[ Page 10905 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, it's my pleasure to welcome back to the floor of the chamber the Hon. Tom Berger. Mr. Berger was a Member of Parliament briefly and then a member of this House from 1966 to 1969. He was briefly the leader of the New Democratic Party at that time. Everybody knows he went on to become a Supreme Court justice. He is a former chair of the Mackenzie Valley pipeline inquiry and, of course, he was a lawyer for the Nisga'a when they pursued the historic Calder case before the Supreme Court of Canada. I'd ask all members in the House to make Mr. Berger and his family, Erin and Bev, who are in the gallery today, most welcome.

I. Chong: I'm pleased to introduce three of my constituents who are joining us today. We have Cam and Didi Tipping, along with their nine-year-old son Christian, who attends Glenlyon-Norfolk School. Christian has a very passionate interest in politics, and I'm sure he'll find this afternoon's proceedings very enlightening. I would ask the House to please make them all very welcome.

Hon. G. Clark: In the buildings today we have 250 members of the Yan Xin Qigong Cultivation Association, led by its president, Mr. Mason Loh, QC, and his father, Mr. Charles Loh, chair of the association. Founded in 1995, the association promotes learning and practising of yan xin qigong. Qigong is an ancient Chinese meditation for cultivating vital energy by turning mind, body and breath for health, therapy, longevity and total well-being. Mr. Mason Loh is also a member of the College of Acupuncturists, a member of my Chinese advisory committee and the former chair of SUCCESS. With him here in the gallery are 40 members of the Yan Xin Qigong Cultivation Association. Would the House please make them most welcome.

G. Abbott: I regret to advise the House that Sean O'Neill, who is the son of the former MLA for Shuswap, Shannon O'Neill, passed away in recent days. I would ask you, hon. Speaker, to extend condolences to Shannon and her family on behalf of all members of the House. Thank you.

The Speaker: Thank you, member. I appreciate that point, and I've already had a conversation with her.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I very much appreciate the hon. member for Shuswap rising and bringing condolences on behalf of all of us. Those of us who know Shannon O'Neill know what a devoted mother she was to her adult son, who was very ill and had a suffering life. It is appropriate that we all send our condolences to her. She carried her motherhood right through to the very end.

The Speaker: I'd be happy to do that.

G. Wilson: We have with us, watching the debates on the Nisga'a agreement, four students from the University of Victoria: Mr. George Pringle, Mr. Steve Barrett, Mr. Scott Hart and Mr. Matthew Wilson. Would the House please make the four of them welcome.

J. Sawicki: In the precinct today is a visitor from Bella Coola, Rene Morton. In other words, she's a constituent of my colleague the member for North Coast. Rene and her husband John own Cliff Kopas Store, which has been a fixture in Bella Coola history, and it continues to be so in the present-day economy. Rene is here with her relative, Paul Kopas, and I would like the House to please make them welcome.

Hon. C. McGregor: It's my pleasure to introduce today my daughter Cara, who is visiting the assembly today and is here for question period -- no doubt in preparation for the upcoming Youth Parliament, which she has been accepted into again as a delegate. She's here to learn from us, to get an opportunity to learn how to best conduct herself in question period. I'm not sure that she's come to the right place, but would you please welcome her.

B. Penner: Visiting us in the precincts today is a former MLA for Chilliwack, John Jansen. He served the constituency of Chilliwack as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and as Minister of Health in a previous government from 1986 to 1991. I know he had a meeting earlier today with, I believe, the Minister of Agriculture.

Also, I'd like to ask the Legislative Assembly to extend a very warm welcome to the newest constituent of Chilliwack, born yesterday at 5 a.m. at Chilliwack General Hospital to my brother and his wife Edith: a new baby girl weighing in at eight pounds and five ounces. Together, Reg and Edith Penner are helping build a political dynasty, one Penner at a time. This is their fifth child and I am sincerely grateful.

Oral Questions

FOREST RECREATION CAMPING FEES

Will the Minister of Forests confirm that the new way of doing business includes sucking even more money out of the pockets of British Columbians who want to do nothing more than visit their own province?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I can confirm that we are looking at ways of offsetting some of the costs to maintain campsites and trails. We are also looking at opportunities to put those under the control of local organizations, so they can take some fees that they raise and put them back into the operation of campsites to upgrade the camping experience and to maintain them in a safe and clean condition.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Shuswap.

G. Abbott: Draft 10 of the forest recreation regulations, to which we referred, certainly lays out very clearly what the costs are going to be for British Columbians wanting to use those recreation campsites. I presume, as well, that this proposal came with revenue estimates attached. Will the Minister of Forests tell us how much his plan is going to cost beleaguered B.C. taxpayers?

[ Page 10906 ]

[2:15]

B.C. FERRIES CATAMARAN RESERVATION POLICY

Will the minister responsible for B.C. Ferries confirm for us today that the only way to get on the Premier's new pet project is to make a reservation and that the only way to make a reservation on the new catamaran will be to pay a reservation fee?

Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Speaker, we are still in the process of going through some work with respect to the introduction of the first of the high-speed catamaran ferries and how we might integrate that into the existing system. Obviously things will change when there are two vessels.

But I had occasion to go on the vessel last week with prospective buyers from around the world -- from Finland, from Hong Kong, from Scotland -- and I had occasion to remember the silly remarks of the Leader of the Opposition. He said it would sink. This vessel is a testament to the skill and determination of British Columbians, showing that we can truly be competitive internationally. Perhaps now the Liberal opposition, the negative naysayers, might stand and congratulate the ordinary British Columbians who worked on that vessel, who are so proud of that vessel. Now is the time to stand up and say you were wrong. You were wrong.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain.

C. Clark: We stood in this House after listening to the ordinary British Columbians who ponied up the millions and millions of dollars in extra costs that this Premier has put onto this project, and now this minister, after asking taxpayers to pay millions in extra dollars, wants them to pay an extra $30 for every round trip for the privilege of getting on the Premier's pet project. Shame on the minister responsible for Ferries!

The Speaker: There is a question?

C. Clark: Shame on him!

The people in Nanaimo and Parksville deserve a straight answer from this minister. They deserve a straight answer, because the NDP's new way of doing business looks a lot like the NDP's old way of doing business: hidden fees. . .

The Speaker: The question, hon. member.

C. Clark: . . .hidden taxes, deception, refusal to answer questions. Will the minister tell us exactly how much he intends to gouge out of taxpayers' pockets with this new fee he has proposed for the catamaran system?

Hon. D. Miller: They're jamming out of the Nisga'a debate, and they have no questions in question period. It's pathetic!

We are employing. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

Hon. D. Miller: . . .hundreds of British Columbians. They've proven that they can be the best in the world.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members!

Hon. D. Miller: We want to sell these vessels offshore, and there's the Leader of the Opposition who, in a speech in Nanaimo last year, said it would sink. He's really helping the B.C. economy, isn't he? He's been a big booster of the B.C. economy.

The Speaker: Minister, finish up your answer.

Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Speaker, they're out of gas. They have no new ideas; they have no questions. Maybe they can get up and eat the clock some more.

PROBATE FEE COLLECTION

Hon. U. Dosanjh: This is a very important issue. Ontario is taking certain steps. The Ministry of Finance here is considering certain steps. The court itself has allowed Ontario -- and everyone else, perhaps -- the next six months to deal with this issue.

The Speaker: I recognize, for the first supplementary, the member for Richmond-Steveston.

G. Plant: That, I take it, is an excuse for this government to hide its head deep in the sand and tell no one anything for six months.

The Attorney General has an obligation -- which he knows full well -- as the chief law officer of the Crown to abide by the rulings of the courts, yet his government is hell-bent on collecting $21 million this year from widowers, widows and families of deceased. So, at the very least, could we get an agreement or a commitment from the Attorney General that he'll repay all the probate fees he has illegally collected from British Columbians?

[ Page 10907 ]

PRIVATE WATER UTILITY DEVELOPMENT FEES

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes, our ministry has put together a consultation paper and has discussed with municipal governments and private utility owners the possibility of considering fee increases for a certificate of public convenience. The need for us to in fact treat this matter seriously is because of the small private water utilities that really put individuals and their families at risk if they aren't appropriately managed so that the quality of water supply can be assured. This requires work on the part of our ministry through the water branch. We take very seriously the need to protect the water supplies for those small utilities, and to work with local governments to ensure that where it's possible to attach to a local government water supply or regional district water supply when that is the most effective way of delivering a water utility service to that client, we should take that route.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. C. McGregor: No decision has been made at this time, but those are some of the issues that we're considering in that regard.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

First supplementary, the member for Peace River North.

R. Neufeld: Hon. Speaker, minister after minister gets up and talks about how this really isn't a fee and how this is for the betterment of British Columbians. It doesn't matter which branch of government you go to, there's been a 1,000 or 500 percent increase. Now we have application fees. You have an application fee when you first go in and you pay. Then you have an approval fee. I wonder if maybe next week there's going to be another fee attached to this -- a disapproval fee that you. . . .

Interjection.

R. Neufeld: No, you won't get it.

But will the Minister of Environment admit today that with all the fee increases -- whether it's development cost charges, whether it's a homeowner's protection fee, whether it's a water utility fee -- all you're doing is looking for money to fix the sorry books that your Minister of Finance can't keep in order?

Hon. C. McGregor: As I indicated in my earlier remarks, this is a matter that is under discussion, and we are circulating this material to hear the opinion of private utility owners as well as municipal and regional governments.

You know, it would be nice to know what the members opposite actually think about water quality questions, because this is a very serious matter to those people who find themselves without a water supply because of the inadequacy of the systems that exist. It is our responsibility -- it is my responsibility as Minister of Environment -- to ensure that quality resources exist for families and communities.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. C. McGregor: Protecting our water is a part of that. I think that the members opposite should support that work.

FUNERAL SERVICE FEES

There are two certainties in life: death and taxes. Will the minister confirm that only the NDP could find a way to link the two? It's a death tax, NDP-style. Talk about an underground economy -- you should be embarrassed!

Hon. J. MacPhail: You know, it's almost like the member from Mars is back, and he's been rifling through some garbage cans. I actually deny what they're saying.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, take it easy. Just take it easy.

First supplementary, the member for Matsqui.

M. de Jong: Hidden fees, hidden taxes, broken promises -- there is a litany of them. There's nothing funny about it, because all of the money comes out of the pockets of taxpayers in the province. The Supreme Court said that the imposition of these provincial fees must have some relation to the service being provided. My question to the Minister of Finance is: what service is being provided by the provincial government to justify imposing a fee on people who only want to bury their loved ones?

Hon. J. MacPhail: There's no such fee in place. The opposition is clearly digging, digging, digging. And you know what? There's nothing there.

The Speaker: Thank you. That ends question period.

[ Page 10908 ]

Petitions

Hon. A. Petter: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. A. Petter: I neglected to mention earlier that today, in the members' gallery, we have visitors from Malaysia. His Excellency Datuk Omardin Bin Dato' Seri Abdul Wahab is the newly appointed high commissioner from Malaysia to Canada. His first visit to British Columbia focuses on matters of advanced education. He's accompanied today by Rashidah Ramli, consul general of Malaysia in Vancouver, and Sita Shariah, education officer at the consulate general. I'd ask the House to join me in making them very welcome.

[2:30]

Orders of the Day

NISGA'A FINAL AGREEMENT ACT
(second reading continued)

Let me say at the outset, hon. Speaker. . . . And I want, through you to those people who are listening to my remarks today or to those people who may read my comments in Hansard in days to follow, to express my sincere appreciation and gratitude to the members of my constituency who have taken the time to come and meet with me, to talk to me, to listen and to understand what I believe are the salient points and facts of principle involved in this Nisga'a agreement. I want to thank those people in British Columbia who have sent me letters and who have faxed me and talked to me on the phone. I particularly want to thank them, because many who do not support me politically -- and many don't have an opportunity to vote for me directly because they don't live within my constituency -- have prefaced their remarks by saying that they wanted to talk with me directly because they believe that there is a time for leadership in British Columbia. They believe that there is a time for us to take a new vision toward a future, and they want to make sure that their concerns are properly addressed and that their issues are properly described in the comments that come into this Legislative Assembly.

I have given my word, and I've promised those people who have taken the time to come and talk to me that I will give full and due consideration to all of the points that they raise, because I think that if we are to move forward in a new partnership in British Columbia, it must be done -- and on a foundation of trust. It must be done on a foundation of trust that, for those people who do not understand the text of the agreement or those people who have concerns about specific items or issues within the agreement, their concerns are properly addressed and that those concerns are dealt with over the course of time.

Let me start by saying to those people who have indicated to me. . . . Certainly the majority who have written to me have written in support of this agreement; however, there are many who do not support what is proposed. Let me say to them that I come to this vote, when we eventually get to a final vote on third reading of this bill, in a sense of trying to make sure that all issues and all concerns of British Columbians are taken into account, because that is the role of each one of us who stands in this Legislative Assembly: to make sure that we try to put forward a fair and balanced approach in our debate.

Hon. Speaker, I want to touch on some of the key issues that have been brought to my attention with respect to the concerns, because I think it's important that people understand the perspective that I bring to this debate and the perspective that I believe will move me forward to my vote in favour of this agreement.

The first is the concern that people have brought forward that somehow this agreement creates a new third order of government. It does not; this agreement does not create a new third order of government. This agreement recognizes a system of government which has been around for hundreds of years. What this agreement does is recognize that, pre-colonial contact, the Nisga'a people had a system of governance and that, through the Nisga'a constitution and through the language of this agreement, we are now giving life to that government within the context of federal and provincial law.

We are not amending the Canadian constitution. Notwithstanding what some arguments have been, I think the most pressing argument which suggests that we are not is the very language of the agreement itself. Chapter 2, section 8 -- which has been read into the record already, and I won't take my valuable time to read it again -- makes it absolutely clear. This agreement does not amend the Canadian Constitution Act. I think that this becomes a very important point for us to focus on, because it speaks to the long history of negotiation and the difficulties that we have had, up to and including the signing of an agreement-in-principle.

Many will remember the debate on the Charlottetown accord. Many will remember that at that time, unlike the Meech Lake accord, first nations people were given the opportunity to come forward, to be present at the table and to put forward their concerns and their argument for a constitutional entrenchment of a third order of government. What was proposed at that time was the establishment within the Canadian constitution of a third order of government, in order to be able to expedite the finalization of the land claims issues in British Columbia.

I and those people who stood with me at that time took a strong opposition to the Charlottetown accord, because we believed then -- as I believe today -- that we do not need to amend the Canadian constitution to give legitimacy to first nations government in British Columbia, because it is anticipated under section 35 of the Constitution Act. It seems to me that our argument at that time, as passionate as we could make it, was met with considerable resistance and some distrust within the aboriginal community. People in the aboriginal community at the time indicated that we were simply using that argument to try to negate -- to try to stop or in some way prevent -- the establishment of treaties that would bring about equality in British Columbia.

In looking at that argument and how we put that argument together, as I have had a chance to do by going back

[ Page 10909 ]

There are those who argue that this does in fact constitute a constitutional amendment. They suggest that only the courts can rule on whether we should or should not proceed. It begs the question that if indeed a legal argument or. . . . If in some way a judge has to have some deliberation on this question and make a decision, it begs the question as to why, when the agreement-in-principle was first initialled and when this system of government was obviously agreed to by three parties -- the federal government, the provincial government and the Nisga'a -- that question was not put before a justice at that time. Why at that time was there not a red flag waved, indicating: "Wait a minute; we have some concerns"?

Certainly on the question of the fishery component, I -- and there are others in addition to me -- did raise objections to language that was included in the agreement-in-principle. I suggested, in fact, that we could not constitutionally entrench the portions of allotment in addition to the entitlement provisions of the agreement. If we did so, we would in fact be institutionalizing a commercial allotment within the Canadian constitution. Today, in this agreement, the proportional allotment which constitutes a commercial allotment to the Nisga'a people is not part of the treaty. It is an appended agreement that requires the approval of the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. So success was brought about because the argument was advanced at that time, the Nisga'a acquiesced, and the provincial and federal governments agreed that we needed amendments -- we needed to work further on the language.

That is constructive opposition. What it says is that in principle we want this treaty to proceed; in principle we are finding a way to overcome our differences. We are finding a way that we can accommodate the legitimate concerns of British Columbians, because we have a vision of a province in which we are equal -- all of us proceeding forward as equal partners in this great province.

Sadly, that didn't happen, and it is now being introduced at the eleventh hour. One can only conclude that it is being brought in at the eleventh hour in order to prevent this treaty from going forward, not because there is a legitimate concern with respect to that ruling.

Let me speak to a second point of principle that is important as well. It has to do with the right of Nisga'a self-government to be able to pass laws and to make judgment without the representation or the right to vote by non-Nisga'a people. The principles entrenched in Nisga'a government have been existing in the Sechelt Indian self-government for 12 years, and not one peep has been said about it. Non-Sechelts living on Sechelt lands do not have a right to vote; nor do they have a right to run for office. Yet we have seen a modern Indian self-government that has worked well within both the district municipality and the regional district. It has worked well in order to be able to accommodate that proposition. If that principle is so hotly held, why was it never contested? Why was it not challenged in court? Why has no issue been made of that? It hasn't been made an issue because it's a complete, absolute red herring. It has nothing to do with law or principle; it has everything to do with seeking ways to try to block this agreement.

Let me also say that within our own Municipal Act -- the legislation that governs the right to vote within our own municipalities -- not every individual who is subject to taxation by municipalities has a right to vote on that. Within the proposed legislation for a municipal charter brought in by this very opposition. . . . Even within that legislation, there is a denial of a right to vote to some people who will be directly affected by taxes applied.

So the principle exists. It exists today not only in first nations agreements but within the very legislation that we ourselves live by, support, vote for and promote in this Legislative Assembly. For those people who say that this is not the purest form of democracy, let me say that I am well aware that there are difficulties in terms of making sure that people who are affected must have the right to representation. Certainly it's a basic, fundamental tenet of what a democratic society is.

The system of governance over the land and the Nisga'a is not unlike that of a strata corporation. What those who are opponents, who are objecting to this agreement, fail to recognize is that the Nisga'a own the land fee simple under this agreement. They are landowners. In the same way that those who are owners in a strata corporation have a right to run for strata council, have a right to vote in a strata council, those people who are renters, who are tenants in that strata corporation, have rights protected by law. But they cannot run for the council, nor can they vote. That's an established principle, and the reason they can't is because they don't own the land.

It has also been argued -- and it has been argued by many -- that the Nisga'a will, in 14 cases, be able to override federal and provincial statutes. That is misleading in its direction, because those areas in which the Nisga'a people have a right to have their laws prevail -- and that is the language in the agreement -- are in Nisga'a tribal and customary law and in the administration of Nisga'a land. Do we hear those who oppose this suggesting that somehow we should change private property rights in British Columbia so that non-property owners -- those who don't own the land -- should all of a sudden have a right to interfere and have direction over those people who do own land in British Columbia? I don't think so. I don't think so, because the principle is sound. The principle is sound because in the proposition of the 14 areas. . . . If we look to those 14 areas, those are 14 areas in which the Nisga'a have a right to have their laws prevail: over customary and tribal law and over the administration of Nisga'a lands.

[2:45]

This is not a template; it cannot be a template. Anybody who has been following the debate, anybody who has engaged themselves directly in the negotiations in the other first nations, knows that it's not a template. This is an agreement for the Nisga'a people in the Nass. We know, because those of us who have been working with the Sechelt on their claim know that there are very real differences with respect to the provisions that may well form an AIP -- I hope will form

[ Page 10910 ]

Let me say, too, on the matter of the fishing component -- because many people in the commercial fishing industry have spoken to me directly -- that I understand the concern of the commercial fishermen. I understand the concern with respect to the fishing allotment and the commercial share. I understand the problems they have with respect to declining fish stocks and the concerns they have with respect to their ability to equally access that resource. I hear them, and I give my commitment that I will work with them to make sure that we can protect a viable commercial fishery in which all people -- aboriginal and non-aboriginal people alike -- have an opportunity to keep not just this industry going but the way of life that is attached to it.

It's hard, in a short 20 minutes, to do justice to a debate on the Nisga'a agreement. It's hard because there is so much misinformation out there, so many areas of confusion and a great deal of honest ignorance. It's difficult to let people understand what it is that we're trying to accomplish. I want to say, as I move toward my closing remarks, that there are two areas on which I believe the people of British Columbia need to focus.

First of all, this agreement provides opportunity. If we do not move forward now with respect to a just settlement for aboriginal people, if we do not recognize that now is the time for us to move forward through treaties to build equality in Canada, if we do not take this opportunity to move us down a path of reconciliation, a path of cooperation and a path of mutual respect, then we will go down a different path.

Let me tell you this: I have grown up in a country where I have seen the rights of individuals scrubbed out with the flick of a wrist. I have seen what happens when equality diminishes and the ugly sword of racism is wielded in the name of all kinds of justifiable causes. I have had a chance in my short life to be able to travel this province. I've had a chance to travel this country and indeed this world, and there is a pervasive evilness out there that's called racism. It is built out of ignorance and fear.

If we cannot choose the path that will take us down one road which will say that we will confront that ignorance, that we will confront that fear and that we will do what is necessary now in the leadership toward a vision of a province in which we will combat it, we will overcome it and we will unite to make sure that our children and their children will live together in harmony without it, then I fear we're going down the other one. If we head down that other path, then all the rhetoric in the world isn't going to protect us from the kind of consequence we're likely to see. We must now recognize that there is a time for Canadians and British Columbians to stand up and speak out with one voice, and that is a voice that speaks toward equality.

The second point I want to make is that while I hear people talking about equality, and I hear people saying, "We agree with the treaty process," and I hear, "We are not opposed to treaties. . . ." I've heard all kinds of rhetoric in the justification for voting against this agreement. In the final analysis all the rhetoric isn't going to do it; it's the action that will be required. We will be judged by our actions, not by our words.

It seems to me that in the equality equation -- when we talk about all of us being equal -- we must recognize that in Canada we may all be equal under the law, but that does not mean that we must all be the same. In Canada we can celebrate the fact that we are different. We can celebrate the fact that there are people who are in the full context of being Canadian -- Chinese Canadian or Indo-Canadian or Euro-Canadian or Nisga'a Canadian -- and that we in this country will recognize that those individual rights and those collective interests that build the fabric of this nation in its true multicultural form will not be advanced with one group, the aboriginal group, always left out, always left to the side, always left to be dealt with sometime later, when we can work out the accommodation -- some other day, some other year, perhaps next century.

The time is now for us to make this agreement work, and to make it work, we must have faith. We must have faith not only that the language that is negotiated will stand the test of time but that the people of this province will make sure that it does. No negotiated agreement, no treaty that is signed, is going to be perfect in its language. No individual has so much foresight that they can anticipate every problem that may come forward. None of us are in a position where we can take into account all considerations that may in fact trip up one section, one clause or one part of this agreement. We must have faith that in taking on this agreement, we are also taking on the resolution of the conflicts that may in fact spin out as a result of unanticipated consequences of what we are doing. That's what leadership is all about: it is to take us forward into a future where we do not fear making a decision, where we do not fear challenging the unchallenged, where we do not fear moving forward and making sure that we will take on those who would like to see the status quo remain, and where we say in Canada -- a nation that embraces people of every single culture -- that the Indian Act will no longer apply and that we will not simply amend the Indian Act.

In doing so, I want to put out some cautions. I need to caution that there are areas that need to be addressed, and need to be addressed soon. The Gitanyow, who have an overlapping claim. . . . We must work now very swiftly to put in place a process to make sure that the resolutions are fair and just to the Gitanyow. I know from talking to members of the Nisga'a that they are prepared to do so. I know that this government has given its commitment, and I look forward to the government leading up to it. I know that the federal government also recognizes that need.

There are people in Kincolith who believe that there are questions with respect to land title that need to be resolved -- whether lands should be core lands or treaty lands. These are issues that have legitimacy, because the people there believe them to be legitimate and want to find resolution and solution. Therefore I suggest to you that as we move forward with this treaty, we must make a commitment today that we will hear those people, we will seek to find resolution and we will work with the Nisga'a in order to help them find the accommodations that may be necessary in the final resolution of those questions.

Those people who believe that because they were adopted into the Nisga'a, somehow they won't have equality and equal rights with those people who are bloodline Nisga'a people. . . . We must give our commitment to them to work to make sure that we can understand all of those questions of their concern, that they have been heard, that the message that people who have said that they are concerned because they believe that even though they are adopted Nisga'a, they are not able to have the same rights as those who are bloodline. . . . Working toward equality is a goal that all of us must strive for, and we must give our commitment to those people

[ Page 10911 ]

Hon. Speaker, it is rare in this legislative chamber that we have an opportunity to stand up and debate and pass legislation that has such tremendously positive implications. It is rare that we can stand up and be able to talk about a vision for a future British Columbia. It is equally rare that we have the opportunity to talk specifically about the future for our children. But that's what it is that we have in this agreement. For those who have talked about their longevity, the length of time that their ancestors have lived in this land, let me say that I understand fully where British Columbia is coming from. My great-grandfather was a sealer on the coast in this province in the 1860s. My grandfather fished the coast all his life. My father, likewise, is a student of anthropology and worked among the first nations people here before going to Africa and taking me to a country where I saw firsthand how people were able to come forward and take on independence and be able to bring forward their aspirations and their goals and their drives.

In all of the time that I have lived here, and previous generations and future generations of us, who will live in British Columbia. . . . There is an overriding desire that I have, and that is to make sure that the questions of individual rights, collective interests and collective rights are protected in law. If there was one thing that took me into politics, it was to make sure that we did not trip over the lines that bind us, but rather that we cut them free and moved forward together so that we could recognize that as a province and as a country, we could in fact embrace equality.

The Nisga'a treaty does not amend the Canadian constitution; the Nisga'a treaty does not establish a new, third order of government. It simply recognizes a system of government that has been here for many, many years. This Nisga'a treaty does not build inequality of rights and opportunity; it builds equality between aboriginal and non-aboriginal people. Above all, this Nisga'a treaty is a massive opportunity that we simply cannot miss. We must not miss the opportunity that we, all of us, now have to move forward in British Columbia, because failing to do so will bring consequences that I believe will be totally unacceptable to this and to future generations. It is not enough to stand up and say: "I believe we should, but I won't, because of this. I believe in treaties, but I can't accept it because of that. I believe you have had a terrible past, and I understand the pain and suffering of your forefathers, but I don't seek to do anything to change it today."

It would be one thing if those who oppose this had been crusaders to make sure the cause of justice in British Columbia had come forward, but I have not seen that crusade. It would be one thing if at the time of the agreement-in-principle, the issues and concerns on the constitutional question had been raised and taken to court, but they were not. It would have been one thing when the matter of representation on governance was raised 12 years ago when the Sechelts introduced their form of self-government, which has precisely the same provisions, but it was not. We could believe what the opposition say if there had been any actions whatsoever to demonstrate that indeed they were interested in signing treaties and moving forward, that in fact they were interested in doing anything other than simply amending the Indian Act so they could have essentially the same kind of delegation of powers and privileges in a paternalistic, colonial model.

We in British Columbia must break that mentality. It concerns me when I hear people in authority stand up and continually talk about "our aboriginal people." That language has been heard in this chamber, and it has been heard on television debates from leaders in this province. Hon. Speaker, the days of colonial possession are gone. The days when aboriginal people were subjects of the state are gone. The days when aboriginal people could not stand up with pride and dignity and say they were equal to every other British Columbian and Canadian -- as Canadians -- are gone.

[3:00]

It's been a great privilege for me to be able to stand in this chamber today and speak to the Nisga'a treaty. As I stand at my seat, I always have to take into account the will and wishes of my constituents. I hope that I've done them justice today, and I look forward to further description and debate of this agreement as we enter into third reading.

Hon. A. Petter: It is for me, as well, a tremendous privilege, a tremendous honour, to participate in this debate -- a debate that I must say has a special meaning for me. As members may or may not recall, my first portfolio in government was a portfolio responsible for aboriginal affairs. I must say that in that role, I learned a great deal about aboriginal people that was new to me -- about their culture and history and certainly about the injustices they had suffered in the past, particularly in this province.

I'm particularly pleased to follow the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, because when I was Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and he was leader of the Liberal Party, he and I had some tremendous debates about these issues -- vigorous but principled debates. I hope he would agree that through that course of debates and honest interchange, we all came to a better understanding of the issues. I am delighted that he has risen in his place today and over the recent course of events and indicated that notwithstanding differences he has had from time to time over these issues, he is now fully in support of this treaty and this legislation.

Certainly aboriginal rights is not an issue that was hidden from the people of this province when this government came to power. Indeed, in 1991 the government of Mike Harcourt was elected with a very clear mandate and commitment to address the issue of aboriginal rights. In the 1991 election campaign, Mike Harcourt and all the candidates who ran with him pledged that after a century of denial by successive provincial governments, we would turn the page of history. We would recognize the existence of aboriginal title and the inherent right to self-government, and based upon that recognition, we would negotiate treaties with the aboriginal people of this province, with particular emphasis on the one treaty negotiation underway, the Nisga'a treaty. That mandate was sought in that election campaign, and that mandate was blessed by the people of British Columbia through the results of that election campaign, which brought the Harcourt government into office.

While it was a political mandate based upon a political view of what justice required, it is a mandate and a commitment that has since been supported and vindicated by subsequent court decisions, including most recently the Supreme

[ Page 10912 ]

I'm proud to say that we did act on it. In 1992 we gave formal recognition in this Legislature to aboriginal title and the inherent right to self-government -- not without some controversy, I might add. We proceeded to negotiate a cost-sharing agreement with Ottawa that reached a successful conclusion. We reached agreement with the First Nations Summit and the federal government to establish a Treaty Commission to oversee the treaty process negotiations throughout this province for all first nations who wished to participate in that process. Of course, we put added energy and resources into the Nisga'a negotiations and reached the interim measures agreement in 1993.

Now I must confess that despite that progress, the efforts we put in to bring about change took longer than certainly I had hoped or imagined when I first took on the task. But if there is one lesson that I have learned from aboriginal people in this province -- and I must say that there are many lessons I have learned from aboriginal people in this province, and hopefully this is a lesson that all members were reminded of last week, from Joe Gosnell and others -- it is that changing the course of history takes time and that progress requires patience. It certainly requires fortitude. It requires insistence, but it requires patience. Who know that better than the Nisga'a, who last week came back to Victoria 111 years after having first been turned away from our Legislature?

Under my successor, the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville, this progress continued to the point that in 1996 an agreement-in-principle was reached with the Nisga'a, an agreement that set out in detail the main provisions and principles that govern this treaty today. Along with other members of this Legislature, it was my privilege to attend the very moving ceremony that was held to initial that agreement-in-principle. There was nothing secret about this; this was a very open process. In fact, I believe that the ceremony was broadcast live on a national news network. That agreement-in-principle was certainly made available publicly not only to every member of this Legislature but to every citizen of this province who wished to receive a copy.

Again, in the provincial election that followed shortly after that ceremony, the new Premier of the province -- the current Premier of the province -- made clear his continuing commitment to honour that agreement-in-principle and made clear that if he and his government were re-elected, he would conclude a treaty based upon it. That was the mandate he sought and received in that election campaign.

He also made it clear that the process of concluding such a treaty would not involve a referendum. Indeed, the possibility of a referendum had been considered and rejected by the Vander Zalm government when the then Minister of Native Affairs, the current member for Peace River South, first led that government to join the treaty negotiation table and design the framework agreement, which does not provide for ratification by means of a referendum. To require a referendum now would involve a betrayal of the commitments that had been made to the Nisga'a at that time and would, as the Premier has said many times, convert an issue of minority rights into an issue of majoritarian politics. Let's not forget that this was a view shared in the last election campaign by members of the Liberal Party, who -- to a person -- said in that election campaign that they opposed using a referendum to resolve this issue, but who urged instead that the issue be decided by means of a free vote in this Legislature.

So here we are today, hon. Speaker. Through the efforts of the current Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, the Nisga'a people and the federal government, that agreement-in-principle has been transformed into a final agreement based upon its principles. We in this Legislature are now given the opportunity to say yes or no. We're given that opportunity in a free vote, as recommended by the leader of the Liberal Party in the last election, in which we can decide, based upon our conscience, based upon what we as individuals think -- not upon the views of our party leaders, not upon what is required of us by the political parties we represent, but based upon our own thoughts and feelings.

This is a rare moment for us as legislators and as human beings. So much of the time we spend in this world, we struggle to determine what is right and what is wrong. So many of the decisions we're required to make force us to decide between the lesser of evils. Often those decisions, even in this chamber, concern issues that seem at times to have little impact on those things that matter most. Frequently those decisions are dictated by constraints we face or by directions we feel bound to follow.

But today is different. Today we have a chance to make a decision that will change the course of history, a decision that will indeed end the injustices of the past and set us on a new course, a decision that will define what kind of society we are and whether or not we are prepared to fulfil our responsibilities to the aboriginal peoples of this province, and a decision that we as MLAs have been told is ours and ours alone to make.

Now, I don't intend to review the sorry record of our society's treatment of aboriginal peoples in this province over the past century or more. Chief Gosnell and other members of this House have already spoken about that record much more eloquently than I'm capable of doing. All I want to point out is this: the decisions that contributed to that record of injustice -- whether they were to ban the potlatch, to remove the right to vote or to relegate aboriginal peoples to being wards of the state under the Indian Act, which continues to this day -- were made by and with the approval of people like us, sitting in a Legislature like this in a place like Victoria or Ottawa or London. Every day that we sit here and allow the legacy of those decisions to continue, every day that we fail to correct the consequence of those historic injustices, is a day that we share in their shame.

But today is different. Today we have the chance to set it right. You know, opportunities like this don't come around often. Indeed, I think the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast indicated that this is an opportunity that comes rarely in one's experience as a legislator -- the chance to change the course of history, the chance to challenge injustice, to set us on a new course that respects the rights of those who have been ignored and trampled upon.

Some have sacrificed everything just for the chance to have such an opportunity -- like those who crossed the ocean to fight with the Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion in the Spanish Civil War, who we honoured in this legislative building last week. They took that step because they were determined to help a fledgling Spanish democracy defend itself from the threat of fascism. Like those who joined the struggle against apartheid in South Africa because they believed that the cause

[ Page 10913 ]

Today we are being given that same opportunity. The only thing that we are being asked to put on the line is our conscience. We don't have to travel to Spain; we don't have to rise up against the authorities; we don't have to risk a life of imprisonment under apartheid. We just have to be able to speak as citizens who have a conscience.

As wrong as it is to do nothing about injustice, it seems to me that it is much worse to be given the opportunity to do the right thing and to say no, or to say nothing at all. I know members opposite are struggling with that thought. I believe there are members of the Liberal opposition who in their heart of hearts know that the Nisga'a treaty is a good treaty. They know that voting for it is the right thing to do. I not only believe it because of what they've said in the past -- and there's a chronicle of things that have been said in the past -- but I know it from what they're saying now. When I hear members opposite trying to justify their opposition to the treaty by arguing for a referendum that they know would be a betrayal of the treaty process and a betrayal of the commitments that they made to the people of British Columbia in the last election, when I hear members who in the past have called for an end to litigation now arguing that we should further delay justice for the Nisga'a by reverting to the courts, when I hear the member for Shuswap invoking the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to oppose a treaty whose central purpose is to advance human rights, when I hear the member for Vancouver-Langara relying upon the Constitution Act and the Charter of Rights to oppose a treaty that the courts have told us is contemplated by and mandated by section 35 of that document, I know I'm hearing the voices of members who are trying to rationalize what they know is wrong rather than tell us what is right.

I accept that there are members opposite who are not in this position, who do not share my views, who genuinely -- though mistakenly, in my view -- believe the Nisga'a treaty is a mistake. To those members I say: if that's your view, by all means vote by your conscience. But to those who know that it is not a mistake, who know that after more than a century of injustice it is time to move forward, who know that this is the right thing to do, I say please don't pass up the opportunity to be on the right side of history.

[3:15]

The chance to change the course of history, the chance to move society forward, the chance to be an instrument of justice -- that chance doesn't come to us often. I urge members opposite not to squander that opportunity. To those who know, as I do, that to vote against this treaty would be to deny justice, I urge you to re-examine your consciences. Ten or 20 years from now, when a child -- perhaps your child or your grandchild -- asks you what you did when the cause of aboriginal justice was being decided in this Legislature in the debate on the Nisga'a treaty. . . . I say through you, hon. Speaker, to members opposite: do you really want to have to look that child in the eye and say that you opposed it or that you didn't vote at all? When you tell him or her about all the pressures you were under and all the great intellectual arguments you made to justify your stand and all the other excuses you can muster, do you think that child will forgive you? And even if you can convince that child, will you be able to convince yourself? Will you be able to forgive yourself?

There are some things and there are some times which are simply more important than politics, and this is one of those things, and this is one of those times. The decision before us is not just about justice and injustice; it's not just about our past and our future; it's really about ourselves. It's about the kind of society we want to see for this province. It's about the kind of relationship we want to have with people who have been denied justice. It's about who we are as individual MLAs -- about our character, about what we stand for. It's about whether we're prepared to put what is morally right ahead of what may seem politically expedient. If a free vote means anything, it means that that decision is ours alone to make, and once that decision has been made, it can never be erased.

I say to members opposite please reflect on this. Reflect on what this vote means. Think about the direction that we must now take and the choice we have in setting that course. And in reflecting upon it, think about your role. In doing so, I hope that members opposite will put aside any thoughts they have of political advantage, any pressures that may be placed upon them, and do the right thing -- not just for the Nisga'a, not just for the people of British Columbia, but for themselves.

G. Campbell: It has been 127 years since British Columbia's entry into Confederation. In all that time, the world has changed a lot. The Nisga'a have changed and so have we. Technology and time have transformed us all. Even as we speak, our voices and images are being uplinked and downlinked across this province. All across B.C., students are clicking on to hyperlinks that will lead them through a maze of choices that will be theirs alone to make. They learn from their mistakes, and they move on. There's a lesson in that for all of us. We are all inexorably linked to the past, to the future, from one culture to the next. Our challenge is to find each other; our challenge is to learn how to communicate. The speeches we give and the choices we make during the course of this debate will soon be posted in cyberspace. They may not find their way to those kids on their computers, but they will impact them and future generations all the same, just as the words and choices of our forebears have brought us to this critical moment in our history in British Columbia.

We are barely a blink away from the twenty-first century, faced with the need to correct the mistakes of our forebears, to reconcile indelible rights of aboriginal people with the changing world which we all must live in. To do that we must communicate honestly, candidly and respectfully. We must say what we think and think about what we say as legislators, as individuals and, above all, as a community. We must engage in the debate we have finally begun, not just in this assembly but as a common culture of many cultures necessarily linked in common cause. We must have respect for each other to debate this template for treaties and to speak honestly about its merits and its flaws.

[ Page 10914 ]

It seems that the government's object in this whole process is to deliberately muddle the debate and to avoid any real accountability for the actions of its members. On an issue of such great importance, of such grave concern to our province, one take-it-or-leave-it vote is simply not good enough. Nevertheless, we will work within the framework we have and ensure that our positions are as clear as possible.

For now, however, I want to outline some of the concerns we have about the principles and practicality of this treaty. I want to talk about the flawed process that has brought us to the second reading of this bill, in an attempt to offer constructive advice. Whether or not we agree with one another, I truly believe that all members of this House share a common goal: we want to forge a new relationship with first nations that accommodates their rights and advances their interests within the context of our common values and the constitution. We want to blaze a new trail that will reconcile aboriginal rights with the sovereignty of the Crown. We want to build a new partnership with first nations that can move us beyond the tragic legacy of the Indian Act -- a legacy of poverty, despair and dependency -- a tragic history of deceit, denial and untold human suffering that can never be undone.

It cannot be undone with an apology from governments on behalf of those who made mistakes, although an apology should be extended. It cannot be undone with money, although generous compensation must be offered. It cannot be undone with land returned or new title secured -- although that, too, should be negotiated. The past is the past, and there is nothing we can do to change it. But we can and must learn its harsh lessons. We can and must make amends within our means and aspire to a future that is bright and just and ripe with possibility for all British Columbians.

I am convinced that the only way to do this is by seeking a genuine, public consensus around the vision this government proposes for treaty settlements. It pains me to say that this document before us does not reflect that consensus. I feel saddened that I am unable to join the Nisga'a in the celebration of this treaty -- a treaty that they have bargained hard to achieve, a treaty that in many ways is commendable. I regret to say that it does not provide for equality and that it will create a plethora of unintended practical problems. It's a treaty that utterly ignores the recommendations that were offered a year and a half ago by the minority report of the all-party committee on aboriginal affairs.

It is frustrating that this government blithely ignored those findings, which were made after eight months of public hearings. But it is even more disheartening for all those people who came out and told this government how and why the Nisga'a template falls short -- who warned about its pitfalls and who offered positive solutions for improvements so that we could all move forward together. Those citizens' efforts -- the time and energy that they put in -- was all for nought, because even before they opened their lips, this government told them that it would not listen to their advice -- and it didn't. The government said it would not change the draft agreement, so many of the same flaws that were in the AIP nearly three years ago are now about to be set in stone. It's a shame. On the one hand, we must all be encouraged by the good work that has been done at the bargaining table, but on the other hand, people are discouraged by the contempt this government has shown for citizens of British Columbia. They are disheartened by its disregard for democracy and by its willingness to sacrifice the principle of equality at the altar of political expediency.

The federal government is no less to blame. When I think of the opportunity that we had -- that we all had -- to conclude a treaty that would have avoided the need for court action and this divisive debate, I feel sorrow. There is no joy in the task at hand. Indeed, the easiest thing in the world would be to turn a blind eye to the faults of this treaty. Our entire caucus could have done that; the entire opposition could have done that. But that is not what we were elected to do. We were elected to stand up for what we think is right and to stand against what we think is wrong. We were elected to listen to our constituents and to speak out on their behalf. That is why we cannot ignore the principles that this template will establish for future treaties. It's why we cannot endorse a misguided model of self-government that is being imposed on British Columbians without their consent. It's why I am duty-bound to stand here today to say this to all British Columbians, aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike: the course we are embarking upon in this template and the way we came to it is not a road to reconciliation. It is a continuation of the path that has already kept us apart for far too long. It is the wrong way to go if we really want treaties that will provide certainty, finality and equality -- and believe me, we do.

When all's said and done, this template leads us to a place that none of us wants to be, a place that has as its defining features many of the same elements that we hope to distance ourselves from today: segregation, isolation, insulation, discrimination.

[3:30]

Why has that principle not been followed in this treaty? If it is wrong to include commercial fishing entitlements and special management rights in other treaties, surely it's equally wrong to include them in this treaty. Again, this will be a template for 50 to 60 treaties yet to come. If the Nisga'a have a special treaty entitlement to fish that can be sold commercially and special fishery management rights, will any other first nation expect anything less?

[ Page 10915 ]

New uncertainties about treaty wildlife rights will replace existing uncertainties about aboriginal title on Crown land. If that is something that we really want in our society, fair enough. But it does not serve our long-term interests to pass a template that includes such comanagement rights without even letting British Columbians know the downside of entrenching those rights in our constitution -- rights that will establish new forms of inequality, including some in our taxation system.

This treaty will get rid of one set of tax exemptions for Nisga'a members and put in its place a new set of permanent tax exemptions for the Nisga'a government. The Nisga'a government won't pay GST, like municipal governments do. The Nisga'a nation won't pay stumpage taxes or contribute to Forest Renewal B.C., but it will be entitled to apply for FRBC grants. The Nisga'a nation will not be subject to taxes levied under the Mining Tax Act, the Mineral Tax Act, the Mineral Land Tax Act, the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act and the Property Transfer Tax Act. It will have a permanent tax exemption, protected under the constitution as a treaty right. There will not be totally equal tax treatment for individuals. Nisga'a citizens will not have to hold and pay for federal and provincial licences, fees, charges and royalties on their fish and wildlife entitlements, nor will any person be subject to resource taxes on Nisga'a land in respect to fee simple interest of the Nisga'a nation, a Nisga'a village or a Nisga'a government corporation. So while there will be more tax parity, there will also be new constitutional tax exemptions. The treaty will not close the gulf of inequality that separates British Columbians on tax treatment.

Of all the new inequities that are proposed in this treaty, none is as objectionable as the denial of equal voting rights. Under this treaty, British Columbians who are subject to Nisga'a government laws will be forever denied the most basic of all democratic rights. They will be denied the right to vote and run for office in their government. That is an egregious error that I could never countenance. It matters not that the treaty suggests that non-Nisga'a residents may have certain consultation or participation rights in subordinate public bodies. What matters is that they will not have an equal right to vote. They will forever be disenfranchised, simply because of where they live, who they are and where they come from. That's wrong.

A vote on a local health board is no substitute for a vote for the representatives who will be making Nisga'a health delivery decisions. If you have a business on Nisga'a lands, some vague right of consultation is no substitute for a right to vote for the government that will regulate, license or even prohibit your trade or profession. That is not equality; it's not democracy as we know it. It's every bit as wrong to deny those non-aboriginal people their right to vote as it was to deny aboriginal people their right to vote. Treaties should be about correcting such inequities, not about constitutionalizing new inequities.

We are fundamentally opposed to this new model of self-government that's proposed in this treaty, because it too will divide British Columbians along ethnic lines. It will give the Nisga'a government special new rights and status under the constitution. It will give the Nisga'a government paramount powers that are not held by any municipal or aboriginal government in Canada -- powers that include the constitutional authority to pass laws that are legally superior to federal and provincial laws in 14 areas of jurisdiction, shared powers that will duplicate areas of jurisdiction, creating a crazy patchwork of overlapping laws in virtually every key area of provincial authority. There will be overlapping health laws, education laws, transportation laws, advanced education laws and taxation laws. There will be multiple adoption laws, child protection laws and social service laws. There will be overlapping wildlife laws, fishery laws, environmental laws, forestry laws, mining laws -- you name it -- different laws, all based on cultural distinctions and ancestry. I don't think that that's right for British Columbia, especially if those laws are constitutionally protected. If they are outside the ability of the federal Parliament or the provincial Legislature to affect, it's not practical or workable if 50 or 60 other first nations all have their own different laws in those different areas. These are constitutional powers we're talking about. Once they are protected as treaty rights, they will be set in stone forever, before we even know how they will work in practice. That's why former NDP Attorney General Alex Macdonald warned us not to cast Nisga'a self-government in constitutional concrete. There will be unintended consequences.

I worry that they may ultimately undermine the protection of Charter rights and freedoms, even though the intent is to do the opposite. I understand that. But one of the great overlooked aspects of this proposed treaty is what its effect might be on the Charter rights and freedoms. I have grave concerns that instead of enhancing the protection of individual Charter rights, the treaty may unwittingly expand the potential for legal infringements. This is because the Charter itself has a clause, section 25, that puts first nations treaty rights ahead of individuals' Charter rights. Section 25 says that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms: ". . .shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights" that pertain to aboriginal people, including any rights or freedoms that now exist by way of land claims agreements or that may be so acquired.

The question is: how will the rights of self-government that the Nisga'a will acquire in this treaty relate to the rights of individuals under the Charter? I am concerned that new powers of self-government protected as treaty rights might potentially be wielded in a way that can diminish the Charter rights and freedoms of all British Columbians.

Let me be clear. I am definitely not suggesting that there is any intent whatsoever to do that, by the Nisga'a. On the contrary, I believe that that is why they have embraced a specific clause within the proposed treaty that says this: "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. . . ." But why the qualifying words -- "bearing in mind the free and democratic nature of Nisga'a government"? What does that phrase mean, and what is its purpose? No one has yet answered that question.

My concern is that the Nisga'a government will have a wide range of new powers, many of which will include jurisdiction to pass laws that are legally superior to federal and provincial laws. One of those paramount powers will be the

[ Page 10916 ]

On the surface, to my layman's understanding of the Charter, it would seem that the section 25 rights might well have an edge. This needs to be clarified -- and the sooner the better. This concern becomes especially acute in view of this government's conception of self-government as outlined in the Attorney General's factum on Delgamuukw. Here's what the province told the Supreme Court of Canada:

"Most aboriginal rights, including aboriginal title, are in the nature of a shield that can be invoked by the aboriginal community or its members against unjustified infringement by provincial or federal laws; however what really distinguishes the right of self-government is that it can be invoked as a 'sword' by an aboriginal community or one of its members to enforce compliance by the members with an aboriginal custom, practice or tradition relating to their internal affairs."

Issues such as these point to the complexity of the document we are considering and the new legal issues it creates. I fear that the net result will be a feast for lawyers and new costs for businesses that will be caught in the web of an untried, impractical and bureaucratic nightmare. There will be lots of work for arbitrators and courts but ultimately less work for everyone else as a result.

[3:45]

What matters is that we are adding new costs, increased bureaucracy and an entirely new level of government at a time when our existing resources are stretched to the max. This new government will cost taxpayers $32.1 million a year -- an increase of $3 million a year over current funding levels -- and that amount will be increased to account for population growth, inflation and any new programs that the Nisga'a don't already receive funding to provide. The federal government's chief negotiator estimates that even after 15 years, taxpayers will continue to pay 75 percent of the costs of the Nisga'a government, even though the Nisga'a government will get 100 percent of all forest, mineral and resource revenues on their land and even though they will have the ability to levy taxes on their own people and keep the tax revenue generated.

The myth is that dependency will be reduced; but in reality, it will be increased. The myth is that the treaty will break down the barriers that exist under the reserve system; but in reality, it will reinforce those existing barriers and erect new walls that will cleave our province into 50 or 60 "gated communities," to use our Premier's own analogy. The myth is that this treaty will create certainty about aboriginal rights; but in reality, it will create new uncertainty about the scope and application of new treaty rights that will profoundly impair our own ability to govern.

Think of it, hon. Speaker. Under this treaty, the provincial government will be constitutionally required to consult with the Nisga'a government before amending any law that might impact on Nisga'a law. Before this assembly can amend its own laws, the government will have to go through a rigorous analysis to determine if Nisga'a laws are impacted. It's a laudable goal, but not if the same process is required for 60 different aboriginal governments that each have their own laws. It's just not practical.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: we too believe in self-government. We believe in a model of self-government similar to what the federal government insisted upon only five years ago in the Yukon with 14 first nations -- a municipal style of government with powers that are delegated by federal and provincial statutes, like that of every other aboriginal government in Canada. We believe in a public model of self-government where all residents have a right to vote, like that which the federal government insisted upon in the Nunavut agreement. We believe in a model of self-government that affords aboriginal communities the same measure of control over their lives as other communities have. We believe in a model of self-government that ensures that first nations can protect, promote and develop their cultures and exercise their treaty rights within the legislated framework, which can be changed if unforeseen problems arise. It is folly to entrench in the constitution a brand-new third order of government that is untried, unproven, unnecessary and unacceptable to most British Columbians. We should understand that if we incorporate self-government into treaties, we are doing something that is irreversible.

What is proposed in the Nisga'a template is a shot in the dark. If it doesn't work, we will be stuck with its consequences forever. Why are we doing this? Is there a legal imperative? Hopefully, our court challenge will help to answer that question. Certainly I am persuaded that the direction provided by the courts to date is clearly at odds with the vision of self-government proposed in this settlement legislation. The B.C. Court of Appeal said in Delgamuukw: ". . .when British Columbia entered Confederation, the Indians became subject to the legislative authorities in Canada and their laws. In 1871, two levels of government were established in British Columbia. The division of government powers between Canada and the province left no room for a third order of government." Yet that is exactly what is proposed in the Nisga'a treaty -- a third order of government that was never envisioned in our constitution.

Some say that the powers proposed in the treaty are simply existing "inherent rights of self-government." Indeed, that does appear to be the federal government's position. The provincial government's position is less clear. It is reluctant to defend the Nisga'a's proposed governance rights as simply modifying existing rights -- and for good reason. If the Nisga'a new treaty rights are really just a codified version of the rights they already have under the constitution, then they really do not need a treaty to exercise those rights in the first place. They can simply assert their rights and start passing laws. If they already have the paramount powers that we are led to believe are just "modified existing aboriginal rights," then the Nisga'a already have the power to pass laws that are legally superior to federal and provincial laws. All they have to do is assert that power.

[ Page 10917 ]

This is why it's important to seek direction on this matter from the courts. In the meantime, we should not argue that self-government rights proposed in this treaty are merely modified existing rights. They are brand-new rights; they are at the very least expanded rights; and they are certainly unproven rights. Until such rights are proven, they have no place in any treaty, least of all disguised as modified existing rights. The questions around this issue are simply too important to fudge or soft-pedal. We need solid answers from the courts, and we need them now.

British Columbians want to negotiate treaties that honourably deal with the legitimate rights and needs of first nations. And I say again, we do too. It's just that our vision for treaties is very different in some respects than the one staring us in the face today. In our democracy we should be entitled to air those differences of opinion without fear. We should be able to openly discuss our respective viewpoints and find common ground together for the compromises we are and we are not prepared to make in treaties. It's that important step that has been missing in this government's effort and that this treaty has hoped to avoid.

Hon. Speaker, this government is going about this process all backwards. Worse yet, it is about to compound the errors that have been made. Instead of asking British Columbians what they want and expect from treaties, the government is telling them what they are going to get, whether they like it or not. To add insult to injury, this government isn't even being honest about that. It is spending $5 million at least to distort the truth, twist the facts and misrepresent the most crucial aspects of this template for treaties. People wanted hard facts and all they got was the hard sell. After spending $5 million, this government still hasn't given British Columbians the information that they need to assess this template.

Instead of seeking public consent, this government is pretending that the consent of this assembly is tantamount to public approval. We should flip that approach on its head. This is the lesson to all politicians in the post-Charlottetown era. When it comes to matters of such great constitutional significance, we can no longer presume to know better than our constituents what is in their interest. It's very simple: people want a say, and they demand to be heard. In this chamber particularly, we must never fear the acid test of democracy. With democracy comes legitimacy.

If this government's proposed mandate is sound and democratically defensible, it should welcome a vote on its vision for treaties. All aboriginal people have two votes on their treaties: one on their negotiating mandate and another on the final agreement. The treaty process requires that all first nations negotiators obtain consent from their people. Before they even get to the bargaining table, they have to vote on their mandate as a matter of legitimacy. The rest of British Columbia deserves no less than to have a chance to vote on this mandate. Why should the 95 percent of British Columbians who are not aboriginal expect any less? It is simply not legitimate for our negotiators to bargain on our rights, land, tax dollars and vision for reconciliation without so much as a vote.

So I say again to this government: put your Nisga'a template to the people. If this is your vision for treaties, at least have the confidence in your vision to put it to a vote outside of this chamber. If it is acceptable to the majority of British Columbians, as this government seems to maintain, then so be it. But if it is not, as I suspect, then why on earth would you foist it on our province?

We don't need to vote on all 700 pages of the treaty. We don't need a vote on the particular land selected or the specific amount of cash in this treaty or the return of cultural artifacts or the amount of fish and wildlife that can be harvested. Those are negotiated features that will of course be different from treaty to treaty. But we do need a vote on the key principles at stake, like the principles of equality, certainty, finality, affordability, fairness and workability. We need a vote on how those principles have been compromised in this template and for all other treaties yet to come. We deserve a vote on the model of self-government proposed and whether there will be commercial fishing entitlements in treaties. We deserve a vote on the total amount of land and value of land and the cash that is proposed for the settlement of all treaties. How much are we prepared to pay for all costs, including spinoff costs like compensation for affected third parties? We deserve a vote on whether treaties should contain apologies for the mistakes that were made in the past -- something that is missing from this treaty and that we support. We deserve a vote on the experimental model that this treaty proposes for achieving certainty about aboriginal rights on Crown land. I might add, hon. Speaker, that it's a model that we on this side of the House think is worth trying. But before stripping away British Columbians' democratic right to vote and run for office in a government that regulates their lives, we must have a vote.

[4:00]

This government now estimates that the cost of this treaty is at least $490 million in land and cash. That works out to $89,000 per Nisga'a. Does anyone here honestly believe that

[ Page 10918 ]

Instead of trying to pull the wool over people's eyes and saying that the Nisga'a government will be a municipal style of government, why not tell the truth? Before we create a new third order of government that will forever change the way we govern ourselves as a society, at least have the decency to admit what you're doing, and have the respect for your own constituents that the Nisga'a have already shown for theirs. Have a vote and let the people decide. In fact, I believe that it's wrong for us to be debating this at this point in the House. At the very least, we should be waiting until the courts decide whether this treaty is constitutional and whether there must be a referendum under B.C.'s Constitutional Amendment Approval Act.

We don't think that the model of government proposed in this treaty is constitutional without an amendment. If it does require an amendment, then under B.C. law there must be a referendum on the subject matter at issue. We don't think that this government is even obeying its own laws -- again. But I would remind the Premier that he made this promise on May 26, 1996, just two days before the last provincial election. When asked, "If British Columbians reject the Nisga'a deal, would he be prepared to take it off the table?" he said this: "Yes. We can't have a situation where the government is going to sign a deal that doesn't have the support of British Columbians. We have a whole series of other treaties that we want to negotiate, and we have to get it right."

We can all speculate until the cows come home about whether or not British Columbians support this deal. We cite polls that say they don't; the government cites polls that say they do. But the fact remains: we do not know, and we can't know without a referendum. Without that knowledge, we will not have a template for treaties that is legitimate in the eyes of the people. We will not get it right, because we are doing this first treaty in a way that is dead wrong.

[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]

We can go through the motions of debating this treaty over the weeks and pointing out its flaws. We can and will move swiftly through the sections of settlement legislation that we support. It may be a surprise for the government to learn that we support many of the sections of this treaty. Generally, we support the chapters on lands, land title, access, roads and rights-of-way, wildlife and migratory birds, and culture and artifacts. We think it's a positive step that the Nisga'a have agreed to surrender their Indian Act tax exemption on sales and income tax -- albeit after eight and 12 years, respectively. Sure, we would have preferred that those tax exemptions were phased out after three years, as the 14 first nations in the Yukon agreed to in their umbrella agreement, but it's still a very important concession by the Nisga'a, and we applaud them.

It is also good that the treaty would clarify where aboriginal title applies in the Nass and where it does not. Personally, I have no trouble with the amount of land involved in this settlement. My only concern is that the value of land has not been properly determined or costed. But it is good that there has been a negotiated agreement on the land selections and the cash transfers. I am also happy that the land in question will be transferred fee simple to the Nisga'a, meaning that it can be registered in our land title system and transferred or sold to private property owners, if the Nisga'a so wish. I applaud the parties for negotiating access provisions that should provide reasonable opportunities for non-Nisga'a to hunt, fish and access Nisga'a lands.

The fact that the provincial government will retain ownership of the Nisga'a Highway is also good. Further, the amending process is an improvement over the agreement-in-principle, insofar as any future changes will require consent of this assembly. But in spite of those positive achievements, it's the principles of certainty, fairness, finality, affordability and workability that have not been adequately protected. It is the overwhelming principle of equality that we will fight to defend on this side of the House. Moreover, we will continue to point out that the challenge of reconciliation involves more than simply providing a legalistic framework for all of us to move forward together. Reconciliation also involves healing the wounds of the past. That is why our caucus has formally extended an apology to all aboriginal people who have been ill-served by the injustices that have been perpetrated under the shroud of the archaic Indian Act. Mistakes were made. Abuses were committed. Indignities were suffered. Human beings were hurt economically, physically, politically, legally.

This institution played a role in those injustices. Since 1871, it has not been an innocent bystander. It has often been a willing, willingly ignorant participant. It's time this assembly recognized that fact and apologized, as a sincere gesture of our collective desire to advance the healing process. It's time we stated clearly on behalf of the institution we now serve that its leadership has largely failed aboriginal people over the past 127 years. The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs has quipped: "Treaties mean never having to say you're sorry." This is no time to be cute. Of course, an apology is not a substitute for a treaty. On that point, obviously we agree with this government and the Nisga'a. But let's not kid ourselves, however. Treaties are largely about acknowledging past mistakes.

How else can one explain the rationale for offering cash in treaties to first nations? It's interesting that unlike previous treaties in Canada, this settlement calls the cash portion a cash transfer, not compensation. Perhaps that's intended to avoid any hint of culpability for past injustices. Perhaps it's intended to blur the line between money offered as compensation for past infringements of rights and money offered as transfer payments that will be ongoing and escalating.

In any case, I would remind the minister and all members again that this government has formally accepted all the recommendations made in the majority report tabled by the all-party Aboriginal Affairs Committee. Here's what the committee recommended, with the support of all parties. Recommendation No. 67 said: "The Crown in right of the province should offer an apology to aboriginal people." Recommendation 68 added: "The apology should be included in treaties." The official opposition stands by those recommendations made a year and a half ago, even if the minister does not.

[ Page 10919 ]

I was on the Fraser River during an aboriginal fishery last summer. You just have to see what happens on that river, where non-aboriginal fishers are waiting to fish and the aboriginal people are fishing. It does not foster reconciliation; unfortunately, it fosters resentment. Whenever you build a wall, on one side of that wall or the other, there will be injustice. I'm concerned that this is what we are doing with this treaty.

It will constitutionalize inequality, as I said. It will enhance and increase cultural friction. It will not create economic self-sufficiency or materially benefit the vast majority of Nisga'a people who live outside the Nass. It will create more dependency, new economic uncertainty and not a single job for anyone save more bureaucrats and lawyers.

The members opposite can sit there and believe that what they are doing is just and righteous and that what we are doing is not. They can believe that this treaty is virtuous in all respects; that's their right. But many past wrongs have been dressed in righteousness. The members opposite cannot deny that the concerns we are raising have also been voiced a hundred times over by their own constituents. They cannot deny that they chose to ignore those concerns every step of the way in this flawed process. They cannot deny that the vast majority of their constituents want a vote on this template before it is set in stone as a treaty under the constitution.

And they cannot vote on this treaty with impunity. Once this treaty is passed into law, we will all have to live with its effects forever. It gives me no pleasure to say that if we pass this treaty in its present form, we may well be unwittingly undermining the treaty process. I know supporters of this template don't believe that. They have the opposite perspective. But it pains me to believe, as I do with all my heart, that what we are doing is virtually guaranteeing a future that consigns us all to the past -- a future that enlarges and perpetuates a new reserve system under a different façade, a future that purports to aspire to equality of opportunity and responsibility but is grounded in inequality and dependency.

This treaty will not achieve what its authors imagined. What I see is this: we are social engineering without a clear sense of what we are trying to build. Now we have a blueprint for treaties that paints a false picture of the reality that they will create. This government is trying to build a monument, but it is a monument built on a foundation that can't stand the weight of public scrutiny -- a monument that is cracked at the cornerstones and that will cast its shadow over all treaties yet to come.

[4:15]

Last week Chief Gosnell spoke eloquently in these chambers for his people. He was a welcome visitor. Let us today ask all British Columbians to visit this House with their views. They will be voices that speak for and work for equality. They will be voices that call out for justice and fairness for all: Gitanyow, Nisga'a, Gitxsan -- aboriginal and non-aboriginal people alike. Do not close the door on the people of this province. Let this be a House where the great diversity of British Columbia is heard and where the spirit and hope of democracy is given true meaning. I ask again of this government: if you truly believe as you say, trust your beliefs; trust in the people, and let the people decide.

E. Conroy: It's wonderful to have the opposition here as an audience. I'm sure that they saw the speaking notes this morning and came just for this occasion.

I was going to start a little differently, but after the hon. Leader of the Opposition spoke, there were just a couple of things I thought I'd like to comment on. Actually, I'd like to comment on the whole speech, but I'll save that for those who follow.

One of the things, I guess, that really struck me was the notion that the Nisga'a treaty will replace old inequities with new inequities. How dare they! How dare the Leader of the Opposition -- when he has heard the Nisga'a people say what a wonderful opportunity this treaty is for them, what it will do for their people, the opportunities they have to look forward to -- stand over there and say this is going to create inequities for the Nisga'a people, our native people. It comes from exactly the same old paternalistic vein, and it really angers me to hear that thinking coming from the other side of the floor, because I think everything that they're doing is predicated on that old thinking.

There's one other thing I'd just like to kind of highlight a little bit before I begin. That's all of these things, these 14 points around land use and the notion that they're constitutionally entrenched, that we'll have to. . . . I mean, the Nisga'a' land, members opposite, is fee simple land. If you're a logger and you own your land, you don't pay provincial fees. When you do things on private land, the whole thing changes. This land is being treated like private land. To give the illusion to the people of British Columbia out there that the Nisga'a' are getting some kind of special treatment because they now happen to be private land owners. . . . No. I have a private land owner in my constituency who owns 250,000 acres, and that particular person can do on his property exactly what the Nisga'a are doing on theirs. So it's nothing that's not going on all over the place, and to say that it's special rights and there's going to have to be constitutional changes in order for this to happen is not true.

Now I'll begin with what I wanted to start off with, by just highlighting some of the things that I see -- maybe from a moral standpoint -- that I want to convey not to just members opposite but indeed to my own constituents and to the people out there. I'll do that first, and then I'll move to another segment of my speech which, hopefully, will bring it all into perspective for everyone.

Most first nations had their lands and culture and their system of government taken away. Everything they valued was taken away from them when the Europeans arrived. They've been trying to get some of that stuff and their government back for over 100 years, despite the many obstacles placed in their path by us.

[ Page 10920 ]

You might ask what more we can do to these people. Well, their cultural and spiritual practices were outlawed. Their children were taken away and put in residential schools. The repercussions of that particular injustice are still being felt in many homes, as aboriginal people raised in institutions are judged to be inadequate parents; their children are taken away and the cycle continues. This is only one of the tragic legacies of the moral wrongs done to aboriginal people.

After more than a century of living in abject poverty, their health status is well below the levels most of us enjoy. Life expectancy is seven years shorter than the national average, close to that of Guyana in South America, for example. Infant mortality rates are twice as high, and fully half of all aboriginal children live in poverty. Other statistics illustrate how tough it's been for these young people to break the cycle of dependency. Only one in three graduates from high school, and fewer than one in ten reach university. In most cases, they're not leaving school for high-paying jobs. Unemployment rates are as high as 80 percent, and 46 percent of the people on reserves are on social assistance. Suicide rates for young men are five times the national rate and for young aboriginal women are eight times higher. Unless we negotiate fair land claims settlements and give aboriginal people back a real opportunity to achieve self-reliance and self-determination, their children will continue to feel there's no future and no way out.

It's time to put things right. The Nisga'a treaty is a good start. It ends the race-based reserve system on Nisga'a lands and welcomes Nisga'a citizens into our society as equals, and it provides the resources they need to build an economic base and end 100 years of dependency. Most British Columbians recognize these facts. They've told our government repeatedly to get on with the business of resolving native land claims. The Nisga'a treaty proves that we can do it, and do it through negotiation, at a price we can all afford. I urge all members of this House to take advantage of this landmark opportunity and close this shameful chapter in our province.

I just want to -- after the moral portion of why we're doing what we're doing in terms of beginning to resolve the treaties that we have to do here in British Columbia -- give you an example. In my tenure as an MLA, I had an opportunity a while ago to sit in on a dispute between a local organization and a young woman who had a registered helping dog and had very severe arthritis. She needed this registered helping dog to carry her books, because she was incapable of doing it. They wouldn't let her and her dog on the bus. I thought: gee, why are we doing this? The argument happened about 20 or 25 years ago around disabled people taking their helping dogs into restaurants, on buses, on airplanes. Why, in 1998, are we trying to do this to this poor young woman? It was rather astounding to me. When I look at the comparison between that and the Nisga'a treaty, where the arguments have been made by the brightest minds in the country, in terms of legal minds, about where we have to go with regard to native land claims, and if natives have a right to claim land. . . . Well, absolutely they do, and we all know that; we all recognize that. But for some reason, we're not letting the native dog on the bus, and I can't figure out why.

This is 1998. We know it has to be done. We have moved forward -- not just us but successive governments have moved forward. We're finally at the place in our history now where we've concluded a successful treaty with the Nisga'a people after 25 years of negotiation. Is it perfect? No, it's a negotiated treaty. As somebody who comes from a negotiating background, I can tell you that no negotiated treaty is perfect, because it involves give and it involves take. Sometimes what you wind up with is not what people on both sides of the equation would like to see there, but it is a negotiation, and the results are what one lives with.

Now, we could scrap this treaty, as the opposition wants us to do, and we could go away and renegotiate another one. But we'd still have the same situation; it's a negotiation. There would be things there that people like and things there that people don't like. What we're dealing with here is not so much whether we like it or whether we don't but if we should be doing the negotiation. Yes, we should. Was it a fair and honest negotiation? Yes, it was. There were over 400 public meetings. I think that everything went into this that possibly could have gone into it, and we've come out with the results we've come out with.

We have a tremendous opportunity here. We all recognize the fact that this has to be done, but for reasons that appear to me to only be political, we don't seem to want to, in a unilateral manner, get down to it and do it.

I don't understand the opposite side of the House. I don't understand why they can't get the big picture. No, it's not perfect. But it's been a fairly, honestly conducted negotiation that brought us to the point we're at now, and I feel that we should all be embracing this treaty. We should not be utilizing cherry-picking methods to cherry-pick things out of this treaty in an attempt to try and raise the fear level of British Columbians -- who do, in many instances, have a lot of fear around the situation with native land claims. We shouldn't be trying to raise that level of fear; we shouldn't be trying to raise that level of anxiety. We all know that that's not going to do us any good. It may do us some good politically, but it's not going to do us any good from a moral standpoint. It's not going to do the Nisga'a people any good. Yet this is what's going on out there.

To go back to the dog, we all know that disabled people need a helping dog. We all know they deserve our assistance. We all know that they have the right to the same challenges and rewards that we can all expect. And yes, they have the same right to self-empowerment and to have a say in their own future that we have. The dog is on the bus. Maybe we should have a short-haired dog, maybe that dog's hair is a little too long, maybe we don't like the colour of that dog, but we really don't have a good reason for getting it off the bus. We may have a political reason for getting it off the bus, but we don't have a reason in morality. We have no reason at all to get that dog off the bus, yet we have people in positions of responsibility in this province who are bound and determined to do that.

[4:30]

[ Page 10921 ]

I just want to quote a little bit from my speech on the labour bill, when I said: "The Liberals keep saying -- and I hear it time and time again from the other side: 'We've got nothing against unions, but. . . . We've got nothing against people of colour, but. . . . We've got nothing against women's rights, but. . . . We've got nothing against aboriginal people, but. . . . We've got nothing against gay rights, but. . . .' " The buts are always there.

An Hon. Member: The but stops there.

E. Conroy: The but stops there; that's right, hon. member.

But, members opposite, there's only one but here, and that's the butt of the opposition that's on the line on this issue. I think that if you don't look at this from a moral, proper perspective, you're going to be kicking yourself in the butt for the rest of your life. You've got an opportunity here and now to change the future, and for purely political reasons you're not doing it. For purely short-term, political reasons you're not doing it, and I think you're missing the boat. We've got an opportunity here to change our society in a major manner, and the members opposite are not taking the ball, and they're not running with it -- and they should be.

I just want to go back again to the paternalism, if I could, before I conclude. Who are we to tell the Nisga'a people what they should be doing? It's not up to us. When we have a group of people in our society who are happy, who are contented with what their lot is going to be, who are we to turn around and tell them: "We know better"? We've done that with these people for 111 years, and the members opposite are about to try and do it again.

This is a fair treaty. It's good for the people of British Columbia, and it's good for the native people of this province. We should all be standing up and we should all be proud of it. I just hope with all my heart that when it comes time to vote, the members opposite will do that -- will vote with their hearts and not with their political minds.

W. Hartley: I'm pleased and proud to stand and be part of this debate on the ratification of the Nisga'a treaty. Last Monday was such a great day in British Columbia -- how inspiring to be outside and watch as Chief Joe Gosnell and the Nisga'a elders were welcomed into the Legislature by the Premier, and how wonderful to witness the Songhees first nation welcoming the Nisga'a to their traditional territory and to see the dancing in the streets and the waving of Canadian and B.C. flags. Chief Gosnell's memorable speech from the Bar of the Legislature last Wednesday set a higher standard for all members to aspire to.

The world is watching as the Nisga'a move out from under a paternal and degrading Indian Act and move proudly into the Canadian family. The Nisga'a treaty ends the reserve system for the Nisga'a nation and enables their entry, at long last, into Canada as equal partners. This treaty gives the Nisga'a the authority to manage their own affairs within the framework of the constitution, the Charter of Rights and existing federal and provincial laws. There's no constitutional argument here. This is about the recognition of the basic human rights of an indigenous people.

This is not a referendum issue. No one called for a referendum in 1990 when Bill Vander Zalm and his Social Credit government announced a new land policy and ratification process for our province. Since that time, all parties to the agreement have negotiated based on that accepted policy and process. Those who are now calling for a referendum know very well that the treaty process will collapse from bargaining in bad faith if we change the rules at this late date.

We didn't hear calls for a referendum from that opposition during the last two provincial election campaigns. In fact, we heard the opposite. We New Democrats took our position to the people, and so did that Liberal opposition. Our position remains true to this day -- not so for the opposition. We have always been clear that we are committed to the settlement process. Our government was given the mandate by the people to negotiate this treaty, because it was the right thing to do. It is time that our society got it right.

Our past relations with aboriginal people have been disastrous. First we made laws that forced first nations off the lands they occupied for thousands of years and put them on reserves that had no relation to their traditional economies. Then the federal government made it illegal for first nations people to hire lawyers or even to gather in small groups to discuss land claims. First nations were denied the right to vote. Smallpox and other diseases decimated their populations. Their cultural and spiritual practices were outlawed. Their children were taken away and put in residential schools. Native infant mortality rates are twice that of non-natives. Suicide rates for young men are five times the national rate; for young aboriginal women they are eight times higher. Only one-third of aboriginal children graduate from high school.

It is time to put things right. The Nisga'a treaty is a good start. The treaty ends the race-based reserve system on Nisga'a lands and welcomes Nisga'a citizens into our society as equals, providing the resources they need to build an economic base and end 100 years of dependency.

There is no future for aboriginal children in British Columbia. There's no future without self-reliance and self-determination -- no future unless we negotiate fair land claim settlements. Think about that. Consider what that means to all the children, to all the young people of B.C. Consider what messages the two sides of this debate are sending to all the children of British Columbia and Canada. This debate is a crucial learning opportunity for young people. As a government, our Premier has made education our number one priority. We know it is the young people of today who will come to insist that we live in a society that truly works to promote and protect basic human rights for all people. Young people understand the need to get on and close this shameful course that we have been on in the history of our province, to get on with the business of resolving native land claims. The Nisga'a treaty proves we can do it and do it through negotiation, at a price we can all afford.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

There are other first nations negotiating land claims that are at different stages of the treaty-making process. In my constituency of Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows, the Katzie first nation is now entering stage three of the treaty negotiations, where all interests -- first nations, community and local government -- are tabled for negotiations. This is a great opportunity for all the aboriginal and non-aboriginal people to

[ Page 10922 ]

The Katzie people are developing ideas for a treaty that will profoundly affect their children and their children's children and all those who follow. Former Katzie Chief Diane Bailey expressed that the decisions that are reached must allow for the survival of the Katzie people in the future. But beyond that, the Katzie have expressed their desire that the treaty they negotiate will provide security and certainty for everyone in the Katzie traditional territory, not just for Katzie people. The Katzie desire that we all keep an open mind and communicate well with one another.

Throughout this historic process of treaty negotiations, the history of the Katzie band will be told. It is my great honour to stand in this Legislature to relate to members of this assembly a little of that history, which I have learned from reading about and listening to the Katzie people that I have met over the years. According to Simon Fraser University archaeologists Jonathan Driver and Terry Spurgeon, the Katzie people inhabited permanent villages throughout the area, including Pitt River, Pitt Lake, the Pitt lowlands and the lower parts of the north and south Alouette rivers throughout the eighteenth century and in much of the nineteenth century. There's good local evidence that Katzie people have occupied the area for 5,000 years and related evidence from neighbouring areas showing people in the region for 10,000 years. There are archaeological sites along Alouette Lake showing evidence of fishing camps from prehistoric times.

In urban and suburban areas, archaeological sites are often the only source of information about native history. Unfortunately, residential development and other recent land use has destroyed some important evidence. Existing provincial legislation does not always provide enough protection, and local governments are only now beginning to become aware of this cultural resource. We need to ensure that these sites are protected, and I'm pleased that the Heritage Conservation Act is strengthened in the Nisga'a treaty, which states that the Nisga'a may develop their own process to protect Nisga'a land and non-Nisga'a heritage sites on Nisga'a land. This will also help Katzie and other first nations.

The construction of the Alouette River hydro dam in the 1920s, which reduced the water flow out of the Alouette Lake into the south Alouette River by more than 99 percent, had a devastating effect on the Katzie way of life. Salmon stocks were wiped out when they were not able to return to spawn. More recently the Pitt lowlands have been diked and drained, reducing the availability of important plant species. Crucial wetland resources, such as the cranberries and wapato traditionally harvested and traded by the Katzie, were lost.

Katzie and environmentalists tried for many years to get past provincial governments to release more water from the Alouette hydro dam, to no avail. Our government listened and opened the gate to bring life back to the Alouette River, and we as a government have supported conservation efforts to restore salmon habitat in the Alouette River drainage. In time it may be possible to again see Katzie fishing camps on the Alouette River.

The renewal of the Alouette River was achieved primarily by the efforts of the Katzie first nations. We all benefit greatly from that partnership. There are many more examples of such partnerships. It was the Katzie band that first raised the issue of gravel extraction in the upper Pitt River valley, which eventually led Katzie Chief Peter James, the Minister of Fisheries and me to visit that area and witness young coho fish in abundance in the Olsen Creek drainage. Gravel extraction would probably devastate that fish habitat; that fish feeding and spawning area would be gone forever.

[4:45]

I welcome the opportunity to sit down with the Katzie first nation and discuss how to resolve these outstanding issues. I believe the Nisga'a treaty enables us to do that. I have very carefully reviewed the agreement and the process involved, and I have recognized the significance of what it represents. I support the Nisga'a treaty, and I believe the majority of the constituents of Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows and the majority of the people of British Columbia support this treaty.

Yes, of course, we listen to the Leader of the Opposition talk about many technicalities, many clauses and provisions that are difficult and problematic and that will require time to work out. Of course, every clause and provision is not applicable to future treaties. However, I do recognize the benefits this Nisga'a treaty provides to the Nisga'a, to British Columbia, to Canada and to subsequent treaty negotiations. And when I listen to the Leader of the Official Opposition, who sounds very sincere and concerned, who talks about 20 years of negotiations not being enough, I have to wonder, if we do defeat this treaty, just what he expects will happen next.

Hon. Speaker, the Nisga'a treaty addresses certainty over definitions of a traditional territory, and it provides clarity of relationships between a first nation and other levels of government. At long last we have an opportunity to build this province in a way that it has not been built before. Former Premier Mike Harcourt said words to the effect that until we settle these outstanding aboriginal issues, we will never grow up as a province. I agree. And I say to all those who would support the status quo: come in from the dark and join the modern world. As we enter the new millennium, our society has finally found the courage and the will to face the disgraceful conditions we have imposed upon aboriginal peoples. Moral, legal and economic factors have led to a change in attitude toward treaty settlements. Supreme Court rulings have confirmed and expanded aboriginal rights to include traditional use and occupation of land. It is plain that if we don't deal with land claims, the courts will -- at a much higher cost to all taxpayers.

Only by negotiations can we hope to have some say over treaty settlements. We can ensure that we maximize the benefits to outweigh the costs. The estimated net gain of the Nisga'a treaty to the economy is about $4 billion over the next four decades. The Nisga'a will develop their local economy, create jobs and pay taxes for the first time in history. Investment confidence will come with increased certainty and stability.

Those opposite who are opposed to the Nisga'a treaty present us with nothing but fear and loathing. They offer a

[ Page 10923 ]

Chief Joe Gosnell spoke to all British Columbians, all Canadians, and he spoke from the heart of the matter to all of us and all who come after us -- all the young people, who are the future. Chief Gosnell invited us all to join with him in a great voyage when he said: "Come join us in our journey."

T. Nebbeling: I too rise to speak on Bill 51, to express my views and concerns and my hope that at the end of the debate, there will indeed still be some time to deal with some of the concerns I have.

Before I do that, Madam Speaker, I would like to reflect on my emotions on November 30, 1998, when the doors opened into the Legislature and the Nisga'a people walked onto the floor of the Legislature and filled the gallery. I will always regard that day as a very historic day and most probably the most historic experience I will have as an MLA in this House. I am not afraid to say that when the Nisga'a people walked in, I actually had a bit of a battle to keep my tears away, because I really felt that when these Nisga'a people arrived, they had an enormous amount of emotion that they brought with them. I can certainly appreciate the emotions that must have been felt by the Nisga'a people -- by the elders and all members who came through the gates of the Legislature on November 30.

With all my heart and in all my being, I wish that all British Columbians could have been celebrating that day with the Nisga'a people -- this very special day that truly could have been and should have been the beginning of the final settlement of all treaties in British Columbia. I believe that the overwhelming majority of people in this province strongly support the goal to settle the treaties once and forever.

What we have instead is a province and a people still hungry for information and frustrated at the propaganda from this government, which has been bombarding us. What a shame that the Premier of this province chose to politicize the treaty process over a process that would have given all people of British Columbia reason for celebration and certainly reason for participation -- a process that could have given all British Columbians a say in the future of our province, our lives and our children's lives. What we have today is a proposed treaty that will put up barriers between aboriginal and non-aboriginal people -- and this at a time when we all seek the breakdown of barriers that have divided our people far too long.

What a shame that after so many years of searching for the common ground and common sense that we share and that should bind us together as people of this province, we have a government that has used this treaty as a smokescreen to hide the paralyzing economic situation all British Columbians are suffering under. This government has cynically used this very critical issue in the hope of distracting public attention from the dire state of our economy. This treaty is here in the House today as an attempt to hide the fact that this Premier has failed thousands of British Columbians who believed his promise on jobs and a future in this province -- jobs that never materialized -- and forced thousands of people and families to move to other places, to move from this province in the hope that indeed in other places they can find the means to build a new future.

Madam Speaker, earlier on I said that as a province and as a people we are frustrated not because of the rejection of rights for aboriginal people but because many people are skeptical due to the lack of proper information. The more that misleading propaganda is distributed -- at a cost of $5 million -- by the provincial government, the more people in this province will become suspicious. And suspicion becomes rejection.

People need to know how much land we are talking about to settle all land claims. People have got to know how much money it is going to take to settle all land claims. These are principles that I believe we as people in British Columbia, native or non-native, must agree on. If we do not, there will continue to be much uncertainty over where the treaty process is taking us; and that in turn, I believe, will turn more people against the land claim process. That is something that I do not want to see happen, and it is something that we can avoid by allowing all British Columbians a say in how we together can build a better future in this province.

The chief negotiator for British Columbia, Mr. Jack Ebbels, stated last week in a program on the Knowledge Network that we as a province have lost $1 billion a year in investment due to the uncertainty surrounding the Nisga'a treaty. This means tens of thousands of jobs and opportunities gone.

If one treaty can have so much negative impact -- one treaty -- what will be the impact of 54 more treaties to be negotiated over the years and decades to come, without clear principles of land and cost in place to eliminate the uncertainty and the impact on the economy and the ability to create jobs? The Premier has made it quite clear that this treaty is the template for the next 54 treaties that have to be negotiated, an opinion that is shared by a number of band chiefs and treaty negotiators. Well-known band chiefs who are involved in the land claims process make no bones about it that the Nisga'a treaty is the floor, not the ceiling -- the floor from which this treaty and future treaties are to flow.

I believe that by not recognizing the need for established principles on how much land and how much money this province has available to finalize all land claims prior to the adoption of this treaty, we will continue to have uncertainty and, in the process, jeopardize the future of this province -- uncertainty that will continue to drive investment dollars out of this province, as it did during the Nisga'a treaty negotiation period. We know from experience. When the money goes, so go the jobs, like jobs in our natural resource industries.

Since this government came to power seven years ago, we have seen a tremendous decline in our forest industry. This government has burdened the forest industry with unacceptable stumpage charges. It has burdened the industry with new legislation, regulation and policies, all driven by ideology rather than common sense. In the process, it has destroyed more job opportunities in the forests than have been created over the last number of years. The actions of this government have done tremendous damage to the viability of the forest industry. It's really a shame that only now in 1998, after seven years of inflicting wounds, the government begins to realize that they have almost killed the goose that laid the golden egg. So suddenly the government is coming up with this claim to have rescue tools -- rescue tools such as reduced stumpage fees and extra wood for the manufacturing sector. The sad thing is that many forest companies are not financially in a position to continue to operate. We see closures of operations throughout the province and consequent layoffs in the thousands. Unless companies can find new money, they will go under.

[ Page 10924 ]

It is not only in the forest industry that there is serious trouble due to the uncertainty. The Premier keeps talking about how he's bringing aluminum producers into British Columbia, investing billions of dollars and creating thousands and thousands of jobs. Well, after a lot of talk and a lot of promises, so far not one producer of aluminum has committed to investing these dollars in British Columbia, nor has there been one job created, except in the bureaucracy.

[5:00]

It is not just the big multinational companies that have found it extremely difficult and risky to do business here. Look at tourism. We see proposals for new ski hill developments being delayed or obstructed because of the impact of unresolved land claims. One such proposal, Cayoosh Creek, comes to mind. After years of planning and the investment of well over $1 million by the proponent of the Cayoosh Creek ski development, there are still voices from the aboriginal community saying that nothing can be approved until the land claims in the area are settled. With that message, does the government think that the proponent of this project has any chance to get investors to support this new development? I know that we all know the answer: there is not a hope until there is certainty on lands and on costs related to the treaty process.

The same scenario goes for a ski hill development near Squamish. Towns like Squamish that have lost their economic base because of the turmoil in the forest industry desperately need new opportunities. A viable project such as the Garibaldi Alpen proposal is in trouble because investors are not willingto come forward until such time as they know that the land issues in the treaty process have been settled. Lack of certainty is causing more economic decline, and lack of certainty over the treaty process will channel more money to other provinces or other countries, with the loss of precious jobs.

There are 54 or more treaties to be negotiated, and I do believe that if we fail to put some agreed principles in place now, uncertainty no doubt will linger on for many years, causing more polarization between native and non-native British Columbians and forcing more and more people to leave this province to find new opportunities elsewhere. I'm afraid that the whole treaty process will take much more time than it should because of the lack of agreed principles on land and cost. Children of today will be adults by the time this whole treaty process is completed -- parents, most likely. They are the ones who ultimately will pay the price for correcting the wrongs of the past. Let's ensure today that they can afford the price of land claim settlements tomorrow.

Let it be known that by opposing Bill 51, I do not oppose the rights of the aboriginal community but denounce the political manipulation of the treaty process, which is dividing British Columbia's communities everywhere.

G. Janssen: I rise with great pride to talk about the treaty that is in front of us, the Nisga'a treaty. I want to talk about what the opposition calls equality and about rights. I want to talk about people's rights -- the right to vote, the right to have an education, to pursue a career, to belong to the religion of one's choice, to a union, to buy and own a home -- rights that were denied many Nisga'a people and many native people across this province. I want to talk about the right to be happy, to dream and to have an opportunity to make those dreams come true. Yet sadly, we as European settlers, through the institutions of government, systematically sought out British Columbians and Canadians called natives and removed their rights. We did it first with the most vulnerable members of our society, aboriginal children.

It brings sadness to my heart to begin this debate, and it brings sadness to me that we have to continue this debate at this late hour. I therefore move adjournment of the debate at this time, and I will continue in the morning.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:05 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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