this is not new in our society. This has been true in Canada ever since we impinged ourselves upon the aboriginal community here. They, no doubt, can express the many times that these things have happened to them over the generations.
The minister has indicated on one hand that the remedies for this are not now available. On the other hand she has indicated that we have a number of means in our Canadian context by which even the bill that she is now putting forward is to be judged. I think we need to be aware of and reflect on those, as the minister herself has mentioned. One of the clauses the minister has taken from this bill in order to make it stronger, according to her, is that which refers to the Civil Rights Protection Act: the guarantee within the bill we presently have that "a person may, by speech or in writing, freely express his [or her] opinions on a subject."
I would like to refer to the Civil Rights Protection Act so that we can be reminded exactly what it says:
"In this Act, 'prohibited act' means any conduct or communication by a person that has as its purpose interference with the civil rights of a person or class of persons by promoting (a) hatred or contempt of a person or class of persons, or (b) the superiority or inferiority of a person or class of persons in comparison with another or others, on the basis of colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or place of origin."
[ Page 7060 ]
We already have this in the Civil Rights Protection Act. This protection and description are what the present bill attempts to remove from the Human Rights Act. If I heard the minister properly, she said that this was inadequate and did not suit the particular needs of our B.C. community. One of my concerns is that wherever we go in Canada, we should have similar protections and the guidelines by which we live should be the same. So I think we have properly said in our Canadian scene that there are particular areas of civil rights that should be equal across Canada, and equality should take precedence over what might be done in any particular province or part of the country.
The minister also referred to the Charter of Rights and Freedom in this regard, and she properly indicated that it takes precedence over the legislation we are now presenting. It is our concern that in amending the Human Rights Act, as presented today, this bill will be challenged, and the challenge will be won under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I quote again what the minister quoted herself in the second section.
"Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (a) freedom of conscience and religion; (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and (d) freedom of association."
This particular act not only talks about publication, but it also refers to groups of persons and -- probably without planning to do so -- begins to infringe upon that latter freedom of association. It's quite true that we do not always agree with how other people gather and associate in like manner. Still, that's one of the freedoms we respect in our Canadian scene. Unfortunately, our freedoms also bring with them difficulties in our relations with one another.
I would like to bring our attention to the Canadian Human Rights Act; it also has guidance for us. Within that act it states clearly:
"It is a discriminatory practice to publish or display before the public or to cause to be published or displayed before the public, any notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that (a) expresses or implies discrimination or an intention to discriminate, or (b) incites or is calculated to incite others to discriminate if the discrimination expressed or implied, intended to be expressed or implied or incited or calculated to be incited would otherwise, if engaged in, be a discriminatory practice described in any of..." --
and then it goes on to list a number of the sections of that particular act.
What we have suggested, even in the hon. minister's own words, is that none of these protections in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Civil Rights Protection Act are adequate for our circumstances in British Columbia. If the hon. minister is implying that these are inadequate acts, we have to be careful if we are superseding those acts in this bill and writing legislation which goes beyond them and tries to fill in where those acts are inadequate because she has also indicated that we will need, in fact, to have this very act she is bringing forth judged within the context of those others I mentioned.
Again, I refer to the Criminal Code. In the section about public incitement of hatred, it states that: "Everyone who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction." It goes on to state that no proceeding shall be undertaken for an offence under this subsection (2) without the consent of the Attorney General of the province in which that offence is said to have taken place.
I would affirm that as we look at this bill we need to look clearly at how this particular act relates to the federal acts which are before us. Previously, in the last amendment to the Human Rights Act in this Legislature, amendments were put within these other portions of the act that we are dealing with today, many of which we in the opposition did affirm and agree with. But in this particular section, which deals with publications, we are in quite a different realm, one which has been very difficult for courts across Canada to come to any clear agreement on. We are very clear that in this particular amendment we are treading on very sensitive ground and could, without intending to, very easily go over the bounds of proper discretion as we live and work with each other in our free society.
[3:30]
If this bill should continue further, we will have to discuss the particular clauses within this act. There are definitions that are not in the act, leaving it open to interpretation by a non-judicial body, even as the minister has indicated, in a way that is difficult to comprehend and to protect against. As the minister also mentioned, it puts private communication into a different context than which the original bill placed it. It takes it out of the context of the protection that was there in the preceding bill and into a very untried and uncertain possibility of interpretation. I suggest very strongly that this bill needs to be retracted and reconsidered in light of the comments that are coming from those people in the community who have read it and studied it and are now responding to it. They have suggested to us on quite a number of occasions that it would not survive a Charter of Rights test.
One of the difficulties we have is that putting it forward in an uncertain manner gives the very groups that the minister is trying to contain the opportunity to come forward to challenge it before the courts, and in the process of so doing, put even more of their concerns, statements and material before the public. The act may end up promoting the very thing that it is trying to counteract. We would not like to see that happen. With the same intention as the minister, that there be a way to control hatred that is aimed against other people, falsely and untrue, we would respectfully suggest that this particular bill, as it is currently written, is not the way to go about it. So we would encourage the minister to hear what the people from the community are saying and hold the bill back to have a chance to rework and reconstruct it so that it may be more definite.
The danger with this bill, as it is written now, is that it is too broad. It's too comprehensive, and because of that it will include in its scope far more than the
[ Page 7061 ]
minister has intended. The innocent parties probably will be hurt far more than the ones that she is trying to prove are guilty in their actions. Hon. Speaker, we would encourage that this be withdrawn.
One of the things that the hon. minister has said repeatedly is that we are here in free and open discussion in order to share with one another a variety of opinions freely and without prejudice.
Interjections.
V. Anderson: Now, as the members opposite begin to call "nonsense," I hear that they are not even agreeing with their own minister in suggesting that there should be free and open discussion. I would suggest and urge the minister to take this seriously: there are better ways to do this than what we have undertaken at the moment in this act. It is wise discretion to take a second look.
U. Dosanjh: The hon. member for Vancouver-Langara has made his remarks. Let me first say with respect to the so-called protection in the Civil Rights Protection Act that it came into effect in 1981, perhaps because we in Canada did not have the Charter of Rights at that time.
In the minds of the legislators, perhaps it was necessary to reiterate the fundamental right of free speech at that time. At this time, there is an explicit, overriding guarantee in the Charter that protects the freedom of expression and all the other fundamental freedoms that make Canadians and British Columbians what we are. It defines our society -- the fabric of our community that is Canada.
Whether or not this present amendment restricts the freedom of expression is the larger issue. Let me go right to the bone rather than talk about generalities. The wide-open wording of the Civil Rights Protection Act prevents both public and private communications of the prohibited kind within that act.
This amendment the hon. minister introduced explicitly and expressly reserves, guarantees and protects the right of private communications. To take that protection to its logical -- perhaps absurd -- conclusion means that members of a so-called hate group, members of a group that promotes supremacy of one group over the other, members of a racist group, can share among themselves, and mail their own newsletter to each other. That is my reading of that particular expressed protection for private communications, whereas under the Civil Rights Protection Act public communications as well as private communications were in fact prohibited. In my view, therefore, the Civil Rights Protection Act, although never challenged in the court, was wide open to challenge under the Charter, which is not the case with the amendment that is before this House today.
It's important to look at a couple of arguments made by the member for Vancouver-Langara. In reading certain wording from the Canadian Human Rights Act, he said that it's a wording we should perhaps look at for all of Canada. The Criminal Code obviously is not sufficient for our needs in B.C. and Canada. The Criminal Code has not been able to do what we as Canadians and British Columbians want done, which is to prevent the communications of hateful literature to the public by these groups. The Canadian Human Rights Act wording that was read by the member for Vancouver-Langara is, however, almost the same as the wording contained in the amendment before this House. The member for Vancouver-Langara obviously has not done his homework. He has not looked at the fact that Saskatchewan has a much wider and stronger protection on these issues than Alberta. In fact, our wording is almost the same as the Alberta wording, which has been there for some time and has not been challenged under the Charter.
When we come to this House, do we look at the issues that we want to deal with and then bring our wisdom and knowledge to bear upon them, or do we take partisan positions? No one in his or her right mind would say or support any legislation in this House that would have the slightest possible impact upon or infringement of freedom of expression. You have to be able to balance the rights of the minorities and the rights that we enjoy as Canadians, which are fundamentally enshrined in the Charter. Those rights have been protected -- and protected forever -- in the Charter of Rights of Canada. We don't need to repeat those guarantees everywhere, because we know that they exist. Anyone who has studied the Charter for any length of time knows that those guarantees are explicitly and expressly present in the Charter.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms of Canada is the constitutional law of this country. What we are talking about today is the Human Rights Act of this province, which is not the constitutional law of the country. Constitutional law overrides any other law of the country. That's a very simple and easy thing to understand. Once we understand that, then we get into whether or not what we are trying to protect and what we are trying to prohibit are worth doing.
The Civil Rights Protection Act, where these prohibitions with respect to hate literature sit at present, is a quasi-criminal legislation. It is a legislation that could send people to jail. It is also a legislation that provides a remedy of civil damages in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. We want to make it easier for the people of B.C. to access the remedies available to them and to decriminalize the process of hate literature so that we as a community of like-minded individuals who want to protect our minorities, who also want to promote and guarantee fundamental rights to everyone, can access those remedies in a simpler, less intimidating and less expensive fashion. When you deal with the Charter of Rights, it is obviously important that section 1 limits those fundamental freedoms. Let me read from it very briefly: our fundamental rights and freedoms are "subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." That limit has been placed on our fundamental freedoms. From my reading, hon. Speaker, this amendment does not detract in any way, shape or form from the guarantees provided in the Charter of Rights, subject to those reasonable limits.
[3:45]
[ Page 7062 ]
The other issue that some members have raised and that the member for Vancouver-Langara has raised in this House is that we have left certain words without definition. Courts of this land have been defining terms and words for us for a long time. There is a large body of legal literature on the issues of discrimination, hate and hateful propaganda, as in the Keegstra case and other cases that the Supreme Court of Canada has considered. For the comfort of my friend from Vancouver-Langara, let me quote from the annotations to section 15 of the Charter in the Martin's Criminal Code. I'm just quoting three lines: "Discrimination is a distinction based on grounds relating to personal characteristics of the individual or group which has the effect of imposing burdens, obligations or disadvantages on such individual or group not imposed on others."
In this particular amendment we are talking about disadvantages that are imposed on some groups, but are not imposed on the rest of society. As a consequence of their actions, the groups that promote hateful literature and the hatred of other groups or individuals impose disadvantages on the groups or persons that they target. There is no question in my mind, nor could there be any question in the mind of anyone in this House, that that is the consequence of the actions taken by groups that promote hatred. If as a society we are not going to protect those groups that are now at a disadvantage as a result of the actions of the groups that we are targeting, then we are not doing our job, and we as a community and we as legislators aren't providing the kind of protection needed in the community around us.
It is important to note that in this amendment private communications are expressly protected in section 2(2). That is more than one could say for the previous act, the Civil Rights Protection Act, which actually attacked both public and private communications on the basis of the prohibited grounds.
It is important to remember what this amendment does. It takes the matter of hate literature and propaganda into the Human Rights Act. It decriminalizes the process. Anyone who has been to the criminal courts in this province or this country knows that the court process -- and I can say this as a lawyer -- is rather intimidating. The court process can be very difficult to follow for people who have never been through the courts. Lawyers make bundles of money out of that; as a lawyer, I can tell you that. One objective of this amendment is to make that process less intimidating and less expensive for the people of the province -- for the disadvantaged of the province, for those who may have been the victims of hateful literature or propaganda or other discrimination that is indicated in this amendment.
This section obviously has been well crafted by those who know the law of the land and who know that the Charter guarantees do not necessarily bear repeating. Charter guarantees exist over and above anything that we are able to do in this House, and we could not override those guarantees. We could not detract from the fundamental freedoms that have been enshrined in the Charter.
Let me go to the debate about the Civil Rights Protection Act for a moment, and read -- for the comfort of some members of the opposition and others -- a quotation from the Hon. Mr. Williams, the Attorney General of this province at that time. Participating in the debate on the Civil Rights Protection Act on June 29, 1981, he said:
"One day we must achieve -- but always strive to achieve in the interim -- the goal that whatever you may be -- whatever colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or place of origin -- you, your children and your children's children can walk down the streets of this land and participate in all the opportunities that we have without fear."
That is the crux of the issue. Does this amendment do what the legislators attempted to do in the Civil Rights Protection Act? One might ask why there is a need for this amendment to the Human Rights Act. As a lawyer -- and I could be wrong; there might be an exception that I don't remember -- I don't remember the Civil Rights Protection Act being used in the last 12 years in British Columbia, because in the form it was brought to this House it was unusable. It was a laudable piece of legislation, but unusable. It was impractical because it criminalized the process, which meant you had a higher onus of proof. In the civil aspect of it, it also took the matter into the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court rather than to the lower courts, which are much simpler for people to deal with. But those were the words of the Attorney General of that time -- that that was the objective of that act. That is still the objective of the amendments that are being introduced by the hon. minister.
The Attorney General of the day quoted Lord Lindley, and I would repeat that quote from his speech. Lord Lindley made this statement in the 1900s in the Privy Council: "Every person has a right under the law, as between himself and his fellow subjects, to full freedom." He was speaking of a matter which dealt with trade and other issues. He goes on:
"It follows that every other person is subject to the correlative duty arising therefrom and is prohibited from any obstruction to the fullest exercise of this right which can be made compatible with the exercise of similar rights by others. I am not aware that the rights thus stated have ever been seriously questioned."
If you have the freedom to enjoy certain rights, you have the obligation to allow others to enjoy those very rights. This amendment imposes that minimal obligation on individuals, under threat of being faced with an inquiry before the B.C. Council of Human Rights. You have an obligation to allow others to enjoy the very rights that you enjoy. In the words of the Attorney General of the day, walk the streets of this province in this land without fear.
Let me conclude by simply saying that freedom is not something that I, you or anyone else could enjoy in the abstract. Freedom is a very concrete concept; it is a concept that sometimes is really difficult to understand, although easy to enjoy. In the culture that I come from, the freedom to enjoy some of the fundamental rights and the obligation to create a decent society where everyone is treated with respect and dignity co-exist. If those two matters did not co-exist we wouldn't have a
[ Page 7063 ]
society where freedom could be enjoyed at all. But in the culture that I come from -- if I can use the words from my culture -- the freedom to enjoy those rights and the obligation to let others enjoy the same rights are like two guests in your home. Knowing the hospitality of that culture, if you have two guests in your home, you could not discriminate against one guest in favour of the other; you would have to treat both of those guests equally in every respect. In that sense, when we are engaged in this debate of whether or not this bill limits the freedom of expression -- in my humble submission, it doesn't -- we have to look at whether or not we as legislators are treating these two important issues of freedoms and rights, on the one hand, and the obligations, on the other, in a balanced, wise, enlightened and fair fashion.
I must submit to you that it is important, if we really want to build a British Columbia, in view of what's happening across the world, across the seas, in countries like Germany.... It happened in Spain last year. It was happening a couple of years ago with David Duke in the States -- the chap who ran for the governorship of a particular state. If you keep all of those civil and fundamental rights issues in mind -- and what happened in Ontario, particularly in Toronto, and in Halifax, actually, some time ago -- and if you remember all of those sad chapters in our own history and in the history of the world, and the sad chapters that are being written today in places like Germany, and if we know and remember the lessons of our history as an increasingly smaller world.... We are an increasingly smaller world because the moment something happens in one part of the world, satellite television can spark whatever it does spark in another part.
[4:00]
If we are aware of that -- and the minister alluded to this -- we, as British Columbians and leaders of communities that have placed their trust and faith in us, have an obligation to move forward to provide the protection that this particular amendment seeks to provide to those British Columbians who, looking around themselves, might have some apprehension as to this province's future. We want to take all British Columbians within our embrace. We want to assure them that freedom of expression is guaranteed in the Charter of Rights and that the obligation to treat each other in a decent and dignified fashion is guaranteed by these amendments.
B. Copping: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
B. Copping: I am very pleased to welcome in the gallery today approximately 30 students from Burquitlam Elementary School in Coquitlam. They are accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Robertson, and several adult chaperons. Would the House please make them welcome.
J. Weisgerber: It's a pleasure to have the opportunity to speak to the Human Rights Amendment Act. It's with great interest that I've listened to the minister's introduction and to the comments by members with regard to this legislation.
It must be obvious to everyone in British Columbia that all but a very small minority in this province abhor the kinds of hate literature and demonstrations that are evident from time to time. We know they are hurtful to the people to whom they are directed and are not consistent with the values of British Columbians, Canadians or indeed western society. I think we would all applaud any move that would help to reduce and stamp out that kind of activity -- to do away with hate literature, hateful demonstrations, hateful talk or hateful, discriminatory signs. Everyone in this province, or almost everyone, would want to see that accomplished.
But as the minister indicated in her remarks, you can't legislate that kind of action; you can't ensure that those kinds of results are achieved through legislation. So one has to say: if the minister recognizes that she can't legislate those kinds of achievements, why have these amendments been brought forward? Knowing that she can't achieve them by legislation, why has the minister set out to use legislation as the tool to achieve her goals? The goals are laudable ones that most people would stand up and support. But you have to ask yourself: recognizing that we can't achieve the elimination of these things by legislation, why would the government risk trampling the freedoms that are the counterbalance? Why would the government eliminate the section that deals with freedom of speech? Why would the government say that we must depend on the Charter? Why would the drafters of this legislation not simply, then, take the words from the Charter and insert them, as a balance, within the legislation?
The minister also said that it will be up to the courts to determine the balance between protection of rights and freedom of speech. I think that is an abrogation of our duty. If we are to be legislators then let's bring in legislation that defines our will. Let's not bring in a piece of legislation that simply removes one side of the equation and we throw it over to the courts. As elected representatives of the people of B.C., we are not going to try to establish that balance. We're not even going to recognize that balance. We are simply, by amendment, going to create a void and then force the courts to make a decision that we (a) are unwilling to make, or (b) are unable to make. I believe it is the wrong direction for us as legislators to look more and more to the courts, and I think it is particularly unfortunate when legislation is crafted in such a way as to call on the courts to make a decision because the legislation is deliberately silent on one-half of an equation. Surely that's the difficulty.
I happen to believe that the Human Rights Act was balanced. Section 2(1) dealt with discrimination, and section 2(2) dealt with freedom of speech. The bill recognized both of the competing interests. The government has simply taken out one competing interest -- freedom of information -- in an attempt, perhaps, to deliberately throw out the balance and throw this issue onto the courts, hoping to find a resolution that the minister, by her own words, doesn't believe can be achieved in legislation.
[ Page 7064 ]
I was interested to hear the minister's comments that she believed the decisions of the Council of Human Rights were sound and had served the people well. The question I have to ask is: why, then, is the legislation being amended? If in fact the council has been effective and is doing a good job, why would you amend the legislation? At the very least I would have expected the minister to provide us with an example of where the existing legislation inhibited the actions of the council and had failed. So far we've heard not one word or sentence or bit of evidence from either the minister or the government member who spoke to indicate that section 2(2) has somehow interfered with the actions of the Council of Human Rights or in some way inhibited the intent of the Human Rights Act. I certainly hope that as other members, on the government side particularly, get up to speak they will address that shortcoming.
What experience or evidence is there with this act, which has been in place for eight or nine years now, to indicate that section 2(2) should come out or that we should risk trampling freedom of speech because this section has been such a difficulty in the legislation? I've seen or heard nothing to suggest that there have been difficulties with section 2(2) under the Human Rights Act, nor have I heard from groups that it has been a difficulty. I believe that the legislation is well-intentioned and was brought forward with the best possible motives. But we knew even before the legislation was tabled, or certainly as soon as it was tabled, that it was going to be challenged under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. When the legislation was seen by groups, we knew almost immediately that the bill would indeed be challenged under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms because of the lack of balance it exhibited. In fact, instead of dealing with the two competing interests -- the sincere need and desire to curtail and hopefully eliminate hate literature and material, whether it be spoken or written, and the challenge to balance that with the freedom of speech.... I appreciate that that's difficult. But we've heard no evidence, and there has been no reason given, for us to accept that subsection 2(2) has caused difficulties and that it should be eliminated from the act.
If we're going to ignore and take away the right to freedom of speech and the right to freely express oneself from this legislation.... The simple act of taking that out of the legislation makes a statement. Clearly, whether or not sections in other legislation cover the issue, the act of taking it out makes a statement. I would be sincerely interested in knowing why the government found it necessary to remove that section. I don't know whether I will hear about that or not. I don't know what experience the minister and the government have had, but I believe that the government and, in particular, the minister have an obligation to clarify why this section is being taken out. Why has the government decided, after eight or nine years of the legislation being in place, that subsection 2(2) can no longer stand, even though it recognizes a balance?
Nothing else in this amendment is very new. It simply repeats the groups and identifies, and perhaps extends to some degree, the new groups that should be protected under the act. But it really makes no fundamental changes or remedies. I don't see where the existing act was not satisfactory. Until I am convinced that the existing act is not satisfactory, and until I am convinced that there was a sound reason for taking out the protection of freedom of speech, I will find it very difficult to support this legislation.
B. Copping: Hon. Speaker, I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
B. Copping: In the gallery today we have approximately 35 grade 5 students from Glenayre Elementary School in Port Moody, accompanied by their teacher, M. Atnikov, and several parent chaperons. Would the House please make them welcome.
D. Lovick: Hon. Speaker, I listened carefully to the latter part of statement by the Leader of the Third Party. I'm sorry that I wasn't able to hear all that he said, because I certainly would have liked to have responded to his expressed and, I think, genuine and sincere concerns about whether this is the right legislation and whether it goes too far, or whatever. I think the answer to the question he posed will, indeed, be provided mainly in committee stage, but perhaps some of my comments will also address it. I hope they will.
I am pleased to participate in this debate and to support this measure. However, I say that -- to be quite candid with everybody here -- after suffering some anxiety. When I saw the statement of Leader of the Official Opposition in the press, when I read a couple of the accounts in the newspaper, when I listened to old friends like the spokespersons on behalf of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, with whom I have had some connection, I was worried. I thought perhaps we had done something we ought not to have, because of good intentions. After some anxiety and some reflection and reconsideration, my conclusion is that we are doing the appropriate and the right thing, and that the measure before us is entirely defensible. I would go further and argue that this legislation, properly understood, cannot fairly be regarded as an infringement on freedom of speech.
[4:15]
To begin with, let me establish that I have a background that in this particular instance gives me a little bit of...I won't say authority, but perhaps a greater right to offer an opinion. This is the tradition I come from. Frequently in this chamber, as an academic, one feels almost apologetic. Earlier today, for example, a spokesperson for the third party was suggesting that those of us who come from the university or college community haven't been in the real world and therefore shouldn't speak about certain things. On this particular measure I think I do speak with some authority and some knowledge. I come from that great and grand tradition of literature, thought, philosophy and understanding. I am one of those people who cut his teeth -- or one of those other individuals who cut her teeth -- on the grand tradition of reading Milton's Areopagitica when I was about 19 years old and learning
[ Page 7065 ]
it very well. For the benefit of members opposite who haven't had the good fortune -- or maybe misfortune -- to be subjected to that....
Interjection.
D. Lovick: The member opposite says: "Is that called holier-than-thou?" I hope not. I certainly don't mean to be, believe me. I am merely saying that about this stuff -- to put it in colloquial parlance -- I do know something. I suggest that what I have to say has some validity -- more than is accorded to me for other opinions I might venture in this House.
I just remind the member opposite that what the great tradition confers on you -- if you have been brought up on it and you know something about it -- is a little humility. I recognize very clearly -- probably better than anybody else in this House -- how little I know, ultimately. But I know a bit about what I do know. Chaucer's famous Oxford clerk said it very well. He said: "And gladly wolde he lerne, and gladly teche." That's Middle English that means he was just as happy to learn as to instruct. I like to think I fit into that tradition.
In any event, I have read, embraced, cherished and believed in those grand and noble ideas about freedom of assembly, thought, discussion and religion -- all of those things. About ten or 12 years ago, however, I had to struggle with some of my cherished convictions about freedom of expression and freedom of speech when I saw the epidemic being foisted on the public of pornographic literature that wasn't erotic. It was purely pornographic, hateful and capable of inciting violence -- in effect, of inciting violence against women.
It forced me to grapple a little bit with the reality that most of the great minds who have dealt with issues of censorship never dealt with: namely, the fact that we have built into our system a misogynous culture -- an anti-woman culture. The same people who were arguing these noble, grand and wonderful ideas that I believed in -- and still do -- were also part of a culture and philosophy that systematically discriminated against about 50 percent of the population. A brief example, if I might. The same John Milton who wrote Areopagitica in 1663, one of the grandest defences of freedom of speech in the English language, also believed that women should be totally subjected to the whims and caprices and wishes of their husbands. As he put it: "He" -- the man -- "for God only; she for God in him." Now, how do you reconcile that? The same is true with most of those grand enunciations about freedom of speech; they represent a little different reality than what the words have to tell us.
The conclusion I came to was that yes, indeed, we cannot treat any liberty within our society as absolute freedom. Some of you will recall that when we spoke on the matter of the labour legislation whereby teachers were forced back to work, some of us on this side -- but I note apparently not on that side -- did struggle, because we recognized that what we were doing, in effect, was interfering with people's right to assembly and freedom of association, and we accepted that case.
Interjection.
D. Lovick: The former Leader of the Official Opposition, the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, says he voted against it. My apologies. Yes, indeed he did. I admire his conviction.
The point I'm making is that we grappled with that. We struggled with it, and we made the case that indeed there are no absolute rights in society. We need to recognize that. We need to treat rights with reverence and care, but we also need to recognize that circumstances will dictate how those rights ought to be regarded. I would suggest that the great ringing arguments put forward by John Milton, and by John Stuart Mill writing a couple of hundred years after Milton, don't obtain or apply very well, frankly, when we talk about current reality. That's part of the predicament.
I won't talk more about Milton. That's 330 years ago, which is obviously too long ago to pretend. Let's take John Stuart Mill, though. His classic defence of liberty, as we all know, was written in about 1863, 200 years after Milton.
L. Fox: Great lecture.
D. Lovick: I'm sorry if I appear to be condescending. I don't mean to. But by God, I give you an opportunity that maybe you haven't had before to actually learn something, so why don't you take it? Give me one and I will, so why don't you try it? Don't be embarrassed to actually admit you don't know something.
Sorry, hon. Speaker, I should be going through you. My apologies.
Let me just remind people that when Mill talked about the absolute necessity of freedom of thought and expression, he was writing at a very particular time. He was writing at a time when we didn't have universal suffrage and when less than 40 percent of the population voted. Women didn't have equal rights, for example. He was also writing before mass literacy. He was therefore talking about elites. When Mill talked about freedom of speech, he was talking about an exchange of ideas between some very privileged, unique and special individuals. He wasn't talking about mass communication, by any stretch of the imagination.
It's interesting to note, by the way, that one of the points Mill made, which members opposite will love, is that the problem with the England of his day was that all the work was collective -- all the genius was collective and there was no longer any room for individuals. Imagine; he said that in 1863. What about today?
In any event, Mill's examples of the threats to freedom of speech are about stuff like freedom of religion. He talks about Socrates. He takes us to the heights of debate, to the two great ideas, to the interchange of ideas and actions. He doesn't talk about inciting people to hatred, the lowest common denominator of speech. That's what this measure is addressing; that's what it's about.
[ Page 7066 ]
What this bill is trying to do, and what we are talking about today, is something other than what Mill had to say. Look at what the bill does: its entire raison d'�tre is to prevent the publication of discriminatory material based on "race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation or age of that person or that group of persons." There is nothing about ideas, nothing about what people believe in, but rather the fact that they should not be incited to hate others on the basis of those characteristics over which people have no control -- in other words, who they are. That's what the bill is designed to deal with.
I want to reiterate a point. We can have the debate when we pose questions in committee stage and hear arguments from others who think that, yes, indeed, this has gone too far. I'm certainly going to participate in committee stage if I can. Let's emphasize again that Bill 33 is not a law aimed at suppressing individual freedom of expression. It simply isn't. In fact, you can just as readily articulate a case that this bill expands individual freedom of expression beyond the current law. I think you'll discover that if you look at the Civil Rights Protection Act -- because, remember, that particular measure prohibits any conduct or communication, whether public or private, which promotes hatred or contempt of a person or group. This measure specifically and expressly protects private communication.
Interjection.
D. Lovick: Somebody opposite says: "Yes, but we took out the reference to freedom of expression." Yes, but remember that we live in a country that has a federal system. Every law in this province is subject to federal law: the Charter of Rights. And guess what? The fundamental rights in the Charter are there to protect you.
Frankly, I don't know what the rule is. I'm not going to draw the same conclusion I did earlier today, in talking about another measure, to suggest that members opposite are simply engaging in what appears to be a little cheap politics. I suspect this one is real, and therefore I'm trying to respond in a serious way too. But, quite frankly, I want to emphasize that I do not think one can support an argument that says: "This is a denial of freedom of expression." It simply doesn't hold up.
I also think that there are demonstrable needs for this legislation. The member for Peace River South asked not very long ago: "Why are we doing this? What's here?" He hasn't seen any evidence of problems. The obvious question one wants to pose is: "Where has he been?" Because what has been happening in this province is pretty scary. We are seeing acts of discrimination, systematic distribution of hate propaganda and racial violence on the rise. We are witnessing cross burnings, hate fests and the proliferation of telephone hotlines, where you go and vent your spleen about minority groups. All of those are happening. The evidence on record is overwhelming. More than 50 organizations in Canada today are known to promote white supremacy -- and thereby to promote hatred against identifiable cultural and racial groups.
Members are quite right; we have measures in law to deal with it. The trouble is that what they do is involve the punitive approach and criminal prosecution. The question I want to pose to members opposite is: "What about the victims?" That's what is wrong with the law we have today. It doesn't do anything for victims; it punishes those who perpetrate the hatred. We need something that deals with those who are victimized, and that's what Bill 33 is about. That's what we're looking at in terms of a remedy.
I'm going to focus now, if I might, on one particular target, one objective....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please, members. You all have an opportunity to speak, if you wish, on this issue. The member for Nanaimo has the floor.
[4:30]
D. Lovick: I almost wish I had an old status that I used to take sometimes in this chamber -- namely, to be the designated speaker and be allowed two hours to debate so I could, in fact, deal at length with questions. But I shan't.
I want to focus very briefly on one target, one area that explains why we had the measure, if I may. Certainly one purpose of this bill is to discourage racism as much as one can. Just a couple of points, if I might. Let's recognize and acknowledge very clearly that we are a multicultural society. We open our doors, invite people into this community and say: "We want you to be full participants; we want you to contribute to the best of your abilities. Your doing so enriches, enobles and makes life better for all of us." We say that. I'll bet you every member in this House has said that when they go to a Canada Day celebration or citizenship court. At the same time, however, we also allow, and stand mutely by as it happens, the systemic and systematic promotion of hatred against minority groups. What this province, through this legislation, is saying -- and, by God, I'm proud we are -- is that we are not going to tolerate that; we won't. The problem, very simply, is that if you invite people to participate and be equal partners and you say all those things to them, the sine qua non, the resulting obligation, is that you've got a duty to do something to ensure they are treated fairly, equitably and reasonably. That's what this is about; that's what we are trying to do.
So many of us, sadly, take racism for granted. We assume it's some kind of natural human attribute, condition, propensity or whatever you want to call it. Let me put it in terms that my friend for Prince George-Omineca will appreciate better than my enunciations of Mill or something. Remember the musical South Pacific? Remember that wonderful music? It appeared about 1946 or '47 -- somewhere in there.
An Hon. Member: You're not going to sing, are you?
[ Page 7067 ]
D. Lovick: I won't sing today. It's the wrong range. I'll save my singing pour ces soir -- tonight's the night. Instead, I just want to tell you what the words were. There was a wonderful interaction in that play, and in the movie, between a white American of middle-class, Presbyterian upbringing and a young woman who was Tonkinese. In the course of the movie, or the play, he sang a song that went: "You've got to be carefully taught." You've got to be carefully taught to be suspicious and fear people whose eyes are a different shape or whose colour is a different shade. Not that you're brought up with that understanding, but you've got to be carefully taught. That is the simple reality: hatred of people who are different from ourselves isn't an intrinsic characteristic; it's taught, learned behaviour and part of a socialization process. In this measure, we are saying that we want to reverse the process, so we teach the right, better and humane values, rather than the negative, ugly and discriminatory.
I know that a number of my colleagues want to participate in this debate as well, and, as I say....
Interjection.
D. Lovick: Somebody says I lost my notes. No, that is not a problem, I can assure you.
Let it suffice to say that there are demonstrable grounds for doing this, that existing legislation doesn't protect us adequately and that clearly we as a province want to send a signal that the kind of behaviour elucidated in this bill, the kind of discrimination talked about, is not acceptable in the civilized society called British Columbia. It's a good measure, members opposite. I hope you'll think about it and get over the cliches a little bit. Take a hard look at it, and you'll discover that it is indeed worthy of your support.
E. Barnes: I first want to congratulate the hon. minister for giving us this rare opportunity to really look at a matter in our society today that gets nowhere near the amount of attention it deserves. I'm actually delighted to be standing here trying to make a contribution to this debate. I'm not sure how receptive the hon. members are, because clearly this is an issue that is unresolved. I know pretty well what the arguments are because I've been arguing them for years myself. From the first day I came into this House, I was demanding that we come up with something that was going to reflect the goals and aspirations of our democratic society, so that all people could have a chance to live their lives with decency and respect, regardless of race, colour, creed, religion or what have you. We're still trying to find a resolution that we can all agree with.
Clearly it's not going to serve us well to be in combat over this matter. I believe that when each member thinks about it, very few of us do not agree that we've got to do much better than we've been doing. The unfortunate problem is that not everybody is affected in the same way by the complaints of those who are being victimized in our system because of a lack of sufficient means to defend themselves.
As a 235-pound, tall guy from down south, who was once a puny little guy who used to get beaten up all the time, I can tell you that what I had to do to survive I don't wish upon anybody, because I had to become quite an aggressive person in order to defend myself. Many times I wished there were some option other than what I had to do. It's no compliment to me when someone comes up and says: "I sure don't want to pick a fight with you -- look at your size." But that's what they do. What that tells me is that might is right, that power is right. But there is no right for the guy who is disabled or for the person who happens to be of a sexual orientation other than heterosexual. That somebody who is uneducated or lacking in capacity to defend themselves because they are fundamentally and essentially a human being doesn't seem to rate. That's the problem.
The language that we try to use in legislation is very complex, and we're not used to it. That's why I'm taking the time to congratulate the minister for showing the courage to come forward on something that clearly is like going into a hornets' nest. Clearly she's going to run into a lot of trouble, and we all know it. I'm not suggesting that any answer is an absolute answer. But how can any of us resist an opportunity to try to do better? Why not take on the challenge? That's all we're asking. If the civil libertarians out there feel that their freedom of speech is impinged upon or denied in any way, come and give us an example of just what is being denied. What kind of verbalization, printed material or broadcasts do you feel that you can't do because we are trying to protect human rights? What are they?
I would really like to hear about them, because when you stop to think about it, there's a great deal of capacity within the English language. There is a great deal of room and flexibility to say just about anything you need to say within the realm of responsibility and credibility. There is no problem with the language as it is. There is no problem with the institutions as they are. The ideals are there to protect everybody. Why should someone want to offend anybody's fundamental human rights anyway? That's what bothers me. I don't know what law, written in the language of jurisprudence, will be able to satisfy everybody, but I do know that in our hearts we know the right thing and the wrong thing.
I can tell you that it is no pleasure having to defend yourself because someone doesn't like the way you look, the way you think, the way you dress or the unfortunate things that happen to you in your life. The tragedy of it is that rather than encouraging those people, you discourage them. That's where we're missing the point. If we were to encourage the people that we don't like, show them the positive aspects of their personalities and their characteristics, and celebrate their existence no matter what its capacity, then we could include them. We could begin to tell those people: "Hey, you count, too, and you matter. No matter how much I disagree with you, I respect you, sisters and brothers. I respect you because you're here on this earth. You have an opportunity to make a contribution and to do something on the globe, rather than being suppressed and denied, and made to feel irrelevant." How do you put that into law? As
[ Page 7068 ]
legislators, we're trying to find solutions to complex problems, and indeed we have some very serious and complex problems.
I recall my first speech, fighting against the KKK. I didn't know that the KKK had been in this province for so long. When they were sitting here, I used to demand of Allan Williams and Bud Smith, both former Attorneys General, that they do something to stop people from putting out hate literature. The Aryan Nation was one group, and there were racist pens being sold all over the place. All kinds of things were going on, and it was said: "Well, you just have to live with it. You don't want to infringe on anyone's rights." Why would anyone be playing these games with people's minds and souls and sense of respect? Why do we think that's necessary? Do we need that?
I was looking at something in the paper the other day. There is a corporation called Sega Corp. Some of you may have heard of it. They have a game they call "Night Trap." It is a video game that allows kids to push buttons and stalk women and, I gather, molest them or abuse them in some way. Now this is called "freedom of creative entrepeneurship." It's exploitation of the human soul and of our problems. The difficulty that we have as a people is being exploited in a so-called free and democratic society, a society where you can walk the streets and do whatever you want without responsibility for the consequences of what you create. We're trying to pick up the pieces. The Attorney General is trying to find ways to deal with the problems in family court and so forth. The thing is, the freedoms are creating the problems.
Why can't we have more discipline and understanding, and more responsibility for what's wrong? We all know what's wrong. We can't go around with more and more police trying to chase people who are doing wrong things. Why don't we do the right thing? Why don't we take a stand for something and teach our kids that the world can be better? Look, we're losing ground. The world is going much faster than we can keep up with. Everything that we create compounds our problems on this earth. We talk about the family falling apart, and then we have the gall to demand that we stop this attempt to protect ourselves from something that is killing us.
There's obviously something wrong -- tragically wrong -- with irresponsible free speech. I mean, your young children are being exposed to this crap. Enough is enough; we've got to stop it. We've got to tell people: "You can evolve into a better race of people on this earth. You can be better; you don't need to carry on the status quo. Forget it; it's a lost cause."
These kids are protesting for a reason. We don't need that. We need to begin to see more value in ourselves. We need to make the dreams and virtues we talk about in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms a reality, instead of demanding that we prove in black and white how we can protect fundamental rights -- fundamental freedoms to speak, to print and to broadcast. I would like those people who are going to do the printing, broadcasting and speaking to come and tell me what they are afraid of, if they are going to do the right thing. If they're really trying to do legitimate business, if they are trying to represent their thoughts fairly and if they care about other people, what is the problem? We can't write that; that's just common sense. I would recommend that we keep trying to get the message out and that we do not blame each other. Let's start looking for our common ground. It's costing all of us.
The tax revolters don't want to spend any more money on education. They think that too many people in jail are freeloading. They don't want people on welfare. They think that we've got to have more freedom to create industry and so forth, and that we should not be too hard on the environment. They don't want to have too much sustainability, but just enough. We've got to have jobs. We've got all these problems, but we're going to have to readjust and rethink what we're doing. The way we're going, there's no leadership, no direction and no sense of what we're going to achieve. How do we sustain ourselves when we're so free? Freedom is a two-edged sword. People are free to do all kinds of things. They get good, sharp lawyers who play games, and they just keep on going. We just keep on creating more and more problems for ourselves. As far as I'm concerned, it's absolutely putrid, frankly.
[4:45]
I'm very thankful to be in this country, to still be alive and to have survived. I have four wonderful children and three grandchildren, and I want to have a sense of hope for them and for myself. I don't want them to repeat what I've gone through or what I'm seeing. All I see is madness and hysteria. People are too hyperactive, too anxious and too insecure. They're popping too many pills and trying to escape. To where? No one is slowing down to smell the roses. No one knows what the colour green looks like -- or The Colour Purple, I guess it was called.
Friends, hon. members and hon. Speaker, we're not here to spin our wheels; we're here to try to make a difference. The people put 75 men and women here to represent over three million people in this province who have serious concerns about their future and about trying to enjoy their lives and the promises of our society. This is one of the best places in the world to live, yet we have as many problems as some countries where they are killing each other every day. We do it differently.
Stop and think about it. I feel very deeply about this, and I get angry about it. But I'm not angry at a soul. It's just that I can see that we have a problem -- and I'm sure every other member can -- but because of our partisan political system and the way we gang up on each other, we obscure reality. We don't want to stop and say: "Look, this game has carried us far enough." We need to get serious. We need to do something about our students who are not able to afford to go to school because it costs too much. People are demanding more and more money to keep up with the cost of living, and the situation has gone crazy.
People are going to have to start making different demands on themselves and standing for something that is really going to sustain us. We need personal discipline, a sense of duty and responsibility and the will to sacrifice on behalf of communities and society.
[ Page 7069 ]
We don't have that. It's no good to point fingers, because when I look at myself, I certainly haven't done my best. I'm just learning that I could do better. I have tried to do my best, but the more I learn and the more introspective I become, I realize that it's amazing that I'm doing as well I have in light of the problems that we all have to go through and the decisions we have to make and the things we have to do to survive, because there are not many people who are going to pat you on the back for playing the game straight. You have to get in the back door and make some connections and have some friends; you don't want to relinquish any power for the benefit of the common good. These things have to change.
This bill, while contentious, and the amendment, while questionable in the eyes of some with respect to the Human Rights Council, is an attempt to give the council a better chance to meet the complaints of people who come before it. We all know that the council hasn't addressed some of the issues with respect to criminal behaviour, because it's out of their jurisdiction and there's no real mandate within the law as it now stands to deal them. We all know that the Criminal Code of Canada is only accessible to those who have tremendous finances or economic resources behind them in order to fight and insist on having a day in court. It is not easily accessible. You usually have to go through the government of the day and get them to go through the federal government in order to make your case. You know that when lawyers start to look at whether the case is worthy of their efforts, they're looking to see whether they can win or lose, regardless of the principle. Quite often, if they don't think they've got an ironclad case, they forget it. They say you're just going to waste your time; we can't win this.
I recall arguing with one of the Attorneys General when I was on that side of the House: "I don't care whether I can win or whether I can lose; I want my day in court. I want to argue. I want to make my point. You people seem to think that sticks and stones are the only things that matter, because they break bones and words don't hurt. You're wrong. Words do more than hurt; they have an insidious effect on you. They cripple for life. They work on you psychologically. They demean you emotionally and inside." I can tell you, no matter how I may appear on the outside, I feel very deeply inside that I was shafted from day one down south, because of apartheid, racial separation and the humiliating and disgraceful things that I had to go through. I have never forgotten. But I don't like being a victim, and no matter how far I go, I'm never going to forget that nobody likes to be a victim.
People adjust; they learn to live up to it. It's like saying: "Have a stiff upper lip. You can make it, hang in there." People hang in there, but they don't forget, and they sometimes suppress emotions to the point that they come out in anger. It comes out in a get-even attitude. That's what we're dealing with, people who are saying: "Look, give me access. Let me know that I have some rights. Give me a means to protect myself. Let me challenge those people who would freely offend me as a human being. At least then I can believe that the system is equitable and fair. Otherwise, I'm going to get even my own way." We all know what that's like: taking the law into your own hands. People are doing it all the time.
But we can do better; we must do better. The minister is attempting to do better by bringing this bill in, despite what the people are saying out there. I've talked to them; I've been talking to them, and I've been accused of being a softie, having the wrong attitude and not understanding how the system must work. But I don't have a vested interest in any institution out there ahead of human beings. That's number one to me; that's what I think about first. If we are more concerned about so-called freedoms their about this person who is being offended by somebody, and we don't want to give that person an option, what do we expect them to do? Really, think about it. What are they supposed to do? I don't see any issue here other than our refusal to accept responsibility and get on with trying to care for each other. It's a heck of a lot cheaper than higher taxes and finding more and more abstract ways of dealing with people, when all you've got to do is deal with them directly and fairly and give them an opportunity to commit themselves to something other than defending themselves in a system that is supposed to be friendly, not hostile.
We all know what I'm talking about. I don't like to talk too much, because the more I talk, the more I realize that this isn't news; it's just that we have anaesthetized ourselves to everything. People have blocked things off. People don't want to face anything, because it's too complicated, it can't be done, it's too unwieldy. "Impossible," they say. "Forget it. What are you, a dreamer?" Well, the youngsters out there are asking us to begin to dream. The youths who were out in front of the Legislature the other day -- the GRYFIN group, I think -- were asking us to begin to dream. On Friday, in front of the Legislature, I will be meeting with some young people who are going to have a peace walk. They are asking us to begin to dream and to care about each other. I think we can afford to do that. We don't have to be so uptight about our emotions. It's all right every now and then to say: "We've gone as far as we can, academically and intellectually. Let's start talking about ourselves as people. How do we really feel?"
We have been told in school that we can't do that; we've got to be totally objective. Subjectivity has no place in your thinking. That means you're weak; you're wishy-washy. The more we are trained that way, the more we lose our sense of humanity. It seems to me that everywhere I go, the five billion people on the face of this earth are all talking about humanity. So why don't we get in on it? We're politicians; it's a good deal. We should get out there and lead the crowd that's asking for something. That's something else we know a lot about. Let's do it. There's plenty of room to play party politics, but let's get on board and try to do something.
This isn't the time to divide; this is the time to show some courage. This is the time to begin to say to the people that we know there are a lot of issues, but we're going to debate this. We're going to debate it together and we're going to find better ways. That's what we need, and I believe that every one of us understands that, despite our rather minute differences in terms of
[ Page 7070 ]
black and white on this kind of thing. In the general picture, we all must be on the same road.
I want to close by thanking the minister for bringing this amendment forward. This is a good debate. It's an important one. I expect members to make hard points. But remember, at the end of the day we are the ones that people are counting on to show some courage and change old habits and show that we can have an act of faith for some things that are going to help us in the future. [Applause.]
A. Warnke: This is not the first time I've followed the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard, and it's not the first time I've followed the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard on a bill discussing human rights. It's almost d�j� vu all over again, because I recall that a year ago we heard a very eloquent statement by the member for Vancouver-Burrard, one for which I believe I complimented him at the time. As a matter of fact, if I were to recall my remarks, I said that if Bill 50 passes -- and it did -- it would probably be because of the contribution of the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard.
At the outset, I find myself probably saying the same thing again: if this particular amendment to the human rights bill is passed, it will be because of the contribution of someone such as the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard. Indeed, the applause that was extended by members of the opposition illustrates full well the respect that is given to the statements made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard. I say that at the outset, because all members on all sides of this House are very genuine in dealing with this extremely important issue. I agree with the member for Vancouver-Burrard. It is an important issue, and an important debate is taking place here.
[E. Barnes in the chair.]
At the same time, it must also be stated that when we take a look at the content of the debate taking place.... I really want to draw certain aspects to the attention of all members of this Legislature. If we are all genuine -- and I believe we are all genuine and honourable -- then we have to look carefully at the content of the debate before us.
I couldn't agree more with the member for Vancouver-Burrard, who said all you have to do is get some big-shot lawyers who just get around the rules. As a matter of fact, I have some real concerns about that aspect. It is very easy to set up laws in such a way that all you have to do is hire some big-shot lawyers to try and get around the rules. Compare that statement with one I heard earlier from the member for Vancouver-Kensington, who I often agree with on subjects of this nature. But in his opening remarks he criticized the official opposition view that what we need in this legislation are precise definitions of some terms, because the mere vagueness of those terms in law could stimulate all sorts of problems. That position was put forward by my colleague the member for Vancouver-Langara, and I think it was sound. The reaction to that by the member for Vancouver-Kensington was: "Don't worry about it, because you just leave it to the courts, as the courts have been doing this all along."
[5:00]
That is part of the problem. On the one hand, we leave it to the courts to look at terms and argue about definitions, especially when they are vague; on the other hand, the member for Vancouver-Burrard quite correctly puts forward the view that, unfortunately, all you need are some big-shot lawyers to get around the rules. In a sense, the statements made by the members for Vancouver-Kensington and Vancouver-Burrard hit at one core of the problem that the member for Vancouver-Langara was getting at. We have a fundamental problem here, especially when one section of the old act is replaced by another section that is new and simple but that does not address the original problem.
What is being deleted is the reference in section 2: "Notwithstanding subsection (1) but subject to the Civil Rights Protection Act, a person may, by speech or in writing, freely express his opinions on a subject." The Civil Rights Protection Act outlines in crystal-clear terms how one can violate fundamental principles of our democratic society and government. In some ways, the human rights legislation, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Civil Rights Protection Act all put together have some strength. But what did we do? We deleted a section that gives the legislation strength so that we can combat hate literature, hate propaganda and groups mobilizing for purposes of inciting hatred. We got rid of that, and replaced it with: "Subsection (1) does not apply to a private communication or to a communication intended to be private." That is all that's in that second section.
It's no wonder that organizations that are extremely sensitive to problems of human rights -- especially to subjects such as hate propaganda and how it is applied against certain minority and ethnic groups; indeed, in some cases perhaps against a majority group -- such as the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, which in the past has certainly not been castigated as some sort of right-wing think tank.... As a matter of fact, I was a member of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, and I have a lot of respect for it. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has always tried to be balanced and fair, but it has often taken a lot of flak for upholding and enhancing the rights of various minorities in Canada. I say this to preface the following point: that the Canadian Civil Liberties Association also finds the move here unacceptable. I think I can say that, quoting some sort of authority. This is an authority that can suggest that we have some serious problems here.
It's true that the B.C. Human Rights Coalition has expressed some support for this bill because it adds groups to the protection list. We of the official opposition support that as well, but we do have to have some precise definition. Admittedly, we could take this up at committee stage. We could ask the minister what is meant by "groups." What kind of group is included? We could simply accept on faith, prima facie, what is being affirmed here by the minister and leave the discussion to committee stage. On the other hand, it is well worth pointing out that there is a problem. Some
[ Page 7071 ]
very well-meaning Canadians and British Columbians with a long history of protecting, enhancing and supporting various minority groups have some serious concerns here. That's well worth expressing, alerting the government that somewhere in here is a bit of a problem.
If I listened to some members on the government side who have essentially been putting forth their support of this bill, you might think that addressing hate propaganda and hate literature is something brand-new in the province of B.C. It isn't. As a matter of fact, I would like to draw members' attention to work that was done many years ago in the 1960s, when the federal Minister of Justice appointed a special committee specifically on hate propaganda. It was headed by Dean Maxwell Cohen, one of the most respected law experts and law professors in this country. Indeed, having met him on several occasions many years ago, I would have to add that Dean Maxwell Cohen is a person I certainly revere.
The particular study conducted by Dean Cohen was fairly exhaustive, especially for its time, but it's still applicable to the present age. Essentially, it looked at the dilemma of what to do with hate literature and hate propaganda, and with people who want to incite hate. Dean Cowan concluded that the Canadian community has a very serious problem in dealing with this kind of question. Indeed, if it is not met properly and carefully, one of the ironies about this is that an improperly worded law and legislation can actually do the very things that you want to avoid: stimulate, encourage and even abet those who want to advance hate propaganda and hate literature, focus on particular groups in society and express hate. There have been some very significant attempts that have really done a lot to curb hate propaganda, hate literature and so forth in Canadian society. Each time we have met this, whether at the federal or provincial level, it has always been with the caution of being very careful what kind of legislation is brought forth, because it may well be the kind of law and legislation that will stimulate these very groups that you want to get rid of in Canadian society.
Some government members made the point that we need to educate people more, and we need to especially get hold of our young people. I'm actually very optimistic about our young people. On subjects such as accepting other human beings as brothers and sisters, our young people are sometimes very much ahead of the so-called adult population in many ways. I'm very optimistic about the youth in our country, but at the same time, I'm not turning a blind eye to some of the developments in this country, this province and indeed in this world. Some members know that I've spent a good part of my career studying German politics and political history. Being somewhat of an expert on that subject, I am very disturbed by some of the recent events in Germany. It's interesting to note that many Germans are as well. Many people are. Why? They've become sensitized to what has happened in the twentieth century. The twentieth century will be known for some tremendous, remarkable progress by human beings. But the twentieth century has also been characterized by extreme violence and war, and such a legacy is not one to be proud of.
Therefore I am concerned when I see what some people are doing to the Turkish minority in Germany; when we look at the violent acts around Solingen, we have to be concerned. We also have to be concerned in the global sense with the perceived decline of the nation state and what has been called the re-emergence of tribalism. I'm not one to accept or embrace that thesis entirely, but there is at least a perception that the nation state is on the decline and a theory that we are seeing the emergence of tribalism. It's more than theory; there is some real hard evidence to suggest that as well. Perhaps there is something about times of peace that stimulate such groups to think they can take advantage of peaceful people.
In this country, all Canadians are extremely concerned about the emergence of groups that preach and practise hatred and prejudice. At the same time, I'm one who examines many questions and takes an interest in many issues in our society and the world. I well remember the very famous -- or infamous -- trial of Ernst Zundel in Toronto. I followed that one very closely, because basically the whole case was taking place in my neighbourhood, and I was quite aware of the emergence of groups such as the Western Guard. I vividly remember analyzing and assessing: what is the source of their success? Why are they so successful? They are successful insofar as an amount of attention is extended to these people that is totally unwarranted. On the other hand, certain individuals and groups in society are very clever at gaining such attention. By gaining such attention, they unfortunately gain a certain amount of credibility in our society.
[5:15]
I think one reason for that -- I'll digress for a moment, because I think this is extremely important -- is that so often we have embraced relativism as a philosophy which has a positive attribute: that is, you have your opinions, I have my opinions and we agree to disagree. In some ways it is a very positive philosophy, but it's also negative, because it's vulnerable to those who express opinions that have no foundation in truth and who deliberately avoid the truth. How do you deal with individuals and groups that want to avoid the truth, who deliberately want to pursue an avenue of deceit and who impose their ideas on other human beings?
From my experience, the worst thing that can be done is to give anyone a platform, an opportunity to express those repugnant ideas. In this context, this is what I really fear with regard to this particular bill. I believe that it's on the right track and that we should do whatever we can in terms of legislation to impose as harsh a penalty as we can on those who incite hatred and incite individuals to hate other people.
I do not know whether it was just a slip of the tongue by the member.... I believe it was the member for Vancouver-Kensington, and I'm hoping I'm not taking his remarks out of context. I thought I heard that member say that we have to take this out of the Criminal Code. I'm of the opinion that we have to ensure that the Criminal Code applies to individuals
[ Page 7072 ]
who incite hatred and who embark on hate propaganda. I think we have to be very harsh with certain individuals. I heard that, but to be fair, perhaps the hon. member meant something else. Nonetheless, there is a view out there that we have to do something else with those who violate the rights of others.
As I take a look at the Human Rights Amendment Act, I have some very severe problems with it. If it's applied in a certain way and we actually eliminate the attempt to really be difficult on people who are inciting hatred, we will end up having a challenge in the courts. I think my colleague for Vancouver-Langara pointed this out.
There is no use in me elaborating on this point, but it is important to emphasize that I believe there is enough in this particular bill that some person could actually challenge it under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As a result, this bill will actually stimulate someone out there -- and I can easily imagine who -- to take advantage of this and say: "I'm going to challenge this act in a court of law -- if necessary, to the Supreme Court of Canada -- and subject it to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms." My experience with the Zundel case -- and we're all aware of the Zundel and Keegstra cases and many cases like those -- is that there are individuals who would love to take this through the courts, because they have a platform. Even when they're not successful, it's a form of martyrdom.
I do not want to give in to these kinds of individuals who want to make a mockery of our society, of some basic rights and freedoms in this country and of our system of justice. I don't want that. It stems from a recognition of what has happened in some other countries in this century -- Germany comes to mind during the 1920s. It appears that we have to be reminded that in that society, which had one of the greatest constitutions ever devised was that of the Weimar Republic. Despite that great constitution, it was used in a really repugnant group of people, so I would caution hon. members. I must admit that I would have preferred to see this bill withdrawn; I'm not so sure we can do that. But to a certain extent, I would have preferred to see more consultation by the minister: "We are after getting rid of hate propaganda. We want to challenge hate propaganda. How do we go about it?" This legislation is pretty darned sloppy, hon. Speaker. It's going to invite a lot of people to challenge this particular legislation, and any time legislation can be challenged, the law can be challenged. I fear that one of these days a law is not going to be upheld but instead subjected to the Charter and done away with. I fear the coming of that day, because if a law that contains a human rights element is actually successfully challenged, we've got a real problem. It sets into motion a momentum that can lead to a real challenge to society, much as what happened to Germany in the 1920s. That's something I want to avoid at all costs.
Therefore I was not really pleased -- and certainly not encouraged -- when I heard: "Well, let's just leave it to the courts to define the terms. So what if we allow the courts to deal with these problems?" While we have the opportunity to put forward some solid legislation, it's extremely important to get it right the first time and make sure that the law sticks and really applies. This is not just a fancy way of putting an issue on the back burner, because as far as I'm concerned, back in the 1960s we Canadians addressed this whole problem of hate propaganda. We've been working steadfastly on it ever since. A good lot of legislation that has been brought forward in our federal system is actually quite remarkable, profound and applicable to the Canadian community. It has worked. It hasn't worked perfectly, but when I reflect on some of the remarks by the member for Vancouver-Burrard and his experiences in the United States, I think that in no political or legal system has there been a perfect working out or resolution of the problems faced when groups and individuals decide to attack, challenge and hate one another. I have a deep reverence for the American constitution. I believe the framers of the American constitution were truly a group of geniuses, who put together a document that was amazing for it's time. But, as the member for Vancouver-Burrard eloquently put it, regardless of the nature and the intent of the American constitution, we have seen expressed in American society so many deeply hateful and prejudicial experiences and problems. This is not new to us. We addressed it in the 1960s, and we have addressed it time and again.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
The legislation that has been put forward is so simple and yet doesn't really do the job. I would like to see a more comprehensive bill that really attacks some of the issues that are before us. I've listened very carefully to many members of this House, including those who have defended this bill. But even after taking their views into consideration, I have enough problems with this legislation to draw the conclusion that we need to re-examine this bill. We need to tighten it up, strengthen it and make it really workable. Accordingly, I move, seconded by the member for Chilliwack, that the motion for second reading of Bill 33 be amendment by deleting the word "now" and substituting the words "six months hence."
The Speaker: The member can continue with debate while the Chair considers the amendment.
On the amendment.
A. Warnke: It is not my preference to move such a motion on a matter that we consider important and serious, such as one that deals with human rights. It saddens me in some ways, but it saddens me at least in this context. It saddens me that the bill that was constructed....
I'm sorry, hon. Speaker. I see the red light.
The Speaker: As the mover of the amendment, the hon. member has another ten minutes.
A. Warnke: As I reflect on it, at least in this context, I moved this motion because the legislation that has been put forward is very weak. I believe it needs to go back to the drawing board. However, I do not question the intent of the bill. I think we in the
[ Page 7073 ]
opposition fully understand and appreciate that what the minister is trying to achieve here is to stamp out the very objectionable act of disseminating hate literature and propaganda. As a matter of fact, the member for Nanaimo has put forward that what we need to do is address acts of violence. I couldn't agree more. I, too, find acts of violence, especially as expressed on television and in video, quite objectionable.
I did not see before us this afternoon a very good defence of the bill. The member for Nanaimo, whom I listened to very carefully because I respect some of the points he put forward, hit one in particular that I was interested in -- that is, we have to address victims in this situation. Indeed, I really appreciate that, and I identify with it very strongly. I've even made public statements recently that we have to pay more attention to victims. Victims of violence are something that we have to come to terms with. I would like to see federal and provincial legislation that addresses the problem of victims' rights, because I really do believe that victims' rights have been interfered with and, increasingly, adversely affected in our society. We have to do something about it. It's interesting, though, that when the hon. member for Nanaimo questioned what this bill does with regard to victims, I did not hear an elaboration on it from that member. I think there's a very good reason for it. When you look at the wording of the bill and what the bill intends, it doesn't address victims' rights or help them out at all. That's one reason why this motion is extremely important.
[5:30]
If this bill is constructed to protect victims and enhance their rights, believe me, it will have support from this corner. I would like to see some effort to further define certain terms, such as new ones introduced here, like "private communication." The hon. member for Vancouver-Langara outlined some very serious concerns that I would like to see addressed by this minister. They are serious in nature; again, we need to go back to the drawing board.
One element of this is the inverse relationship that may exist between on the one hand an excessive infringement of basic civil liberties and on the other hand freedom of speech. This has been raised by a number of people on this side but also among the public. There is some concern. I know it's easy to dump on reporters and columnists these days, but I pay very close attention when a columnist of a major newspaper says he has some real concerns about this in terms of its impact on his position and his job. As far as I am concerned, columnists and journalists have got to be in a position to criticize governments and outline some basic problems and issues. I believe one hon. member mentioned the name Doug Collins. But actually the name I had in mind was Vaughn Palmer, whom I respect and whom I think most or all members of this House respect deeply. Even when a columnist such as Doug Collins puts forward what some of us would call repugnant views or views that we dislike, I would still go back to Voltaire, who once said that he might strongly disagree with a view, but he would defend the right to state it. At times that may mean disagreeing with some people whose views we find repugnant. But we have to be extremely careful that we do not therefore take Doug Collins or some other person as an example and then associate Vaughn Palmer, Brian Kieran and everybody else in that light. That is an extremely misleading methodology and a very dangerous one. I'm suggesting that we have to be extremely sensitive to the nature and implications of what we are doing here when we start changing laws that affect fundamental rights and freedoms. As a matter of fact, what even bothers me more is that there's no mention of freedom of assembly. I have some real concerns about that, and I'd like to see that addressed at some point in this debate.
There are a number of cases of excessive prosecution by provincial governments in this country. I believe I mentioned this on one other occasion, but I think it needs reaffirmation. We've had enough history in Canada of provincial governments engaging in excessive prosecutions: Boucher v. the King, Saumur v. the City of Quebec, the padlock case of Switzman v. Elbling, the Alberta Press Bill case, the Birks case vs. the City of Montreal. Many cases exist in which provincial governments have found it in their interests to interfere with basic rights and freedoms of individuals and groups. The provincial governments do not have a good strong record in the twentieth century. For this reason, when I see flaws in bills that deal with civil liberties, civil rights and human rights and freedoms, the alarm bells immediately go off, and I have to ask: what is the nature of it, and what are the potential implications of this bill? That's what I'm doing here. It may well pass eventually, but I would like to encourage all members to have a strong, sober second look at this legislation. Henceforth, my support for this motion.
With that, I move adjournment of the debate until the next sitting.
Motion approved.
J. Beattie: I wonder if the House would give me leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
J. Beattie: In the gallery right now are some grades 5 and 6 students from Peachland Elementary School. They are accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Loewen, as well as some parent chaperons. Many of them are in Victoria for the first time. Just for the information of the House, it costs quite a bit of money for these students to come, and in fact coming over on the ferry is an additional burden. It's great to see that the parents and students have raised the money to come and see what the House is all about and to see Victoria. Please make them welcome.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. A. Hagen moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 5:37 p.m.
[ Page 7074 ]
The House in Committee of Supply A; D. Streifel in the chair.
The Committee met at 2:55 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
(continued)
On vote 9: minister's office, $311,041 (continued).
G. Wilson: I understand that in this morning's session there was some general discussion on policy, and that we were entering into the minister's direction with respect to policy. I wonder if I might come directly to three issues that I would like to canvass prior to giving the floor back to the opposition critic.
The first issue I would like to deal with is the policy with respect to aboriginal land claims and the ongoing claim process in light of the new Treaty Commission Act and how that is going to interface with this ministry. Secondly, I'd like to talk about the protected-areas strategy and CORE, and the extent to which this ministry is actively involved in CORE, given that the mandate of CORE does not include aboriginal lands. Thirdly, I'd like to talk a little about matters that are more specific to my riding, which have to do with the Sechelt claim, in particular the comprehensive claim and the progress on that. I'd like to also talk about some of the concerns that have been raised with respect to the Sliammon Indian band. That gives you a general kind of direction to my line of questions.
With respect to the general strategy on negotiations, I am well aware -- as I'm sure the minister is -- of what has transpired to date. In light of the Treaty Commission Act that has now been brought forward, I'm interested in how this ministry is going to interface with that new process, particularly in light of the very large contingent of non-status Indians who effectively are not addressed in that process. I wonder if the minister might give us some ideas as to how his ministry is going to approach that group of British Columbians and how their concerns -- particularly if they have ties or links back to "traditional lands" -- might be addressed.
Hon. A. Petter: The member raises a couple of issues. The first one relates to how my ministry will work in relation to the Treaty Commission process. There is also the question of those first nations citizens who may not be living on the land base right now, but may have some relationship back to a particular first nation or first nation land base.
My ministry is charged with the responsibility of representing the government's interests in negotiations that will take place through the Treaty Commission process. In that sense, we have a major role to play on behalf of the government, although mandates we develop and positions we bring forward must go through the normal process of government review, including the scrutiny of Treasury Board. We will be moving to strengthen the systems of accountability to ensure, as we get into a treaty negotiation process, that mandates are developed in a way that meets financial and other policy considerations of government.
With respect to those first nations citizens who may not be living on the land base but may have some relationship to it, there will be procedures in the negotiations -- this may be principally, but not exclusively, the responsibility of the federal government -- around enrolment and identification of beneficiaries under treaties. Those beneficiaries will certainly include some first nations citizens who are not currently on the land base, but who have a relationship to a particular land base and a particular first nation. As the federal government has done in other negotiations elsewhere in the country, positions will be brought to the table on enrolment and on beneficiary status, to ensure that all the interests of first nations citizens who might stand to be beneficiaries are taken account of in the process.
[3:00]
I think those are the two major matters that were raised by the member.
G. Wilson: Try to be a little bit more specific on that. It seems to me that the Treaty Commission Act as it is constituted -- and I think this was brought out in the debate in committee stage -- is clearly going to have some impact on the direction the minister is going to take. His ministry is going to have to involve itself not only with the negotiation process but with some of the spinoff of that negotiation, particularly in light of any joint stewardship agreements and any social and educational responsibilities that may come out as a part of ongoing negotiation.
It's clear not only that non-status Indians are not a part of that process -- and therefore there's some real concern -- but also that the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs is not a part of that agreement. In fact, they have suggested that they don't support it to the degree that they would be prepared to make their expression known through road blockades. I wonder if the minister might want to share with us in some detail what recourse this group of people might have if they feel that their interests are not being protected in this process, especially with respect to their right to resources, if indeed there are any rights.
Hon. A. Petter: Let me deal in reverse order with the two groups that the member mentions.
First, with respect to the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, I'm aware of only one first nation that engaged in any blockade activity. But clearly, members of that organization do not view the Treaty Commission process as a process that -- at least currently -- meets their needs. That was understood at the time the act was passed. I expressed at that time the hope that they might re-evaluate the situation, but said that their views should be respected in that regard.
There were a number of reasons for that, one of the principal ones being that the members of the Union of
[ Page 7075 ]
B.C. Indian Chiefs, for the most part, view themselves as having a direct relationship with the federal Crown and do not wish to engage in a process that is tripartite in nature. It also has to do with some objections they have with respect to federal positions on issues such as extinguishment. Those issues are ones that members of that organization will have to take up with the federal government. It is my hope that, over time, they might view the Treaty Commission process more favourably, but it also may be that the federal government will see its way clear to providing some different form of process that better meets their needs.
What I would say, however, is that we as a province do believe we have an obligation not only to those first nations who are part of the summit group, but also to those first nations who do not wish to participate in the Treaty Commission process. I think the evidence of that is that we are establishing -- indeed, the first meeting will take place later this week -- a policy forum not only with the summit group but with the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs group to discuss policy issues of mutual interest in a pre-treaty environment. On a government-to-government type of basis, that will enable the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs and its member bands to come to the table, to raise issues that are of concern to them and to discuss those issues with the provincial government -- and it will allow the provincial government to do the same. So we will have a forum in which we can address policy issues that are of mutual concern with the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs.
In addition, we are working with all first nations, including those who are members of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, on a range of issues throughout the province. So there's certainly every attempt to be as inclusive as possible with all first nations, including those who are members of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, notwithstanding that they may not see the treaty-making process that's been put in place as one that suits their particular needs right now.
The issue of non-status first nations citizens or M�tis citizens, particularly those who live in urban settings, is a very difficult one. There are numerous, very diverse groups. I've been meeting with a variety of organizations. They don't always see eye to eye, and they have different points of view and agendas. But I do believe we have an obligation -- particularly as a provincial government -- to try to ensure that those organizations and the citizens they represent are afforded better opportunities, in cooperation with the government, to meet the needs of aboriginal peoples in urban settings. I'll close it off there.
G. Wilson: Coming back to the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, we come back to the notion that the minister outlines, that there is an attempt to try and negotiate government to government. We recognize that in the Treaty Commission Act, the task force report and the commentary we've had from the minister today, there is this idea that these governments will be recognized in any manner decided by the aboriginal people, and that the form of government it takes -- the authority of that government and its jurisdictional rights over its people -- is self-determined. One can argue that if there's a self-determination.... Clearly, aboriginal government has existed in this country since well before white contact. I don't dispute that. I'm not disputing that there have been social mores, regulations and rules governing society that may be treated in the form of tribal law -- albeit not written law, but certainly oral. That I don't dispute, either.
But I think this is a point of some confusion, concern and contention among aboriginal and non-aboriginal people, particularly in light of last year's failed constitutional reform where the third order of government came in. And I'm not talking now about treaty Indians who may indeed be able to put forward a treaty, such as the Treaty 8 group -- and I'd like to talk about that group. I wonder if the minister could tell us what authority or status the government does accord organizations with respect to their rights in negotiation if they are not a part of the summit? Or, secondly, what additional status do they gain by joining the summit? I think that's the point that people want to know -- point one. Then we will get in to two or three other points on this government-to-government concept.
Hon. A. Petter: The simple answer is that no additional status is accorded to first nations because of membership or non-membership in the summit. We take the view that first nations have certain inherent rights. Those rights have not been constitutionalized due to the failure of the constitutional round that the member referred to.
The question that we now have to confront is: how do we translate that notion of a political right into a meaningful operational concept? We have to confront that with all first nations. In the case of the summit group, we have an opportunity to sit down and negotiate treaties because we have found a mechanism that works. In the case of the union, we haven't found that mechanism. In terms of the status of those who are members of the union, there is no difference. The view of the government is the same. First nations that belong to the union, like first nations who belong to the summit -- and some belong to both -- are accorded the same status and are treated with the same degree of respect by this government. We will work with them as best we can to try to give meaning to that inherent right in the context of today's political environment, recognizing the policy concerns, etc., of the provincial government and of the province as a whole.
G. Wilson: If we can pin the minister down a bit, because as I say, this is a point of some confusion, some concern and, I think, contention.... It is a contentious issue, let there be no doubt about that.
We talk about inherent rights -- those kinds of things I think we might have some agreement on. Certainly in the last round of constitutional discussion and debate there was a great deal of discussion on what inherent rights meant. What is an inherent political right? When you talk about politics.... The body politic is something that is created, generally, to provide some system of law and order and some kind of administrative structure over society. That's done in many different ways. It may be done in terms of a
[ Page 7076 ]
Western historical context, or it may be done in some other way. The aboriginal people do maintain that they have had an inherent right to government, or an inherent system of government, if you want. I don't take issue with that. The problem -- and where I do have some difficulty -- is that, generally speaking, in the context of the body politic, it has authority or jurisdiction over a prescribed territory. If that prescribed territory is not clearly defined, then one has to argue about where the bounds are, and how those bounds apply. It becomes particularly problematic when the body politic that is deemed to have that kind of authority makes demands upon the resource base. Some would argue -- and I think the aboriginal people would argue -- that the demand that has been made on the resource base has been made in the absence of their agreement, and that there is a conflict there. But we would now argue, in a non-aboriginal context, that any further or future resource extraction is presumably going to impact upon their ability to sustain themselves and to create wealth, and so on.
What exactly does the minister mean when he says that there is an inherent political right? I think those were the words he used, and if they weren't, maybe he can clarify them, because this is really at the heart of what greatly concerns people who recognize that there is no inherent third order of government -- constitutionally recognized -- because it failed. It failed both in the aboriginal vote and in the non-aboriginal vote. So how do we deal with this government to government if that government-to-government is not constitutionalized, and if, in fact, there is no prerequisite set of descriptions or definitions that provide us with some understanding of what that rather amorphous animal is?
Hon. A. Petter: The concept of rights is the subject of massive tomes and debate. To try to simplify it, the position of this government is that aboriginal peoples, by virtue of their status as the first citizens of this land, enjoy certain rights that need to be recognized with respect to self-determination and to the use and occupancy of land and resources. Some of those rights may have legal expression. There are some court cases right now on that very issue. Others may indeed have constitutional expression, depending upon how one interprets current constitutional provisions. With others, particularly the inherent right to self-government, there was controversy about whether to provide more explicit constitutional expression -- or constitutional expression at all, depending on the view one takes of the current constitutional provisions.
I think that the responsibility of politicians and governments is not just to follow those rights that flow from legal prescription, but also to identify important political rights that need respect and recognition. We do that all the time in this House. We do it all the time when we say that people have a right to a decent education, or a right to food and shelter. Those are not found as constitutionalized or legal rights, but they are political rights that we believe in, and we believe it's our responsibility to act upon them.
So when I say that this government proceeds from the assumption that aboriginal peoples have inherent rights, I mean it in that sense. Because of aboriginal people's history in this province and because, unlike other jurisdictions where treaties were entered into to recognize those rights, those were not entered into in this jurisdiction, we believe that there are still rights that need to be addressed without entering into the debate to the extent to which they're already addressed in the legal system in one form or another.
The question then becomes: how do we address them? Much of the debate around the constitution last year was about that very question. Members in the opposition frequently stood up -- I think the member opposite stood up -- and said that they did not object to the notion of aboriginal peoples having self-government but to the way it was done, and that it should be defined before it was constitutionalized in a very broad and abstract sense. So if you ask what the approach of this government is, the approach of this government is to do exactly that: to move toward the recognition of this inherent right through a process of steps -- treaties being, I suppose, the most obvious one. Through treaty negotiations first nation by first nation, we can begin to define, in consultation with the public and the community, how self-government might be operationalized, so as to give meaningful recognition to that inherent right in the current political environment. That is the way in which we are proceeding.
We are also proceeding by trying to conduct relations with first nations that respect the fact that first nations have a particular status deriving from their history and experience and from our recognition that they possess certain rights. I hope that helps to clarify the situation.
[3:15]
G. Wilson: Well, it does, and it opens up the door to a whole series of other questions with respect to government policy. I don't want to get too far into future policy of this government. Let me home in on one particular aspect of this.
Quite clearly, I think that the difficulty people have in understanding some of these issues is not with the question of one's inherent right as an individual or individual rights or, in the aboriginal case, the collective rights that may exist. I think they have always existed there. Whether or not they've ever been delivered in a manner that is acceptable to Canadians is another issue.
The problem is, when you enter into some form of governance, that those governments have to have a set of rules. Those rules have to apply equally to all people who are governed by that set of conditions. When the minister says that we do this in the House all the time, that's true. We don't always win; in fact, in opposition we lose most of the time because you have more seats than we do. Therefore we....
Interjection.
G. Wilson: The member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale says that even within caucus sometimes there is a losing cause -- that's true. Nevertheless, we have a
[ Page 7077 ]
set of rules that are usually adhered to. We understand that there is a mechanism by which that can occur. There is equal application and equal access to that. We run the risk in this instance -- and I want the minister to talk to me about this -- in talking about an inherent right to self-government, of talking about the governance of people in which membership.... I know I have to be extremely careful, because I don't want this to sound like I'm ringing a bell that would immediately make me vulnerable or accused of some racist concept. But if membership is restricted within the governance mechanism of a particular group in our parliamentary democratic system, then quite clearly we run the risk of putting in place discriminatory laws that essentially discriminate, one person against another, on the basis of membership within that body politic itself.
Therefore the adherence to the regulations, laws and rules that the members of that group are affected by is going to be determined on the basis of that membership -- whatever it may be. I have some serious concerns about that. If we're talking about it in the abstract, we can say: "Well, philosophically we'll agree, because there has always been inherent self-government or rights to self-governance." I don't argue that point. We could agree that it's going to happen, but in practical terms it means that there has to be jurisdiction over land and over resources. It means that there has be an authority to pass regulations in some form -- bylaws, new laws, however you want to put those regulations -- and those regulations place restrictions on people. That's what laws do: they restrict freedoms within society. If those restrictions are based on lines that are determined by membership in this organization or group, they are inherently discriminatory, and I have some very serious concerns about that. There are a lot of third-party-interest investors in this province -- I have very serious concerns about that, and the aboriginal people must have serious concerns about that. We need to hear from this minister where the government is going on that question, because we have some resolutions to issues that are going to be coming up right away.
Hon. A. Petter: The member has identified one of the serious issues -- one of the conundrums, really, in dealing with this very important issue. Part of the problem is that we have inherited a system of governance stemming from the Indian Act, which does set out a form of governance but one that is highly unsatisfactory, and what we're going to be trying to achieve through negotiations is to replace that system of governance with a different system of governance. I think what the member is getting at, however, if I understand the question, is: does it mean, because the government recognizes that there's an inherent right, that whatever the first nation says goes, in terms of the form of governance? And my answer to that is no, it doesn't mean that at all. As part of the negotiation process, federal and provincial governments have a legal and political obligation to ensure that the form of governance that is created through that system of negotiations is one that is representative of those first nations citizens and is accountable to them.
I believe -- and of course, this was reflected in the failed constitutional provisions -- that it is important that rights be respected within those communities. It is a sensitive issue, but I believe that federal and provincial governments have an interest in ensuring that aboriginal communities govern themselves in a way that accords with certain broad social norms of accountability, representativeness and respect for certain human rights. We have an obligation in the context of negotiations to ensure that that takes place.
It must be done, however, in a way that, to the greatest extent possible, also affords choice and options to those communities to determine for themselves how they are to be governed, provided those basic threshold elements are satisfied -- of accountability, representativeness and respect for rights. Then there must be an opportunity for those first nations citizens to determine for themselves exactly how that form of government is to operate. It's a tough balancing act, but it's one of the real challenges that we do face.
On the question of representativeness, we have more than a political obligation. I said a legal obligation because, of course, when we sign treaties, we want to make sure that we have, through those treaties, created legal stability and certainty that will survive challenge in the courts. That must mean we satisfy the courts that those treaties are applicable to all of the first nations citizens who could conceivably make a claim through that first nation. So we have that incentive as well. In terms of the philosophy of it, I think I have outlined.... Yes, I believe we do have an interest. I think we must advance it sensitively, but it is one that does require the federal and provincial governments to ensure that first nations governance takes place in accordance with certain basic social norms that we as Canadian citizens expect of all governments in this country.
G. Wilson: I don't necessarily agree with the philosophical direction here, but I don't want to get into a long and protracted debate on the philosophies of how this proceeds. I am interested in the technical aspect of how this is likely to work.
If I could just draw a case in point here, I'd like to talk about an article that appeared in Fort St. John. It says: "The area's economic future hinges on native land claims." This came into my possession this morning, and I assume it is from a local newspaper. I apologize to Hansard, but I don't have the title of the publication. The author is a gentleman by the name of Dave Williams, and it's the AHN staff....
Hon. A. Petter: Alaska Highway News.
G. Wilson: Alaska Highway News. Thank you. I always like to see a minister up on the local publications. You can tell we don't have a member there yet, but we will.
It makes a couple of interesting points, and if you'll bear with me, I'd just like to read it. It suggests here that the economic future of northwestern B.C. hinges on the outcome of upcoming native land claims talks. The regional representative at the provincial chamber of commerce quotes a Mr. Jim Krauss in the local chamber,
[ Page 7078 ]
saying -- and this is an interesting point I'd like the minister to talk about: "We have a problem up here that has to be addressed. I think it can be addressed easier, possibly, than some of the other places. I'm not sure it's going to be cheaper, though." He's talking now about the cost of it. It goes on to suggest that one of the key areas is the fact that Treaty 8 Indians -- or natives, as it is suggested here -- hold title to a large portion of the province. I'm quoting now: "Krauss said that although Treaty 8 natives hold title to a large portion of the province, including the city of Fort St. John, it hasn't been finally agreed what degree of control that entails."
In essence, this goes to the nub of where some of the concerns are. If indeed that fact is true -- and I am putting it out in the absence of having full knowledge of that specific treaty -- and if the principle as espoused by the minister is to be applied in terms of practical application of self-governance, then we have to recognize that the land over which that governance will occur will inevitably involve other jurisdictions with duplicative powers that have some kind of historical context by virtue of the province's mandate to municipalities and regional districts -- and to the province itself and possibly even the federal government.
If we're going to go into this system of self-governance, then clearly there have to be lines of jurisdiction established that discuss where in the hierarchy.... That's why I had such a problem with the concept of a third order of government. It basically puts in a hierarchy; or, in my judgment, it puts in the minds of British Columbians and Canadians generally this notion that there is a federal government, a provincial government and then there is this other entity called aboriginal government. If we're going to put in this kind of hierarchy and if we're going to make these kinds of distinctions, then people have to know what that jurisdiction implies in terms of the administration of the land and of the resources, and the potential for taxation and for all kinds of other things.
Leading from this question, I'm going to head toward the second set of questions around CORE, because that really is where the heart of the problem is going to be felt.
Hon. A. Petter: I'm a little confused about the reference to Treaty 8, because certainly my understanding is that under Treaty 8 the land quantum has essentially been settled, so I don't know what the reference is to the city of Fort St. John. I'm having difficulty with that part of the question. There certainly may be aspects that are not part of Treaty 8 that Treaty 8 first nations might want to bring forward.
I'll answer the subsequent part of the question, however, which has to do with the question of jurisdiction and the relationship between communities. I think that is a very important issue. My view is that there are tremendous opportunities in treaty and self-government negotiations to clarify issues that will benefit local communities, both non-aboriginal and aboriginal. Indeed, if you look right now under the Indian Act, land that is held for first nations by the federal government is not subject to provincial regulation. That's caused a raft of conflicts and problems between local communities, everything from sign laws to concerns about incinerators and environmental standards, because uniform standards do not apply.
Much of the negotiation in the Yukon concerns these very issues. How do we, in creating what will now be a new regime, ensure that those kinds of conflicts that currently exist under divided jurisdiction do not exist to the same extent? Within the Yukon agreement, therefore, mechanisms were built in where there were contiguous lands to ensure that any external impacts of activities that could take place on aboriginal land or off aboriginal land onto each other's land could be resolved via consultative mechanisms, joint decision-making bodies, etc. So I think there are tremendous opportunities to actually specify ways in which current conflicts that exist due to divided jurisdiction can be ameliorated due to the negotiation process and mechanisms that can be built within it.
I think it's a mistake to think of any one particular model. We're going to be looking at a range of different possibilities and we're going to have to consult with local communities and with municipalities in developing those models through which first nations may exercise jurisdiction. But clearly, at the end of the day it must be a form of jurisdiction that is not disruptive to local economies, and one that provides for cooperation, not confrontation, between communities. In that respect, I think that we can only move forward, because much of the conflict that we have now is due to the fact that first nations communities and non-first nations communities tend to exist and operate in isolation from each other. There have been exceptions -- I think of Kamloops as an exception. Where there have been exceptions and communication and work between the two, we see not only a greater level of harmony, but a greater level of economic activity and self-sufficiency. So we must build structures that reach out and create cooperation and overcome what I think are some of the current impediments. We must also avoid some of the dangers that the member sees and refers to in some of the articles he cites.
G. Wilson: That sounds great, and in theory we all want a world where equality prevails, where all things are equal, where everybody has the opportunity to work together in a harmonious manner, and so on. But in reality that isn't the way it works. I think the minister is aware of that. Therefore -- and that brings me back to this whole concept of governance -- we have to have some rules and regulations that put in restrictions. If we can do it through mutual coercion, that's great. If we can't, then we bring it in in some form of impediment to people's freedoms. That's what governments are structured and set up to do.
I have difficulty with this -- and I come back to it because I think it's an absolutely critical point -- because we have to recognize that if you're going to have those distinctions or those lines drawn, you have to have some method of determining membership in that group. You talk about first nations governments. We have to have some membership in that group. We can use this example, or there are half a dozen that one can cite -- and Kamloops was one that the minister
[ Page 7079 ]
brought up himself.... If we are going to have the membership in that group, then we have to ask ourselves what the implementation of rights on the basis of that membership does to those rights given under the Crown to those who are not members.
[3:30]
Let me give you a very tangible example of what I'm talking about so that we don't go around in theoretics here. Let's say there is governance over land on which non-aboriginal people have residence -- through some form of lease arrangement or because of prior occupation or some kind of co-shared arrangement or whatever -- and the government of the day is an aboriginal government structured in a manner that is suitable to and acceptable for those first nations people, according to the B.C. Treaty Commission, and the government recognizes them as a governing authority. What rules and regulations is that government going to be able to put in place with respect to the buying and selling of land? What regulation will they have in terms of taxation authority? What regulation might they have with respect to the general rights, social conduct and freedoms that people may have? What rights will they have with respect to environmental considerations and concerns? This morning we were debating a bill -- which is actually not as bad a bill as some might think -- on environmental assessment, which is desperately needed in this province. We have to have adequate, proper ways of assessing the environmental impact on some of these things. This is critical; it's essential. Will it apply to aboriginal lands? Will the authority that we bring in in this jurisdiction have jurisdiction over those? That's another one.
Let me ask one last question. Will non-aboriginal people have a right to vote? Do they have a right to vote for the government in the land in which they live? That's a pretty fundamental right. If the government of the day -- aboriginal government -- has the right to tax, does the person who is subject to those taxes have the right to representation, to run for office, to vote? These are pretty fundamental questions. Until we get those things nailed down, it seems to me that we're marching down a road that is going to lead us to a lot of conflict, not to resolution, because those things challenge the fundamental tenets of what a parliamentary democracy in this society -- which is built on that democracy -- is all about.
Hon. A. Petter: I know from my experience in teaching that the student who reads the final exam on the first day panics and quickly disenrols from the course. It doesn't hurt to have a sense that there are problems that will have to be resolved before you get to the end of the process. I would say to the member that those are all very legitimate concerns, and they will be addressed. In the case of powers, each and every power or authority that a first nations government may be granted through a self-government arrangement, or in some other way, will have to be the subject of negotiation and will have to be worked out in a way that ensures that it does not create a disruptive situation with respect to others living in the area. Indeed, in other examples that are given, you do not want to create a situation in which the rules are so uneven from one community to another that there are incentives for certain kinds of investment in things that would tilt the balance for other aboriginal or non-aboriginal communities. Clearly, each of those issues must be addressed.
I was trying to suggest to the member earlier that some of those problems currently exist. We have an opportunity through these negotiations to make things better, rather than thinking about how they could become worse. For example, right now provincial environmental standards do not apply -- indeed, no land use standards apply -- on aboriginal land. Laws regarding landlord and tenant relations don't apply on aboriginal land. We have an opportunity, through the voluntary negotiation process with first nations, to try to effect some understandings about how those issues will be addressed. It may not mean uniformity, but it may at least mean some greater degree of certainty than we now have.
In the case of environmental standards, the province clearly has an interest in ensuring that environmental standards on reserve land are observed in a way that will not cause environmental detriment off those lands. But we don't have that assurance now. We have a chance of gaining that assurance through this process. So we can make things better through this process. It's not just a matter of looking at the future and saying that it's necessarily raising problems. It also raises opportunities.
The tax situation you referred to exists now. In fact, as you know, it's been a major source of controversy in the Musqueam situation. Taxing authority was granted to first nations through federal and companion provincial legislation in recent years. That enables first nations to levy taxes on those residents who live on land that was surrendered by the first nations to the federal government for the purpose of certain economic developments. So that conundrum exists now. There have been attempts, through advisory committees and other mechanisms, to deal with the problem that the member identified. Some people say it's not a problem. They say that if you're a resident in someone else's jurisdiction, you accept the rules. Others say no, it is a problem, as the member suggests, and that we should ensure that there is some mechanism for representation, be it advisory or more inclusive.
I can't provide the member with all the answers. We're going to have to work collectively in this province, with the assistance of municipali1ies, third parties and the opposition, to resolve many of these issues. I simply point out that in many cases they are problems that exist now and that we can make better through this process. They are not problems created by this process.
[W. Hartley in the chair.]
G. Wilson: They do exist now. But the difference is that they exist now under federal statutes -- and under a piece of legislation that, quite frankly, I would sooner not have in this country, because I think it's highly discriminatory, racist legislation. I refer to the Indian
[ Page 7080 ]
Act. But the fact is that in that legislation we have at the moment the jurisdiction to effect change in a duly constituted government open to all members, aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike -- to have due representation through elections, and therefore an opportunity to effect change.
We're hearing that we're going to put in place new jurisdictions that are restrictive on the basis of membership, and that on the basis of that membership we are going to have certain rights, authorities and jurisdictions that will not apply to others who are not members of that group. This is a fundamental principle that I don't think we in this country have wanted to embrace. We have in fact tried to go the opposite way: I think we've attempted to develop a certain level of equality. I know there are many people -- certainly in this Legislature and, I would imagine, in the government opposite; and I don't doubt many of the people in the province -- who are tired or hearing me say that every Canadian is equal to every other Canadian, regardless of a series of things we need to consider. They may well be tired of it; nevertheless, it's a fundamental principle. Equality doesn't mean sameness. It doesn't mean we all have to be identical.
The member for Nanaimo says: "Aha! I finally figured it out." I think he probably woke up and finally has listened to me, which is great. It's the old Chinese water torture. You know, if you drop it enough times....
D. Lovick: Listening to you is analogous to the Chinese water torture.
G. Wilson: Absolutely. And you'll know how effective the water torture is. You know, when you're trying to get something into granite, this is what you have to do. The member opposite might take that for what it's worth.
Anyway, my point here is that that principle of equality becomes a sticking point when you try to come up with a resolution of these questions. Notwithstanding that some of what the minister is saying is in fact not necessarily abhorrent to me.... I don't have a problem with the way we may constitute jurisdictions with respect to aboriginal land and those who have administrative authority over aboriginal lands. But I have a serious difficulty when, in the provision of that administration, we create jurisdictions that are exclusive in membership -- that is, determined on the basis of a particular racial group, ethnic origin or whatever. To me that is a fundamental problem.
I'd like to put this to the minister, and then maybe we'll move on to CORE. I don't want to get too deeply into the philosophical round, because these are supposed to be estimates, although this is the only opportunity I have to go after the minister on this. In fact, Mr. Chair, by way of a slight digression, I'm absolutely delighted that Bill 33 came up at this time, because the new critic for Aboriginal Affairs has to be there. That allows me a chance to be here and gives me an opportunity to do this. Whoever arranged that....
Interjection.
G. Wilson: I thank the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale.
I think this is a fundamental point that the minister has to address, because it is going to be a sticking point. Canadians generally want to see some provision of equality, and they don't want to see divisions in the country. I put this point to the minister: whatever we agree on, however this treaty process works and however his ministry decides to tackle this, I firmly believe that they have to be agreements that can stand the test of time. They have to be agreements that my great-grandchildren will be able to live with, because it was my great-grandfather's generation that was involved in setting up the DIA and all kinds of problems that we now have to deal with.
I put it to the minister that on the verge of the next major global migration, the face of Canadian society is going to change dramatically over the next 15 to 25 years. The blend that we have today in terms of a balance between the so-called Canadian multicultural society and the first nations people will alter dramatically over the next 25 years. With that we are going to see a new Canadian who will have less adherence to the historical evolution of the colonial regime here, less understanding of the parliamentary democratic process that has made this nation what it is today and less tolerance of the segregationist philosophies of past governments, and who will want to see some provision for equality.
My point is that unless we start to break down barriers to racial equality or to racial integration, notwithstanding that we want to keep our mosaic concept, not the melting pot.... I think we want the mosaic, and if we put in place anything that doesn't encourage that, we're asking for real problems in this country. Just by looking south of the border to the United States we can see the mistakes they made over the last hundred years. I wouldn't want to make the same mistakes here, and my suspicion is that we are headed down that road. If you could respond to that, then we'll move on to CORE.
Hon. A. Petter: Well, this is a philosophical debate to some extent, and I think it's one we had last year. Maybe we can rejoin it this year. I want to say that I share the member's delight in his being here -- water torture or not.
I think there is, in trying to bring about respect for first nations here, a balancing act between the recognition of the equality of all citizens and the recognition of aboriginal rights. I do believe, as the member suggests, that equality doesn't imply sameness. I do believe that for aboriginal people to enjoy the same rights of self-determination and self-sufficiency that we non-aboriginal citizens enjoy, they must have opportunities to express and realize those rights in ways that are respectful of their history and their traditions. One can't discount that history, those traditions or that way of life. They are different from the traditions and way of life of the Europeans and others who came to this country after the first nations.
How one strikes that balance, I think, is a very difficult question. I agree with the member that one
[ Page 7081 ]
must try to do it in a way that is not disruptive to future immigration and to the rights of other Canadians. But similarly, one must not be so blind in one's adherence to a highly individualistic "sameness" notion of equality as to ignore aboriginal people's aspirations and rights. I fear that would be the result if one were to go with the kind of approach advocated in the Trudeau White Paper of 1969, which was strongly rejected by aboriginal peoples precisely for that reason. So I think we're agreeing -- I'm not sure; maybe the member can tell me -- that there has to be a balance struck. As events unfold over the next number of years, I suppose the debate will come as to whether or not the government of the day is striking the balance, so that the rights of aboriginal peoples reinforce their cultural traditions and values in a way that accords sufficient respect to the traditions and rights of other Canadians.
I believe that it's very hard to stand up and insist on some kind of racial blindness based on the experience of the last 125 years. We have had an Indian Act in this country, a separate provision in our current constitution, that singles out Indians, resulting in their being treated in a way that is different -- greatly to their detriment over the past century. For us to suddenly turn around and say, "now we're going to ignore all that difference; now there may be an opportunity for first nations citizens to realize some benefits from the recognition of their history and difference," I find a hard proposition to advance, and I don't advance it for that reason. So I agree: these are tough issues.
[3:45]
I hope the member is not saying, however, that we must turn a blind eye to the fact that aboriginal peoples have a particular and very rich history that has been largely ignored. I take it that he's saying we have to strike a balance, and he's concerned as to where that balance is struck, in which case we will, over the next period of time, no doubt engage in debate on whether the balance has been struck in the appropriate way.
G. Wilson: I would say amen to the comment the minister has made. Nobody would argue that we have had discriminatory laws and that in our past treatment of aboriginal people in this country we have had a colonial mentality. It's an attitude that has brought about highly discriminatory legislation and a constitution that quite clearly does make distinctions and through that clause does bring about the kind of problem I've just alluded to. Nobody would want to move away from that more than I do, but in doing that I'm not being racially blind. What I'm attempting to do is recognize the richness of tradition, language and all the cultural history that exists. It is diverse; there's no blending of it. You can't simply take a broad brush and paint all aboriginal people with the same cultural milieu, mould or whatever. It's extremely diverse, it's extremely rich in tradition and it's quite unique to the various groups.
In recognition of that and in trying to find restitution for some of the past ills and grievances, we have to be extremely careful that we don't entrench in the solution the inherent problem that created the issue in the first place. That is this line that forever creates distinctions in Canada drawn between first nations people and everybody else in terms of their jurisdiction, authority and rights over the land.
If I could put this to the minister, then I'm going to move into CORE because it fits in nicely. I myself am only five generations a Canadian. It wasn't so long ago that the Canadian census was still insisting that I say I had some Scots blood or Welsh blood or whatever it was that I had. If I were to go back there now, I could no more fit into Scots society than I could if I were to go to Germany, France or any south Asian country, for that matter. I am a Canadian; I was born Canadian. My rights as a Canadian have to be governed by the laws of the federal and provincial governments. When we run into this kind of philosophical argument, we will know that the rights I have are restricted by government. And I don't have -- notwithstanding five generations of living here, which the aboriginal people would say is a blink of an eye, given that they have had hundreds of generations of residence here -- the right to access or the right to have greater authority or freedoms than somebody who is a landed immigrant and has been here for only a year. If you are a landed immigrant and are granted Canadian status, my rights as a Canadian five generations long are no different from those of someone one who walked out of immigration court this morning as a Canadian, proud and ready to be here. I'm talking about legal rights. On the inherent right that runs with an individual or a people, I have no argument with the minister on that -- none at all.
Where we run into difficulty is when we're holding up -- and CORE is a classic example of this -- decisions on land use pending resolution to legal claims that have been laid against large tracts of the province, which will greatly affect -- possibly positively.... If a joint stewardship arrangement is set in place, it could be very positive for all parties concerned. Nevertheless, there is a concern that we are holding up a lot of this work, and CORE is not mandated to deal with aboriginal land. There is an understanding that a large tract of coastal forest, for example, has been set aside pending resolution of land claims. At least, that is the understanding we are getting from the Tsimshian and as a result of the Nisga'a negotiations. If that isn't so, I would like the minister to get that on the record, because that will help clean up some concerns that have been coming my way in the last several months.
Where CORE is involved, we have to have some way of dealing with this issue. It must have some mandate, and if it doesn't, then this minister and his ministry must have some way of interfacing with CORE in order to allow these land use decisions to proceed. We all know how long it takes to get resolution on some of these questions; it may take a long time.
Hon. A. Petter: Just to finish off our earlier discussion, I hear what the member is saying. I hope the member, though, doesn't fall into the trap of believing that because aboriginal peoples are able to realize their right to self-determination in a different way than the rest of us realize ours, that somehow is an encroachment on our rights. I think there's a real danger of viewing things in that way, and also there's a danger
[ Page 7082 ]
in not understanding that while we may see the system of rights that we're familiar with as having a degree of neutrality and acceptability, that is not necessarily the impact they have on aboriginal communities. To insist that aboriginal communities operate in accordance with a highly individualistic way of conducting public affairs or child welfare laws or whatever can be as culturally imperialistic or colonialist as the Indian Act itself. So it cuts both ways. I firmly believe that the best way to approach these issues is to constantly put oneself in another's shoes, and eventually, I think, that leads to understanding.
On the question of CORE, I'm a little puzzled by some of the comments the member made. CORE is a very important agency that has been charged with the duty of providing a land use plan for the province. In that sense it is doing in a more systematic way what governments have done for years, as land use planning is a government function. Just as with other government land use decisions that have been made to date -- with the exception of fee simple lands, which are clearly not on the table -- we accept that first nations will bring to the table issues regarding Crown lands. All we're saying with respect to CORE and its function -- as we would say with respect to any other decision that has been made on Crown lands -- is that CORE doesn't prevent first nations from bringing to the table interests that may not be consistent with the current disposition or use of lands. For that reason, we provided an assurance to first nations that the CORE process will not prejudice their rights at the treaty table. That's not different from the approach one has to take. If we took the contrary position, imagine going to the table and saying there is nothing to negotiate on every land use decision that's been made in this province. There wouldn't be anything to negotiate at all.
So we've said that CORE is an important process, that there is a role for first nations in CORE -- we can talk more about that if you're interested -- and that CORE at the end of the day will not prejudice treaty negotiations. Clearly the province will come to the treaty table with certain positions, and those positions will seek to preserve stability. Land use decisions that promote stability and are accepted within the community will be ones that the province may well wish to see remain intact, but that does not prohibit, as a starting point, at least the discussion of those issues.
In terms of setting aside large tracts of land, the only land that I'm aware of in the province that has been set aside with respect to treaty negotiations is a very small tract that has been deferred from logging activity for a year or so under the Nisga'a interim protection measures agreement.
Beyond that, the position we have taken is that there will be no large-scale moratoria in advance of treaty negotiations. There may be select aboriginal interests about burial sites -- land that has particular significance -- which we would want to look at and ensure are protected. The position that we've taken is that, while there is an obligation to ensure as much as possible that first nations interests are not prejudiced, we also do not believe that we can allow a situation in which economic activity would grind to a halt in advance of treaty negotiations. Once we get into a negotiation and we sign an interim protection measures agreement, we can look at a particular area that is subject to negotiation. Then we can identify for a time-limited period a particular tract of land or resource that may be of significance to the negotiations. In advance of that, I'm aware of no widespread moratoria or land that has been set aside, and it would be contrary to the approach we've taken for there to be such land set aside.
G. Wilson: I should clarify that, and I think the minister is correct when he says, "set aside." I think I did say that, and let me clarify for the record what was meant. I'm talking about land use decisions, not specific jurisdiction on land, and particularly with respect to forest lands that may be subject to some kind of joint stewardship agreement. That is my understanding, and if the minister is telling me this is not correct, then I'll stand corrected. It is certainly my understanding that the CORE process does not include aboriginal interests, and that there is a great desire for aboriginal interests to be included in that decision-making. In the mid-coast section of the coastal forest region, a portion of the annual allowable cut was reduced in anticipation of joint stewardship agreements that would later be settled with aboriginal people. If that isn't the case, then a lot of people out there who will be communicating with me are under some pretty big misunderstandings.
Hon. A. Petter: On the latter point, it is not the case. If I can provide any further clarification to reassure the hon. member and those who have communicated with him, I'd be happy to do so. The joint stewardship agreements we've signed are process agreements, for the most part, that provide for greater consultation with first nations about decisions that government makes while preserving government's authority to make those decisions and, to some extent, provide some economic opportunities and some joint management within the context of a current policy framework. We can talk more about that if you wish.
I'd also like to correct the hon. member with respect to CORE, because first nations have been invited to be participants in the CORE process. The provincial government is a participant in the CORE process and sits at the table; first nations have asked to come to the table and participate as well. In some cases their participation has been fuller than in others. I understand, for example, that there has recently been an exchange of correspondence with respect to the Kootenay tables, which suggests that there will be fairly full first nations participation at those tables without prejudice to treaty negotiations. Clearly it is not a treaty negotiation; it's a common land use exercise. I think that issues that would otherwise arise in treaties can be resolved with first nations participation, and a better understanding of first nations issues and of how they can be reconciled with the interests of others can be achieved at the CORE table.
In the Chilcotin table, there has been some first nations participation. It's been a little difficult at times to know whether or not first nations wish to participate
[ Page 7083 ]
in the process. However, my ministry and CORE have been doing some work to communicate with first nations in that area to provide them some reassurance that their participation will not prejudice their interests. That is their concern: if they participate, does that mean they will have nothing left to say when it comes to treaty negotiations? And the assurances are given: "No, but it may provide you with some very useful information, first of all, and it may also enable you to achieve certain land use decisions that are more compatible with your long-term goals." I'm hopeful that first nations participation will also be achieved in a fuller sense in the Chilcotin table.
In the Vancouver Island table, the participation has been somewhat sporadic, and CORE has been working to figure out how best to relate to first nations. If nothing else, there is at least an obligation on the part of government -- either through CORE directly or subsequently -- to ensure that our fiduciary obligation to first nations is discharged in the land use process. So first nations must be consulted. I would much prefer, and I know the commissioner for CORE much preferred, that that consultation take place inside the tent as part of CORE. But if it doesn't, there may be other mechanisms by which first nations interests can at least be taken account of -- as we are legally obliged to do -- and there can be some better participation of first nations than having them simply left out of the process. CORE has invited first nations participation from the very beginning. To some extent that participation has not taken place because of the concerns of first nations themselves. Efforts have been made through the CORE tables and with some assistance from my ministry to reassure first nations that their participation can be achieved without prejudicing their interests in terms of future treaty negotiations.
G. Wilson: I wonder if the minister might clarify what he means when he talks about the legal obligation. He suggests that we are legally obliged to deal with this through the CORE mandate on aboriginal people. He suggested that on aboriginal lands. What exactly is he referring to there? There are several ways in which one can approach that argument.
Hon. A. Petter: I was referring to the legal obligation that flows from the case authority, which says that where we make land use decisions or other decisions in this province that could have an adverse effect on aboriginal peoples, we are under an obligation to ensure that they are consulted and that accommodations are made, where possible, before going ahead and making those decisions.
[4:00]
In addition, CORE does have within its mandate a mandate to include aboriginal interests. I'm not sure how it's reflected in the legal framework under which they operate, but I know the commissioner views that as part of his mandate. He and the tables have been trying to structure themselves in a way that will facilitate that participation, with some success in some instances. We are working on trying to support the commissioner in those instances where full participation has not yet been achieved.
G. Wilson: I wonder if we could wrap up the section on CORE, and then I will get in to a couple of issues specifically within my riding.
If there are varying degrees of involvement and given that CORE is mandated to put together a land use strategy, then to what extent can that strategy affect policy with respect to forestry activity, mining activity, and so on, if the first nations people who are involved in that process refuse to comply, don't wish to proceed or make strong representation or a case against the final recommendations?
There are a number of instances where that could be demonstrated. The Clayoquot is an interesting example, notwithstanding that CORE didn't actually rule on the Clayoquot. If this government had taken the Clayoquot to CORE and aboriginal people had been invvoled in that, I suspect that a very different decision would have come out of any recommendation. To what extent is their involvement essentially going to be able to mediate or change recommendations that can come down?
Hon. A. Petter: I'm really sort of stepping into areas that are probably better addressed to the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks, but CORE's mandate is to try to achieve consensus. I think it may be Chilko Lake -- I could be wrong on that -- up in the Chilcotin area where one small CORE process has already achieved consensus with aboriginal participation. I understand that it has been a very successful process. I'm told by both first nations and others who participated that it produced a lot of mutual understanding that wasn't there previously. So I think that including first nations in CORE has the prospect of producing a greater level of harmony and understanding.
You must understand that CORE is directed at creating a land use plan. It is not directed at trying to resolve the issue of land entitlements. That will be resolved through treaty negotiations. It's important -- and this is the message we have been giving to first nations -- that their participation in CORE is predicated on the understanding that they're agreeing to a land use plan subject to treaty negotiations. On that basis, for example, the first nations in the Kootenay area have said that they would like to participate in CORE. They believe they have a useful role to play. Providing it doesn't prejudice their ability to come forward and make their claims with respect to land rights in treaty negotiations, they believe they can effect some harmony and assist the tables in producing land use plans that will be better not only for their interests but for the interests of the whole. That is certainly what CORE is designed to do.
G. Wilson: I wonder if we could move to a couple of more local and specific issues. Then I would be happy to turn this back to the opposition critic.
The Sechelts are a group that this minister knows and knows that I know well. They are in a position to resolve a comprehensive claim. I understand that they
[ Page 7084 ]
have completed and complied with virtually all the requirements necessary for resolution. They feel that they've been somewhat frustrated in their process to get some kind of action on this issue. There is widespread support for resolution in both the aboriginal and non-aboriginal community. They've just entered into a fairly progressive contract negotiation with Interfor, as the minister is probably aware. Things seem to be moving along fairly well, notwithstanding that the model may not be the choice of many other first nations groups. Can the minister tell us what's holding it up? Why can't we settle this thing? Is it just a matter of money or what?
Hon. A. Petter: One of the major impediments that's holding it up is that the federal government has said they will undertake no further negotiations of a comprehensive nature without a cost-sharing agreement. The federal government has essentially said that it will not come to the table on any kind of comprehensive land, resource or compensation issues without a cost-sharing agreement in place.
There is another issue, however, that has been the subject of some controversy with the Sechelt, and that is their relationship to the Treaty Commission process. I know there is some disquiet on the part of some of the leadership of the Sechelt as to whether they should have to work within the Treaty Commission process or outside it. I've certainly encouraged them to look to the Treaty Commission process, which I believe is a valuable one. However, I'm aware of their concerns. I'm aware that there are a number of points that could arguably distinguish them from other first nations in the province and lead one to conclude that their concerns could be addressed independently of the Treaty Commission process -- not the least of which is their assertion that they're not seeking a treaty, they're seeking another form of agreement.
There's also the fact that they have a self-government agreement in place and therefore have proceeded down a path already. I believe that there were some assurances -- or suggestions, at least -- made to them by the federal government. I'm less clear about what the previous provincial government said to them. Once we get past the hurdle of the cost-sharing agreement, those arguments will have to be evaluated. My preference is that we deal with negotiations through the Treaty Commission. If a particular first nation, such as the Sechelt, could make a case that what it's seeking is not a treaty and could be resolved without prejudicing the Treaty Commission process or giving an appearance of unfair dealing, I'm certainly prepared to listen to them and to what the federal government's position would be on that as well.
G. Wilson: That doesn't sound too hopeful, if we have to wait for this cost-sharing agreement. First of all, I think that virtually nothing will be done between now and the next federal election. When that government is replaced with another government -- whatever that government may be -- I suggest that there is going to be yet another hiatus in negotiation and agreement, notwithstanding that there may be some consistency in terms of staff that are involved. Clearly policy gets moulded in different ways by different regimes.
I don't understand what would preclude the government and this minister from at least entering into an agreement and having -- as he suggested in the CORE process -- a subject-to clause established in terms of who pays. I don't think the Sechelts care who pays. Clearly we care, in terms of the province. The federal government cares. Ultimately the final burden is going to fall on the Canadian taxpayers. In the final analysis, my suspicion is that there's not going to be a cash pay-out anyway. It's going to be done in terms of future consideration on resources, joint stewardship and those kinds of things. Given that there's not a very significant land question, and given that there's obviously some kind of issuance of future consideration of payment -- because neither the federal nor the provincial government has the cash in their back pocket to settle this thing right away; at least, I don't think they do; if the minister says they do I'll stand corrected -- why would we not enter into some kind of agreement, subject to the final resolution of the cost-share agreement?
Hon. A. Petter: I guess I'm a little puzzled as to what kind of agreement the member would suggest we enter into. Certainly there are all sorts of agreements we could enter into and are prepared to negotiate with first nations. But if you're talking about an agreement that addresses the Sechelt band's concerns that they wish to see satisfied for this negotiation, what they propose is largely a cash settlement. Are you suggesting that we enter an agreement that will pay them so much cash, subject to the federal government agreeing and a cost-sharing agreement? What precedent would that set elsewhere in the province? If the province were to go out and, without the federal government being present, start negotiating with first nations as to what treaties might contain or what benefits might be provided subject to the federal government, I think we would be placing ourselves in a rather vulnerable position.
The problem here is with the issue of the cost-sharing agreement. I remain optimistic, unlike the member, that we can achieve such an agreement in the near future. However, if the member is right, I think the federal position must be questioned. I don't disagree with the member that we can negotiate while cost-sharing issues are being resolved. Indeed, that is what has been done in other provinces. We've said we're prepared to do that. But I'm not prepared to go to the table and purport to reach an agreement on behalf of not only the provincial government, but the federal government -- who wouldn't be present -- subject to subsequent negotiations. That would seem to be most irresponsible, and would subject the provincial government, I think, to severe criticism -- and rightly so.
G. Wilson: No, I wasn't suggesting that. I would agree, in the scenario that's just been painted by the minister, that would be an irresponsible act. That's certainly not what I was suggesting.
[ Page 7085 ]
I was suggesting that the federal government has largely agreed, and it's agreed by all parties, it's my understanding, as to the final cash settlement. They've dickered a price, and everybody is very close to having an agreement. At least, that certainly is the understanding I've been led to believe by the Sechelts; if that's not true, then I think we need to revisit that. But in fact, figures have been cited, and I would assume those figures are relatively accurate. If they're not, then a different picture is being painted here. Maybe the minister can tell us. If in fact those figures haven't been agreed to, then this might come as a bit of a rude shock to those who have said they have.
Hon. A. Petter: There may have been informal communications of which I'm not aware. A proposal put forward by the Sechelt band a number of years ago included a cash figure. But no negotiations have taken place, because of the position taken by the federal government. To suggest that there is any kind of agreement around the quantum of that cash settlement is clearly incorrect from the province's point of view. I'm certainly not aware that the federal government has agreed, because there have been no negotiations. How could we have agreed to anything without a negotiation?
G. Wilson: So we are caught in a catch-22 then. We're not prepared to negotiate on the final cash settlement. We know how the cost-share arrangement is going to pay it. We're not prepared to get into that until the federal government has said that, in terms they come up with in negotiation.... I don't know. It just seems to me that we've got a situation here where we're so close to resolution that movement on it would be in the best interests of aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike. I suspect that to try and push that into the Treaty Commission would not be a wise way to go, because clearly -- as the minister has outlined himself -- they are not asking for a treaty.
If I could just move on, I have a couple of questions with respect to the Sliammon, and then I would turn it back to the opposition critic. The Sliammon people in Powell River obviously are now in the early stages of putting together their land claim. One of the areas in which there has been some dispute and some concern is the mill site itself. I refer, of course, to the old Powell River mill, which is now the MacMillan Bloedel mill. There has been some record -- although I understand it isn't definitive -- that the original village of the Sliammon was moved to their existing site from the site that now is occupied by the Powell River pulp and paper mill. Can the minister tell us whether or not his ministry is involved in any kind of assessment or review of that? Is that going to be done strictly by federal interests? And if that is a part of ministerial discovery, could the minister tell us what action is being taken on it?
Hon. A. Petter: I'm not aware of that particular issue -- at least, not that I can recall. I'm prepared to look into it. If it's a question of relocation, it may be a specific claim under the federal government. The reason I'm a little hesitant is that there have been some issues in that general area in which I and the ministry have played a peripheral role with Crown lands in trying to identify alternative lands that the federal government might acquire on behalf of first nations, for example. So I don't want to say categorically that it hasn't come to our attention at some point, but I'm not aware of it. It doesn't come to mind that we have in fact addressed this issue.
G. Wilson: I wonder, then, if I could get some clarification on a couple of other issues. Is the role that the ministry is currently playing with respect to taxation on products being sold on reserve -- and in particular the cigarette program, which I think the minister is aware of in terms of the buying and selling of cigarettes...? But there are other matters in which taxation questions are being raised. Can the minister tell us what the policy of this ministry is, or is that going to be left strictly to federal jurisdiction?
[4:15]
Hon. A. Petter: I'm not quite sure what the question is. There are provincial policies enforced by the Ministry of Finance to try to ensure, for example, that tobacco sales taking place on reserve are regulated in a way that the exemptions and tax-free status are not abused with respect to activities off the reserve. But there is limited jurisdiction for the province to visit taxes upon reserve land and on the transactions that take place on reserve land, or transactions that take place off reserve land that are FOB to reserve land, as a result of the constitutional division of authority that occurs. If it is anything more specific than that, I'll try to address it, but that's the general situation.
G. Wilson: Perhaps we'll be able to get at that under the Finance estimates. The minister has put his finger on part of the problem. It has to do specifically with the taxation authority and whether or not people that are being required to pay tax should be and those that aren't maybe should be, if you understand what I'm saying.
The only other thing I would raise, and then I would be happy to turn it back, is: could the minister tell us whether, in this year's budget, there is any allocation of dollars for environmental rehabilitation and costs that may be apportioned in legal action, where industrial site pollution has had a negative impact on -- in this case -- coastal foreshore, removing shellfish as a source of food supply. Much of the Sliammon waterfront, including Hernando and now Savary Island, has restricted shellfish harvesting as a result of significant pollution. I know that there has been ongoing negotiation with the mill. I understand it's been quite successful and that there's an amicable kind of movement toward cleanup, but nevertheless, there is a very significant livelihood there that has been denied. I wonder if the minister can tell us what dollars, if any, are available for legal action or restitution.
Hon. A. Petter: My ministry doesn't have any funds available for legal action. Some funds previously
[ Page 7086 ]
in the sustainable environment fund have been transferred over to the ministry. I believe about $150,000 may be available for certain forms of environmental activity, and negotiations related to trying to rehabilitate areas or to study areas that have a particular impact on first nations. But for legal action there are no funds.
V. Anderson: This morning when we finished off we were talking about public consultation -- if we can shift back and change gears for a moment. You were talking about some public consultation that was taking place in Fountain Valley, on joint stewardship programs, as a way of involving the community in these kinds of activities. What public consultation is being undertaken in these areas, particularly in an urban area like Vancouver, where you have urban, detached aboriginal people from a variety of areas? What kind of public consultation is being undertaken with those communities that are not made up of persons on reserves?
Hon. A. Petter: I'm not quite clear whether the question refers to consultation with the first nations or with others in the community who might have an interest in the delivery of programs. What I would say in a general way -- then maybe the member can clarify in which direction, if either, he wishes me to go -- is that the delivery of programs to off-reserve aboriginal peoples is, for the most part, the responsibility of the line ministries concerned. I don't want to shove you back in that direction if they shoved you this way, but, for example, if the Ministry of Health is delivering health care dollars throughout the province, they may well have particular programs and particular consultative mechanisms for delivering those dollars to aboriginal peoples. In fact, the Ministry of Health has set up an advisory committee to deal specifically with how to disburse certain of their dollars to certain programs in respect of aboriginal communities. For the most part, that is undertaken by the line ministries. It is not the responsibility of the public consultation branch identified in my ministry.
V. Anderson: As far as the policy goes, both with aboriginal policy under the area that we're discussing and with public consultation, I would still like to ask about.... Maybe it goes back to aboriginal policy. In discussing aboriginal policy, on the one hand we're dealing with on-reserve or treaty people, and a policy that might be dealing with them; on the other hand, there are the non-treaty groups, both non-treaty aboriginal and M�tis. I presume there are different policies for them. Who looks after that particular area, and how are those policies developed?
Hon. A. Petter: I think that the question of policy with respect to off-reserve first nations is a difficult one. There are difficult issues as to how one delivers programs in a way that respects aboriginal peoples' rights, that tries to provide programs in a way that's more sensitive to their cultural and economic circumstances.
Where that has been done by line ministries through their programs, sometimes with the assistance of my ministry in developing the policy, the consultative mechanisms have been connected by the line ministry. I think we are, however, inching -- I wish we could have gone faster -- toward trying to come to a more comprehensive view of this. In the case of the M�tis, for example, we have been negotiating with various M�tis organizations, essentially to try to get a structure in place so that we can commence a process of negotiations. Until recently, the M�tis associations have not been prepared to work together in a process. I think they are now prepared to do so.
To some extent, the situation is even more fractured among non-status and other aboriginal peoples in urban communities. My ministry will be seeking ways -- we've hired a consultant to advise us on this -- to approach how to give aboriginal peoples in urban communities a greater degree of self-determination, using existing organizational structures or perhaps different ones. That is just in the formative stages. As we do that, however, we will certainly have to consult with municipalities and with other non-aboriginal groups. That work will have to be undertaken, and I expect it will -- if we are looking at a more systematic approach -- be conducted through my ministry. It has not been done in that way to date. By and large, what we've done to date is encourage line ministries to improve their programs and make those programs more responsive. Where there has been consultation, therefore, it has been done by the line ministries.
V. Anderson: I'm glad to hear that there may be some progress, because I think it's a very urgent need to work with aboriginal people in the cities. Some of them have connections to reserves, and others have connections to reserves outside British Columbia -- in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario or wherever. So there is a whole variety of persons and needs there.
If we look first at the M�tis people, who have a particular relationship within their own group.... I realize that the recognition of them is relatively recent. I've talked with some of them, and they have been concerned -- until recently perhaps -- that there has been a lack of communication and response from the government as the different groups have tried to go forth independently. One of the questions that I would raise is: just as you deal with different tribal groups on reserves independently, isn't there some need to deal with independent M�tis groups as well as to get them together collectively to work out concerns with the ministry?
Hon. A. Petter: I guess we're looking at different levels of trying to accomplish things. Where there are locally based M�tis organizations -- I think of the Louis Riel M�tis Association in Surrey -- individual ministries may well have reached agreements to utilize their good offices to deliver ministry programs to those organizations that have a basis in the community and a constituency that can be served.
However, for the larger picture, in terms of the question of whether there is a more comprehensive
[ Page 7087 ]
approach to delivering services to M�tis people and how we might go about doing that on a tripartite basis with the federal government -- Mr. Clark has recently written to me encouraging this view -- we have taken the view that it would be preferable to deal with all M�tis organizations, so that we can have the assurance that agreements that are reached which may affect policy generally have the acceptance of the vast majority, if not all, of the M�tis citizens in the province.
So I think it is a matter of doing both things: trying to work with the provincial organizations and the subprovincial organizations to make sure that we come up with policies that will serve all their interests, and then perhaps dealing with the implementation of those policies in a way that enables us to relate to particular organizations that are regionally based.
Representatives of the Kelly Lake community recently came down and met with individual ministers on particular issues of concern to them. We're certainly not averse to dealing with certain M�tis organizations individually, but we also want to make sure that our general policy regarding M�tis and any changes that might be made to that policy are done in a way that's acceptable to all M�tis citizens.
V. Anderson: Part of the concern I have is that trying to deal with services through line ministries puts onto the M�tis and other aboriginal people our forms and structures of services and programs. So it makes it almost impossible -- as we found it for a hundred and some years -- for us to meet their particular needs. There needs to be a cooperative working together, instead of having three, four, five, six or seven line ministries -- each of which has a dozen programs. They're working with different people all the time in different directions. The non-aboriginal people haven't been able to cope with that one, and it's more a part of their culture to work with that kind of disorganization than it is for the aboriginal people. We have created a great deal of their separateness and their complications by the very manner in which we've tried to relate to them and to force them to relate to us in very unnatural ways. Instead of doing it in a holistic kind of way, they're having to do it piecemeal. Until that's changed, we're only going to make that situation worse and worse.
Hon. A. Petter: I don't disagree at all with the member. I think it's a matter of the steps one takes in that direction. There are some very positive steps we're taking, and let me just very briefly outline what they are. First of all, line ministries are making substantial changes to their programs to ensure that those programs are delivered in a way that's more sensitive to first nations' organizations and communities. So there is accommodation made. In some cases, funding is made available to advisory groups or even to first nations communities themselves in order to give a greater degree of control and self-determination. I mentioned before how child welfare agreements, for example, are being signed. One was recently signed with the Cowichan band, I believe, by the Ministry of Social Services to provide a greater degree of autonomy.
[4:30]
In addition, we are trying to use structures to bring programs together. For example, the aboriginal advisory committee on health is delivering a number of programs, some of which are health-related, such as drug and alcohol abuse programs. Also, a family violence initiative, funded by the Ministry of Women's Equality, was delivered through that same organization to try to give greater coherence. Over the long term it would be nice if we could find ways to deliver funds in a way that would allow aboriginal communities to address their problems more holistically.
I think we are starting to move in that direction, but part of the problem, particularly in urban communities, is finding the structures in those communities that can take the responsibility and speak for all of the community. If one looks at Vancouver, there are a number of organizations, and all of them to a great extent are doing wonderful work. It's hard to know which speaks for which groups and for whom. There is the United Native Nations; there are the friendship centres; there's URBAN; there are M�tis organizations; there are specific societies, such as health societies and education societies.
We have to find some way -- particularly in the urban communities, where we're talking about most of these program dollars being directed because of the federal government's primary responsibility on the reserve lands -- of delivering those programs in a way that does better address first nations concerns. That draws me back, I guess, to the point I made previously that we're going to have to work with first nations citizens and aboriginal peoples in those urban communities to help develop the structures that enable us to do it. Even within the ministries, there are changes being made to move in the direction that the member advocates.
L. Hanson: I just have a specific issue that the minister may or may not be aware of. It has to do with the Okanagan band on the west side of Okanagan Lake. The band has been disputing an alignment that is not on the actual road right-of-way. They have threatened a blockade of the road if they don't have the opportunity to meet with the Ministry of Highways, the Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs. The result is that the main TFL-holder in the area, Riverside Forest Products, has shut down all of their operations on that side in anticipation that if they didn't, there would in fact be a blockade. It hasn't actually happened yet. The result, of course, is that there are about 60 people out of work, and they are naturally a little upset with that. They've just come out of the spring breakup period, and they've been off for a couple of months as a result of that. They're just about to go back to work, and now this has happened.
Two things. I want to make the minister aware of the issue, if he is not; I suspect he probably is. But as important as that, has the minister any policy that he and his ministry might adopt under those circumstances? I believe that you did give us some indication when you suggested that slowdowns may be acceptable but blockades are not.
[ Page 7088 ]
I think the natives' issue is as much concerned with the TFL and the clawback that happened as a result of the transfer of the 5 percent that was taken back and put into the small business enterprise program, and a desire to take part in the management of the TFL, which they feel they've been ignored in. Does the minister have any comments that might be helpful?
Hon. A. Petter: I have comments. I'll leave it to the member to decide if they're helpful or not. First, on the question of information pickets or blockades, let me clarify what I recall saying, not what the newspaper said I said. I suggested that I had no difficulty with first nations citizens expressing their views, as could any citizen, and that might be done through informational pickets. Provided they engaged those pickets in a way that did not violate the law, that was just fine. I didn't suggest that informational pickets would necessarily not violate the law. Indeed, if they impeded traffic, they might well violate the law. But I was just trying to make the point that first nations citizens, like all citizens in this province, do have a right to engage in peaceful protest. Provided they do so in a way that's legal -- without passing judgment as to what that line might be -- we, as a government, have no difficulty. I think it was construed somewhat differently in the press, and I appreciate the opportunity to clarify that.
I am only vaguely aware of the situation. I wasn't aware that it had reached the point that the member suggested with respect to Riverside Forest Products. What I can say in general terms is that there are hundreds of road issues in this province -- road rights-of-way that may well not be on their original alignments and on which the roadway may be in trespass, which is to say that parts of the road may in fact fall on part of the Indian reserve. That creates a serious dilemma, and a problem. The Ministry of Highways, with some assistance from my ministry but largely taking the lead, has initiated a negotiation of those kinds of issues and has achieved some success, for example, with the Gitsegukla -- a successful resolution of a longstanding issue that you may be aware of. Certainly, wherever a road right-of-way issue arises, the Minister of Highways is ready to sit down and evaluate the situation on whether there is a trespass, and if there is a trespass, to negotiate to try to effect a resolution. If there isn't a trespass, then it becomes more a legal issue, and there is no legal right to effect a blockade. If there is a trespass, then it becomes more complex.
I'm not sure to what extent the Ministry of Highways has been approached here, or to what extent there has been an attempt by the ministry to involve itself in resolving this. If, as the member suggests, the real issue lying behind this isn't necessarily the road trespass but some ancillary issues relating to tenure, then those obviously would have to be taken up with the Ministry of Forests as separate issues. These are inordinately complex situations, and I guess I can say generally as a minister that what one tries to do is produce a peaceful resolution of this before it reaches the stage of blockade, certainly, or other precipitate actions. I appreciate the member drawing it to my attention, and I'll certainly follow up and see what action has been taken. If there is an opportunity here to negotiate on the right-of-way issue, or if there are some issues regarding the forest tenure that the Ministry of Forests might legitimately wish to discuss with the first nation, then that can certainly be done.
L. Hanson: I appreciate that information. From the limited knowledge I have of the situation, I'm not sure that there's even a certainty that there is a trespass. Neither the natives nor the Ministry of Highways are really able to pinpoint where that trespass might be. I guess it's fairly common that when roads are realigned for better grades or whatever over 20 or 30 years, there certainly could be.... But even the process for determining if there is a trespass appears to be a fairly lengthy one. In the meantime, both Riverside and these people are frantically searching for a method of resolving it so that they can go back to work. I do appreciate the minister looking into that and providing whatever assistance might be helpful to the process.
J. Weisgerber: Perhaps it's an opportunity to talk in the same vein about the experience the minister is having with the Fountain Valley band, and the difficulties that arose -- with the individual logger still being denied the opportunity to transport logs from his own property for sale -- after the signing of the joint stewardship agreement. I found that particularly troublesome in view of the fact that the ministry had entered into this joint stewardship agreement which gave the Fountain Valley band an enormous amount of influence over decisions being made in the region. I'm wondering what kind of resolution may have been reached since I last heard about this issue.
Hon. A. Petter: This situation is one we inherited from the previous government. There was a negotiation underway with the Fountain Valley band, and an agreement had been proposed prior to my coming to office. The Fountain Valley band then decided not to sign, but it was signed by provincial officials. We came into that situation and continued negotiating. I may say I'd be happy to exchange the information with the member. In some respects, I think the agreement signed by this government didn't go as far as the agreement signed by your government. Nevertheless, we can argue about that. The agreement does provide to the Fountain Valley band a greater opportunity to influence provincial decisions, but it maintains provincial authority in all respects. It involved no moratoria of any kind, whereas the previous government's agreement did. In that respect, I think I'm quite prepared to discuss the substance of the agreement.
The problem I think the member is referring to, however, is that even after the agreement was signed, there were some processes that were then to flow from the agreement. There arose a disagreement between the band and the provincial government concerning those processes. As a result, it took further negotiations to iron out those differences, and for the band to subsequently allow the traffic to flow. My understanding is that that was worked out a number of months ago, and the traffic has been flowing, including the commercial
[ Page 7089 ]
traffic, which was one of the bones of contention. There was, for example, some timber that was not able to be removed due to the band asserting its rights over the reserve land through which the road went. That has now been resolved. The agreement provides for further discussions, and those discussions have been ongoing.
J. Weisgerber: If what the minister is saying is that the band no longer attempts to influence jurisdiction over private land in the area, then I'm pleased with that. If the minister is saying that as part of this joint stewardship agreement, the province now has a gazetted right-of-way through the Fountain Valley reserve, I would be happy with that as well. If what he is saying is that he has only an interim agreement as an exchange for the joint stewardship agreement, then I wonder what the previous negotiators were seeking. I suspect the previous negotiations involved access and title and a gazette through the Fountain Valley. I did in fact involve myself for some time in those negotiations, where we sought to find, purchase or otherwise achieve a gazetted right-of-way through the Fountain Valley reserve.
Hon. A. Petter: I know the hon. member is at a bit of a disadvantage because these events unfolded after he ceased to be minister, but I'll read the key paragraph from the previous agreement. It makes it very clear that it is an interim agreement as well, in the sense that it's an agreement to try to work out some difficulties and, in the interim, provide access through the road, and for the province to provide greater opportunities for first nations to have their interests protected. The key paragraph under the title "Interim Agreement in Principle" is:
"Therefore both parties agree to act in good faith to reach an agreement on an integrated resource management proposal within six months. As a sign of good faith the Xaxli'p people agree not to restrict access to and from the Fountain Valley, and the province agrees not to extract or permit extraction of timber resources from the Xaxli'p traditional territory until an agreement is finalized or the negotiations fail."
So it was an interim agreement. It did not involve any transfer of title, and it nevertheless had the province agreeing to a moratorium on the extraction of timber resources from the traditional territory. In that respect it went considerably beyond the agreement that we signed.
[4:45]
V. Anderson: I'd like to come back to the M�tis question that we were talking about, recognizing that there are a variety of M�tis groups just the same as there are a variety of other community groups. Is there not a way for the minister to work with these groups individually as well as collectively? It seems to me that there's more than one stage by which to go at this, the same as with on-reserve people. If we try to fit people into our preconceived organizational moulds, we're not really being responsive to them; we are always expecting them to be responsive to us. It must be able to be both-and rather than either-or.
Hon. A. Petter: I agree that one has to be sensitive in dealing with first nations groups, and you're certainly right: one doesn't want to force any group into a preconceived mould. However, I think it is desirable, where you can, to get groups that may have common or similar interests to work together, so that, in this case, agreements can be applied to all M�tis citizens.
I am not sure if the hon. member is aware of this, but an agreement of that kind has been reached. The M�tis organizations, at a meeting on March 18 in Fort St. John -- the province and the federal government cost-shared that conference to some extent in order to work out some of the differences -- developed and signed an agreement to work together on self-government, to approach the province and to initiate discussions with Canada on an agenda. So while I agree with you that one might not want to force groups together when they are not prepared to come together, in this case, with the assistance -- financial and otherwise -- of the federal and provincial governments, the M�tis organizations have been able to work out their differences and come together for the purpose of negotiating some common issues they have around how their interests can be better respected by federal and provincial governments. I think that's a positive step, and clearly they would have not have reached that agreement if they had felt it compromised their particular interests.
V. Anderson: I appreciate that, and I hope I might be able to get a copy of that agreement sometime, which would be helpful in working with them.
Following up on the M�tis organizations, is there a way in which some funding assistance may be available to them? Of course, many of them are caught in the dire financial situations that many of the other aboriginal people face. Is there some way of helping them to come together in order to strengthen their individual ability to interact, the same as one is trying to do with on-reserve people?
Hon. A. Petter: There is no such funding in place at the present time, if you're talking about core funding. In fact, my ministry has provided very limited funding. There certainly hasn't been any to M�tis groups. There is in other tripartite agreements with the federal government and the province. Such an agreement does not exist in British Columbia. One of the possibilities coming out of this agreement among the M�tis organizations to work together is that there would be a tripartite negotiation to look at these issues and consider whether some Ccorefunding from the federal government might be provided -- possibly with provincial assistance -- particularly with respect to urban M�tis populations. Now that we have the agreement of the M�tis organizations to work together, and an indication from the federal government through Mr. Clark of its interest in British Columbia, to pursue some form of negotiation, the possibility of such funding for M�tis organizations is now at least on the horizon, whereas it was not a few months ago.
V. Anderson: Is there a particular process by which the M�tis work with your ministry? Is there
[ Page 7090 ]
someone they work through? Is there a particular branch of the ministry that they're a part of in making their contacts and interacting?
Hon. A. Petter: I have met with M�tis leaders from time to time. My deputy informs me that he met three times recently with M�tis representatives. One of the reasons a ministry division's name was changed to aboriginal relations was so that it would be more inclusive of M�tis people. The aboriginal relations division would be the division charged, principally, with the role of relating to M�tis organizations and M�tis citizens.
V. Anderson: Maybe I can move back, then, to the area of other urban, non-status aboriginal people. You mentioned a variety of organizations, and certainly there are -- one of which, of course, is the United Native Nations. Is there a way, in the process, of working with these people? For many years they have felt that they knocked on doors and nobody responded, or they were given lip service, but there was no attempt to relate in an ongoing way. I'm sure that there is a feeling at the moment that as the treaty negotiations are getting underway, their causes are being shuffled to the back burner, getting even farther from resolution.
Hon. A. Petter: I'm aware of that concern. I have -- I was going to say met with, but I'll say encountered, because in some cases it's been a formal meeting; most recently it was a dinner on behalf of aboriginal students in a banking program.... I have had a chance to talk fairly extensively with Dan Smith, who is president of the United Native Nations. We have shared our mutual concern that that not happen; that his organization and other urban organizations not fall to the back burner, as the member's terminology suggests, but rather that their concerns be maintained front and centre.
I guess that relates back to the earlier discussion we had. We are trying to find ways in which we can work with aboriginal organizations in urban settings that will be equitable and will ensure that we're dealing with organizations that are truly representative of aboriginal peoples. I know that Dan Smith has met a number of times with my deputy as well. There are a number of possibilities. We could start with a conference of some kind to try to bring the groups together, for example. That's been suggested as a possibility. We do have a consultant working in the aboriginal urban community right now to advise us on how to best do that, because we are desirous of moving in that direction.
I might also say that I visited Vancouver about three weeks ago, and met for a number of hours with a whole range of groups, including the UNN and the friendship centres, to talk, in part, about this dilemma. Certainly I share the concern. We are aware of it and wish to work with aboriginal organizations in urban settings to ensure that their concerns and interests are met.
V. Anderson: Perhaps I might get from you the name of that consultant some time.
I'm also wondering about right here on our doorstep. I wasn't thinking just about Vancouver. Is a similar process of meeting with some of the urban aboriginal people happening here in Victoria?
Hon. A. Petter: We'll get the name of the consultant. It doesn't immediately come to any of our minds.
With respect to Victoria, yes, obviously the friendship centre is a very important organization in Victoria. I mentioned earlier that in the last year we did increase our support for friendship centres, because I believe they do tremendous work. It's regrettable the federal government is moving in the opposite direction, as part of a fairly extensive campaign of off-loading, in my view, in areas of aboriginal responsibility. Again, yes, there is a concern in Victoria. Other organizations are also being formed in Victoria. I'm aware the Nuu-chah-nulth, for example, have formed an organization of Nuu-chah-nulth citizens in the Victoria area, which I understand has a very extensive membership numbering in the hundreds.
I'm also aware that there's a very active friendship centre in Prince George. Indeed, the university and other institutions in Prince George are sensitive to the urban as well as non-urban aboriginal populations in that area. So it isn't simply a Vancouver problem.
V. Anderson: We've automatically moved over, I gather, into the aboriginal relations division. So perhaps we could begin to look at that more particularly. First is the area on economic initiatives. Perhaps the minister could indicate what economic initiatives there are. As I indicated earlier, as I talk to other ministries I get very little information. I simply get referred back to the Aboriginal Affairs ministry.
Hon. A. Petter: The economic initiatives branch is principally related to the First Citizens' Fund. As the member is no doubt aware, because I know you sat on the committee, the First Citizens' Fund has a number of different functions. One of the major ones is a small business loan program, which is administered out of this branch and is delivered through All Nations Trust in Kamloops. That's the principal activity. In addition, I believe -- I can check on this -- the branch would also deal with economic proposals which come forward that might engage other ministries of government.
Given the hour, and being aware that the main House is scheduled to adjourn at 5:30, I think what I should do is move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The Committee rose at 4:56 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]