[ Page 10885 ]

Prayers.

Tabling Documents

Orders of the Day

NISGA'A FINAL AGREEMENT ACT
(second reading continued)

I want to start on a personal note. It's my son's birthday today; he's 27. My son is adopted, and he's a Shuswap. He's been my son from the time I picked him up as a ten-day-old baby, and I love him as dearly as if he were my own flesh and blood, but I am conscious of his aboriginal heritage. And it's my mother's birthday tomorrow; she's 81. She's feisty. I think I inherited some of it. The way I'm going, I'm not sure I'll be around when I'm 81. So I wish to extend greetings to my family on these occasions.

I also want to say, having been elected to this Legislature now for some 12 years, that you learn a lot. When we start, I think all of us are naïve about what this job entails and what our responsibilities are. We soon learn that our high ideals sometimes meet with the realities of whatever it is we're dealing with, and sometimes they're difficult to achieve. Sometimes it's difficult to measure your role as a parliamentarian, your contribution. But if I had never done anything, if I had never been part of any bill, ever, and only this bill. . . . This, to me, stands as my proudest moment as a parliamentarian, the fact that we are currently. . . . [Applause.] I want to deal with history, because it's very important. This is a time in our history, but we will move forward. I think it's important to go back and look at history. But whatever happens, I can say that there will never be, for me, a time to equal this time here today.

My message is to the people here in this room. All of us are now seized with dealing with an issue that really reflects about 200 years of history. It now rests with us here in this room to tell British Columbians. Are we prepared to deal with that history and move forward in a positive way? Are we prepared to set aside the narrow imperatives of electoral politics and deal with this history -- the most fundamental issue in our province? Or will we resort to some of what is typically the behaviour in this chamber around these kinds of questions? This history is important.

I want to talk about part of the history. There were times when elected men and women sat in chambers -- in this chamber and in chambers in Ottawa -- and debated fundamental questions about justice and human rights and failed the test. They resorted to that narrow political imperative I talked about. I want to recite some facts, some things from history that I think are important in terms of where we stand today.

In 1700 in this province, the aboriginal population stood at between 300,000 and 400,000 people -- an advanced civilization. I won't go into that, but 300,000 to 400,000 people populated this land we call British Columbia. The first settlers made contact around 1774. Less than 100 years after that contact, there were only 40,000 aboriginal people left in our province. That pain, I think, is felt by people here today.

In 1866 the two colonies were united as British Columbia. Legislators like us today drafted legislation that prohibited land pre-emption by native Indian people. The government reduced the size of existing reserves to ten acres per Indian family. Legislators like us did that.

[10:15]

By 1911 the aboriginal population had declined to 20,000, and in 1920, Parliament passed a bill authorizing the cut-off lands. In other words, they went and further reduced the size of reserves. In that same year, 1920 -- these are dry recitations; they don't tell the real story of individuals and their struggle -- there were widespread arrests and convictions, including jail sentences for chiefs under the anti-potlatch provision of the Indian Act. Parliamentarians did that.

In 1927, Parliament -- elected members like us here in this chamber -- amended the Indian Act to outlaw receipt of money by any person, including any Indian, from any Indian for any claim-related activity. You were denied the right to go hire a lawyer. Parliamentarians took away that right.

We had some turning points. Our history is not all bad. Sometimes Parliament sat and actually did the right thing. In 1944, when many people came back from that horrible conflict, the Second World War, many native Indian people. . . . They're still fighting today. Read the article in the Globe and Mail about the Saskatchewan suit, where Indian veterans who fought in that conflict were not given the same benefit levels as non-natives who fought in that conflict; they're still fighting today. But they came back, and in 1947, Parliament did the right thing: they returned the franchise, the right to vote. In 1949 Dr. Frank Calder got elected to this Legislature; that was a proud and historic day.

There have been other turning events. In 1990 Premier Bill Vander Zalm finally brought the province to the table and said the province had to be a participant in negotiating a land claims treaty. I applaud Premier Vander Zalm for taking that step. Finally, in 1991, we had the framework agreement, and we moved forward. In 1996, in a very moving ceremony, we

[ Page 10886 ]

Here are some other dates from history, and I want to stress some of these, because they are important. They're important in terms of us as legislators. In June 1995, quoted in the Terrace Standard, a paper that my constituents know well, the Liberal leader spoke out clearly against a referendum on Nisga'a. In November of 1996 the Liberal House Leader at that time, the member for Matsqui, said he was opposed to a referendum. In July of '97 the member for Cariboo North, quoted in the Cariboo Observer newspaper, said he was opposed to a referendum. In September of 1997 the Liberal leader again, on CKPG radio in Prince George, on the Ben Meisner program, said: "I'm opposed to a referendum." On July 8, 1998 the member for Matsqui -- it's there in Hansard, and it's the record, and you're a witness to this record today -- said no to a referendum.

On July 8 of this same year, the leader of the Liberal opposition said we needed a national referendum. All of a sudden, something changed. What changed in one month in this year to cause the spokesperson for the Liberals and the leader of the Liberals to say yes to a referendum? Did they tell each other? I don't know. Finally we get to September of 1998, when the member for Matsqui said that we needed a referendum on Nisga'a.

I'm going to ask a question, and I don't want to offend anybody. When I was a kid growing up, as I think all members who've been exposed to our culture -- movies. . . . A lot has been written about movies and their effect and their interpretation of history. But all of us grew up watching western movies. And, my friends in the gallery, you were always portrayed as the villains, the bad guys -- always, really -- until Arthur Penn made Little Big Man, I think, that starred Chief Dan George. But you were always portrayed. . . .

But, you know, one thing kept. . . . I remember, as a boy and as I grew older, reflecting on this, because as bad as they were, threaded through all of those movies a recurring theme kept developing, and it had an impact on me. There was always a scene where the chief, a representative, would say -- and again, I mean no disrespect: "White man, you speak with a forked tongue."

I say here today that you've been speaking with a forked tongue. [Applause.]

The Speaker: Before the minister continues, I'd like to caution all members on language usage. We have no desire, I know, to offend any members in this House, and I think language -- choice of words -- is very important, particularly in this debate. I know the minister will take that under advisement.

Hon. D. Miller: I speak with passion, hon. Speaker, and I do not intend to offend. But I try to speak to what I think is the truth.

I want to quote from an editorial in my hometown newspaper, the Prince Rupert Daily News of two days ago. I'm going to quote from the article. It begins: "The most telling moment in last night's CBC leaders debate on the Nisga'a treaty came courtesy of a concluding comment made [by the Liberal leader]. 'We all have compassion for our aboriginal people,' said [the Liberal leader]." Our aboriginal people? The editorial goes to say -- and I agree with it: "[The Liberal leader's] comment brought to the fore once again the vile, centuries-old paternalism that has been rampant in this country on the part of non-aboriginals in their treatment of aboriginals." The history I've read bears that out.

So here we are, parliamentarians gathered once again: some inventing excuses, some putting up false reasons why we now can't deal with this history of ours -- this sometimes-sad history. Do we perpetuate the racism that is part of our history? Do we continue to fabricate the lie that the so-called third order of government, which finally gives the Nisga'a people the right to deal with their own issues on their own land is some phony, fabricated excuse that would deny us the opportunity to finally do the right thing historically? Do we revert to the narrow, narrow imperatives of electoral politics? Or do we put that aside?

I think all members of this chamber have to reflect on their own conscience. I think they have to cast aside what their critic's role is. I think they have to cast aside their fear that they may be overtaken by the extremes on the right -- which, by the way, I say they have helped to incite. That, finally, is the choice that we -- all of us -- in this chamber have to deal with. Not one member should duck this debate -- not one. It's important that every member of this chamber stand and be recorded and speak forthrightly. It's not good enough to say, "I'm sorry," and then go outside and continue that relentless and savage attack on this treaty, as we've witnessed over these last few days.

Finally, the choice is ours, here in this chamber. I can only say in conclusion that I would far rather take a chance on the future, as opposed to repeating the past. I hope with all my heart that we pass this treaty and open a new chapter in our relationship.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister. I recognize now the hon. Minister of Fisheries -- with the caution about language, please, to all members.

Hon. D. Streifel: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I respect your caution.

I rise this morning to support Bill 51. Before I get into some of the context in the area of my portfolio, I'd like to speak a little bit about my personal involvement with my friends in the Stó:lo and my first trip to the Nass Valley. With that, I'd like to bring greetings to the Nisga'a people in the galleries this morning and to Chief Joe Gosnell, and to really express my thanks to these people for providing an opportunity for me to participate in history -- in a history that I'm beginning to understand and, I will admit frankly, that I really knew very little about before I was elected to the parliament of British Columbia.

The first time I was in the Nass area was in 1970. My wife and I chose a trip up the coast for our honeymoon. We docked. . . . Actually, we couldn't dock. It was in Kincolith. We came up on the Northland Prince. I actually have a question for some of the folks in the gallery. When we pulled in there, there was no dock. The only way to transfer to the deck of the Northland Prince, for some of the folks there, was from their fishboats. I have a picture of a father standing on the wheelhouse of his boat, holding a young baby by the legs in a bunting bag and reaching up to the deck of the Northland Prince, with somebody grabbing the hood of this bunting bag and lifting that child on board -- and I just wonder if you're here today. That was in 1970. That was my first trip and my first introduction to that part of the coast of British Columbia.

[10:30]

[ Page 10887 ]

Today I think back to what I've learned about the struggle to come forward to this treaty process. I think back to my grandmother. My grandmother was born in 1888 in Poland, a year after the Nisga'a were turned away by Premier Smithe from the steps of this Legislature. My grandmother came to this country in the 1920s with some of her family, later to have more children here. She was able to achieve full equality within this nation, including pensions and voting rights. Having been born in Poland, she achieved those rights before the Nisga'a people -- before a people that never came from anywhere else. They were always here. That's always set up a question and a bit of a conundrum for me. How could that be possible?

In this session of the Legislature, where we have the opportunity to respect and restore the rights of a people that have never come from anywhere else, I again feel privileged to be part of that history. In the area where I live in the Fraser Valley, the first nations people there are the Stó:lo, the people of the river. I live in a community called Whonnock, and Whonnock is a native term for the place of the humpback salmon.

In 1992, I attended a ceremony in Chilliwack, at the Coqualeetza site, which was a Methodist residential school and a tuberculosis sanatorium. It is now, I guess, the government base for the Stó:lo people in the Fraser Valley. That year, 1992, on Remembrance Day the Stó:lo people were erecting and dedicating a totem to the honour of the soldiers from their nation who had served to protect democracy in Canada and the British Empire going back to the Boer War. In 1992 they read a scroll with the names of 110 Stó:lo veterans who had served to protect my rights and the rights that my grandmother had acquired as an immigrant to this country -- with full recognition and knowledge that they didn't have those rights themselves.

I heard stories at these ceremonies of veterans who had served as Canadian soldiers, native soldiers, in foreign fields of battle and who, on returning to this country, found that they were no longer Indians. They'd been away too long. They couldn't figure this out. Some of them didn't accept it, and some of them actually broke the law without understanding what was happening. I heard the story of a native veteran who returned to this country, bought a home and began raising a family. Two years later, he had the federal government knocking on his door, telling him that he'd broken the law because he was an Indian and he couldn't own this home. Yet the service to our country and to democracy still went on after that, as history goes on, whether it was in the questionable fights in Vietnam or in what's become known as the police action in Korea or as peacekeepers.

Not too far from my office in Mission is the St. Mary's Residential School. I have many friends who were attendants at that residential school. I'm not sure if I demean or belittle their presence there by calling them attendants or students. Some of them tell me that not all of their experiences there were bad. Some of them tell me that they can't speak of their experience; it still causes them nightmares. Some of my friends that were there have become devout Catholics. They practise that religion. They deeply believe in their Catholicism even today. They believe in the equality, purpose and dedication of Christian equality.

I'm expecting that we may have the opportunity to attend and tour the museum just across the way later on today to view what have become known as Nisga'a artifacts -- items, materials and properties that came to the museum through various means. I think back to my own family, and what I have as an artifact is my grandfather's wallet. It's a wallet that he carried in Germany as a citizen between the wars. He carried his marks in there. He was able to purchase an economy and a living for his family. He later came to Canada and brought part of his family, and again, he achieved rights and status in this country that in those days were denied to the Nisga'a people and other first nations. I can only imagine what it will be like to view some of these ancestral properties that recognize a history of thousands and thousands of years on the coast of British Columbia.

Actually, I have a confession to make here this morning as well. I hope that my wife is listening, because my wife was one of the beginnings of all of this mess, I suppose -- the relationship with the Europeans. She traces her lineage back to the Mayflower. We accept it as quite significant in North American society to have European lines that go back that far, but I am in wonderment still when I meet and visit with my Stó:lo friends -- and those of you who are in the gallery today -- and listen to the stories about how their people survived the last ice age and what their village and their society was like.

We have an archaeological excavation that's there for all the world to see. I invite the friends across the way to come to Mission and visit the Xa:ytem site. We have the excavation of the basement of a house that is 5,000 years old. It's really quite remarkable that 5,000 years ago people were living there in an organized society. There's a back door to this house that leads to another one that's about 9,000 years old. The evidence is that the people ceased living there about 2,000 years ago. How old is this building? A hundred years or so -- or not quite a hundred years. These folks lived there for 7,000 years. Think about it. They had a society; they had laws; they had beliefs; they had religions; they had an oral history. There's great history around why they have an oral history, with their transformer stones. Seven thousand years on the same site! I've lived in Whonnock for 15 years, and I think it's some kind of a record in our society to stay put in one building and place. Think about it, hon. members.

Through the process of trying to establish, I suppose, how my community feels about what we're doing about this treaty and about the process of debate, I've held a couple of public meetings -- one in Agassiz and one in Mission. For the most part they were very positive meetings. Some would say they were, in fact, not all that well attended. Some would like to portray that as a negative. Others would portray it as a positive, in that there's a high level of acceptance; there's not a lot of concern. Some folks came out to get genuine information; some came out, really, just to disrupt and banter, but that was dealt with. In fact, one of our friends -- Patrick Kelly from the Chehalis band, I believe -- was doing a presentation, and he was asked a question about equality and justice. A question that came up that he was asked to address was around apartheid. Patrick held up the Indian Act and said to the questioner: "Look, are you found in here? Does the Indian Act apply to you? No, it doesn't. It applies to me, not you." He held up the Canadian constitution, and he said: "This applies to you. What I want to do -- what my people want to do, and what the Nisga'a people want to do -- is trade the Indian Act for the Canadian constitution." That really ended any negative debate at those public meetings that night. I thought it was remarkable.

[ Page 10888 ]

I'd like to talk a little bit about the fisheries aspect of things. That's the area I'm expecting I'll be questioned on during committee stage and other parts of the examination of Bill 51. It's really quite a remarkable document on the fisheries -- everything you could ever hope for on fisheries within this relationship. I would hope that my Fisheries critic would be paying particular attention to this.

First of all, the first premise of the fisheries agreement with the Nisga'a is conservation. It's not hard to understand that that would be first, because if the Nisga'a people had never practised conservation, there wouldn't be any fish to discuss in this treaty. They were there a lot longer than we've been around on the fisheries. After conservation and the constitutional allocation of fisheries in this treaty, about 74 percent of the total allowable catch will be reserved on the Nass River for others. Again, that's quite remarkable. It really shows what has been the attitude of the Nisga'a since contact with Europeans: they'll take what they need, and they'll always leave something for others.

The percentage of the allocation under this treaty and under the fisheries agreement, which is outside the treaty, is less than 1 percent of the total landed value of the coastwide salmon fishery. If there's any redistribution of the total allowable catch, it will be done with willing buyers buying boats and licences from willing sellers. So in order to participate in the commercial aspect of the Nisga'a fishery, it will be capacity bought from the existing commercial fleet. The vessels will be bought through a voluntary licence buyback program. The commercial aspect will only happen and exist when there's other commercial activity in the fisheries in fact going on. It will happen at the same time, participating with all others.

The Nisga'a will be entitled to harvest, on average, 17 percent of the Canadian Nass River total allowable catch after conservation needs. That's on average. It's a figure that's developed by reviewing fishing practices and allocations and run sizes over the past quarter of a century. It's really a transfer from a constitutional right to a treaty right. So it's fully and clearly understood, it's quantified and defined, and it's there for all to see.

In a separate harvest agreement outside the treaty, the Nisga'a will receive an allocation, on average, which will equal about 9 percent of the Canadian Nass total allowable catch of sockeye and pink salmon. That agreement does not receive constitutional protection and in fact could be changed in the future by governments. The Nisga'a will be able to sell fish only when other commercial fishers on the Nass can. In years when salmon returns are low, the number of fish the Nisga'a can harvest will be reduced accordingly. Of course, it will increase when the return is high. This is the example of fairness in the treaty. It ensures that everyone will benefit when fish are plentiful and that everyone will feel the effects when the runs are low.

[10:45]

The treaty also provides certainty around fisheries. The agreement is a full and final settlement of the Nisga'a land claims. The Nisga'a cannot come back later and claim any additional rights beyond those in the treaty. If they're not in the treaty now, they never will be. The treaty will be carefully implemented to be sensitive to the needs of the entire Nass fishing community. The treaty will not infringe on the rights of other first nations.

Another aspect of this treaty is public access to Nisga'a lands. The public will continue to have the right to hunt and fish on the Nisga'a public lands. Angling guides and guide-outfitters who are currently licensed in the area will be allowed to continue their activities on the Nisga'a lands. Private property holders and land lease tenure holders have guaranteed access to their interests. The Nisga'a agreement is about new beginnings and a new way of doing business in the Nass fishery, and it's really time to get on with that business.

Before I conclude, I'd really like to ask a couple of questions through this speech presentation, particularly of the member for Matsqui. We know the history of the support and the flip-flop on support for the treaty settlement. We know the history around the 1996 provincial election, when the agreement-in-principle was fully before the public. It was no secret that the New Democratic Party, as the government that was elected, would support this agreement and would bring forward that support through the Legislature.

What has become a mystery since then is what happened to the member for Matsqui. During the campaign, the Liberal Party supported the agreement-in-principle. Post-campaign, the Liberal Party -- the member for Matsqui and others -- supported the agreement-in-principle. In fact, when we came to the signing of the documents earlier this year, the Liberal Party supported it. They've changed their position, and I would like to ask why. What political opportunity presented itself that would cause that change in attitude and position? Maybe it's not a question I should ask the Liberal opposition. Maybe it's a question they should ask themselves. What political opportunity caused you to change your mind on this agreement?

The agreement -- this treaty -- is living history. It's not often in an individual's life that you get the opportunity to participate in a change in history. I said earlier, and I'll say it again now: I feel privileged to be granted the opportunity to do that.

I'd like to end my presentation with a quote from Sir Francis Bacon: "If we are to achieve results never before accomplished, we must employ methods never before attempted." That, my friends, would be the first modern-day treaty with first nations people in British Columbia.

[ Page 10889 ]

It is not helpful for British Columbians to see and hear a constant bombardment of $5 million worth of government ads to sell us on the treaty. Nor was it useful for the Minister of Education to order 1,700 copies of "A New Journey: The Nisga'a Treaty" video for school distribution and then agree that it was not an informative tape and withdraw it. What did he do with the tapes, I wonder? And what are we to do with the 1,000 brochures sent to each constituency office -- the very same brochure that was mailed to every household in British Columbia?

When we decide how to vote freely on this treaty, we must look ahead, not back. Too often I hear arguments of history: where we went wrong, what we did wrong, why our approach to land claims always has been wrong. These may all be true, but they are not helpful to the current debate. We must look to the future -- the future of all British Columbians -- and settle these land claims using our heads as well as our hearts.

I am opposed to this treaty. It appears to look back and tries to bandage old wounds, but it does a poor job of looking ahead and preparing British Columbia for scores of treaty negotiations -- not counting the other native bands, such as the Chilcotin, which are not in the treaty process. I will comment on why I cannot support this treaty and will also make some comments on the lower mainland treaty negotiations, which are progressing to the stage where we must pay attention and not be totally distracted by just one treaty.

Firstly, commenting on Nisga'a, the Nisga'a is unconstitutional. Now, that statement will come as no surprise, coming from a member of the Liberal caucus. But under the Canadian constitution, the provinces are authorized to create municipal institutions. Therefore our federal and provincial governments are complemented with municipal governments. The Sechelt band has enjoyed municipal status for a number of years, and it has worked well. I am not suggesting that all other bands be organized or recognized in a similar fashion to Sechelt, but what we have in Nisga'a is not municipal-style government.

In the treaty the Nisga'a are granted authority over culture and language, the disposition of Nisga'a lands, human resources, public works, traffic and transportation, solemnization of marriages, social services, health services, child and family services, child custody, adoption, K-to-12 and post-secondary education, gaming and intoxicants. Now, in some of these areas -- namely, children and family services, adoption, and K-to-12 and post-secondary education -- in the event of any inconsistency or conflict between a Nisga'a law and a federal or provincial law, the Nisga'a law prevails. I ask: what third level of government in British Columbia has authority over education or adoption or health services? None, I would submit.

I can recall from my UBC law school days the study of the constitution of Canada. Back then, of course, it had a different title. It was called the BNA Act. That constitution has been interpreted by many decades of judicial decisions and has identified jurisdictional authority as between Ottawa and the provinces. In turn, those provinces, as I have already mentioned, are granted the authority to delegate certain powers to municipalities. The province can also withdraw such powers and status. But can this be done under Nisga'a? Well, I think not. I believe we are throwing out constitutional precedent -- and for what purpose? What purpose will be accomplished?

Further on the topic of unconstitutionality, I refer to clause 13 of the treaty, chapter 2. It says that federal and provincial laws apply to the Nisga'a nation, villages, institutions, corporations, citizens, lands and fee simple lands, but -- and I emphasize the "but" -- in the event of an inconsistency or conflict between this agreement and the provisions of any federal or provincial law, this agreement will prevail. This is unprecedented authority. It is clearly unconstitutional and must not be allowed. Unfortunately, in their rush to judgment, the government wants Nisga'a ratified -- in spite of the B.C. Liberal caucus legal action that questions the constitutionality of this treaty. Where will we be if the courts agree with our argument, yet the treaty has been ratified? Even if the challenge is unsuccessful, the reality is that we will let loose this third level of government, one that will influence every other treaty negotiation in this province. We must remember that Nisga'a is first, but there are many more to come.

Nisga'a is unworkable. It creates economic uncertainty that will only negatively impact on the people of the Nass Valley, aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike. For example, in the appendices to the treaty, we see a list of documents dealing with existing interests in the Nass area. Document 6 is the licence of occupation for a hydro communication site. The duration of that licence is 20 years. There is a renewal provision in the licence, as would be expected in most legal agreements. The owner -- namely, the Nisga'a -- may agree, and I emphasize "may," to offer a new licence on terms and conditions determined by the owner -- i.e., by the Nisga'a. This is a very one-sided legal. . . . I wouldn't even call it a commitment, because certainly there is a lack of commitment in that.

Document 12 is the special use permit for forestry operations. The duration of the permit is for five years. In document 12 there is no renewal provision. We see a right of renewal in document 6, and that's one thing, although somewhat one-sided. There is no such right of renewal in document 12.

Who will enter into a permit with such uncertainty? The treaty is touted as the avenue for economic prosperity and self-sufficiency. In fact, the preamble states that "certainty with respect to Nisga'a ownership and use of lands and resources" will be realized. With the built-in uncertainty I cited, I think not.

Nisga'a is unfair. Non-aboriginals in the Nass Valley have no say in the local government which will affect them. Only Nisga'a citizens can vote. The Nisga'a government is accountable only to Nisga'a citizens, and my reference for that is in the Nisga'a Government chapter, clause 9(k). Also under the Nisga'a constitution, only Nisga'a citizens' rights and freedoms are recognized and protected. The reference is clause 9(o).

[11:00]

[ Page 10890 ]

Nisga'a is unaffordable. The estimate of the total cost, including land and cash, is $490 million. British Columbians, who are also federal taxpayers -- we must always remember that there is only one taxpayer -- will contribute $227.5 million through Victoria, as well as Ottawa's share of the contribution. When one considers the over 50 negotiations taking place in the Treaty Commission process, plus the non-treaty claims such as the Tsilhqot'in nation, one knows that we are attaching a price tag beyond our capability to pay.

I wish to comment, as well, on the lower mainland treaty process. Five negotiations are currently taking place: the Squamish; the Tsleil-Waututh, also known as the Burrard; the Katzie; the Musqueam; and the Tsawwassen. The Burrard are actually the furthest into the process, at stage 4. They're also informed by Nancy Chiavario, who is the chair of the Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee, that the government would like to fast-track Burrard and get an agreement-in-principle by next spring. It reminds one of SkyTrain.

Needless to say, there are overlapping claims in the lower mainland map. The GVRD representative on the lower mainland treaty advisory committee, Richard Littlemore, comments that the first nations should resolve issues related to overlapping traditional territories. So the aboriginals are to resolve the overlap, but in the meantime the Burrard claim is being fast-tracked. I ask: who is going to resolve the problem of duplicate claims in the Capilano watershed, just to cite one example? An examination of a map of the lower mainland shows that the watershed is claimed as traditional territory by the Squamish, Burrard, Musqueam and, in the northern reaches, by the Katzie. If we sign off Burrard and perhaps include some form of comanagement of the watershed, what happens when the three other bands come to the table with similar claims?

Putting aside the overlap problem in the lower mainland, given that a great deal of the lower mainland is private property, municipal and regional parks, watersheds and other occupations by non-aboriginals, how are we going to address the land claims issue? The Nass Valley is one thing, the lower mainland quite another. No two sets of negotiations will be the same, but what we do with the first lower mainland claim will impact on the others. What do we know of the Burrard claim to date? They have adopted a variable interest model, also called integrated treaty management. The Burrard have already signed off a comanagement agreement with the provincial government for Indian Arm Park. This was done on January 16 of this year. No municipality or regional district is a party to that arrangement. The variable interest model would see the Burrard enter into other comanagement arrangements, possible examples being with B.C. Hydro in the Indian River valley, with the GVRD in the Capilano and Seymour watersheds, and with the Vancouver Port Corporation. The Burrard have even suggested some involvement in the cruise ship industry, but the concept and the details are sketchy.

Negotiations with the Burrard -- presently at stage 4, which is agreement-in-principle -- are proceeding and, as I have noted, may be fast-tracked. Nancy Chiavario was making the rounds of the lower mainland councils, inviting them to take inventory of their holdings that may be impacted by these claims. Of necessity, these councils must be sure to get up to speed on the lower mainland negotiations, and not just the ones that will impact their own backyard.

Needless to say, I will not support the Nisga'a treaty. The concerns I have addressed must be examined in light of the impact not only on the Nass Valley area, both for aboriginal and non-aboriginal, but also on the province. Nisga'a is a benchmark, and the 51 treaty negotiations will be influenced by it. Coupled with that problem is the lower mainland series of negotiations, not only influenced by Nisga'a but compounded in difficulty by overlapping claims. Hon. Speaker, Nisga'a is precedent-setting, and I don't want its legacy to be one that no one can abide, particularly my children.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I'm pleased to follow the member for West Vancouver-Capilano and his remarks. It's a pleasure for me to rise in this House today and speak on what truly is a precedent-setting document, what truly is a precedent-setting bill. It's one that I think is worthy of the support of all of us in this House. I'm going to frame my remarks in two contexts: one, which I think is important, is personal, and the other is from the point of view of my ministry, which is Economic Development.

There's been a lot of discussion about this treaty, about the process around this treaty, about the timeliness of this treaty and about the pros and cons of this treaty. The fact of the matter remains, hon. Speaker, that this treaty is a benchmark. It's a step forward into the twenty-first century and toward its elimination in this province of the paternalism of the Indian Act. It is the first step forward on the elimination and the bringing into society of aboriginal peoples in this province. It is the first step forward. It is the benchmark in allowing them to take control of their lives, their destiny, in the way that other British Columbians get to do in this province.

When I listen to the member opposite in terms of his criticisms of the treaty around culture, language and education, I ask myself: who else should have control over their language but the people who speak it? Who else should have control over their culture and their history than the people whose culture and history it is? Who else should have control over the education of their children than the parents of those children? It's something that other provinces have. In terms of Quebec, the preservation of language is central to their identity and to their sense of place within this nation. In that same regard, the preservation of language, culture and history is central to who the Nisga'a are as a people and to who they are in British Columbia. To suggest that somehow this is something inappropriate is just plain wrong.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

I came to this country as a small boy -- first to Quebec and then to British Columbia. I've basically lived in the suburbs most of my life, so my exposure to aboriginal people has been limited. I grew up in Port Coquitlam not far from the reserve, which was a postage-stamp reserve. I got to know some of the first nations kids about my age -- first in elementary school and then in junior high school. I got to know them in grades 5, 6, 7 and 8. I didn't get to know them much after that -- certainly not in school -- because they didn't complete school. They didn't complete junior high school. They didn't go on to senior high school. They didn't go on to university.

My brothers and I would go down to Colony Farm, which is where the reserve is. We'd go fishing down there. There were two brothers whom we got to know quite well. They'd come up to our place, and we'd go down there. We'd go fishing. We had a great time, but that's as far as it went. There was a barrier there. They never completed the education system. They were excluded. They never really got a

[ Page 10891 ]

I later went to serve on the council in Port Coquitlam. The two fellows that we grew up with are good friends of my brothers and I. One of them is now the band chief, and he's coming to the council to work on ways of looking at economic development and whether we could make things happen. They were looking at a golf course proposal; they were looking at a theme park proposal; they were looking at building new housing. What happened? Nothing happened. Nothing ever came to fruition. Why? Because it required the permission of the city of Port Coquitlam in terms of the extension of services. It required somebody else to backstop, finance and put everything in place to make something happen, because they didn't own their own land. They didn't own their own land. They couldn't do any development on it. They had to go to Ottawa to get permission. They had to jump through hoops; they had to jump through endless bureaucracy.

An Hon. Member: They can't borrow -- no mortgages.

Hon. M. Farnworth: They couldn't borrow; they couldn't make a mortgage.

So proposals that would come along for economic development disappeared. Or they'd get started, and they withered and died. Conditions never improved; opportunities never came. The ability to develop in the way that every other community in our area has done -- dramatically, over the last number of years -- was excluded from them. They asked the questions: "When is our turn? When can we take advantage of the opportunities that everybody else seems to be able to?"

So the hope is in a treaty process. They're trying to get to the stage of signing a treaty one day. My hope is that it happens and that they are able to take advantage of the opportunities for them. Who do they look to, hon. Speaker? They're looking to the Nisga'a agreement as the way forward. They're looking to the Nisga'a agreement, so that the band in Coquitlam can move forward. They look with pride at what's happened with the Nisga'a, at that agreement, because the agreement is the beginning of the end of the Indian Act.

I listen to the criticisms of the treaty, and it's usually phrased in the way of: "We're not opposed to treaties; we think we should settle treaties."

An Hon. Member: "We like treaties."

[11:15]

"We don't like this agreement, because it doesn't make the Nisga'a exactly the way the rest of us are." A one-size-fits-all approach to treaty-making is what they're recommending or what they want to see happen -- pigeonhole them in a box with the same rules and regulations, and make them all just like everybody else.

"They can have their culture as long as they do it in our context, in the way that we recognize a culture. They can have their language as long as they play by, or use their language in accordance with, our rules and our traditions. They can have their heritage and their culture as long as they do it in our context and in our way of looking at the world" -- without any recognition of what's been set down in the courts, of how the Nisga'a see themselves as a people or a nation, or of how treaties have been negotiated or are in place right across the country in other provinces and in fact in other jurisdictions around the world.

I want to touch on that point just briefly, because the critics of this treaty, whether they be extremists like radio talk show hosts, whose only job is to inflame and to spread misinformation and to stir up trouble and to oppose just for the sake of ratings. . . . It is to somehow suggest that this is something that goes on in isolation in British Columbia. Well, it's not. We have seen treaties settled in New Zealand with the Maori peoples. It's a process that was started in 1840 in New Zealand and was a principle that was enshrined with the coming of the Europeans to New Zealand and the settlement that took place. Treaties were an integral part of that. We've seen it happen in Australia, where the courts ruled that there is aboriginal title. We've seen treaty settlements with aboriginal nations in Australia, where issues such as culture and language and history and the welfare of children are the responsibility of those aboriginal nations and are part of the treaties that have been signed. We've seen it in the United States, which was hardly a beacon of enlightenment when it came to the settlement of treatment, when it came to the question of aboriginal rights. Even there the courts have recognized aboriginal rights, aboriginal title and issues that have been raised and are being raised here in this House on questions such as law enforcement, aboriginal police forces -- a host of issues.

There are examples around the world of how treaties are put in place, on how they work and how they deal with the issues that are being raised by the opposition and by the critics of this treaty. In every single case, they work. In every single case, the problems that are raised, the red herrings that are thrown up as to why this treaty shouldn't go ahead. . . . Answers can be found and can be pointed to, to show that the critics are simply wrong.

It is time to get away from the stalling tactics. It's time to get away from the excuses like such things as: "Well, you know, we have a problem here in the lower mainland. Things are different down here in the lower mainland." Yes, things are different in the lower mainland. Yes, most of the land is privately held, and that has been recognized already in the treaty-making process -- in a recognition by aboriginal peoples, the province and the federal government that in the lower mainland, there'll be large cash settlements, as opposed to land settlements. That contrasts with the interior and the north, where land is very much an integral part of the settlement, it is very much an integral part of debate, and it's very much an integral part of how people approach the issue.

That can be resolved. It requires a flexibility and a willingness to recognize that there are different situations in different parts of the province. Nothing in this treaty precludes that. Nothing in this treaty says that you can't have a different type of approach or a different agreement in the lower mainland or in the Kootenays or in the Peace River country or in Sechelt or on Vancouver Island.

[ Page 10892 ]

An Hon. Member: Honourably.

Hon. M. Farnworth: . . .not only honourably, but for 20 years -- not done in the back rooms, not done in secret, not done without public involvement, but a treaty that has been negotiated honourably between the Nisga'a, the federal government and the province, with public meeting after public meeting after public meeting, with representations from the local communities in the area who have watched and observed the process. That's something that is often overlooked, because time and time again we hear, "Oh, it has been conducted in secret," and that simply isn't true.

This treaty is probably the most publicly debated document that has ever been done in this province. I will wager -- and I guess, as minister of gaming, I can say that -- that every other treaty that comes before this House will also be publicly debated in this House, across the province and in the communities of the region where it's located. At the end of the day, the responsibility for those treaties and for the settlement and the ratification of those treaties takes places in three areas. It takes place in the nation with whom the treaty is being signed; it takes place here in this Legislature, where we, the representatives of our constituencies, vote on that treaty; and it takes place in the federal Parliament in Ottawa.

That is how it should be -- not by some red herring of a referendum, not by some attempt to stall and derail the process by saying: "No, no, we should have a referendum." My question to those people who say that it needs to be done by referendum is this: what question? Who decides the question? The only way you would put the question is if you took the whole 2,500 pages and put them on the ballot, because you can always interpret a question any which way you want. It is a smokescreen for those who simply don't want to recognize that we have to settle treaties and that we have to settle them honourably. The place to do that is in this House, and that's what we're doing.

The members opposite have raised concerns about instability and the fact that it doesn't bring certainty. Well, I want to address that for a moment. I want to address it from the point of view of my own ministry. Recently I was in Asia with the Premier. I was in China, Korea and Japan meeting with some of our largest trading partners, some of our largest customers and some of our largest investors in this province from overseas. Unlike the opposition, they're bullish on this province. They see the long-term future of this province, and they're excited about it. They're looking forward to making more investments.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Hon. Speaker, if the hon. member wishes to heckle, he's more than welcome -- but from his own seat.

An Hon. Member: He should get up and speak.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Actually, he has already spoken -- a most memorable speech.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I've forgotten. Anyway. . . .

The view from over there was that they want to make more investments. I can tell you that the first question that I was asked -- on three separate occasions at three dinners with influential business people in Asia -- is: "When are you going to settle the Nisga'a treaty? Is it going to be settled? What's happening with it?" They're looking at that as an important part, a factor, in their decisions of when and how to make more investments in this province.

This is the opposition that stands up in this House and decries the lack of opportunity. They say that we need more opportunities for business. They pride themselves on being, or they claim to be, the party of business. You know, if they spoke to those constituents, what they would be hearing is that we have to resolve these issues. We have to resolve land claims in this province because we need to bring certainty to the resource industries in this province.

That's what this treaty does: it brings certainty in the area of Nisga'a lands. The Nisga'a will now be able to go out and enter into business arrangements, economic development opportunities with investors from Japan or Korea or Alberta or Oregon or Washington -- anywhere on the globe -- with people who see the opportunity there and who are willing to come in and make investments or work on a partnership basis to develop their resources, to develop their land in the same way that a landholder in Surrey or in Richmond can develop land.

What a concept! What an absolutely outrageous and dangerous concept for those members opposite to realize -- that that's what this agreement is going to do. You know, it's going to allow 5,500 people, the people of the Nass Valley, to do something really outrageous, something really potentially dangerous, I guess, from their point of view -- to decide for themselves: "Hey, you know, maybe we can get a secondary wood manufacturing plant over here, and we can make tables and chairs, and we could export them to Japan. Maybe we could do that. And, hey, there's an investor in Japan that wants to go into business with us and is willing to invest here. Guess what: we have all the things he or she requires. We have good timber; we have creative people who have artistic designs on how we're going to design the furniture. We have the ability to go out and raise capital so that we can joint-venture. The company from Japan is bringing in marketing expertise. They're bringing capital. They've got order books in hand. Guess what: we don't have to go to Ottawa for permission. We don't have to go to Victoria for permission. We can employ our young people, and we make the decision right here, right now." What a concept! To think that it's only taken us 111 years to get to that point. My God, think what we could do in another 111 years.

[11:30]

[ Page 10893 ]

At what point, hon. members, does your principle count for anything? At what point, hon. members, does your willingness to stand up for what brought you into politics in the first place allow you to stand up in this House and recognize the principles upon which this treaty is founded, the principles upon which this treaty has been negotiated and the principles upon which this treaty will carry forward aboriginal land claims in this province over the next number of years, so that finally aboriginal people can walk into the twenty-first century with the rest of the province? I can't wait to hear those arguments from the members opposite, because so far they've been sorely lacking.

This treaty is a historic treaty. It's a treaty that I am extremely proud of. I think it's probably one of the most important pieces of legislation, if not the most important piece of legislation, we have dealt with in the last two terms. I believe it's a document that British Columbians and indeed Canadians can look to with pride. It stands as a document that is an example to other nations, both aboriginal and nations around the world, that are wrestling with these questions. I will close by saying that I hope all of us can examine our consciences and all of us will participate in this debate and vote accordingly.

J. Sawicki: I too am very honoured to take my place in this historic debate in this chamber on Bill 51, the bill to ratify the Nisga'a final agreement. It's an agreement that has been negotiated fairly and honourably between three parties: the government of Canada, the province of British Columbia and the Nisga'a nation. It's an agreement that hasn't been hastily thrown together over some short period of time; it's an agreement that has been negotiated clause by clause, word by word, month after month, year after year until it has arrived here in this chamber.

It's here for all of us to see, to read in plain language, covering just about every aspect of a new and honourable relationship between the Nisga'a nation and the rest of us. It covers lands, forest resources, fisheries, environmental assessment, how the Nisga'a will govern themselves, taxation, health, education, cultural artifacts and many, many more chapters. Surely there has been no other treaty that has received such long and thoughtful consideration as this one has.

It must have been agonizing at times. There must have been tension and, I'm sure, anger that flared around that negotiating table. I can't imagine the weight of responsibility that each party felt in representing the three parties and in coming to this incredibly complex and comprehensive agreement that exhaustively sets out Nisga'a section 35 rights under the Constitution Act, 1982, constituting the full and final settlement of Nisga'a aboriginal rights, including aboriginal title. Think of the hours until finally the negotiators could look at each other and say: "We are done. This is the collective product of our work."

The Nisga'a have now ratified the work that the negotiators have carried out on their behalf. They have said: "Yes, we agree with this document as the full settlement of our rights, and we are prepared to live by the provisions of that document from this time forward." I know that the official opposition has questioned the validity of that vote and even went so far as to write to the Minister of Indian Affairs, asking that she review the procedures to ensure that the Nisga'a followed the rules on how they voted. Thankfully, the opposition stands alone in that profound insult to the Nisga'a people, for no one who has witnessed the happenings at this Legislature in the past few days or listened to the quiet dignity of Chief Joe Gosnell as he addressed this House could dare to ask that question, let alone doubt its answer. The Nisga'a have put their trust and their faith and their grandchildren's future in the words of this treaty.

Now it is here for us to do the same: to ratify this treaty on behalf of British Columbians, whose representatives we are. That's our job. We are to ratify or not ratify this treaty by way of a free vote in this provincial Legislature. That's what we committed to, and I believe we have to keep our word. Yet what I'm hearing from across the floor even now, after all these years and all these words, is: "We're not quite ready to do this yet. We have more questions. It's not quite perfect. Let the Nisga'a wait a little longer." But surely any fair-minded person who has understood anything of the history of aboriginal people in this province, who has even done any bit of homework on the history of these negotiations and has followed through the statement of principles, the discussions of the treaty advisory committee, the agreement-in-principle that was signed in 1996, and yes, the legislative committee on Aboriginal Affairs, and yes, the pamphlets, radio ads, television ads, mailouts, the public forums that I have held in my riding and that I know others have held in theirs. . . . Any fair-minded person cognizant of all of this would agree that it's time to bite the bullet, so to speak. It's time to sign on the dotted line and move forward with this new relationship with aboriginal people in this province.

My colleagues have mentioned that it is a great honour to be a member of this Legislature at this time. The point has already been made that it is also very humbling, because one wants to choose the very best arguments in debate in the faint hope that those across the floor will understand the importance of sending a unanimous message from this Legislature that we want to distance ourselves from the past and build together for the future. For me -- and I have heard it from my other colleagues -- this is the most important speech that I will probably ever make in this place. It's harder still to find the words to express feelings. On the one hand, my feelings feel so profound, yet on the other they feel so insignificant, because I can only imagine the feelings of the Nisga'a people whose treaty this is, particularly the Nisga'a representatives who have graced this building and this Legislature with their presence this week.

The images of Monday's opening ceremonies are still very vivid in my mind: the symbolism of the Nisga'a leaders arriving in their cedar canoe, re-enacting a journey of 111 years ago, and the cultural pride of the Nisga'a dancers and drummers, some elders themselves having yearned and prayed for this day for a very long time, and some young proudly dancing in their masks that represent their respective animal clans, moving rhythmically to the sound of the drummers. I have seen the Nisga'a dancers many times before, but never have they had such a powerful impact on my soul.

I must say that it was the women, each of them with a small 4-by-6-inch British Columbia flag in their hands or in their hair, who brought home to me the significance of this debate. While I will take away many memories from this time, that will be one of the most lasting. Far from being the race-based government that the opposition is trying to convince British Columbians this treaty will create, far from the gated communities that the Leader of the Official Opposition, during the leaders' debate, tried to scare British Columbians into

[ Page 10894 ]

Just when I thought I had experienced all of the emotionalism that my heart could hold, Chief Gosnell spoke at the Bar of this House. I listened to his every word, and these were not the words of any of us who have learned about the history from our social studies 10 textbooks. These were not the words of our government or the political party to which members of this side of the House belong. These were the words of a Nisga'a leader, speaking with the power and the pain of generations of his people, asking us in this chamber, on behalf of British Columbians, to ratify this treaty and allow his people to be free once again. In respect for the seven generations past, surely we cannot refuse. In anticipation of the seven generations to come, surely we dare not refuse.

It is an overwhelming task to read this treaty and decide what few things I can say today in the time I have available. There are literally hundreds of points that can be made that are fuel for dozens of hours of debate. The misinformation and misinterpretations and paternalistic views of the Mel Smiths of the world and of many other members, and the extreme scare tactics of other opponents of this treaty could provide hundreds more hours of debate. But expressed in simplest terms, there are three reasons why I'm supporting Bill 51 to ratify the Nisga'a final agreement: because I abhor and reject what has happened in the past; because I trust in the process that has brought us to the present; and because I have faith and confidence that with this treaty, we can build a better future for the Nisga'a nation and for all of us as British Columbians.

[11:45]

The past. Several speakers have made detailed reference to the history of our relationship with aboriginal people in B.C. I think it's fair to say that that history is no longer in dispute. The moral arguments for signing this treaty are incredibly strong. I have given much thought as to how I personally arrived at my own understanding of just what the past has meant for Nisga'a and for other first nations people across British Columbia and what it means to me and my aspirations in life to say: "Yes, the aboriginal people were here first. They had a fully functioning society that the collective we -- non-aboriginal people -- wilfully first ignored and then deliberately destroyed, in direct contradiction to our word and our own rule of law."

I want to share with this chamber a personal story. I spent my high school years in Terrace. During that time, I travelled several times to the Nass Valley. In fact, my first summer job was working for the then-named British Columbia Cellulose Company. It was a very bad fire season in the Nass Valley that year, and one of my jobs was to drive the food up to the firefighter camps. It didn't cross my mind at that time that this land was any different from any other land. I knew nothing, felt nothing, of land claims or aboriginal people, except for what I'd read in a social studies textbook.

By the time I graduated from university in Canadian history and got my first teaching job in 1968 -- it was actually in art, not history, but that's the way it goes -- in Williams Lake, I knew a little bit more. I knew enough to feel very awkward about all this. But there were several pieces that still didn't fit. A couple of my grade 8 and 9 classes were almost totally aboriginal. They were bused in from the reserve, where they had spent their elementary years in residential school. Two months into the school year, I was exasperated; I was at my wit's end. Many of them hadn't even said a word to me. I didn't know their names, because they didn't write them on their books. Sometimes they would disappear from class for a few weeks. Other times they would kind of wander in from other classes, because they'd been dismissed or whatever. They were lost, wounded souls. I couldn't reach them.

But I was young and I was keen, and I didn't want to give up. So I started riding back on the school bus to the mission school that they called home. I played ping-pong, I read stories, and after dinner, with the priest and the nuns, somebody would drive me back to Williams Lake. I knew that there was something fundamentally wrong, but at that time I had no concept of what it might have been. It was not until years later that I realized the significance of where I had been and the circumstances under which my students lived. The mission school was on the Sugar Cane reserve, and the priest with whom I shared the dinner table was Bishop O'Connor.

There's a happy ending to my part of the story as a first-year teacher. As a result of my visits, I threw away the art curriculum. I didn't teach them about Renoir or El Greco or even Leonardo da Vinci. In fact, I didn't teach them anything. Indeed, it was they who taught me how to do beadwork and what kind of knives to buy to carve the cedar blocks they found. And they taught me something else: they taught me about injustice, about abuse and what's it like to be ripped away from your family, from your culture, and dropped in the middle of nowhere.

The next time I went to the Nass Valley to visit the new Nisga'a Memorial Lava Bed Park, which we proudly established in 1992 and which is comanaged under agreement with the Nisga'a nation, I did understand where I was. I was on Nisga'a land, their ancient villages buried beneath the lava from the volcano a few hundred years ago. Their once-proud nation huddled in four small villages -- as Chief Gosnell described them, postage-stamp reserves. But their spirit and their dignity were still on that land, and they brought that spirit here to this Legislature, in their person and in the words on the pages of this treaty.

We cannot change the past for the Nisga'a people or, in fact, for my grade 8 and 9 students, but we can signal our abhorrence and our rejection of that past by having the courage to leave it behind, by having the courage and faith that through this treaty we can ensure that the future will be different from the past -- today for the Nisga'a people and hopefully tomorrow for the other Indian bands throughout British Columbia.

The Leader of the Official Opposition says he is sorry for that past, and other members have said that they are sorry too. Sorry is important, but it's not good enough. Saying you're sorry begs for some action to follow, to lend credence to your words. "We're sorry, full stop," doesn't cut it, because without something to follow what it means is: "We're sorry, but you can keep living in poverty and being plagued by drugs and alcoholism and filling up our jails." It can mean: "We're sorry, but we're going to keep the land that we sort of admit we took from you and leave you without an economic base to build your future. We're sorry, but we're not going to let you out from under the oppressive and failed provisions of the Indian Act just yet. We're sorry; we know the negotiating principles were out there and the agreement-in-principle was out there, but we didn't do our homework at that time, and now we want to go back to square one and start all over again."

[ Page 10895 ]

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Where has the opposition been? They are at least five, if not seven, years behind the times. We're debating a final treaty here -- all 250-odd pages of it -- and they are talking about having a referendum on the negotiating principles. As I say, hon. Speaker, if they choose to vote against this treaty, then they should do that, but let's not pretend that somehow we need to go back and start from square one.

I had intended to talk briefly about the present and some of the points that have entered the debate thus far in this House, and while I cannot do the job half as well as I heard the negotiators do on the Knowledge Network the other evening. . . . I sat there and they answered -- calmly, factually, comprehensively -- just about every imaginable question. In fact, the program went an extra half-hour. While I cannot do it quite as well, I had wanted to talk a little bit about some of the main arguments we've heard against this treaty. But I note the time, and I don't want to lose the ability to finalize my remarks, so I'm going to miss that part of my speech and hope that others will cover it.

I just want to quickly say a few words about the future. We haven't spent much time talking about the economic arguments for why we should support this bill and ratify the Nisga'a final agreement or the compelling legal arguments for why we should do so. But they are all there for us to read, and the fact is that the economic motivation for signing this treaty is as equally compelling as any others. At the present time it costs an awful lot of money to keep the Nisga'a nation in poverty. These negotiated settlements will give their communities real ownership of their lands. It will give them viable economic opportunities, and I think it's important to understand that all of the municipalities and regional districts in that part of British Columbia agree. . . . Jack Talstra, the mayor of Terrace, said initially: "I think tourism -- foreign tours -- will really benefit from more certainty in this area. We'll see some new businesses, and we'll see them shifting to new and different opportunities." Kitimat-Stikine regional district chairperson Joanne Monaghan also agrees that not only will this be good for the economic future of that part of the province, but she is perfectly comfortable with the process that got us here.

Yes, there are the ghosts of the paternalistic past who suggest that this will never work because individual Nisga'a people won't actually own their piece of land, like we're used to owning it, or: "Yes, but how can we trust that they'll actually take care of this land and that they'll look after their assets properly? How can we be sure that they won't damage this and be back here for more resources tomorrow?" Sometimes these messages are couched in other words; sometimes they are even more blatant. But I have no doubt that those are the real questions behind some of the vague references and the concerns about the future, especially the economic future to which this treaty will lead us.

I want to say that I personally believe with my whole heart that the Nisga'a will do what they say they will do in terms of taking care of their lands and that they will have no problem at all meeting or beating our environmental standards. We should not be so arrogant in suggesting that we have something to teach aboriginal people about protecting the environment, about valuing all life forms, about stewardship of resources and sustainability.

Yes, as Chief Joe Gosnell said, they will probably make their own mistakes, as we are all free to make ours. But as Frank Calder said, whom we honoured in the rotunda a couple of days ago, and whom I was very honoured to have at my public forum in Burnaby because I felt very strongly that my constituents needed to hear firsthand from a Nisga'a representative, not through my mouth. . . . Frank Calder said to my constituents during our public forum: "Give us a chance to stand on our own. We don't want your handouts; we don't want to be dependent on you for every little thing. We want to take responsibility for our own future and in doing so feel proud to be able to be finally full and equal participants in B.C. and Canada."

[12:00]

In taking back those artifacts, they are taking back their culture and their history. In giving back the Nisga'a their history, we are also freeing them to create their own future. I believe with all my heart that it will be a better future for all of us with this treaty than without it. I believe this treaty is fair, it's affordable and it's long overdue. I urge all members in this House to support this bill, and let's just get on with it.

Noting the hour, hon. Speaker, I would move adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: I think there's one further item from the Minister of Forests.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Hon. Speaker, yesterday in question period I made a statement based on information that I have now learned to be unsubstantiated. With full and unreserved apologies to the member for Shuswap, I withdraw those comments.

The Speaker: I thank you very much for that and appreciate that. I presume that you're Government House Leader. Would you wait just a moment. If I might take a moment, I know the debate is finished, but I just want to add to my caution from this morning. I want to emphasize once more that it is very important in this House that we not reflect badly on this institution by the language that we use, and certain terminology has been used. I want to caution all members that the debate we're undertaking on Bill 51 indeed engenders

[ Page 10896 ]

The Chair wishes to encourage all members to take that under advisement and to give more thought to the English language, which is indeed enormously rich and provides infinite scope for the expression of views in this chamber.

With those words, I now recognize the Government House Leader.

Hon. I. Waddell: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I acknowledge your words.

Hon. I. Waddell moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:04 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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