[ Page 10935 ]

S. Orcherton: Joining us in the gallery today is a very active, vibrant and vocal community activist here in Victoria. She's also been active around British Columbia. I'd ask the House to make Ms. Sheila Hagendorn very welcome to this assembly.

H. Giesbrecht: Present in the gallery today we have a constituent, Larisa Tarwick. Larisa is chair of the Terrace and area health council. Would the House please make her welcome.

J. Sawicki: It's my great pleasure to have in the gallery today my constituency assistant, Jennefer Laidley. I think all of us recognize how important it is to have good constituency office staff to help us do our jobs, and for myself, I feel very fortunate indeed to have Jennefer Laidley assist me. Would the House please make her welcome.

Hon. P. Priddy: I see in the gallery today someone who is normally introduced by many others in this government, but I would like to introduce him as a friend of mine and a constituent, Tom Sigurdson. I'd ask the House to make him welcome.

Ministerial Statement

JOB GROWTH IN TOURISM

Madam Speaker, this growth in direct tourism jobs demonstrates that government and the tourism business operators and associations are working effectively to build on tourism's record as a strong economic generator and job creator in this province. Tourism's direct employment is now ahead of employment in traditional goods-producing industries. Tourism jobs range from entry-level jobs for young people to senior positions in airlines, hotel management, world-class resorts and other businesses.

Tourism-related businesses -- many of them small businesses -- have increased to 16,572 in 1997 from 10,000 in 1991. While this year has been more challenging than ever, due to a decrease in Asian tourists, we continue to see overall growth in visitations. The number of tourism-generated jobs in the transportation and communications industries rose 10 percent in 1997, providing much of the impetus for growth within the tourism sector. Job growth was also strong in the food and beverage service industry, up 6.3 percent. Workers in the tourism sector earned an estimated $2.6 billion in 1997 -- and that doesn't include tips, so that's some amount.

I'd also like to draw the House's attention to the highly successful Leonardo da Vinci exhibit across the street at the Royal British Columbia Museum. As of this morning, we've had 270,000 people visit since the exhibit opened in October. That's amazing. The exhibit is filling Victoria hotel rooms, and travellers are going to other parts of the province. This is good news.

It's an excellent example of government working together with the private sector and with the cultural industry to encourage an industry that is a major player in our three-year plan to stimulate the economy, make B.C. more competitive and attract investment. Madam Speaker, job numbers like these send a clear, positive signal that British Columbia is open for business and that small business, tourism and government people are working together. I hope the opposition will acknowledge it: there's a lot of blue sky out there.

The Speaker: I recognize in response the hon. member for Okanagan-Penticton.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I wonder, members, if we could quiet down just a little bit.

R. Thorpe: I do appreciate that.

In spite of this government, small and medium-sized private sector investment and business owners have created these jobs -- against obstacles put in place by this incompetent government. Imagine what would happen if we had a government that understood the private sector and that understood and invited private sector investment to this province. Imagine how many full-time, long-term jobs could be created in British Columbia.

If this government truly understood small and medium-sized private sector investment, they would be addressing today their concerns: the uncompetitive tax structures in British Columbia, the excessive and increasing red tape of this incompetent NDP government and the inflexible employment and labour standards in British Columbia. Imagine how great this province will be some day, thanks to the private sector, the small and medium-sized business operators in British Columbia.

G. Wilson: I seek leave to respond to the ministerial statement.

Leave granted.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

G. Wilson: I'm sure that all of us in this chamber want to see the tourism sector grow. I point to one line in the ministerial statement that I think should come as a dire warning to those of us in British Columbia who take too much good news from this statement. It reads: "Tourism's direct employment is now ahead of employment in traditional goods-producing industries." Hon. Speaker, that's a very, very serious statistic. If this province is going to succeed financially, if we're going to grow in the long term, we cannot place all our eggs in the tourism basket. If the traditional goods-producing industries are now being eclipsed by low-wage, entry-level, seasonal employment through the tourism sector, it tells us that this government better start to focus on long-term economic plans, or this province is going to be in serious, serious shape.

[ Page 10936 ]

Oral Questions

CONTAMINATED SITES AND NISGA'A TREATY

[2:15]

It is true, as the member states, that contaminated sites are covered in the Nisga'a agreement. As I recall the information, there are 15 contaminated sites that have been identified and inspected by our staff, and there are far fewer than those 15 sites with any possible contamination being included on them.

As part of our contaminated-site regulations, it is the duty of those who cause the contamination to pay for the cleanup, and that is indeed what will happen on any sites where contaminated material has been determined to be.

RELEASE OF INFORMATION ON IMPACT OF TREATY NEGOTIATIONS

My question is to the Aboriginal Affairs minister: why doesn't he trust British Columbians with the facts about the impact of land claim settlements?

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. D. Lovick: I know that my colleague across the way is a man with some education, and he will therefore understand the term "non sequitur." I want to draw his attention to the fact that the premise to his question has no connection whatsoever to the question he asked. The reason that the information he has asked for has not been revealed is because of a statutory requirement of freedom-of-information legislation. Section 12 of FOI says very clearly that information that might compromise or talk about discussions made in cabinet, subject to cabinet secrecy and cabinet confidentiality, will not be revealed. I would just give the member this comfort, if I may: when we get to committee stage of the debate, all of those questions about all the particulars of the treaty will indeed be covered.

IMPACT OF TREATY NEGOTIATIONS ON AGRICULTURE AND ALR

This is a briefing note to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. It shows what the government is not telling the people of British Columbia. The minister's own experts have told him this: at the present rates, treaties would likely consume the majority of Crown ALR -- approximately 2.5 million hectares. The question is to the Minister of Agriculture. Can you explain to the people of British Columbia and to this House why you have not told them about the impacts of your government's treaty policies on agriculture and lands in British Columbia?

Hon. C. Evans: For anybody who missed it, Mike Harcourt stood up here and said: "This government will negotiate treaties, and it will be limited to 5 percent." Glen Clark stood up here and said: "This government will negotiate treaties, and it will be limited to 5 percent." Some of the Crown land in the province is in the ALR; some of it is also in the FLR. Some of it will be in that 5 percent. Who possibly, except the Leader of the Opposition, missed any of the last five years?

The Speaker: First supplementary, Leader of the Official Opposition.

G. Campbell: Well, hon. Speaker, I did not miss the last five years -- and I did not miss another thing. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

G. Campbell: It doesn't matter what Mr. Harcourt says or what the Premier says. It is clear that we can't believe what they tell the people of British Columbia. The government has spent. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members will come to order.

G. Campbell: . . . $5 million misleading the people of British Columbia with regard to the impacts of treaties.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, we cannot hear the question. Order, please.

G. Campbell: The Minister of Agriculture's own officials are telling him that there will likely be significant localized disruptions to individual ranchers in close proximity to existing first nations communities. My question to the minister is: why hasn't he warned the ranchers of the significant disruptions? What has he done to inform 1,000 farmers in the Okana-

[ Page 10937 ]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Before I call on the minister, order will come to this House. We will not proceed. The minister will come to order.

Hon. C. Evans: Hon. Speaker, there is a tragedy going on here, and I'm going to cop to it as the Minister of Agriculture. Some of the best agricultural land in this province has never been farmed, because this government never actually lent a hand to the people who were living there to farm. We've never had an aboriginal component of this ministry actually helping people find the marketplace. In the last couple of years, we've not only been talking about it -- hon. member, listen up; look at me -- we've actually got the wine industry working with first nations to plant that land. The orchard industry, the vegetable industry. . . . It's a wonderful opportunity -- the fact that the land is there and the people are going to farm it. That's the good news.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members will come to order. There are answers. . . . The Minister of Energy, Mines and Northern Development will come to order.

I call on the Leader of the Official Opposition for a second supplementary.

G. Campbell: The ministry briefing document speaks for itself. There are going to be significant disruptions to the agriculture community in British Columbia. The ministry's own document says that the Crown's. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. The Minister of Finance will come to order, please.

G. Campbell: The minister's own document points out that there will be significant disruptions. My question to the Minister of Agriculture is: how does he expect the people of British Columbia to make a reasoned decision about treaties in the province when he's not willing to tell them the whole truth about the impacts of treaties on their lives in that industry?

Hon. C. Evans: Hon. Speaker, I'll speak quietly.

Three or four. . . .

Interjections.

Hon. C. Evans: Hang on there.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order!

Hon. C. Evans: Three or four members of the opposition came with three or four members of the governing party and 80 farmers; we gathered just two weeks ago in Naramata. The president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture said that there was not another province in Canada with the guts to get the government, the opposition and the farm community together and let them talk about anything they wanted.

Hon. Speaker, guess what: for two days, not one single producer raised land claims as something to be terrified of. We talked about the fact that in the future, there's going to be unlimited opportunity by bringing together native people -- who've been left out of commercial enterprise -- and the farm community, the processing community and the tourism community. Far from being a secret, I want you to ask me a million questions about it, because it's good for business, good for rural people and good for agriculture.

B.C. FERRIES LABOUR DISPUTE

I want to know what action the Minister of Labour is prepared to take under sections 72(3) or 72(4) with respect to the provision of services, which will avert this kind of labour dispute in British Columbia.

Hon. D. Lovick: Hon. Speaker, I can't deal with the specifics of the question, because that would force me to contravene the rules of this chamber in terms of future policy. What I can do, though, is give the member a certain amount of information: namely, when we encountered the fact some time ago that the talks were not going well with B.C. Ferries and the bargaining unit, we asked the LRB to look into providing those necessary essential-service designations simply so that we wouldn't be stuck in a crisis situation with nothing in place.

Whether those essential-service designations are adequate or not, we will only discover in the sad event that we do have a strike. The parties are still in negotiation. I am hopeful that their negotiations will bear fruit and we will have a settlement, so that we don't need to worry about this. But we have taken the precautionary moves -- the right moves, I think.

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

G. Wilson: The designations are indeed inadequate. But the minister will have to admit that the B.C. Ferry Corporation stands to gain greatly by a limited service -- and the legitimacy of a limited service -- through this LRB ruling. The corporation can, by reduction of services, point a finger at the union and have the public wrath be against the union while the corporation saves millions of dollars by reducing service to the public.

Will the minister assure us today that he is prepared to take whatever action to come up with a fair collective bargaining process that will see a successful resolution to this without the disruption of ferry service?

Hon. D. Lovick: Hon. Speaker, the member is asking me to respond to a hypothesis -- namely, that we will have a strike. Until such time as that happens, obviously I am not

[ Page 10938 ]

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. D. Lovick: . . .and carry them out responsibly.

COMMERCIAL RECREATION TENURES AND FEES

Hon. C. McGregor: What I will confirm for the opposition is that in May, during the economic summit held in Kamloops, we announced new government policy about making it easier, in fact, to get a commercial recreation tenure in this province. We worked with industry to ensure that the new system we brought into place would provide access for those who have limited opportunity or who need to use our great and Super, Natural back-country recreation without a permit -- no permit required. Then there is a scale of different types of permits on the basis of the impact on the land.

[2:30]

The Speaker: That ends question period.

Hon. members, with the end of question period and just before we get to orders of the day, I would just address a point that was raised this morning. I thought I would present this to you.

Earlier today, as the member for Alberni was addressing the House on second reading of Bill 51, the member's time expired, and upon being so advised, he immediately took his seat. The member for Vancouver-Burrard then rose, asking leave of the House to permit the member for Alberni to continue his speech, thereby permitting him to speak beyond the allotted time. In effect, the hon. member was asking leave to suspend standing orders without notice, presumably under the authority of standing order 49.

I quote from Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia, third edition, at page 115: "Decisions of our House relating to standing order 49 have made it clear that a private member is not entitled to rise and ask leave to move a motion without notice unless the House is engaged in the business of motions on notice, as designated under standing order 25. . . ."

The Chair advised the member for Vancouver-Burrard that his request was out of order. The hon. Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture, as House Leader, then rose to make a similar request and, as stated in the authority above quoted: "The House Leader has considerably more latitude as the member responsible for the arrangement of the business of the House." In addition, the member for Shuswap rose and indicated that the official opposition had no objection to the member continuing. It was clearly the will of the House, on an initiative taken by the Government House Leader, that the time limit under standing order 45A be, in this particular instance, suspended. Accordingly, the member for Alberni was permitted to complete his remarks.

The above observations are made to clarify some uncertainty as to the procedures followed, and in conclusion, it should be noted that whenever the House proceeds by way of unanimous consent, that procedure does not constitute a precedent -- Canadian Journals, May 3, 1974, page 161.

Orders of the Day

NISGA'A FINAL AGREEMENT ACT
(second reading continued)

I had the opportunity of sitting on the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, which reviewed the Nisga'a AIP. I was able to travel throughout the province, meeting and talking to literally hundreds of people, including an opportunity to visit the Nisga'a people in the Nass Valley, to talk with elders, children, nurses, teachers -- all working in the valley. This gave me a perspective on what the Nisga'a wanted in a treaty, what they felt they could accomplish with their lives. Travelling throughout the province also gave me an opportunity to see the diversity of opinion which British Columbians have toward the treaty process and this treaty.

The treaty process, from my listening to British Columbians, is widely accepted and is the way to deal with the need to finalize the longstanding inequities with aboriginal people in British Columbia. That principle seemed to be strongly agreed upon. The methods of it varied from those who felt the Nisga'a treaty did not go far enough to those who felt the treaty was too rich and too expensive for British Columbians. It would take me many hours to go through the varied comments that we heard on the treaty. I can tell you that I listened, and I believe I learned. I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the areas in the agreement and the treaty that I find to be positive and productive for the Nisga'a and for British Columbia and also to point out areas that I see as troublesome, problematic and in need of change.

As I said, I believe the treaty has both positives and negatives within its pages. It's also important to note that 30 percent of the Nisga'a did not agree with this treaty -- for a variety of different reasons, I can imagine. It is also important to note that the majority of British Columbians have varied opinions and disagreements within the body of the treaty. I think it is important for this Legislature that those areas of the treaty that British Columbians have difficulty and disagreement with be placed on the record, so that future generations of Nisga'a and their fellow British Columbians can judge the treaty by the comments of the past, both in agreement and in opposition.

[ Page 10939 ]

What I would like to offer are some changes that I feel will make the treaty and future treaties more equitable, more workable. At the end of the day, I believe that the suggestions will make British Columbia a more just and tolerant province in which to live. It is important that treaties create a tolerant atmosphere for everyone to live in. It is important that they rectify past injustices and that they make aboriginal people equal partners in every way in the Canadian dream. I would like to stand here today and tell you that Canada has a record of compassion and understanding of differences in ethnic, social and religious backgrounds, but we simply don't. But that's not to say that we cannot improve on the past. We should and we will.

This agreement was negotiated honourably by the Nisga'a people. Where I find flaws with it, I look directly to the provincial and federal governments' mandate and their inability to come to terms with some of the basic needs of all British Columbians and Canadians. Firstly, in the treaty, the Nisga'a people will have control over many aspects of their own lives: adoption, children and family services, education, advanced education and the delivery of health care. Those may be positive for the Nisga'a people and do constitute new roles for the Nisga'a in many cases. When I travelled in the Nass Valley, I saw the Nisga'a people working in the health field and in the education field, as they have for many years, and I felt that these changes could be beneficial. However, I would add the caution that because the way the treaty is designed, the finality on these issues is not obtained. So we will have the Nisga'a taking a chance in many of these areas, the same as we in the rest of British Columbia will.

The problem that may arise is that if this treaty is to be used as a template, and if there are 50 areas in other treaties that are not harmonized -- from adoption laws to family service laws and education laws throughout the province -- we are going to have serious problems in the administration of these separate treaties and these programs. There is the possibility of unequal treatment throughout aboriginal communities and between non-aboriginal people not covered by treaties throughout British Columbia. I offer this as a real caution. The provincial government failed to get finality over these areas in this treaty and also in those other areas where Nisga'a laws will be paramount over federal and provincial laws. There are dozens of parts of this treaty that are not finalized at this point and that will continue to be negotiated. I believe that this treaty is incomplete in this respect and does not allow the Nisga'a and their fellow British Columbia partners to have the security that is needed in the future.

Other positive elements in the treaty are that the Nisga'a will begin paying taxes after eight and 12 years respectively and that they will release all claims to aboriginal rights or title not specifically provided for in the treaty. I believe those to be positive. This should, hopefully, provide greater certainty on Crown land. It is also good that the Nisga'a land is transferred in fee simple. And I am pleased to see that the province will retain ownership of the Nisga'a Highway and that the Nisga'a will retain ownership of all of their culturally significant artifacts. But again, government negotiators have failed to get finality in this agreement in many of these areas.

B.C. Liberals have shown concern over the establishment of a new level of government that has the ability to make laws that are paramount to provincial and federal laws. The provincial government is asking British Columbians to take a leap of faith that this new level of government will work. The problem for many is that they're being asked that by a government that cannot manage its own house.

It is obviously clear to all of us that the Indian Act does not work. It has created inequity and suffering; it has held a foot on the throat of aboriginal people and held them down from succeeding in Canadian society. My hope is to see a treaty that allows their full and equal participation in Canadian society. I have great concerns that in trying to erase the inequities of the past, we are creating inequity in the future, both amongst aboriginal people and amongst British Columbians and Canadians. For that reason, I stress again the need for finality and true understanding of what these laws will look like in the future. I simply do not see them in this treaty.

I believe that a true municipal-style government would have been the best way. In that this treaty will be used as a template for other treaties, British Columbia will end up with 50-plus new levels of government with varying degrees of laws that may differ radically from provincial and federal laws. I believe that British Columbians and Canadians travelling throughout this province need to know that the laws for all British Columbians are the same throughout this province. That simply won't be the case with the parameters given in this treaty to the new level of government and to the 50-plus levels of government that come after it.

I also wish to comment on the commercial fishing entitlement as it relates to this treaty. I would simply say that I believe that no British Columbians have special commercial fishing rights. I do acknowledge that aboriginal people have historically fished and will continue to fish, but I believe that this agreement, while giving control of a designated percentage of fish to the Nisga'a, once multiplied by 50-plus treaties under negotiation will take a resource and give commercial control to one group of citizens based on ancestry. I think that this part of the treaty, once multiplied by 50 times, will be unworkable for British Columbians and inherently unworkable for aboriginal people.

That brings me to the issue of overlaps in land claims. I realize that in many respects this is between aboriginal people. But the fact that it is not dealt with in this treaty with any finality tells me that problems and costs will continue to rise in this treaty and the other 50 to be negotiated. It is another area of finality that needed to be addressed.

I would also like to comment on the environmental aspects of this treaty, but I believe that is better suited to the committee stage of debate. I will be looking for answers with regard to conservation management of wildlife and protection of the environment as it relates to this treaty. I look forward to that debate in the coming weeks as well.

I would like to comment on the right to vote and the right to vote on Nisga'a land. I can understand why the Nisga'a have fought for this aspect of the treaty. But I think that we need to understand that one of the main, central rights that we have in Canada is the ballot and the election that gives us control over our lives. When a government has the power to make laws in a variety of areas, as this treaty does, that will affect the lives of people living and using its services -- those of the new government -- and they simply don't have a say in who its managers are, that will create immense problems in the future. I have no doubt that it is simply wrong.

[2:45]

I have heard the comments of members on the government side, and I have listened to the negotiators with regard

[ Page 10940 ]

With regard to finality, the renegotiation clause in this agreement, which allows the Nisga'a to reopen if another first nation gets a more favourable treaty, is of concern to many British Columbians. It really doesn't put finality on the total costs and impact of this agreement. The costs of this agreement are of concern to some. The inability of government to detail the cost to British Columbians is of real concern.

I have pointed out just a few areas where I find difficulty in supporting this treaty. I will say that as with any treaty that would be negotiated now and in the future, there will be those who agree and those who disagree. What is important is that all of the views are heard and a true attempt to address the many views is made. I believe that over the next 20 years a number of different governments will be engaged in treaty negotiations. I believe that if this treaty passes, whoever is in government is honour-bound to see that it is implemented fairly and justly.

It is not a time to divide and control the people of British Columbia. The treaty process is a time when all British Columbians have a stake in the future, and although I am not able to support this treaty because of the principles I have outlined, I do wish Chief Gosnell and the Nisga'a people best wishes for the future. I say that before any treaty is entrenched in the constitution, we must have a mandate that is supported by the majority of British Columbians.

Hon. Speaker, thank you for allowing me this opportunity to address the Legislature.

Hon. J. MacPhail: It is a momentous day for me when I am able to rise in this chamber, in my eighth year as an MLA, to participate in a debate that is truly historic not only for the Nisga'a nation but for us as a government and, I think, for all British Columbians as well. It has been too long in coming, that we bring before this chamber the first modern-day treaty to be ratified by us as elected people. Nevertheless, it is here in a way that should be a reason for celebration by all of us. It is truly a historic debate, and it's a debate that has absolutely everything to do with the future of our province and with setting a positive course toward prosperity and justice.

It is troubling that there are those that on the one hand would say, "I'm in favour of treaties," but on the other hand say: "The time is not right; the circumstances are not right. We just need to do a little bit more work." The list is just a little bit longer, each and every day, about what we have to do as legislators here in order to get a treaty that would satisfy the opposition. Well, I'm telling you that today is the day that we have before us the right treaty for the Nisga'a nation and for British Columbians.

As Minister of Finance, I've spent much of the past few months travelling across our province. I've been talking to business people, community people and other British Columbians about ways to improve our province's economy. At these meetings, business people have told me again and again that the economic and political certainty is vital to economic success and progress in our province. This treaty is a major step toward creating, and a major step forward in creating, greater certainty for the Nass Valley, for Nisga'a and for others who live in that area. It is exactly what we need for our economy.

This bill is vital to the economic future of our province. I would go as far as to say that those who impede the progress of this treaty and those who vote against this treaty are voting against economic progress in this province. It is as clear-cut as that. This treaty -- this bill -- sends a message to everyone inside and outside our province that we are serious about ending the uncertainty and reaching agreements that achieve justice and provide a more certain investment climate in this province. That signal will be sent loudly and clearly throughout Canada and North America and to the rest of the world.

We in this House have been elected to represent all British Columbians. It's our responsibility to inform ourselves about the treaty, to think seriously about the future and really to set aside our partisanship. It's our responsibility to make a decision on this treaty, as was agreed by all parties when this process got underway back before this government was even in office and as was agreed by all of us in the last election campaign as well. I believe it's our responsibility to approve this treaty and move forward in partnership with first nations, our communities and British Columbians.

Passage of this bill is legally prudent; it's economically vital. And it's quite simply the right thing to do. It's legally prudent because if we fail to ratify this treaty, then we will become entangled in expensive litigation. We've already experienced much expensive litigation, and we will likely end up with an imposed resolution by the courts that proves perhaps unworkable from a practical sense and proves more expensive than this treaty. It's economically vital because it begins to restore certainty, and it creates new opportunities. And it's the right thing to do, because it's high time for all of us to end the uncertainty, to end the injustice and to achieve reconciliation through negotiation. In fact, hon. Speaker, every single time that the courts take a wise look at the treaty process, the courts tell us that we should negotiate, not litigate.

Negotiating this treaty has been a major undertaking for the Nisga'a nation, for the federal government and for our own provincial government. Our province took five important goals into these negotiations. Firstly, we needed a treaty that was fair and affordable to all British Columbians. Secondly, we wanted to support the Nisga'a nation in their efforts to shed the limitations of the Indian Act and to fully join Canadian and British Columbia society. Thirdly, we wanted to respect the heritage and the culture of the Nisga'a nation. Fourthly, we wanted to recognize the Nisga'a on a government-to-government basis. Lastly, we wanted the Nisga'a people to pay taxes on the same basis as other Canadians and to look first to themselves to fund their own government. These were our goals, and I believe the vast majority of British Columbians also share them as priorities. I'm actually pleased that the treaty reflects these goals so well.

The treaty will have a positive effect on virtually every aspect of life for the Nisga'a nation. Key among these is the Nisga'a culture, which should flourish as a result of the treaty. Last Thursday many of us from this legislative chamber, on both sides of the House, had the opportunity to celebrate the return of Nisga'a nation artifacts to British Columbia and for display to all people in British Columbia. But, more importantly, it's the decision of the Nisga'a nation to decide on where their historical and cultural artifacts should be displayed. They showed incredible generosity when upon the return of the artifacts to British Columbia, they wanted to

[ Page 10941 ]

The treaty provides for the Nisga'a to manage their own lands according to their traditional philosophy. The treaty itself and the non-treaty agreements that have been negotiated include a variety of measures to protect Nisga'a lands for future generations. In particular, various taxation provisions are designed to prevent other governments from taxing away the lands that the treaty confirms belong to the Nisga'a nation. In addition, Nisga'a may choose to run businesses communally. To ensure fairness, the treaty guarantees a level playing field when Nisga'a compete in the broader commercial marketplace.

One element of fairness is the full participation in Canada's and British Columbia's tax systems by the Nisga'a nation. Under the treaty, Nisga'a citizens will become full taxpayers after an eight-year transition period for transaction taxes and a 12-year transition period for other taxes. Once the transition periods are complete, the longstanding Indian Act exemptions from these taxes will no longer apply to Nisga'a people, nor to any other status Indians living on Nisga'a lands. This is truly historic. It was not a compromise easily reached in negotiations, but it is a compromise. It's a compromise that meets the needs of British Columbians, who have an economic interest in treaty settlements, and it's a compromise for the Nisga'a nation as they move forward into economic independence. It's a courageous and good-faith move by Nisga'a citizens to agree to walk away from the old Indian Act taxation exemptions. This makes it all the more obvious that Nisga'a are moving into the mainstream of society. It is a major indicator of Nisga'a taking their place as economic players in the overall economy of British Columbia.

Nisga'a governments will have a number of tax exemptions when performing government functions, much as local governments do now. The federal government and the province have tax exemptions. The treaty protects the Nisga'a nation and Nisga'a village governments from property and wealth taxation on their non-commercial interests in the land. This protects the Nisga'a land base, which is the building block of Nisga'a culture. The exemption does not apply to Nisga'a businesses and others who occupy Nisga'a land.

The fiscal system agreed to in the treaty will allow for efficient and flexible delivery of programs. The federal government retains the major responsibility for funding Nisga'a governments, as set out in the Canadian constitution. In the initial funding agreement, British Columbia's contribution remains at its current level. In the future, federal and provincial governments may negotiate transfers to fund additional programs delivered by Nisga'a governments within their jurisdiction, such as having their own police services. Whether they do so depends on whether they believe the Nisga'a government is in the best position to provide the program. Nisga'a citizens remain eligible for programs delivered by the federal and provincial governments, unless the Nisga'a government has been funded to deliver this program. Over time, as Nisga'a develop their local economy, transfers will be reduced as Nisga'a revenues increase. It's a very orderly transfer.

Nisga'a will have what I believe is an exciting opportunity to build their economy in the Nass Valley. Fee simple ownership of their lands and resources, enhanced training and improved access to financing will all help them in this task. Increased certainty will benefit everyone, as business people and those controlling outside sources of capital will know, very clearly and in a very certain way, who owns the land and what rules apply to it. Certainty will be provided at an affordable cost. B.C. taxpayers will pay $65 million, one-fifth of the $300 million total. This is approximately $16.50 per British Columbia resident, and that will be paid over 15 years. It is such an achievement, hon. Speaker -- for about $1 per year per British Columbian. It is excellent value for our money here in British Columbia.

The treaty is an important document that has many elements. I have tried to focus my comments today primarily on the economic side, and this is important. But the social and cultural aspects of the treaty are as well. This treaty will sustain Nisga'a culture and bring Nisga'a fully into Canada.

I was afforded the opportunity, with my previous responsibility as Minister of Health, to visit the Nass Valley and to meet with the Nisga'a nation on issues of health care and social programs. This was before the treaty had been signed, but there was much talk and much excitement about the Nisga'a moving into economic and social independence. They are a nation that is well advanced in social programs and well advanced in health care programs as well. In the context of what some from an urban area may consider geographic isolation, it is a nation of several locations, who are providing as good a service as anywhere in terms of social programs, in the context of their geography.

[3:00]

I'm very proud of this bill and of this treaty. I'm proud because we're finally doing the right thing. We said under the leadership of former Premier Mike Harcourt in the 1980s, we said in the first election of our government, and we said in the second election of our government that we would bring certainty, fairness and justice to the province through settlement of land claims and fair treaties. This is the first commitment of what I hope will be many commitments of treaty settlement -- of the promise that we made to all British Columbians consistently, in the last ten years, in the last decade.

What does it mean for those of us who are not directly, physically impacted by the geographic nature of the Nisga'a treaty? For those of us who live in the lower mainland, it means that many who have had to move to the lower mainland in order to achieve economic survival and economic sustainability will now have an option. Nisga'a citizens will have an option to achieve that same economic stability, without having to leave their families and their community. That's wonderful news for all of us in British Columbia -- that finally, choices around economic survival and choices around economic independence have been negotiated by and are being given to the Nisga'a nation. I'm proud that we're bringing increased economic certainty and new opportunities to the Nass Valley.

I support this bill, and I hope that we can look forward to more discussion in this chamber and outside this chamber -- substantive, factually based discussion -- not discussion

[ Page 10942 ]

Let's deal with the real issues under this treaty. Let's deal with the facts, and let's deal with them in a historical context that is not paternalistic and that is not denying the reality of what has gone on.

G. Robertson: I'm honoured to rise today in this third session of the thirty-sixth parliament of British Columbia to speak to and support Bill 51, the Nisga'a Final Agreement Act. This is indeed a momentous and historic occasion. It is a time in British Columbia's history that we as British Columbians can be proud of. It is a time that will be well recognized and supported in British Columbia history.

It was approximately three years ago that I decided to become involved in provincial politics and seek the nomination for North Island. I was elected to the provincial Legislature on May 28, 1996. I often think back to that day and reflect on the reasons that I chose to run and represent the North Island in the provincial Legislature. Something that is probably much more important are the reasons why the people of North Island chose me to be their representative for this great and diverse constituency. I suppose that in the final analysis, they believed that I would work to make the North Island a better place to live and raise a family for all North Island residents and bring fairness, justice and balance to the many issues that have to be dealt with on a daily basis. I have endeavoured to do just that.

There's a large population of first nations people on the North Island, comprised of bands from three tribal councils: the Kwakiutl council, the Musgamagw Tsawataineuk tribal council and the Nuu-chah-nulth tribal council. The majority of first nations have decided that the treaty process is the best way to resolve treaties, and they are involved in various stages of the treaty process. I can well remember going and introducing myself to our first nations communities throughout the North Island back in May, June and July of 1996, being welcomed in their longhouses and at their meetings and sitting down and discussing with them the many problems, the treaty process, their history and their culture. It was indeed a really welcoming and enlightening time for myself -- one that I very much appreciated.

Most North Islanders understand that if we're going to move ahead as a region and as a province, we must settle treaties and land claims not only on the North Island but in British Columbia as a whole. I have certainly committed to that. It's been 22 years of negotiations for the Nisga'a treaty. The provincial government joined the treaty process in 1990 and in 1991 signed a framework agreement laying out how they would participate in the treaty process in British Columbia. In March of 1996, before the provincial election, there was an agreement-in-principle signed. I campaigned strongly through the North Island riding. My commitment was to settle treaties and bring fairness and justice to these issues that have plagued our province for hundreds of years. Today I'm standing in the Legislature and doing just that, and I'm really proud of that.

I've lived on the North Island for 25 years. When you say a quarter of a century, it sounds like a long time -- and I guess it is, in my small part of it. Before I got elected, I didn't really know much about aboriginal people. That may seem strange, because we have a very large population of aboriginal people on the North Island. I worked in the logging industry for 23 years, and during that whole time I only worked with two first nations people. I can remember that in 1973 in the industry there were 800 people employed at Englewood logging division, and I only knew two first nations people. I still know those people today: Willis Antone and Bob Graham. They're good friends of mine. I can remember sitting in my house in Port McNeill and looking across the Johnstone Strait and to the glaciers across on the mainland and to Alert Bay and understanding that I really didn't know very much about a significant part of our population.

I'm happy to say that this changed when I was elected. Shortly after I was elected, I was appointed to the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. As a rookie MLA coming into the Legislature, a lot of people told me: "Glenn, you must devote as much time as possible to your riding; it's really imperative in the first year." I knew that this was going to be a very intensive committee and that we'd be on the road for over a period of one year. So I went and talked to the member for North Coast, the hon. minister. We had a bit of a discussion, and he said: "You know, Glenn, you've got a lot of really good first nations people in your riding. They're very, very important. Take time, go out into British Columbia and find out about our aboriginal issues." He said: "It'll be a wealth of knowledge for you, and it will be a good experience."

We toured British Columbia for a year. We went to over 40 different communities; we took 700 verbal submissions from all different cross-sections of the population throughout British Columbia. We went to Campbell River in my riding, and I was proud of that. Then we went to Port Hardy with the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. I think it was March 3, 1997, when we were in Port Hardy; that was our last community. I had the only constituency in the province that was visited twice by the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, and I was really proud of that. We went to Alert Bay, and the committee had an absolutely wonderful time there. I guess it was a great education. The member for North Coast was correct: it was a great opportunity. I'll remember it forever.

There are many reasons for making treaties in British Columbia, and obviously it's not possible to speak to all the issues in a comprehensive manner in the time allowed for debate in this Legislature. Having said that, I wish to talk a little bit about the history and speak to some of the legal arguments for treaty-making, as well as some moral and economic issues surrounding the treaties.

Over 200 years ago, British North America was created when the Treaty of Paris was signed. That was actually the beginning of our nation as we know it today. Prior to the arrival of settlers, aboriginal nations inhabited the territory now known as Canada. These nations were self-governing and maintained complex economies and trading systems. An early principle of relations between British colonists and the first nations was an acknowledgment that treaties needed to be signed before settlement could occur. That principle was formalized by King George III in the Royal Proclamation of 1763.

Canada has a long history of treaty-making. There were treaties signed in the east, in Upper and Lower Canada, and in western Canada, including Treaty 8, which extended into northeastern British Columbia. The colonial history of British Columbia follows a pattern similar to the colonial history of Canada. Gov. James Douglas signed 14 treaties with 14 first nations on southern Vancouver Island between 1850 and 1854. Douglas wrote to the British colonial secretary in 1861 and asked for financial help to settle treaties. In his letter he said: "I

[ Page 10943 ]

Today all of us as legislators within the confines of this legislative chamber have a responsibility to address an issue which has fundamentally affected a significant and important segment of British Columbia's population for over 200 years. Our history as legislators in this province in regards to dealing with aboriginal people has not been one that we can be proud of. I think it is important that everyone speak to this bill and be on the record, because in the final analysis it is the record that will prevail, and it will be the record from these legislative chambers that will endure as a lasting testament to this time in British Columbia history. Politics and legislation have not been kind or generous to aboriginal people in the past. Hopefully, we can put the politics behind us and do the right thing and right the regressive injustices of the past with progressive legislation that settles treaties and land claims.

[3:15]

"Aboriginal title at common law is protected in its full form by section 35(1). This conclusion flows from express language of section 35(1) itself, which states in full: 'The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed' [emphasis added]. On a plain reading of the provision, section 35(1) did not create aboriginal rights; rather, it accorded constitutional status to those rights which were 'existing' in 1982. The provision, at the very least, constitutionalized those rights which aboriginal peoples possessed at common law, since those rights existed at the time section 35(1) came into force. Since aboriginal title was a common-law right whose existence was recognized well before 1982 (e.g., Calder, supra), section 35(1) has constitutionalized it in its full form. . . . Through the enactment of section 35(1), 'a pre-existing legal doctrine was elevated to constitutional status'. . .or in other words, section 35(1) had achieved 'the constitutionalization of those rights."

When Canada was officially created in 1867, Canada was given authority under the British North America Act of 1867 to make laws about Indians and lands reserved for Indians. Government officials consolidated the many parts of the pre-Confederation policy into the Indian Act. The Indian Act never dealt with treaties or the extinguishment of title to land. It contained provisions that dramatically affected the governance and sovereignty of Canada's Indian nations. For example, from 1869 to 1985, if an Indian woman married a non-Indian or non-status Indian man, she lost her status upon marriage, and her children were not entitled to Indian status under the Indian Act. From 1880 to 1951, Indians could not legally participate in the potlatch. To many west coast first nations the potlatch is the central government institution, equivalent to the courts, the church, the Legislature and the hospital combined.

Chief Mungo Martin from the North Island held the first public potlatch of this era in 1953, at the big house in Thunderbird Park, right here. Mungo was from the Fort Rupert area and from the Kwakiutl band. He was instrumental in retaining first nations culture for this area. His carved totem poles are a testament to his skills and the tradition of his people and stand today in Beacon Hill Park, on Kitsilano Beach and even in England.

In 1913, Duncan Campbell Scott became deputy superintendent of Indian Affairs. His perspective on federal aboriginal policy was to assimilate first nations. Duncan Scott said: "I want to get rid of the Indian problem. Our objective is to continue until there is not a single Indian in Canada that has not been absorbed into the body politic and there is no Indian question."

From 1927 to 1945, Indians were prevented from raising money and from hiring lawyers to pursue land claims. Until 1948, Indians were prohibited from voting in provincial elections. Until 1949, Indians were prohibited from voting in municipal elections. Until 1960, Indians were prohibited from voting in federal elections.

Residential schools were established for the purpose of assimilating Indian children. Children were removed from their families, punished for speaking their native language or practising cultural traditions. For many years I have known of the residential school in Alert Bay across from Port McNeill. I only learned recently that Chief Gosnell, the Nisga'a chief, had been forced to attend this school as a very young boy. I cannot imagine how I would feel if my son Nolan and my daughter Kimberley had been taken from our home and brought to a residential school. I cannot begin to feel the pain that those children and their families must have felt. I cannot comprehend living in a society without children, because they were taken away to strip them of their culture, their names and their tradition. That must have been really unbelievable for the parents and for the bands -- to be in villages with no children.

I was writing this last night around 12, and I phoned up my friend Bill Cranmer, chief of the 'Namgis. I talked to Bill because I wanted to know firsthand how it really felt. Chief Bill Kramer is a friend of mine and the chief of the 'Namgis first nation in Alert Bay. Bill told me he can remember the cries of the children as their parents boarded the Union steamship to take them back to their reserves in Bella Coola, Bella Bella, Rivers Inlet and the many inlets on the coast. They had to leave the children at the residential schools and go home alone. If they didn't bring the children to the school, they were taken forcibly.

Chief Cranmer is a great man and a great representative of the 'Namgis. He works tirelessly and has done much to preserve the language, culture and traditions of his people. You have to visit the U'Mista cultural centre in Alert Bay a few times just to begin to appreciate the significance and complexities of their culture. History has shown that our forefathers' attempt at assimilating aboriginal people has cost us all dearly as a province and as a nation.

There are also a number of economic issues which I feel are extremely important to talk to. The economic implications of this Nisga'a treaty are profound. The benefits will be felt in all areas of British Columbia as more and more treaties are

[ Page 10944 ]

I just want to read something today, not for partisan reasons or anything else but just to put it on the record. The mayor of Port McNeill, Gerry Furney, ran against me in the last election. My wife gave me this when I came home last week. She was quite upset with what she read, and I was a little concerned too. To put it in perspective, Mayor Furney said this: "The general investment climate in Canada has enough challenges in trying to encourage investors as it is. The uncertainty of the precedent generated by the proposed Nisga'a agreement is destroying jobs and the economy" -- an interesting statement.

I'd like to read this. I recently read a discussion paper developed for the Business Council of British Columbia, which was presented at the business summit that we just had in British Columbia; I'm sure that everyone heard it. It was developed by Michael Goldberg, Herbert Fullerton Professor of Urban Land Policy in the faculty of commerce and business administration at the University of British Columbia. This gentleman is an eminent, well-regarded professional in the business community. What he has to say about aboriginal land claims is important, and underscores and supports the government's position on land claims and treaties in B.C. What he says is this:

"The central importance of resolving aboriginal land claims has already been noted earlier but needs restating. Resolving aboriginal land issues and removing uncertainty of tenure is likely the major action the provincial government can take to rebuild B.C.'s interior economies. Investors now face too much risk and are unwilling to invest to build resource sector health or to create new economic sectors.

"The key point to be made is that B.C.'s economic prospects in the twenty-first century will be much brighter if ways are found to resolve aboriginal land claims and eliminate or greatly reduce the uncertainty that surrounds them now. It is therefore essential to move forward quickly to settle aboriginal land claims, preferably through the treaty process created by the federal and provincial governments and the First Nations Summit.

"Assuming that they definitively address the legal uncertainty noted above, make clear which areas of the province will come under aboriginal jurisdiction and lead to more efficient and less costly provincial decision-making processes on Crown lands and resources, these treaties will have a positive impact on business confidence, paving the way for more investment in industries like forestry, mining and tourism.

"The fruitful conclusion of new treaties can also be expected to lead to increased economic development opportunities for first nations as well as to more and mutually beneficial partnerships between aboriginal communities and non-aboriginal businesses, entrepreneurs and individuals."

It is very obvious that if British Columbia is to move ahead as a province, then we must settle the land claim question. This treaty is fair and balanced, and it's affordable. The total cost to each British Columbian is a little over a dollar a year over the next 15 years. We must show the world and the investment community that these issues can be resolved calmly and cooperatively. If we do that, the uncertainty will disappear, and we can get on with building a stronger and more prosperous British Columbia.

This has certainly been an interesting and challenging time in British Columbia history. I've always believed that with challenges and adversity come great opportunity, and never has it been clearer than today in this Legislature. We have an opportunity to move British Columbia into the next millennium in a way that few could even have comprehended a few short years ago. I have to say, however, that I have some concern that the politics that are being played in this province today in regard to the treaty issue are divisive and disingenuous, and I'd like to refer to some points.

In the Terrace Standard, on June 21, 1995, the Liberal leader was clearly against a referendum on Nisga'a. In the hearings on November 3, 1996, of the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, the Liberal House Leader was concerned about a referendum. In the Cariboo Observer newspaper, July 13, 1997: Cariboo Liberal says no to referendum. On CKPJ Radio, Prince George, on the Ben Meisner program, September 12, 1997, the Liberal leader says no to a referendum. In Hansard, Aboriginal Affairs, July 8, 1998, the Liberal House Leader says no to a referendum. And in the Terrace Times on September 2, 1998, the same Liberal House Leader wants a referendum.

Hon. Speaker, the Liberals asked for a free vote on this, and the Liberals got a free vote on this -- and now they want a referendum. I think this is crass; it's opportunistic. It's partisan politics at its worst -- a worst-case example -- and I think it's divisive not only for this province but for ridings like mine. Calling the Nisga'a "cheerleaders" and talking of gated communities is going to do nothing to build this province of ours. I'm really concerned -- very concerned.

I'd like to refer back to what Mayor Furney said in here. He said: "As mayors, councillors and regional board directors, we all have been reminded by our mentors that if we ignore the past, we are destined to repeat our mistakes. In an ideal world, there would be no mistakes. The responsibility to educate the public rests with the media." Like David Black's media, where he told his editors not to give balanced representation? Surely he can't be referring to this. This is fact; this is something that wasn't even disputed on CBC when he was interviewed. This is fact; this is something that wasn't even disputed on CBC when he was interviewed. He goes on to say: "As local government officials and elected representatives of communities throughout British Columbia, we owe it to our constituents to comprehensively discuss the potential impacts."

I look at these news clippings from Terrace: "Most City Councillors Support Treaty, Oppose Referendum," "Don't Mess with Treaty, Says the Mayor of Terrace," "The Chamber Backs the Treaty Package." The former head of the UBCM. . . . "Regional district says its interests will not be hurt by the Nisga'a agreement. Local government interests were not undermined by the Nisga'a treaty process," says Kitimat-Stikine regional district chair Joanne Monaghan. In fact, she believes the process worked in terms of local government involvement in discussions -- nothing but support.

[3:30]

"I know many of the principals involved in the Nisga'a treaty process. I believe they have done their duty in bringing this treaty to an honourable outcome. I find the resulting treaty to be quite acceptable, and in fact I believe it is the best compromise that we as British Columbians can get. There are so many intertwining factors involved that a change to just a few of the clauses would cause the treaty to unravel. We all want to leave

[ Page 10945 ]

our children a very viable and long-lasting legacy. In order to do that, our province needs certainty. That can only be achieved with land claims settled. I strongly urge the House to ratify this agreement and get on with settling the remainder. We need to be working together with our first nations brothers for all of us to prosper."

Mayor Gilbert Popovitch of Alert Bay: "The signing of the Nisga'a treaty is the recognition of two centuries of mistreatment of the first citizens of this province. The treaty compensates a long-overdue debt owed to first nation of the Nass Valley. The Nisga'a negotiators, as well as the federal and provincial negotiators, must be commended for a job well done."

The truck drivers have signed off on the Nisga'a treaty. Their concerns regarding the forestry aspects of the treaty have been addressed. The IWA has unanimously supported it at a national convention. Local 171. . . . Darrel Wong, president of the IWA from the lower mainland right to Alaska, supports it and spoke in favour of it to the select standing committee. The B.C. Federation of Labour and a lot of my mayors support it.

It is the culmination of 22 years of negotiation, of give-and-take and of respect. It's a tribute to the human spirit and to humanity itself. It's proof that good can come from bad and that people can work out their differences, overcome adversity and realize solutions to very complex problems.

The Nisga'a treaty is a fair and balanced negotiated settlement that brings to conclusion 111 years of outstanding injustices and inequity. The Nisga'a treaty is the first modern-day treaty in British Columbia. I am very proud to give my support to this treaty. I wish to move ahead into a better future for the people of this great province, rather than repeating the mistakes of our past and our history. This treaty is an important step towards that goal.

L. Stephens: I too am very honoured and very proud to rise today in second reading debate on Bill 51, the Nisga'a Final Agreement Act. This is indeed a historic event for the Nisga'a people, as many other speakers in this House have said, and for the people in the rest of British Columbia. The resolution to the uncertainty about aboriginal rights and title is the most urgent and pressing issue we face today. We've heard, expressed in this House many times over during this debate, of the need for native decolonization, an end to the inequality of the Indian Act and an end to the reserve system. There can be no doubt that negotiating modern-day treaties will place our province in a more competitive position, enhance our ability to attract investment and therefore create jobs. There are legal, social and economic reasons for negotiating treaties today. B.C. Liberals support -- and I support -- treaties that are just, equitable and provide certainty and finality. I think all members of this House want to see the injustices of the past resolved. The celebration of the Nisga'a people's struggle for self-determination that took place in this House last week is a tribute to the purpose, patience and single-minded determination of the Nisga'a negotiators and the Nisga'a people over the last 111 years.

In this agreement there are some major steps toward modern treaty-making. The Nisga'a will become subject to all provincial and federal taxes, the settlement lands will be owned by the Nisga'a as fee simple property, and the Nisga'a people will regain ownership of their culturally significant artifacts. All of these positive aspects of the agreement are significant. They are significant because it is imperative that first nations people have the necessary opportunities and entitlement to build a society that enjoys the same benefits and burdens as the rest of the population of British Columbia.

But the facts are that the Nisga'a treaty will set the baseline for all future treaties in British Columbia. As the Premier has said, it's an important template for future negotiations. This is for all the marbles, so to speak. Once the Nisga'a template is set in stone by the passing of settlement legislation in the federal Parliament and by way of this legislation formally ratifying the Nisga'a treaty, there will be no turning back. Whereas the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples stressed: "Rights contained in agreements resulting from the negotiation process with aboriginal nations are protected under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982."

To the extent that the Nisga'a template will set the groundwork for additional and expanded aboriginal rights in treaties throughout British Columbia, all people of British Columbia deserve a vote. We need a referendum, because this is the first treaty to establish aboriginal self-government that goes way beyond a municipal style of government. Therefore I believe that a referendum is appropriate. It may very well be that the proposed Nisga'a governance model is the way to go for the twenty-first century, but the people of British Columbia should have had the opportunity to vote on the negotiating mandate for treaties and the principles behind them. The people of British Columbia have been denied that right to vote for one reason: because that government doesn't trust the people's judgment.

I believe that this agreement should not go forward at this time, because of the conflict of overlapping land claims between the Nisga'a, Gitanyow and Gitxsan people. In March of this year, the Gitanyow and Gitxsan hereditary chiefs began legal action against the British Columbia government and the government of Canada over this treaty. The Gitanyow state that this Nisga'a agreement seriously infringes on their rights and territory. The responsibility for resolving overlaps lies with the first nations, and the First Nations Summit adopted a protocol in 1997 to help first nations in resolving overlaps in a timely way. The Treaty Commission has a role to play in making sure that the resolution of overlaps takes place before an agreement-in-principle is reached. It is a major failure of this agreement that that in fact did not happen. The failure of the Nisga'a, Gitxsan and Gitanyow to resolve overlapping claims could lead to many court applications and court-imposed settlements that are far less desirable than negotiated ones. This means that there is a very high level of uncertainty with this Nisga'a agreement.

In its review of the treaty process, the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs said that commercial fishing entitlements should not be included in treaties. Our party stressed that recommendation in our minority report on the Nisga'a agreement-in-principle. And even though I understand the historical significance of the fisheries to aboriginal people, I cannot support a separate aboriginal commercial fishery. Approximately 40 percent of the present B.C. commercial fishery is composed of first nations fishers, a strong testament to the abilities and economic opportunities generated by native people.

[ Page 10946 ]

Indeed, the findings of the Minister of Women's Equality's own report, entitled "Aboriginal Women and Treaty-Making in B.C.," outlined the concerns of aboriginal women and the issue of unequal participation in treaty-making. Aboriginal women said that they approached the treaty-making process with much trepidation. On the one hand, women are described as the strength of the aboriginal communities, and on the other hand, they are very much marginalized in the treaty-making and decision-making processes. Years of intimidation, abuse, isolation and the lack of educational opportunities have contributed to the women feeling powerless. Aboriginal women believe that modern treaties will put in place a European, paternalistic form of governance and that they will be further marginalized.

Therefore the following questions must be answered. Will aboriginal women have equal power and representation in treaty-making and in formulating the constitutions of aboriginal governments? Will property rights be guaranteed for women on Nisga'a lands? Does the Family Relations Act apply to the division of family property on divorce? Aboriginals believe that the legal system is clearly discriminatory and has a sexist bias. Will women be consulted and active participants in planning and carrying out the Nisga'a justice models? Aboriginal women are responsible for health care and child care, often on their own and with very limited resources. Will women be consulted and be active participants in planning and carrying out Nisga'a social services, health and education models? The equality provisions of the Canadian Charter must be adhered to, and aboriginal women under Nisga'a government must have equal opportunity to participate in the decision-making authority of Nisga'a government.

The unresolved issue of overlapping land claims, the establishment of a separate aboriginal commercial fishery and the absence of any equality provisions in the Nisga'a nation's constitution compel me, with deep regret, to withhold my support for this legislation.

Hon. C. McGregor: It is indeed a pleasure for me to rise here today, to speak and add my voice in support of this important treaty. I must say what deep pride I feel in having had the opportunity to listen to some of my colleagues, some of whom are present in the House today, who have taken the time to search their souls and put together the words that describe for them and for their communities the importance of this treaty. It is one of those moments that makes me proud to be a New Democrat. It's one of the reasons that -- like many of my colleagues on this side -- drew me to the movement: the principle of social justice. It comes from our roots, and it comes from our backgrounds. It comes from the lessons we learn from our families. We have a deep level of caring for people from all walks of life, and that includes taking the steps necessary to assist the oppressed and those who have really struggled to achieve the principles of equality.

Certainly New Democrats have much to be proud of in the area of social justice. One of the ones that I remember most, because it came to me time and time again as I foot-canvassed in my own community as a new candidate during the 1996 election, was the number of Japanese Canadians who supported the New Democratic Party on the basis of the work we had done in taking on the question of the need for reconciliation around the internment of the Japanese and forcing the government of Canada to a position of apologizing to the Japanese Canadians.

[3:45]

A more recent example in this government's history is the B.C. family bonus, bringing income to families in need to levels that can support them and their children. That enables them to have a good start, which we all understand to be important in order for children to have the kind of successes we want them to have, and to take their place as part of a successful B.C. society. Just in this last session, there is the work that this caucus did in ensuring that gay and lesbian parents were given the same rights as others regarding child support and access to the law. These are principles of social justice. These are the principles which New Democrats stand proud to be a part of in terms of the approach we take as a government.

This treaty is certainly another example of how we in British Columbia can ensure that the principles of social justice are a part of our work with aboriginal people -- in this important case, the Nisga'a. Over the last week in particular, we've had a chance to experience some of the celebrations. It has been a powerful experience. You can't help but feel involved at an emotional level when you see the example of the traditional dress and the Nisga'as' traditional dances, hear their songs and listen to them speak in their very musical language. I think I will always remember the feeling that I had, standing above the rotunda, during what the Nisga'a describe as the naming ceremony, when countless individuals time after time called out the name of one of their ancestors who had had some small or large part in working to achieve this historic agreement. You could almost feel the spirit of those individuals in the room -- how they'd come together on this very important occasion to celebrate a success in seeing us achieve this treaty.

The generosity of the Nisga'a was demonstrated again. They've always said that this is about sharing the resources. They've never been a nation that has said anything other than that. It was said again during the museum ceremony that they wanted to share their artifacts -- not just to take them home to the Nass Valley, where they would be able to enshrine them with the important cultural aspects of their own community, but to share them with the rest of British Columbia and make them available to all British Columbians and international visitors. It speaks, again, to the culture of the Nisga'a people.

Then there were the words of Chief Joe Gosnell, which moved many of us in this House, I would suggest, on both sides. He described in words a vision of hope that has persisted despite our sad history of ignoring their concerns. He described the faith they had in themselves and their leaders.

[ Page 10947 ]

I have to confess that my own knowledge of the history of the treatment of aboriginal people in the province -- the historical perspective on the relationships between government and aboriginal people. . . . I have to say that I felt it was quite lacking. I don't think I'm alone in that regard. When I've had the opportunity to speak with people in British Columbia, we didn't know some of the terrible things that were done to aboriginal people. People aren't necessarily aware of the history of this government denying aboriginal people the right to vote, the denial of their being able to congregate in groups because they might want to talk about land claims, and then, of course, the great shame of residential schools and the legacy of abuse and neglect, and the deliberate extinguishment of a culture and a way of life.

When I became an MLA in 1996, as I say, I think I was largely ignorant of this history, but I was really honoured, early on in my work as the MLA for Kamloops, to be appointed to serve on the Aboriginal Affairs Committee. This standing committee that I was a part of was given the responsibility to talk with British Columbians about the implications of this treaty and to really provide an opportunity for public debate and an open discussion of the conditions under which we should consider and move forward on the aboriginal land claim question.

We toured the province and visited more than 20 cities and towns and received hundreds of submissions on the questions of both the Nisga'a treaty and land claims in general. I must say that it really was a tremendous learning experience. But probably the most moving experience of the entire work that the committee did was the opportunity we had to visit the Nass. We went to the Nass and actually saw the lands that are described and captured -- in very dry terms, I might say -- in this agreement. But it wasn't a very dry event when we were there, because we not only saw for the first time the physical setting of the area where the Nisga'a live and the Nass Valley but heard firsthand the words of the Nisga'a people.

We began our visit with a traditional feast, and we had a wonderful opportunity for the sharing of foods as a welcome and a chance to sit and talk together about concerns that the aboriginal people had and about our role as a committee, and so on. Then we began the formal part of our hearing, and we heard, in both the Nisga'as' own language and English, the testimony of elders and other members of the Nisga'a nation. We heard their history. We heard many stories describing their family activities that had gone on for hundreds and thousands of years. We heard their despair and their anger over historical events which had stripped them of basic human rights, basic human dignity. We heard some stories which captured the inequities suffered by all aboriginal people because of the Indian Act.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

What we saw and heard were also from a more positive perspective -- what their hopes were for their communities. In particular, we talked to them about their opportunities, the work they were doing related to economic development and their hopes for finding new ways of employing their own people, particularly in the management of the fishery and ecotourism.

Importantly, I think, we also heard from many young aboriginal people, and it was very moving to listen to their words and listen to what they described as the need for a broader education amongst both aboriginal and non-aboriginal people related to the land claims question, the history of our province and the importance and the contribution that cultures like the Nisga'a have made to our province. And we heard these young people describe their hopes and desires for the future. Perhaps most moving of all was their deep yearning to become more connected with their roots and to reconnect with their culture and its values, their families and their community.

Then we saw that that work had actually begun, hon. Speaker. What we saw was that the work had actually begun at a school in New Aiyansh. We watched a language class in action, and we saw aboriginal elders teaching young people some of the language that had been lost as a result of the extinguishment policies of the past.

We also visited a school in Burns Lake -- organized, in fact, in traditional clans to represent the families of the first nations in that area -- and saw how the non-aboriginal children had learned so much. It had created a level of understanding between aboriginal and non-aboriginal learners. The importance of traditional knowledge, the knowledge of elders, was being respected in a school setting where everyone could learn together. As a longtime teacher, I know the power of knowledge. The efforts that were being reflected in this community were truly amazing. It was building bridges between aboriginal and non-aboriginal people.

This is one of the reasons why I not only support the treaty but support the opportunity for the development for use in schools of learning resource modules that talk about the importance of this treaty and the history of our relationship with aboriginal people. I'm proud that the government moved forward on it, because it was indeed one of the recommendations that our standing committee put forward as a result of our provincial tour. My work on this committee taught me many things, and I'm proud to have been part of a process that this government took in order to facilitate an understanding of the AIP.

At this time, I'd like to turn my remarks, if I could, to some of the work that I've done over the last few months in my own community, in my own constituency of Kamloops, to further the understanding of this treaty and its implications. Unlike some members in this House, and particularly as they are represented on the other side, I worked very hard to try and provide my constituents with as much information as possible so that they could make a decision on what they understand to be the important aspects of this treaty and the reason to take these steps forward and resolve this issue.

In fact, I organized one public meeting in the Kamloops area. I also met with the Kamloops Rotary, which I found to be very enlightening. They were very interested in hearing about the details of the treaty and in having an opportunity to ask questions. I met with the Anglican women's group, the St. Paul's chapter. I met with a group of retired teachers. I met with a UCC history class and talked to them and to two grade 11 high school classes in different parts of the city about the question of aboriginal land claims.

I also took the time to write columns that summarize the details of the treaty in the Kamloops Daily News and at least one in Kamloops This Week, as well as a column in our local community college newspaper, Omega. I responded to letters and calls for more information from dozens of constituents and received a variety of petitions supporting the treaty. I'd like to take the time, if I could, to acknowledge those letters and calls of support -- in particular, the letter written by the

[ Page 10948 ]

Beyond that formal process of making sure that my constituents had knowledge about this important decision that was about to be taken, I also met with more than 100 people in the community on an anecdotal basis. But then, to be sure, I took the time to develop a survey. I asked my staff to phone a number of residents in the Kamloops area on a random basis. We followed traditional polling methodology. At that time, we made sure that we developed a random list on the basis of the electronic version of the B.C. Telephone directory. We randomly selected a number of people from every corner of my community -- from Knutsford, Savona, downtown, the north shore and the south shore -- and called more than 425 homes.

I'm proud to report to this House the result of that phone poll. The first question asked -- no pushing, no prodding, no giving of information, simply asking people -- was: how do you feel about that treaty? In fact, I'll read the actual question:

"As you may or may not know, the provincial and federal governments recently signed a final agreement or a treaty with the Nisga'a people to resolve their land claim in the northwest of B.C. From what you may have read or seen about the Nisga'a treaty, would you say that you support or oppose the provincial government ratifying that treaty?"

[4:00]

I'll draw a couple of examples for the members of this House so they understand what the concerns were. I met with a group of north shore business people one day about a month ago. And what was one of the concerns they raised? We were talking about the opportunities to reduce red tape within the province, and what came up was the issue of the difference in environmental standards and the handling of waste between the city of Kamloops and on the Kamloops Indian reserve. They were very unhappy to know that there were different sets of rules for those two settings, and we talked about how, through the treaty process, we can make sure that there is a level playing field and that the environment is protected, whether your business is on an Indian reserve -- in the case of the Nisga'a it won't be a reserve; it will be on their lands -- or if it's in some other part of the province.

Another example just within the last month was the fact that we had a large fire burning on the Kamloops Indian reserve. It was a fire that got out of control. I had many calls to my regional Environment office, and they said they wanted the matter to be solved. They wanted the ministry to go in and make sure that that fire, the burning, was put out, because there was concern with air quality. Though the residents complained, what we had to explain to them was that this is federal land, because it is covered under the Indian Act, and the province has no jurisdiction on this question. So only several kilometres away on city of Kamloops land or private land, burning regulations would apply, but in this case they did not. Again, it was an opportunity to speak to the reasons why it is important for us to have provincial laws and regulations apply on all lands in our communities, and this is what we will be able to deliver through treaties. In particular, of course, I'm referencing the provisions of the Nisga'a agreement.

Members of the community -- particularly the business community -- also told me, during the Premier's economic summit in Kamloops that was held in May. . . . One of the key recommendations coming out of that summit was not just about reducing red tape and other important issues around supporting communities' new opportunities for economic development and job creation but about creating certainty through the negotiation of land claims. They are equally aware, I believe, of the implications of the many court rulings that have gone on over time, especially the most recent ruling in the Delgamuukw case. There have been a number of workshops and information sessions held in my own community that many members of the business community have attended. They understand that there are legal implications and requirements that we must acknowledge as part of treaty-making, or the alternative then is to go to court. Their concerns are largely about the day-to-day dealings they have within their own business and their concern for disruption that might be caused because of unresolved land claim issues. We have certainly seen examples of the kind of conflict that can happen in our region, and no one wants that repeated. For many British Columbians and, I would say, for many Kamloops residents as well, the most compelling reasons they have for supporting this treaty are the economic ones.

I would like to explore for a moment or two some of what I've learned in my research around this treaty -- to talk about the economic perspective, the economic certainty that can be created. This is looking beyond my own level of knowledge on these questions, and looking to other experts in the field of economic development activity. I'd refer first, if I could, to a report called "The Cost of Doing Nothing." This report was issued by the Royal Bank of Canada. In fact, it was as a result of a seminar sponsored by the Royal Bank of Canada, and it was a record of the proceedings that were held, actually, in response to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. While it wasn't directed specifically to the Nisga'a agreement, it certainly speaks to the issue of land claims, economic certainty and the relationship -- building communities between aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities. I've quoted from this document throughout my talks in the community, because I believe it speaks with a voice that talks about the importance of the economic reasons for proceeding with land claims and treaties. As I've said earlier, this is one of the reasons why many Kamloops residents support this treaty.

It begins in one part by making reference to the KPMG study done here in British Columbia, about the costs and

[ Page 10949 ]

". . .demonstrated that the local economy is enhanced and investment is increased once the rules of development are clear and the uncertainty over land tenure is removed. It would be astute of corporate Canada to communicate their strong support for the speedy completion of land claim negotiations and settlements in British Columbia and elsewhere in Canada to the appropriate levels of government."

Another presenter at the conference was Fred Wien, who is the author of many publications about basic employment issues and has served as a researcher for the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. He lays out a strategy and the principles necessary for enabling aboriginal people to become self-sufficient from an economic perspective. He lists several key principles, which are building blocks for the Nisga'a treaty. He talks about the need for political sovereignty, which he describes as a genuine control by aboriginal people over decision-making, resources and relations with the outside world. He also describes the need for aboriginal people to possess internal assets, which he lists as including minerals, water, timber, fish, wildlife, etc., and the need for aboriginal people to have the institutions of government, including laws and government which flow from a constitution, one which results from the specific needs, wishes and cultural heritage of its people. This treaty clearly provides the opportunity through which these principles are delivered, so that the economic prosperity that is spoken of throughout the Royal Bank's document can be achieved.

Finally, hon. Speaker, I'll speak on the conclusion of their report, in which they indicate a reference to the presentation of John McCallum, who's the chief economist for the Royal Bank of Canada. What he said was:

". . .billions of dollars are lost each year by the failure of the country to realize the full economic potential of aboriginal people -- the acceptance of low labour-force participation levels, atrocious unemployment levels, low earnings from the jobs that are held, and low incomes from other forms of wealth creation. . . . The cost of the status quo amounted to more than $7.5 billion in 1996 because of the net cost of forgone production, the extra cost of remedial programs and financial assistance, and the cost of forgone government revenues.

"Furthermore," he went on to say, "if we keep with present policies, it is estimated that the cost of the status quo will escalate to $11 billion a year by the year 2016."

It's obvious that what most British Columbians want more than anything is a stable community and a stable province in which to raise their families. They don't want to relegate some British Columbians to the ranks of certain poverty and poor health because of government policies, or from a personal perspective, they don't want to find themselves unable to support themselves because of uncertainty over land claims.

It's clear this isn't a perfect agreement. It is a negotiation; there has been give-and-take. But it is taking us in the direction that we need to go as British Columbians making progress together.

I'm soon going to conclude my remarks, but before I do, I think it's important -- and I actually feel compelled -- to deal with allegations that were made by the member for Kamloops-North Thompson during his second reading remarks. The member opposite alleges -- and I'm quoting directly from Hansard -- that our side of the House is taking "self-serving efforts to make this sensitive, delicate, important issue a political horse to ride into the coming election" and that our effort to work with communities is viewed as "just political opportunities to be milked for political gain."

Well, talk about the pot calling the kettle black. In fact, I have copies here of correspondence that I received from Kori Street, who is an instructor at the University College of the Cariboo. I think you'll recall that earlier in my remarks, I said I was speaking to it. She sent me a letter commending me on taking a non-political approach in describing this treaty. But I want you to know, hon. Speaker, that what she also said was that she was ashamed and angered over the treatment by the member for Kamloops-North Thompson, because what he did was bring in TV cameras -- without the permission of the instructor, without the permission of the university -- and in fact indicate that the camera operator indicated he had permission to record the lecture. She goes on to say:

"I had assumed the permission had come from a member of this institution, not from your office" -- making reference to the hon. member across the way. "In fact, as I explained, this was an opportunity to examine issues regarding the Nisga'a treaty in a non-partisan and intellectual debate. You were invited to present your perspective on a serious issue facing our community. A university classroom cannot be used as a platform for anybody's political rhetoric. I cannot sufficiently stress that I believe your actions were improper. You took advantage of a situation. I believe you owe an apology to the students, your constituents, your caucus, your colleagues, Channel 7, the college community and myself."

I know my time has run out, but I'd like to say, finally, that I do support the treaty. I'm proud to stand here today with my colleagues and stand in support of this important bill.

I. Chong: It is indeed an honour that I am but one of only 74 people in this vast province of over four million people to have this opportunity to rise and speak to second reading of Bill 51, Nisga'a Final Agreement Act. I have been given this opportunity and this privilege because I was elected to serve and to represent approximately 50,000 constituents in the riding of Oak Bay-Gordon Head. My obligation, therefore, is to be a voice for those constituents in this Legislature, and I intend to do just that.

As I stated earlier, I offer my comments as a voice for the constituents I represent, and I have heard from many people. Some chose to call me, some chose to write me a letter, and some others chose direct personal contact with me. Throughout this process, one very clear message was conveyed to me, as their elected representative, a message that I am proud to convey and support, and that is the requirement to settle land claims.

[4:15]

[ Page 10950 ]

To Chief Gosnell, who spoke to this chamber last Wednesday, December 2, 1998, I offer my sincere thanks for his words of wisdom, words of strength and words of encouragement. How uplifting it must have been for Chief Gosnell to finally receive the recognition and respect he is so deserving of.

Throughout this debate, I do hope that all those who are watching or listening to these proceedings pay close attention to what is being said. Unfortunately, I have heard distortions and reinterpretations of the remarks made by members on this side of the House by members on the opposite side. This is not a debate about ideology, and I am saddened to see that there are members in this House who would treat this piece of legislation like all others. This legislation is about moving forward and not about dwelling on the past. This legislation is about healing and not just about guilt. And equally important, not only is this legislation about fairness but it is also about the right thing to do. The right thing to do is to settle land claim issues so that the healing may in fact begin. The Nisga'a treaty accomplishes this and is therefore supportable on that basis, as I am sure we all agree. Furthermore, I recognize that all the parties who were involved in the negotiation process made compromises each step of the way. That has been made quite clear, and I have heard this. Again I say: this treaty is supportable in many areas.

But contained within this treaty are the areas of concern that must be addressed because they are significant. If we do not give voice to those issues, then who is it that will? Let me just say that this is not the Premier's treaty. It was certainly a privilege for him to provide the provincial signatory, but this document does not belong to the Premier, nor to his government. This treaty belongs to the Nisga'a people and to the people of this province. The Nisga'a people have had an opportunity to express their support by way of a vote. However, all other British Columbians have no one but their elected representative through which their voice may be heard and counted. It is truly a great responsibility for us all.

In order to speak to this legislation, I am challenged as to where I should begin. Just where does one begin to discuss this very important, very significant legislation? Throughout this debate we will be offering comments concerning issues of justice, issues of law, issues relating to history and identity, and issues concerning much-needed reconciliation as well.

In terms of reconciliation, I cannot begin to imagine what hurt feelings and pain the Nisga'a people endured 111 years ago when they were denied entry to this precinct. I cannot imagine the oppression and injustices that the Nisga'a people and other aboriginal peoples suffered through. But I do acknowledge that we must move forward. In doing so, this must include all British Columbians, because unlike the past, where only one culture was affected, all British Columbians will now be affected forever. This legislation is about mutual respect, about pride and about understanding.

If we are to achieve these very laudable goals, we must include all British Columbians. Unfortunately, what I have heard from several constituents is that they have been left out and for the most part ignored in this particular process. British Columbians have been denied access to information insofar as alternative views being available. So I, along with many constituents, expressed concerns when this government launched its $5 million advertising propaganda to convince British Columbians to support its views. Sadly, this government did not have the faith and confidence in the people of this province to disseminate truthful, unbiased information, so it chose instead not to provide that information. In so doing, this government has essentially proclaimed that this is more about politics and not about doing the right thing.

I reiterate that this is not the Premier's treaty. If he truly wanted to build for the future, he would have dealt with the issue of whether this represents a change to the constitution. Regardless of whatever legislation is passed in this House, as a part of government we have a judiciary system. That judiciary has the authority to scrutinize the executive branch of government and, yes, even overrule legislation. It would have been appropriate for the Premier to request that the Attorney General consider the opposition's request to clarify this issue. Instead, this government refused and compelled the opposition to move ahead. I do support this action, because I need clarity on this important area.

Workable modern-day treaties are what all British Columbians support. But they must, as a minimum, entrench equality for Nisga'a and non-Nisga'a people. Equality is fundamental for our democratic system to survive. So I do not understand why it is that we should allow anyone's rights to be diminished. Yes, there has been inequality for the Nisga'a people. But let us not create a new form of inequality for other British Columbians. I believe that our federal and provincial negotiators, who have worked diligently on this document, may have had doubts about acknowledging a third order of government. Why else have words been chosen to downplay this form of self-government? We hear words such as "municipal-style," "municipal-like" and "municipal-plus." But in the end it is not municipal government, and that is what we are concerned with.

For myself, having been surrounded by friends and relatives who are immigrants from another land and another country, I hear of yet more concern. Once here, these new immigrants generally seek citizenship status, because they wish equal rights under the law. Will this now change? Will the Nisga'a citizens have different rights, whether superior or inferior, than other British Columbians? That would be wrong, that would be unfair, and that would be unjust.

Hon. Speaker, we live in a changing world. Each day, we struggle as new issues emerge. Issues that were once ignored are now heightened, such as environmental protection, human rights, domestic violence and child abuse. That is a good thing. These issues became significant and important because people brought them forward. If all people are to co-exist in this province, in this vast land, then we must work towards removing barriers to justice and equality. At the same time, we must be careful not to set up new barriers or rules that would segregate people. That is not to say that there cannot be laws to deal with heritage or culture. After all, we live in a multilingual and multicultural country, and I am proud to be a Canadian citizen.

As I have stated, the issue that most concerns me and that has been raised by constituents that I represent is the issue of self-government, whereby it becomes a third order of government. As for whether this treaty is affordable, unfortunately I do not have an answer. From a moral standpoint the answer would be yes, but from a financial aspect we simply do not know. And I do not hold the Nisga'a people responsible for whether it is affordable. That is up to us as elected representa-

[ Page 10951 ]

It is unfortunate that there is not a vote on each section of this treaty, as that would have indicated to all just how much of this treaty we do support. With Bill 51 being so very important, it would have served all the Nisga'a people and British Columbians well if members were permitted to vote on each section of the treaty and then to have those votes recorded for all to see. I expect that we shall have to wait for the debate during committee stage to demonstrate those parts of the treaty that we do support and those parts that we do not.

In closing, I would like to say that I am disheartened by the many remarks made by the members opposite during this debate. I sat quietly and listened to all members speak, whether or not I was in agreement with their comments. I listened to Chief Gosnell last week when he addressed all members, and I heard him direct us to listen to his message. I believe the same courtesy is essential when any member offers comment on Bill 51.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I rise today to speak to the principles of Bill 51, the Nisga'a Final Agreement Act, with great pride. It is a real honour to be a member of this assembly at what is a profoundly significant moment in our province's history.

Think of it, colleagues. Last February we celebrated the 100th anniversary of the opening of this building. For 100 years this chamber served as British Columbia's Legislature, and we are the first MLAs in all that time who have sat in this place and debated a treaty. Of all the people who have sat in this place -- all the MLAs, all the ministers, all the leaders of parties and of the opposition, all the Premiers -- we are the first to debate a treaty such as the one we have before us.

That is both a source of pride but also a source of shame for the history of our province. This Legislature has been a hostile place for the aspirations of the aboriginal people of British Columbia -- profoundly hostile. Last week the Nisga'a celebrated their entry into this building. It was remarkable to see that celebration, because this is a place where aboriginal title and rights have been denied for over 100 years. This has been a place where Premiers refused to negotiate, where laws to take children to residential schools were enacted.

British Columbians see this as their building, but where in this building is the acknowledgment of the thousands of years of aboriginal history and culture, of languages and trade and art that was here long before this building was.

We have many statues and monuments around this building, my friends, to European explorers -- to Vancouver, Cook and Mackenzie -- and to those who led this province in its earliest days as a colony and a province -- Begbie, Douglas, and on and on and on. I looked this week and last week for any recognition of aboriginal people in this building. I found one statue -- Maquinna, the Nootka chief. There's a statue of him out by the library. And you know what his claim to fame is? According to the architects of this building, he was there to welcome the European explorers. That's what it says: he was the chief who met European explorers 200 years ago in Nootka Sound.

It's a building that's filled with monuments to events that are important to our history. It recognizes British Columbians who've donated to this province, who gave their lives for this province and this country in war. There's recognition of Premiers, legislators, Attorneys General and Speakers, and murals depicting forestry, mining, fishing and agriculture. Where in this building is the recognition of the aboriginal heritage on which this province is based?

[4:30]

The Nisga'a, when they first came here in 1887 to demand recognition of their land title and negotiation of just treaties and self-government, found it no less hostile as they were turned away. I'm not going to repeat that history. It has been spoken of many times in this debate already. It began a long and difficult journey for generations of Nisga'a and for many other B.C. first nations, as they fought for the means to maintain their culture, their values and their way of life.

Now, 111 years later, the governments of Canada, British Columbia and the Nisga'a nation are finally saying yes to a fair and equitable treaty, yes to self-government for the Nisga'a people, and yes to the Nisga'a nation's right to 2,000 square kilometres in the lower Nass Valley. So it was profoundly moving to see the Nisga'a people here last week to celebrate that achievement and to watch the leaders of the Nisga'a nation, in their red button blankets, moving up the steps of the Legislature and under the arch of the building. That was a profoundly moving moment. It was moving to hear the voices of Nisga'a people raised in the rotunda in the naming ceremony, as they mentioned the names of those who had grown old and died in representing the Nisga'a nation and in seeking a treaty. It was profoundly moving to hear Chief Gosnell speak of what this achievement meant to the Nisga'a people.

We stand here at the dawn of a new relationship with the Nisga'a people and B.C.'s first nations. There are many reasons why we should ratify this treaty. We have a legal obligation to ratify it, for this is a question of rights and entitlement. If we don't settle by negotiation, it will be settled by courts and confrontation.

As others have outlined for this chamber, we have a historical obligation to ratify -- to pay a debt for the unilateral appropriation of Nisga'a territory without their consent. But most of all, colleagues and hon. Speaker, as elected representatives and the first MLAs ever to have such a treaty put before us to debate, we have a moral obligation to ratify it -- to do the right thing, to mark the end to centuries of injustice for first nations in our province. It's my deepest and most sincere hope that this treaty will be the beginning of that new conversation with aboriginal people and be the first of many to come.

I spoke of how hostile this chamber has been to first nations, and I'm not sure we can overstate it. I want to take just a few moments to reflect on the evolution of relations between aboriginal and non-aboriginal people in British Columbia, on how we got to where we are today. Others have recounted that history in detail. The most significant starting point is, of course, the Royal Proclamation of 1763. It recognized aboriginal title and rights in British colonies and required colonial governments to enter into government-to-government treaties with the surrender of land and resources. Until the middle of the nineteenth century that proclamation was respected. That was when the territorial government of James Douglas embarked on an official policy of assimilation.

[ Page 10952 ]

Equality? Do the members not recognize that homesteading in British Columbia for first nations was banned? Equality? Do the members not recognize that aboriginal reserves were unilaterally reduced in size? Equality? A maximum of ten acres per family was allowed to first nations by the colonial government, compared with 640 acres per family in major treaties east of the Rockies. Equality? In 1872, first nations people lost the right to vote in the province. You know they didn't get it back until 1947. Equality? Ask anybody about the Indian Act. Ask anybody about that legal framework that 100 years ago banned potlatch ceremonies in B.C. Equality? In 1894, laws were passed in British Columbia requiring all aboriginal children to attend residential schools, which were largely administered by the Anglican and Catholic churches.

Over the next 75 years, from 1884 until the last half of this century, the Nisga'a and B.C.'s other first nations engaged in a continuous struggle to defend their traditions and their right to self-government. Even after the right to vote was returned, even after the phase-out of residential schools began, even after MLAs who were aboriginal were elected to this House, there was no change in government policy on land claims. In 1982, aboriginal and treaty rights were enshrined in the Canadian constitution, but as you know, it was another eight years before the British Columbia government agreed to begin negotiating treaties with first nations. Premier after Premier, legislature after legislature denied treaty negotiations -- until finally a decision came from a most unlikely source. The last Social Credit government of British Columbia reversed that policy. Premier Vander Zalm announced in 1990 that the province of British Columbia would negotiate land claims, and B.C. joined the negotiations between the Nisga'a nation and the federal government.

Every legislator in this House carries with them the burden of that history. It's a history of paternalism, of intolerance, of mistrust by successive provincial and federal governments. We owe it to our children, the children of every social and cultural heritage, to remove this burden from their shoulders. Yet in this debate I hear the Leader of the Opposition turning his back on this and returning to the policies of the past. While these policies may have been mainstream in the nineteenth century, they're radical and extreme now.

I was in Prince George recently and attended a debate, where we talked about the Nisga'a treaty and much else. A former member of this chamber -- actually, a former Social Credit cabinet minister -- was speaking about some of the views that he'd heard about the treaty, including those of Mel Smith, who seems to be the chief resource person for the Liberal caucus. He had a wonderful line about Mr. Smith. He said: "Mr. Smith is one of the finest legal minds on the issues of constitutionality and land claims -- one of the finest legal minds of the nineteenth century." That is indeed what we're hearing from the benches opposite: a view of treaty-making, a view of first nations' rights, a view of self-government which is entirely consonant with the views that have been expressed in this chamber for a hundred years. And now it's time to change it.

I want to just draw one analogy. I grew up in the United States. Many of you know that I emigrated from there as a young man. The comparison between what we're doing here and the civil rights movement in the States jumps out at everybody who compares the two. I remember, as a teenager, looking at those civil rights issues. I remember those who stood in the schoolhouse door. I remember those who fought every advance. I remember those who offered apologies for treatment of black Americans in the past but refused to make the necessary change to bring justice and fairness and equality to black Americans. Here, as there, we have a choice. Let's get on the right side of history.

I want to speak about this treaty and some of the educational parts of it. You know, for me as an educator this treaty is a teachable moment for the province, on the history of the relationship between first nations and non-aboriginal people in the province. We have a choice to continue in the past or create a new future. As B.C.'s Education minister, I want to help create a future where every student in this province knows about the proud heritage of first nations in the province, just as they learn about European explorers like Simon Fraser, James Cook, George Vancouver and Alexander Mackenzie.

That's why a month ago I released a document that had been a couple of years in the making, called "Shared Learnings." It's a resource manual for teachers. It allows them to integrate the history, the culture, the trade, the commerce, the economy of first nations into the school curriculum, so that if a teacher in elementary school is teaching dance or movement, they may not use the Irish jig; they may decide to use Kwakiutl dance. So when they teach art, they may not do the traditional sketch; they may use some native forms. When they discuss, say, natural medicines, they may not use the example of the British navy, which discovered that limes were a wonderful way of preventing scurvy; they may use some of the medicines that first nations have used for hundreds of years -- thousands of years -- in our province. When they discuss trade and the economy, they may not use the examples of the colonized parts of the world and their relations with Europe; they may discuss the trade that took place for thousands of years among first nations in this province.

We are making some progress, Hon. Speaker; I want to report to the chamber that we are. I recently visited an elementary school in my community, Peden Hill Elementary, where both my children attended. I must say that when they attended it there was very little which they learned that reflected first nations in our community or in our province -- very little. My son, who's now 27, tells me that he regrets that deeply. When I visited there last month, they had a class in Carrier, taught by a Carrier elder, available to Carrier and non-Carrier students in the school. They had an art class in which a traditional artist was teaching a mixed class -- new Canadians, people living here for several generations and first nations kids -- some of the basic forms of British Columbia native art.

[4:45]

[ Page 10953 ]

Well, those modules are now produced; they're now available in public schools. And guess what: even some of those who joined the Liberal call to ban them -- to stand in the school door, to bar first nations issues in our schools -- have said that these are good materials, including the Surrey school board. Again the analogy with the civil rights movement. I remember when black history was opposed by segregationists, who did not want it taught in schools. There is no difference between that and those who would deny information on aboriginal culture, history, commerce and treaty-making as fit objects of study in British Columbia's schools.

Not only have aboriginal topics been absent from schools, as it has been from this Legislature, but education has too often been a force not of progress, as we see it, but of something that deeply damaged and destroyed aboriginal language and culture. Let's be clear about this: aboriginal education has had a shameful history in B.C. and in Canada. The experience of first nations in residential schools of the past has left a lasting and painful legacy for many families, a legacy that many first nations carry with them to this day. At best, residential schools were a place where missionaries and teachers who truly cared for aboriginal children thought they were helping them by removing them from their families, by forbidding them to speak their own language and by inculcating in them what they saw as a superior culture. That's the best that could be said for them. At worst, these were places of forced labour, abuse and rape. That was the education system.

In spite of the profound difficulties and hardships that first nations people faced in the education system of the past, it never ceases to inspire me that B.C.'s aboriginal people place the highest of priorities on the education of their children. And you know what they want to do? They want to manage the education of their own children, and that's what this treaty says they have a right to do. I welcome the debate with the members of the opposition when we get to the clause-by-clause discussion of this treaty on why they should not have that right. They will meet the educational standards of the province; they will ensure that their children have opportunities the same as those of others in British Columbia. Are the provisions identical to other communities and other school boards? No. Are they appropriate, fair and just? Yes, absolutely. I look forward to the debate.

I want to deal with a couple of the objections to this treaty that I've heard. One of the things that I've often heard is that we should seek equality. Well, I asked my learned colleague here, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, to hunt up a quote about equality that has much stuck in my mind. It was said by Anatole France, who said: "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets and to steal bread." I must say that that seems to be the approach of the members opposite to equality. They mean identical provisions, and no, this treaty does not have identical provisions. If we seek that, we will do a grave disservice to the Nisga'a nation or to any other first nations. But the provisions of this treaty are fair, they are just -- and they are badly needed.

I notice that I'm running short of time, so I want to just touch on a couple of other things. It is time for this action. More court challenges, calls for a referendum and further negotiation are not going to cut it. I was surprised to read in the pages of the Prince George Citizen last week that the member for Prince George-Omineca said that we ought not to rush this treaty. A hundred and eleven years of work, 20 years of negotiations, and we're rushing it?

An Hon. Member: The pace is scary.

Hon. P. Ramsey: The pace is scary.

Here's the Liberal timetable, as far as I can figure it out. First, we have to exhaust all possible court challenges and all possible rulings on those challenges. That should take five years. Then after we do that, I guess we probably need a referendum on the principles of treaty-making. That ought to take another couple of years. Then I guess we get back to the negotiating table and actually start discussions of what a treaty might look like. It took 20 years the last time; let's say that it takes only 15 years now. So somewhere around 2020, the Liberal timetable would indeed bring forward a treaty for negotiation and for ratification.

I don't buy it. Just before this bill was tabled last week, the Leader of the Opposition rose and expressed his profound concern and his apology to the first nations. But I say, we don't need to do that. What we need to do is to look at the positive aspects of this treaty and move forward with ratification of it.

The member for Matsqui is here. I remember being in the House last July 8, when he rose and stated we shouldn't do a referendum now: ". . .it would be unfair at this point to inject the referendum card into the ratification process involving the Nisga'a treaty. Those negotiations have been ongoing. To say at. . .the eleventh hour that it will now become a component of that ratification process would be, I think, unfair." I can't do justice to the delivery of the member for Matsqui, but I hope he recognizes his words. Not two months later than that -- in September of this year -- the member for Matsqui said in Terrace that we needed a referendum.

An Hon. Member: What happened?

Hon. P. Ramsey: What happened? Other than an overweening desire to attract every possible vote and explore every avenue for political opportunism. . . .

You know, I believe that every British Columbian has the right to form their own opinion about the treaty process and what it will mean for this province. When I talk to people in Prince George, they see it as a positive movement forward, in the right direction. They recognize -- as many members have spoken of in this chamber -- the economic certainty that treaty-making will bring. They recognize that the Nisga'a people will be part of the economy of the northwest, and they will bring their resources to enrich that economy.

We must end the decades of division that have gone before us and bring the Nisga'a into British Columbia. I spoke in my opening remarks of being moved by the Nisga'a people, their trip to Victoria and their presence here in the Legislature last week. And one of the things that brought tears to my eyes was to see the Nisga'a dancers in costume, and in every costume and attached to every drum was one of those small British Columbia flags.

The Nisga'a people do not see themselves as setting up a "gated community" where they slam the door in the face of

[ Page 10954 ]

When I heard the Leader of the Opposition express an apology to the first nations of British Columbia for the many years of oppression that they have suffered, I believe he meant the apology sincerely. But the timing could not have been worse, because at the same time as he was apologizing for the actions of past governments and Legislatures in British Columbia for the long series of laws and regulations and policies that have kept aboriginal people from participating fully in the economic and political life of this province, he was aligning himself with those governments and those Legislatures who have sat in this chamber for 100 years saying no to the aboriginal people of B.C. If his rejection of the Nisga'a treaty prevails in this Legislature and this province, then governments and legislators in generations to come will also be rising to apologize for the actions of this Legislature in 1998 in rejecting the Nisga'a treaty.

I'm not going to offer an apology today like many who have spoken to this debate, like many in the community I represent, Prince George, I'm a recent immigrant to the province. Compared to the history of the Nisga'a, with their thousands and thousands of years of living on and from this land, I am the newest of newcomers. Therefore I feel no personal sense of guilt for the many wrongs that have been done to the Nisga'a nation and other aboriginal peoples of B.C. since Europeans started exploring and settling in this land a couple of hundred years ago. No ancestor of mine surveyed postage-stamp reserves and sought to confine the Nisga'a there or brought all the epidemic illnesses of Europe to decimate their people or snatched their children away to residential schools or sought to turn the symbols of their culture and spirituality into museum curiosities. In short, no ancestors of mine sought to destroy them.

But I do feel a great sense of responsibility -- a responsibility to break with the past, not to perpetuate it; a responsibility to ensure that my children or their representatives will not have to apologize for our failure to endorse this treaty.

J. Wilson: It's an honour for me to stand in the House today and speak to the Nisga'a treaty. It is indeed a historic occasion, and it is very important that we get on with the process of treaty-making in this province. Equally or of more importance is the way the treaty-making process is carried out. The importance of getting this first treaty right cannot be overemphasized. Because it will become a template for the rest of the treaties to come -- another 50 or 60 -- without the support of British Columbians as a whole, the process will become a travesty. It will create irreparable damage in our province among our people, both aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike.

The Nisga'a have negotiated in good faith, and they have proven themselves to be very capable at negotiating. Their perseverance and persistence in staying at the table can only garner the respect of British Columbians. The Nisga'a sought to gain greater control of their destiny. They have accomplished this in good faith, through an open process with their people and through a vote, including all of their people who are eligible, to accept or reject what their negotiators were able to achieve at the table.

[5:00]

This treaty will become a template for further treaties -- another 50 or 60. The Premier has said it will be the ceiling as far as treaties go, and in the next breath, it is referred to as the floor. We all know that it will be the base. No one will accept less than their neighbours. How could the Premier imply that they will? This treaty will not create certainty or finality for British Columbians. You cannot expect anyone to bear the cost of these treaties forever. There has to be a light at the end of the tunnel. We must have equality among all people in this province. It is wrong to remove the democratic right of individuals to vote for a government or to run for office using ancestry and culture as the basis for eligibility.

British Columbians are going to be paying for this treaty for a long time. It is the responsibility of the government to ensure that they are affordable, workable and cost-effective. This Premier is playing down the cost to the province, and this action is unacceptable. They have in no way considered what the final cost will be and have no intention of doing so. The Premier said that it will be a $6 billion to $7 billion bill to settle all of the treaties in the province. In fact, we know that based on the Nisga'a template, the estimate will be in excess of $14 billion.

This government has already stated that treaty settlements in the lower mainland will be cash and no land. That's fine; things will go on as usual. There will be no job losses, just greatly increased taxes. However, what happens in the north and in the interior? The people there are going to bear a greatly disproportionate share of the cost of these treaties. Not only will they face the loss of their jobs but also of their investments and their life savings if they happen to be involved in any business related to the land base and resources. This is an extremely critical issue for the residents of the Cariboo, for the ranchers, the placer miners, the trappers, the guides and outfitters, the logging contractors, the employees of the contractors and all of those people who have indirect jobs that are related to these industries. The people in my riding of Cariboo North have expressed their fears of uncertainties and their skepticism of ever receiving fair treatment at the hands of this government.

This government has said it will give away 5 percent of the province to the treaty process. We know that most of that will come from our productive forest land, but I do not see where the government has calculated revenue loss for stumpage in any of their calculations. If you take 1997 levels of stumpage, this could well exceed $20 billion over the next 40 years in lost revenue to government.

Another cost which has never been examined is that of compensation. This is in addition to the direct cost of running the third order of government that we will see established. What will the cost of compensation be? This government has just not acknowledged that there is a compensation problem. They have addressed evergreen tenure to a degree, and now they're trying to deal with the contractors' problems. However, where does that leave the employees of the contractors? And where does it leave all the indirect jobs associated with this sector that are at risk? Where does it leave other tenure holders which may not be evergreen, such as range tenure, guides and outfitters, etc.?

[ Page 10955 ]

The federal negotiators stated in Williams Lake in October that compensation should be settled before a treaty is signed. It's becoming apparent that the Premier and this government are so intent on completing this treaty that they are prepared to accept it without doing any of the necessary groundwork first, and this could best be described as totally inadequate. All these guidelines should have been in place and costs established before the treaty was signed. This is typical NDP incompetence. My question is: why has this government even taken on the role of compensation, when it is the responsibility of the federal government? In fact, an agreement could have been made whereby compensation would fall as a federal responsibility. Considering the record of the NDP, it destroys any hope for fair compensation.

I'd like to take a moment and touch on what is the most disturbing aspect of this treaty -- the creation of a third order of government. This third order of government has power over both federal and provincial governments in 14 areas. This, in effect, ad hocs the constitution of Canada. My question: is it constitutional to amend the constitution indirectly when they have chosen not to do it directly? No matter what is said, once this treaty has passed, it will take an amending formula to change it, because it will be entrenched in the constitution. So if it takes an amending formula process to amend it, then it is in itself an amendment.

As I see it, hon. Speaker, the Premier, in his rush to finalize this treaty in the hope that it would halt his breakneck decline of popularity in the polls, took it upon himself to alter the constitution of Canada. He did not do this in the way set out by our constitution, using the amending formula provided; he chose to amend the constitution indirectly, because to do so directly would allow the people of British Columbia the opportunity to decide if they wanted the constitution changed. This would have been the ethical rather than the subversive approach to this problem.

This giving-away of powers by the province has been attempted before and was tested in the Nova Scotia Interdelegation case in 1951. The Supreme Court of Canada decided at that time that it's never been held that the Parliament of Canada or any of the legislatures can abdicate their powers. They said: "The constitution of Canada does not belong either to Parliament or to the legislatures; it belongs to the country, and it is there that the citizens of the country will find the protection of the rights to which they are entitled."

I agree with the courts that if the proposed treaty is allowed to amend the constitution through the back door, "the whole scheme of the Canadian constitution would be entirely defeated. Interdelegation between the national and provincial legislatures would have the effect of altering the basic scheme of Canadian federalism, and neither Parliament nor the legislatures are authorized by the constitution to make what in the court's opinion would be tantamount to ad hoc amendments to the division of powers."

In the Nova Scotia case, the Supreme Court demonstrated how fully committed it was to federalism as a basic principle of the Canadian constitution. The Premier has shown that he cares not for federalism or for the rights which the Supreme Court decided the people had to the constitution if it gets in the way of his own self-declared mandate. What is going on here with this Premier? It would appear that he has taken it upon himself to push this treaty down the throats of the people of this province. He has given himself the mandate, without the sovereign will of the people and due consideration of their rights. The Premier is so intent on taking credit for this treaty all by himself and turning it into a political issue that it has become an obsession. In February of this year he said he believed he had a mandate to settle the treaty. This did not come from the people; it was merely a figment of his imagination.

On April 18 the Sun announced that the Premier was going to launch a massive mailing campaign to reach every member of the public and that he would hold a provincewide debate before his government signs the agreement. The provincewide debate never materialized before the treaty was signed -- another broken promise; it's nothing new for the Premier.

On July 29 we got an indication of what really motivated the Premier, and that is politics. He called the treaty his treaty, and he claimed credit for it. This treaty belongs to all British Columbians, not to the Premier. The Premier, in his haste to speed up the treaty, ordered the acceleration of negotiations and then had the audacity to sign the treaty before it could be reviewed by TNAC, thereby preventing third-party input. So much for the consultative process. I would think that these actions by the Premier would be rather amusing to the Nisga'a, considering the number of politicians they have seen rise and fall during their long and tedious quest for a treaty.

[5:15]

This treaty is a very complex document, leaving 50 areas yet to be negotiated. This government is avoiding discussions on controversial issues and downplaying areas that are of major concern. There are a lot of contentious issues in this treaty. There are such things as ratchet clauses both in the taxation side agreement and in the agreement itself, which allow for renegotiation should a future aboriginal group get a better deal in their treaty. It was sold on things like removal of section 87 of the Indian Act in eight years, hon. Speaker. The income tax exemption will be gone in 12 years. There was no mention of the list of taxes that would never be paid or of the level of taxes that will be paid. The cost has deliberately been greatly understated.

Time and time again, the Premier and his government have expounded on the threat of litigation in an effort to gain support. And imagine this: "We are creating economic stability," they say. "The Nisga'a have settled for 8 percent of their traditional territory, and that is freeing up economic development in the other 92 percent." They haven't mentioned that most of that 92 percent is part of an adjacent land claim treaty process. That really is deception, on the part of the government, to the people of the province.

[ Page 10956 ]

Hon. D. Lovick: Mr. Speaker, seeing no further speakers, I would move adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Lovick: I would move adjournment of the House, advising members that we will sit tomorrow at 2 p.m.

Hon. D. Lovick moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:18 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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