[ Page 10925 ]

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

NISGA'A FINAL AGREEMENT ACT
(second reading continued)

The schooling of first nation children came under colonial control in 1867, with the British North America Act. In 1876 this control was further consolidated and centralized by the Indian Act. By the early 1900s, considerable controversy had emerged about residential schools. In addition to their substantial costs, it was discovered that the policy of assimilation was simply not working. For a variety of reasons, graduates of residential schools appeared to fit into neither first nations nor Euro-Canadian communities.

This concern, combined with a severe drop in first nations population -- the outcome of disease and starvation -- and a sufficient increase in immigration to meet Canada's need for a labour force, resulted in a re-evaluation of the policy of assimilation. The outcome was a policy shift in 1910 toward isolation or segregation of first nations people.

In 1920 the Indian Act was amended to include compulsory school attendance for all first nations children between the ages of seven and 15. This change meant that children could be and were forcibly taken from their families by various authorities: priests, ministers, Indian agents and RCMP officers. The very people that we looked up to as authority figures, the very people that native people were taught to respect, who were to lead them -- these were the very people that forcibly took their children from their homes.

The children were placed in residential schools. For this reason, as well as others -- including a growth in first nations population -- attendance at residential schools increased. In 1900, for example, in Canada, 3,285 first nations children attended residential school; by the 1940s, this number had increased to approximately 8,000.

So we see, from the mid-1800s onward, that colonial and later federal policy with regard to residential schooling of first nations children underwent three changes. Until 1910, the policy was openly assimilationist -- civilizing and Christianizing and focused upon preparing first nations children to join the lower fringe of mainstream society. From 1910 to 1951, the policy shifted to segregation. The schooling of first nations children returned to their home communities as a civilizing and Christianizing influence within those same communities. During those years, the daily operation of residential schools was the responsibility of various Christian denominations. In 1951, the policy shifted to integration -- the abolishing of the residential schools and moving of first nations children into mainstream schools.

I want to reflect today on those years and why we must not only apologize but make retribution to people who were harmed by that policy with the approval of government and, yes, even ask their forgiveness for the way they were treated. This treaty is so important not just for the Nisga'a and other first nations but for ourselves, for there can be no future without a past.

I have read and I have heard the opposition's remarks over and over again, and I'm listening to my constituents. To quote the member from Penticton: "An 82-year-old constituent of mine told me the other day, 'This is about my grandchildren's future.' " I don't believe I've heard the Liberal opposition MLAs say that a constituent favoured the treaty, yet many of them have first nations constituents. Do they not talk to them? Do they not listen to first nations people, who are constituents of theirs as well?

But back to the 82-year-old and his concerns for the future of his grandchildren. I want to talk about the native people and their children and grandchildren. In 1896 the Canadian government was funding 45 church-run residential schools across Canada. Almost a quarter of these were located in British Columbia. In any given year, as many as 1,500 children from virtually every one of B.C.'s first nations were interned -- yes, interned -- in these schools.

In persuading Indian parents to send their children to these schools, authorities were assisted by a growing famine in Indian villages in western Canada. These people, who had never known hunger because of the abundance of this great province and the resources that we all enjoy, went hungry for the first time in their history. In this environment of hunger, amid recurring outbreaks of smallpox and influenza, the government withheld food from the parents, with the approval of governments in this province, in this very chamber and in the House of Commons -- condoning starvation because these people were natives. They withheld the food rations from parents who resisted the removal of their children.

Indian agents marched in lockstep with religious orders, preparing the lists of children to be taken from their reserve and then organizing the annual fall roundup. It brings to mind shades of Nazi Germany. Expressions of aboriginal culture and individuality were harshly punished. As soon as children entered school, their traditional long hair was shorn or shaved off. They were assigned a number; their native name was taken away. They were given an English name and warned not to let their own language pass their lips.

Physical and sanitary conditions in schools all across the country were terrible. Children frequently fell ill due to poor food and overcrowded, airless dormitories, some no better than concentration camps. Many grieving parents finally saw their children only when they were sent home to die. At Kuper Island, just off Chemainus, off the coast of Vancouver Island, where Emily Rice and hundreds of other children were confined, the Indian Affairs department's own files estimate that up to 40 percent of the students died before they could return home.

The Kuper Island priests reserved the most harsh punishments for aboriginal children who dared to express their aboriginal culture or spiritual identity. "Talking Indian" or "making Indian dances" was punished by public whippings, lashes or forcible confinement for days on end.

[10:15]

[ Page 10926 ]

Willy Blackwater, another Gitxsan father and a millworker now, who is attending college in Vancouver, was the first aboriginal person in Canada to win a medical claim for post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of his years in residential school. A survivor of the Alberni Indian Residential School, Blackwater saw his tormenter, former school supervisor Arthur Henry Plint, convicted in criminal court in Port Alberni in March of 1995, the first of many that were to be convicted and will be convicted in the future.

I'm going to use decorum and discretion in this chamber in relating some of the horrific events coming from the treatment of children in that residential school in Alberni. I'm going to quote from a book, Stolen from Our Embrace, which was written by Suzanne Fournier and Ernie Crey. I recommend that every member read this book, particularly the opposition members, before voting on this historic treaty. As Blackwater states:

"Arthur Henry Plint was the dorm supervisor for the younger boys, boys my age. My first week there, he woke me up in the middle of the night. He told me to come into his office because there was an emergency phone call from my father. . . . He had a door from the office right into his bedroom. He took me there and dropped his robe and faced me, naked. . . . I started to get sick and tried to puke. He laughed and told me that if I puked on his bed, I'd get hurt. . . . After that, Plint raped me. . .about once a month for the next three years. I finally got up my nerve to tell Mr. Butler what Plint was doing to me. . . . Butler gave me a severe strapping and called me a dirty, lying Indian.

"It was March 20, 1995, when Willy Blackwater and a group of aboriginal men gathered in a crowded Port Alberni courtroom to face the man who had tormented them decades earlier. . . . Inside, he pled guilty to 16 counts of indecent assault of aboriginal boys aged six to 13 between 1948 and 1968.

"For 20 years this man was allowed to torment native children. This torment was condoned by the authorities, by our society. We talk about equality; we talk about the rights of society. These young men had no rights; their childhood was stolen from them.

"Art Thompson, an acclaimed Nuu-chal-nulth artist who attended the Alberni school for nine years, addressed the sentencing hearing in Alberni wearing a headband, a ceremonial robe with a thunderbird on the back and the traditional black-painted face to ward off evil. [Art Thompson said to Plint:] 'You're a constant reminder of cultural abuse. I want you to understand the anger and shame, but most of all I want you to understand the dignity of these men'."

"Before sentencing Plint to 11 years in prison, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Douglas Hogarth said the former supervisor was a predator, 'a sexual terrorist' allowed to prey unchecked. [As Justice Hogarth states:] 'As far as the victims were concerned, the Indian residential school system was nothing more than institutionalized pedophilia. . . . Generations of children were wrenched from their families and were brought up to be ashamed to be Indians.'

"There was no equality -- equality that we hear about in this chamber now, which we must have in this treaty. These young men had their youth stolen from them and had their future forever marred by what happened to them at that school.

"In an interview at the time of the March 19, 1996, summit, Cyril Paul, a Shuswap man who was sexually abused at St. Joseph's, said: 'My life fell apart after I went to court against Brother Doughty. I just couldn't handle the anger and pain. . . .' Simon Danes, a former paralegal with the Native Courtworkers, appeared in Port Alberni court to testify against Arthur Plint. A week after the trial, Danes was dead, by his own hand. Tragically, a little more than a year after the interview, Paul too would take his own life."

"Simon Reid spoke on the residential school project and the aboriginal healing fund [set up by the federal government]. . . . Although recent changes to the $350 million healing fund's criteria and guidelines are not available yet, Steve Charleson" -- a Hesquiaht -- "asked that all information be made available. Jerry Jack, a survivor of the Catholic-run Christie residential school, said it's time Christie survivors come together to seek legal and financial compensation from the people that tormented and abused them as children. 'They should give that land to us' " -- the very land we're talking about in this treaty -- " 'in compensation for the abuses we lived through at that school,' said Jerry. 'Plus, they should make a treatment centre for those of us who suffered at their hands. It's been 40 years since I was there, but it still seems like just yesterday. It's something we've had to live with all our lives.'

" 'It's about time the government and the Catholic Church were made to pay for physically and sexually abusing us as children and for trying to steal our language and culture in the name of assimilation,' said Eileen Charleson. "We need to do something about this so we can heal.' "

"Darlene Watts, Edgar Charlie and many other delegates rose to speak on the importance of stopping the vicious circle of abuse, problems that can be traced directly back to the residential schools. 'We've lost the ability to hug our children and our grandchildren and to tell them how very much we love them,' said Darlene, as she stood with her arm around one of her granddaughters. 'To show love to our children, our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren is the greatest thing we can do,' added Edgar.

"As lunch was served, many other testimonials were offered on the importance of healing the self-perpetuating ills borne out of the residential school experience. Roman Frank brought the discussion together, saying that the residential school experience has left first nations with a huge disability that can only be overcome with love and compassion. 'I didn't go to a residential school, but I grew up with many of the stories,' said Roman. 'The youth have grown up in the shadow of residential schools, and they too are unable to say "I love you" or to share true feelings because they were not taught these things by their parents, who were not taught by their parents because they were taken away to these terrible residential schools.' "

This treaty is a step in the right direction. It compensates the Nisga'a for the material loss of lands and resources. It will, but it can never redress the wrongs that were inflicted upon their children, upon them, just because they were native. It

[ Page 10927 ]

My father was interned in work camps in Germany during the Second World War. Many years after that war, the German government apologized to him and repaid him for his forced labour. Prisoners of the Japanese are now seeking similar redress in Japan, in England and perhaps even in Canada. Can the opposition find it in their hearts to offer our native constituents the redress they seek?

During that same Second World War, Canadians born here who happened to be of Japanese ancestry, Japanese Canadians, were also interned. The only people who supported those people -- those Japanese Canadians, those citizens who were born here and had rights -- were the CCF. I'm proud to say that, because the forefathers of the New Democratic Party, the CCF, stood up and said: "This is wrong; these people have rights. They are Canadian citizens. Simply because they are a different colour or come from a different race, they still have rights." But we interned them.

I ask the opposition members: what would have been the result if we had had a referendum on that issue then? Yes, the CCF paid a political price, because it was very popular in that day to be against the Japanese -- the Canadians who happened to be of Japanese descent. If we had had a referendum, that referendum surely would have passed. We would have said yes to internment. But we, the forefathers of this great party that I represent, proudly said: "No, it's wrong." After the war, what did we do? We told them that they couldn't live in British Columbia. They could live either on the Prairies or back east, or we'd give them a free ticket back to Japan. That's what the referendums were about.

There were other referendums in Canada. There was one on the prohibition of alcohol in 1916 and whether or not we wanted to have prohibitions on that drug, but people voted against prohibition -- 43,000 to 42,000. I'm proud to say that in Alberni, they voted 482 against and 365 for. There was also another referendum in 1916, women's suffrage, and women finally won the vote. Again, I'm proud to say that in Alberni, 585 people voted for and 265 against. And in 1991, of course, we had a referendum on recall and the fact that we could actually hold referendums.

[10:30]

But they fought for us; they went to a war. Even though we said they couldn't vote, they went and fought for this country that had interned them, had taken away their children. They went to war for us. When I go to the Field of Honour in Port Alberni to remember those brave young men, those Canadians, there is always an additional remembrance that takes place. But this one takes place outside of the cemetery. This is where those native people who enlisted -- even though they couldn't vote, even though they didn't have the basic democratic rights -- those native soldiers who died for us, are buried: outside of that cemetery. Their graves are in a grove of trees where they are buried alone. And we talk about equality.

This treaty is about equality that has been denied for too many years. This treaty is about young Nuu-chah-nulth men who, when home from university, had to picket the pulp mill in Port Alberni to become the first natives to be hired there. In those days the MacMillan Bloedel pulp mill hired students in the summer, but they didn't hire native students. When those native students applied for those jobs and they saw their friends -- people they went to school with, like myself -- being hired at that pulp mill. . . . They were not hired, because they were native. But they were hired. MacMillan Bloedel saw the wisdom of their ways and were embarrassed into hiring native people. The early sixties was the first time that native people were hired at the pulp mill. They were hired in the woods and they were hired at the sawmills but never, ever at the pulp mill.

This treaty is about laws that were passed -- some in this very chamber -- to deny natives their rights to be equal and to pursue the right of education, the right of their own religion, the right to hope and to dream, the right to a job.

The Speaker: Hon. member, you'll notice that the time is up.

T. Stevenson: This speech this morning is moving most of us because of the stories that the member for Port Alberni is recalling. I would ask leave for the member to continue to speak.

The Speaker: Hon. member, leave cannot be granted for such a thing. The rules are very clear that you speak once and only once in second reading debate. At committee stage there are more opportunities to speak. I have to rule against that suggestion of yours.

I thank the hon. member for Port Alberni, and we'll move on to the next speaker who wishes to address the House on this matter.

Hon. I. Waddell: Hon. Speaker, perhaps I could ask you to clarify that ruling. I understood that there was an opportunity, by leave of the House, to have a speaker continue over time, to wrap up the speech -- not to abuse the time of the House but to wrap up a speech that perhaps was near the end and needed wrapping up. I would ask, again, that leave be given for the member to continue and shortly wrap up his speech.

The Speaker: Well, if the House. . . . I'm prepared to put the motion to grant leave, but the rule, as I understand it, is 30 minutes in second reading. In committee stage, there's all kinds of time; members can speak as many times as they like.

G. Abbott: If it is of assistance -- and we're happy to abide with your ruling in any event -- certainly the opposition has no concern with the member continuing his remarks or concluding his remarks, as he wishes.

The Speaker: All right. By leave, the member may continue, then. I'm in the hands of the House.

G. Janssen: I want to thank the members for this opportunity. I have great respect for this chamber, and I have great respect for the native people in my riding as well.

[ Page 10928 ]

When we talk about the land -- some 2,000 square miles in this Nisga'a treaty -- some say this is far too large to give up for so few people, that to give up an area of this size we need a referendum. Yet, when thousands more square miles were given away -- yes, given -- to a few, a handful of rich railroad barons for building a railroad, no one called for a referendum. No vote. In fact, 20 percent of Vancouver Island was given to the E&N Railway, some of it native land, most of it Crown land -- no vote, no call for a referendum. When the forest giants called for a share of the resource by the setting up of tree farm licences, no one called for a referendum; nobody wanted a vote. Tree farm licence 44, operated by MacMillan Bloedel in the Alberni riding is virtually, give or take a few hectares, the same size as the Alberni riding. It covers 452,792 hectares. It was granted to one company, not a group of British Columbians or people who had roots in the land for centuries. It was granted to one company.

But 5,500 Nisga'a are told that it's too much, too unequal. The opposition leader calls for a referendum when we try to give 2,000 square kilometres to 5,500 people in compensation. We call for more talk, a new treaty, a referendum. Where were the votes on the massive land grants to corporations? It was Liberals and Conservatives that supported those grants and those TFLs. Have they not learned? They want to have a referendum when it suits the corporate interest of people in this province, not when it suits and benefits our first citizens.

There's the question of fishing rights. They talk about special rights for native fishers. We know that the fishery is in crisis, that overfishing and harvesting by factory ships run by countries and corporations have devastated the salmon stock. Let me relate a short story told to me by the Nuu-chah-nulth. First the foreign fleets go out and catch all the fish they want on the high seas. Then the commercial fleet fish the salmon on the high seas. When they get closer in, sport fishers get a chance at the fish. When the salmon get to the traditional native harvesting grounds, natives are told that there are not enough salmon and they must restrict their fishing for conservation purposes.

Before the Europeans came, the Nuu-chah-nulth people always had enough fish to harvest. They never went hungry; they didn't have to send their kids to school to be fed. Now we are told that native people are ruining the stocks. Again, minority rights are being thrown away. We see no equality.

We see that native people make up 2 percent of the adult population yet 17 percent of the prison population. Is that equality? Is that justice? Native people are four times overrepresented in our jails by population, yet they are denied their rights -- and the opposition flip-flops as to whether or not there's a referendum.

This treaty is about justice and equality denied -- denied to a people because of their race, because they were a minority. Our role as MLAs is to recognize and to right wrongs. It is not good enough for this chamber to apologize to the Nisga'a and other natives. We must ask for their understanding; we must ask for their forgiveness. And we must show our respect by passing this treaty.

Hon. I. Waddell: I rise to speak on this historic treaty. This is a historic debate, and I'm very proud to be part of it. Since this is a free vote, I want to address my remarks primarily to the electors of Vancouver-Fraserview who sent me to this House. I want to tell them why I'm supporting this historic treaty with the Nisga'a nation -- the first modern treaty in British Columbia's history.

However, because I have been associated with the struggle for equal rights for aboriginal people in the province and in Canada for a long time, I believe, and because I've been a parliamentarian for 16 years -- it's my sixteenth going on seventeenth year as a member of the Legislature. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. I. Waddell: The member said that I don't look that old. Some days you feel that old, but not today.

I want to first address some general issues which I hope I can offer to this House from a rather unique perspective. Let me begin by addressing the official opposition -- the Liberal Party of British Columbia in opposition. It is true that the role of the opposition is to oppose; for most of the time that's the role of the opposition. But there are exceptions when the opposition has to rise to the historic occasion, to the moment, to join with the government in supporting a controversial policy which is in the long-term best interests of the province or the nation.

Let me give you an example, because I think that in this debate the opposition should have considered supporting this treaty. I'll give you an example in history. In 1982, as a Member of Parliament for Vancouver-Kingsway, I was a member of the NDP caucus in Ottawa in opposition to the government of the day of Pierre Elliott Trudeau. As Energy critic of that caucus -- many of the members opposite are critics for different areas, and they'll know this. . . . I was the Energy critic in my party, asking questions about the area and opposing the government. I had opposed the Liberal's national energy program, although the government had tried very hard to get our support. They didn't have any seats west of Winnipeg, and they needed support from western members. They tried everything to get our support, but we followed the traditional role of the opposition, and we opposed the national energy program. We were under a lot of pressure, but it was the right decision on policy, and it was the right decision then. It was a debatable matter and a controversial matter, but it was the right decision.

[10:45]

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

[ Page 10929 ]

Now this opposition, this Liberal opposition, has to face the same issues. They're in the B.C. Legislature at the time of a historic issue -- the first modern treaty in B.C. history. They could have done the same. They could rise to the occasion. They could put behind them the prejudices of the past and the gain of the immediate political moment, and they could make a tough choice -- because, you know, they will be judged. You will be judged. Every one of you sitting there will be judged by your vote and be judged by history. I had to face that. I know what it was like, and thank God -- thank God -- we made the right decision in 1982. I'm so proud of that. I ask the members opposite: search your consciences; think about this. You will be judged on this vote.

Instead, what has the opposition done? They've ducked and they've weaved and they've bobbed. They've thrown up a spurious lawsuit. They've needlessly raised fears -- fears of stirring the racial tensions underneath B.C. society that have been there forever. They've misrepresented issues; they've misrepresented facts.

I read the hon. Leader of the Opposition's speech. He said: "What we are doing here is virtually guaranteeing a future that consigns us all to [live in] the past." And I say to him. . . . I say to the member for Vancouver-Point Grey: does he really think the Nisga'a would negotiate a treaty that consigns them to live in the past? Really? How patronizing that is. It's shameful that they would. . . . They're hard negotiators. They've got a treaty that will take them to the future and take their kids to the future, and that's what members opposite should search for and look at.

You know, there's a time in your political life when you have to make tough choices. This is one of them, and members opposite should think about that. You can choose your side. Do you want to be on the side of Chief Gosnell? Or do you want to be on the side of William Smithe in the history, who turned the Nisga'a away 100 years ago, or Joseph Trutch and his kind of racist policies? I bet you that if you polled the electors of Point Grey, I know which side they'd take. It's the side of Chief Joe Gosnell and the modern Nisga'a. So I ask the members to look at that.

The world is watching us, on this treaty. Let me quote from an editorial in the New York Times:

"Canada's decision last week to give the Nisga'a Indians control of their ancient tribal lands in British Columbia was an overdue but honourable gesture, born partly of guilt for past injustices and partly from a belief that tribal sovereignty will lead to economic self-sufficiency. The United States' experience with Indian sovereignty might be helpful to the Canadians, who in fact have come rather late to the idea -- more than two centuries behind America, which granted self-government to 371 separate tribes between 1778 and 1871. The treaties struck between Congress and the tribes gave the Indians tribal homelands and freedom from state control, but they remained subordinate to the will of Congress, becoming in effect nations within a nation, levying their own taxes and enforcing their own laws but always subject to a higher power."

Let me deal with some of the more difficult questions that the opposition have raised. First, should we have a referendum? The answer is clearly no. Here's why: our system is a system of representative government. We are elected here to make these kinds of decisions; we are elected here to represent our constituents. We owe our constituents. . . . We have to listen to our constituents, to consult with our constituents, to meet with our constituents. We have to come here and vote and represent them; that is the British parliamentary system. If you want to change the British parliamentary system, fine, we'll get a new system. But we operate within that system, and that's why we come here to vote. We owe them what the great British parliamentarian Edmund Burke said many years ago: we owe the electors our judgment. We have to make a judgment.

I should tell you that I have voted on capital punishment. We didn't have a referendum. I have voted personally on gun control. I have voted on the North American Free Trade Agreement. I have voted on the 1982 constitution, on the Charter of Rights. I voted on Meech Lake; I actually voted against my party on Meech Lake. Those are big issues that we voted on. Now I get to vote on Nisga'a. We had a referendum on none of them, because we have a representative system; that's our system. I voted on thousands of other issues.

I ask the opposition and especially the Leader of the Opposition: which one should we vote on? Which one should we have the referendums on -- which issue? Which is the next issue in the House that we should have a referendum on? What kinds of issues must we have a referendum on? We have a representative system.

I ask the members of the opposition this question: who's to vote in the referendum -- just the people up around the Nass Valley who may be immediately affected by the treaty? No. We'll have everybody in British Columbia. Well, then we have people in Vancouver voting for it. Then we have northerners who will tell you: "These southerners don't really understand all the issues in the north, and they have the big majority of the vote, so they will be voting." So we have northerners who might vote against it and southerners who vote for it, and it's carried. Is that what we want to have?

Wait a minute. Who's paying for the treaty? We pay -- what? -- one-fifth in B.C., and Canada pays the rest. Therefore Canadians should vote, should they not? That means that people in Etobicoke, in Toronto should vote -- right? Now, if they vote on this one, they vote on the next one and the next one and the next one. This is absurd, calling for a referendum. It doesn't make sense; it won't work. And it's not called for in our parliamentary system. I say let's drop that. Let's talk about voting on this particular issue itself.

Let me deal with the second question that the opposition has raised. Does this treaty amend the constitution of Canada? The answer is that the constitution of Canada does not require a constitutional amendment in order to ratify or implement the Nisga'a treaty. The answer is no, it doesn't amend the constitution. To paraphrase Prof. Patrick Macklem at the University of Toronto faculty of law, the constitution authorizes

[ Page 10930 ]

Our constitution authorizes governments to negotiate treaties that establish constitutionally protected rights. It therefore authorizes Canada and British Columbia to enter into a constitutionally binding treaty with the Nisga'a nation. The constitution says that you can negotiate treaties. We negotiated a treaty. You don't have to go to court to challenge that; it's obvious. It's not a constitutional amendment, and to go to court is just a delaying tactic to basically say that you don't like the treaty.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes had a phrase: what is the "inarticulated major premise" of people? In other words, in plain English: what do they really mean? What are they really getting at? The Liberal opposition raised the constitutional issue and are going to court on it, but what are they really saying? They're really saying that they don't like the treaty. They don't really want to deal with the Nisga'a, and they're unprepared to actually get down and make a treaty. Remember that these treaties are negotiated; there's give-and-take on both sides.

Let me raise the third question that's been raised in this historic debate: are we creating race-based governments in our midst, as the member from Point Grey said in his speech yesterday? I'm just trying to get the exact quote on that, with reference to gated communities and a worse system -- if there can be a worse system -- than the present Indian Act. I don't know if you could find one. Are we creating race-based governments in our midst? The answer is clearly no.

I read a New York Times article where this seemed to be no problem for the United States of America to do 200 years ago. We have to look at aboriginal self-government -- what I've called Nisga'a government, municipal-style plus. It's municipal government plus cultural matters -- things for your kids, adoptions, cultural matters -- so that you can stay with your aboriginal culture. That's what it's about; that's why they want a form of self-government. It's not based on race. It is instead based on the domestic and international legal recognition that aboriginal peoples were self-governing societies prior to European contact and that their lawmaking authority has not been extinguished by Canada becoming a country.

We came here, and aboriginal people were here. They had a government; they had a culture, a language and a civilization. We came here and lived on this land with them. This treaty tries and succeeds in reconciling these two principles, and that's why it's an amazing treaty -- a first nation with its own culture, heritage and history of government and laws now existing legally, constitutionally and by consent within the Canadian state, within British Columbia.

Did you see, hon. Speaker, when the Nisga'a clans were dancing here in the rotunda? Did you see it? You saw the people dancing and the drummers, and they had the clan history and the costumes. They marched into the building, and they danced. Did you see the women holding the B.C. flags, as the hon. member from Surrey said the other day in her speech? For me, that was very symbolic. These people, as Joe Gosnell has said, want into Canada and into British Columbia. They want their traditions with our traditions. That's what it's all about. Listen to the chief. He said: "We want to be in Canada." Read the treaty. All along in the treaty, the Nisga'a government is a collective on Nisga'a lands, and the powers that they're given are all that they have to deal with -- with Nisga'a culture, with distribution of fish, with artifacts, with citizenship of the Nisga'as.

[11:00]

The next question that was raised by the opposition is: will the treaty cost too much? Well, I say: what's the cost of not settling this treaty -- more blockades, more court cases? The Leader of the Opposition said the other day: "Well, this will mean more jobs for lawyers." Maybe there will be more jobs for lawyers; there seem to always be in modern matters. But can you imagine the jobs for the lawyers and for the police and for the military and so on with confrontations? Think about it. Georges Erasmus warned us that there's a whole new generation of young aboriginal people coming up who are going to be more militant. And they are. They stormed our committee hearings, some of the members will recall. But they came back the next day and then made presentations to our committee. They want to be included, I believe, in Canada as well. So I ask: what's the cost of not doing the treaty?

The Nisga'a will receive $312 million spread over 15 years. We spent $300 million last month on the forest industry, on rebates to try and stimulate that industry. The B.C. taxpayers will pay one-fifth of that, and the Canadian taxpayers will pay the rest. That's a pretty darn good deal that we get from the rest of Canada. We're finally getting some money flowing in. You know, as Minister of Small Business, I can't help but say: look at the benefits. If you're in Terrace. . . . Where are Nisga'a people going to buy a pickup truck if they've got some money? They'll come to Terrace; they'll come to the local businesses in the area. This will be a tremendous boon for the area.

An Hon. Member: What about Smithers?

Hon. I. Waddell: And Smithers, as well, and the other. . . .

As the hon. member for Alberni said, look at the present situation of aboriginal people in the province: Third World, poverty, alcoholism on the reserve. On the committee, we went -- and the hon. member from the Okanagan sitting across from me knows it -- and heard evidence, and people said to us: "We can't even do a will without going to Ottawa for a bureaucrat's approval. We can't get a mortgage, because we live on a reserve." Do you want to perpetuate that system? Of course you'll say no. You're a good man; you'll say no. But do you know what? You have to make the choice. You can't just say no and then say: "Well, we'll just go to court to delay treaties," or "We won't sign them," or "We want the absolutely perfect treaty for us." These are negotiated treaties. Do you think the Nisga'a wanted to give up their tax-exempt status? It was one of the few benefits they got under the Indian Act. Do you think they wanted to give that up? No, they didn't want to give that up. But do you know what? They did. We had to pay some money for it, and we did. And I say that we can afford it. I say it's worth it, and I ask the opposition: what are the costs if we don't do the treaty?

[ Page 10931 ]

The people told us generally that the treaty process was the best option -- better than blockades, confrontation or lengthy court battles. There was an anger out there about past injustices toward aboriginal people. There was some fear that the treaty would result in future losses to non-aboriginal people -- which is, of course, being fanned by the Liberal opposition. But the business and resource communities made it very clear that a degree of certainty is required for future investment and economic growth in the province; that's the message I got out of our committee hearings. They wanted us to settle the treaties, to get on with it. They wanted us to make a fair deal, to acknowledge the past injustices. But they wanted us to build for the future. Those were the clear indications, in the end.

We've heard -- I've heard otherwise, from other sources -- that investment bankers in New York, London and Toronto say that the number one issue they face in British Columbia is the uncertainty around the land base and the aboriginal land question. This is not an abstract concept. It is an economic fact that people are unlikely or less likely to make investments in the land base in British Columbia if there is less than perfect certainty over who owns the land. We have a Price Waterhouse study that we released during the commission; they found that $1 billion a year in investment wasn't coming to British Columbia because of the uncertainty. Then we had Delgamuukw later. The Delgamuukw decision of the Supreme Court of Canada added to the uncertainty.

So I say to the opposition: no more blockades, no more confrontation. Let's get away from the litigation. Let's do treaties. Don't go to judges. You know, the logical outcome of the Liberal opposition to this treaty is that a judge would decide what the treaty would be. A judge would decide all of it. I say that it's much better to have Canada, British Columbia and the Nisga'a get together in tough negotiations and make an agreement like this agreement.

I see my time is. . . . I'm not quite sure how much time I have to complete my speech.

Interjections.

Hon. I. Waddell: All right. Well, my members say I have lots of time; the opposition say: "Sit down."

I just want to mention a couple of issues that I think are important to the debate. I've tried to deal with some of the really tough parts of the debate. I want to say, in terms of aboriginal business, from the small business point of view -- and I want to tell the members this -- that there are tremendous opportunities out there. My department has a program called Visions for the Future. It's ten two-day symposiums throughout the province for aboriginal kids, for young aboriginal people. It gives them an overview of the job market, how to succeed in the changing economy. I'll tell you that they're flooding into this program. It is a terrific program. We have a generation of aboriginal people out there that is going to knock the socks off of this province. I'll tell you that it is dynamic and energetic and imaginative. You know, we will build more small businesses, more tourism operations, more access to the Nass Valley in particular and that whole area.

I want to add that the KPMG study, which we released during the hearings of the committee as well, concluded that British Columbians can expect $3 in financial benefits for every dollar it costs the taxpayer. So I say to the opposition and to the people of British Columbia: let us focus on the positive; let us be optimistic rather than pessimistic and gloom-and-doom.

Look at the tourism opportunities. We've got an $8.5 billion industry growing faster than any other industry in British Columbia. We can bring people to the Nass to hunt and to fish and to explore ecotourism. We can do that all over the province. The Nisga'a are well-poised. As part of this treaty, they have brought back some of their artifacts from the museum to show people. Some of the artifacts are here at the museum in Victoria. You know what? The new brand of tourist wants to see this; they want to participate. And we're ready.

So I say to the opposition, to my Tourism critic over there: get with it; get into the modern age. Stop fighting the old racist battles of the past -- the battles of William Smithe, the former Premier, and Amor De Cosmos and Joseph Trutch. Listen to what Chief Gosnell said and to his vision of the future.

You know, 21.3 million people visited this province this year, and they want it. They want to see the vibrant aboriginal culture that has survived and that will continue to survive because we have provided in this treaty the money, the mechanisms, the self-governing process and the finality of finally having a treaty. I say that to the opposition.

I want to conclude by making some remarks specifically to the electors of Vancouver-Fraserview, who sent me here and who expect me to vote and exercise my judgment on this historic vote. Many of my constituents are Chinese Canadians or Indo-Canadians -- that is, immigrants from South Asia; they make up a large percentage of my riding, perhaps three-quarters. I want to say that I believe that the Chinese Canadian community and the Indo-Canadian community are in support of this treaty, and that's very important in this debate. Group leaders, like prominent businessman Milton Wong, have spoken out, and other people have spoken out.

But you know what? It stands to reason that a minority community would support a treaty like this. There are some parallels here. For many years aboriginal people -- was it up to 1949? -- didn't get to vote in this country. Chinese Canadians, who built the railway here, didn't get to vote for many years. There was discrimination. This morning the member for Alberni outlined the discrimination against aboriginal people. But, you know, Chinese Canadian railway-builders were never really recognized for what they did. The head tax for Chinese people and the exclusion acts for Chinese Canadians, and for Indo-Canadians, the Komagata Maru incident, where they couldn't land their people here because of racism and discrimination. . . . I venture to say that anybody who wears a turban in our society understands the subtleties of being in a minority community. I say that as someone who is in the majority community and doesn't have to face that, but I listen and talk to my electors. People who are in a minority instinctively understand what another minority like the Nisga'a must feel like in a majority society.

I'm going to conclude with this, hon. Speaker. They have the same goals. It's a goal my family had for their son, for me, when we immigrated to Canada. That was to be part of Canadian society, to be part of modern British Columbia, but

[ Page 10932 ]

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, member. . . .

Hon. I. Waddell: I'm going to conclude with that and say that this is a historic vote. One has to make choices. I know my choice: I'm voting for this treaty.

B. Barisoff: I rise to join my colleagues in expressing my deep concerns about the proposed Nisga'a treaty in its present form. As a member of the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, which toured this province over a year ago, my opinion about the need for changes to the proposed agreement has not changed. After touring the province and listening to hundreds of British Columbians, both aboriginal and non-aboriginal, I was amazed by the issues and concerns expressed by many who addressed the committee. It was also revealing that the consensus was difficult to reach on many issues, even within the aboriginal community. It demonstrated both the complexity and the need to reach an agreement on some of the important and basic principles.

As a member of the all-party committee, I was pleased that the committee agreed to accept a minority report from the opposition members. I felt that it was an important step in bringing all points of view to the table. Recommendations were made that deserved serious consideration. How legitimate is an eight-month public consultation process if at the end of the day the government will not listen to the voice of the people? What is the point of spending considerable tax dollars to consult with the public and then refusing to act upon legitimate recommendations? I believe that the process of consultation was a very important one. I would have preferred to see the public process happen before the agreement-in-principle was signed. It makes more sense to consult on basic issues before you come to an agreement.

[11:15]

I have no doubt that the Nisga'a people and the provincial and federal governments have negotiated in good faith, but why don't we have more faith in British Columbians and the democratic process? I believe that all British Columbians support treaty settlements. I also believe that most British Columbians want to be fair and just in reaching those agreements. I don't believe that the treaty negotiations should continue to be a growing and costly industry. The process has already gone on too long, and frustration is certainly understandable and even justified.

Aboriginal peoples deserve timely and fair treaty settlements. I don't believe that we need referendums for every treaty settlement. However, I have enough faith in the democratic process to suggest that this government should have developed a template or a recommended treaty mandate and that this template, based on aboriginal and all-party input, should be taken to the people by way of a referendum. This does not mean a lengthy process, but it is a necessary and legitimate one. By doing so, all future governments could act efficiently and with confidence in bringing more speedy resolution to future treaty settlements. How credible is this government when it claims to protect the rights of the minority? This NDP government does not have the popular support of British Columbians, nor has it been given the mandate to be the voice of the majority of voters in this province.

In spite of this, it has consistently been heavy-handed and arrogant in making decisions and imposing a number of policies that have proven to be negative for British Columbians. We are witnessing the devastating results of a government that will not listen to the people. In fact, it's a government that continues to tax and to impose user fees, unnecessary red tape and regulations. It is unbelievable, but this NDP government does not understand the connections between their policies and an economy in crisis.

Hon. Speaker, this same government wants us to believe that they are acting in the best interest of all British Columbians. They want us to believe that they are the only ones interested in the rights of the minorities. They're a government that did nothing to act upon the minority report of the opposition members of the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. I believe that this opposition represents the voice of many British Columbians. I believe that if this government ignores that voice, it is foolish. We have an obligation to stand up for what we believe in. We have a duty to defend the minority report with its recommendations.

We have been asking this government for two years to listen to our position on what we believe are critical issues. There are many positive aspects to the agreement-in-principle. However, we have been consistent in our request for improvements. In final desperation, we have appealed to the courts for a judgment. What are we asking the courts to do? Determine that the provincial government has an obligation to give the people of British Columbia a voice in the Nisga'a final agreement by holding a referendum. This government and the Premier refuse to hold a referendum. They have no faith in British Columbians to support justice or fairness.

The treaty will create a new order of government in Canada. The Nisga'a will have government powers that are equal to federal and provincial legislative powers. This will necessitate amendments to the constitution as we know it, and therefore a referendum is justified. B.C.'s Constitutional Amendment Approval Act says you can't amend the constitution without holding a referendum. If the foundation of this agreement is sound, then we should not be afraid of testing democracy or any legal question. It is unfortunate that this government has acted so arrogantly that the court challenge has become necessary. Shame on this government for bringing British Columbians to this point. Shame on this government for signing a final agreement without having reached consensus with all British Columbians. Shame on this government for crying foul because we dare criticize them.

They have conducted a negotiating process that I believe is flawed, because it lacks appropriate consultation with all of the stakeholders. Shame on this government for pretending to conduct a meaningful consultation process after the fact and then refusing to act upon the recommendations. In response to the opposition, they have resorted to using cheap political

[ Page 10933 ]

I believe that if this government were truly confident in their position, they would not be worried by the prospect of bringing this treaty to the people. The minority report made a number of recommendations to the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, the most important being: getting a clear negotiating mandate from British Columbians on the basic treaty principles and an acceptable and affordable template that offers certainty, finality and equality in all respects; establishing at the outset a total envelope of cash and land that taxpayers would be expected to contribute for the settlement of land claims in British Columbia; negotiating a municipal style of self-government with equal voting rights for all residents of British Columbia; ensuring that the federal and provincial laws regulating environmental assessment and forest practices are consistently applied for both aboriginal and non-aboriginal people; and encouraging aboriginal participation in the commercial fishery through financial considerations in the treaty settlement and not aboriginal-only commercial fishery rights.

In closing, I want to say that I support the Nisga'a nation. I support their right to reach a treaty settlement that is long overdue. I support the necessity for timely and fair treaty settlements in British Columbia for all aboriginals, and I also support the right for a referendum for all British Columbians on this issue. I also support the need for a negotiating mandate and an approved template -- one that outlines general, approved principles and costs to the taxpayers of British Columbia. Because of this, I cannot support the proposed Nisga'a treaty in its present form.

Hon. S. Hammell: I am pleased to rise and speak in support of this historic bill. I'm proud to be part of a government and a community that will look at ideas for equality and justice and then translate those ideas into action. This government showed its courage to stand up for equality and justice seven years ago when we first established the Ministry of Women's Equality, a ministry dedicated to removing the barriers that prevent women from taking their full place in society. We proved it seven years ago, and we've been proving it ever since with legislation that's designed to make sure people are treated with respect regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, religion, age or sexual orientation. And we're proving it again today, as we move toward a historic treaty with the Nisga'a.

This treaty will allow the Nisga'a to escape a trap of enforced dependency, which has made them second-class citizens. The treaty will allow them to begin to undo some of the damage our culture has imposed with residential schools, with laws banning the potlatch. This treaty will pay dividends to the rest of B.C., and that's why it must move forward now.

When British Columbia joined Canada in 1871, aboriginal women and men, who made up the majority of the population, had no right to vote. In fact it took 89 years -- until 1960 -- before aboriginal women could express their decisions about how their country should be run. But life didn't suddenly improve for aboriginal women then. No, those who were mothers continued to see their daughters and sons taken away to residential schools. The last of those schools closed in 1973.

Those mothers lost their children for years at a time. I've spoken to aboriginal women who were taken from their parents at the age of four and five, and some, if they did not have the money, did not return in the summer to spend the school holidays with their families. Mothers who had their children removed lost the chance to be a parent. They lost the opportunity to pass on their culture -- to teach their daughters about cooking, about weaving baskets, about sewing -- and they lost the opportunity to teach their daughters about their aunts and their grandmothers -- to teach their daughters about their language, about the richness of their heritage.

A whole generation of parents did not know their children, and a whole generation of children grew up without parents and did not learn how to parent. Those children who spent their childhood in residential schools having their mouths scrubbed with soap and a toothbrush for uttering the words in the language of their parents. . . . They grew up to hate our school system. Many today see no reason for reading and writing, see no reason for getting an education, because the only memories they have of a school system were unhappy ones. Many of them found no reason to explain to their children why they should have a love of learning.

Even today the pain goes on. Young aboriginal women take their own lives about six times as often as non-aboriginal women. Life expectancy among first nations women is one dozen years fewer than for the rest of our population. Their babies are also two times as likely to die.

[11:30]

Today we have a tool with a power to make things right, to make changes. After 22 years of negotiating in good faith, we have a treaty with the Nisga'a people, a treaty worked out openly and with public consultation. British Columbia is the only province in Canada which has not signed treaties with its aboriginal people. Settling land claims is something we must proceed with. The courts have told us: "Get on with negotiating land claims, or else we'll do it for you." Many of the people that I have spoken to have said to me: "Just get on with it. It's time."

It's hard for people in the majority, the people with the power, to give up that power. For people of power, it's the only way they know. For our society, it's the only way we've known. But that doesn't make it right. The Nisga'a treaty acknowledges the dismal failure of that way of thought. Instead, it provides the Nisga'a with adequate resources to control their own lives, and it gives the province an economic stability that will attract an estimated billions of dollars in business that this province has lost while waiting for the first land claims to be settled. In fact, the international consulting firm of KPMG has concluded that B.C. can expect about $3 worth of financial benefit for every provincial dollar spent on settling land claims. For many reasons it's a deal, and we can't afford to let it slip through our fingers.

As Minister of Women's Equality, one of the main reasons I support this treaty is that it represents a major step forward

[ Page 10934 ]

[The Speaker in the chair.]

This is a good treaty, one negotiated with good will, in good faith and standing on decent principles. The members opposite want to tinker with this treaty -- to improve it, they say. This desire to improve comes from a party which has already placed two decades of give-and-take negotiating at risk by launching a court case for a referendum. With that ill-considered action, the Liberals have once again demonstrated their complete lack of ability to understand minority rights. They have fanned the flames of backlash against a people who have suffered much for a new, independent, healing future. Those of us concerned with women's equality are familiar with the fight needed to ensure rights for those without power. Women in many countries around the world are still legally barred from their birthrights. Some cannot inherit anything, not even the land on which they grow their families' food. Historically, they've also lost what they've owned by being accused of witchcraft. Hundreds of thousands of women were burned to death, some for practising their traditional healing arts and some died when someone else wanted their property.

Canada's aboriginal people haven't been treated very much better, and that's why this treaty must proceed and will proceed. I urge the members opposite to transcend party politics to ratify this treaty -- to let the Nisga'a and the rest of British Columbians enjoy the benefits for which they've been waiting so long. Hon. Speaker, I am very pleased to stand in support of the Nisga'a treaty.

Hon. Speaker, I move adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Hammell moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:37 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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