[ Page 10855 ]

The House met at 2:09 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. A. Petter: I am pleased to make two introductions today. First of all, it gives me great pleasure to introduce to the House a distinguished visitor from the People's Republic of China, Mr. Xu Xi'an, vice-mayor of Beijing and director general of the Education Commission for Beijing, and his delegation. Mr. Xu and his delegation are in British Columbia at the invitation of the Canadian International College in North Vancouver to discuss education partnerships. I'll be meeting with the delegation this afternoon, and I hope that their stay here will be an enjoyable and productive one. I'd ask the House to join me in making them welcome.

Also in the gallery today is someone whom I knew when I was a lot younger, growing up in Victoria. Rev. Harold Munn, rector of the Church of St. John the Divine in Victoria, boarded with my family when he attended the university. In fact, my dad used to kid him at the table; and I remember him spouting out and giggling at most inappropriate times. So I hope he's curbed that tendency now that he's rector of St. John the Divine in Victoria. But I'm delighted that Dr. Munn and his wife Clairehave returned to Victoria. They're here with their twin sons, to take up a new posting at St. John. I'd ask the House to join me in making them very welcome.

Hon. H. Lali: I'd like to introduce Mr. Tony Toth, president of the B.C. Road Builders and Heavy Construction Association. Mr. Toth and the Road Builders do a superb job of building and maintaining B.C.'s roads. This year we invested $700 million, and his membership employed 10,000 British Columbians. Mr. Toth is in the Legislature today, and I'd like to welcome him and members of his association. Would the House please welcome them.

R. Kasper: Today visiting us in the gallery is a good friend, Ardyth Cooper. Ardyth is a member of the T'sou-ke nation. She is negotiating on behalf of the T'sou-ke nation, involved with the Te'mexw Treaty Association. Would the House please make her feel welcome.

Hon. I. Waddell: I rise as Minister of Culture. Yesterday and the day before, the Attorney General and the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain mentioned the passing of some distinguished British Columbians. I would like to note for the House the sad passing of the artist Jack Shadbolt. His works will remain after him. He was a great figure in art in British Columbia and in Canada. He did live a long and distinguished life and contributed greatly to our society.

J. Cashore: I have two introductions on this significant day. The first person I would like to introduce is Alec Hawke, who is from New Zealand. Alec is a Maori, and he's in the precinct because he wants to be here on this special day. In New Zealand he was very much involved in the struggle for justice for Maori people. I'd also like to introduce another friend of mine, who's also been very much involved in the struggle for justice throughout his ministry, Rev. Dale Perkins, who is the minister of Cadboro Bay United Church here in Victoria. Would the House join me in making both of these gentlemen welcome.

A. Sanders: In the gallery today is my constituency assistant, Wendy King. Wendy has extensive experience in both federal and provincial politics now, and I'm so grateful to have her here. Please welcome her.

B. Goodacre: In the gallery today we have Dr. Isaac Sobol, the medical health officer of the Nass, who is in Victoria to meet with the Nisga'a health council tomorrow and who has taken the opportunity to see Dr. Joe Gosnell today. Could the House please make him welcome.

Hon. D. Miller: I would also like to extend greetings to Dr. Sobol and also to Fr. Ian MacKenzie, a gentleman I've known for many, many years, who I think was a great help to the Nisga'a along this long journey of theirs. I'd like to acknowledge Fr. MacKenzie as well, and to pay tribute again to Dr. Frank Calder, who's seated on the floor of the Legislature with us here today.

Oral Questions

CHOICE OF FOREST COMPANIES FOR GOVERNMENT SUPPORT

[2:15]

The Speaker: First supplementary, member for Shuswap.

G. Abbott: We know all too well the consequences of the reckless policy adventures of this government. Over the past seven years, this government has been an absolute, unmitigated disaster. They have completely destroyed the competitive position of the forest industry. Even the president of Canadian Woodworks says: "Our competitive position as an industry is gone." Can the Minister of Forests tell us: if his heavily subsidized pet projects can't survive, who can?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: If that member would read about the value-added industry, he would know that it's the logging side that makes money for the value-added industry, and they are struggling to develop further. It isn't the log cost that's the problem; there are other problems in marketing and so on. But as a matter of fact, we have taken action, as late as last Friday, to reduce the cost of logs to the value-added industry. If that member were to ask that person from Canadian Woodworks that he just quoted, he'll tell you that what we did will help his company.

[ Page 10856 ]

JOB LOSS IN FOREST SECTOR

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members, order.

C. Clark: . . .about the value-added industry in British Columbia. In fact, I visited a web site called "Woodlinks," which is funded by Forest Renewal B.C.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. . . .

C. Clark: The "Woodlinks" web site. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. . . .

Interjections.

C. Clark: The "Woodlinks" web site. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member, just a minute.

Government members will come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: We will not proceed until we come to order in this House.

Member, proceed.

C. Clark: Thank you, hon. Speaker. When I visited the "Woodlinks" web site, which the minister will know is funded by Forest Renewal B.C. and is subtitled "Another Forest Renewal B.C. Success Story," I found that just eight months ago it had a glowing tribute to this company, Canadian Woodworks. It went into detail about how great they're doing. Well, today when I pulled up that web site, guess what I found? "File not found." It's a blank page. If we on this side of the House are exaggerating the problems in the forest industry, can the Forests minister explain to us today why his success stories are literally disappearing off the radar screen?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. . . .

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It is a sad day when the Forests critic can't sustain two questions and when we have someone who knows nothing about the. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. . . .

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: . . .forest industry asking questions, because if you went to that company, you'd find out they opened their doors again last week -- before I made the tribute.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members, order.

First supplementary, Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain.

C. Clark: I think that with this Forests minister, the option that we should choose on the computer is "Delete." That's the option that we should choose with this minister, because the forest industry in British Columbia has deteriorated to such an extent that workers in British Columbia don't know, when they leave their houses in the morning, if the business that they're going to work at is going to be open or if it's going to be closed. Will this minister stand up and admit today that the reason workers in British Columbia have to live with this uncertainty is because his government's policies have dug a hole so deep for forest companies that companies can no longer compete?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It's very interesting. The Forests critic for the opposition is personally phoning people in Merritt, asking them not to support the opposition of the member for Yale-Lillooet to the closure of the Weyerhaeuser mill. They are not in favour of keeping mills open. They want to go with the company agenda of shutting down as many as they can. On this side, we're opposed to that.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

CHOICE OF FOREST COMPANIES FOR GOVERNMENT SUPPORT

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I admit today that after years of non-support for the value-added industry, which that member's party governed for a long time. . . . After years of neglect, I am proud to say that we have an agency of this government -- Forest Renewal -- that is prepared to support the value-added industry.

The Speaker: First supplementary, Peace River North.

R. Neufeld: Mill after mill after mill after business in the forest industry around this province is going into the tank. They're going bankrupt on a daily basis, hon. minister. The job protection commissioner has come into many of those. Even with that help, even with millions of dollars given out by

[ Page 10857 ]

How can you stand there today and say that just last Friday you initiated things. . .

The Speaker: Through the Chair.

R. Neufeld: . . .that would help the industry? My goodness, Mr. Minister, the industry has been in trouble for a lot longer than since last Friday, for God's sake. That's the problem with you folks -- you can't recognize. . .

The Speaker: Your question, hon. member.

R. Neufeld: . . .when the problem comes. When will the minister finally deal with the problems in the forest industry that his government has initiated?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

I call on the Minister of Forests.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: That member knows that when there's a company in trouble in his riding, he comes to me or whoever is the Forests minister of the day, and he knows that on the Canadian Chopstick factory, we've done what he has asked us to do. He didn't ask us to step in with a loan guarantee; he asked us to see if there was anything we could do. We went back to him, and we did everything he asked us to do.

JOB LOSS IN FOREST SECTOR

I want to ask the minister how he reconciles that number with the figure that appears in his "Forest Sector Layoff Estimate" report. Remember, those are the reports that the minister promised this House that he was going to produce and table on a biweekly basis. The last one of those that we received says that we've lost 10,564 family-supporting forest sector jobs in this province. I want to know how the minister reconciles the figure he gave us yesterday with that figure, and when is he going to start telling the truth to the people that matter in this province.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Speaking of the truth, that opposition takes whatever comes out of the mouths of the industry association -- which was 15,000 -- to scare people. That's your source of information.

I'm going to offer you a briefing again, and we will show you the reconciliation. But rather than quibble over numbers -- and the facts are from Statistics Canada -- industry agreed we would use the SEPH data. I've said it before, but this is an inane debate. We use those statistics, and those statistics say 5,000. I'm admitting the truth. We aren't spending a lot of time collecting data when we can be out there fixing the problems.

You know, today we're going to be asking a Nisga'a leader to speak at the Bar of this House. That's about the economy too; it's about certainty through the resolution of land claims.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I think this kind of debate. . .

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: . . .on a day like today really demeans what we're here for.

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We have admitted the problem.

The Speaker: Minister of Forests, thank you very much.

Interjections.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The opposition wants to catcall. We have. . . .

The Speaker: Minister, thank you very much.

First supplementary, the hon. member for Matsqui.

M. de Jong: Madam Speaker, I'll tell you what's demeaning. It's a minister that smugly tries to ignore the plight of British Columbia families that his government has put out of work; that's what's demeaning.

I'm going to give the minister a chance to do something novel, and that's keep his word. On May 27 in this House, he said he would table those biweekly reports. They're not my reports; they're not his reports; they're your reports. When will you keep your word?

The Speaker: Through the Chair, hon. member.

M. de Jong: Table them. . .

The Speaker: Hon. member. . . .

M. de Jong: . . .so British Columbians will know the truth about what you've done to their economy.

The Speaker: The member will take his seat.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It is difficult to maintain composure and dignity in the face of an inane and ignorant opposition.

I said I would consider tabling the reports. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members!

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: . . .and we gave the reports out publicly. I also said that there were problems with the scientific validity of distinguishing permanent versus temporary curtailments due to market problems. I said that we have to fall back on the facts as reported by Statistics Canada, and I stand by that.

[ Page 10858 ]

CHOICE OF FOREST COMPANIES FOR GOVERNMENT SUPPORT

[2:30]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I think that member is playing politics with the jobs of the people in Canadian Woodworks and Woodland Windows. That opposition would not step in when there are hundreds of value-added jobs at stake. This government is committed to supporting the value-added industry through tough times, and I remind the opposition that we also picked the company, Sonax, in Osoyoos, which also needed assistance.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. That ends question period.

The member for Shuswap rises on what point?

G. Abbott: This being my first opportunity, I rise to reserve my right to raise a point of privilege in respect of the comments of the Minister of Forests.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. Duly noted. I recognize the member for Peace River South.

Petitions

Orders of the Day

Motions on Notice

PERMISSION FOR CHIEF GOSNELL OF NISGA'A NATION TO ADDRESS HOUSE

[That Chief Gosnell of the Nisga'a Nation be permitted to address this Assembly from the Bar of the House.]

Chief Gosnell is a respected leader not just in his own community but throughout this province and indeed around the world, and he has shared the struggle of the Nisga'a people through more than 20 years of painstaking negotiation to reach the Nisga'a final agreement. This is not only an accomplishment for the benefit of the Nisga'a people. British Columbians from all walks of life have asked our governments repeatedly to get on with the business of resolving native land claims.

The Nisga'a have negotiated honourably and in good faith for over 20 years. They have chosen negotiations over lawsuits and blockades and confrontation. These negotiations have been about reconciliation and about compromise. These negotiations have been getting on with resolving this great unfinished business of British Columbia. For too long the Nisga'a people, and aboriginal people generally, have been living in unacceptable conditions of poverty, discrimination and neglect by our larger society. For too long the Nisga'a people and other Indian people have been subject to an Indian Act and a reserve system that don't work. For too long this system has been too costly, both in terms of dollars and cents and in the immeasurable currency of human suffering and lost opportunity.

The Nisga'a treaty represents a giant step forward in eliminating this unfair, unaffordable system, and Chief Joseph Gosnell's leadership has been instrumental in ensuring that it is a fair, affordable treaty that works for all British Columbians.

The Nisga'a people have made many compromises and sacrifices in order to ensure that through this treaty, they will be part of Canada and subject to the laws and standards of Canada and British Columbia. They've agreed that the treaty will be a full and final settlement of their land claim, providing the certainty British Columbia needs to attract new jobs and investments. This is the result of the balanced give-and-take that has characterized the Nisga'a treaty negotiations. It stems from the very real desire of the Nisga'a people, in the words of Chief Gosnell, "to negotiate their way back into Canada."

In the past it has been the privilege of this chamber to hear directly from citizens on very rare occasions on important, major issues facing our province. As we consider the Nisga'a treaty, I believe that it is very appropriate, perhaps

[ Page 10859 ]

I encourage all members to support this motion to allow Chief Gosnell to address this assembly.

Hon. D. Miller: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to rise in support of the motion, and I'll be brief.

First of all, I want to acknowledge and concur with the remarks made by the Premier about Joe Gosnell. As the member for North Coast, I think that I probably have the highest concentration of aboriginal people of any constituency in this province. It's been my privilege over the last dozen years to have become very closely involved with, to occasionally have had arguments with and to have come to know many people -- Haida, Nisga'a, Tsimshian, Heiltsuk, Nuxalk, all of these people -- and their history in our province on the coast of British Columbia. In the time that I have been the MLA, I have had the privilege of knowing some absolutely brilliant aboriginal leaders, in terms of both their intellect and their ability to very clearly set forward their view about why making treaties is so important to our province and to them.

I have to say -- and Joe, I've said this to you before -- that Joe Gosnell is, in my view, the best communicator I have met in terms of explaining that -- which brings us back to what we're engaged in here. I think it's very critical. For all of us, despite our differences -- and we have differences -- it's very important. We are making history in British Columbia. It behooves us, in terms of the importance of this issue, to listen firsthand to the leading spokesperson for the Nisga'a explain to this House why it is absolutely, fundamentally important not only to our province and to the Nisga'a people but to all other aboriginal people in our province. I hope that all members will support the motion to have Dr. Gosnell address the assembly.

G. Campbell: I am pleased to rise in support of the motion that we hear from Dr. Gosnell with respect to his feelings and the feelings of his people with regard to the Nisga'a treaty.

As has been pointed out in the past, there may be many disagreements amongst us about how to accomplish the goal of coming forward with treaties that will solve the problems and meet the needs of all British Columbians. It is equally important that all British Columbians recognize that this is a House for all of their voices to be heard on matters of public importance. This is clearly a historic debate that is taking place in the province. I welcome Chief Joe Gosnell to the Bar today so that we can hear his words.

G. Wilson: I'm proud to rise in support of this motion. It has long been a policy of the party I represent that we should have more direct delegation of British Columbia citizens to this chamber, so that people in this province feel more directly engaged in the discussion and debate that is taking place within this chamber. Furthermore, I believe that it will send a signal to British Columbians that this treaty is not a treaty of this government; it is not a treaty of this assembly. But it is a treaty that embraces all British Columbians as equal partners as we move forward into the future. I look forward to Dr. Gosnell's words, and I'm proud to support the motion.

J. Weisgerber: I too rise to support the motion, particularly to make sure that Chief Gosnell understands that our desire to hear from him is unanimous among members of this House. I very much look forward to hearing once again from Chief Gosnell. I've listened many times and agree with my friend from North Coast that the Chief is an excellent communicator and makes a very strong argument on behalf of his people. The only regret I have is that we didn't have the opportunity on Monday, before the debate stated, to hear from the Chief. I and a number of others have already spoken in second reading, and I think it would have been perhaps more timely -- but better now than tomorrow. I therefore am delighted to support the motion.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: The motion carries unanimously. I now call on the Sergeant-at-Arms to prepare the Bar and the place for speaking.

Welcome, honoured guests. You may proceed.

Address from the Bar of the House

Madam Speaker, today, I believe, marks a turning point in the history of British Columbia. Today aboriginal and non-aboriginal people are coming together to decide the future of this province. I am talking about the Nisga'a treaty, a triumph, I believe, for all British Columbians and a beacon of hope for aboriginal people around the world.

[2:45]

To investors, it provides economic certainty, and it gives us a fighting chance to establish legitimate economic independence, to prosper in common with our non-aboriginal neighbours in a new and, hopefully, proud Canada. It's a triumph, Madam Speaker and hon. members, because the treaty proves beyond all doubt that negotiations -- not lawsuits, not block

[ Page 10860 ]

In 1887 my ancestors made an epic journey from the Nass River to here, Victoria's Inner Harbour. Determined to settle the land question, they were met by a Premier who barred them from this Legislature. He was blunt. Premier Smithe rejected all our aspirations to settle the land question. Then he made this pronouncement: "When the white man first came among you, you were little better than wild beasts of the field." Wild beasts of the field. Little wonder, then, that this brutal racism was soon translated into narrow policies which plunged British Columbia into a century of darkness for the Nisga'a and other aboriginal people.

Like many colonists of the day, Premier Smithe did not know or care to know that the Nisga'a is an old nation -- as old as any in Europe. From time immemorial, our oral literature -- passed down from generation to generation -- records the story of the way the Nisga'a people were placed on earth and trusted with the care and protection of our land. Through the ages, we lived a settled life in villages along the Nass River. We lived in large, cedar-plank houses, fronted with totem poles depicting the great heraldry and the family crests of our nobility. We thrived from the bounty of the sea, the river, the forest and the mountains. We governed ourselves according to ayuuk Nisga'a, the code of our own strict and ancient laws of property ownership, succession and civil order.

Our first encounters with Europeans were friendly. We welcomed these strange visitors -- visitors who never left. The Europeans also valued their encounters with us. They thought we were fair and tough entrepreneurs and -- no doubt today -- negotiators. In 1832 traders from the Hudson's Bay Co. found our people living, in their words, "in two-storey wooden houses the equal of any in Europe." For a time our people prospered, but there were dark days yet to come.

Between the late 1700s and mid-1800s the Nisga'a people, like so many other coastal nations of the time, as well as other tribal groups across this great land, were devastated by European diseases such as smallpox, measles and fevers. Our population, I'm told, was at one time 30,000 strong. We dwindled to about 800 people. Today I am pleased to report that our population is growing. According to our census, we now number approximately 5,500.

We took to heart the promises of King George III, set out in the Royal Proclamation of 1763, that our lands would not be taken away without our permission and that treaty-making was the way the Nisga'a would become part of this new nation. We continued to follow our ayuuk, our code of laws. We vowed to obey the white man's law. And we expected him to obey our laws and also to respect our people.

But unfortunately, the Europeans would not obey their own laws and continued to trespass on our lands. The King's governments continued to take our lands from us, until we were told that all of our land had come to belong to the Crown and that even the tiny bits of land that enclosed our villages were not ours but belonged to the government. Still we kept the faith that the rule of law would prevail one day, that justice would be done, that one day the land question would be settled fairly and honourably.

Madam Speaker, in 1913 the Nisga'a Land Committee drafted the petition to London. The petition contained the declaration of our traditional land ownership and governance, and it contained the critical information that in the new British colony our land ownership would be respected. In part the petition said:

"We are not opposed to the coming of the white people into our territory, provided this be carried out justly and in accordance with the British principles embodied in the Royal Proclamation. If therefore, as we expect, the aboriginal rights which we claim should be established by the decision of His Majesty's Privy Council, we would be prepared to take a moderate and reasonable position. In that event, while claiming the right to decide for ourselves the terms upon which we would deal with our territory, we would be willing that all matters outstanding between the province and ourselves should be finally adjusted by some equitable method to be agreed upon, which should include representation of the Indian tribes upon any commission which might then be appointed."

Also in 1913, Duncan Campbell Scott became deputy superintendent of Indian Affairs. His narrow vision of assimilation dominated federal aboriginal policy for years and years to come and was later codified as the Indian Act. Mr. Scott said: "I want to get rid of the Indian problem. Our objective is to continue until there is not a single Indian in Canada that has not been absorbed into the body politic and there is no Indian question." One of this man's earliest efforts was to undermine the influence of the Nisga'a petition to London and to deflect away from political action. But these men, Smithe and Scott, failed and are now deservedly only dusty footnotes in history.

Still the situation of the Nisga'a worsened. In 1927, Canada passed a law to prevent us from pursuing our land claims, from hiring lawyers to plead our case. At the same time, our central institution of tribal government, our potlatch system we know in Nisga'a as ayuuk, was outlawed by an act of Parliament. It was against the law for us to give presents during our ceremonies, which is central to our tradition; our law instructs us to do that. It was made illegal for us to sing and dance, which again is a requirement of our culture. But still we did not give up, and finally, under the leadership of Dr. Frank Calder, the Nisga'a Land Committee was reborn as the Nisga'a Tribal Council in 1955.

In 1968 we took our land question to the B.C. Supreme Court. We lost but appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, where in 1973, in what is now known as the Calder case, the justice ruled that aboriginal title existed prior to Confederation. This initiated the modern-day process of land claims negotiations. The government of Canada agreed it was best to negotiate modern-day treaties. Canada agreed it was time to build a new relationship based on trust, respect and the rule of law. In time, as you will know, Madam Speaker, the province of British Columbia came to the negotiating table as well. For the past 25 years, in good faith, the Nisga'a struggled to negotiate this treaty, and finally it was initialled in August in our home community of New Aiyansh.

How the world has changed! Two days ago -- and 111 years later, after Smithe's rejection -- I walked up to the steps of this Legislature as the sound of Nisga'a drumming and singing filled the rotunda. To the Nisga'a people it was a joyous sound -- the sound of freedom. Freedom is described in the dictionary as "the state or condition of being free, the condition of not being under another's control, the power to do, say or think as one pleases." Our people have enjoyed the

[ Page 10861 ]

[3:00]

To us a treaty is a sacred instrument. It represents an understanding between distinct cultures and shows a respect for each other's way of life. We know we are here for a long time together. A treaty stands as a symbol of high idealism in a divided world. That is why we have fought so long and so hard. I have been asked: "Has this been worth it?" I would have to say, with a resounding yes, it has.

But believe me and my colleagues; it has been a long, hard-fought battle for those that went before us. Some may have heard us say that a generation of Nisga'a men and women have grown old at the negotiating table. Sadly, it is very true. I was a much younger man when I began, became involved in the tribal council; I was 25 years old. Today I'm 63; today my hair is greying. I've gone through six terms of Prime Ministers and their chart. I recall their names -- the Rt. Hon. Pierre Trudeau, Joe Clark, John Turner, Brian Mulroney, Kim Campbell and Jean Chrétien -- and five British Columbia Premiers -- Bill Bennett, William Vander Zalm, Rita Johnston, Mike Harcourt and, yes, Glen Clark. I will spare you the list of deputy ministers, senior bureaucrats and other officials. There are numerous names that we have met across these many years. Their names, I believe, would paper the walls of this chamber at least twice.

We are not naïve. We know that some people do not want this treaty. We know that there are naysayers -- some sitting here today. We know that there are those who say Canada and British Columbia are giving us too much, and a few who want to reopen negotiations in order to give us less. Others, still upholding the values of Smithe and Scott, are practising a wilful ignorance. This colonial attitude is fanning the flames of fear and ignorance in this province and reigniting a poisonous attitude that we as aboriginal people are so familiar with.

But these are desperate tactics, doomed to fail. By playing politics with the aspirations of aboriginal peoples, these naysayers are blighting the promise of the Nisga'a treaty not only for us but for non-aboriginal people as well, because this is about people. We're not numbers. The issue that you will deal with over the next weeks. . . . You will deal with the lives of our people, the future of our people. It is about the legitimate aspirations of our people, no longer willing to step aside or be marginalized. We intend to be free and equal citizens. Witness the flags that have been waved in this chamber over the past two days by the Nisga'a people of British Columbia, the Nisga'a people of Canada.

Now, on the eve of the fiftieth anniversary of the Declaration of Human Rights, this Legislature embarks on a great debate about aboriginal rights. The Nisga'a people welcome that debate, one of the most important in the modern history of British Columbia. We have every confidence that elected members of this Legislature will look beyond narrow politics to correct the shameful and historic wrong. I ask each and every one of you, hon. members, to search your hearts deeply and to allow the light of our message to guide your decisions.

We have worked for justice for more than 100 years. Now it is time to ratify the Nisga'a treaty, for aboriginal and non-aboriginal people to come together and write a new chapter in the history of our nation, our province, our country and indeed the world. The world, I believe, is our witness to the endeavours that we have encountered. [Nisga'a spoken.]

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Nisga'a nation, I greatly appreciate the privilege that has been accorded to me to address this chamber. Thank you. [Applause.]

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

NISGA'A FINAL AGREEMENT ACT
(second reading continued)

Hon. Speaker, this is a historic debate for, among other reasons, being the first of probably some 50 to 60 treaties which will be negotiated in the years and decades ahead and which will ultimately be ratified by this chamber. As well, I think that in the years and decades ahead, historians will look back with enormous interest at the debate that is being conducted in this chamber. They will look at the arguments that were advanced on both sides of the question and try to understand why people were motivated to support or to vote against this particular treaty. I hope that my comments today will assist in enlightening not only the current members of the chamber but also, hopefully, the historians who will look back on this in future years.

Obviously one of the key challenges we face in this province is the reconciliation of aboriginal rights with the sovereignty of the Crown and, as well, reconciliation of aboriginal rights with the rights which we all enjoy in common. This is no easy task. Obviously that is reflected in the many years that it has taken for this treaty to be arrived at.

In recent years we've seen some landmark legal cases with respect to the issue of reconciliation of aboriginal rights with the rights and sovereignty of the Crown -- most notably, the Delgamuukw case. Clearly the best way to achieve those aims of reconciliation is not through legal means but rather through the negotiation of workable, affordable treaties -- treaties which provide certainty, finality and equality. Those, I think, have to be our goals.

One of the goals of treaty-making must be to enhance our relationship with aboriginal peoples as well as to advance the economic. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members. . . .

G. Abbott: Thank you, hon. Speaker. If the members would care to extend to me the courtesy which we have extended to their members, I would be glad to tell them that.

The Speaker: Hon. members, the hon. member makes a very good point, and I would commend it to all members.

Interjections.

[ Page 10862 ]

Member, proceed.

G. Abbott: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I appreciate your assistance.

Members on all sides of the House have noted the sad consequences that have been produced by a legacy of inequality, discrimination, dependency and economic despair. We clearly need to find ways and means, through the treaty-making process, to reverse the spiral of dependency and despair that is far too prevalent today. However, we need to find ways and means which will not diminish the rights and interests of other British Columbians affected by these treaties. I think this is an important point, and I plan to advise the members opposite of my concern here.

In my remarks today, I want to focus on chapter 11 of the treaty, entitled "Nisga'a Government." My comments are intended to be constructive. Hopefully, through the course of debate we can not only identify the shortcomings in the model of governance, which is advanced in the treaty, but also find some suggestions for improvement to it. Here's the gist of my remarks.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, caution, please.

[3:15]

It is ironic, I think, as well as unfortunate that under the terms of the treaty, at least three seats are reserved in the Nisga'a Lisims government for urban locals -- that is, locals located in Vancouver, Prince Rupert and Terrace -- while the non-Nisga'a residents whose lives will be directly affected by the Lisims legislation can neither vote nor hold office. This is not municipal-style self-government as we know it in Canada.

What are the democratic principles which should guide us in creating a new model of governance? I think there are three democratic principles which are particularly useful in terms of thinking about a model of governance which should be embodied in our treaties. One is a rule of law emanating from a lawmaking body freely elected by the people. I think that is pretty straightforward. Another fundamental principle is government by the consent of the governed -- again, hopefully, a principle that would be universally embraced in this House. Thirdly, it's that all people have equal rights under the law. I think these are the fundamentals of democratic life in Canada and, hopefully, elsewhere in the world.

I think that these sentiments, these principles are most forcefully, most effectively embodied in a document which Dr. Gosnell referred to in his remarks, and that is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as I think was noted, was in fact passed on December 10, 1948, by the General Assembly. Fifty years ago these comments were embraced by the General Assembly of the United Nations.

I'll just quote briefly from it, if I may:

"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty."

The declaration goes on, and I'll conclude with these notes about the declaration:

"Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. Everyone has the right to equal access to public service in his country. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government. This will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage, and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures."

Interjections.

The Speaker: Excuse me, hon. member.

Members, some members have already had a chance to speak their piece, and there will be an opportunity for everyone to have an opportunity to do that. Certainly the Chair wishes to hear all remarks that are being made. The member will continue when the government side is a little quieter.

Thank you. Member, continue.

G. Abbott: That, I think, is the standard which we should strive for -- that standard that is set by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, by the United Nations. Regrettably -- and in saying this, I'm sure that it's despite the best intentions of the negotiators and the Nisga'a people -- the model of governance which we find in the treaty falls short of this standard.

Now, if we are going to understand why it falls short, we need to go to the treaty itself. The critical sections in terms of the Nisga'a government structures are sections 12 to 14. I'll just quote briefly from those sections.

"12. Each Nisga'a Village Government consists of elected members as set out in the Nisga'a Constitution.

"13. On the effective date, there are three Nisga'a Urban Locals, as set out in the Nisga'a Constitution, known as:

"a. Greater Vancouver Urban Local;
"b. Terrace Urban Local; and
"c. Prince Rupert/Port Edward Urban Local."

[ Page 10863 ]

"14. Nisga'a Lisims Government consists of the following members, as set out in the Nisga'a Constitution:

"a. at least three officers elected by the Nisga'a Nation in a general election;
"b. the elected members of the Nisga'a Village Governments; and
"c. at least one representative elected by the Nisga'a citizens of each Nisga'a Urban Local."

Interjection.

G. Abbott: I don't know if the member has had an opportunity to speak, hon. Speaker, but perhaps you could advise him that he would have that opportunity in time. I'll certainly be pleased to extend my respect and attention to him when he has that opportunity.

The Speaker: Hon. members, let us hear the member speak. That's what this place is about; there are opportunities for everyone to speak.

G. Abbott: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

The critical omission in terms of the Nisga'a government structure sections is that there is no provision for the non-Nisga'a residents of the Nass River valley, who will obviously be affected by laws emanating from the Nisga'a Lisims government. There is no provision in these sections, nor in subsequent sections, which will provide for an opportunity for non-Nisga'a residents of the Nass River valley to vote or hold office in those critical government structures of the village councils and the Nisga'a Lisims government.

Another one of the associated questions with respect to the sections embodied in chapter 11 is this: will this government structure constitute a third order of government, or is this municipal-style government, as the provincial government claims in its promotional brochures? Chapter 11 outlines 14 areas where Nisga'a laws will be legally paramount over those of the federal and provincial government. Among these, for example, are Nisga'a citizenship; Nisga'a lands and assets; regulation, licensing and prohibition of businesses, professions and trades; preservation, promotion and development of Nisga'a language and culture; direct taxation of Nisga'a citizens; authorization and licensing of aboriginal healers; Nisga'a annual fishing plans for harvest and sale of fish and aquatic plants; Nisga'a wildlife and migratory bird entitlements.

Certainly it may be argued that these will primarily impact Nisga'a citizens, not non-Nisga'a citizens, but there are also several areas of those 14 critical areas of government where there will clearly be a broader impact. Also among those areas where, in the event of an inconsistency or conflict, Nisga'a laws will be paramount over those of the federal and provincial government are these: adoption, child and family services, preschool to grade 12 education, advanced education, organization and structure of health care delivery.

Now, I hope that all members of the House would agree that in those critical areas, laws emanating, I would think, primarily from the Nisga'a Lisims government but possibly from the village councils, as well, will have a very pronounced impact on the lives of all citizens in the Nass River valley, not just those of Nisga'a ancestry. I'm certain, hon. Speaker -- I had some years in municipal life before I had the honour of becoming a member of this assembly -- that I'm not aware of any municipality that is in possession of powers such as these.

I want to also note that sections 19 to 22 outline relations with individuals who are not Nisga'a citizens. I'll quote section 19: "Nisga'a Government will consult with individuals who are ordinarily resident within Nisga'a Lands and who are not Nisga'a citizens about Nisga'a Government decisions that directly and significantly affect them." This section clarifies that, as regards decisions or legislation from the village or Lisims governments, there is no opportunity for participation for non-Nisga'as via voting or election. Again, I hope that all members of the House can agree that this is the case. There is only a limited obligation to consult where decisions of the Nisga'a Lisims government "directly and significantly affect" non-Nisga'a residents.

The Speaker: Excuse me, hon. member. There are a number of conversations happening in the chamber that make it difficult for the Chair to hear what the member is saying. I would encourage the conversations to either cease or take place elsewhere. Thank you.

G. Abbott: I'll quote section 20 briefly, as well, because again I feel it's a critical section in terms of understanding the content and implications of the agreement. Section 20 reads: "Nisga'a Government will provide that individuals who are ordinarily resident within Nisga'a Lands and who are not Nisga'a citizens may participate in a Nisga'a Public Institution, if the activities of that Nisga'a Public Institution directly and significantly affect them." Section 20 outlines the circumstances under which non-Nisga'as may participate in public institutions.

Again, we have to go to the definitions section to understand that "public institutions" means schools, health and police boards, if indeed they are created. The public institutions definition does not extend to the Nisga'a Lisims government nor to the Nisga'a village governments, and that is a critical point and critical distinction. There is no comparable opportunity for participation by non-Nisga'as in village and Lisims government. I think that is an important point with respect to this treaty.

The provisions of the Nisga'a government section have caused a good deal of concern among that 4 percent of the Nass River valley who are non-Nisga'a. I want to quote from a recent article in the Vancouver Sun -- November 7, 1998 -- where one resident, Mr. Gary Cox, says: "They say the rights of 100 don't matter. We're only a 4 percent non-native population here. But only 4 percent of the population of B.C. is native -- and they matter. We're being sold down the river."

[3:30]

Let me note this: the Nisga'a Lisims government will have at least 20 members. If we look at the layout in section 14, brief though it is -- with four village councils all having representatives on the Lisims government and at least three elected at large and at least three representing the urban locals in Terrace, Prince Rupert and Vancouver -- clearly we are going to have a Lisims assembly in excess of 20 representa-

[ Page 10864 ]

Three hundred years have passed in the evolution of our society, from one that was almost entirely undemocratic to one where, hopefully, we are getting close to meeting -- at least in most parts of the world -- the ideals set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Three hundred years ago the ability to vote and to hold office was a privilege confined to the aristocracy. Very few people, even in the most enlightened societies, had the opportunity to vote and to hold office. Over time -- and the most important changes here occurred 100 years ago or less -- there was an end to the property qualification, which for a long period of time diminished the number of people who would have the opportunity to vote and to hold office. I guess the one bastion of property qualification that we still find in Canada is our own unreformed Canadian Senate, where, despite some modest changes to the Senate, they still have a property qualification. But apart from that, one can vote at every level in Canada today without incurring the difficulty of a property qualification. Since that time, we have seen an end to the gender qualification. That has come in the last 50 to 100 years in different parts of Canada and around the world as well. Even more recently, we have seen an end to racial qualifications for voting.

What we have done over the past 300 years is break down the walls of privilege which prevented people from universally enjoying the right to vote and to hold office. That's been a wonderful accomplishment of our society, and I don't want to see us, whether with the best of intentions or inadvertently, create a new set of walls of privilege that will diminish people's right to vote and to hold office. The new walls may be constructed with no evil intent, but they are walls nonetheless. Those walls may be constructed to protect people who have been subjected to past injustices, but we will be creating new injustices by creating new walls of privilege.

I think that a change to section 14, as I have proposed, would be in the best interests of everyone. Laws are the product of ideas and debate. I submit that the best laws, those that endure the passage of time and shifting political winds, are the product of free debate among conflicting and competing ideas. One of the wonderful things about this place is that we can come here and we don't have to have the same ideas. In fact, I think that -- although sometimes one would wonder -- this institution is a wonderful place where we can freely express our ideas. I appreciate that.

So I think that debate among the Nisga'a Lisims government without the participation of non-Nisga'a voices in the Nass River valley will be diminished by that. I think that the Nisga'a Lisims government would be enriched by the participation of all in the Nass River valley. No one's interests would be diminished by it. Let's not sow the seeds of future alienation and dissent. Let's not attempt to resolve one injustice by creating another. Let's not try to right one wrong by creating another. We can do better; we must do better. There are improvements that could be made to this agreement, which I believe will help to make this a treaty which can be embraced more widely by British Columbia.

Thank you for your attention, hon. Speaker.

J. Smallwood: The last few days have been very emotional for many of us not only in this chamber but in this province, because this is a historic moment. As I was thinking about what I would say in this House, I found it intimidating. I found it overwhelming to even comprehend how I could possibly lend my voice to this debate.

While I could talk about the legal intricacies of the agreement or about the implications that this agreement would have on the economy or about the certainty that the agreement would bring -- not only to our relationships as people in this province -- what I've decided to do is, I guess, what I think is probably the most important thing for me to do at this time. That is, to the best of my ability, to speak from my heart about the journey that I've taken to this place and why this place in history is important to me. The reason I've chosen to do that is because I take the debate in this House seriously. It is my hope that some of the members on the opposite side will think beyond their responsibilities to their party and think about their time in history as well.

I'd like to reflect a little bit on what I saw happen here in Victoria in the last couple of days, because I think that it speaks volumes for where we are in history. What I'd hoped to be able to do is reflect what the average person -- not the leaders, not those that have the privilege of speaking in this House, but people on the streets of Victoria -- saw when the Nisga'a people came to our Legislature, what the people saw on TV -- that piece of history. When the Nisga'a people started their procession from the other side of the harbour, and when they walked down Government Street and when you could hear the drums and chants from so far away. . . . You could hear the male voices chanting in their language and the women, in their strong and articulate and clear voices, respond to that chant in their language, and as they came close to the building, you could see the age of the delegation: first the elders and the leaders. You could see the women and the children. You could see a reflection of that community of the Nass Valley, which is so far away from southern British Columbia -- a reflection of a community that has, against all odds, kept its history, preserved its culture and preserved the sense of its community in the broadest terms, its family and its history, in all of those people that went before them.

It was an incredible thing to see because it was against the backdrop of what we have learned, as recent citizens to this province, about our history. I talked a little bit about how we've come to understand how those that have gone before us have been part of the history of -- Chief Gosnell referred to assimilation -- assimilationist tactics or, I would go further, to a strategy of cultural genocide.

I remember growing up in British Columbia, going to school and hearing a little bit about the early settlers, hearing about the smallpox plagues and hearing only peripherally about the residential schools. It's only been in the last number of years that I've come to understand that that was not a long time ago; that was happening when many of us were growing up. When I sat in this House when I was first elected and sat beside Larry Guno, he talked about the people he knew that had gone to residential schools. He talked about the history of government agents going into remote communities and taking children out -- sometimes forcibly -- and moving them

[ Page 10865 ]

[3:45]

I think about that as part of my history and part of the journey that I have been part of. I didn't learn about that part of history at school. I was deprived of that part of my history as a citizen of this province, and that makes me angry.

As we've been part of this debate in British Columbia and when I've heard members of the opposition speak in the most technical, detached way about my history -- because I think this is as much a part of my valued history as it is for the Nisga'a people -- I've felt very angry, because they would rob me of the time and the privilege of making it right, of being one more voice to try to make it right. No longer do you sit silent, as the silent majority, and say: "This is wrong; it's wrong what went on before us." Now, at this time in history, we have the opportunity to get to our feet and be part of the majority -- that silent majority that has given voice to a change in history, a new chapter.

When I think of that young man who was a foster child a couple of blocks from where I grew up and I think about his short stay in our community, because he was not. . . . The foster placement was not successful; that child left our community. I'm not sure whether he ran away or was placed in another foster home, but we just never heard anything more about him. When I think about the number of children that were taken from their families and that continue to be taken from their families in this province, and when I think about what that means to who they are and who the community is because of their absence in their community, I marvel at what we saw here in Victoria: the strength of the Nisga'a people and the strength of that community that was reflected in their presence in this House. As the procession moved up towards the Legislature, many of us witnessed a flank of elders, of men, linking arms, coming up to the buildings -- and the drums and the chants. I looked at the faces of those men, of the elders, that were leading the procession, and I wondered about the life that they have led trying to make things right, putting their energy. . . .

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Chief Gosnell reflected on his time and struggle in trying to get to yes. That was what it was about: trying to get to yes. I want to challenge the opposition to try to get to yes. At no other time in your history, no other time in your life, are you going to have the opportunity to choose that side. It doesn't really matter -- all the technical distance that you can get from it, talking about the dotting of the i's or the crossing of the t's in the agreement. This is an agreement that has taken 111 years to get to. It is the culmination of all of the thoughts, all of the discussion, not only of the Nisga'a people but of the people of the northwest. It is all of the thoughts and the discussion of two levels of government that were at the table, and it's all of the debates and all of the history and all of the ancestry that went before it.

I want to talk a little bit about that culture. In some ways I need to say that I've learned a great deal by having the privilege of talking to aboriginal people in our province, not only by sitting beside the member for Atlin at the time, Larry Guno, but from aboriginal leaders who are in my community, who speak and share their knowledge and the strengths of their culture. Our community here in British Columbia, the white community, may have some difficulty in understanding that the identity of the aboriginal people is the culmination, the collective -- not only your immediate family but the whole community -- and that each and every member is valued. I've learned a great deal from that, and I think that the more we can learn and share from each other's culture, the stronger we get as a society in British Columbia. I'm angered that anyone would deny us that opportunity, because it will not come again in our lifetime. For the opposition to say that they are opposing this agreement, the first agreement in British Columbia's long history, because they want something better -- when they have not participated in that discussion -- does us all a disservice, and I hope that they will reconsider.

The Nisga'a agreement, as I said, is a culmination of 111 years of a legacy of ancestors trying to work out something that everyone can live with -- a success story that not only is reflected by that history but is reflected by the institutions that all of us are a part of. We've been directed -- this Legislature -- to get on with it. We've been directed by the courts, by the judicial system. They've said, "Sit down and negotiate; work it out," and we've done that. We've done it in a just and dignified and respectful way, and we've brought fairness to the process. We've done it in such a way that the laws that will be implemented on the Nisga'a lands will be equal to or better than the laws that exist both provincially and federally.

And we do away with the Indian Act. That in and of itself, the abolition of the Indian Act for the Nisga'a people, should be something that people can hold their head up and be proud of. I don't understand why the opposition isn't prepared to share the stage in history and hold their head up and be proud, along with the majority of British Columbians -- the majority of your constituents, the majority of people that share our history.

It's an opportunity in history to hold your head up, and at the end of the day, when the vote comes on Bill 51. . . . I can't imagine what it would feel like, because I know there are members on the opposite side who share the history, who share the understanding, who feel passionately about aboriginal rights and about bringing justice to this question -- and how shameful they must feel to be denied that opportunity.

Even as I'm reflecting on my comments today, I feel woefully inadequate. I feel incapable of bringing the kind of dignity to the human struggle that we're part of. I can understand why people step back and try to deal with the legal technicalities instead of facing the human beings and the human drama. All of that -- the economy, the law -- are things that we've created as human beings. Those are all simply tools that govern how we live together.

Surely to goodness on an issue like this, at a time in history like this, we can face one another as human beings, as

[ Page 10866 ]

Hon. L. Boone: Hon. Speaker, I am very pleased to be here and to have this opportunity to speak in favour of ratifying the Nisga'a treaty. I believe it is the right thing for this House to do. It is morally right, and it is best for the children and the families of the Nisga'a nation.

Today we enter into a new relationship with the Nisga'a, a relationship that will bring us into the new millennium. It is a relationship that is based on respect. What was done to the Nisga'a and to the other first nations in B.C. more than a century ago was just plain wrong. They did not give the Nisga'a justice, so it is now up to us to do what British Columbians in the past would not do. I'll leave it to the experts to work out what King George III meant when he guaranteed aboriginal rights in 1763, and I'll leave it to the lawyers to argue about the constitutional details.

I look at it this way: we came here; we took their land; we didn't buy it off them. We didn't conquer them in war. We didn't make any kind of deal with them or enter into any kind of agreement. Over a century ago, when they asked us to live up to our laws and make a deal, a treaty, we brushed them off and told them: "Don't bother us." Then we made it a crime for them to hire a lawyer, to raise money, even to get together to talk about what we had done to them.

[4:00]

Now, we might be able to justify doing this to the Nisga'a and to other aboriginal people in British Columbia if the end result had been happy, prosperous native communities. We could say that our ancestors may have bent the rules and handed out some rough justice, but just look how much good came out of it. But we all know that that didn't happen. When we look at the result of more than a hundred years since contact between our society and the people here when we arrived, we see massive unemployment, suicide rates that are eight times the national average, infant death rates that are twice as high as the rest of society, alcoholism and drug abuse, violence, broken families and damaged lives. Obviously what we have been doing to them has not worked.

There have been those in the past who thought that they could save the Nisga'a and the other B.C. first nations by taking away their cultures. All they ended up doing was making a lot of broken native families. That is why -- and this is extremely unfortunate -- aboriginal children and families are part of my ministry's caseloads -- far too many, far more than their share, based on the number of aboriginal people in the total population of British Columbia. For example, only 9 percent of the children in our province are from aboriginal families, but fully 30 percent of the children in care are aboriginal. That is something that I'm not proud of, and it's something that I am committed to changing.

In recent times, we have come to understand just how much harm was done to aboriginal families by government policies -- not just the horrors of the residential schools but the damage that provincial child welfare practices caused to the lives of aboriginal children, their parents and their communities. That has been changing. It was changing even before the talks that led to the Nisga'a treaty were finished. Prior to this treaty, this government was already taking steps down this much-needed path. Our goal is to find better ways to work with aboriginal communities. We are doing this by boosting the ability of aboriginal communities to look after their own children and families. We are working with all levels of government to coordinate the efforts made through many different programs.

Using the philosophy behind the Nisga'a treaty, we are guiding the development of culturally appropriate services for aboriginal children and families. We have already made progress in the area of child welfare. Last year we signed an agreement with the Nisga'a nation and the federal government to set up the Nisga'a child and family services agency. The new agency will be the delivery point for services to Nisga'a children and families under our province's Child, Family and Community Service Act. This is one of a series of delegations which will enable our authority agreements with the aboriginal communities. These agreements will be the meeting points between our programs and the needs of their people.

In addition, we will be supporting aboriginal communities so that they have the ability to offer a full range of services for child care, adoption and services to adults with special needs. The Nisga'a child and family services agency is setting up right now to deliver services that promote the safety and well-being of children, such as providing in-home support and other services which lead to stronger families and healthier children. They are creating programs to teach parenting skills, money management in the home and life skills as well as providing voluntary care for people with special needs. They're developing resources for families who can no longer care for their children.

[T. Stevenson in the chair.]

Because this work is already in progress with the Nisga'a, the delegation enabling agreement signed last year makes a natural bridge between the current service delivery and the potential new system that the Nisga'a may choose to develop through the treaty. When they are ready, the Nisga'a may choose to pass their own child and family services law -- I want to repeat this twice here, because I think it's important -- which must establish standards comparable to those set by the existing Child, Family and Community Service Act of British Columbia. It must establish comparable standards. That is extremely important. Until the Nisga'a law is in place, the existing act will continue to apply. In cases of emergencies -- if a child is in immediate danger, something that none of us wants to see -- the province can and will act. The ministry will be able to take on-the-spot action to protect the life, health or safety of a child in Nisga'a territory. This is fundamental to the safety and well-being of Nisga'a children, and it's central to the values of the Nisga'a people.

[ Page 10867 ]

Besides the obvious advantages of having communities engaged in the care of their own children, there are considerable positive results that flow from that involvement. I want to draw your attention to a study done by UBC's department of psychology. The nub of what they found is this: in aboriginal communities where there is an effort to rebuild or maintain native culture, suicides by young men and women are virtually zero. That is absolutely incredible -- virtually zero in those areas. Where aboriginal peoples are practising self-government -- looking after their own police and fire protection, working on land claims, providing education and health services -- or putting their efforts into reviving painting, carving, music, dancing and storytelling. . . . On those reserves there are almost no suicides. The terrible suicide rates that we hear about B.C.'s aboriginal young people are happening here in the communities that have not yet been able to recover from the harm done in the past hundreds of years. But the report clearly shows that if we choose a better way -- a different way -- of approaching it, we can reduce the suicides, and we can bring them down to zero, which is what our goal is.

It is important that we recognize that the Nisga'a can use the powers they gain under the treaty; that as they begin to rebuild and strengthen their old way of life, they will have a stronger, a healthier and a more vibrant community. As other B.C. first nations come through the treaty process, they will regain the vital strength that they used to draw from their culture before the rest of us came here. Then all of those sad hallmarks, the ones that we heard about today from Chief Joe Gosnell -- damaged families, wounded communities, alcoholism, violence, child neglect, divorce and early death -- will fade into history. The Nisga'a agreement is a significant step in realizing this new future.

That vision is what this treaty is all about. Certainly it touches on the past that we share with the Nisga'a, but the point of making a treaty is not to settle what happened before but to lay down a fair set of rules for what happens from now on.

It wasn't so long ago that the Liberal Party used to talk about fairness as well. In 1995 the Leader of the Opposition, when dealing with the idea of referendum on the Nisga'a, said that he was against the idea of referenda to ratify land claim settlements. He said referenda are fine in theory but hard to put in place, in practice: "Who votes? When do they vote? What's the cost? What to put on the ballot. . . ? It's one of those things that requires a lot more work than what first appears." That was in 1995.

Then in 1997, the same Leader of the Opposition -- the current leader -- said: "My problem with dealing with the Nisga'a by itself is that, you know, there's 1.8 million people here in the lower mainland, and no one in the area that is going to be directly affected by the Nisga'a agreement wants the lower mainland to decide whether it's a good agreement or not." No one in the lower mainland -- 1.8 million people in the lower mainland -- should decide through a referendum what happens on the Nisga'a. . . .

And then in 1998, the Liberal House Leader of the day, the member for Matsqui, said: "I think it would be unfair at this point to inject the referendum card into the ratification process involving the Nisga'a treaty." That was on July 8, 1998. "These negotiations have been ongoing. . . . To say at literally the eleventh hour that it will now become a component of that ratification would be, I think, unfair." In July 1998 it was unfair. Two weeks later, suddenly it became fair to say that there should be a referendum.

The real question that British Columbians must ask themselves is: when were the Liberals being truthful about their position on the Nisga'a treaty? Was it June 1995? Was it September 1997? Was it July 1998? Or was it two weeks after that, when suddenly they said a referendum should be called. Why the change? Why did it suddenly become fair to change the process at the eleventh hour? In July 1998 it wasn't fair to change the process. Now all of a sudden it is fair. Why is it okay now to have 1.8 million people in the lower mainland deciding what happens in the Nass Valley? Why is that?

An Hon. Member: Including a leader that's never been there.

Hon. L. Boone: Including a leader who has never been there -- exactly.

Now, hon. Speaker, I would hate to think that the Liberals were being less than truthful in 1995 or 1997 or 1998, or maybe. . . . I mean, surely it couldn't be that they're basing their opposition on some political means to drive a division in the province of British Columbia. Surely that's not the point. Regardless of the reason for the Liberal flip-flop on this important issue, I want to take this opportunity to urge the members to remember the speech of Joe Gosnell as he stood here at the Bar. I was in tears because it was so touching.

I want you to listen to him and remember his words, and I would urge you not to play politics with the lives of these people. They are not our aboriginals, as the Leader of the Opposition said -- and believes. They are their own people, who have struggled for over 100 years to obtain a treaty. They deserve the respect that acknowledges that the negotiations that have taken place in the past decade have not been in vain.

You cannot negotiate between three parties for 20-odd years -- or decades, literally -- without having some give-and-take on all sides. You can't expect the results of those negotiations to meet everyone's expectations. I'm sure there are Nisga'a out there who wish that parts of the treaty were different. I'm sure there are members of our government and members of the federal government who wish that parts of the treaty were different. However, they recognize that it is not easy to reach an agreement, particularly an agreement with three parties. After negotiations for that length of time, I am really quite appalled that the members opposite seem to think they could come up with something better that all of those other parties would suddenly agree to.

[4:15]

[ Page 10868 ]

I want to ask every member opposite to reach within themselves, to listen to their hearts, to feel what it means to the Nisga'a to have negotiated for this length of time. I want you to recognize how difficult it is to come to an agreement such as the one that we've had on this. I want you not to play politics with this. I ask you: please do not play politics with the lives of these people. The Nisga'a have been waiting 111 years for fairness. Apologies will not take the place of any agreement. I think it's time that the members opposite recognized that.

This provides us all with an opportunity to stand up and to speak about what we feel and to speak about what future we want to see for British Columbia. I know I want to see a province that corrects the errors of the past, that recognizes that what we did as a society years ago was wrong and that what we are going to do today or in the future weeks in this House is right. We will ratify this. We will make sure that the Nisga'a get the future that they agree to. I urge everybody on the opposite side to become a part of the future of this province, a future your children can be proud of. Please vote in favour of this treaty.

K. Krueger: I rise today to add my views and those of my constituents, the people of Kamloops and the North Thompson Valley, to this important and historic debate. Numbered amongst my constituents are many aboriginal people, including the North Thompson Indian band, the Kamloops Indian band, the Whispering Pines Indian band and many others who are presently urban dwellers.

The bands whose people I represent, as their elected MLA, are members of the Shuswap nation tribal council. Many of their members believe the Nisga'a treaty is a bad deal. The overwhelming majority of my constituents expressing views on this treaty concur, expressing profound concerns about the treaty itself and the process by which it came to be.

I'm in favour of treaty-making with the aboriginal people of British Columbia. In the majority, so are my constituents, aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike. Yet a responsibility so vitally important, so pressing and long-unfulfilled, so sensitive, personal, meaningful and with such far-reaching, serious and permanent consequences surely cries out for great care and wisdom. Surely treaty-making in British Columbia must be a genuinely inclusive process, done with care and openness, that is respectful of the interests of all present and future British Columbians. Treaties must embrace the values of fairness, equality, equity, certainty and finality to create solutions which will end long-festering problems that divide British Columbians.

It is utter cynicism to suggest that because people feel the Nisga'a treaty is a bad deal, they must be hostile to treaty-making or paternalistic or somehow against aboriginal rights. It is crass politics to hurl such accusations, in self-serving efforts to make this sensitive, delicate, important issue a political horse to ride into the coming election. Yet that is what NDP cabinet ministers have been doing for the past many weeks.

We should not be in the Legislature today debating the Nisga'a treaty when the question of constitutionality is before the courts. There is sound, legitimate argument that the treaty as drafted changes the Canadian constitution, and the present NDP government of British Columbia knows this full well. B.C. Liberals believe that the courts will rule that the creation of a new third order of government under the treaty -- with its powers vastly superior to those of municipal governments, its ability to pass laws with supremacy over provincial and federal laws, and its freedom from the requirement of royal assent -- does indeed comprise a constitutional change. If the court so finds, it will render this debate redundant.

Once again this NDP government will have sullied the reputation and reduced the stature of the British Columbia Legislature with this wilfully, morally bankrupt government's unrelenting drive to do anything it wants -- as the NDP cabinet phrases it -- to pursue its political purposes and agenda.

One of the important traits that this NDP government lacks is respect. It does not have the respect of the public, nor does it demonstrate any respect at all for the people, for this legislative body, for the duly elected individual MLAs on both sides of the House or for any individual British Columbian -- Nisga'a or otherwise. To this NDP government, the Nisga'a treaty and aboriginal treaty-making are just political opportunities to be milked for political gain.

Mr. Speaker, we who oppose this treaty do not oppose treaty-making. We want sound and lasting treaties that lift people up to their rightful places and allow British Columbia to move forward again. We seek to right the ancient wrongs and overcome the hurts and heartaches of the past so far as is humanly possible. We desire a British Columbia where people start from an equal footing and enjoy the same rights, privileges and responsibilities.

The Premier would have done better to listen respectfully to British Columbians and their representatives to ensure that the government went into negotiations with only a genuine mandate to govern and a proper treaty mandate, and then to negotiate openly and honestly in the broad, clear light of day.

The B.C. Liberals make no apology for opposing this treaty. We do so openly, frankly and with the best interests of all British Columbians, including the Nisga'a people, in mind. We speak with the authority of having been duly elected to this House, many of us by an electorate which comprises many aboriginal constituents, as does mine.

I have lived and worked amongst aboriginal people all my life. As a boy, homesteading with my family in the Peace River country, I saw the desperate poverty of the native people who came seeking work with us -- the same work I did, picking roots and rocks, working the soil and carving farmland out of the bush. My father often interrupted his work to drive sick people from the reserve 70 kilometres to medical aid in Fort St. John. We were poor, and they were desperately poor. We drove old vehicles held together by prayer and haywire; they rode horses and pulled wagons and travois. None of us had money.

I realized only much later that the advantages we had and shared with our aboriginal friends could be attributed to education, credit and the economic boon of access to societal structures from which they were shamefully excluded by race and circumstance. On the land, however, our circumstances were much the same. We worked hard together. We ate moose meat, which they brought and traded for coffee, sugar and other staples that my parents bought on credit. In winter I wore warm moosehide moccasins, which they traded to us. To this day the woodsmoke smell of tanned moosehide takes me back in a flash to my happy boyhood.

In my 20-year career of settling claims for injuries sustained in motor vehicle crashes, I worked with aboriginal

[ Page 10869 ]

We moved on to the Okanagan, then to the Kootenays and finally to the Thompson valleys. Everywhere I worked, I found the aboriginal people were overrepresented in grievous injuries, untimely deaths and battered lives. Always it was obvious that the pain, suffering and loss for which the system tried to compensate victims and their families on an individual basis arose out of circumstances which channelled aboriginal people as groups into poverty, segregation and abusive environments.

I began to diverge in my career from specific claims-handling to finding and embracing ways to help people avoid circumstances from which injuries and death could result. I had come to realize the horrific price that aboriginal people and their families pay, through motor vehicle crashes and many other tragedies, largely because of their disadvantaged starting position in life. Together with my friend David Dickson, an ICBC manager from Williams Lake, we travelled the Chilcotin plateau and out to Bella Coola and Bella Bella, pioneering approaches to stop the carnage, together with aboriginal leaders. Although I went into politics, Dave, the chiefs with whom he works, the RCMP of the Chilcotin and Cariboo and many community leaders continue to build toward the day when native people's lives will not be scarred and broken with such appalling frequency and predictability by the painful consequences of economic disadvantage, poverty and substance abuse.

I give this background to make it clear that the fact that we were shut out of the negotiations with the Nisga'a does not mean that British Columbians had no contribution to make -- quite the contrary. All of us -- every British Columbian who has concerns, experience, ability and advice which we wish to contribute -- could have and should have been included. Our exclusion has been a preposterous mistake arising out of the conceit of individuals in both provincial and federal governments who have yet again indulged their huge egos in the old, tired, failed approaches which rendered the Charlottetown accord, the Meech Lake accord and the Indian Act, for that matter, scrap-heap material. The Nisga'a treaty, as drafted, is indeed a failure. It does not take into account the profound effects on individual Nisga'a people, 39 percent of whom did not support the treaty, who had no say, or on neighbouring aboriginal people like the Kincolith or the Gitanyow, or on all other British Columbia and Canadian native people as groups and associations, or, indeed, on every individual Canadian, particularly each British Columbian.

Why did the governments of B.C. and Canada leave us all in the dark until at last the B.C. Liberals procured and released the draft treaty? The answer, of course, is arrogance. It is the same arrogance shown in the Aboriginal Affairs ministry estimates debate last summer, when the minister, rather than focusing on identifying the concerns of aboriginal people, presumed to resort to the old, cynical NDP approach of attacking ad hominem. He would rather accuse another MLA, an elected representative of the people standing in this House every bit as legitimately as himself, of paternalism or worse.

Yet there are questions of vital importance to aboriginal and non-aboriginal British Columbians alike, and now many are asking them. It is not too late to avoid the errors of this treaty, to reopen negotiations and fix those areas which are causing profound concern to British Columbians. The thousands who are voicing concerns are not opposing treaty-making, and I hope this NDP government will stop its nasty, wrongful allegations in that regard. Rather, we are expressing serious concerns which we would have raised, if given the opportunity, in the treaty-making process -- if the B.C. NDP had bothered, for example, to obtain a treaty mandate from British Columbians before entering negotiations. Failing that, had the negotiations for this treaty been more open, these concerns could have been raised and dealt with. Instead, we are engaged in this House in a debate which rushes all aboriginal people, all British Columbians and all Canadians toward an abyss.

There are provisions and precedents in this treaty which most assuredly will lead to ethnic conflict, protracted disputes and expense, and tragic consequence if they are not corrected. My colleagues and I will be raising these and debating them in detail as we get to the clause-by-clause debate of this flawed document. They include the treaty's creation of a third order of government hitherto not existing in the Canadian mosaic. They include depriving the democratic rights of British Columbians who until now had equality. They include the division of resources on the basis of ancestry and culture and the impossibility of ensuring peace in those allocations in future. They include government structures which are impractical and unaffordable.

[4:30]

As I conclude my remarks, I look forward to the debate in committee, an examination by the House of the individual provisions of the Nisga'a treaty. I hope that there will be a spirit of compromise and a willingness to genuinely examine those aspects which are of concern. British Columbians would rather have done that well before this stage. In fulfilling the responsibility with this debate, the only opportunity that British Columbians will have in the process which the senior governments have employed, we do not want to be misunderstood.

The people of British Columbia, and certainly I and my constituents in the Kamloops-North Thompson constituency, wish the Nisga'a people well. We have tremendous respect for them and for their long struggle for a fair and just settlement. We have profound concern for the hardships and difficulties of aboriginal people throughout this land and a heartfelt desire to change forever the factors which create those circumstances. We are not opposed to treaty-making -- far from it. We want treaties that at last establish fairness, right the wrongs of the past and set British Columbians together on a path of equality.

R. Kasper: I'd just like to read a quotation. The B.C. Chamber of Commerce made representations to government. They said: British Columbia ought to be at the negotiating table with Ottawa and the first nations: ". . .the uncertainty

[ Page 10870 ]

That presentation was made in 1988 to the Vander Zalm government, and it was made to the cabinet. Who would think that in their wisdom, they could see what in fact was going to unfold? They saw, because of economic concerns, that as a business community, they had, rightly so, been more than willing to take their place in British Columbia society to urge the government -- not this government, not the previous government but the one before. . . . And I'll congratulate that government for taking the steps necessary to get them, through the province of British Columbia, to the negotiating table.

I'm glad to hear the previous speaker's remarks, because it starts to set the tone as to what in fact their position is. I proudly say that I don't share that position. I don't share their method of negotiating treaties -- by changing the rules midstream. If one looks at the economic issue it in many respects affects all of us throughout this province. But there's also the moral issue, and the moral issue is equally compelling, if not more so. What we've seen established by our predecessors over a century ago -- generations ago. . . . They said to the aboriginal community: "We'll find you a place. We'll establish a paternalistic department known as the Department of Indian Affairs, and we'll shunt you off onto lands that take you away from your traditional economic abilities -- a way for you to earn a living -- and away from the urban centres on southern Vancouver Island and also on the lower mainland. We'll also take away your culture, your heritage and then your children."

You know, that was not a proud time in our province -- for that matter, in our country. This treaty is a way to reconcile that moral issue and the responsibility. It's not good enough to say you're sorry. You have to do more than that. You have to take action, to stand up and be counted. If you don't do that, it's a sad comment on what each and every one of us is here to do. We're here to make decisions on behalf of our constituents and to hear the views of our constituents.

I could dwell on the moral argument, but I don't want to dwell on it. That side of the House has chosen to enter into the legal debate; they've chosen to go to the courts. Well, for the past two decades the courts have made the decision for us. They have said: "Governments, you have to, through a political process, take the steps necessary to negotiate treaties and land claims. If you don't do it, we will do it for you."

Now, I have a concern with that, because the court system is an adversarial process. There are winners; there are losers. There are those who pay, and there are those who receive. We don't know what the courts would decide as to what the final outcome would be if they had to make the decision for us, so it's incumbent on us, as elected officials through a political process, to complete the treaty process. If we don't do it, the courts have said they will do it; they will finish the job for us. That's not what British Columbians want; British Columbians do not want an adversarial process to solve land claim issues. They want a negotiated process. It's a sad comment that I make. We hear from those who are opposed that they are more than willing to go back into the courts, back through that system that creates winners and losers. I can't accept that position.

I participated in a debate in mid-November with an individual who I thought I had a bit more respect for. That was Keith Martin of the Reform Party, the Member of Parliament for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca. When I heard his arguments as to why this treaty is not good for British Columbia and Canada, they were shallow and contradictory. The arguments were that we should not support the communal process, the communal approach to the question of ownership of title, of lands -- the process which aboriginal culture is based on. At the same time, that individual wants a reaffirmation of section 35, to in fact guarantee and further entrench aboriginal culture, it does just that: it embraces the concept of communal ownership, communal decisions. You can't have it both ways.

That member also presents arguments that this particular agreement is race-based, and that's the farthest thing from the truth. That individual went on to say, not only at that particular debate but in his press releases that had been carefully crafted to push the hot buttons -- to push the buttons that will bring out the negativity in that small core group of people that support his political persuasion -- that this agreement is the beginning of apartheid in Canada.

Well, that's wrong. That's morally wrong. It's totally irresponsible, because that does nothing to help establish equality within this country, within this province. It sets a flame in the minds of those people who have nothing good to say about aboriginal people, who have nothing to offer as far as support and encouragement in the entering of partnerships with the aboriginal community. But when asked about that position. . . . I'll quote a response: "I've been accused of saying that this is apartheid." So it's a careful twist of the words. "I've been accused of saying this is apartheid." When asked to come clean on what is said in press releases, the response is: "I've been accused." That does nothing for the argument or the position that he so righteously took during the debate that I participated in. When confronted on his so-called fact that this agreement is going to cost the taxpayers some $2 billion through lost forest revenues. . . . He has still not responded to present those facts and figures.

What we have happening out in the community -- and in particular my community -- is a small group of individuals who are, by any means possible, raising the issues to inflame people -- to inflame those, to bring out the most negative element inside people to speak against this treaty, to speak against the treaty process in general. In my office I've had fewer than two dozen constituents convey to me through e-mail, written letters, faxes and phone calls their opposition to the Nisga'a treaty. And that's after everybody in the constituency received information on the Nisga'a treaty.

[4:45]

[ Page 10871 ]

I'm not a highly educated individual. I'm a tradesman; I'm a bricklayer. I take from that some roots which I have: I'm a firm believer in building a solid foundation. If you don't have a solid foundation in the trade I have practised, there's not much you can build. You have to have the solid foundation. This process, this treaty, establishes a solid foundation. That solid foundation will allow aboriginal and non-aboriginal peoples to develop a stronger future, to right the wrongs that were done by our predecessors over a century ago and to ensure that we don't get embroiled and continue to be embroiled in a lengthy adversarial legal process. As I touched on earlier, it's the economic issues and the stability that will come forward because of that process.

Again, I don't want to bring up the negative, but there are those who continue to feed the flame of hate. Those people will turn around in my community. . . . I hate saying this, but the Member of Parliament, through his own actions, orchestrates events and makes public statements that give a misleading view of what aboriginal communities can accomplish and have accomplished. There are those out there in the community who are disgruntled. When I speak of community, the Pacheedaht community. . . . Disgruntled band members are not happy with the current administration. They have gone to great lengths, through their Member of Parliament, to echo false accusations about financial management. When the public hears that, when they read it in print, it casts negative views about aboriginal people in general. That's wrong.

I've demanded that he apologize for his actions. He continues to carry on this effort. At the same time we were having our debate in November, he would bring up these issues again, which have been addressed by auditors and by the Department of Indian Affairs. That does nothing for the treaty process. It does nothing for this agreement. But it plants that negative seed for that small group of people who continue to speak ill of the aboriginal communities.

Now, I'm not proud of that. I hope members opposite are not proud of those actions. In many respects, all of us who hold public office to serve our constituents, whether it's our current position, our previous positions, perhaps, as elected members in our community or as representatives from the business community, from social organizations or from community groups -- all of us, I'm sure, and I hope -- have this ability to have a level of trust, a level of hope in our hearts that when people are given the tools to make decisions on behalf of themselves and the community they represent, they in fact are going to make the right decisions. If we don't have that hope and that glimmer inside of us that there is a level of trust -- and faith in our fellow human beings to make the right decisions on behalf of the people that they represent -- we have no business being here -- none of us. When I as a member have taken my place and entered the debate, past and present, I have the hope that perhaps others might look within themselves to show that same level of confidence. If they don't, there's not much hope for any of us. I think it's important that we as elected members demonstrate to our constituents that we do have faith in a process and that we have faith in people.

This debate is one that I sense can bring out some anguish. I think that this has been clearly demonstrated over the past few days, when we have seen arguments presented -- and which continue to be presented -- against this treaty and the treaty process that are not deep-rooted. They are shallow. They perhaps are garnered and put together -- and I don't mean to say this in a negative way -- with true belief. The words come out, and my sense is that there is no trust. There is no trust in people; there is no trust in the Nisga'a and their leaders for making the decision. They have continued to carry on their fight. What we witnessed early this afternoon with Dr. Gosnell and his words. . . . It can never be said better as to what the Nisga'a people have gone through and what their hopes and beliefs are.

I can only speak on what my hopes and beliefs are and what I know my constituents have said to me -- that they want us to take our job seriously. They want us to get on with putting the issue of treaties to rest, to get on with economic stability for regions within our province, to get on with addressing the moral issue and the wrongs that have been done in the past.

I as a member am proud to say that I'm going to be accountable for the decisions I make; I'm going to be accountable for the position I will take when I vote. I'm going to be proud of that decision, because I'm not afraid to make that decision. I'm not out there to cater to any group. I'm there to make a decision based on what I know and on the fact that I have some faith in my fellow human beings; I'm proud of that. If I didn't take that position, I'd have no business being here.

G. Bowbrick: I'm 32 years old; I'm the youngest member of this assembly. The reason I say that is because it has a direct bearing on what I'm about to say. I have often quietly lamented the fact that while previous generations have done great things to make ours a more just and a more equal society, it seems that in this generation, we have difficulty doing that.

We've had previous generations who brought public pensions into this country to ensure that our elderly could live a better life. Previous generations brought about public education; previous generations brought about medicare. But it seems that that's not what happens these days. My generation -- those of us who are in this Legislature today -- are in a position of simply defending those gains. We're constantly fighting to simply maintain the gains that have been made by those who came before us. We hear it in our language all the time: we say we're defending medicare and we're defending education. I'm proud of the fact that I'm part of a government that tries to do that.

Well, I'm tired of simply defending. I and many others in my generation want to do something to move forward together toward greater justice and greater equality in our society. We are thankful for the work of generations before us, but as with any generation, we want to leave this world a better place than we found it. The Nisga'a treaty is that opportunity. It's the opportunity that comes around once in a generation -- once in a lifetime, perhaps. I am going to seize this opportunity to try to do something good.

What is this treaty about? I would suggest that at its essence, it is about this very simple sentiment: "What we desire for ourselves, we wish for all." This is a quote from J.S. Woodsworth, a leader in the social gospel movement early in this century and one of the pioneers among politicians who pushed for public pensions, which I referred to earlier. That quote says something about the principles that were followed then -- the striver, the desire to see greater equality and greater justice in our society. I suggest that those are the principles we have to continue to pursue today.

[5:00]

[ Page 10872 ]

One of the great things about our country is the prevailing ethic that we don't just look out for ourselves and our own; we look out for all of our fellow citizens. It's why the United Nations says that we have the best country in the world. We have a high quality of life, and we have tried to ensure that we have this for everybody; we care about it for all of our citizens. But we can do better. Not everyone in Canada has benefited from our efforts, as they should. Expanding upon this sentiment of "what we desire for ourselves, we wish for all," there are some very basic things that I want for me and my family. At its most basic level, what I want -- and what I think other fellow citizens in our society want -- is this: I want to manage my own life, and I want to be self-reliant. I want the same for my children -- my two sons, who are three years and seven weeks, respectively -- and I want the same for everyone else and their children.

In order to accomplish this, we need to do a number of things that I think are encompassed by this treaty. The first thing we need to do is ensure that there's economic opportunity for everybody. This treaty provides economy opportunity for aboriginal and non-aboriginal people alike. For the Nisga'a, it provides land and resources to develop their communities. It allows them to partake in the Canadian dream, as my ancestors did. It allows them to access the land and resources that allowed my ancestors and all of our ancestors to build what is arguably the most prosperous society on earth. Aboriginal people didn't have this opportunity. We all know they have not fully participated in the prosperity of our society. We know what the unemployment rate is like in most aboriginal communities, and all of us should be concerned when in any community in this province, that situation prevails. We've got to do something about it, and that's what this treaty is about.

For all of us this treaty lifts the burden of the uncertainty, which hurts us economically, of not knowing who legally controls the land and resources in this province. With this treaty, the Nisga'a have agreed to have under their control about 9 percent of their traditional territory. The other 91 percent will be controlled by the province; they'll be Crown lands. That's important. It's important economically, it's important for investment, and it's important for jobs. It was estimated in one study in 1990 that we had already lost $1 billion in investment in this province. It's completely understandable, and I think we all understand it. Who would invest, not knowing who owns the lands and who sets the rules on that land? Who would invest under those circumstances? The bottom line is that it has meant lost economic opportunity for first nations. It has meant lost economic opportunity for all of us.

The second area that I want to touch on under this treaty is education. As I said before, I return to the notion that what we desire for ourselves, we wish for all. I want to have a say in the way my children are educated. I want them to be educated in a system that reinforces the values that I was raised with, that my parents were raised with and that their parents were raised with. I want my sons to know their own history and culture. I believe that I have a say in this. The Nisga'a have historically not had this. This treaty ensures that they do. At the same time it ensures that other values that should bind us all as Canadians will be taught to Nisga'a children.

As well, I want to touch for a moment on the notion of. . .I guess I would put it broadly as roots. We might call it land; we might call it home; we might call it community. All of us can relate to the importance of feeling that we come from somewhere. I think we all know what it's like to be attached to the home we grew up in, perhaps the neighbourhood we grew up in, the community where we grew up or where we've set down roots, even in recent years. In many cases, for a lot of us it could be communities where our parents and grandparents grew up. I want to have control over the future of these places, and I want my children to have the same. The Nisga'a are just like us; they want the same thing. They haven't had that historically. The difference, of course, with the Nisga'a is that they can trace their family roots in an area back thousands of years. This treaty ensures that they can have control over their own communities and their own roots, just like the rest of us expect to have in our lives.

I want to touch for a moment, as well, on our children and what I as a citizen and as a father want. I want to ensure that if children in my community need help, they can get help in their own community. And if they need to be removed from a dangerous situation in their home or elsewhere, they will be cared for by people who understand the community and the values of the community where the children have lived their lives. I think all of us as parents understand how important that is. The Nisga'a want this too. This treaty ensures that that will happen. Historically, that hasn't happened for aboriginal people in this province, and it's been devastating. This treaty guarantees that the children of the Nisga'a will not be arbitrarily removed from their community and lose the values of the community that they're from. The bottom line is that this treaty makes a more equal and more just society, not less. It is a rare opportunity, an opportunity that is not to be missed.

I'm far from alone in this view. I've listened very carefully to the people I represent on this issue. I have phoned hundreds of them. I've spent many chilly and rainy evenings on their doorsteps, talking with them. I've met with them as groups and as individuals. I've received their letters. It is clear to me that the majority -- a clear majority -- of the people I represent see this also, as I do, as an opportunity for us to move ahead together toward a more just society which will be better for all of us. In addition to talking and listening to the people I represent, I have thought long and hard about this treaty, as I know other members of this House have. I've thought about what it means and about how it fits with our values and our wishes for the future.

I hope I'll be forgiven for being a little personal here, but I want the people I represent to know -- I think they deserve to know -- exactly what my thinking has been and why I'll be supporting this treaty. First is the way I was raised -- like so many others, I believe: to reject inequality and injustice wherever I see it. Whenever the opportunity to fight inequality and injustice presents itself, that's what I must do. It's the way I was raised, and I know it's the way so many other people were raised in our society. I have to take advantage of this opportunity; I cannot let this pass. I won't be able to face my sons in the future and tell them that I missed this opportunity and had to leave it for their generation to deal with.

I think of members of my family who came before me. I think of my grandfather who fought in World War II, of my great-grandfather who fought in World War I. What was it they were fighting for? At its root, I believe they were fighting for justice and for equality, fighting to make a better society. These were ideals they were fighting for, along with thousands of other young Canadians in their respective generations.

I think of an enduring image I have of my own grandmother. It's a photo that I've seen. It's one of my last images of her, a picture of her holding my mother as an infant in her arms on a picket line during a strike in the B.C. interior, around such basic things as the right to decent working condi-

[ Page 10873 ]

Now it's my turn -- my generation's turn -- to take another step toward greater equality and greater justice. I can't let down those who were in this struggle before me. I won't let them down by missing this opportunity for all of us to move forward together.

While I think of those generations who came before me, at this time my final thoughts are with those generations who come after me. In particular, I think of the generation of my sons: my son Colin, who's three, and my son Adam, who's seven weeks old. I believe from the centre of my soul that supporting this treaty is right for their generation. We must take care of this unfinished business; we cannot -- cannot -- leave it for them. I won't be able to face them if we do that. I don't know how I would answer their question if they were to ask me how I and others of my generation left this for them.

I think any parent knows that they can gain insight from their children; it can help us put things in perspective. This has certainly been my experience. It was something I was reflecting upon the other day. My son Colin, who's three years old -- just turned three -- has this habit of asking questions with the words "why not" instead of "why." He never uses the word why, everything is why not. It strikes me that it says something about the way children see the world and the way most of us see the world when we're younger. We think of a world of possibilities; we don't think of a world of limitations. The possibilities always, always outweigh the limitations. This is something, unfortunately, that all of us start to lose as we get older, but it's something that we must hang onto. It is what allows us to move forward as a people.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

This treaty is not perfect. There will be bumps along the way. Mistakes will be made, but those mistakes are for the Nisga'a to make. As I said earlier, I think the most basic thing that we want as human beings is control over our own lives. That's what the Nisga'a asked for, and it's just to allow that.

It's important, again, not to look exclusively at limitations. There's a tendency to do that in this debate, I'm afraid -- to always answer the question as to why we should support this treaty with reasons as to why we shouldn't. We have to look at the possibilities. In the words of my son, I ask all of you in this chamber: why not? Why not? Let's do the right thing. Let's move towards a more equal and more just society.

V. Anderson: I rise to respond to the motion re the Nisga'a final agreement and, in so doing, speak to all the citizens of British Columbia -- Nisga'a and non-Nisga'a -- as well as the hon. members of this assembly. I am humbled by the responsibility that has been placed upon me, as others in this House, to make a decision which may so profoundly affect the present and future of all who call themselves Nisga'a. I'm even more humbled when I realize that my decision, as one of others, may also have a profound affect upon first nation peoples of British Columbia and across Canada, as well as have a significant influence upon the children and adults of British Columbia. This to me is a sacred responsibility which is both a privilege and a burden. It cannot be taken lightly or thoughtlessly but reverently, discreetly and, I trust, under the guidance of the Great Spirit. As a person who had offered myself many years ago to serve others under the guidance of the spirit of creation, I must respect all those who live by action of this spirit.

[5:15]

I would quote from a letter to the congregations of the United Church of Canada, from the Right Reverend Bill Phipps, moderator of the United Church of Canada. This letter is as of November of this year:

"I believe that this is a defining moment for the United Church of Canada as we are confronted by the abuses in the schools in which we were involved. The current trial with respect to our involvement in the Alberni Indian residential school brings us face to face with the harsh realities of the total system. As a Canadian of non-native ancestry, I enjoy untold blessings handed on to me by my ancestors. If I am to accept all of these blessings, then I also need to accept responsibility for the wrongs which have also been handed down. The residential school system and all that it symbolizes in our relationship with first nations peoples is one of those wrongs. It was with this background that the United Church issued the apology of 1986, and the repentence statement of 1997, and now has apologized for our participation in the residential school system."

In 1966 I came with my family to Vancouver, to the faculty of the Vancouver School of Theology. While there, I received some important enlightenment from three outstanding members of the first nations -- namely, Don Robertson, John Williams and Rev. Bill Robinson, pastor in Vancouver and throughout British Columbia. Although officially they were my students, I was the learner. And there were others of the first nations who taught me that I would not find the answers until I had first learned from them what the right questions were and that answers didn't come primarily from talking but by listening and waiting and relating to one another.

Then, in the first steps of being involved in the formal political process, first nations personal relationships grew, because I was a pastor and thus one who tried to care for others. So I met some wonderful aboriginal first nations people, trying to live in excruciating circumstances, who showed me what it means to have self-worth in spite of one's environment or one's lack of acceptance by others. These were ones who found that the spirit of creation, or the Great Spirit, was a daily awareness not in words but in the depths of feeling.

It was during this time as president of the Liberal Party of B.C., then both a federal and a provincial party, that I had the privilege of participating in the formation of the provincial Liberal aboriginal commission. These persons and those who

[ Page 10874 ]

Then, by the grace of the people, I was given the responsibility of being a Member of the Legislative Assembly, a frightening and enticing opportunity. Here, for a very important time, I was the Aboriginal Affairs critic and was honoured to be in this position when we affirmed the inauguration of the treaty process in provincial legislation in 1993 by, as I remember, a unanimous vote of the Legislature. We did not then, nor do I think we do now, understand the full implications of the vision or of the process begun at that time. We have learned much, yet there is much to learn.

Part of my personal learning was to travel in B.C. with the legislative all-party committee to review and bring forth recommendations to the First Citizens Fund. In that time we were guests in many first nations communities and discovered the realities of their hopes and their plans for future generations. So the treaty process began and has continued as a learning process of overcoming generations of inadequate action, of false starts and of promises not kept, alongside the untold commitment of thousands of caring people in all parts of the province.

So we come to the present, when we are reviewing the Nisga'a agreement -- sometimes referred to as the Nisga'a final agreement, though there is very little about it that is final, for in reality it is all about the ongoing, unfolding, evolving future. First, it is significant to note that this agreement was not part of the treaty process referred to earlier but is a process of some 100-plus years, yet of informal discussion for some 30 years with the federal government and some ten years with the provincial government. But only in the last few months has the public been aware of the details of this particular treaty.

As to its intention, we look to the preamble, which says in part: "Whereas this Agreement sets out Nisga'a section 35 rights inside and outside of the area that is identified in this Agreement as Nisga'a Lands. . .now therefore the parties agree as follows. . . ." Then follow very important and significant definitions from A to Y, two of which are: " 'Nisga'a citizen' means a citizen of the Nisga'a Nation as determined by Nisga'a law," and " 'Nisga'a Nation' means the collectivity of those aboriginal people who share the language, culture, and laws of the Nisga'a Indians of the Nass Area, and their descendants."

So my first question, the answer to which was not available when the agreement was signed, is: what is the Nisga'a law within the Nisga'a constitution to define a Nisga'a citizen and thus a Nisga'a nation?

My second question comes logically from the first: what is the nature of Nisga'a government as expressed in the Nisga'a constitution, which flows from but is not governed by the agreement? Are the powers granted to this government legal under the Canadian constitution, from which it is proposed to receive its authority under section 25 and section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982? The question, then, is: is this an expansion or change of the Canadian constitution? And if so, does it by law require a referendum in British Columbia before it is affirmed by the Legislature?

As to this second question, since there are qualified legal opinions on both sides of the question, yes and no, it then requires a decision of the courts of Canada to clarify what is or is not legal. Without this decision, I am not in a position to fulfil my commitment to uphold the law until I know what the law is. I agree that this is unfortunate and complicating. But this is the bind into which we have been put by a government which would not seek nor wait for a court decision.

My third question is: what is the double implication of chapter 2, No. 9, page 14? It reads: "The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to Nisga'a Government in respect of all matters within its authority, bearing in mind the free and democratic nature of Nisga'a Government as set out in this Agreement." Indeed, since there are some 14 areas in the Nisga'a law which override both provincial and Canadian laws, does this not mean that in these areas the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not necessarily apply? And if so, can I legally agree to this?

My fourth question is: is section 6 of the Constitution Act, 1982, overridden by this agreement or by the Nisga'a constitution? This section reads. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. . . . Excuse me, hon. member. I just wanted to call the House to order, but they seem to have done that without my having to say anything, which is appropriate and helpful.

V. Anderson: This section reads: "Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right (a) to move and take up residence in any province and (b) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province." That is, may any non-Nisga'a resident of Canada be prohibited from living in the Nisga'a nation area just because they are non-Nisga'a? For this reason, would one not have a vote in the government whose laws govern them?

My fifth question is: what is the relationship of section 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982? This reads: "The constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect." What does this mean to the 14 pre-eminent areas of the Nisga'a government? It seems to me that self-government within Canada may be one thing, but self-government which is more absolute than the government of Canada is another reality. On this I need clarification and convincing.

My sixth question is: what is the meaning of chapter 2, No. 22, page 16? It reads: "This Agreement constitutes the full and final settlement in respect of the aboriginal rights, including aboriginal title, in Canada of the Nisga'a Nation." Does this mean that all Nisga'a citizens or Nisga'a participants will no longer have a fiduciary relationship with the federal government or provincial government, and therefore all special programs, grants, payments, etc., targeted especially at aboriginal people are no longer automatically available to them once the agreement is ratified, since they are no longer under the Indian Act?

My seventh question is: how can this be called a final agreement when chapter 2, No. 35, page 19 leaves the agreement open-ended, to be added to if subsequent treaty or land claims agreements adversely affect Nisga'a section 35 rights, as set out in this agreement? The quote is: "Canada or British Columbia, or both, as the case may be, will provide the Nisga'a Nation with additional or replacement rights or other appropriate remedies." Is this then not a very open-ended and

[ Page 10875 ]

[5:30]

Why also in the propaganda or "educational material" distributed to the public was there no summary, at the very least, of the content of the 468 pages of the appendix or of the four side agreements -- for example, the harvest agreement, the fiscal financing agreement, the own-source revenue agreement or the taxation agreement, all of which become part of the agreement upon ratification.

Further, was the summary of the final agreement distributed to the Nisga'a people the same as the one distributed to the non-Nisga'a? I am interested, because having been advised of the Nisga'a nation material at a meeting with Chief Joseph Gosnell, I was unable to have the material sent to me for comparison.

Further, listening to the incomplete and misleading propaganda of the government advertising, I am concerned that the general public has been turned off the whole treaty process, which is a concern for future treaty discussions. As well, I attended at least three presentations on the treaty, and the presentation of government representatives, though historical in large part, added unwarranted conclusions which also detracted from any credibility that might have been present.

It is my belief that the negotiators for all of these parties entered into the initial process in good faith and did achieve some very significant common agreements in very many areas. Yet haste since the summer of 1998 -- seemingly driven by a provincial government agenda to be seen to be doing good and to get credit -- has undermined not only the credibility of this Nisga'a agreement but also the credibility of the treaty process itself.

Consistently I hear some Nisga'a and many non-Nisga'a, both aboriginal and non-aboriginal, having real questions and strong disagreements with the direction that the process has taken, and wanting -- rightly so -- to reconsider the whole undertaking to discover a better way and to have time to do so. Why has the process been so rushed in these last few months, so that the public, Nisga'a and non-Nisga'a, have not had time to discuss it with each other? This should not have been treated in haste like so many other bills brought forward by this government. Does it tell us something when the Canadian Constitution Act, 1982, is 20 pages and the Nisga'a final agreement is 252 pages, the side agreements 90 pages and the appendix 462 pages -- a total of 800-plus pages?

I would fail in my responsibility if I did not share the collective statement of representatives of the faith communities, among whom I worked for 11 years as coordinator of Canadian Ecumenical Action -- now called Multifaith Action. I accept this statement as being in essential agreement with my and our caucus's position, except for one critical statement. The "Faith Leaders Faith Communities Statement" reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, believe that it is common to our religious and spiritual traditions that there is a universal destiny of the goods of the earth, where land is a gift to us all -- not for us to exploit but to care for. We know from our experience of aboriginal spirituality that aboriginal peoples see themselves as inseparable from the soil from which they came and that they consider themselves as part of the land that has been entrusted to them to care for, to use and to share. There must be reconciliation and respect between neighbours. Where there has been an injustice and inequity, there must be justice and reconciliation.

"We affirm that the process of negotiation is the best means for resolving land claims issues, reconciling communities with each other and restoring dignity to those who have suffered injustices.

"We endorse the general principles of the Nisga'a final agreement as a result of good-faith negotiation between three parties, and we believe that ratification of the treaty would be in the best interests of British Columbia and Canadians. We believe that the ratification process should be preceded by a public dialogue based on respect and information-sharing, which leads to mutual understanding and reconciliation.

"We commit ourselves and our communities to such a dialogue and encourage all British Columbians to join us on this journey of understanding and reconciliation."

To express my position in another way, there is a parable about a man who built his house upon a rock -- a solid foundation -- and when the storm came, the house stood firm. Another man built his house on the ground -- without a solid foundation -- and when the storm came, its destruction was complete. To approve the structure of this treaty, I must be sure that it has a solid legal foundation, for to do any less would be to abdicate my responsibility as a legislator. As a lawmaker, I must be as sure as I am able to be that it will stand the test of time, or I must undertake that it gets the further improvement it needs before going to final approval. This is a hard decision but a necessary one, humbly made.

On May 26, 1993, as opposition Aboriginal Affairs critic, I said as we initiated the treaty process: "This is a significant time in the life of the people of this province and of Canada and of indigenous people around the world. It is an occasion at which I would like to try to speak from my heart rather than from my head." This I have done. But I also must balance my heart with my head, or the decision is not valid and will not stand the test. What test? The constitutional test -- for the whole basis of this treaty is constitutional, based on section 35 and section 25 and other related parts of the Canadian Constitution Act, 1982. Its foundation is in the constitution, and it must be tested against the constitution. Until this testing is done, I must say that the time for approval is not yet here. Indeed, the present court action of aboriginal claimants against the Nisga'a' nation over unresolved overlapping claims is a very important challenge that shows we are not yet ready for ratification. In the aboriginal community, it's important to respect the views of the minority as well as those of the majority.

Finally, I've had phone calls and letters from those urging me to both support and not support the ratification of the treaty. A number of these are from members of the faith communities, recognizing that I am a minister of the United Church of Canada. A comment from one of these letters said: "I trust that you, an elected representative, will act with honesty, integrity and justice in this matter." To the best of my ability, I trust that this is what I am doing, and I trust that it is what each of the other 74 members of this Legislature will do also.

[ Page 10876 ]

Motion approved.

The Speaker: I recognize the Government House Leader.

Hon. D. Lovick: I call private members' statements.

Private Members' Statements

ECONOMIC PERCEPTION VERSUS ECONOMIC REALITY

I think that in these days, when we're dealing with far more than just the economy of British Columbia -- we're dealing with global economies; we're dealing with people who are trading money on markets, and those sorts of things -- it is very, very difficult for us as a province to deal with those kinds of global issues. There is no question that those global situations, particularly in the Asian Rim, have had profound impact on us; but a lot of those decisions that have been made in terms of the global economy are ones that have been made based on perception rather than reality.

We see where moneys change and the value of moneys change on a daily basis. We see that in the pulp industry, pulp is now being produced in Asian markets at $50 and $100 a tonne. Those become realities, but those realities are driven, I believe, by a perception of what's going on in the global marketplace. That perception -- how people trade on perception these days -- causes me a great deal of concern. It's important for us as British Columbians -- and, I think, for us as legislators sitting in this House -- to make sure that when we talk about the perception of investment and of the economic climate in British Columbia, we go back to a firm foundation in terms of the reality of British Columbia.

You know, there's a lot of talk recently about other provinces and how they stack up in terms of our economy. It's important, I think, for the members of this House to put things in context and to get away from perception and to start talking about some of the real numbers and the real issues that are out there in terms of the relations between us and other provinces. In January 1998, B.C. created 57,000 new jobs -- a 3.1 percent increase; Alberta created 19,000 jobs, a 1.3 percent increase. Growth since 1991 is comparable, with B.C. up 290,000 jobs and Alberta up 233,000 jobs. Based on that statistic, we're doing quite well.

I know that the member for Peace River North will agree and will be very pleased to hear that a reality is that British Columbia has recorded a 31 percent increase in gas wells drilled in 1998, and Alberta has recorded a 35 percent decrease in the number of wells over the same period. It is so important for us as legislators to stop arguing perception -- rhetoric and political content -- and, rather, to start arguing the reality of British Columbia on behalf of British Columbians.

[5:45]

We as legislators in the province need to take those kinds of comments and get them out not only to the people of British Columbia but across this country and around the world. IBM is investing heavily in British Columbia. We need to talk to people about those kinds of opportunities. So often in the Legislature we get into discussions about what's wrong with British Columbia -- and there's no question we have problems in terms of our local economy. My view is that most of those are pushed on us from global trading and global perceptions about money markets and the like. We need, as legislators, to focus on the positive attributes of British Columbia.

It kind of amazes me when we get into discussions in the Legislature, and we talk about issues, and we do comparative analyses between us and Alberta and between us and Ontario or other provinces. The economic strategy in Ontario is one of cutting -- there's $1 billion in funding cuts -- and substantially reducing the number of classrooms, teachers and programs. Potentially, 694 schools are closing under the province's new pupil education funding formula. Under the current plan $2 billion will be cut from Ontario's hospital funding in the year 2006.

We have to get a message out to people across Canada -- to investors, to citizens across this country and particularly in British Columbia -- that we've decided to take a different course of action in terms of economic strategy. We're not dealing with perceptions or notions but with the real issues facing us. We're talking about putting in place a plan that would allow us to build the economy of British Columbia. It's so very important, I believe, not to go out and argue on our weak points. We have weak points in British Columbia; there's no question about that. We need to argue on our strong points. We need to argue that we have a vibrant oil and gas industry. We need to argue and support our forest industry right now, which is going through tremendous difficulty. We need to do those kinds of things as British Columbians, as legislators.

I believe the people of British Columbia expect us to do that. I believe the people of British Columbia are positive about the future of British Columbia. I believe the people of British Columbia share the views of Mr. McCallum from the Royal Bank, and they share the view that there is opportunity in British Columbia.

As legislators we have to make sure that we stop being negative about British Columbia, that we stop trading on the perception that British Columbia is a failing economy and start trading on the realities that are in British Columbia. We have a wonderful province with wonderful people, and we have lots of opportunity in British Columbia. I hope that, as legislators, all members of the House will agree that we have to work very, very hard together to achieve that positive end for people in British Columbia.

[ Page 10877 ]

R. Neufeld: Just a couple of issues that the member brought forward. On the oil and gas industry, we have to look at the record: $130 million less is put into government coffers this year than the previous year for fees and land acquisition. That should be a message to you folks that something is wrong in the economy. It's 10,000 or 15,000 jobs. One does not know from the minister from one day to the next how many jobs are lost in British Columbia.

Let's look a little bit at what you as government have said you're going to do. You were going to cut red tape. The Minister of Finance says that reducing red tape is an NDP priority that will improve B.C.'s economy and make it easier for businesses to do business in B.C. Let's look at your record since 1991. Since the NDP came to power, they have enacted more than 3,180 regulations, which consume over 6,500 pages, adding $2 billion to industry. What a record!

You say we should be looking. . . . You folks should look at what you have done. Capital investment in British Columbia is terrible. In Alberta it has grown four times faster than in B.C. Between 1992 and 1998, capital in B.C. increased by a mere 22.5 percent. Investment in Alberta rose by 104 percent, while Saskatchewan and Manitoba experienced gains of 104 percent and 84 percent -- pretty lousy records.

Let's go to a few more things. B.C. now has the highest or top marginal income tax rate in North America. Way to go! That's thanks to the NDP, thanks to the socialists. More than 11,000 people left British Columbia in the first six months of 1998, and they have gone to Alberta or Washington or Oregon or Saskatchewan or Manitoba or Ontario -- wherever someone wants them to come to work and invest money.

Let's look at some of the statistics that come from other organizations: the TD Bank, the CIBC, the Scotiabank. They say that under the NDP, B.C. has gone from first to last place in economic growth in Canada and is now in a recession. B.C. is expected to post the worst economic growth rates in Canada in both 1998 and 1999. Way to go, folks! Next, B.C. is expected to register the worst employment growth in Canada in 1998 and is the only province expected to register negative employment growth in 1999.

The Speaker: The hon. member will take his seat. A point of order is being requested by the hon. member for Burnaby-Willingdon.

J. Sawicki: I know we've been away from this chamber for a few months, but I would just like to remind the hon. member, to refresh his memory, about private members' statements and standing order 25A. He actually might like to read a Speaker's judgment as well, on page 46. . . .

The Speaker: I recognize the hon. member for Shuswap.

G. Abbott: If the intent of the government is that the tone of private members' statements should be something other than what we have heard, then clearly, if a rebuke is deserved in this House, it is deserved for both sides. The member is giving back no less than he received.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, order, please. I wish to refresh all our memories about standing order 25A as it translates into what we're doing today. The particular point has to do with: ". . .it is quite possible to express a party's position on political issues or policy matters without indulgence in personal attacks on individual members or groups of members in the House." I think it is indeed entirely possible to state a particular political position without attacking either the other side or a group within the House. With that caution, I recognize the hon. member for Peace River North, to continue.

R. Neufeld: I'll read out the statistics that come from all kinds of organizations in British Columbia, hon. Speaker. I hope you add to my time what's been missed because of the interruption, and we'll let it fall on whose ears it should fall on. I won't make reference to anyone in this building, but I think we all know who the government is -- unfortunately.

While the NDP brought in seven consecutive budget deficits, Alberta and Saskatchewan have balanced their budgets five times, and Manitoba, four times. This is not. . . . It's the Fraser Institute's "B.C. Budget Backgrounder." By March 31, 1999, taxpayer-supported debt is forecast to reach $13 billion, or a 133 percent increase under the government. That's Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations information, hon. Speaker. Under the NDP, the total provincial debt will reach $31.2 billion by March 31, 1999, an 81 percent increase.

Now standing at 21.2 percent, British Columbia's debt-to-GDP ratio has risen by 70 percent under the government, the third-largest increase in Canada -- Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations. The NDP has imposed more than $2 billion in higher taxes.

The Speaker: I'm sorry, hon. member. These are meant to be more general kinds of statements, as opposed to being specific. This is not a debating time. It is for statement of a position, yes; but it's not a debating time. Therefore words and identification of individual groups in the House -- and that means the government side, with particular names, as you've described. . . . It's meant to be more generalized, which I know you can do. I encourage the member. . . .

R. Neufeld: I can generalize it, hon. Speaker. I know my time is almost up.

The Speaker: We'll give you another minute, hon. member.

R. Neufeld: I know there are members in this House -- and they could be on my side of the House -- who don't want to hear this information, but it is the truth. It is information that comes from. . . . I'm reading government documents into the record, hon. Speaker. I can't imagine. . . . I'm not trying to be argumentative with you, but I can't imagine why that should make anyone unhappy.

But if it does, maybe I can voice it and say that it's time that the government of the day quit blaming everyone else and started looking inward at the problems they have created between 1991, since the election, and 1998. It's been dismal at best. It doesn't matter where I go or where I look, what records I try to read. Even in the Ministry of Finance, if I look at the remarks of the Minister of Finance, it's dismal. Investment is gone. And when we talk about trying to help the forest industry, the minister says: "We just changed some regulations last Friday." Well, it's had a bad flu for years.

Interjections.

[ Page 10878 ]

The Speaker: In response, I recognize the hon. member for Victoria-Hillside, bearing in mind the cautions that have been described by the Chair.

S. Orcherton: Hon. Speaker, it's always good to hear from the member for Peace River North. It's always good to hear his new comments being verbalized here in the Legislature. There's always a new phrase coming from him -- particularly in response to private members' statements. I've always respected the member. He's always brought a great deal of reality, in terms of economic reality, to this House. I recall the member often saying that we need new roads in the north, and that is a reality. I'm pleased that there is now $27 million worth of new roads going into the north and into the Peace River area. Those are very positive initiatives. And in terms of the oil and gas industry in British Columbia, I would hope that the member would be arguing in support of the industry and in support of his area.

The Speaker: Hon. member, that's coming very close to personal attacks and individual identification, and that's not what private members' statements are all about.

S. Orcherton: Thank you for your guidance, hon. Speaker.

I heard today or yesterday that Boeing has announced in Seattle that 48,000 jobs will be lost in the Seattle area because of the Asian crisis. I wonder if that's an argument that the members opposite want to put forward and lay the blame for at the feet of this government. Every jurisdiction on the Asian Rim is suffering from the effects of the Asian global marketplace meltdown.

Every indicator is that things are going to be better. Let me quote from Linda Nazareth, CIBC's senior economist. For all the members in this House, when we talk about economic reality and economic perception -- and we do trade on perceptions, members. We do trade on perception in terms of the marketplace, even in terms of our economy in British Columbia. Ms. Nazareth says: "British Columbia's long-term economic prospects are among the strongest of all provinces." This is the senior economist for CIBC. "As the Asian economies restructure and start to grow again, provincial economic prospects will again be lifted. Therefore, the challenge to B.C. is for the short term."

[6:00]

JOBS AND SERVICE, CHILLIWACK-STYLE

We all know the expression: "I don't make house calls." Well, in fact, staff at our community lab in Chilliwack do make house calls. If someone is too ill or is unable to travel to the lab for a necessary test, dedicated workers will visit the homes of Chilliwack residents and obtain medical samples. Actually, these workers will travel as far as Agassiz and Harrison in the provincial electoral district of Mission-Kent. In addition, the lab workers hold regular clinics in seniors nursing homes and visit penitentiaries in the area.

More than 300 people per day use the local lab, for a total of about 6,000 patients every month. Patients tell me that they appreciate the more flexible hours and cooperative staff. The office is open from 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday to Friday. For many people that I speak to, going into a hospital for a simple test can be an intimidating prospect. Even for me, entering our local hospital raises my heart rate just a bit, as I remember my lengthy hospital stays with meningitis and appendicitis when I was a child. I hasten to add that staff at Chilliwack General Hospital were and are excellent and provide great care.

Back to the community lab. How much extra do patients and taxpayers have to pay for this flexible service at our community lab? Nothing. It's hard to believe, but it's true. This extra service is delivered for the same cost per test as the work performed at the hospital lab. But all is not well. In October, British Columbians learned that the NDP government had secretly negotiated and signed what they call the "Public Sector Accord on Strengthening B.C.'s Public Health Care Services" with the leaders of the Hospital Employees Union and the Health Sciences Association.

People in Chilliwack are concerned that this agreement -- which was developed without any input from our community lab, their talented employees and the thousands of patients they serve in Chilliwack -- will force everyone to utilize government-controlled laboratories if they need a medical test. If implemented, this secret deal might reduce the options available to people seeking health care. A previous NDP government in Ontario tried to do the same thing in 1995, but it backed down when their own study showed moving. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. member, would you please take your seat. I see a member has risen, although I'm not sure which member it is. There seem to be a lot of people on their feet. I recognize the Minister of Fisheries.

Hon. D. Streifel: Just a point of order for clarification on the rules of debate around private members' statements. It is

[ Page 10879 ]

The Speaker: I thank the hon. minister for his intervention and some cautions that I know the member has heard here before, in terms of the. . . . But some differences of opinion are welcomed and expected in the situation of private members' statements. It is the degree to which accusations are advanced that creates some of the difficulties for us. I encourage the member to be as general as possible in the area he's chosen to discuss -- as opposed to debate. This is not about debating.

B. Penner: In reply to the Minister of Fisheries, I simply say: some figment and some imagination! I have here a copy of the document which I'm referring to; it exists.

But back to my prepared text, hon. Speaker. In 1995 the Ontario NDP government backed down on a similar scheme when their own study showed that moving laboratory services away from private providers would increase costs by over 17 percent. That amounted to $20 million of scarce health care dollars. That's far too much. I'm committed to representing the people of Chilliwack in their effort to maintain our community lab. We urge the government: if it isn't broken, don't fix it.

The Speaker: Hon. member, it's not appropriate to be urging government to do anything in situations on either side on this one. Hon. member, describe what is happening in your community as you see it. I think that's appropriate. You may continue.

The member has finished. I gather that there is a response emerging, and it would seem to be from the member for Columbia River-Revelstoke.

J. Doyle: I had little information from the member opposite when I asked him today just what he was speaking about. Of course, we do know that the opposition has a long-term wish to privatize health care and bring in a two-tier health care system.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members. . . .

I recognize the hon. member for Shuswap.

G. Abbott: Hon. Speaker, again, if we're going to have rules that apply to the opposition, then surely they apply to the members of the government as well. The member for Chilliwack attempted as best he could to accommodate your suggestion that he try to rephrase his remarks. Yet the member for Columbia River-Revelstoke immediately launches into a line of discussion which is clearly contrary to the guidance that you gave to the member for Chilliwack.

The Speaker: I thank the member for his intervention. I caution all members again, and the one who is about to speak as well, about the nature of discussion of different political views and policy views. That's allowed, and that's fine. It has to do with negatively referring to either individuals or groups in this House -- in this case, a group can mean a political party.

J. Doyle: I'd like to close, hon. Speaker, by saying that the truth hurts the opposition.

I would rather talk about my constituency, about volunteers and what people do -- unpaid. I'm sure that private clinics, if they do some work, are, hopefully, well reimbursed for it. But I'd like to speak about my constituency -- for instance, the search and rescue people that work very, very hard. The constituency that I serve is a very mountainous area -- Kicking Horse Canyon, Rogers Pass, many, many areas. . . .

Interjection.

J. Doyle: They're searching for you -- for what party you're in that day.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, particularly those who don't speak from their seats, are to have drawn. . . . I caution all of you.

J. Doyle: Search and rescue, for instance, do a wonderful job. Many, many people dedicate 24 hours a day without pay, and weekends away from their family time, to work in search and rescue. There are people who travel on roads out in the mountainous area that I represent. They sometimes do run off the road, get lost while they're mountain-climbing or cross-country skiing. Those are the kinds of people I feel we should be speaking about here tonight, not people who are well reimbursed by and large for a service that they provide.

Other people provide great services -- for instance, people that provide Meals on Wheels to people who are in their homes. They bring food to those people that maybe are not fit. Maybe they're elderly; maybe they've got some handicap. People provide for no cost the time to deliver food from hospitals and things like that -- at no cost. They buy their own gas. They give time away from their families to provide service to those people.

It's volunteers like paramedics, people that volunteer in many of our communities to be available 24 hours a day, seven days a week for ambulance calls out on the highway to rescue people. It's fire departments in many small communities I represent that provide services, again, 24 hours a day, risking their own lives many times to serve and make sure that communities are safe. Again, because those fire departments are there means that people have insurance they can afford to buy. Without fire department services provided by those volunteers, the insurance would be something that they couldn't afford to buy or would have to go without.

It's services provided by groups like rod and gun clubs that volunteer many hours to do work, to count how many different species of wildlife there are out there. It's rod and gun clubs that do the work as far as stocking areas for fish and doing many areas of activity to make sure that there is wildlife and that the streams in our province are healthy.

It's volunteer groups like the ladies auxiliaries, which are run out of the many hospitals in the constituency that I represent. Those people cater dinners; they assist people in the hospitals. Any moneys that those hard-working volunteers raise goes right back into that hospital to provide equipment that will make our hospital and the health care system in our province better.

It's people like the Legions in the province of British Columbia and across Canada and in the constituency that I

[ Page 10880 ]

Service clubs -- the Kinsmen, Lions, Rotary and many other clubs -- again, are very proud to belong to those groups. They provide a very much needed service across Canada and in the riding that I represent in parliament. To me, that is what service is all about; when people are willing to give for no return to themselves.

B. Penner: In closing, in my discussion about Chilliwack's community lab, I'd just like to say that I've been encouraged by the thousands of people who have lent their signatures to a petition I've drafted, which is opposed to any plans to take over our community lab. I recently visited Chilliwack's community lab, and I met with the employees. Some of the workers have been there for over 20 years. One female staff person asked me why the government would try to attack her job. The only answer I could offer is that it must a mistake. I told her that I would seek community support for my effort to protect the lab. As of today, 4,335 people have given their support by signing the petition.

We all know that B.C.'s economy has gone from first to worst in Canada in the last couple of years. I know, speaking from Chilliwack's perspective, that we need more jobs and private investment, not less. The Chilliwack community lab is a success story. I conclude my remarks by saying that if it isn't broken, don't fix it.

REFLECTIONS ON THE KOOTENAY ECONOMIC SUMMIT

What I want to talk about this evening is the Kootenay economic summit that took place in my constituency on November 4-6 in the city of Castlegar, at Selkirk College. It hosted 190 people from around the Kootenays and the Boundary. I had the pleasure of being the co-chair of the advisory committee and was very privileged, as well, to have Chief Sophie Pierre, who lives just outside of Cranbrook, as my other co-chair.

[6:15]

But I have to say that it worked very well, and it was due -- not completely; I don't want to say that -- in large part to the work of the advisory committee, which in. . . . I'd like to say "in true Kootenay spirit," but sometimes within the Kootenays we have a few problems with parochialism, as other areas do. But in the true spirit of cooperation, we pulled together and were able to complete the agenda for the summit.

At the same time, we also had focus groups that went out to the various communities throughout the Boundary region and the Kootenays. Meetings were held to get feedback from people who weren't going to be attending the summit yet wanted to have input into it. These meetings were successfully held over about a two-week period in communities throughout the Kootenays and the Boundary region. Everything was documented and brought back to the advisory committee.

As co-chair of the advisory committee, I can tell you that we're working right now to try and compile all of the constructive ideas that came out of the summit and out of the focus group meetings. It's a very difficult task, because there were so many people involved. But we are working hard to do that, and within a very short period of time, I think we'll have that done.

At the summit we had a number of workshops that were agreed to by the advisory committee. In the advanced education, skills and training workshop, we decided that we had to utilize the resources of our region much more productively. We had to really look at utilizing these resources. These are the resources of Selkirk College, the College of the Rockies and the Kootenay School of the Arts. We want to build on the strengths of the people within the region to give the people in our communities the educational training they need for the future. That workshop, it seemed, really drew on the strengths of the people in our region around the tremendous situations we have around advanced education.

The agricultural section of the summit talked about opportunities for regional marketing. They talked about land use, which is an important issue throughout the province -- not simply in the Kootenays and the Boundary country -- and the availability of capital to promote agriculture within the region. We'll be working on a number of these things. The Minister of Agriculture is also a member of our focus group. So I look forward to working hard to come up with the results of that committee.

Arts, heritage and culture. We're very fortunate that we have a tremendous resource with regard to arts, heritage and culture in the Kootenays and the Boundary country. We have so many people who live there and who have moved there, who want to make the arts and culture such a strong part of our community. They talked about a number of ways that we could achieve that goal.

In forestry, we talked about adding value to our wood. Right now we're one of the. . . . I'm kind of proud to say that a lot of that is a direct result of the parliamentary committee that travelled the province and looked at value-added within the province. A lot of that has now come home to roost in the Kootenays, so we looked very strongly at that. We looked at the uniqueness of our forests and the terrain within the Kootenays. We talked about woodlots and the fostering of more woodlots to achieve a higher value out of our forests.

In high-tech, we talked about working to establish a high-tech presence in the Kootenays and to establish a networking system for spearheading high technology within our region. We have some exciting things that could potentially be coming to our region as a result of the summit.

[ Page 10881 ]

We talked about manufacturing -- and streamlining the process, like our government is doing. I guess I can't talk about that, hon. Speaker. Streamlining the process, as people are saying all over the province -- and people in the Kootenays are saying that as well -- and also building up infrastructure and getting marketing assistance for the region. . . .

In mining, we've got a very diverse mining sector with a number of potential minerals that can be removed from the ground. We talked about permitting and things like that in the mining sector.

In tourism, we talked about everything that we talked about in the other ones and what we could do to improve tourism. There were many ideas, because it is the fastest-growing industry. . . .

The Speaker: Hon. member, your time is now completed.

E. Conroy: Okay. I'll finish next time.

K. Krueger: My thanks to the member opposite, who, in his sincere way, has described what obviously felt like a very positive experience to him. Certainly I think we have agreement from this side of the House that it is wise and smart to go out and meet the people in the various areas of the province that we represent. Too often governments have forgotten about the interior of the province and tended not to make decisions that embraced the best interests of the interior.

On this side of the House, we launched tours of the province beginning in early 1997, building toward economic conferences, and we were really pleased when the government side took up that challenge. It's one of those rare examples of government accepting the example of the opposition in launching a process like this. There was some indication after the Prince George economic summit that people didn't feel as though it had been a genuine process, and again, to the government's credit, there was improvement between then and the Kamloops economic summit that took place last spring -- the spring of 1998. Now, of course, there's the Kootenay economic summit, which the member has just reported on and which I didn't have the privilege of attending.

The problem with having summits -- if there is a problem -- arises out of not acting on the results. The member has expressed some intent, which I believe is genuine, to act on these results. I certainly hope that happens. The results of the Prince George and Kamloops economic conferences haven't been too obvious yet. It took a very long time even to get a report out of the Kamloops economic summit. But it's absolutely essential that when members of the public -- and many of these are very high-powered, busy people -- come in and participate in these processes, they see positive results flow.

Indeed, many of the results from the two conferences that I'm familiar with -- and, I gather, from the one that the member attended as well, and certainly from the recent business summit in Vancouver -- have been confirmations that the job creators in this province see us having three major problems that have driven our economy to the state that it's in. One is overregulation, one is overtaxation and another is dramatic interference in labour-management relations. Those messages have come through over and over again from all these conferences and, I presume, from the one the member is discussing. It's absolutely essential that, on both sides of this House, we collaborate and cooperate in bringing about some action that addresses those concerns.

I was interested in the definition of consultation in the Nisga'a treaty, which, of course, we're debating this week. . . .

The Speaker: Hon. member, no reference to specifics in any bill that's before the House.

K. Krueger: Thank you, hon. Chair.

A definition of consultation that I might have just referred to includes action on the information that people gather in a consultative process. For too long, people have been waiting for action, and of course if they don't see it, they lose faith that it's going to happen and tend to go elsewhere to explore their options. It is commendable that people in British Columbia have kept turning out in spite of the experience of the last seven years, but we can't take that for granted. There's a general feeling of malaise not only from the business community but from the health care community, from people who were involved in the early regionalization processes and felt their input went nowhere. My community health council in Barrière, for example, was ultimately fired, and they feel that all their input, painfully garnered in a great deal of self-sacrificing time, was ignored. We don't want to see that bitterness and cynicism develop, and the disconnection that results, as people who have been invited to give their input see that input ignored and not acted upon.

My response to the member is that I'm really pleased he was personally involved in this effort, because I believe he is a sincere individual. I hope that he will make this economic conference an example for those who might follow -- and, indeed, for those who have gone before -- in ensuring that action is taken on the recommendations of the many people who took the time to participate in that conference. That's my challenge to the member.

E. Conroy: In recognition of the main question of the hon. member opposite -- that is, actions resulting -- when I explained about our advisory committee, that was one of the critical things that had to be satisfied with the advisory committee before we moved forward on the summit -- that there would truly be some action coming out of this. As many of you may or may not know, we in the Kootenays have, I guess, conferenced ourselves to death over the last number of years. We've had plenty of consultations and conferencing, and this was a bit of a unique one.

The guest speaker at the conference, Dr. Sirolli, was responsible for pioneering a responsive, bottom-up approach to community development in the mid-nineties, based on the belief that the future of any community lies in the dreams and aspirations of its people. Its success continues to attract international attention to this day. He gave a fairly, I guess, poignant speech about the possibilities of people within communities working together in times of adversity to create new economic opportunity.

One of the first things that's come out of the summit -- we just had our first post-summit advisory committee meeting last weekend -- was that we are now looking at doing pilot projects throughout the Kootenays and the Boundary country, with the Sirolli Institute, to see if some of the ideas that have worked worldwide for that institute can work well

[ Page 10882 ]

But one of the things that did come out of our last meeting, last weekend, was the notion of setting up a permanent group within the Kootenays and the Boundary to talk about what is in the best interests of the region. Let me give you an example; the example would be transportation. There'd be a transportation working group within the group, and the transportation working group would look at situations around transportation within the region. If we took Highway 3 as an example, which goes right through the whole region, we'd look at Highway 3 and say: "What's the most important portion of Highway 3 that has to be looked at by the Ministry of Transportation and Highways -- not the most important part in my constituency or anybody else's over there, but what's the most important part on the whole arterial highway that has to be addressed, and addressed the quickest?" That's the one that we'll put our resources behind jointly in order to try to get that job done and improve our region in that manner.

So we've done those two things. We've set up the pilot projects already. And we're beginning to set up a new group that will meet maybe on a bimonthly basis or whatever; we haven't got that nailed down yet, but we do have people working on it. So I'm pretty excited about what's . . . .

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. Your time has now elapsed.

For the fourth and final private member's statement, I recognize the hon. member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove.

DEMOCRACY DEMANDS DIVERSITY

[6:30]

Now, I've heard one member from the other side of the House question what organization that is. It's Canada's finest and only young people's service organization, the Kinsmen and Kinette Clubs of Canada. That's where I learned about democracy.

That organization had an oath of office, and in that oath of office they said -- and you chose when you became the president or a member of the executive of that club -- that all members' opinions would be heard and that the express will of the majority would be accepted. Democracy, to me, is not about browbeating people with your opinions. It is not about demeaning others because they have an opinion that differs a wee bit from yours. It is not about making decisions in any other manner than through courtesy, listening, fairness and legitimate debate. I believe that we must do this as elected officials in this province.

I believe that I must make some observations about the tenor of debates that I've heard at the municipal, provincial and federal levels by people who stand and represent people in this province. People measure us by what they see; they measure us by whether they think we are a reflection of their values. We need to recognize a diversity of opinion and positions that, frankly, leads us to solutions through some confrontation, with the allowance to be able to do it and do it fairly.

Almost a year ago today, on December 10, I lost a very important person in my life: my mother-in-law, Helen Yelland. Helen was a war bride. She was among millions of Britons -- brave, tenacious and special -- who stood united to protect our right to freedom of speech, freedom of expression and equality. She believed in family, community, church and especially in her adopted country of Canada. Helen's perspective on democracy was quite simple and immensely logical. She saw the democratic process as each citizen's responsibility. She believed that fair-minded, thinking people should be able to debate, offer solutions, listen, solve problems and come to conclusions. Believe me, this Irish lady, born Helen Murphy, could debate with the best of them; she could debate with you until 2, 3 and 4 o'clock in the morning. But it was never personal, because Helen believed that it never should be. She also believed that people should be able to talk after having a disagreement. She was right. She also believed that politicians needed to start operating in a manner with some level of class and manners, because this was being missed by the people who very well elected those people.

As legislators, we are examples. My mother-in-law knew that. My mother-in-law would discuss that with me, and she would often comment on this Legislature and on the council meetings that she would observe. We should remember that.

J. Cashore: I want to thank the hon. member for his comments. I recently attended a ceremony in Coquitlam to honour war brides, around the time of Remembrance Day. This was a time when we were all reminded, as the member has pointed out, of the importance of those who are part of our history, part of our roots, and who have given their all in order to ensure not only that there is quality of life but that there is something there for others, which they are willing to sacrifice on behalf of.

I think that when one looks at the concept of democracy and the value of diversity, all of us can think of organizations we have belonged to where we have had a similar experience to the one the member describes. I think that when we are discussing this question, it's helpful to also look at the result, to look at what is produced in the context of democracy. I think, if truth be known, that democracy is often a very messy process in which truth is sometimes one of the first casualties.

[ Page 10883 ]

I think that we should look at some of those qualities that can be found in democracy and that we can be a part of. One that I would like to mention is that of enabling. I think that democracy, when it's healthy, can be seen as an institution that can be judged on how society treats its poor, how society treats the dispossessed, how society treats the downtrodden. I think that in that context, enabling those without a voice to have a voice. . . . I think, for instance -- not to make reference to the bill that is before the House but to make a general reference to the whole process of the aspirations of aboriginal people, where, as I said yesterday, 60 percent of the population is under the age of 25 -- that there is potential for a great amount of diversity of opinions and of hopes and dreams among those young people who so desperately need that which gives them reason to hope. So within our democracy, one of the things that we can feel good about doing together is enabling that hope to live.

R. Coleman: Just in reflection, I think it's important to realize that at some point the leadership in this province will have to re-establish the faith of people in the democratic process in our province and the behaviour of our legislators relative to that debate.

Also, I appreciate the member's comments about war brides. It is important to recognize the valuable contribution that those people made to this country and the sacrifices they made in coming from England to this country with families after the Second World War. I remember my mother-in-law telling the story about arriving on a ship and getting on a train with a one-year-old son, travelling to Saskatchewan and arriving in a community that didn't have what she was used to, which was flushing toilets and lights and what have you, and how things were done was completely different. But she adjusted to this country, and she contributed to it for well on 50 years, and that contribution will always be remembered of her and other people that did so.

I think those values of honesty, integrity and the ability to listen and debate and discuss with some integrity are something that should never be lost on us, should never be lost on this House and should never be lost in our communities. Frankly, I will debate with the best of you as vociferously as possible, because that's my right in a democratic society, and I'm pleased to do that. I think everyone should be proud to be able to do that, but do it with integrity and do it in a way that isn't personal.

Hon. D. Streifel moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:40 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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