[ Page 10829 ]

Hon. G. Clark: Today in the members' gallery, we have some very special visitors. Dr. Sein Win, who presently resides in Washington, D.C., is the leader of the National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma -- Burma's democratically elected government-in-exile. Dr. Win is a first cousin of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, the democratically elected leader of the National League for Democracy and, of course, a Nobel peace prize winner. He's visiting British Columbia for a number of speaking engagements in his continual fight to draw attention to the appalling human rights situation in Burma under the present military regime. I'm looking forward very much to meeting him this afternoon.

Dr. Win is accompanied by U Bo Hla Tint, the Minister for North and South American Affairs, and by a number of members of the Canadian Friends of Burma and the Vancouver Burma Round Table. Please join me in welcoming these distinguished visitors to our gallery today and wish them well in their struggle for democracy in Burma.

The Speaker: I recognize the member for Okanagan-Penticton. I'm sorry -- Fort Langley-Aldergrove. I beg your pardon.

R. Coleman: Thank you, hon. Speaker. Given the state of the looks of the member for Okanagan-Penticton, I won't take that as a favourable compliment. [Laughter.]

Every community has those special volunteers that impact positively on their quality of life. In Aldergrove, we are no exception. We have a lady we refer to as "Mrs. Aldergrove." Her name is June Wilson. June is in the gallery today, and I'd ask the House to make her welcome.

V. Anderson: I would like to join with the Premier in welcoming our guests from Burma who are visiting with us today, and besides the two that were mentioned, the others who are visiting with us. They are residents of the lower mainland who are travelling with them, and they were part of the reception today. It was great to have a chance to visit with them, recognizing the action that this House took about concerns about Burma -- otherwise known as Myanmar -- some years ago. We appreciate their presence and their message and offer them our support.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: As the House may know, some days ago we lost the chief of police of Port Moody, and that's been one of the more difficult issues to deal with in my time as the Attorney General. Our hearts go out to the family and the community, and I would ask that the House send condolences to the family.

C. Clark: As the representative for Port Moody, I'd like to add my voice to this Legislature when we send our condolences to Chief Singbeil's family. He was a man who stood on principle; he was a man who firmly believed in his duty. He will be badly missed in our community.

The second loss that Port Moody suffered this week is that of our school board chair, Dulce Huscroft, who died of breast cancer on Friday morning. We all mourn her loss in our community. She was a woman who was involved in almost every facet. She showed a great deal of compassion in all the community works that she undertook. She showed tenacity in fighting for more schools and school construction in our community, and most of all, she showed a great deal of dignity when she finally gave in to her disease. I would ask, too, that we send our condolences from this House to her family.

The Speaker: Thank you, member. I'll be happy to do that on behalf of all of us.

D. Symons: In the gallery today we have Mr. Douglas Day, who is a member of my riding. He's also president of Tourism Richmond -- you know, that beautiful jewel in the mouth of the Fraser River. I wish you'd all make Mr. Day welcome.

[2:15]

Hon. C. Evans: In the precincts today are two members of the Horse Racing Alliance of B.C. who represent, I think, about 7,000 workers in that industry and 1,100 farms. Mr. Brian Anderson and Mr. Brian Kozak are here for meetings about their industry. Will the House please make them welcome.

Ministerial Statement

VANCOUVER-WHISTLER BID FOR 2010 WINTER OLYMPICS

Interjections.

Hon. I. Waddell: It seemed like minutes.

On the second ballot, the results were Quebec City, 31, and Vancouver-Whistler, 40. Thus Vancouver-Whistler won the Canadian bid.

These games will be for our young people who are taking part in various sports right now. They will be just the right age to compete for their country and to compete at home, as Nancy Greene Raine said today. Can you imagine what an incredible honour this will be?

This victory was a result of an incredible team effort: athletes, business, government officials working together. It was a great show of confidence in British Columbia. We worked together as a team, and we succeeded. Today I pledge to members of this House that the benefits of this bid and

[ Page 10830 ]

R. Thorpe: On behalf of the official opposition, I rise in this House today to offer congratulations to the 2010 Vancouver-Whistler Olympic bid committee and the hundreds of volunteers who have worked on this bid. This private sector bid committee has shown that it can compete against world-class Canadian cities and win. On behalf of the official opposition, we commit to working with the 2010 bid committee. We know that when all British Columbians work together, we can win in the global marketplace.

The B.C. Liberals look forward to working with the Vancouver-Whistler 2010 bid committee to ensure that all British Columbians and all British Columbia communities are the winners in the global competition for the 2010 Winter Olympics. Vancouver-Whistler 2010 -- congratulations and continued success.

Oral Questions

JOB LOSS IN FOREST SECTOR

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The industry does indeed have problems, and we have taken some action. When we knew that the crisis was deeper, we prepared to take further action, and we will continue to do that. I am aware of the Price Waterhouse study. I have sent officials over there to talk to Price Waterhouse to see if they know something we don't know. . . . [Laughter.]

Hon. Speaker, I do not take this as a laughing matter. This government is concerned about the communities and the workers, and we will do everything we can to maintain employment. This is difficult, because we have no control over the markets and the prices. But being aware that there are major problems there as well as with those costs, we have taken action to reduce the costs of the industry. That's the hope for those families in the forest communities.

The Speaker: Member for Shuswap, first supplementary.

G. Abbott: What Price Waterhouse knows, which this government simply cannot understand, is that costs need to be reduced to make British Columbia's forest industry competitive once again. This government just doesn't understand that.

Families in Gold River have seen their mill shut down; families in Lumby have seen their mill shut down. Now Price Waterhouse projects a minimum of 13 mills. . . . At least half of the mills at risk in B.C. will shut down next year. Will the Minister of Forests confirm that these projected shutdowns will result in at least 8,000, and possibly as many as 16,000, more job losses in forest-dependent communities next year?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Hon. Speaker, we could get into a numbers game, and I could prove that the opposition was wrong. They suggested there were 15,000 jobs lost last year; in fact, we were down 5,000. What Price Waterhouse has said is that there are 3,000 jobs at stake. But what the member for Matsqui clapping over there forgets is that. . . . Think about those 87,000 people who are working today in the forest industry, whose jobs need to be protected by necessary changes within the industry and within government practices and regulations.

To mention a few things that we've done with respect to Gold River, we've gone in there immediately to work with the community to stabilize the community services, to ensure that people get the services they need and the pensions they need. In fact, we're doing a viability study of the mill to confirm that this asset that's been let adrift by a larger multinational company is indeed viable.

C. Clark: This report says that this year we will lose up to 16,000 jobs in the forest industry. It says that next year we will lose up to another 10,000 jobs in the forest industry. While the minister tinkers with his policies, he blames Asian markets. Will he be telling those 26,000 families that it's someone else's fault? Or will he finally admit that it is his government and his government's policies that have forced those people onto the unemployment lines?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I think that recognizing the problem is the first thing; dealing with it is more difficult. We have taken it as a formidable task, and we are working on it. But what that opposition doesn't understand is that they're putting fear into people. COFI said that if you don't do something. . . .

Interjections.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: They talk about direct and indirect jobs. Hon. Speaker, they don't know the difference between direct and indirect jobs. We're focusing on direct jobs in specific communities, in specific companies, and using specific policies to do that. For example, we have reduced the cost to industry, last year over this year, by $450 million in stumpage alone. We've made changes to streamline the Forest Practices Code that will result in savings, and we are poised to do more.

The Speaker: For a first supplementary, the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain.

C. Clark: You know, the first step to economic recovery will be admitting that you've got a problem. You know what, hon. Speaker? This government has a problem: 26,000 jobs will be lost in the forest industry. Meanwhile, this government promised that they would be creating 21,000 new jobs under the jobs and timber accord. Will this minister finally admit that while we are losing jobs instead of gaining them, the jobs and timber accord was just an election hoax? It was just a cruel deception of the families that depend on the forests in British Columbia for their livelihoods.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Hon. Speaker, there have been plants opened in the value-added industry as part of the new forest industry. We have undertaken in the jobs and timber accord to provide more timber for the value-added industry. We've done that, and we will see results when the markets return. But this opposition continues to put fear into people, when what we need is solutions and not fear. That opposition hasn't got one constructive idea about what to do, and they can't even read the reports.

[ Page 10831 ]

TAX RELIEF FOR FOREST COMPANIES

Hon. J. MacPhail: While the member deals with future policy, we certainly understand the initiatives put forward by industry broadly around these issues. They're all being considered.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast.

G. Wilson: The rules of this House clearly require that the government cannot comment on future policy. However, the Premier is in receipt of this, and the industry needs to know that he is prepared to take immediate action. What the industry would like to hear from the Premier today is his commitment to act on these recommendations within the 30-day request. Failing that, the kind of job losses we were hearing about earlier on in this question period may very well come to be reality. Will the Premier at least acknowledge that he understands what needs to be done and commit that he will do it?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The Premier has tasked me and a committee of senior officials with being ready to implement suggestions that have come up. What the member is reading from is a long shopping list of things which COFI has identified as matters. . . . They recognize that we won't do everything on the list. We have been in detailed discussions with them, and we'll have more discussions, as soon as tomorrow, on some of these matters to nail down the benefits that these would provide for forest communities and forest workers -- in fact, to stop the bleeding from the forest companies themselves.

We are prepared to act on those things that are doable. Industry does understand that some of what they're requesting has serious revenue implications and, therefore, implications for the services we provide to those communities and those workers. We are prepared to take action. We have been working very diligently for the past 30 or 40 days, and we will respond.

REVENUE IMPLICATIONS OF FOREST INDUSTRY DOWNTURN

[2:30]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We do recognize the importance of the forest industry to the economy of British Columbia. But as goes forestry, so go some of the communities in British Columbia. That's true, and that's why we've made this the highest priority for us. We have reduced the estimated incomes this year, which are reflected in the budget, because of the downturn in the economy. We will make adjustments as necessary, but we will be struggling to ensure that we reduce the costs of industry by taking immediate measures that can have an influence on companies' bottom lines and keep them working. Until there's a major change in price in world markets, until demand increases in world markets, we will not be able to restore the industry to its former self. Indeed, if we don't renew the industry and add more value, we will not be able to do it and preserve the environmental values implicit in our forest policies. The markets are watching us, and many of the costs associated with the code. . .

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: . . .are related to preserving environmental values.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

First supplementary, the Opposition House Leader.

G. Farrell-Collins: Until there's a major change in the government in British Columbia, we won't see a turnaround in the forest industry.

The costs that have been burdened upon the forest-sector communities in this province are a direct result of the policies that the New Democratic caucus has been implementing year after year after year -- and those communities are paying for it. Has the Minister of Finance taken account of the projected reduction in revenues over the next two years of $2.4 billion to the government? Will she admit today that any hope of a balanced budget next year has gone out the window because of this government's forest policies?

[ Page 10832 ]

The Speaker: Finish up, minister, please.

Hon. J. MacPhail: But I must say that this kind of attitude of naysaying. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members. The minister is aware. Minister, finish up, please.

Hon. J. MacPhail: This kind of negative attitude pervades every single aspect of confidence. It isn't coming from this side. . .

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. J. MacPhail: . . .it's coming from that side.

COST OF DELTA SCHOOL BOARD BY-ELECTION

Hon. P. Ramsey: The member knows that what he is asking is a matter of future policy. I would also share his concern about the expense incurred by the Delta school board. This matter is under advisement. We don't want to reduce the services to students in Delta. We also want to make sure that people and parents in Delta have full representation on education decisions in their community.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister. That ends question period.

Orders of the Day

Motions without Notice

Leave granted.

TEMPORARY AMENDMENT TO STANDING ORDERS

Sittings
Daily sittings.
2.	The time for the ordinary meeting of the House shall, unless otherwise ordered, be as follows:
	Monday:	2 p.m. to 6 p.m.
	Tuesday:	Two distinct sittings: 10 a.m. to 12 noon 2 p.m. to 6 p.m.
	Wednesday:	2 p.m. to 7 p.m.
	Thursday:	Two distinct sittings: 10 a.m. to 12 noon 2 p.m. to 6 p.m.

Hour of interruption.
3.	If at the hour of 6 p.m. on any Monday, Tuesday or Thursday, or 7 p.m. on Wednesday, the business of the day is not concluded and no other hour has been agreed on for the next sitting, the Speaker shall leave the Chair:
	On Monday	until 10 a.m. Tuesday
	On Tuesday	until 2 p.m. Wednesday
	On Wednesday	until 10 a.m. Thursday
	On Thursday	until 2 p.m. Monday

Routine Business
Daily Routine.
25.	The daily routine business of the House shall be as follows:
	Prayers (morning or afternoon sitting)
	Introduction of Bills
	Oral question period (15 minutes, afternoon sittings: Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday.
	Presenting Petitions
	Reading and Receiving Petitions
	Presenting Reports by Committees
	Motions on Notice
	Written Questions on Notice
	Proposed Amendments on Notice

Orders of the day
The order of business for consideration of the House day by day, after the above routine, shall, unless otherwise ordered, be as follows:
MONDAY, TUESDAY WEDNESDAY AND THURSDAY (Government Days)
	Throne Speech Debate
	Budget Debate including Committee of Supply
	Public Bills and Orders and Government Motions on Notice
	Private Bills
	Public Bills in the hands of Private Members
	Adjourned debate on other motions
	Private Members' Statements (6 p.m. Wednesday)

Private Members' Statements
Statements.
25A.	(1)	Every Wednesday at 6 p.m. a Private Member may make a statement, notice of which has been tabled no later than 6 p.m. the preceding Monday.
	(2)	The order in which such statements are to be called shall be determined by lot by the Speaker, before appearing on the Orders of the Day.
	(3)	The time allocated on Wednesday for statements and discussion thereon shall not exceed one hour, and the time for each statement shall be limited to 15 minutes as follows: Proponent: maximum of 7 minutes Any other Members: maximum of 5 minutes Proponent in reply: maximum of 3 minutes
	(4)	Private Members' statements shall not be subject to amendment, adjournment or vote.
[ Page 10833 ]
	(5)	Statements and discussions under this Standing Order:
		(a)	shall be confined to one matter;
		(b)	shall not revive discussion on a matter which has been discussed in the same Session;
		(c)	shall not anticipate a matter which has been previously appointed for consideration by the House, in respect to which a Notice of Motion has been previously given and not withdrawn;
		(d)	shall not raise a question of privilege.

Oral question period Friday.
47B.	This Standing Order is suspended for the duration of the Third Session of the Thirty-sixth Parliament commencing on November 30, 1998.]

Motion approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call second reading of Bill 51.

NISGA'A FINAL AGREEMENT ACT
(second reading continued)

The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs spent quite a lot of his time giving us a history of land claims and treaty-making in British Columbia. He made some very compelling arguments, I thought, for treaty-making. Sadly, he was probably a decade too late, because it seems to me that most thinking British Columbians have long ago accepted the need to resolve treaties. Perhaps, had he been here in the days of the Bennett government or, perhaps even more importantly, in the days of the Barrett government. . . . Had he stood up and made a passioned plea for treaty-making to those governments, one would have thought that he was indeed breaking new ground. But here in British Columbia, at least for the last decade or so, most British Columbians have accepted, recognized and I think largely embraced the need to resolve treaties.

Before I get into an examination of the treaty from my perspective, I would like to again recognize an event that started in 1989, and that is the Premier's Council on Native Affairs. Back at that time, Premier Vander Zalm appointed a nine-member committee to travel around British Columbia and to examine ways that the province might try to deal with issues on reserves and in aboriginal communities generally. I'll confess that at that time, there was a belief that it wouldn't be necessary to resolve land claims if, indeed, the social and economic problems could be addressed in some other way.

The committee was made up of nine members: myself as minister, Premier Vander Zalm, Harold Long of Powell River, who was the MLA for Mackenzie. . . . Also on the committee were three aboriginal members: Dan Hanuse, a truck logger from Alert Bay; Chief Robert Louie from Westbank; and Margaret Vickers, who is well known to many British Columbians as an educator. Joining those people were another educator, Paul Gallagher, and a lawyer and now justice on the Supreme Court, Mary Saunders.

We travelled around British Columbia. We met with many communities. We were into the Nass Valley. We were into most parts of British Columbia, talking to aboriginal people. It's to Premier Vander Zalm's credit that during all of the travels of that committee, he never missed a meeting. So I must say that I'm a bit confused with some of the positions he takes now, because he was very much front and centre on that committee, and he showed a good deal of leadership in that committee.

I raise the point of the Premier's council partly for historic reasons, but I also want to recognize the courage of the aboriginal people who sat on that committee. There was an enormous amount of peer pressure on them -- people who thought they were selling out, people who thought that they were somehow part of a bogus process. It was their influence perhaps more than anything else that helped move British Columbia into the land claims process, into the Nisga'a process. I for one am very grateful to all members of the committee. Mr. Gallagher and Ms. Saunders also made a great contribution. Those aboriginal members were subject to a good deal of criticism, and I hope, in retrospect, that their contributions are recognized within the aboriginal community.

I also want to recognize the contribution that was made by my deputy minister at the time, Eric Denhoff. Eric Denhoff was a tireless worker with respect to aboriginal rights. He certainly also played a major role in the decision in 1990 for British Columbia to join the Nisga'a negotiations, the formation of the task force and, ultimately, the structure of the current council.

What I'd like to do today, though, is move away from the rhetoric around treaties and the need for treaties. No one argues that we need to resolve land claims and that treaties are by far the best way to do it -- far better than litigation, far better than confrontation. Negotiation is clearly the answer. So the question in my mind is: to be a template for future treaties, is this Nisga'a treaty the right one? Is this a treaty that we can move forward with? Is this a treaty we can happily see duplicated 50 or 60 times in British Columbia? I have absolutely no doubt that the Premier is right when he says that this will be a template for future treaties. This template argument is a burden that the Nisga'a have to bear for being first, and I know the Nisga'a are troubled that their treaty is going to be seen as a template and, therefore, subject to a much more rigorous examination than it might be otherwise.

When the select standing committee travelled around British Columbia and when we visited Prince George, Bill Wilson, who is known to most people involved in the land claims process, addressed the committee as a negotiator, and he made no bones about it. The Nisga'a treaty, in his words, "will be the floor" -- not the ceiling but the floor from which his treaty and future treaties are going to flow.

So I think it's critically important that the Nisga'a treaty be carefully analyzed, not as a one-time deal, not as simply. . . . I don't want to understate the importance of finding a resolution with the Nisga'a, but this treaty is far more than simply an agreement between the Nisga'a, the province and Canada. This treaty leads the way into land claim settlements in British Columbia, and it must be viewed in that context. To do anything other would be less than honourable, less than honest. That is the fact, and it's something that's not arguable in my mind; it's something that simply must be done.

[2:45]

[ Page 10834 ]

With respect -- and I want to look at it initially as a sort of cost-benefit analysis -- it seems to me that the initial costs of settling the Nisga'a treaty are cash costs. We hear, as soon as we start to talk about cash, that the majority comes from Canada, that British Columbia will be a beneficiary. "Don't worry about the money; it's not coming from British Columbia." I can tell you that taxpayers, almost to a person, are offended by that analysis and by that concept. Everyone here in British Columbia understands that there's only one taxpayer, that their tax dollars are dollars that go to the federal government in Ottawa and that come here to the provincial government in Victoria. And nobody is prepared to accept this argument that cash costs are irrelevant if they're borne by the federal government -- nor should anyone accept that argument. If cash payments are warranted, then we should gladly make the cash available. But for heaven's sake, let's not hide behind this straw man that somehow it's somebody else who's paying and therefore the more they pay, the better off we all are. It's absolute nonsense.

I also want to look at the land costs. Land tends to be a much more emotional issue, both for first nations people and for other British Columbians. I want to say that the amount of land -- the quantum of land -- with the Nisga'a is about 85 acres per capita. It seems like a lot of land. If you live in Victoria or Vancouver, 85 acres is a very large chunk of land. If you live in Peace River country, it's not an awful lot of land; 85 acres isn't much land at all. The average farmer probably owns 640 acres, and his wife has to work in town in order to make a living. So we've got to look at this land issue in its context. If you also look at the historical treaties in this country -- the western treaties, the numbered treaties -- land was calculated on the basis of 120 acres per person. So from a historical position, the Nisga'a land quantum is not a huge amount of land, and if it were sold on that basis, I would be very comfortable with it.

But I'll tell you that I have trouble with the approach that's being taken by the government and others who are attempting to sell this treaty. I'm having difficulty with it for several reasons. First of all is the claim that this 2,000 square kilometres of land, which is the land in total, represents less than one-tenth of the land originally claimed by the Nisga'a. While that may be so, it also totally ignores overlaps. There are huge overlaps and conflicting claims in the Nass, in the traditional Nisga'a territory. Indeed, if one looks at the case put forward by Frank Calder in the 1973 Supreme Court case, the amount of land claimed was much smaller. One has to ask: "What happened between 1973 and 1990? How come the claim size increased?" And one has to ask: "Why not simply go out and sell this land settlement on the basis of a legitimate settlement and not try to minimize the impact on these areas?"

We can talk about that. Today I received a fax from the Gitanyow hereditary chiefs; I expect that most members of the assembly received a similar fax today. They note, among other things, that in this settlement, the Nisga'a wildlife management area, as described in the treaty, gives administrative authority over 80 percent of the Gitanyow homelands to the Nisga'a. What happened to the commitment to resolve overlaps before treaties were to be concluded? What happened to the summit's brave words that there would be no treaty signed until overlaps were resolved? How is it that the Gitanyow and others see a claim settlement moving forward without the resolution of their overlaps?

I'm very much troubled by this. I think there was a commitment made in good faith by aboriginal people generally that they, amongst themselves, would resolve overlaps. I recall very clearly the summit saying they didn't want senior governments to get in and mess with their own internal affairs, that they wanted to and were committed to resolving overlap claims on their own. And here we are in the process of debating a Nisga'a final agreement without the resolution of some significant overlaps on that territory.

I talked about Treaty 8 a few minutes ago. Treaty 8 is in place in northeastern British Columbia. When it was signed at the turn of the century, it gave aboriginal people -- signatories to the treaty -- 120 acres of land and some cash: $25 annually to the Chief, $12 to a headman and $5 per person. That probably doesn't sound like an awful lot of money, but I'll tell you that it was a good, substantial amount of money in 1899 or 1900. I raise this because I think there has always been a cost to resolving land claims and treaties. We shouldn't shy away from this notion that there is a cost and that it's a significant cost. We should be prepared to accept it.

Today, McLeod Lake is in the process of adhering to Treaty 8. The old formula for land is in place. A modern-day equivalent cash settlement of about $25,000 per person has replaced the old formula of annual payments and livestock, which was part of the numbered treaty's anticipation that aboriginal people would become farmers. Nevertheless, I think it's important for us to recognize the cost.

The total costs for the Nisga'a deal appear to be about $490 million for about 5,500 people. That works out to something less than $100,000 per capita. There's a ratchet clause in the treaty, which essentially guarantees the Nisga'a that should others negotiate a better treaty, there will be an opportunity for them to ratchet up. So on that basis the projected costs according to my calculations, are about $13 billion and rising. Yesterday the Premier said that it is between $6 billion and $7 billion. Both of them are huge numbers; both of them are very large numbers. But why not be candid about it? Why not say: "Look, according to our calculations, it looks like about $13 billion in 1998 dollars, and perhaps it will cost us more than that." But no, the attempt is made to downplay the cost, and I think that's unfortunate.

I think it's time to be candid, time to be upfront, time to tell us what it's costing us -- what the projections are -- and to allow British Columbians to then weigh that against the benefits. Certainly the elimination in the Nisga'a agreement of the provisions -- at least some of the provisions -- of the Indian Act is a very welcome benefit for the Nisga'a and for British Columbians.

The commitment and the concession of aboriginal people, the Nisga'a, to pay taxes is an important concession. Again, I'm offended when I hear, time and time again, that the Nisga'a are the first people in Canada to agree to pay taxes. They are not the first aboriginal people in Canada to pay taxes. The Yukon Indians agreed in their settlement ten years ago that they would start paying taxes three years after the date the umbrella agreement was signed. They were fully paying both sales taxes -- consumption taxes -- and income taxes three years after the umbrella agreement was signed and before some of the bands even got around to signing individual treaties. So while the tax concessions are important ones, why oversell them? Why stretch the point? Why try to pretend it's something more than it is? It isn't good enough to simply say that the Nisga'a have conceded with respect to taxes and that they're going to pay taxes in eight and 12 years -- and rationalize, as the Premier did, the negotiations that led to those times.

[ Page 10835 ]

The government would have us believe that one of the huge benefits of this treaty is that it will remove investor uncertainty, and that we will see flow into British Columbia a billion dollars a year in investment which has been staying away because of the uncertainties surrounding land claims. Now, somebody has got to explain to me how a resource company losing its tenure without compensation is going to build investor confidence. I can't put together the notions that companies are losing tenure base without compensation and that somehow they are going to feel more certain about their tenures in that area or other areas of the province. I can't see how someone would decide that they're going to invest in the central Cariboo, believing that settlements are going to follow the Nisga'a model and believing that today their investments are more secure than they were prior to the start of this negotiation process.

I look around British Columbia for some sign that this investor confidence is building. If anyone watches the news, it's tough to find a case where new investment is coming into resource industries in British Columbia. Certainly, I've not heard anyone say: "Gee, now that the Nisga'a deal appears that it's going to go forward, we're going to loosen up the chequebooks and start to make some major investments." Again, I think it's oversell, and it's unfortunate that those actions continue to be so much a part of the sales job being done by the province on this treaty.

I want to go back just for a second, also, to overlaps. I think that one of major continuing difficulties for investors will be this issue of overlaps. Once the treaty is settled and the claims are settled and the overlaps exist, with whom does an investor consult? Do you consult with the people who had made a claim to the territory? Or do you consult with those and with everyone else who's making a competing claim to the territory? And if that's the case, what have you gained in terms of certainty? Not a lot, I would suggest.

[3:00]

When I was elected in 1986, we embarked on a process of self-government with the Sechelts. It was a delegated form of government, through legislation in this House and in Ottawa, with a ten-year review of the process to make sure it was working -- and to the best of my knowledge it is. Still, in the case of the Nisga'a, we have embarked on a totally untried form of government, which we will enshrine with the passage of this legislation and the passage of the legislation in Ottawa. We will enshrine in the constitution a form of government that no one, to the best of my knowledge, has ever tried before. That seems to me incredibly foolhardy.

In this case, I have to blame the provincial government and the federal government for a large part of the responsibility. It seems to me that Ottawa has simply said: "Look, you Canadians didn't accept a third order of government in the Charlottetown accord debate. So we're going to find a way to implement precisely what was talked about at Charlottetown by way of treaties."

It seems to me also that in the arguments -- and the Premier makes some very good arguments about the legal, moral and historic reasons for doing treaties -- it's hard to apply any of those imperatives to this specific model of self-government, because indeed in Delgamuukw, the Supreme Court sidestepped the whole issue of self-government. The Supreme Court simply walked, moved away from it and said: "We're not going to talk about that." I don't see any historic pattern for self-government which would be an imperative for treaty-makers to embark on self-government.

It seems to me that the Nisga'a government is going to be incredibly expensive. With 3,000 people living in the Nass Valley, there's an enormous range of authorities and responsibilities that will build bureaucracies for themselves -- in addition to the central government, four local governments. Most, if not all, of the costs of that government will be borne not by the Nisga'a people but by taxpayers, through other levels of government. If there's one thing that I've learned in this place over the last dozen years or so, it's that the size of government is only limited by the taxpayers' willingness or unwillingness to pay for more. There are demands on every one of us for more. The only ultimate limit to that is taxpayers saying: "But we're not paying any more taxes." I don't think that this check and balance will be in place with the Nisga'a government.

What really struck me was when our select standing committee went to the Yukon, because there again, in the Yukon Territory, you have a quasi-provincial government paid for by Ottawa. The Yukon has 30,000-odd residents -- about half as many as in any of our constituencies, about a third as many as in some of our larger constituencies. Do you know what the Yukon government has? The Yukon government has a legislative assembly, and it has 18 members for 30,000 people. Do you think for a minute that those 30,000 people would pay for that kind of government? Absolutely not; they accept it only because it's paid for by a senior government. To bring the case closer to home, the city of Whitehorse -- 18,000 people, a smaller community than most of our constituencies -- has ten MLAs. Ten MLAs represent the city of Whitehorse. And on top of that they've got a municipal government.

It is that lack of a check on the size of government that I fear is going to drive up the cost. It's not only with the Nisga'a government. This is a model that the federal government has decided to ram down our throats. The provincial government appears, along with the Nisga'a, quite happy to comply. So I say to you that if there was one single deal-breaker, this would be it.

As I see that my time is running out, I must get on and talk for a couple of minutes about the referendum, because I am absolutely committed to putting this deal to referendum. I believe people deserve to have a say. It's a fundamental change in the way we do things; it's a process that the Nisga'a went through. The Premier said last night again that it would be unfair to spring this on the Nisga'a at the last minute. Well, perhaps so, but in 1994, I know I issued a press release demanding that the provincial government advise British Columbians of the process they were going to use for ratification and demanding, at that time, a referendum. That was almost four and a half years ago. That's hardly springing it on people, and I've believed for some time that that's absolutely necessary.

[ Page 10836 ]

Hon. H. Lali: It is indeed an honour and a privilege to be standing here in these halls, in this chamber, and to participate in this historic debate that is before us. I rise in support of the final agreement that was struck between the Nisga'a, the British Columbia government and the Canadian government. I'm going to talk a little bit about my personal feelings on this particular debate and also a little bit about my constituency of Yale-Lillooet, the people who live there and how they feel about this Nisga'a final agreement.

I can honestly say that when the treaty was signed over the summer, it was one of the proudest days in my life since becoming a legislator. Certainly just watching the Premier, Chief Joe Gosnell and the federal representative, Jane Stewart, sign this historic document was something that brought pride and joy to my heart, because I know that when I ran for office in 1991, one of the issues that was there before the public was, obviously, the unresolved issue of aboriginal land claims. I wanted to be a part of the debate. I wanted to be a part of the Legislature that would bring forward the first modern-day treaty in British Columbia.

I must also say that yesterday was another very proud day in my tenure as a Member of the Legislative Assembly -- watching the procession, from the steps of the Legislature, of the Nisga'a, who travelled 1,000 kilometres from their homeland, the home area of the Nass River Valley, to come here to Victoria. Just to see the irony -- that 111 years ago, when the aboriginal people canoed all the way from the Nass Valley to Victoria to talk with the then Premier and also to the Legislative Assembly of a day in February of 1887, they were actually denied access to the parliament buildings and turned away. What they wanted to talk about was this issue of the land question.

This final agreement that was signed by the Nisga'a brings freedom to the people. If you talk to the Nisga'a people, they say that they finally feel that they're free. They're free from the shackles of the Indian Act and from being categorized to live on reserves. They've achieved this after 25 years of negotiations. When they first talked about land claims, it was over 100 years ago. It took all this time, 25 years -- and especially the last few years of serious negotiations -- to come to this treaty. They had long ago given up the idea of litigation or confrontation. They wanted to sit at a table, be recognized as a people and then come to terms with both the provincial and the federal governments. Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, they've taken a view -- as was evident yesterday and has been for the last many months -- a very extreme view, a radical view, from what the people of British Columbia actually desire.

I want to talk a little bit about my community of Merritt, where I grew up. There are basically three distinct communities within my constituency of Yale-Lillooet. I'm proud to say that as I was growing up, my parents were very open-minded and tolerant of people of different colours and taught us children -- I'm the youngest of six -- to be that way throughout our lives, to respect differing views and at the same time to be respectful and mindful of people of different ethnic groups and colours. Unfortunately, there are too many British Columbians who are not as tolerant in their viewpoints, especially when it relates to aboriginal people.

In fact, historically, discrimination against aboriginal people was a feature of Canada's public institutions. There has been systemic racism and discrimination built into the system. For aboriginal people, for far too long that meant a lack of employment and educational opportunities. People from various backgrounds -- whether European or Chinese Canadian or aboriginal Canadian or Indo-Canadian -- can all apply for the same job. You will find that it's almost invariably the aboriginal person, having the same qualifications as any other Canadian applying for a job, who will not be hired. They have seen that systemic discrimination when it comes to shopping for goods and services. They just don't receive the same kind of attention in stores as do people of other races -- especially people of European descent. And they face a huge amount of discrimination when it comes to accessing housing -- rental housing, for instance. Often, when landlords who are trying to rent out their apartments or houses recognize on the telephone that there is a person with an aboriginal accent, they are denied access to rental housing. Or even in person, when people go to apply, they're often asked for all sorts of different information as a way to bar them from access to rental opportunities. And there are other areas as well.

The effect of all this systemic discrimination that has existed is that if you look at aboriginal reserves, they have the highest rate of suicides. That's not something that we as a society should be proud of. They also have the highest rate of teenage pregnancies. Also, aboriginal reserves have the highest rate of alcohol and drug addiction and abuse, and also the highest rate of incarceration. They have the highest unemployment rate. Most reserves have an unemployment rate of over 75 percent. In some instances in the north, it's as high as 95 percent, if not more. They have the highest rate of high school dropouts, compared to any other community.

[3:15]

What this Nisga'a final agreement allows is for the Nisga'a to be able to be in control of their own destiny, to be able to end this whole paternalistic Indian Act and the reserve system. The aboriginal people will be in control of their destiny and will be able to make their own decisions and not only take credit for their successes but also be responsible for their failures. They're up to the challenge. For the Nisga'a, this is what this whole issue of negotiations for the last 25 years has been about. If you look around the country at instances of other aboriginal first nations that have been in control of their own destinies, you will find a higher standard of living and a better quality of health. You will find higher confidence levels when aboriginal people go to seek employment and educational opportunities and lower unemployment -- but more self-reliance. That's what this treaty is all about. It will build an economic foundation for the aboriginal people on which they can build further.

The aboriginal people then will say: "We are not trying to set up something separate or different or apart from Canadian

[ Page 10837 ]

I want to talk about my constituency and how people in my constituency feel. My riding of Yale-Lillooet has received this Nisga'a agreement very favourably. My riding has a broad mix of people, similar to what you will find anywhere else in British Columbia. Actually, one-third of the population of the Nicola Valley, where I live, for instance, is of aboriginal descent. I have well over 10,000 aboriginal people who live in the constituency of Yale-Lillooet. Across this riding there are 129 reserves, 27 Indian bands and seven tribal councils which represent these bands. There are also hundreds of Indo-Canadian families stretched all throughout Yale-Lillooet, as well as, obviously, a majority of people from European backgrounds, be they southern European or northern European.

In Yale-Lillooet, social harmony has depended on the development of racial tolerance and also on responsible citizens keeping an open mind about issues. There is widespread sympathy within Yale-Lillooet. As I travel around my constituency, one message that comes out loud and clear is: get on with solving aboriginal land claims. That's the message that is loud and clear. Be they aboriginal or non-aboriginal people, they want us to get on with solving this issue.

I was on the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. We toured all over British Columbia, to as many communities as we possible could. It was one of the most extensive. . . . Actually, it was the most extensive legislative committee in the history of the British Columbia Legislature. We heard exactly the same message from people all across the province, and it was: get on with it; get on with the job of solving the issue of land claims.

One of the things that really makes my blood boil is when people. . . . I've heard some members of the official opposition try to compare the Nisga'a treaty to setting up apartheid -- or different laws for different people -- and all of that other verbiage that they put out. Nothing makes my blood boil more than that kind of a statement, because if you look at the history of aboriginal people since the Indian Act came into being, you will actually find that the aboriginal people were denied the right to vote in British Columbia until 1949. You'll find that Indo-Canadians and Chinese Canadians received the right to vote two years earlier than the aboriginal people who have been living here for thousands of years. And they didn't get the right to vote in federal elections until 1961. I say this to those people who say that Nisga'a is setting up apartheid: if you want to look at apartheid, you need to look no further than the reserve system and the Indian Act.

The whole issue of the residential school system, which I don't need to go into too much detail about. . . . I think everybody is aware of all of the negatives that have come out of that. When aboriginal children were six years old, they were forcibly taken away from their parents and put into residential schools, where they couldn't speak their own languages and they couldn't practise their own religion. If they did, they were punished. There has been a long, long history of physical, mental and sexual abuse of aboriginal children in that whole system of residential schools. That is apartheid.

I also want to note that if aboriginal people wanted to go to town. . . . There are people in my constituency who tell me that their parents told them of many instances where they had to receive a note from the Indian office in order to go shopping in the nearby town. That is apartheid. If they were in contravention -- if they didn't have a note -- they were often jailed for that.

Aboriginal people were not allowed to assemble in groups of more than three on the street. If they did, they were often prosecuted. That's apartheid. They were banned from holding potlatches, a central part of their religious and cultural ceremonies; they were banned for almost 50 years from doing that. That's apartheid.

They were not allowed to hire a lawyer to talk about all the injustices that they had to go through. That's apartheid. Meanwhile, non-aboriginal people could go about freely and hire whoever they wanted as a lawyer to be able to represent them and to talk about injustices to them. Indeed, the very discussion of land claims. . . . If aboriginal people congregated to discuss land claims, they were prosecuted and jailed. If that's not apartheid, hon. members, I don't know what is.

Aboriginal people could not go to the bank and use their house as collateral in order to get a mortgage to either build another house or to start a business, because if they lived on the Indian reserve, they didn't own the land that was underneath their house. That's apartheid. The list goes on and on.

I want to point out, for those people who think this treaty will be setting up apartheid, that South Africa, when they wanted to set up the apartheid system there, sent a delegation to Canada to study the Indian Act and the reserve system before they went back, and they modelled their apartheid system after what they saw here. Actually, they watered it down when they set up apartheid. They watered down what they saw here in Canada, and what they set up there they called apartheid.

So when the Liberals talk about the treaty trying to set up apartheid, I ask them where they have been for the last 111 years. Where have they been in the debate? If they want to see apartheid, it already exists with the Indian Act and the reserve system. You won't hear any one of the Liberals standing up on behalf of aboriginal people to say: "Let's end the apartheid system we've got right now." Do they stand up for aboriginal people? Have they in the past tried to do that? Where are they, trying to speak of injustices and two laws for people living in the same land, when they have the Indian Act before them? They won't. They're silent; they are absolutely silent on that.

We as a society cannot allow ourselves to forget this shameful and disgusting racist past that we've had in Canada for over 100 years. The people of the first nations have not forgotten. They are upset and angry and frustrated -- and with just cause. We also hear of the issue of referendum from a number of people and obviously from the official opposition. They're actually trying to out-Reform the Reform Party of British Columbia. Indeed, the opposition leader is trying to make this his whole cause of being in politics -- to hold a referendum on the Nisga'a treaty that was signed.

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

During the 1996 election, the same Liberal leader and the same Liberal Party were saying that they supported the Nisga'a AIP that was signed prior to the last election and that they would not favour any referendum. So they were trying to suit whatever was best for them at that time, going into an election. Then when we had the legislative committee, the Liberals had their own minority report in which they were calling for a referendum. But in June 1998 in this House the member for Matsqui, a senior member of the Liberal caucus, stated publicly that there is no need for a referendum. But

[ Page 10838 ]

Obviously by out-Reforming the Reform they have taken a very extreme, very radical, very intolerant position; that's exactly what they have taken. It was coming through loud and clear in the debate last night on television, when the Liberal leader was obviously expounding those very views -- those very extreme and very intolerant views.

I want to ask the Liberal opposition, when they're calling for a referendum: was there a referendum when the Nisga'a and all the other aboriginal people of this country had their land taken away from them over 100 years ago? Was there a referendum then? I don't hear any of them saying that injustice was done to the aboriginal people when their land was actually taken away.

This call for a referendum. . . . There should not be a referendum on minority rights. I wish, when he's talking about minority rights, that the Liberal leader opposite -- the Leader of the Official Opposition -- would tell that to his Indo-Canadian and Chinese Canadian supporters, the very people he goes to, to raise funds by the thousands and, in instances, tens of thousands. He doesn't speak about holding referendums on their minority rights. I wish he would go and tell his Indo-Canadian supporters, his membership and his Chinese Canadian supporters that he believes in referendum on minority rights. But you won't see the Liberal people say that when they're talking to their Indo-Canadian and Chinese Canadian supporters.

On the issue of self-government, we hear the opposition say over and over again that it's setting up some sort of third order of government. But when the leader of the opposition was the mayor of Vancouver, the Vancouver Charter was set up, totally different from any of the other municipalities, with different powers. Indeed, he was trying to get that for municipalities. When he was mayor, he didn't have any problem talking about supporting the city of Vancouver to try to get more rights or different rights from other municipalities.

But when it comes to the aboriginal people having self-government, he has a problem there. I ask him why. I asked the Liberal leader why he has a problem with the Nisga'a having self-government and why he is so vehemently opposed to the Nisga'a self-government. There has got to be a reason, but he has got to come clean, and he has to say that. He has to say it publicly. He has to say it in front of people, to let them know why he feels that municipalities should have special or different powers and why he feels that the municipalities should have greater powers. The Vancouver Charter, when he was the mayor. . . . He wants to deny those kinds of powers to the aboriginal people, to the Nisga'a people.

[3:30]

". . .the white man took all of the best land and every other resource that could possibly be used by natives to eke out a living: water rights, grazing rights, timber and mineral rights, social rights and, most tragically, in 1878, our most valuable historic rights to our commercial fisheries. . .we natives were stripped of our languages, religions, history, customs, cultures and self-respect."

"Can you believe that for some white people, the natives didn't give up enough?"

To illustrate a point, let me quote from a letter by Mr. Balwant Sanghera that appeared in the Lillooet News on November 18. He says:

"The ongoing conflict about land claims has resulted in a lot of anxiety and instability that is scaring away investment and costing jobs. We owe it to ourselves to grab this initiative and assist the aboriginal people to break the cycle of dependency on government support."

"There is a strong need to work towards bringing British Columbians together in resolving these contentious longstanding issues."

There is a need to reinforce the goodwill that is out there, just as there is a need to deal with racism of all kinds. Organizations in my community like STAR, which stands for Students and Teachers Against Racism, are working to promote tolerance and also awareness, and we cannot let up on our efforts to instil such tolerant values in our community.

Hon. Speaker, I see my time is almost up. I want to conclude by saying that it is indeed an honour and a pleasure to reiterate my support for the Nisga'a people and also for the Nisga'a final agreement that was signed over the summer. It is a historic document on a historic occasion, and I'm certainly very proud of the fact that I was in office when this happened. I was very proud yesterday to see the aboriginal people who were denied access to this very parliament -- this very Legislature, these very chambers, 111 years ago -- being given entry. Our Premier, a New Democrat Premier, opened the doors and welcomed the aboriginal people. He welcomed them not only to this Legislature -- to these chambers -- but into British Columbia and into Canada.

[ Page 10839 ]

C. Hansen: The finalization of treaties with the aboriginal people of British Columbia is long overdue. It has been well over 100 years that the aboriginal people have sought a settlement to the so-called land question, and the fact that we have not achieved more progress prior to now is simply not acceptable. There have been huge costs for not settling these issues prior to today. These costs have been borne by all British Columbians, both aboriginal and non-aboriginal.

The Premier has focused on some of those costs when he talks about the uncertainty of land use in British Columbia. We know that mineral exploration, logging operations, ranching, oil and gas development, and virtually every other form of land use in this province has been negatively affected by the uncertainty that has been caused by the lack of treaty settlements. There is not a single British Columbian, whether they live in downtown Vancouver or in some remote cabin in the Nass Valley, that has not paid a price for the failure of those who have come before us to negotiate treaties.

Treaty settlements are one of the best ways for British Columbia to build a dynamic and healthy economy in the twenty-first century. The cost that we as a society have paid for the lack of treaty settlements is not just an economic cost; it is also a social and cultural cost. No one in British Columbia can be satisfied with the way the aboriginal people of British Columbia have been treated over the last 150 years.

I was born in Port Alberni, and my grandparents lived adjacent to the Alberni Indian Residential School for a time. While visiting my grandparents as a child, I often played with some of the children attending that school. We were all just kids. We were equals. Our ethnic background was of absolutely no importance when it came to playing tag or baseball in those playgrounds. As I learn today of the devastating effect that the residential schools have had on aboriginal communities and aboriginal culture, I often think back to those days of innocence. I often wonder what has happened to those playground friends and how the residential school system has affected each of them as they have grown older. I wonder how much richer their lives would be today if they had been allowed to grow up and be educated in their own communities, in their own villages and in their own culture.

The residential school system is only one of the injustices that the aboriginal people had to endure. The racism, lack of economic opportunity and the paternalistic Indian Act are all part of the process of destroying the cultural pride of the aboriginal people. It is time for us to deal with the injustices of the past, and it is time for us to move forward. My prayer is that 20 years from now we will be living in a society where the inequality and injustices that are perpetuated against our aboriginal people will no longer exist. My prayer is that all British Columbians -- whether their ancestry in this province goes back 10,000 years or whether they've been in this province for only one year -- will be equal in the province. For my prayer to be fulfilled, it will mean that we are all equals, not just in legal terms but also in terms of equality of economic opportunity, educational opportunities and the opportunity to preserve each individual's proud cultural heritage.

My concern is that the proposed Nisga'a treaty will not allow me to see my prayer fulfilled. I recognize that the Nisga'a treaty includes a very large tract of land. I have heard from many of my constituents, and some feel that it is far too generous. To most, it is not the issue of greatest concern. This treaty will also cost a great deal of money. To some, this is the most important issue. There are some who have said that there should be no cash settlement at all. I am not bothered by the basic cash provisions that are provided for in the proposed treaty. We must recognize that treaty settlements will be expensive. At the same time, they must be within the taxpayers' ability to pay. My concern is for the fact that no one can tell us what the total cost will be when this treaty is fully implemented, nor have taxpayers been told how much treaties will cost in terms of cash and land once we have completed a treaty settlement process with all of the aboriginal communities in British Columbia.

These are not my biggest concerns. I am mostly concerned that my prayer for 20 years from now will not be fulfilled because of the inequality that is being perpetuated in this proposed treaty. We cannot solve the injustices and the inequalities of the past by creating new inequalities in the future. How can we create a society where all are equal if we have a society within a society where legally entrenched rights are dependent on one's ethnic background? I believe that there are ways that all of the goals and aspirations of the Nisga'a people can be realized, can be achieved without establishing a new, third order of government. I have ideas of the government and corporate structures that could be used to achieve these goals.

But my ideas are not important in this scheme of things. In a responsible democracy, it is not the ideas of one lowly politician that are important; it is the ideas of the general public that are important. I don't believe that a government has to bend to public opinion on every minute detail, but I do believe that a government has an obligation to involve the public in major changes in how we govern ourselves.

This provincial government has totally failed when it comes to being realistic about the expectations of the public and of the aboriginal people when it comes to treaty negotiations. There is a much greater gulf today between the expectations of the aboriginal people and the expectations of the general public than there was only five years ago. It is one thing to argue about polls that show support or lack of support for this particular proposed treaty; it is another thing to look at treaty settlements on a provincewide basis. I would argue that the approach that this provincial government has taken will have the effect of delaying treaty settlements, because they have failed to involve the general public in a way that will allow the process to move forward expeditiously.

I have enormous respect for Chief Joe Gosnell and the other aboriginal negotiators. They have sought a mandate from the Nisga'a people, and they have negotiated very ably and very skilfully. I also have respect for the individuals who negotiated for the federal and provincial governments. These are individuals who at the negotiating table represented me and the other four million British Columbians.

But I must ask: what was their mandate? We in the official opposition have tried time and time again to find out what the negotiating mandate was that our provincial negotiators took to the table. We never got an answer. It quickly became apparent that there was no negotiating mandate. How is the public to have any confidence in the treaty-negotiating process if we do not know how the provincial negotiators are representing our interests?

If this provincial government had taken the advice of the Leader of the Opposition in 1995, the entire treaty process

[ Page 10840 ]

Today we are in a very awkward position. This government has brought us to a situation where provincial negotiators, without a negotiating mandate, have finalized this treaty behind closed doors. This is a treaty that does not have the public endorsement that we feel is so important. When the proposed treaty was first made public -- not by the Premier but by the Leader of the Official Opposition -- we were told that not one word could be changed. It would have been a thousand times better if the public had been brought into the process at the beginning, not at the end.

It is not too late to ask the public to endorse the negotiating mandate. Let's construct the kind of negotiating mandate that would have led us to this treaty that we have before us today. Then let's ask the public to endorse those principles. Hon. Speaker, this government has brought us to a point where such a referendum would have consequences. But by the same token, the consequences of not seeking public approval will be much more dire.

[3:45]

R. Neufeld: First, I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

R. Neufeld: Two people are in the galleries today. One is Dorene Callison, the lady who works with me in my constituency office in Fort St. John. Also, my son, who lives in Victoria, is here to listen to my remarks this afternoon. Would the House please make them welcome.

I stand today in the Legislature, as the member for Peace River North, to speak about the serious issues involving native land claims in B.C. and in particular about the Nisga'a treaty. I found it very interesting earlier, listening to other members and to the member for Peace River South. We share the northeast of British Columbia in our constituencies. As the first Native Affairs minister in the province, it was good to hear the remarks that he came forward with and some of the history that he and the party that he used to represent brought to the treaty negotiation process. That member is well aware of how serious these issues are and how difficult they are to understand and deal with. So again, I'd like to thank him for his remarks, and I take them very seriously.

Before I begin, I want to say welcome to all of the Nisga'a people who have travelled to Victoria to listen to the debate and show us firsthand their traditional dress and play out for us their traditional dances and prayers. This is a date in time that will always be remembered by historians and the history books, long into the future. I would also like to put on the record that I support the process of treaties and that they should be made as set out by the Canadian constitution and the courts -- keeping in mind that treaties must be workable, affordable and have some conviction of certainty and finality.

The area I represent is typically called "east of the Rockies." It is a part of British Columbia that has been covered by a numbered treaty -- No. 8 -- for the better part of 100 years. I do not proclaim to be an expert on this treaty, although it has brought to our attention significant interpretations by different individuals of what the treaty actually means. The written treaty is in fact just a few pages in length. Prior to my election in 1991, issues that surrounded Treaty 8 were not issues that I had to deal with, but over the past seven years, much of my time has been spent on issues which are a result of that treaty. If you look at the time spent by natives, by government and by lawyers, the time and energy and money that is spent is enormous. In the end I ask: has it really helped those who it was intended to help?

As I stated earlier, the treaty is only a few pages in length. When I compare it to the Nisga'a treaty -- which is some 252 pages, along with 462 pages of appendices -- it begins to boggle the mind. In fact, I would venture to say that this is fertile ground for an untold number of lawyers with all three parties. I've been told that the numbered treaties which were signed at the turn of the century were not descriptive enough or did not provide well enough for the natives. I suppose one could assume that, but just recently the McLeod Lake band signed a treaty a bit more descriptive as an adhesion to Treaty 8. I believe that this demonstrates that it is not always in the best interests of everyone to have humongous treaties where interpretation is left to the best and most expensive legal minds in Canada. Again I say: what is really best for those intended?

There are a number of areas that I wish to deal with in the Nisga'a treaty template. First of all, make no mistake: this is a template for all future treaties in British Columbia, even though the Premier has recently tried to downplay the significance of this term. No other band or group will be satisfied with anything less than what is in the Nisga'a treaty. In fact, I would say that human nature will push the bar higher and higher as other treaties come to finality. This, of course, leads to the ever-increasing question of how much we can afford.

When I talk with constituents today, they voice their concern about this serious issue. They also raise the issue of certainty and finality. Will this treaty in fact provide this comfort to British Columbians as a whole -- native and non-native? I'm afraid that this treaty will not produce the result that people want. For instance, there are numerous areas in the treaty which will require further consultation and negotiation. Claim overlap was talked about earlier and is another concern of other affected bands. This is now a matter of a court proceeding. There is also the issue of wildlife and fishery management by the Nisga'a on neighbouring Crown land and land that others feel is their traditional territory. Probably one of the more troubling issues that may emerge is the fact that the provincial government must consult with the Nisga'a government before amending any provincial law that may impact the integrity of Nisga'a law. If this same right were to be applied to other treaties across British Columbia, it could and would cause government a bureaucratic nightmare. Heaven only knows -- all of us in this building know -- that we have enough of that already.

[ Page 10841 ]

Another area of concern that has been brought to my attention is the commercial fishing entitlement. This entitlement will see the Nisga'a have an annual allocation of approximately 26 percent of the Nass River total allowable catch of salmon. This treaty right will make it very difficult for fisheries management. One does not have to look too far around the province to see the difficulties that we as a province are facing in regard to what salmon belong to whom, or to see the continued disagreement between the federal and provincial governments over this issue.

The final issue I would like to deal with is the thorny issue around self-government and the need for a referendum for all British Columbians. I was fortunate enough to be a member of an all-party committee that travelled the province and held hearings in regard to the Charlottetown accord. The purpose was, of course, to listen to British Columbians' viewpoints on the accord. Although it seemed to be in vogue to support the accord, many British Columbians I spoke to said they would vote against it in a referendum, for a variety of reasons. One of those reasons was the proposal of a third order of government for native people. No matter where I went, I asked the question about this issue and generally was told, in no uncertain terms, to settle land claims as quickly as possible but without a third order of government and more the municipal type.

What is in the Nisga'a treaty is not a municipal type of government. Regardless of what kind of ads you see on TV or how it is played out, it is not a municipal style of government. That is misleading. It is clearly a third order of government. No matter how much money the NDP spent on ads to mislead the people of B.C. about this issue. . . . The more the public knows about it, the more they are convinced that it is a third order of government. I surely don't begrudge the Nisga'a the ability to govern themselves; in fact, they are perfectly capable of that. But it must be done in a way that reflects how other communities now govern themselves in British Columbia.

[4:00]

The Nisga'a model of self-government is the first model of its kind that is written into a treaty. It will be there for time immemorial, never to be changed, even if it does not work. Other treaties which were just recently negotiated -- in the Yukon, for instance -- have a delegated form of self-government outside of the treaty. Remember, this is the first of many treaties to come. I can't imagine that building walls around different native lands around the province will be good for anyone in the long run.

Finally, the need for a referendum.

Interjections.

R. Neufeld: I listened carefully to the government members make their speeches. I listened very carefully to all the words. I would expect the same respect from government members who are sitting in this House today -- to quit the heckling and listen carefully. The time will come when they can make their points well known to everyone in the province of British Columbia.

Deputy Speaker: I'll remind members of the House that they will all have a chance to speak on the subject. Continue, member.

R. Neufeld: The treaty attempts to create a new order of government in Canada by giving a wide range of government powers to the Nisga'a government and then providing that some of these powers are paramount to federal and provincial legislative powers. The constitution says that all legislative powers belong to either the federal or the provincial government. We believe that you can't create a new, separate order of government in Canada without amending the constitution. B.C.'s Constitutional Amendment Approval Act says that you can't amend the constitution without holding a referendum.

There are questions that surround what would happen if a referendum should fail. Should the referendum fail, the parties would have to go back to the bargaining table, just as they would have had the Nisga'a referendum failed -- no differently. I firmly believe that this is the case in this treaty. If in fact the Premier feels confident about the polls that suggest that fully 50 percent of British Columbians support the Nisga'a treaty, then why are he and his government afraid to put it to a vote?

Everyone in B.C., whether native or non-native, must live with this treaty. To me, it would be much easier to implement a treaty that the population approves of. I think it would be better for all concerned -- not just for the non-natives but for the natives, certainly. If you have something that is fully explained to the people of British Columbia, and if it is something that they believe should be done, I can't for the life of me, in my own mind, see why people would turn it down.

I think that it was tremendously unfortunate and a total disservice to the Nisga'a to watch some of the ads that were on TV. They displayed issues that, to me, were really not true and that didn't fit within the treaty. That made people suspicious. In fact, I recall asking the Premier at one of the meetings in Vancouver where they were explaining the Nisga'a deal: "Why not explain all or much of the Nisga'a treaty -- not just the good parts but also the parts that are a bit thorny -- to the people of British Columbia?" That would, I think, make it easier for people to understand and for people to feel confident in it. But to just pick parts that they, the government, think are good for the Nisga'a and good for British Columbians -- to misrepresent some of those issues -- is reprehensible.

[ Page 10842 ]

J. Cashore: It's a great honour to be able to take part in this historic event and to see so many members of the chamber present, recognizing that while there may be differences of opinion, there is certainly a very clear degree of interest on both sides of the House. I certainly welcome that.

I want to say to those who are listening and watching as this debate goes on that it must be terribly confusing when you hear statements being made on each side of the House that seem to be contradictory on a number of points. I think that one has to look forward to the time when we get into the substantive debate in Committee, where questions will be asked on each clause within the legislation, with questions also relating to the treaty, and where people will have a better opportunity to take a look at what has been said and judge it on the basis of what they are hearing. Also, I would hope that people would have the opportunity to avail themselves of the information that's available on the treaty in order to come to their own conclusions, because there's just no question that an educated public on this issue is absolutely vital.

In 1993, when I was asked to become the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs -- I have a confession to make -- I wasn't happy. I had worked most of my life in situations that involved aboriginal people. Going back to the early 1960s, I was a United Church minister in the community of Lax-Kw'alaams, north of Prince Rupert. On many occasions since then I was involved in various committees and various task forces and activities that put me in touch with the issue of the unresolved treaty-making in this province.

Sometimes knowing too much is a real problem, because it's when you know just how complicated a situation it is, just how much has gone on through that lengthy history. . . . In my comments I am not going to be going through that history, part of which we saw yesterday when we saw the Nisga'a come into the House after 111 years, since they were turned away by the colonial government. I'm not going to go into all those details, points that were very well outlined in the speech of the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs this morning and which I think are of great interest to both sides of the House and indeed to all British Columbians. But the reason I wasn't happy was that I had a sense of how difficult a task it would be -- and a very difficult task it is.

I am very grateful to the people with whom I had been associated during the four and a half years that I was the minister, during which time much of that activity was related to the negotiating of the Nisga'a treaty. I certainly was aware of the framework agreement that had been signed by my colleague and friend the member for Peace River South, and I certainly was aware of the events leading up to that event during the days of the Vander Zalm and Rita Johnston governments. But I think that anybody who sets out on a task of trying to put toothpaste back into a tube knows that it's an impossible task. So right off the bat, when it comes to treaty-making in British Columbia, you have to say: "That's not what it's about; that's impossible. You can't go back to what existed 150 -- in some parts of the country, 200 or 300 or more -- years ago. You can't do that."

Therefore this is not about making some kind of study even of the amount of resources that have been taken out of a particular claim area, doing a cost analysis of that and saying: "Okay, that is the bottom line." It's not about that. It's about negotiating an agreement in a context of recognition and respect which heretofore had been absent and restoring a relationship that had been so damaged. The outcome of that relationship was so dysfunctional. So much happened to so many people as a result of those circumstances that stripped them of their self-determination and ensured that they did not even have control of the property that was held for them in trust. This was a process where even their ability to be parents was compromised by sometimes well-meaning but so often misguided and downright mean-spirited errors made on the part of government and church.

I don't think it's good for me, standing here in 1998, to look back at that history and condemn others that are part of that history, because I really can't say that I know exactly the circumstances they experienced in that day and age. I can say in 1998, taking my place in this Legislature, that it's a great honour to have been involved in something that is prospective, looks forward and looks to the future and says: "All right, we know a lot about history. We know a lot of it wasn't good. But what can we do about the future so that this enormously complicated situation, which is so difficult for all of us here, will at least not be visited upon the next generation simply because we refused to take our part in trying to resolve those issues?"

Treaty-making is difficult; it's a challenge. But if we don't do it now, when are we going to do it? If we don't recognize the urgency now, when will it be recognized? I know that there have been estimates that with some 50 first nations having entered into the treaty process, representing 70 percent of the population of British Columbia, it could take a very long time. Indeed, if you multiplied 50 by the 22 years since the negotiations started with the federal government, it would be such a long time that it would bring about a sense of hopelessness. But the fact of the matter is that getting this first treaty concluded is going to provide such a sense of possibility for the generation of aboriginal young people, 60 percent of whom are under the age of 25, who really are growing up in situations where there's very little hope. Even though some historic event such as approving a treaty isn't going to turn an economy around overnight, the fact is that if it can bring about a sense of hope, it can ignite the human spirit. In that context, it's amazing what can be accomplished when people feel that there is something ahead of them to look forward to that they can participate in and start to build.

[4:15]

Therefore I think it's unfortunate that sometimes the good work and effort that has taken place in a context of recognition and respect involving those far beyond this government. . . . Four hundred public meetings have taken place throughout the province, especially in the Nass River area, where the public has engaged in thoughtful discussion and an explanation of both their hopes and the vision for the treaty, and the kinds of positions that the government was putting forward and modifying as this dialogue went on. In my view, it's the only way it could possibly work, given the complexity of any modern treaty.

[ Page 10843 ]

Coming out of that, throughout the province we are seeing validators who believe that they have learned a lot about the very stuff of negotiations. As stated by Supreme Court Justice Lamer, they must take place in a context of good faith, and to be a negotiation, there has to be give-and-take on all sides, and if there is give-and-take on all sides, then it should be possible to produce something that is better than what existed before.

As the minister said this morning, the status quo is not good enough; the status quo cannot work. He outlined the three reasons why it cannot work. It cannot work because it's morally wrong; it cannot work because it simply can't exist within the context of the legal framework; and it cannot work because it's economically inappropriate. Therefore we have this reason for why we have entered into this very difficult and challenging yet important process. We are doing so with an even greater amount of legal framework compelling us to do so than existed when our colleague from Peace River South was so involved in bringing the provincial government into the process at that time.

We have to ask the question: why is it so contentious at this point? I suppose it stands to reason that it would be. For instance, when you are in opposition -- I've been there; I know how this works -- it's so much easier to come up with a statement or a sentence like, "Gee, it sounds like it makes sense," when you don't get into the analysis and deal with the complexity. You realize just how complex an instrument a treaty is in this modern age. Again, we have to ask that question: why does the opposition oppose? They say that there's a general recognition of the need to negotiate treaties. This means, as I said, to negotiate with give-and-take on all sides, as was stated by the Supreme Court justice. There may be some in the public who do oppose treaty-making. I think that has been stated; I think some members of the public have honestly stated that they oppose it. But it appears that all elected members that I know of in British Columbia agree that treaties must be achieved. We've heard that many times today; we heard that yesterday.

The Leader of the Opposition says he doesn't like this treaty. Then he makes several assertions about it. He says it changes the constitution, so he goes to court. He says that self-government can't be allowed, even though it's confined to such matters as adoption, marriage, local policing and a few other things, even though it's subject to the laws of general application, even though the Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies, and even though the Canadian constitution is paramount. You don't hear the Leader of the Opposition referring to those points. You simply hear him referring to truncated pieces of comment, which, taken out of the context of those points, creates something that is extremely misleading for the public -- which is understandably confused -- to have to deal with. He says it even though the courts of B.C. and of Canada are paramount.

Hon. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday that the Nisga'a treaty entrenches inequality in the constitution. How can he make that statement? That may be, through some convoluted reasoning, a position or an opinion that he holds. But how can he stand up and state that as though it is a fact, without recognizing that it is merely his opinion? I believe he knows it's incorrect. He knows that the constitution has not changed -- will not change. He knows that there have been 13 federal treaties in the last 20 years, and there's never been any talk about changing the constitution.

Having said all that, what is his alternative? This we have not heard. If you listen to his position, I think you must conclude that there is really no room for negotiation. I think there are different positions out there, and I don't think the Leader of the Opposition has done anything about distancing himself from some of those positions.

For instance, we have Mel Smith who is very much on the scene and very often referred to. One of the things that he says he would do and that he would advise the government to do would be to turn Indian reserves into fee simple land. Some of that land would be handed over to the first nation, and some would be individual land that's handed out. But there's no negotiation. It's saying: "Just do it."

The fact is that when you look at what the Leader of the Opposition is saying, in light of the fact that he is not coming forward with any cogent alternative, you can only come to the conclusion that he is coming forward with radical and extreme views that don't really put forward to the public an alternative that the public can look at and say: "Well, yeah, that makes sense." The kinds of comments that we're hearing are comments about process, which are truncated and not really dealing with the substance of what is really going on. So I don't know why the Leader of the Opposition doesn't. . . . At least if he doesn't want to convey that message to the public, why doesn't he distance himself from the opinions of Mel Smith? Why doesn't he say, for instance, as part of the dialogue: "Well, this I agree with, about Mel Smith, and this I don't"? You don't get the benefit of that type of intelligent indication that he's really thinking this through. What you do get is nothing. So what's the public to assume about his feelings about what Mel Smith has to say?

Then there's the issue. . . . I say this knowing that this debate is being monitored by the Nisga'a. Everyone on the opposition benches, in every speech, is praising the Nisga'a and saying how nice the Nisga'a are and what good people they are and saying all these things. But the Nisga'a are listening to this. They are listening to it in the context of having been part of a history where the opposition is constantly calling for changing the goalposts. Now, where's the fairness in that? Where's the fairness in negotiating a framework agreement and then advocating, by any member of the opposition, for changing the goalposts? Where is the fairness in that?

In the select committee, when the select committee met following the 1996 election, it was stated by the Liberals that they wanted a free vote. At that time, their position, coming out of the election, was that they were adamantly opposed to a referendum. But they wanted a free vote so that the duly elected people could vote on this on their conscience, and so they got the free vote.

What's happened since then? Well, it's a matter of opinion for others to judge whether or not there really is a free vote on that side of the House. What else they got was a reversal of position to where they are now again -- having flip-flopped, flip-flopped many times -- calling for a referendum. They

[ Page 10844 ]

What do we have now? We have the Leader of the Opposition saying that he changed his mind because he listened to the public when the select committee went out, and we have the Premier pointing out to him on television for all to see that no -- no, no, no. . . . The Aborginal Affairs critic, who we assume is not a rebel without a cause on those benches, had stated in this Legislature, in very strong terms, his opposition to a referendum, as he stated it in the summer of 1998.

Now, given what must appear to the public to be radical and extreme positions, we have to ask: who is the opposition aligned with? Does the opposition think that any first nation in this province, given their track record, would really be interested in negotiating with them? Do they really think that? Do they think that under any kind of unlikely circumstance, there might be any first nation that would like to do that? Perhaps they can get the names of some of those first nations and read that into the record. That would be very interesting to see.

I believe that when the opposition says that we have not stated any principles, that we have not talked about mandates, the public is out there listening to that and hearing it. And what do they say? "Well, these are honest elected people. What they say must be true." That's what the public would think. With somebody standing up here in a suit, doing up their button before they start to speak -- you know, going like that, as we all do -- the public would think: "Well, that person must know what they are talking about."

[4:30]

The general public might not know, for instance, that it has been a fundamental position throughout that private property is not on the table; that continued access to hunting, fishing and recreational opportunities would be guaranteed; that the Canadian constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms will continue to apply equally to all British Columbians; that fair compensation for unavoidable disruption of commercial interests will be assured; that jurisdictional certainty between first nations and local municipalities must be clearly spelled out; that provincewide standards of resource management and environmental protection will continue to apply; that the federal government's primary constitutional and financial responsibility for treaties must be maintained; that the agreements must be affordable for all British Columbians; that the province will maintain parks and protected areas for the use and benefit of all British Columbians; that all the terms and conditions of provincial leases and licences will be met; that the existing tax exemptions for aboriginal people will be phased out; and that the Criminal Code will apply equally to all British Columbians.

Hon. Speaker and those of you who are listening to this debate, when you hear some of the comments that the opposition is making with regard to indicating that what I have just indicated doesn't exist, please listen to those words with at least a modicum of skepticism. Please consider, when that kind of activity is indulged in, that perhaps it's extreme and radical. The fact is that when you look at just some of the issues. . . .

I just want to conclude with some issues. First of all, on the issue of hunting, for the first time an aboriginal nation will voluntarily give up its right to not hold a licence and to not report its harvest. What the aboriginal people of the Nisga'a first nation have done is to agree to come in to a process whereby they will take part in ensuring the conservation integrity of wildlife by being licensed and by clearly reporting their harvest, so that when the allocations are given out, those allocations are based upon the best possible data. They are the first first nation in British Columbia, through negotiation, to decide to do it that way, because they believe in the future of this province; they want to come into this province; they want to be more fully British Columbians than they've ever been before. I think that it would be helpful if some of these points would be referred to by members of the opposition when they stand up, so at least there could be a sense of some balance and some awareness on their side of the House that perhaps there are some things in this treaty that they would recognize.

When I was Minister of Environment, there was a situation up in the Okanagan where an individual was burning PCBs in a couple of 45-gallon drums. When we wanted to send our conservation officer in there to do something about it, they denied access to the land. Now, it could be that an arrangement could be made where that could be dealt with, but technically, if these are lands held in trust by the federal government. . . . These people, who are treated as second-class citizens on their own land, don't even have the opportunity, failing a negotiated settlement, to come in to some sort of a process where the same standards apply to them as apply to others with regard to environmental protection and where the Minister of Environment can go in, which she will now be able to do under the terms of this treaty, and protect the environment. Before there was a barrier to that. With jurisdictional certainty, the types of problems we've seen between the municipality of Delta and the Tsawwassen band would not happen. Within the modern treaty and the negotiating process, those issues would have been dealt with, and that would not happen.

Let's remember that this is not the end; it's the beginning of the end of the Indian Act -- the beginning of the end of that paternalistic document, which has not served anybody well. It's the beginning of the end, because the Nisga'a have had the courage to accept the realization that to defeat paternalism and come into the century in charge of their own lives is in their interest. So they will move out from under that kind of paternalistic protection into the clear air of what, for them, is a new experience. I certainly congratulate them on that.

As I have said, a negotiation means give and take. A responsibility that all of us have is to try to communicate, in our positions, where we see that give and take having taken place. We can demonstrate that once you have a negotiated settlement that has had years go into it in a context of recognition and respect, that ensures that what you have is a document and a future that is better for all British Columbians.

H. Giesbrecht: It is indeed a privilege and an honour to rise and address the House on this issue. I find it particularly humbling to do this under the watchful eye of Dr. Frank Calder, former MLA, and also Larry Guno, who's a former MLA as well. I was thinking: what would their advice be if I

[ Page 10845 ]

Hon. Speaker, I too concur with my colleague who just spoke that it must be very difficult for people listening to this debate to get a sense of what is the truth and what isn't. I'm going to try to avoid getting into the specifics, because last night one would have received an excellent example of the problem in debating this issue on the political level. When the debate was sort of on the superficial, I happened to watch the debate between the leaders and then turned to the Knowledge Network, where they had a debate that took place between Dr. Joe Gosnell and the chief negotiators for the federal government and the provincial government. I must say to people that if they want some good information on this issue, they should focus on those kinds of debates. If that's not enough, instead of listening to what I have to say, even, and what everybody else has to say, get a copy of the agreement, because it's all there in black and white, and it's not subject to the interpretation of me or anybody else.

We have conceded in this House, even today, that the history is not disputed. The history of what was done to first nations people is not in dispute. We're all familiar with the history of oppression, so I don't want to go into too much detail on that. But in the history there's an interesting note in terms of the population of first nations people in the province. It's estimated that in the 1700s the aboriginal population of B.C. was about 300,000 to 400,000 people. By 1865 it was 40,000 people. By 1880 the aboriginal population had declined to 25,000 and was at that time surpassed by the non-aboriginal population. And then, in 1911, it's estimated that the aboriginal population had declined to 20,000 -- 5 percent of the B.C. population.

If no other statistic points to what has been done, when you remember that the aboriginal population in this province is just getting close to what it was in the 1700s, there's a very graphic reminder of what the effect of colonization has been. You can go across the street to the museum and stand in one of the displays where it talks about the smallpox epidemic and what the effect of colonization has been, and you cannot help but be moved by that experience. I would urge everyone to make the attempt to go there.

So we've conceded that history is not in dispute. Now, we have had some dispute, at least in terms of the extent of our responsibility, and we've heard from some quarters that this agreement gives too much. So that's partly in dispute. We don't really, on both sides of the House, I guess, have a different vision for the province in terms of first nations. We all want economic certainty; we all want harmony; and we want economic equality, as well as equality of the person. I think that is probably not in dispute. But we disagree, I suppose, on how we get there.

This agreement is not perfect. No agreement ever is. If you've ever had any experience negotiating an agreement, whether it's a simple collective agreement or anything else, you know that in the wee hours of the morning, when you finally come out of the chamber and you finally had to make that tough decision to sign on the dotted line, you really don't have any idea whether or not that's a good agreement. It might take months and it might take years to actually find out that it was or it was not. I would imagine that the Nisga'a negotiators and the provincial negotiators and the federal negotiators felt exactly the same way. This is not a perfect agreement; no agreement is. But it is a set of compromises on some very major issues.

In one particular area -- and I'm compelled to raise the issue, of course -- it provides some challenges. I happen to represent Skeena, which doesn't take in the Nass Valley. But I do represent the people of Gitanyow. There are some challenges facing them. There are some areas -- some fishing sites in the Kinskuch area and some fee simple lands -- which they take some exception to. Their territory is included in the place where the Nisga'a are allowed to hunt and get a portion of their wildlife quota. The Gitanyow are a small group, and they're not as advanced in the land claims process as the Nisga'a. In the provincial and Nisga'a agreement there is a provision where it does not prejudice the claims of other first nations. There is a three-step process to resolve the issue. While there may be concerns and anxiety that are justly held in terms of this agreement and how it affects future negotiations, there is a process. I make the commitment that I'll do my very best to ensure that the Gitanyow are not left behind in negotiations.

I noticed this morning and yesterday that there was some discussion of the idea that we should apologize, that we should say Sorry. I felt some discomfort yesterday in having the Leader of the Opposition say that he was deeply sorry. I want to explain why. First of all, sorry doesn't clean the slate. Saying sorry is easy. Sorry doesn't change the situation. And sorry doesn't really require action, although one would assume that there would be some after one said that.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

I don't feel comfortable saying sorry for another reason. I'm like a lot of people in this province; I arrived in this country, in this province, when I was a toddler. It was in fact the year after first nations got the right to vote in B.C. So my ancestors are not responsible for the policies of taking from first nations and placing them on reserves and the whole systemic oppression that took place. I'm not responsible; I could say that. So it's hard to say sorry, because they and I are not or could not be considered responsible.

But here is the catch, I have a responsibility to know what the history of this province is all about, and if I now fail to act on that injustice, if I fail to seize the opportunity to correct the wrongs of the past, then I am just as guilty as the people who caused that oppression in the first place. Then I will have to be profoundly sorry for ignoring that golden opportunity to do what is right. And my children will have to be profoundly sorry. A sorry requires some positive action, and that's what this agreement does.

[4:45]

Nisga'a and other first nations have lived in the northwest for thousands of years. It's ironic that the history of first nations received little recognition in schoolbooks for many years. That's changed somewhat now, and thank goodness it has. When I moved to the northwest in 1967 as a rookie

[ Page 10846 ]

But there were some isolated efforts that were being made. I want to credit an old colleague of mine, Dave Walker, a social studies teacher and amateur archeologist who spent much of his time and energy teaching his students about first nations and their role in the northwest. I was fortunate enough to work with him on staff, even for a short time.

I recognize today that teachers do much more than that. There are all kinds of programs available to make sure that students are aware of their place in history and that they have a role to play in our society. For myself, I thank all those who took the time to enlighten me over the last 32 years: students -- there were many of them -- chiefs, elders and others.

I'm also familiar with the Nass Valley. I've hunted and fished there. In 1967 road access was only by a company logging road. The forest resource fed the mills in Terrace and Prince Rupert -- and to some extent, still do. The land was mostly stripped of its trees, and it was once quite accurately described as a sea of rotting stumps.

I also understand that the Nass is in the North Coast riding, but the greatest impact of a settlement, the greatest impact of an agreement, whether you agree that it's positive or negative, is in the area around Terrace. Understandably, that area had the greatest concern when we were in the initial stages of negotiation. It's also the area that ended up providing the greatest input and had the most consultation with the negotiating team. It's also now the area with the greatest degree of support.

I say that with some confidence, because many of my constituents have worked with the Nisga'a; they respect their abilities. They don't accept this questioning now of how the Nisga'a vote was held; in fact, they find it extremely insulting and patronizing. They have some confidence that the Nisga'a will avoid the waste and bureaucracies of the Indian Act. I mean, surely they have learned the lesson of not doing some of the things the way we've done them in the past hundred years. Why would the Nisga'a want to do that? You have to give them credit for having some sense.

There is often a question asked: "Why can't we just all be equal? Why can't we, with the wave of a hand or the stroke of a pen, just declare that all people are equal and let it go at that?" Well, we could do that if we could ignore the fact that first nations occupied this land first and that we moved them onto reserves. We would have to ignore that we denied them the vote until they were outnumbered and, of course, had little political power. We can't do that. It's like suggesting that after you've beaten someone into the ground and they're still lying down on the ground beaten and injured, you stick out your hand and say: "Now can't we all be friends?" It just doesn't work.

There was a suggestion made here that we should have a referendum. The federal government has been talking to the Nisga'a for 25 years at least; nobody has ever mentioned a referendum. There wasn't a referendum mentioned in 1991-92 when the province got fully engaged in the process. If we now provide another hurdle to the Nisga'a, after 111 years of effort for justice, what does that say to them?

In the area directly affected, community leaders have already said no to the idea of a referendum. Think about it. We in the northwest would be the ones that would deal with the continued confrontation. It probably wouldn't affect the people that live in the lower mainland too much, but it would certainly have an impact on what happens up there. It wouldn't be the south, and it wouldn't be the Peace River area; it would be the northwest.

The other issue, too, is that we don't demand referenda for other initiatives that are sometimes equally costly. We didn't demand a referendum for the Fair Share initiative in the Peace River or for the Island Highway or for some projects that cost a lot more than this settlement. We've had some issues that have had a greater effect on the social programs of this country than this ever would. We have never had a referendum on free trade, we have never had a referendum on NAFTA, and we have never had a demand from anybody in the opposition to insist on one on those two issues. We have never had a call from the opposition to insist on a referendum on the multilateral agreement on investment, if it should ever get to that stage. There have never been any calls. But should a group of first nations get so close to fulfilling their destiny, what cry do you hear? The cry is: "We've got to have a referendum."

On issues of minority rights, I think it's time to be courageous and lead, to stand up for what's right and take your lumps at the ballot box if you have to. That's what this game's all about. Have some courage in this process.

The other interesting thing is: we would have a referendum on giving them that which it wasn't our right to give in the first place -- and history has proven that. What are we going to do when it's turned down? Well, there are some options: to go back to court. And what does that do in terms of the certainty? You don't have a referendum on issues of justice, hon. Speaker.

I found it really interesting, of course. . . . I want to keep this discussion in terms of the high road, but I do find it interesting that there was no mention of a referendum by the Liberal opposition in the election of 1996, and up until July -- that's four months ago -- the critic for Aboriginal Affairs from the opposition benches said that it would be unfair to introduce the concept now. Well, I must ask the question: if it was unfair four months ago, what has happened to make it fair? Nobody has ever provided an explanation for that sudden twist. In terms of why that might have occurred, why they might have changed their position, only they can respond to that truthfully. I have my ideas, but I'll stay with the text of my remarks.

There was no referendum when their lands were taken away, when they were denied the right to vote. There was no referendum when they were prohibited from going to court to address land claims or to seek justice in terms of land claims. But we now want to insist that a referendum must be held.

It's been mentioned that somehow this is a constitutional amendment; therefore it requires a referendum. Well, pre-eminent experts in constitutional law have said that this is not an amendment to the constitution. The constitution provides or recognizes aboriginal rights. The courts keep telling us down here at this level to negotiate a settlement: "You have to define those rights in terms of an agreement." They keep insisting that we do that. All the agreement does is define those rights. It is not a constitutional amendment. To say that it is, is wrong.

There's sometimes been a notion that this would create 50 sovereign states. Think of the characteristics of a sovereign state. Would you be subjected to the laws of general application if you were a sovereign state? What nonsense! Would the

[ Page 10847 ]

It is, yes, a bit more than municipal governments. It provides for some measures in terms of adoption, marriage, education and social services. Well, I have news for some of the folks here: they already do that. They've had their own school district for years; they already provide social services; they already do much of that work. Recognizing that they have a culture that's somewhat different than ours in terms of adoption and marriage isn't going to kill us. It isn't going to make that much of a difference to us, but it makes a big difference to them.

The agreement is supported locally. I can say that with some confidence. Yes, we have people that object to it, and it's the same group anywhere. It's been known that if somebody spends the time and if they take the time to read. . . . I mean, it's much more convenient and entertaining to watch Seinfeld reruns these days, but you have to make an effort to understand what's in the agreement. If they're prepared to do that, I think generally it's supported by those people, by the majority of people out there.

Of course, there is the issue that in the process every effort has been made to make the transition smooth. The Nisga'a themselves have made concessions in order to make the transition smooth. Otherwise, why would they phase in the rights to the forest resource? That's their land; it's been their land for thousands of years. We are telling them we are going to give them back what isn't ours to give -- 10 percent of their traditional territory -- and in the negotiating process they offer, they make the concession that there will be a phase-in of that transfer of jurisdiction in terms of the forest resource. How could you ask for more? The government has struck a deal with the Truck Loggers Association in terms of compensation, and a lot of the anxiety up in my area has been negated. . . . There is still some in terms of the future, but if you can't accept some things on good faith, we would never get anywhere. We've been lucky that we have had extensive consultation in this process. Business people that, at the beginning, were very opposed and anxious about the outcome are onside, and they've been quoted in the newspapers as being onside. They might have some problem about the lack of consultation when the finer strokes to the agreement were being made, but they're still onside, and they want us to get on with it. As the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast said -- and I've said it before -- "If not this deal, then what deal? What happens?" In the past we've had the Calder case, we've had the Sparrow decision, we've had Delgamuukw. All of these cases have given first nations more than the one before. The courts are not going to let us sit on our whatever forever. They will make the decision for us; they will deal with those issues. If we're not prepared to negotiate a settlement, we will deal with more uncertainty in the time that we have.

Think about the trade-offs that they've already made. Think about the concessions that they've made in order to be part of our society, part of our economic structure. Ask yourself: if this is fair and reasonable after 100-plus years of struggle, how much more difficult will this issue be if we leave it to our children?

Somebody mentioned one time that years ago, when the treaties were settled east of the Rockies -- they were settled everywhere else in the country but B.C. -- they were very small and minor, and the number of issues weren't that great. These days we're dealing with stuff which is far more complicated than what they dealt with in the early years, so you have 270 pages of text, and you have appendices. We're dealing with resources that weren't discussed 100 years ago. Think about how much more complicated it would be.

The one issue in terms of non-Nisga'a not having the right to vote -- and they won't pay taxes to the Nisga'a government, as well, so we could talk about that -- wouldn't be a problem if this had been dealt with 50 or 100 years ago. The issues would have been much simpler. Think about how difficult it would be if we left this issue to our children and to our grandchildren. Will they be sorry that we didn't act? That's the big question.

I really appreciate your attention, hon. Speaker, and I thank the members of the House. That ends my remarks.

[5:00]

As the MLA for Okanagan-Penticton, I have the honour and the privilege of representing the residents of Peachland, Summerland, Naramata and Penticton. I try my very best to represent the views of the majority of my constituents. With reference to the settling of treaties, I believe we all agree that the sad history of Canada's relationship with its aboriginal citizens has not been a proud one. The discredited Indian Act has only produced a legacy of inequality, discrimination, dependency and economic despair. That must be corrected. The courts have made it very clear that aboriginal Canadians have undefined rights and title that are protected under section 35 of the 1982 constitution, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As you are well aware, section 35 of the Charter of Rights deals with the rights of aboriginal peoples of Canada. Section 35(1) clearly states: "The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed."

I would like to take a few moments to recognize the Nisga'a people for their longstanding commitment in seeking resolution to these very long-outstanding issues. The Nisga'a have worked tirelessly on behalf of their people, and all British Columbians and all Canadians must recognize this. I do. Today the constituents of Okanagan-Penticton have overwhelmingly told me that they support treaty resolution, provided it is done in an open, truthful, fair, equitable and affordable manner. When a treaty is signed, my constituents want it to provide certainty and finality. British Columbians want to know and be assured that when a treaty is approved and it is signed, it will not be reopened. Simply stated, a deal is a deal, and it is final.

Unfortunately the NDP government has once again tried to fool and in fact mislead British Columbians by spending in excess of $5 million of taxpayers' money on misleading and factually incorrect government propaganda related to the Nisga'a template agreement. The Premier has said: "This is for all the marbles, so to speak." The Premier has also said that this treaty is about minority rights. In fact, minority rights are protected for all Canadians, including all aboriginal rights, by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These rights cannot be extinguished or surrendered without aboriginal consent.

The Premier once again attempts to mislead British Columbians and Canadians. However, British Columbians have learned -- rather painfully, I might add -- that with our current government, it's always, always politics before princi-

[ Page 10848 ]

But perhaps division amongst British Columbians is what the Premier wants. Divide British Columbians on critical issues, and then he and his irresponsible government will not be held accountable for the damage they have caused in such areas as our health care system; our education system; our economy, which is in a complete free fall; destruction to our resource-based communities; the highest youth unemployment west of Atlantic Canada; and the separation of families -- fathers, mothers, sons and daughters -- as they've had to leave British Columbia to seek a livelihood. Perhaps these are some of the reasons our Premier and his incompetent government are trying to limit debate on the Nisga'a agreement without giving all British Columbians a real voice -- namely, a vote.

Let me restate what my constituents have told me time and time again about treaties. My constituents have said that they will support treaties that are built upon agreed-to principles, treaties that are open, truthful, fair, equitable, affordable, provide certainty and provide finality.

The Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs tabled its report to this House in early July 1997 -- some 17 months ago. The then committee chair is now the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture and the member for Vancouver-Fraserview. Both the minister and the Premier committed to British Columbians that they would issue their government's position with respect to the minority recommendations contained within the report and clearly listed on pages 96 through 99. As of this date, we have yet another broken promise. On reflection, it's certainly not the first broken promise -- nor will it be the last.

Let me read recommendation No. 25 from the report: "No treaty, including the Nisga'a treaty, should be introduced in the Legislature for debate and final ratification until a majority of British Columbian voters have given their express approval by a provincewide referendum on either the Nisga'a final agreement or a comprehensive negotiating mandate for all future treaties." This recommendation was made after some 560 oral presentations, an additional 232 written submissions, some 33 public meetings held throughout British Columbia and 22 days of briefings and deliberations. In other words, unlike the Premier, the committee members actually listened to British Columbians. So why does this Premier and the NDP government not want to let democracy work and let all British Columbians participate in full democracy -- namely, a vote on the principles of treaty settlement? Is the Premier telling British Columbians that he knows what is best for British Columbians, or is he saying that he doesn't trust British Columbians? Which is it?

My constituents have continually mentioned the following areas of concern, besides their call for a personal vote on the Nisga'a treaty and treaty mandate. Their concerns are tax equality, the Nisga'a government nation vis-à-vis a municipal-style government and third, finality.

Let me first talk a little bit about finality. Will the Nisga'a treaty provide finality? No, it will not. There are at least 50 areas under the current treaty where ongoing consultation will be required or where -- and I quote from the treaty -- British Columbia and the Nisga'a nation "will negotiate and attempt to reach agreement" on unresolved issues. The Nisga'a wildlife management will also give the Nisga'a permanent rights respecting the planning of activities outside the Nisga'a lands that will not end the current uncertainty on Crown lands. New uncertainty will similarly be created in the area of fishery management on the Nass, because overlapping claims with neighbouring first nations have not yet been resolved. There will also be ongoing uncertainty relating to rights granted to the Nisga'a on those disputed territories. Does this create certainty and finality? No, it does not.

Let's look, if we could, at the municipal style of government. The NDP government and the Premier have stated in their misleading advertising: "The Nisga'a government. The treaty allows the Nisga'a people to govern themselves in a way comparable to a municipal government." That government ad is factually wrong. It is misleading, and one must ask oneself why this government does not want people to know all of the facts.

I ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs to stand up in this House today and name the municipalities in British Columbia that will have the same rights as the Nisga'a. Please tell this House which municipality does not pay GST, similar to the Nisga'a nation. Please name one. In addition, I ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs to name in this House today one municipality in British Columbia that has the power to establish laws which are paramount to provincial and federal laws. Please name one municipality. Hon. Speaker, as you are no doubt aware, the Nisga'a government will have paramount power over federal and provincial laws in some 14 areas of jurisdiction where conflicts emerge. Which municipality has those powers? You and I both know that there are none. There are none. Why, then, would this NDP government mislead British Columbians? Why can't this government put facts forward in an open, honest and truthful manner? Is that too much to ask of this government?

Now let me move to tax equality. The government advertising states the following: "The Nisga'a will be subject to all provincial and federal taxes and are the first aboriginal group in Canada to agree to give up their Indian Act tax exemptions." I ask the Minister of Finance to stand in this House and tell all British Columbians the facts, in a straightforward manner, with respect to her government's claims with respect to taxation equality and the details thereof -- please, just the facts. Question one on taxation: are the Nisga'a really the first aboriginal group in Canada to give up their tax exemption, as the NDP advertising has claimed? The answer is simply no. The Nisga'a are not the first aboriginal group in Canada to voluntarily surrender their Indian Act exemptions. Under the 1993 Yukon umbrella agreement, it was agreed to phase out all sales tax and income tax exemptions after only three years. Why, then, has this NDP government purposely misled British Columbians? This government must stop causing division amongst British Columbians. But in fairness to the Nisga'a, over time they will move to pay taxes.

[5:15]

[ Page 10849 ]

Why has this Premier once again given British Columbians misinformation and not the facts in a straightforward manner? Furthermore, why has this NDP government not told British Columbians that there is a clause allowing the Nisga'a to renegotiate for more favourable tax treatment if any other first nation in the northwest strikes a better deal? Is that finality? No, it is not. But why has this Premier not told British Columbians all of the facts? That point keeps coming up over and over.

Finally, my constituents have asked me: what is the total cost of the Nisga'a template treaty? Well, the Premier told British Columbians that the cost was $190 million. Now we have the facts. The facts are that we do not know what the final cost will be. The government has identified costs totalling at least $490 million, including $312 million in cash costs. B.C. taxpayers will contribute $227.5 million through the provincial government, or almost 47 percent of the cost. In addition, British Columbians will pay their share of the Canadian taxpayers' cost through the federal government.

These are but a few of the concerns that my constituents have shared with me. I strongly suggest that British Columbians do not have any confidence in this government to negotiate in an open, fair, truthful and equitable manner.

My constituents have also asked me: "How would the B.C. Liberals improve the treaty and the process?" Well, let me put forward six suggestions for improvements. First let's get a clear negotiating mandate from the people on the principles that all treaties should reflect, by the way of a one-time provincial referendum on questions developed either by an all-party committee of the Legislature or an independent citizens panel. The aim should be to develop an acceptable, affordable mandate that offers potential to expedite treaties that provide certainty, finality and equality in all respects.

Second, we should establish up front how much land and cash taxpayers will be expected to contribute for the settlement of all land claims in British Columbia. Treaties will obviously contain different proportions of cash and land, but the value per capita available to all first nations for settlement should be clear and consistent, so that everyone is treated equally.

Third, we should negotiate municipal-style self-government agreements outside of treaties, with equal voting rights for all residents and delegated powers that ensure that federal and provincial laws are always legally paramount and that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is always fully protected.

Fourth, we should ensure that federal and provincial laws regulating environmental assessment and forest practices and standards are consistently applied and not further complicated with different laws created by aboriginal governments.

Fifth, we should facilitate aboriginal participation in the commercial fishery through monetary assistance and treaty settlements, while rejecting aboriginal-only commercial fishing rights and entitlements in treaties.

Sixth, we should ensure that existing aboriginal rights are protected under section 35 of the constitution and are fairly reflected and codified but not dramatically expanded through treaty settlements.

British Columbians want resolution -- resolution that is final, fair, equitable, affordable and workable. The treaty, as proposed, will not meet these benchmarks. British Columbians want to be part of this resolution, and thus, in the final analysis, they should and must be given their democratic right and voice -- a vote. And thus a one-time provincial referendum on this critical matter must be given to all British Columbians.

As an 82-year-old constituent of mine told me the other day: "This is about my grandchildren's future." Surely British Columbians, who are a very giving and caring society, deserve a true voice -- the vote. By this Premier and his government denying British Columbians a vote, he is saying: "I know best." He is saying: "I do not trust you or your judgment."

I do understand why some British Columbians may not trust the Premier. However, when it comes to settling land claims in a fair and just manner, I trust the voice of British Columbians. When it comes to trust, I trust British Columbians to do the right thing.

D. Jarvis: I appreciate the opportunity to enter into the debate on Bill 51, the Nisga'a Final Agreement Act. I think that it's only proper to say, right from the start, that I am in full support of the aboriginal goals. They, along with all British Columbians, want to achieve a settlement, a finality of the long-outstanding treaty issues. It goes without saying that the quality of life of Canadians living on reserves is a disgrace. Native people of this province have been legislated by a federal system of settlement that over the years condemned them to a life of poverty, sickness and squalor. We must end their dependency and economic despair. I believe that I can say for my constituents that they also support the concept of a better way. The current situation is untenable and must be replaced.

There is absolutely no reason why native Indians in British Columbia do not deserve the opportunity to share in the good life that so many of us already enjoy. However, Madam Speaker, I will oppose Bill 51 -- and not because I am mean spirited or because much of the content is flawed. It is to say that there are benefits and contents within that will alter substantially the economic, social and political fabric of this province, and this is wrong. The problem, therefore, is how to achieve the desired results of remedying the very obvious. . .native policy of this country.

What this agreement does tell us is that it was constructed by a closed process. There was very little, if any, input by any other than this government's negotiators and the Nisga'a negotiators -- and all under the treaty process, with no input by the rest of British Columbia. This in itself has set the agreement up to encourage and promote cultural distinction instead of creating an opportunity of equality.

This bill will continue to create division and push the people of British Columbia further and further apart. We are seeing divisions across this province that can only harm our future, not because people do not support aboriginal goals but because this government has failed to include all of the people of B.C. The premise that this agreement will bring certainty to resource industries such as forestry, mining and fishing is far from true. This agreement on its own cannot bring certainty; certainty is not in this bill. When the enormity of the impact of this agreement is realized -- with the thought that a further 50-plus agreements may follow -- the resource industries will only continue their flight from British Columbia.

The economics of this province are at a delicate point. We can be a competitive province, in competition with the rest of

[ Page 10850 ]

Where is the socioeconomic study to justify the agreement? If the public outside of the Nass Valley is not allowed to give their input, surely this government can provide studies that will quantify and qualify the justification. Or are we to assume that a socioeconomic analysis was not undertaken or even considered? If this is so, then it's quite obvious that the NDP government was not looking after the interests of all the other people in British Columbia.

If this is the template for all treaty agreements, where do the direct and indirect costs stop? We are entering into agreements based on emotions rather than socioeconomic soundness. There is an emotional equation, and it will change with each new treaty signed. This alone should not be the basis of settlements, as it will jeopardize this whole province and in the end be more detrimental to the native bands.

The socioeconomic impact on the resource communities throughout this province as this treaty process advances will be enormous. These resource communities will be adversely affected. What will the impact be on towns across the north, central and eastern portions of British Columbia that are resource oriented? People are asking if the Nisga'a deal will affect them? I believe it will -- and adversely.

If the economics of this agreement are not established prior to the mandate, you can expect that all future claims will certainly be going for more rather than less. Greater uncertainty will prevail. The ante will only increase, Madam Speaker.

Mining ventures will consider business in B.C. risky. They now see that 12 percent of B.C. will be in parks and 8 percent in restricted protected areas. Now an untold percentage will be allotted to over 50 more native bands in this province, still with no certainty that they can explore and develop. So mining as a resource industry becomes a business at risk in this province. It requires high levels of exploration and development, but when the land base for exploration shrinks, the risk factor increases dramatically.

[5:30]

Also, the question of taxation revenue over these 40 years is in the billions of dollars, and that just cannot be ignored. If industry leaves this province because of a political influence, the loss can only devastate services to the taxpayers -- health and education, to name just two. This agreement and those to come have certainly not taken into account the economic value of mining and other resources industry in the future.

Security of mineral tenure and the access to land are considered nowhere in this bill. The latest survey of 174 mining companies in B.C. identified the aboriginal land claims as a major concern -- 92 percent. Therefore it's conclusive evidence to dispel any previous doubt that aboriginal claims are of a paramount concern to the exploration companies planning to work in British Columbia.

These are the concerns which will affect B.C.'s economic future. There is a pervasive sense of despair out there not only as a result of revenue lost to this province but that this government will have to resort to more taxation and take them into further economic oblivion.

There are many aspects, as I've been citing, that warrant further consideration before this bill is concluded. The rights of the Nisga'a, without question, should be put into the treaty so that they can direct their future. The Indian Act should be abolished. We should end 120 years of discrimination. We are not going forward but backward when we see agreements based on ethnicity and religion and the balkanization of the native people into a patchwork throughout this province.

I believe there is a certain amount of paternalism being presented to compensate for their aggrieved past, and I agree there should be some compensation. However, to what extent do we go? How much do we owe as a result of grievances of our past? The courts have ruled that we must make a settlement, and most people in British Columbia agree with that. But again, to what extent? Why was this treaty kept so secret before being dropped on us to make a decision? My constituents are indeed upset -- not about the treaty per se, but about unknown factors foisted on them. They're upset with the unknown of future treaties and with not being allowed to participate, at least through a referendum.

Let me give you an example of one of the bands in my riding, the Burrard band. They have stated that they want to pursue a different approach to settling a treaty, through negotiation of joint ventures. They want a sharing of profits on all goods going in and out of the Vancouver harbour, plus they want co-management of industry and land, such as the Indian Arm. They're all very good discussion points, but we never hear the discussions, we never see the results, and we never hear of the economic studies or the ramifications of such negotiations. All we shall hear is the fait accompli. As we are now hearing, the Burrard band agreement is now going to be fast-tracked by this government for possibly this spring -- perhaps to be used as another template for our urban areas so that they may get on board. Who knows? There are a lot of rumours and not a lot of facts.

The people in the remainder of this province just do not know, do not agree and, what's worse, are not given a chance to disagree or agree. And that is wrong. This government is elected to represent all the people, not just the special-interest few. My constituents and the rest of British Columbians should have the right to vote by referendum on the expanded new treaty rights. Aboriginal rights are already protected in the constitution, but this agreement will change all their rights throughout British Columbia. This government has an obligation morally and legally to all British Columbians to allow their opinions to be heard. I worry about the economic future of my children, my grandchildren, the families of my constituents and all the families in British Columbia, aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike.

Hon. J. Pullinger: It's rare that one has the privilege in this chamber of participating in a debate of this kind of his-

[ Page 10851 ]

I want to begin by extending my congratulations to both the leadership and the membership of the people in the Nisga'a nation. This treaty ends a 111-year struggle for justice on the part of the Nisga'a. Those years, I can only imagine, must have been frustrating and discouraging most of the time, and I certainly applaud the perseverance, the dignity, the tenacity and, above all, the patience of the Nisga'a people in their long fight for justice. It's a proud event, I am sure, for the Nisga'a to have reached this milestone. And it's a proud moment for British Columbians, the majority of whom I am very pleased to say support not only the concept of settling treaties but also support this treaty now.

Yesterday we stood witness to the conclusion of a voyage the Nisga'a began 111 years ago, and I think most of us found it a very, very moving time. Yesterday the Nisga'a people symbolically re-enacted their historic 1887 trip to this Legislature. At that time, 111 years ago, because of their concerns about non-aboriginal, non-Nisga'a encroachment on their lands, the Nisga'a paddled 1,000 kilometres to Victoria to bring their concerns and their pursuit of justice to the provincial government. Very sadly -- perhaps tragically -- at that time they were rejected; the door was closed. Not only were their claims rejected, but their place as equals and first occupants of this land were all simply dismissed. Yesterday it was very moving, therefore, to see the Premier of this province not only greet the Nisga'a warmly and welcome them into the Legislature but welcome them into British Columbia and into Canada.

Some years ago, I did a degree in Canadian studies at Carleton. I had the privilege of taking a number of courses in first nations studies at that time. I was also able to sit in on meetings of the world association of indigenous peoples and of the national leaders of aboriginal people of this country. I got to listen to debates and discussions and to take part in seminars. I also took one seminar that was a core course, and it was called "White Man's Indian." That was a fascinating, if distressing, window into the history of this country in terms of the relationship between the Europeans who came here and the aboriginal people who had been here for some 10,000 years. What that course did was look through the eyes of the newcomers over a space of 200 years and watch them define, redefine and define again the aboriginal people in this country. Sadly, virtually all of that definition was racist. There's no other way to describe it; it was simply racist.

What happened over 100 years ago in this province started from the same kinds of ethnocentric assumptions that were held so many years ago by virtually all of those who came here. What happened throughout most of our history is that the Nisga'a and other first nations were subject to those kinds of assumptions that today, happily, I think the overwhelming majority of us would say are intolerable. The assumptions that were made throughout most of our post-contact history have been that somehow the aboriginal peoples were inferior, that their complex and sophisticated societies that were encountered were uncivilized or heathen, and that in virtually every way the aboriginal people were less than the culture and society that the newcomers brought with them.

For most of our history, the answer to the Indian question, as it's been called, has been to deny their culture, language, customs, traditions, economy, laws, religion, political institutions and so on -- in fact, to deny all that made up their very highly sophisticated and prosperous societies, especially along the coast of this province, where the majority of the very diverse aboriginal societies lived. We've denied the fact that they were highly sophisticated societies -- some of the most sophisticated we've seen. We've also used every means to force those individuals to assimilate into the ways of the non-native newcomers.

Those assumptions and attitudes underpinned an official view of aboriginal people that has resulted in paternalistic, patronizing and today simply unacceptable policies. Some of them are in effect today. Most notably, the Indian Act, which the Nisga'a final agreement ends for the Nisga'a people, continues to dictate virtually every aspect of the lives of Canadian aboriginal people. Aboriginal people can't make a will. They can't sell, lease or mortgage their property. They can't even make a deal in my riding, for instance, about where the highway is going to go through their own land without getting permission from the federal government under the Indian Act. In short, the Indian Act controls the lives of aboriginal people in this country and in this province in a way that anyone would simply find intolerable. The Indian Act remains in force today, and that's the Indian Act that will be ended as this treaty comes into force.

But that's not all. Throughout our history, aboriginal people have been denied the right to vote -- until the 1960s. They couldn't hire a lawyer to represent them in land claims. They couldn't even meet in groups of three or more unless it was for purposes of Christian religious celebration. Their religion and cultural practices were outlawed. The potlatch, which was a cornerstone of so much of their society and their customs. . . . Their children have been taken away at four years old and sent away to boarding schools and abused.

Those are some examples I know we're all familiar with. But I think it's enough to make the point that we have systematically and systemically and deliberately through official policy, based on some pretty strange attitudes in today's context, removed all of the aboriginal institutions, undermined their culture and their communities, and marginalized aboriginal people on small reserve lands into a life that didn't hold much hope.

Hon. Speaker, I think we all know that we can't change the past, but we do have before us today an opportunity to begin to change the future. One hundred and eleven years ago the Nisga'a were turned away. Yesterday the Nisga'a were welcomed warmly into this Legislature and into the mainstream and into full participation in Canadian and British Columbia life. I think that's very, very important.

I find it very discomforting to say the least to see some of the attitudes and comments that continue today. It makes me wonder if the opposition were on this side of the House, whether in fact the door would have opened, whether in fact the Nisga'a would have been welcomed into this chamber. It seems to me that it's becoming increasingly obvious that they may well have been turned away yet again.

I know that members opposite -- and some listening -- may say how dare I make such an argument. But let me just simply put the facts before us. Let's look at the string of objections that have been raised by members opposite. To be fair, they all stand up and say that they're in favour of negotiating treaties, just not this treaty.

You know, the Nisga'a people have had 111 years of waiting and patiently petitioning government, going to the

[ Page 10852 ]

[5:45]

Let's look at it in a little more detail. One of the objections we hear is about all these gated communities where we're going to have race-based governments. Well, first of all, gated communities. . . . I don't know about everybody else, but there are lots of them in my riding and they are not aboriginal gated communities. I have yet to hear any member of the opposition ever complain about those gated communities or the private lands that were given away in the 1880s. A quarter of Vancouver Island was given away to an individual who, in return, had to build 100 kilometres of railway track, which took him a year. I never hear any complaints about that. Those are private lands that are off limits to the rest of us. What is the difference there? Why are some gated communities okay and not even worthy of mention and others are suddenly a big problem? I think people need to draw their own conclusions.

Similarly, the members opposite say that they're all in favour of self-government. Well, we all know that self-government isn't something that we're going to give to somebody. We know that the courts have said again and again that they have a right to self-government. What we're doing here is defining how that self-government will work. We hear a great long string of complaints about self-government. When you scrape it all away, hon. Speaker, what they're saying is that they're in favour of self-government as long as it looks just like ours. It's not okay for the Nisga'a people to define their own form of self-government. They want it just like ours.

It ignores also, I might add -- and this is where I struggle a little bit and wonder what the defining factor is -- variations in our own self-government. We have not one model. We have regional districts, cities, towns, villages, unincorporated areas, incorporated areas; we have the Vancouver Charter -- their very own self-government over on the lower mainland -- and we have the Islands Trust. These are all unique local governments to serve unique local needs. What's the difference between all of this, which I have never heard the members opposite complain about, and the Nisga'a, who want their own unique self-government? Draw your own conclusion.

What about this issue of referenda? Apart from the flip-flops, I've heard -- I don't know if it was today or yesterday in the House -- that they have never called for a referendum on the treaty, just on the principles. They've never done that. We all know that they ran in 1996 saying that a referendum would be inappropriate -- certainly not necessary. They understood that the framework said we would settle it in the legislatures by free vote. But that changed. Now they're saying that they never called for a referendum on the Nisga'a treaty.

The problem is that on July 27, 1998, a Liberal press release said: "B.C. Liberals Call for a Provincewide Referendum on the Nisga'a Treaty." They want it on the treaty. Gee, so that's changed again.

An Hon. Member: That's interesting.

Hon. J. Pullinger: Yeah.

So the argument that they're trying to use here -- although they keep flip-flopping all over the place, and we've got five or six or seven or maybe 33 different positions on referenda. . . . But what they're trying to argue is that somehow, because we won't have a referendum, we won't listen to what people say -- that people have been shut out.

Hon. Speaker, that ignores over 400 public meetings on this issue. That ignores two years that the interim agreement -- an election run with the interim agreement before the public. . . . That ignores the provincial advisory committees and the local advisory committees. It ignores the all-party committee that travelled this province. It ignores the fact that the terms for negotiations set out the ratification process in the beginning. It said that -- while the Nisga'a people had their relationship with Canada fundamentally changed under the constitution, and therefore, because they're giving up rights, they had to have a referendum or a vote with each person in the Nisga'a community having a say -- those same terms of reference under which we began negotiations said very clearly that this treaty would be ratified in this Legislature and in the federal legislature.

So why is it that, you know, the Liberals ran in 1996 saying they understood all of that -- they knew that -- and today they're making the opposite argument or arguments. I also think it's rather hypocritical that while the Liberals, the members opposite, seem terribly concerned about this treaty, they want to violate all of the principles that underpin the negotiation process by changing the rules at the end of the day.

Why is it that on a treaty such as the Nisga'a treaty, which affects only the Nisga'a in any serious way, they need a referendum? But when it comes to something like the Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, the MAI, the gutting of transfer payments for social programs and in fact the tearing up of the fabric of the social contract and the social programs that have made this country the best place in the world to live for years, why is it that when all of that takes place they have seen no need for a referendum? What's the difference between those issues and the Nisga'a treaty? I think people have to have a look and make up their own minds.

It's clear to me that the members opposite, sadly, hold some of the attitudes which we've seen in the past that have underpinned so much of our very unfortunate legislation and rather tragic history. We've even heard the members opposite, in a number of places, say that they want to use the principles on which this country was founded. They want to go back to the past. Surely those are the very principles that got us into this problem. We need to look forward and find a new way to begin.

The members opposite have questioned whether the Nisga'a people can hold their own election. I've never heard them question the municipalities or regional districts or Islands Trust or the city of Vancouver or the provincial or federal governments whether they can capably hold an election and count the ballots. But somehow the Nisga'a are suspect. What's the difference?

They're also saying that it's an outrage that there are some areas over which the Nisga'a will have authority, that

[ Page 10853 ]

What about the issue of land? The members opposite are on record as saying that they should own land in the same way as other British Columbians do. On CKOV radio, the member for Matsqui was asked about that issue. And what about this communal ownership of land which David Black so vehemently opposes? The answer is that the individuals -- the Nisga'a -- must be provided with the same opportunities right across the province. In other words, the members opposite think it's okay for them to have the title to their own land clarified, but they must own it the same way as us.

In other words, what the members opposite are saying is that they can have their land, if they do it our way. They can have their cultural institutions, if they do it by our rules. They can have self-government, as long as they do it our way. It's clear to me that the same kinds of attitudes that have tried to force aboriginal people in this country and province to assimilate and be "just like us" are alive and well today. And I think that's very, very sad, to say the least.

Yesterday the Nisga'a people came to this place and sat here -- most of them had never been here before -- and it was a moving celebration of them finally gaining entrance, both symbolically and really, into this place. The member for Matsqui went outside to their press gallery and dubbed these people, who have fought for 111 years for the right to come in here, as a "cheerleading section." Clearly, if the members opposite were sitting on this side of the House, this stonewalling and obstructionist behaviour that has gone on throughout all of our history would continue, and the Nisga'a would have been turned away yesterday.

I think we have a lot of debate about democracy and their concern about democracy, but it's very clear, based on the evidence, that in fact what the Liberals are doing is using every means at their disposal to try to hijack this treaty and stop it from happening. To suggest that we don't have to settle treaties is simply not the case. There are economic reasons, there are legal reasons, and there are moral reasons, which a number of my colleagues have outlined clearly.

But I also want to refer to what happens when you don't settle treaties. In fact, today in Australia, the Australian government decided it would do as some people have sadly suggested -- that we just ignore it, that we just legislate away their rights. Apart from being fundamentally immoral, what happened in Australia is that the aboriginal people of course went to court, and they were awarded 7,600 square kilometres of land. That's probably much more than they would have negotiated. So the courts are very clear -- the courts in British Columbia are very clear; the courts in other places are clear -- that we must settle these treaties.

This treaty is the end of a long and painful journey for the Nisga'a. It's a new beginning. It's a new way. It's an opportunity for us to build our communities on mutual respect, on inclusion, on the assumption that we all have something to learn from each other -- that we are in fact all equal and that first nations institutions, customs, language and ways have every bit as much validity as any other.

The opportunity we have in this Nisga'a final settlement is to set the basis for the Nisga'a people to rebuild their lives and communities. When this treaty is passed in both legislatures and by the Nisga'a, they'll have a land base; they'll have resources and compensation to build their economy; they'll have the control they need to recreate their society and their culture and to keep it strong; and they'll have clearly defined rights to govern themselves according to their own traditions, not ours, and to their own culture and their own needs. The constraints of the Indian Act will be removed, and the Nisga'a will be able to move, for the first time ever, into full participation in British Columbia. We will be able, as British Columbians, to celebrate increasingly, as aboriginal land claims are settled, our cultural diversity.

I know that the members opposite understand economic diversity; we all do. We also all know that in order to have a strong economy, we need to put our effort and our finances and our policies toward making sure that some of the parts of our economy that aren't participating as fully as they can are brought into the mainstream. Well, it seems to me that that very same analogy applies to people, to society. If we're going to be a strong society and a strong province, we need to take this step, and many more like it, to open the doors and welcome the aboriginal people of British Columbia into the mainstream as part of our cultural fabric.

[6:00]

Hon. Speaker, noting the hour, I would adjourn debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I would offer that the House will sit tomorrow, and at this time I move that the House do now adjourn.

Hon. J. Pullinger moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:01 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1998: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada