[ Page 10957 ]

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. I. Waddell: Visiting the House today are three people who have greatly contributed to the arts in Canada and in British Columbia. M. Jean-Louis Roux was appointed chair of the Canada Council for the Arts in May of 1998. M. Roux established the Théâtre d'essai in Quebec, which became the Théâtre du Nouveau Monde, serving as its secretary-general and artistic director. He also served as director-general of the National Theatre School of Canada.

Secondly, I see my old friend, Dr. Shirley Thomson, who is the director of the Canada Council for the Arts. She has also served as director of the National Gallery of Canada, secretary-general of the Canadian Commission for UNESCO and the director of the McCord Museum in Montreal.

Finally, a man we can't miss up there is Max Wyman, the B.C. representative on the Canada Council for the Arts. He's a Vancouver writer and critic whose works include histories of the Royal Winnipeg Ballet and Dance Canada, a biography of Evelyn Hart and numerous magazine articles and scripts for radio, television and film. In 1986 he was named Man of the Year by the Vancouver Community Arts Council. Would the House please make our guests welcome.

R. Coleman: In the gallery today is His Worship John Scholtens, the mayor of the township of Langley, and his wife Fanny. John has served our community in public life for close to 20 years on various boards and on council as mayor for the last five years. Fanny and John are great contributors to the Fort Langley-Aldergrove riding and to the community of Langley, where they live. As a couple and as a family, they're great examples to us all. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. D. Miller: I'd ask the House to give a welcome to Mr. Frank Collison, from the village of Masset in the Queen Charlotte Islands -- or Haida Gwaii. Frank and I go back a long way. Over many, many years he's been one of the prominent leaders of the Haida community in Haida Gwaii.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: We have in the gallery today a former classmate of mine and a good friend, Gian Sihota, who hails from the ancestral village of the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin. Who knows? He may even be related to him. Mr. Sihota is a good New Democrat, a great friend and a great community activist. Would the House please welcome him.

B. Penner: Visiting us today from Chilliwack is the mayor of Chilliwack, John Les, and a councillor of the district of Chilliwack, Clint Hames. Would the House please make them welcome.

G. Janssen: Joining us today from the Musqueam nation are Nolan Charles and Jim Kew. I ask the House to make them welcome.

Hon. A. Petter: In the gallery today, from my constituency of Saanich South, are 16 grade 11 students from Trinity Christian School, along with their teacher, Mr. Snell, as well as accompanying parents, Mrs. Brenda Stuart and Mrs. Donna Cook. I would ask the House to please join me in making them very, very welcome.

S. Orcherton: Joining us in the gallery today is my constituency assistant, Mr. Jim Herring. Jim works very, very hard on behalf of the people in my constituency, helping them through difficulties. I know that he often wonders what it is that I do when I am here. I hope he enjoys listening to the banter and the debate of question period. Hopefully, he can make some sense of the questions by the members opposite.

T. Stevenson: Also in the gallery is my constituency assistant, Rick Barnes, who has come over for the day for some meetings with me. I would ask the House to make him welcome.

G. Campbell: I'd like to welcome to the gallery today the mayor of Castlegar, Mike O'Connor, and I hope everyone will make him welcome.

Oral Questions

EFFECT OF PROVINCIAL TAXES
ON B.C. WORKERS

Think of this, hon. Speaker. If you're a worker in White Rock earning the average take-home pay for British Columbians, you're receiving $16,000 less than if you work and get average pay just a stone's throw away in Blaine. My question is to the Minister of Employment and Investment. With that kind of difference in paycheques, how do you expect to keep B.C.'s workers and B.C.'s young people here at home in British Columbia?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The KPMG report that was out not too long ago showed that British Columbia is competitive with all the major jurisdictions that we compete with. My question to the Leader of the Opposition is: is he saying that he supports the prescription of the B.C. Business Council, which is tax breaks for the wealthiest 4 percent in this province and nothing for the middle class and the working class of this province? That's the prescription that he's advocating, hon. Speaker.

[2:15]

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, this is why this province is the only province in Canada that's in a recession. The fact of the matter is that if this minister and this government would listen to the facts and listen to the workers of British Columbia, they would know this: since 1992 the average take-home pay for B.C. workers is down 6 percent -- 6 percent lower. And there is only one reason it is down 6 percent. It's because this government brought in over $1.5 billion in taxes that B.C. taxpayers have got to pay year in and year out.

[ Page 10958 ]

Hon. M. Farnworth: B.C. workers pay the second-lowest taxes of any jurisdiction in this country. That member says it's not true, because the workers he represents are those earning over $100,000. What they're arguing for is tax breaks for the wealthiest 4 percent in this province. They never want to acknowledge that people in this province, ordinary British Columbians, pay the second-lowest taxes of any province in this nation.

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

G. Campbell: You know, hon. Speaker, the problem with this minister is that he has never created a job in his life. He knows how to destroy jobs for the workers of British Columbia, but he doesn't know how to create them. The fact is that the average B.C. worker's take-home pay has gone down 6 percent. Investment is fleeing the province. When will the Minister of Employment and this government bring in a dramatic personal income tax reduction for the workers of British Columbia? It's time to give our workers some hope, hon. Speaker. And the question to the minister is: will you act now so people can take better care of their families across this province?

Hon. M. Farnworth: There's a tax break coming in on January 1 of this year, which is for workers of this province, hon. Speaker. There have been taxes cut last year and the year before that. There have been small business tax cuts last year -- and this coming year. Workers in this province, the people we represent, pay the second-lowest taxes of any jurisdiction in the country. My question to the hon. Leader of the Opposition is: how many jobs did he create when he was a developer? Not too many, judging by his record. What he is promoting is a tax cut for the top 4 percent in this province. That's where their agenda is; it's an early Christmas gift for the wealthy and lumps of coal for everybody else.

G. Farrell-Collins: It's the Premier of this province who's the grinch who's stolen Christmas from families right across British Columbia. If they haven't lost their jobs in the forest sector and already moved to Alberta, they're making plans to move to Alberta, hon. Speaker. That's the history of this government.

Darcy Rezac of the board of trade said this morning that the only two places in North America that are in recession are British Columbia and Chiapas, Mexico.

Interjections.

G. Farrell-Collins: Now, I know the sympathy those members have for Chiapas, down in Mexico. But what they can't deny is the recession that's hitting British Columbians every single day. Will the Minister of Employment and Investment talk to his Finance minister and tell her what British Columbians want -- all British Columbians, whether they're working for $5 a year or $50,000 a year -- and that is a significant income tax cut, not the beer-and-pizza money they've been offered?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Hon. Speaker, 85,000 jobs have been created so far this year in this province -- the best rate in Canada. This opposition doesn't want to recognize that. This opposition only wants to work for the top 4 percent in this province. They don't care about the rest of the people in this province. They don't want to acknowledge that regular, ordinary working British Columbians already pay the second-lowest taxes of any jurisdiction in this country. They don't want to recognize that there's a tax cut coming, which will be in place on January 1. They don't want to recognize that taxes have been cut for small business in this province. They don't want to recognize any of that.

The Speaker: Opposition House Leader, first supplementary.

G. Farrell-Collins: I love it when ministers of this government stand up and tell British Columbians how great things are out there -- because British Columbians know differently. If the Minister of Employment and Investment would lean over and talk to the member from Prince George, he will know how the people in Prince George are hurting. All the statistics, all the rhetoric from the government don't add up to a hill of beans for the people that are leaving British Columbia.

My question is to the Minister of Employment and Investment. If everything is so good in British Columbia, if everything is so great for working families in British Columbia, why are tens of thousands of them leaving British Columbia for Alberta this year?

Hon. M. Farnworth: So far, 85,000 jobs have been created this year in this province -- in high-tech, in tourism, in film and television, right across the province. It's the best rate of job creation in the country. Unemployment has gone from 9.9 percent at the beginning of the year down to less than 8 percent -- the lowest rate since 1990.

All this opposition wants to do. . . . They do not wish to let British Columbians know that there are exciting things happening in parts of the economy in this province. All they want to focus on is doom and gloom. All they want to do is focus on negativity. We have a plan, and it's working. Unemployment is down. Unemployment in this province is down -- 85,000 new jobs created, and the second-lowest taxes of any province in this nation.

C. Clark: Just last week I was reading about a bright spot in the local economy. There is one business in Nanaimo that over the last two years has grown by 200 percent. But guess what: they're in the moving business. In the last year alone, Scotty Taylor and Michael Oleksiuc have moved 270 families out of just the Nanaimo area, and guess what: most of them have gone straight to Alberta.

Can the minister tell us this? If his government is doing such a good job of encouraging business in British Columbia, then why is the fastest-growing business in our province the moving-van business?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. A question has been asked. It's time to hear the answer.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The only moving that's going on is watching that member and Liberals in her caucus move over to the Reform position.

[ Page 10959 ]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order! Come to order, members.

Hon. M. Farnworth: A net increase of 85,000 jobs -- the best job creation record of any province in the nation. That speaks for itself. An unemployment rate that is two points lower than at the beginning of the year. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. M. Farnworth: That speaks for itself. A denial by this opposition to even recognize that we now have a diversified economy that is booming in the area of tourism, that is booming in film and television, that is booming in high-tech -- in part because of policies of this government, designed through our plan to ensure that that happens. . . .

The Speaker: Okay, wind up.

Hon. M. Farnworth: And a refusal to recognize that British Columbia families pay the second-lowest taxes of any province in the nation. . . .

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

I recognize the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain for the first supplementary.

C. Clark: There is a lot of moving going on in British Columbia. People are leaving this province, and they are moving to places where they can earn a buck, where their hard work translates into some money in their pockets. The business summit has told us that the largest single obstacle to job creation in British Columbia is the NDP's high taxes. But the response from the NDP to the report -- which came from the Education minister, of all people -- was simply to dismiss it.

Can the Employment minister tell us how he expects us to keep our skilled workers and our entrepreneurs in British Columbia when his NDP government has given us the highest tax rates in North America?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members! Members will come to order. Come to order, members. I recognize. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: A question has been asked; the answer is imminent.

An Hon. Member: Everybody's after your job.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Well, you ain't ever going to get over here to have it, hon. member.

The Speaker: Minister, minister.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Hon. Speaker, 85,000 new jobs created in the province; unemployment down 2 percent -- I find it amazing that the opposition doesn't want to acknowledge that. I find it amazing that they don't want to recognize that this province has the best job creation record of any province in the country. They don't want to recognize that companies such as Ericsson Communications moved their offices out of Alberta and here to British Columbia because they see British Columbia as the hub of high-tech over the next decade.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. M. Farnworth: There's a lot going on.

LOCATION OF B.C. FERRIES TERMINAL

I'm going to give the minister one chance. Will he stand up in this House today and apologize to the people of Nanaimo for bullying them and threatening them?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order.

Hon. D. Miller: All members know that I don't have it within me to threaten people.

But I certainly want to acknowledge that I was a bit heated yesterday, and I want to state for the record that we do not want to relocate the terminal. I was rather surprised to read a copy of the Nanaimo paper this morning and to learn that an alderman by the name of Blake McGuffie thinks it's a wonderful idea. He says that the city council will strongly support such a move, and they don't want the terminal in Nanaimo. So I am a bit perplexed.

Interjections.

The Speaker: That ends question period. Hon. members, come to order.

[2:30]

Tabling Documents

Orders of the Day

NISGA'A FINAL AGREEMENT ACT
(second reading continued)

[ Page 10960 ]

You know, you talk about process in terms of this Nisga'a agreement. We've had 111 years of process. When the Nisga'a people first came down to this Legislative Assembly 111 years ago, they were asking for process. They were asking for a mechanism that would allow them to be able to achieve some justice and some equity and some dignity for their people. They were asking for a process. We've put those people through a whole series of different levels and different kinds of processes.

So when I hear people talking about process, I really have to question where we're at. It is my view that it's time to get on with the task at hand, the task that the Nisga'a people have been arguing about and trying to achieve resolution on for the last 111 years. My sense, in talking to people in the community, is that they want us to move forward as a legislative body and deal with this issue, with the Nisga'a treaty-making process, and in fact move on across British Columbia to deal with other aboriginal people around the issues of finally resolving land questions, aboriginal rights and aboriginal treaties.

It's a pleasure for me today, really, to be here and speak in favour of this bill. I must say, though, to all the members of the House -- and I've said it to people in my community, as well -- that when I first became involved in the discussions and the debates around the Nisga'a agreement, the Nisga'a agreement-in-principle and subsequently the bill that we're debating, I had concerns.

Firstly, I had concerns about the legal arguments about why we were entering into these kinds of discussions, why we had been in the process for some time, what the legal context of those arguments was and what they were all about. I had concerns, because some people in the community and some in this House were arguing -- and some in this House continue to argue -- the issue of a referendum. I had concerns about that question and wasn't feeling comfortable about that issue. I had concerns, as well, about the agreement and how it portrayed self-government. I was wondering how that would work in terms of the Nisga'a people and what the relationships would be with the province of British Columbia, with the federal government and with other jurisdictions -- regional districts and the like. I had concerns around issues of taxation as well.

I'm pleased to say that I've had discussions with a number of people in the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, in the legal community and in different levels of bureaucracy in government, seeking out answers to those questions, which I believe are very important ones. Even today and in the last few days and, I predict, in the next few as well, we'll still be hearing people talk about those questions, people who haven't realized or recognized or come to the same conclusion that I have: that those questions are addressed in the treaty and are addressed in a substantive fashion.

I want to take a few minutes to touch on those points -- on the legal argument, the referendum issue, self-government, the justice system and taxation, because I think they're important points. They were important for me a number of months ago, important enough for me to go out and ask questions, so that I could get clarification and a sense of surety about where this agreement was leading -- in terms of the Nisga'a agreement -- and to make sure that I was representing the people in my constituency to the best of my ability by indeed asking those questions.

Let me say, firstly, on the legal arguments for treaty-making themselves, that there's a legal obligation to negotiate treaties, and that obligation is indeed compelling. In a nutshell, it comes down to the fact that aboriginal people were here first and had their lands taken away, and that is illegal under our system of law. It's true that all of these things occurred more than 100 years ago. But, you know, history has not erased that wrong. We have to deal with it. Otherwise, the courts are going to settle the issue for us, and they may do it at a much higher cost. Furthermore, there was no obligation to build in protections for non-aboriginal people in that previous system -- the obligations that we've dealt with and addressed in the Nisga'a treaty.

The Supreme Court of Canada was clear about the need to negotiate when it handed down its landmark ruling on Delgamuukw in December of 1997. It rejected the old contention that aboriginal title was extinguished when B.C. joined Confederation. The High Court signalled that it is prepared to rule that aboriginal people have the right to the exclusive use and occupation of their traditional lands, as long as they can prove that they occupied the lands at the time when Britain asserted its sovereignty. In other words, if first nations want to take their cases to court, judges are prepared to back them up.

But I believe, as other members in this House do, that treaty negotiation is a better option than the courts. Court cases by definition are adversarial. Judges decide who's right, and they decide who's wrong. Someone is always the loser in that system. It is far better, I think, to sit down and negotiate in good faith, so all parties can walk away as genuine winners. Furthermore, court cases typically decide one issue at a time, so it would take literally thousands of cases to reach the kind of comprehensive settlement that is before us today in this House. Imagine the costs not just in legal fees but in lost investment and jobs as B.C.'s land base continues to be under a cloud of economic uncertainty. And think of the costs in terms of the divisions in our society. They are divisions which would only deepen with each successive court case.

In my view, that, hon. Speaker, is the legal argument for negotiating a land claim settlement. I think it's important for members in this House to understand where we're coming from in terms of this bill and the legal argument. It was a question for me when I was considering this bill and gathering information on it on behalf of my constituents, and I hope that I've clarified my position regarding the legal argument issue.

Moving on, the next point is of concern to me and to people in my constituency, and it's been a concern raised by some members in this House in the context of the debate, the discussion, on Bill 51 -- that is, the issue around a referendum. Everyone in this House knows that the B.C. Liberal Party has launched a lawsuit that claims that the provisions of the treaty establish a new branch of government that's not provided for in the constitution. They say -- their argument goes along this line -- that if a new form of government is to be added, the constitution must be amended, thus triggering British Columbia's referendum law. I think, upon review, that the problem with this argument is that our constitutional laws were never

[ Page 10961 ]

By way of a startling example -- and I see I've caught the attention of some of the members opposite -- the constitution is utterly silent on the office of the Prime Minister. Does that mean that we have to rush into a referendum mode to deal with the office of the Prime Minister? I don't think so. Municipal governments are not mentioned either. Does that mean that we suddenly have to have referendums in British Columbia to deal with municipal governments? Nor is the Department of Indian Affairs, and all members of the House know that that has had a very vibrant and a very expensive existence since the last century, with its minister using powers vested in him by the Indian Act to reign over the 3 percent or so of Canadians who are aboriginal. The minister and the act govern every feature of what Supreme Court Chief Justice Antonio Lamer characterized in the Delgamuukw decision as "Indian-ness," or the "core of Indian-ness."

To listen to some of the commentary, you'd think that the Nisga'a were setting up their own country. But I think that what's happening here is that the Nisga'a are essentially going to gain self-governing rights in the treaty as an assumption, because of their jurisdiction over their lands. What they give us in return on that issue -- and members should listen, I think -- is the acceptance of the primacy of the constitution, the acceptance of our appellate courts of law, the acceptance of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms over every law or policy that they make and the abandonment of any future claims on these questions. In any case, for any non-Nisga'as affected by the decision of their governing institutions, the treaty provides for them to be given voting and membership rights in those institutions affecting them.

While there are those who talk about referendums on these questions, I think that those issues will be dealt with in the fullness of time. I think they'll be dealt with in a proper and appropriate fashion. If I may say so, arguing for a referendum on this question is really, in my mind, like taking a collective agreement -- let's say the collective agreement with the B.C. Government and Service Employees Union -- and saying that every individual in British Columbia has to vote on acceptance or rejection of that agreement. In my view, that is just a haywire way to move on those kinds of things, and it's equally haywire to argue for a referendum on these kinds of questions.

I want to move on now to the issue of self-government -- what that means, and some of the concerns that I had. Hopefully, by making my viewpoints known, it will give some sense of surety and clarity to some of the members who still have these questions in their minds. It's my view that the Nisga'a treaty strikes a fair and workable balance between existing federal and provincial laws and the modern-day reality of aboriginal self-government. For the most part, Nisga'a government powers are similar to municipal powers. The only exceptions that I could find are in areas integral to the Nisga'a culture, internal to their community or necessary to manage their own lands and resources. But these are essential because the treaty's central purpose is to support the Nisga'a people, so they can manage their own affairs, so they can rebuild their communities and become self-reliant -- goals that I have even heard the members opposite support.

Before I go on, I want to take a moment to address an issue underlying much of the criticism we've heard about the Nisga'a treaty. They don't always come right out and say it, but critics would have you believe that any powers given to the Nisga'a somehow take away power from non-Nisga'a citizens. That's what they want you to believe: that it takes away power from non-Nisga'a citizens. For the record, I just want to say that that's wrong; it is not true. Even worse, those kinds of statements, in my view, are irresponsible and tantamount to scaremongering.

[2:45]

That's what I'd like to do for the next few minutes. I want to discuss those areas where Nisga'a laws are paramount and tell you why negotiators agreed to make them so and tell you why I feel comfortable with that occurring.

The first area involves matters internal to the Nisga'a community and integral to Nisga'a culture. Under the treaty, the Nisga'a have the authority to manage, administer and operate their own government, their public institutions and their villages. What could possibly be more internal to their community? It is absolutely internal to their community. If Nisga'a laws do not have paramountcy in these areas, B.C. or Canada could unilaterally devolve Nisga'a institutions or Nisga'a villages. What possible purpose would that serve? It would be the equivalent of this assembly deciding on its own volition that the city of Victoria should cease to exist -- or maybe we should just call it something else. I can't honestly imagine why anyone would want the right to overrule the Nisga'a in this particular area. It doesn't make sense.

Citizenship, language, education and culture get similar treatment under the treaty. Let me say that we don't have too far to look to see what happens when federal or provincial laws are paramount in these areas. What we all know about residential schools. . . . I heard the member for Alberni talking yesterday, I think it was, about his experience with his community and residential schools, and it was very moving. What occurred there was very, very shameful. We all know about the residential schools, where the Nisga'a children were beaten or intimidated and chained if they dared to speak their own language or practise their own culture. We all know about that. It wasn't long ago that federal law banned the potlatch, the central spiritual and social institution of Nisga'a culture. For many years Nisga'a people couldn't even dance without permission from federal bureaucrats.

I have to ask the members opposite: is that the kind of power they want? Is that the control that's required in an aboriginal treaty of this nature? Is that the thing that's going to provide resolution to the Nisga'a issue and provide comfort to people who've gone through those kinds of situations? I don't think so. Is that what they're getting at when they say it's wrong for Nisga'a laws to be paramount in any area? Why do they insist that the federal and provincial laws must take precedence in every single area? Why do they want the right to suppress Nisga'a culture or for that matter, to dictate how

[ Page 10962 ]

Hon. Speaker, for thousands of years before the arrival of European settlers, the Nisga'a people lived in what we now call the Nass Valley. No one disputes their age-old ties to the land, but many British Columbians have only a vague understanding of how the Nisga'a governed themselves. Until recently, a few months ago, I was one of those British Columbians as well; I didn't understand how the Nisga'a had governed themselves.

Let me share with you some of the things I have learned on this matter. The Nisga'a followed a strict set of ancient laws called ayuuk Nisga'a. These laws covered the same fundamental issues addressed by societies worldwide, including civil order, property ownership and social issues such as the distribution of wealth. Just as their lands were never sold or signed away in treaties, their system of government was never surrendered. Just as we've had a legal and moral duty to reconcile aboriginal rights to land with today's modern realities, so too must we reconcile existing federal and provincial laws with the modern reality of aboriginal self-government.

That's what this treaty is about; that's what this treaty does. It strikes a fair and workable balance. It gives the Nisga'a the authority to manage their own affairs within the framework -- and listen, members -- of the constitution, the Charter of Rights and existing federal and provincial laws. The vast majority of the Nisga'as' powers will pertain to local matters and will affect only Nisga'a citizens. In other words, the Nisga'a will have many of the same powers that municipalities have, or have had, in various parts of Canada. The only exceptions are in the areas internal to their community, integral to their culture or necessary to manage their own lands and resources.

Before I go on, I want to stress that the Nisga'a government is appropriate to their circumstance. The powers it has under the treaty are reasonable and necessary for governing a remote, self-contained community. These provisions are not necessarily transferable to other first nations in treaty negotiations, especially those in urban areas. Every community is unique, and every treaty will be different, reflecting and respecting local needs and realities. In the case of the Nisga'a treaty, local needs demand powers beyond those available under the Municipal Act for a number of very logical reasons. First, unlike municipalities, the Nisga'a will own the land they govern. In order to make use of that land and become more self-reliant, they must have jurisdiction over land-based resources, something that cannot be achieved under the Municipal Act.

Second, the Nisga'a will have the right to manage their own affairs, including making laws and setting standards in areas directly affecting their culture, like adoption, marriage, language and education. Nisga'a law will have to meet standards comparable to those in provincial and federal legislation. At the same time, some of their laws are paramount to help ensure that they have the flexibility to organize and deliver services in a way that meets the needs of their community. Nisga'a government powers will in no way diminish federal or provincial powers. The constitution, the Charter of Rights, criminal law and other laws of B.C. and Canada will continue to apply to the Nisga'a. As I mentioned earlier, where new laws they pass set important standards, they will have to meet or beat those in existing federal or provincial laws. The Nisga'a government will have no exclusive power.

I'd like to take a moment now just to address some of the concerns I've heard that the treaty creates a new, race-based government. The truth is that the Nisga'a treaty does exactly the opposite; it ends race-based government. It ends it by abolishing the Indian Act on Nisga'a lands. For generations, the act has set aboriginal people apart from the rest of British Columbia and Canada. It set them apart physically on Indian reserves, the same reserves in Canada that the South African government officials -- and listen, members -- studied when they were setting up the famous apartheid system. The Indian Act and other federal and provincial laws have also set aboriginal people apart socially, economically and legally, and they deprived them of even their fundamental right to vote until the 1960s.

At the same time, we talk about status Indians. Under the current system, status Indians are exempt from most taxes in many B.C. laws, including those that govern resource management and environmental protection. Furthermore, the Indian Act provides no significant rights for non-aboriginal people who live on reserves. Those issues and those situations will be corrected, because this treaty ensures that these non-Nisga'a residents will be consulted about any Nisga'a government decisions that affect them. They'll also have the right to participate fully in any Nisga'a government institution that affects them, such as school or hospital boards. If they disagree with Nisga'a government decisions that affect them, they can appeal, using a review process that's built right into the treaty. If necessary -- and the members opposite should listen here -- that process can go all the way to the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

Furthermore, the province can use the treaty's dispute resolution process to intervene on behalf of non-Nisga'a people if it feels that their rights have not been respected by the Nisga'a government. And, of course, their rights will be protected under the Charter of Rights and the constitution.

This is a good example of what we mean when we say that the Nisga'a treaty is fair, balanced, and works for all British Columbians. Nisga'a people have fundamental rights that must be addressed, and the treaty honours those rights while at the same time maintaining the integrity of existing federal and provincial laws. It doesn't create, as some critics say, a third order of government, and it doesn't take anything away from non-Nisga'as. It represents the best possible balance of rights and interests, to the benefit of all British Columbians -- Nisga'a and everyone who lives in British Columbia.

When I discovered the history of Nisga'a people and their government on the question of self-government, on which I had some concerns, I felt much more secure in terms of my position around these kinds of questions.

I want to move on now to another concern, one that I needed to have addressed before I could rise to speak in support this bill. That was the question of the justice system and the administration of justice as laid out in the context of this treaty. I want to say that for thousands of years before the arrival of European settlers, the Nisga'a people governed their own society and their own communities. They lived, as I said earlier, according to ayuuk Nisga'a, their own set of laws. And they took responsibility for ensuring that those laws were upheld.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Under the Nisga'a treaty, the Nisga'as will regain the right to police their own communities, this time in accordance with the B.C. Police Act. They will have the option of contracting with the RCMP, who currently have the authority for

[ Page 10963 ]

Just like municipal forces, a Nisga'a police force would have to meet provincial standards in areas such as certification, public complaints, discipline and the use of force, and it would be accountable in all of the same ways as any other B.C. police force. Similar checks and balances would be in effect if the Nisga'as establish their own court. The court would have to satisfy a list of conditions and would need specific approval from the B.C. Attorney General. It would have jurisdiction only in cases involving Nisga'a law. That's what the treaty says.

Existing standards would have to be met in areas such as independence, impartiality and judicial fairness. Judges will be supervised by the Judicial Council of British Columbia in terms of the justice system and the judicial system laid out in this treaty. It's very important that any decision from Nisga'a court -- and this is in the treaty -- could be appealed to the Supreme Court of British Columbia. And any accused facing a possible jail term would have the right to be tried in Provincial Court instead of Nisga'a court.

Along with the court and policing power, the treaty gives the Nisga'a the right to provide community-based services such as bail, probation and sentencing supervision within Nisga'a land. The treaty does not allow the Nisga'as to establish their own prisons. It ensures that major crimes will remain in the jurisdiction of the federal and provincial governments. It also ensures that the fundamental principles of justice that apply across this country will continue to apply. The legal rights of all Canadians are protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and there is no difference in the situation in terms of this agreement and how that is applied to the Nisga'a people throughout this treaty process. The legal rights of all Canadians -- Nisga'as, British Columbians, everyone in Canada -- are protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Every one of us is guaranteed the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure, the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned, the right to retain and instruct counsel without delay if arrested and the right not to be subject to cruel or unusual punishment.

[3:00]

As I said, I had questions about the justice system in terms of this treaty and how that was going to be implemented and impact on the Nisga'a, British Columbia and Canada. Through some investigation -- by looking into these situations and asking questions -- I feel absolutely comfortable that the treaty addresses all of the concerns that I had in this regard.

Another point I wanted to raise that was of concern to me -- and it's been quite topical, actually, in the debate and the discussion coming from the members opposite -- is the issue around taxation. I think, really, that when you look at this question, there is one reason why the Nisga'a treaty is of such historic importance, and that is because it marks the beginning of the end of the Indian Act in British Columbia.

When you think about the Indian Act and what it has done to aboriginal people in this province, it really is shameful. The poverty, the economic instability and the injustices that have been put on people who live under a reserve system are really quite shameful. But let me say very clearly: these are not the shames that should be borne by the aboriginal people of British Columbia or the Nisga'a people. These are shames that should be borne by us. It is us -- it is the Canadian government, through the Indian Act; it is all of us who have supported that system -- who I think really bear the brunt of that shame. I think this treaty goes a long way for us to be able to face that shame and deal with it and move on in a responsible fashion.

There has been a broad agreement with people across the country that the Indian Act has failed -- and failed miserably. It's bureaucratic, it's obscenely expensive, and worst of all, over the years it has done more harm than good to the very people it has purported to help.

Deputy Speaker: Your time has expired, member.

S. Orcherton: Thank you for the opportunity to make my remarks, hon. Speaker. I was hoping for a little bit more time to deal with the issue of taxation, but I hope that other members will be able to address those questions and deal with them. I think the taxation question is an important issue.

Hon. J. Kwan: It is indeed an honour and privilege to rise in the House today to debate what I would say is the most important issue that I have faced as a member of the Legislature -- that is, Bill 51, the Nisga'a treaty. To begin the debate, I'd like to offer a story, a story that was told to me by a constituent of mine in Vancouver-Mount Pleasant. I believe the story reflects, in a short way, what the land title question that we're debating is about. The story goes like this.

Once upon a time, a long time ago, there was a bench. This bench sat on this vast land, this beautiful land that we now call British Columbia. The people that occupied this bench were aboriginal people, people who lived on this land. Over the years, people came to visit this land. These visitors -- Europeans -- came to this land, and they wanted to have a seat on this bench. The aboriginal people were gracious in their nature, and they moved over to share the bench and invited their guests to come and take a seat. Many years have passed since that time, and more and more visitors came. But lo and behold, the visitors didn't want to leave. In fact, not only did they not want to leave, they wanted the whole bench; they wanted to occupy the entire bench. Over time, what they did was keep on moving over. The aboriginal people moved over to make more room for their visitors, until one day they found themselves falling off the bench. The Nisga'a treaty is about the aboriginal people wanting back a seat on this bench, which they occupied prior to the visitors coming. I tell this story because I think it puts in simple terms what this issue is all about.

I have heard from many members -- some members opposite, in fact -- that the issue around the land title question, the issue around self-government for the Nisga'a people. . . . That is something they would say is unproven and untested; they would suggest that there is a question

[ Page 10964 ]

The Nisga'a people have actually lived in what we now know as the Nass Valley for many thousands of years. Their oral history, passed down through generations, tells of a thriving, vibrant nation, rich in its culture, sustained by the bounty of the rivers, the sea, the forests and the mountains. The Nisga'a lived in settled villages, governing themselves according to their own strict set of ancient laws of property ownership, succession and civil order. Far from being savages, as some people believed, they lived in homes described by early Hudson's Bay traders as the equal of any in Europe. They saw themselves as guardians and protectors of the land. Before the arrival of the European settlers, the Nisga'a people lived a life characterized by peace, stability and prosperity.

I'm not suggesting that their existence was perfect; I'm simply suggesting that their existence was just like anybody else's. As with all people, sometimes we argue, sometimes we fight, and sometimes we have disagreements. Sometimes we fail to sustain ourselves because of the limitations of the resources that are out there. But people had laws which they lived by, and they dealt with those issues in their own way. The Nisga'a people's laws were not like our laws, in that they were not enforced by jail or by police; rather, they worked on the basis of mutual agreement, a code of honour built on the principles of respect and consent. This untested, unproven form of self-government, as the opposition leader implies, was the way in which the Nisga'a people governed themselves prior to the arrival of the European settlers. The principles of honour, respect and consent might perhaps be foreign to the member opposite, but that was the way in which the Nisga'a people governed themselves.

I would say that to suggest that the Nisga'a form of government is unproven and untested is very, very offensive -- offensive in the extreme -- especially in light of what we now know in terms of the history of the implication of these laws on aboriginal people. I would remind the opposition leader that it was the non-aboriginal people who did not honour the commitment made in the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which officially recognized aboriginal ownership of and title to traditional lands under British law.

It was the non-aboriginals that did not honour the promise that native lands would not be taken from them without permission. It was the non-aboriginals that took away the aboriginal people's right to vote in elections. It was the non-aboriginals that took away the Nisga'as' right to practise the central institution of the Nisga'a tribal government, the potlatch, which for countless generations served as a means of not only governing their people but also redistributing wealth from the richest to the poorest. That concept, perhaps, is also foreign to the members opposite.

It was the non-aboriginals that disallowed the Nisga'a the right to sing and to dance without the permission of some bureaucrat in Ottawa. It was non-aboriginal legislators in 1887 that refused entrance to this Legislature to a delegation of Nisga'a chiefs who had paddled here in their canoes, seeking to negotiate in a peaceful manner and to settle the land claim question. It was the non-aboriginals that passed a law that made it illegal for aboriginal people to hire lawyers to represent them on the land title question. It was the non-aboriginals that made it illegal for three or four aboriginal people to gather together to discuss the land title question.

It was the non-aboriginal people who took the aboriginal people's children away from them. Why? All because they were aboriginal. Sometimes the children in the residential schools -- and we've all heard stories -- had been humiliated. They'd been abused physically, sexually, mentally -- any way you can imagine -- all because they were aboriginal. That history is a result of the belief that somehow non-aboriginals are more superior than the aboriginal people.

The decimation of the Nisga'a people is not a result of their own laws; it is not a result of their self-governance approach. It is a result of our form of government, this so-called proven form of government. It is, I would submit, a result of our paternalistic approach, which I'm sad to see and sad to note still exists today in this chamber, with some members in this House. This century-old paternalism has been rampant in this country on the part of non-aboriginals in their treatment of the aboriginal people.

It is this treatment under our own Canadian laws and policies that has been largely responsible for the fact that infant mortality rates are more than twice the national average for the aboriginal community and unemployment rates are as high as 80 percent. Half the adult incomes under $10,000 are within the aboriginal people. The life expectancy is seven years shorter than the national average. Fully half of all aboriginal children live in poverty. Only one in three graduates from high school; one in ten applies for university. Suicide rates, violence, overdoses and drug abuse are all causes of death, suffering and pain in the aboriginal community. Those things resulted from our laws and our refusal to recognize and practise our own laws.

Hon. Speaker, it is not the untested or unproven laws of the Nisga'a people that produced these statistics; it is the proven laws of the non-aboriginal people that produced them. We're now faced with a choice -- a choice to say, with meaning, that we were simply wrong, a choice to say, with meaning, that we will no longer treat and believe that the Nisga'a way of life and form of government is somehow inferior to ours or that it is somehow less valid and less appropriate.

It is time for us to honour and recognize the Nisga'a people's history, the history in time, their time-honoured traditions and culture, their system of self-government. It is time for us as legislators in this House, representing the people that duly elected us to do this job, to simply follow the process that was established for us many years ago, laws which we have set out that say very simply that we have a responsibility to settle the land claims issue.

From the earliest days of the presence of the British Crown in the North America, there was a policy which was established, in the Royal Proclamation of 1763 by King George III, that recognized aboriginal people as nations or tribes and acknowledged that they would continue to possess traditional territories until they are ceded to or purchased by the Crown. This is what we said we would do, which we have never done since that time. It is time for us to move forward onto a new journey, to say that we will honour that process. We will honour our own laws as the aboriginal people themselves have honoured. . . . They have not only honoured their own laws, but they also honoured what we had imposed on them as well. They sought the question of land claims, land title, peacefully over 111 years.

[ Page 10965 ]

[3:15]

Through that whole process, we agreed that we would simply ratify it in the House, that we would not hold a referendum on this matter. Yet somehow throughout the process, as we concluded the process and even as we brought the matter to an election in 1996, even though the members opposite agreed that this is the appropriate process to follow, they then changed their minds. In any other community, when you enter into negotiations with somebody -- in the business community, let's say -- and at the end of those negotiations you decide: "No, the terms in which we agreed on. . . . We have now changed the rules; we don't want to play with those rules anymore. . . ." If you had done that in any other community, that would be acknowledged and seen and recognized as negotiations in bad faith. Nobody would dare to dream or think about embarking on that road. But somehow it is okay for the members opposite to say that it is an acceptable practice to betray and to violate those terms, only because it is for the aboriginal community. That is unacceptable.

To bring passage of Bill 51, the Nisga'a treaty, we would in fact see the completion of a circle, I would say -- something coming to full circle. That is to say that the Nisga'a people are returning to their rightful place in history to be owners of their own land, to make their own laws, to speak their own language, to sing their songs and dance in their own tradition, to practise their own culture, to be treated as equals -- as we all sought to be treated as equals -- and to be fully recognized as a legitimate component of this community. So it is vitally important that we've recognized those principles and what those principles are.

I want to turn now to speak on another issue that I would say is pertinent to the debate of the Nisga'a treaty. That is, I would say, the misguided assertion that recognizing Nisga'as' right to self-government is somehow creating a third order of government or a race-based government. Let me start with the Charter question. Let me actually quote the Charter, because sections 35(1) and 35(3) of the Canadian constitution state as follows. It is titled "Rights of the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada." Section 35(1) states: "The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed." Section 35(3) states: "For greater certainty, in subsection (1) 'treaty rights' includes rights that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired."

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Self-government is a component which was negotiated through the treaty process, a treaty process that is recognized within our own constitution as a valid way in which to deal with the land title question. Just as the aboriginal people's lands were never sold or signed away in treaties, so too were their systems of government never surrendered. And just as we have a legal and moral duty to reconcile aboriginal rights to land with today's modern treaties, so too must we reconcile existing federal and provincial laws with the modern reality of aboriginal self-government. That's what the treaty is about, and it strikes a balance to make it workable to ensure that we recognize the history of the past and the legacy that existed before us, before our arrival on this land -- the rights of the aboriginal people.

It gives the Nisga'a authority to manage their own affairs within the framework of our own laws, because that is the Nisga'a people's way. Not only will they respect their own laws, but they will respect ours as well. That's what they have done over 111 years. It is us who have not given that respect back to them; it is us who have not honoured what we said we would do. It is time for us to honour that process; it is time for us to honour our own laws, and that's what the treaty is about.

Hon. Speaker, I see that I only have about five minutes or so left, and I would now like to take the opportunity, in the tradition of this House, to actually debate this matter, in a short time frame within my allocated time, in Cantonese, the language that I was blessed with when I was born. Members of the House will see on their desks a copy of what I'm going to say in Cantonese translated for them.

[As a Chinese Canadian, I believe the debate today is a very important one. The struggles of the Nisga'a people and the Chinese community are similar.

In 1887, the same year that a delegation of Nisga'a chiefs was turned away on the steps of the British Columbia Legislature by the Premier of the time, there was an anti-Chinese riot in Vancouver. That year both the Nisga'a and Chinese Canadians learned the same lesson: that we were not welcome here.

At the time of the riot, Canadians of Chinese ancestry couldn't vote at the municipal, provincial or federal level. They couldn't practise as lawyers or accountants. Unlike any other group, Chinese immigrants coming to Canada had to pay a special head tax. When the head tax was first imposed in 1885, it was $50. It then rose to $500. And then the Chinese Immigration Act was imposed. It is only in the last 50 years that Chinese Canadians have gradually gained their full rights. Therefore we have great sympathy for the Nisga'a people.

For the Nisga'a, their situation has been even more deplorable. We put their children into residential schools. Their life expentancy is lower. They have a higher unemployment rate and the suicide rate among youth is higher.

I believe this is an important debate. I hope that the Chinese community and other multicultural communities can support the Nisga'a debate and allow all communities to obtain the same development opportunities.]

[Translation of speech provided by Hon. J. Kwan.]

Hon. Speaker, we have to remind ourselves that the basis on which and the principles on which we have to operate have to be based on the question of equality and justice. There is no other issue I can think of that equates to the magnitude of this principle and the need for the application of this principle in the Nisga'a debate. When we visit the history of the aboriginal people, when we visit the Nisga'a people's history and the way in which their communities were

[ Page 10966 ]

I would also say that we have a free vote in this House. I would challenge the members opposite, particularly those whom I know are true federal Liberals, on where they are on this issue. The Liberal opposition leader said that they will search their hearts. Well, then I ask all the members across the way to search their hearts and to stand up and do the right thing. It is critically important that we don't hide behind some veiled fence, some screen, and say: "I don't know what this means; I don't know what that means. I don't have those questions answered, so therefore I cannot support this treaty."

It is not acceptable to pretend that ignorance is somehow a valid defence. It is not a valid defence, because any member in this House can simply pick up the phone. If they don't trust the provincial negotiators, phone their federal cousins who are negotiators. Ask them those questions; get the answers for themselves. Find out what the facts are. Read the treaty document and come to understand what the document means and what its ramifications are. It is not acceptable to say: "We cannot support this treaty because we don't understand what it means." It is important that we take the leadership role and do what we said we would do.

The treaty is about equality. It is about justice, it is about hope, and it is about freedom. It is about the dreams of tomorrow. It is about legitimacy. It is about economic stability. It is about pride. We as British Columbians stand for these principles, and that's what we must now do: rise above the politics, come to the table and move forward on this new journey.

I don't know how many members are aware, but they should know that when South Africans were studying the system of apartheid, they actually came over here and studied the Indian reserves. They came here and looked to see how apartheid actually works -- here, in our own country. That's what we have in place; that's what we've got to end. We all -- many of us -- spoke up against apartheid. Why can't we speak up against apartheid here in British Columbia -- to say it is time to end the Indian Act, that it is time to stop the segregation and the treatment of the aboriginal people in the manner in which they have been treated over the last hundred years?

The Nisga'a people last week. . . . We have seen the way in which they have handled themselves. We went through a very emotional week. Over the last 111 years, I would say, they have demonstrated a model of strength, endurance, determination, patience, integrity, fairness and, most important of all, faith. Despite the laws that were ours, which we did not obey. . . . Despite the fact that we inflicted all kinds of pains and injustices on them, they still had faith to say that they must follow the laws of the European communities, that they must follow the laws that exist now and not violate that -- 111 years later. They want to actually go to the table and continue going to the table, even though when they came to the front steps of this Legislature, they had been turned away without even being allowed to come into the building. They kept the faith and believed that equality and justice would one day prevail.

[3:30]

K. Whittred: It is an honour to rise in this Legislature to speak on the Nisga'a treaty. I am pleased that so many of the Nisga'a themselves were able to journey to Victoria and witness portions of this debate firsthand. I share with many of my colleagues the feeling that we are participating in a special moment in history. This treaty, so many years in the making, is of enormous importance to all of us who make our homes in this magnificent province. But for the Nisga'a people, it must feel like being nearly at the end of a very long journey on a very bumpy road.

The Nisga'a people have every right to feel a tremendous sense of accomplishment and pride, particularly in their leaders -- leaders like Chief Gosnell, Frank Calder and others before them who, for more than 100 years, travelled that bumpy road on behalf of their people. This journey, which started so many years ago, has taken the Nisga'a leaders to Victoria, Ottawa and London, with numerous detours through the courts. Surely there must have been many times when they felt that for every mile gained, a detour was thrown up that sent them five miles back. But they never wavered. The Nisga'a and their leaders never lost focus.

The story of this journey and the perseverance of the Nisga'a people is one reason why it is so important to get this treaty right. I do not want my grandchildren or another generation of Nisga'a children to study from history books that list the Nisga'a treaty of 1998 as one more event in a continuing saga in an ongoing chapter entitled "Land Claims." I want my grandchildren and the grandchildren of all Nisga'a grandparents to learn that the Nisga'a treaty of 1998 did indeed usher in an era of renewed understanding for all British Columbians. I hope that the textbooks for Nisga'a children studying in the Nass Valley and the textbooks of children in North Vancouver agree that the principles embodied in the Nisga'a treaty of 1998 reconciled the rights of first nations people with our shared values as Canadians within the framework of our Canadian constitution and laws.

Twenty years down the road, if one group of children learn that this agreement was a great achievement, while another group of children learn that it created a whole host of new problems, then we will have failed as legislators. Twenty years down the road, if the subject of aboriginal treaties is still before this Legislature, then we will have failed. I will have failed as a legislator if I do not enter into this debate those aspects of the treaty which are of grave concern to me.

Much of the symbolism surrounding the events of the past few days has involved the Nisga'a celebrating their culture and history. The pageantry that has enriched us all has been about them celebrating and listening to their history.

As Canadians and British Columbians, we also have a history that we must listen to. A look back in time to the turn of the last century reminds us that aboriginal people, along

[ Page 10967 ]

Women were the first of this group to achieve suffrage -- extended to them in 1917. In Quebec, however, women had to wait until 1940. The franchise was extended to all other groups between 1947 and '52. The Nisga'a regained the right to vote, along with all other aboriginal peoples, in 1949, the same year that Frank Calder was elected to the Legislature. The vote was finally extended to Doukhobors, and the voting age lowered to 19, in 1952.

This little sketch of who could or could not vote reminds us that 80 years ago, democracy in Canada really meant that fewer than half the citizens could actually vote. But it also reminds us that democracy is fluid; it reminds us that there has been progress. It has in fact been 68 years since the vote was taken away from anyone; it has been 68 years, in this province, since anyone was disenfranchised. British Columbians being denied the vote for any reason is something that most young British Columbians think happened only in the olden days.

If we do not learn from the collective struggles of these British Columbians, including aboriginal, who fought for the right to vote, then surely they struggled in vain. I cannot think of a single, solitary instance anywhere inside or outside of Canada when any good, any enduring principle or any lasting human value has come from a government that determined who could vote on the basis of ethnicity, colour, class, wealth or gender. Surely this first modern treaty should not deny any Canadian the most basic of rights: the right to vote. That is what this treaty does.

Non-Nisga'a living on Nisga'a lands cannot vote for their lisims or their village government. There is, I believe, a great irony here. A non-Nisga'a living on Nisga'a land can neither vote nor hold office for a government that can pass legislation directly impacting his life, while a Nisga'a living in Vancouver can vote for a representative of that same government. This troublesome aspect of the treaty, which is at odds with the most fundamental of our rights -- the right to vote -- is explained away by comparing it to a strata council. The principle of universal suffrage is reduced to comparison with a strata council. Surely this doesn't warrant serious debate.

One of the truly enriching experiences of my life was an opportunity to be part of a research project called Facing History and Ourselves. Funded by the American government and centred in Brookline, Massachusetts, the main goal of this organization was to develop curriculum and teaching resources to enable classroom teachers to effectively address issues around things like systemic poverty, discrimination, Holocaust education and racial issues. During approximately ten years of involvement with this project, I was left with an overriding concern. In the collection and development of teaching and learning resources, I was embarrassed and dismayed to discover how many were from my country. Canada and British Columbia provided a rich harvest of material for this project. Several of the case studies that were collected focused on aboriginal issues, including the awful story of Canada's residential schools. I do not want anything to emerge from this treaty to provide more fodder for this project.

I believe that the Nisga'a treaty's failure to embrace the basic, universal and Canadian principle of the right to vote and the possibility that this may be repeated in the 50 or so remaining treaties is a flaw that will haunt this treaty forever.

Another glance back in time reminds me of the events surrounding the Charlottetown accord. The legacy of Charlottetown, I think, is that governments cannot always depend on citizens to support their projects, no matter how well thought out they think they are, and that governments had better consult with the people by referendum on anything so far-reaching in its scope that it fundamentally changes the way we govern ourselves. Charlottetown and the political climate created by the Quebec referendums have forever changed the notion that governments can initiate far-reaching, fundamental change on matters of such scale without direct consultation in the form of a referendum. The Nisga'a treaty embodies principles of such magnitude.

I very much support the principle of self-government and believe that the Nisga'a should have self-government, in the same way that any municipality, school district or regional health board exercises government in its jurisdiction. What is promised in chapter 11, the chapter describing Nisga'a government, goes well beyond that.

Our federal system is based on a division of power between two governments -- federal and provincial -- each of them sovereign in their defined jurisdictions, as described in sections 91, 92 and 93 of the BNA Act. Those two levels of government can delegate responsibility to another governing body, and often do. The most obvious example is the power that provincial governments delegate to municipalities. But municipalities are not a third level of government, because those powers are not enshrined in a constitution and are always subordinate to provincial laws. Provincial governments have delegated some of their exclusive power over education to school boards. The Legislature can and sometimes does revoke or change such delegated powers, as it did recently when it ordered several school districts to amalgamate.

[3:45]

Hon. Speaker, I can only imagine how the various governing institutions of the North Shore will be affected if we overlay similar treaties, with the same 14 areas of legislative paramountcy, with the Squamish and Burrard nations onto the three existing municipalities, school boards, regional health board, GVRD, Ports Canada, provincial government, federal government and so on. The public deserves to have that discussion. I believe that if the principles embodied in this treaty are to enjoy long-term success, the public must be allowed to give its consent.

Who among us was not moved by the remarks of Chief Gosnell to the members of this assembly? The aspirations of Chief Gosnell for his people to stand on their own feet, to no longer be beggars in their own land, is an aspiration which I commend and applaud. I applaud the overall tone of the treaty, which speaks to greater economic opportunity for his

[ Page 10968 ]

I have not had the opportunity to travel to the Nass Valley. I have, however, travelled to many other areas of the province, where I've had the pleasure to observe many far-reaching and proactive aboriginal programs. I have observed schools being run and operated for and by aboriginal people. From aboriginal school board members in Lillooet I learned of an innovative program to reintroduce young adults into educational programs. In Lytton I observed some creative uses of distance education for youth. These are but a few examples of many in British Columbia where aboriginal people are in charge and are taking the lead within the existing structure.

On Wednesday, December 2, Chief Joe Gosnell addressed the Members of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. The presence of Chief Gosnell speaking at the Bar of the Legislature is testimony to the historic significance and importance of the Nisga'a treaty for all British Columbians. Chief Gosnell said: "today. . .marks a turning point in the history of British Columbia. Today aboriginal and non-aboriginal people are coming together to decide the future of this province."

Hon. Speaker, I believe that Chief Gosnell is right, which is the reason I cannot support this bill. I believe that this treaty is the stuff of which history is made. I believe that it is indeed a history-making event, an event that establishes the blueprint for another 50 or so treaties that surely will impact on British Columbia politically, socially and economically in the foreseeable future -- all of which substantiates my argument that the principles embodied in this treaty are of such importance to the future of all British Columbians that they need to be voted on by all British Columbians.

I began my remarks by saying that we, the legislators of British Columbia, must get this right. We must get it right so that the long, bumpy journey of the Nisga'a people will finally be over. But more important than the past is hope for the future, when our children and grandchildren have equal opportunity to enjoy the benefits of a good education, good health care and a flourishing economy that promises a secure and certain economic future for all our children.

F. Randall: I just want to say that I appreciate the opportunity to make a few comments on Bill 51, the Nisga'a treaty. I want to thank Chief Gosnell for his stirring speech from the Bar of the Legislative Assembly here and also all the Nisga'a people for their patience over the last 111 years.

The general provisions of the agreement lay out some very basic but very important features of the Nisga'a treaty. These apply to the whole agreement and deal with matters of special importance, such as aboriginal rights, certainty and overall interpretation of the agreement. After addressing some of the technical points, the general provisions state:

"This Agreement does not alter the Constitution of Canada, including:

a. the distribution of powers between Canada and British Columbia;

b. the identity of the Nisga'a Nation as an aboriginal people of Canada within the meaning of the Constitution Act, 1982; and

c. sections 25 and 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982."

The Nisga'a agree to release any rights or title they have or may ever have that differ from those of the treaty. They can't come back in the future and ask for anything more. As stated in the general provisions, the treaty is a full and final settlement of the Nisga'a land claim.

If the parties disagree on any of the fine points of implementation or interpretation, those will be settled within the treaty through a four-stage dispute resolution process. Stage 1 is informal talks, stage 2 is formal negotiation, stage 3 is mediation, and stage 4 is arbitration. If all of those avenues fail, the treaty allows for a final and binding decision from the Supreme Court of British Columbia. This process assures us that we will not end up wasting taxpayers' money in a fight in the courts. It provides the B.C. government, the Nisga'a people and the citizens of British Columbia with legal certainty. It also provides investors and workers with certainty, helping to improve B.C.'s investment climate. The Nisga'a cannot come back later and claim any additional rights above and beyond those contained in the treaty. They cannot hold Canada or British Columbia or individual citizens liable for past acts that may have infringed on their aboriginal rights. If an individual Nisga'a citizen is successful in a challenge to the treaty in the future, the Nisga'a indemnify B.C. and Canada against any resulting costs.

What about the rights of non-Nisga'a people? They're protected under the treaty, just as they are in every other part of British Columbia. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms will continue to apply. So will existing federal and provincial laws, with one important exception. The Indian Act, along with all its inherent inequalities, will be eliminated on Nisga'a lands. Under the treaty there will be no reserve lands for the Nisga'a people, and the Indian Act itself will cease to apply. This is one of the truly historic aspects of this treaty. It marks the beginning of the end of the Indian Act in British Columbia and allows the Nisga'a to finally take their full place as British Columbia citizens.

There is one further general provision that I'd like to address, and that's the section on ratification. It states that the Nisga'a will hold a majority vote -- which, of course, they did in early November, and 61 percent supported the treaty. The ratification section states that the province and the federal government will ratify the agreement through the Legislature and Parliament. Those are the terms agreed to since 1990, when B.C. officially joined the Nisga'a treaty negotiations under the Social Credit government. Those are the terms endorsed by that administration and two successive B.C. governments. During the 1996 election campaign, our government restated its commitment to ratify the treaty in the Legislature. Let me remind you that at that time, that position was fully supported by the official opposition.

Throughout our history, free votes have been used to decide sensitive issues that go beyond partisan politics, issues that define who we are as a people. After a full and open debate both here in the Legislature and in our communities, MLAs will individually weigh the pros and cons of the Nisga'a treaty. We will make our own decisions, based on our own beliefs and experiences, our understanding of our constituents' wishes and our analysis of the treaty's impact on our society and our economy. We will make up our minds on the key questions. Is this a fair compromise not only for the Nisga'a but for all British Columbians? And if we reject this treaty, can we realistically go back to the negotiating table? Could we reasonably expect to get a better deal?

[ Page 10969 ]

Some have argued that this is of such great importance that it should be put to a provincial referendum. Now, I agree that this is a very important issue, but as I mentioned earlier, the terms of ratification have been set since 1990. The opposition's own critic, the hon. member for Matsqui, said not long ago in this House: ". . .it would be unfair at this point to inject the referendum card into the ratification process involving the Nisga'a treaty."

Yes, it would be unfair, and that's just the beginning. Changing the rules now, at the eleventh hour, would leave the province open to legitimate charges of bargaining in bad faith. That's a very serious charge. Taking that step would have extremely serious ramifications for all British Columbians.

[4:00]

But let's ask ourselves: what would happen under the opposition's scenario? They would have you believe that it's a simple case of going back to the bargaining table. But why on earth would the Nisga'a agree to that? They've negotiated patiently, with trust and honour, for more than 30 years. During that time, aboriginal people have been winning in court, and they hold a very strong hand. Given the choice between ten, 20 or 30 more years of negotiation or a well-supported argument in court, which do you think the Nisga'a would choose? I expect that they would take us to court. And given the way the courts have continued to expand the legal interpretation of aboriginal rights, we might expect a settlement that would ultimately cost the province much, much more than the Nisga'a treaty does and that would not have the built-in protections for non-aboriginal interests that the treaty has.

Furthermore, changing the rules now would send a signal to all first nations. It would tell them that negotiations are just a waste of time. That could throw the entire B.C. treaty process off the rails and plunge our province into a chaos of litigation and conflict. A vote in this House is what the parties agreed to from the beginning, and we believe it's the best way to ratify this treaty and give us the certainty we need to get on with the work of building our province and creating jobs and prosperity for all British Columbians.

This is the path set out in the general provisions: clarification that this is a legally binding treaty, confirmation that it does not alter the constitution, assurance that the rights of Nisga'a and non-Nisga'a people are protected equally under the constitution and the Charter of Rights, and an absolute guarantee that this is a full and final settlement of the Nisga'a land claim. That's what British Columbians have been asking for: resolution and certainty around the issue of land claims. The general provisions make it clear that the Nisga'a treaty delivers.

The general provisions of the treaty apply to the entire agreement and deal with important, overarching issues. They clearly state that the treaty does not alter the constitution. It modifies existing aboriginal rights, exchanging them for clearly defined, clearly limited treaty rights. It is a full and final settlement of the Nisga'a land claim -- one that brings the certainty that we need to stimulate growth, investment and jobs. The general provisions also lay out a four-step process for resolving disputes about the treaty, and they set out the ratification process: a referendum for the Nisga'a people and legislation for Ottawa and the province.

I just want to stress again the importance of land use certainty for our resource industries, particularly in British Columbia. Certainty will bring much more development and jobs for British Columbians. I know from my involvement in the mining industry that they certainly would like to know where they stand with regards to land before they start developing.

This treaty will also require that Nisga'a pay taxes -- to my knowledge, the first treaty in Canada to do so. I just want to mention that I found that the leaders' debate and the following Knowledge Network program -- with Chief Gosnell; Mr. Molloy, who is the chief federal negotiator; and Mr. Jack Ebbels, the provincial negotiator -- were certainly very informative. I know that there were questions answered there that I was not aware of until I watched that program, and that was only weeks ago. It was certainly a good program and answered a lot of good questions.

If this treaty is rejected in this House over the issue of a referendum, then I expect that the courts will eventually end up making a decision. I do not expect that the Liberals will call for a referendum on the court's decision, because it's unusual to call for a referendum on a judge's decision. I've never heard of that, but that might be something new. In my opinion and experience from negotiations, the deal that you make yourself is always much better than one imposed by a third party. In many cases, the third party does not have the knowledge of the issues as well as the parties at the bargaining table. The deal you make yourself, you can usually live with. The one that is imposed on you can be very harsh, unworkable and not make sense in some cases. It's always best to make your own deal.

I also want to say that it's very easy to be against the treaty. There are about -- I don't know -- 650 pages in total here. I don't know how you would do a referendum on that. If you want to be against the treaty, you'll find something in those 650 pages that you can pick on. In an agreement that's negotiated over that many years, there are always going to be some issues because of give-and-take. Nobody ever gets everything they want, so there have obviously been some concessions on both sides to get that agreement. So a person reading it for the first time would say: "My golly, I wouldn't have agreed to that." Well, I think you have to accept that all these years of negotiations to reach a conclusion have certainly been done through concessions on both sides, I would expect.

[ Page 10970 ]

"We affirm that the process of negotiation is the best means for resolving land claims issues, reconciling communities with each other and restoring dignity to those who have suffered injustices. We endorse the general principles of the Nisga'a final agreement as the result of good-faith negotiation between three parties, and we believe that ratification of the treaty would be in the best interests of British Columbians and Canadians."

At this point in time I just want to say that I've made up my mind on Nisga'a; I'm going to support the treaty. I just want to say that I know that a majority of the constituents in Burnaby-Edmonds support it -- certainly all those I've talked to. We've also had public meetings. The religious leaders support the treaty. The B.C. Federation of Labour supports the treaty. The federal Liberal government supports the treaty. The Nisga'a support it, and our Premier supports it. I might also add that the former Leader of the Liberal Party of B.C. supports it, and the polls certainly support the treaty. I'm asking the Liberals to join with me in supporting Bill 51, the Nisga'a treaty.

E. Walsh: It gives me great pleasure this afternoon to stand here in this Legislature to support Bill 51. In the coming days and weeks in this House, we will continue to debate on what is a very, very basic question of fairness. It's a basic question of law. It's a basic question about the future of this province and all of her people.

I speak of this province as a maternal entity, and I do this not out of sexism but out of my experiences travelling around this province and speaking with aboriginal peoples. A common thread appeared in the fabric of all of the discussions that I had in this province, and that was the bond with the land -- the belief that Mother Earth could and would provide food for family, trees for shelter and space for communities. These are not new concepts, not for any of us that are gathered here in this House and not for any of us that live in the province. The bonds between human beings and the land are global in scope, and they're also global in the very nature of human beings. The ethnic mix within this Legislature speaks to the diverse backgrounds of its members, the past and also the present. Yet I believe that all of our family trees are deeply rooted in the land from which our ancestors came, be it Europe, Asia, Africa or the Americas.

The bonds between the Nisga'a people of the Nass Valley and the land are threefold: they are historical, spiritual and cultural. They're economic in nature. The Nisga'a inhabited this region of the province for over 10,000 years -- over 10,000 years before it was even deemed a province by British law; 10,000 years of civilization; 10,000 years of self-government; 10,000 years of fishing, hunting and living off and with the land. The spiritual beliefs of the Nisga'a people are rooted deep in the mountains and in the valley bottom of the Nass River. Ceremonies to celebrate the land and its bounty are the very essence of Nisga'a tribal lore.

This historical tie to the land has been passed down from generation to generation, through oral tale and tribal dance, much of which we were able to witness and take part in this past week. The lands of the Nass continue to provide for the Nisga'a people. I believe that it is essential in any treaty process to recognize and honour this spiritual bond. To ignore this tie to the land is to vanquish the spiritual healing that needs to occur for the Nisga'a people.

The economic ties to the land of the Nisga'a people are many. Stability for any nation comes in the ownership of fee simple lands -- lands to develop, lands to harvest and lands to hold. The people of the Nisga'a request no less than what you would request or I would request: the ability to own land, to provide a future for their children -- land which their children and their children's children can truly call their own. The treaty process which has developed over the past 30 years now has, at its core, been about land.

[4:15]

The question of equality is key to this debate. Opponents of this treaty process have broadly compared it to apartheid in Africa, the plight of African Americans, the tragedy in the Balkans -- and the list goes on. This treaty process has been so fundamentally clouded and misrepresented by its opponents that the people of this province may very well not recognize it for what it is. This is an attempt by people to sit at a common table to address the common good.

Our system of native reserves has failed miserably. This system has turned healthy, vibrant aboriginal communities into poverty-stricken enclaves. Not only has this system curtailed financial opportunities, but the cultural identities of the first nations have been destroyed. In ignorance, early visitors to these shores interpreted the potlatch and tribal celebrations as a threat to the rule of the Empire. Imposed governmental models and religious institutions were established at the expense of native pride and sovereignty. With the implementation of the federal Indian Act came the loss of independence and the loss of the ability to vote.

However, many Nisga'a men, who were denied the right to serve as fathers to their own children in this province, volunteered to serve as soldiers in the two world wars. They fought not only for this country but for this province -- for the very people who live in this province -- defending a country that treated them as less than human beings. When they returned home, they found that they didn't even have status. They had been away for too long; they had been gone from the reserves much too long to even be considered Indian. But, you know, even without their status, they were still considered Indian enough to be denied that very part of democracy that we hold very near and dear to us: the right to vote. In British Columbia, the degradation went even deeper: the loss of the right to gather, to seek redress and to seek legal counsel.

[ Page 10971 ]

In a country which is ranked worldwide as number one in standard of living, the plight of aboriginals in Canada is of concern, to say the least. A recently released United Nations study ranks the living standards of aboriginals living off the reserve at thirty-seventh in the world -- the same ranking given to people living within member countries of the former Soviet Union. For aboriginals living on the reserve, the ranking sank to sixty-third -- very similar conditions to those experienced in parts of Mexico and Thailand. I say that this is a shame and this is a tragedy.

As a population, natives live, on average, 12 years less than non-natives. They commit suicide at a rate two to five times higher than non-natives. Thirty-four percent more of their children die within the first year of their life. Unemployment at adulthood may range as high as 80 percent. We're not talking about 7 percent or 6.9 percent -- the 9 percent or the 14 percent that concerns us in our province in our daily lives or the 8 percent that concerns Canadians. It's 80 percent. Alcohol, drugs and abuse statistics are markedly higher across all aboriginal groups.

This treaty is a bold step into the future for our province. Concerns are being raised, however, by a wide spectrum of interests across this whole province. The logging companies worry about the capacity to log. Cattlemen are concerned about the ability to graze, hunters about the access to wildlife and lands, and fishermen about the volume of their catch. This treaty, I believe, attempts to address these concerns while at the same time meeting the needs of the Nisga'a people. This treaty is about growth, it's about stability, it is about investment, and it is about opportunity. But most of all it is about fairness and the type of province that we want for future generations of British Columbians.

All too often MLAs are concerned with the next four- or five-year mandate and their ability to serve their constituents here and now. In this Legislature right now, we are being given the opportunity to assume an active role in the creation of a great legacy. All of the components are right here today: the past, the present, the future and the debate that's ongoing -- last week, this week and in the oncoming weeks. This is the same debate of 1887. These are the same native peoples from the Nass, who have come to Victoria to seek justice. There are the same naysayers. There is the same opportunity to change the course of history for our province.

Our actions in the coming weeks, the coming months and the coming years will be measured in another 100 years. How will that generation see us -- as the government of the day who locked the Legislature doors in the faces of the Nisga'a elders? Or will it view us as the political body who had the guts and the foresight to right the many wrongs experienced by this people and to set this province on a course for equality and equity for all native peoples.

If we don't settle this, I have no doubt that the courts will. And make no mistake, anyone in this Legislature: the courts are under absolutely no obligation whatsoever to protect the rights of the non-aboriginal peoples. The Nisga'a treaty does, however. As my hon. colleague from Victoria-Hillside said this morning -- and I reiterate what he said -- the Supreme Court has given every signal that it is prepared to rule that aboriginal peoples have the right to the exclusive use and occupation of their traditional lands, as long as they can prove that they occupied the lands at the time Britain asserted its sovereignty. To reiterate, if first nations want to take their cases to court, judges are prepared to back them up. I too must ask: is this how we want to settle our land claims? This will take a long time. It's taken over 100 years to negotiate this final agreement -- and at what cost. I'm not just talking about legal costs, I'm not talking about lost investments, and I'm not talking about jobs that are going to be lost to uncertainty. What I'm talking about is the cost -- those divisive costs -- to our society. Those divisions will only be exacerbated by every court case that comes forward. Yes, I do believe that treaty negotiation is the better option. It's a better option than being settled by courts, by a long shot.

Hon. Speaker, KPMG did a study in which they concluded that the benefits of land claims settlements here in B.C. will far outweigh the costs -- by a factor of three to one. On speaking with people from the north especially, they understand the benefits of the Nisga'a treaty. For example, Councillor Hull, of Terrace, said: "Anything that's good for the people around us is good for Terrace." This was in the Terrace Standard in August of this year. Then there's Don Manson. I'm sure the opposition Liberals know who I'm speaking of here, because he's a Liberal riding association president for Prince George-Bulkley Valley. He supports the treaty and says: "The people are way ahead of the politicians on this one. The people of the north know how much the Nisga'a have given up and how reasonable this deal is." For anybody that wants to check that quote, it was in the Province, October 18, 1998. Do the people who live in the north know something that this Liberal opposition doesn't know?

When the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale was questioned by Province reporter Mike Smyth, "Do you support this treaty or not?" the member's answer was: "The question is somewhat rhetorical, and I don't think it is even possible to answer. It's too big a question." That was in the Province on October 25, 1998. Rhetorical? Too big a question? I don't think that's such a big question. I don't think that the question was asked just for effect, and I don't think that they weren't expecting an answer. I think that there was an answer expected. Maybe not; I don't know. There wasn't one given. Yet about one-third of the opposition Liberals continue to remain silent on this very, very important historical discussion. I have to ask this -- and I'm sure people in British Columbia have to ask the same question: where do they stand? Are they for or are they against the Nisga'a treaty?

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Where is their accountability? On March 10 of this year the Leader of the Opposition said: "Everybody wants to resolve these, but let's give the respect and honour that aboriginal people need, by being upfront and honest with them." Okay, let's discuss that for a moment. Upfront and honest. So what happened? I have to ask the Liberal opposition a question: what happened? I could almost agree with him, except I'm always puzzled as to what the position is going to be. What is their position on this? Where are they coming from on the treaty?

[4:30]

[ Page 10972 ]

How history views this government and this treaty is up to each and every member of this Legislature. Our government has called for a free vote to ensure that all members have the opportunity to exercise their very own moral and ethical sense of justice and that of their constituents in their constituencies. In this spirit, I encourage and challenge the opposition to do the same. I encourage every member of this assembly to do the right thing and not merely toe the party line.

Now is not the time to fortify the trenches of partisan politics; now is not the time to disagree for the sake of disagreement alone. Now is the time for each and every member of this assembly to look deep into their hearts and, I say, to look deep into their conscience -- I say again, to look deep into their conscience. I implore every member: do not allow yourselves to end up on the wrong side of history. Do not be the ones to lock the door. The legacy of this treaty will ultimately become a crucial chapter in the history of this province, a chapter about our values, about our sense of fairness, about putting people before politics.

This century has seen huge atrocities that have been committed by human beings. They've been committed by human beings against their own. Yet as and while we come near -- we're looking at the future, and it's around the corner -- a new millennium, we stand prepared to right many wrongs of the past. As a society, we have realized the rights of women for a safe and equitable role in our society, the rights of children to grow and blossom without fear of violence and sexual abuse, the rights of all people to participate on an equal footing in the workplace and in the courts. We have endured the Great Depression, two world wars and the nuclear age.

Throughout this century of evolution, the Nisga'a people have waited. They have anticipated the day when their claim to redress would be recognized and upheld. That date is upon us, and I would ask that all members of this assembly rise to this challenge. The Nisga'a treaty lies before us, tied to our past and calling us -- calling each and every one of us -- to our future.

S. Hawkins: I know that the negotiation and completion of treaties is a matter of great importance and interest to all my constituents and, indeed, to all British Columbians and all Canadians as well. I'm pleased to have the opportunity to rise and enter into this historic debate. I'm also grateful for the opportunity and the privilege afforded me by my constituents to stand in this chamber today. In doing so, I've committed to choosing my words with care and respect.

I'm sure it's a profound understatement to say that the treaty process has been a difficult journey for many. I've listened very carefully to the speakers before me, and there have been some memorable and moving moments for me. Certainly the recounting of the history that has brought us here today moves me. I'm reminded of and am especially not proud of the acts of intolerance and ignorance against aboriginal peoples attributed to past representatives of this House and the federal Parliament. I'm moved by the stories of struggle, segregation and poverty, and I'm sickened by the grave injustices perpetrated against a people who found themselves stripped of their culture, forced to live on reserves, forced to place their children in institutions and denied the democratic right to vote. Those have not been proud moments in our history, and, for the record, I too want to say most sincerely that I am sorry for all the injustices against aboriginal peoples.

Interjection.

S. Hawkins: You know, hon. Speaker, I really looked forward to this debate, because I believed that this was the place where information should be shared without fear, without intimidation. And in this chamber, we as democratically elected representatives should have the opportunity and the freedom to put forward our points and concerns without fear of retribution. The subject of this debate, the first modern-day treaty negotiated in B.C., is not simple. As such, I honestly believe that this debate should not be allowed to be reduced to such a low level as I've seen with some of the speakers that have gotten up. I had hoped that all members of this House would be respectful of other members' views. I had sincerely hoped that the language used in this chamber would reflect the significant nature of the subject of this debate and the importance that this treaty will have on the future of this province and the society we want to live in and want our children to enjoy. I guess it's particularly disturbing to me to hear the kinds of words that have been tossed about this chamber. This is the one place where I believed that we had the right to hold differing views and that they would be respected and upheld as a democratic right.

Growing up as a member of a visible minority, I was called a lot of hurtful names. But I must admit that I've heard some new ones and I've been called some new ones during this debate. Frankly, I find the kind of name-calling that's taken place here rather shocking, and I don't think it has any place in this chamber. It's inappropriate and certainly unbecoming to members of this House to toss about the kind of hateful words that I have personally experienced and heard in this chamber within the context of this debate. I sincerely and honestly hope the level of debate can be elevated beyond the point of that kind of name-calling.

This debate, in my mind, is not about whether land claims issues should be resolved or not. They should be. I know that; we all know that. There is strong agreement across the province that recognizes that very need. That need is for negotiated, workable, affordable agreements -- treaties which will truly embrace the goals of certainty, finality and equality. I believe that this treaty in its present form falls short of meeting some of those goals.

This treaty, in my opinion, falls short of meeting the goal of equality -- in particular in chapter 11, in the governance sections. We've been led to believe that self-government as laid down in this chapter can be described as municipal-style. In fact, we've been fed a daily diet of government advertising -- a multimillion-dollar NDP ad campaign -- to try and convince us of that.

I'm convinced, as are most of my constituents, that British Columbians support the concept of self-government for aboriginal peoples. And I am sure that a true municipal-style model is one that would get the most support. I truly believe that. I'm sure that's what the Premier's polling suggested. I'm sure that when the Premier and the NDP did their polling, they understood that too. I'm convinced that that's one of the

[ Page 10973 ]

Municipalities are creatures of provincial legislation. They get their powers from the province and can only exercise the powers they are given -- no more, no less. Municipal governments must operate within the boundaries of the provincial legislation under which they're created. In no way, shape or form can those municipal councils create laws that are paramount to the provincial or federal laws. Under the Nisga'a treaty, the Nisga'a government is granted paramount legislative authority in at least 14 areas of jurisdiction, and I understand that these laws will primarily impact Nisga'a citizens. However, some of these laws will arguably have a broader impact. In the event of inconsistency or conflict with federal or provincial legislation, Nisga'a law will prevail.

Nisga'a laws reserve the right of paramountcy in the areas of adoption, child and family services, preschool-to-grade-12 education, advanced education, and organization and structure of health care delivery. It's probably more than obvious by now that municipal councils today do not possess that kind of power. So there's little doubt that this treaty creates an order of government somewhere between a municipal and a federal-provincial creature -- something I understand that federal negotiators don't call municipal-style but when they're pressed call "municipal-plus" government. If that is the case, why can't the government just be honest and admit that? Why won't this government give British Columbians the information they need to understand what is really in this treaty, instead of trying to sell us something that isn't there? It's no wonder that this Premier and his members -- his cabinet -- have lost the trust of the majority of British Columbians.

A fundamental flaw in this treaty -- and one that I personally feel strongly about -- is the lack of provision for non-Nisga'a to exercise their free and democratic right to vote. The right to vote is based on ancestry in this treaty. That was wrong 100 years ago -- we heard that in this House from several speakers -- and it's still wrong today. I know that, because I come from a history of a people that were denied the right to vote in this province and in this country until only 50 years ago. We were denied the right to vote because we were from India; we were of Indian ancestry instead of the favoured European ancestry.

My people fought long and hard for the right to vote. They believed it was a fundamental right. They believed it was ours, as hard-working, law-abiding, taxpaying citizens of this country. I recognize that my people's long struggle and battle with federal and provincial governments finally resulted in successfully attaining the right to vote in 1947. This right was not extended to Asians and aboriginal peoples until 1949.

I just want to read. . . . I was going back through the papers of the day, and on April 3, 1947, the Province newspaper reported the following: "The new Elections Act holds promise that some day B.C. will enfranchise all its citizens no matter what the colour of their skins." From the Province newspaper on March 9, 1949 -- two years later -- here is a quote: "Last year Chinese, East Indians and native Indians outside of reservations were given the vote. An Elections Act amendment now before the provincial Legislature will extend the franchise to the Japanese and to Indians living on reservations." B.C.'s second-class citizen setup has been particularly embarrassing and shameful at a time when the world's tendency is toward recognition of human rights. The United Nations charter of human rights, to which Canada has subscribed, states specifically: "Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives."

[4:45]

I happen to believe very strongly in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was passed 50 years ago on December 10 by the General Assembly of the United Nations. I know it's been quoted before, but I too would like to quote from it, if I may. Here's a quote from it:

"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. . . . Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this declaration without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty. . . . Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. . . . Everyone has the right to equal access to public service in his country. . . . The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government. This will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures."

Interjection.

S. Hawkins: But you know what? They'll have no opportunity to vote for the government or the laws that they have to live under. I've heard members, and I hear them now. . . . I hear members from the benches opposite saying things like: "It's time to move on. Move forward. Move ahead." I have to think about this. How can I move forward with any good conscience and leave behind what my people worked so hard for? How can I, personally, move forward with any good conscience and leave behind people who will be denied the vote? How can I possibly move forward with any good conscience and sacrifice one group of people's rights for the sake of another's? That's what I feel the members opposite are asking me to do. I feel in my heart that that is absolutely wrong. It was wrong 100 years ago, hon. members, and it's just as wrong today. For the very reasons that it was wrong 100 years ago, it's wrong today.

I find it very difficult to try and imagine the discussions and the conversations 100 years ago, when the society of the day considered it okay to turn its back on a group and rationalize that it was justified to limit a certain group's fundamental rights on the basis of their race or ethnicity. I honestly

[ Page 10974 ]

Perhaps it may even seem strange to some that a woman of colour is standing here today to defend the rights of the non-Nisga'a minority. But I do so because I do not wish to be party to the dilution and deconstruction of rights that every citizen in this country has a right to enjoy.

I recognize that this treaty attempts to reconcile injustices of the past and settle land claim issues in a negotiated fashion. I do recognize that there must be give and take, as negotiations are certainly about that; I understand that. However, I firmly believe that we must not negotiate away or erode the rights of some to the greater advantage of others. We should not and must not create another wrong in an attempt to right the wrongs of the past. We must not move forward by consciously leaving behind fundamental rights of others; I can't in good conscience do that. I know that we can do better; I know that we must do better. My people fought for that right, and I can't stand here in any good conscience and relinquish that for other people today.

T. Stevenson: What a privilege to have been elected to this particular Legislature at this particular time in our province's history, and what excitement, as well as anticipation, I feel today, as I have done ever since the initialling of the final treaty in New Aiyansh on August 4 of this year! What a joyous and celebratory occasion that was! I felt so fortunate to have been one of those there to witness it. I know I will remember that historic occasion the rest of my life and will no doubt tell the story someday to my grandchildren. I will say to them: "On that day, reconciliation between aboriginal and non-aboriginal peoples of British Columbia began, and I was there."

I remember sitting amongst the crowd that day in the new, magnificent recreation and cultural centre in New Aiyansh, surrounded by Nisga'a dancers and drummers, and thinking that this ceremony was as significant a day as the one I had witnessed four years ago in South Africa. There in May of 1994, as one of the international monitors sent to observe the elections, I felt jubilant when Nelson Mandela and the ANC won the first free and open election in the history of South Africa. I was there to witness it and to dance in the streets for joy, the same as four years later I clapped seemingly endlessly for joy at the initialling ceremony in New Aiyansh. I know that the Nisga'a were no less signing with great joy at their hard-fought freedom than the blacks in South Africa were singing for joy for their hard-fought freedom. At times during the initialling ceremony, my emotions rose from within to my throat until I literally got goosebumps -- on both occasions. I had the same emotions when Chief Joe Gosnell spoke to this House so powerfully last Wednesday.

The initialling ceremony this summer was my second trip to the Nass Valley. This time I stayed for four days. I wanted to get a deeper sense of the people, their customs, their problems and their achievements. Four days gave me just a glimpse, however. But it was more than I received on the first visit there with the Aboriginal Affairs Committee of the Legislature, of which I was a member. That time the committee only stayed one night, and much of the time was taken up in formal public hearings. I stayed longer the second time to also talk to as many people as possible, both Nisga'a and non-aboriginal, about the treaty, their hopes and their fears, what they thought were the strong and the weak points, whether they felt there was enough or too little cash or land, how they felt about self-government, how much they were consulted by their leaders, and whether they could trust the non-aboriginals to live up to the agreement.

I also spoke with non-aboriginals, asking questions that affected them. Now, obviously this wasn't an in-depth study. I am a non-aboriginal outsider, and one from the government at that. Also, unfortunately, there had been a tragic floatplane accident immediately following the initialling ceremony, and the Nisga'a were in mourning. But I did, as a result, get a sense of some of the people and came away that much more committed to the treaty process and this historic treaty in particular.

I also came away with this souvenir. It's a souvenir program of the initialling ceremony, which I will treasure for a very long time. I had it signed on that day by some of the key players who've had a part in the process to bring about this treaty and who were at the ceremony. They included Premier Glen Clark; Mike Harcourt, the former Premier, who was greatly involved in the treaty process; Dan Miller, the MLA for the Nisga'a; Dale Lovick, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs now; former Ministers of Aboriginal Affairs; Jane Stewart, the federal Liberal Minister of Indian Affairs; Dr. Frank Calder; and Dr. Joe Gosnell. Hopefully, one day as a grandparent I will show them this souvenir as I talk to them about the role these individuals played in bringing about reconciliation in British Columbia.

One of the greatest freedom speeches ever given was that from the famous black martyr, Martin Luther King. His speech at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C., still rings in my ears after all these years. "I have a dream," he cried. He spoke those words to, for and about black Americans, Afro-Americans, who've experienced slavery, oppression and degradation since they first came to America.

But those powerful words, "I have a dream," resonate with so many others: aboriginal peoples around the world, women in various cultures around the world, gays and lesbians around the world, as well as blacks in many countries other than the United States. For it is usually those who are marginalized, those who are oppressed and held back, who are the dreamers, who dream about freedom, about self-reliance, about self-sufficiency, about pride and dignity -- their own and their community's. For it is often -- or almost always -- those who are marginalized or at the bottom rung of society, who neither benefit from the status quo nor want to see it the same, who dream indeed of change.

The Nisga'a are powerful, powerful dreamers. For 111 years the Nisga'a have dreamed an almost impossible dream. They have dreamed that one day the white man would enter into an honourable and just treaty. They have dreamed that one day their despair, which has sacrificed so many on the altars of alcohol or drugs or unemployment or suicide, would end. And now, for the very first time, after all this time and their unbelievable history -- aboriginals have suffered racism whether it be from residential schools, smallpox, reservation systems, the Indian Act; the list goes on and on, and we all now know it well -- the status quo is about to change. For the very first time, their dream, their hope, is about to materialize. Maybe, given our record as non-aboriginals, that's even more unbelievable than our past colonial racist history. Who would have seen this day coming even ten years ago? This treaty is a

[ Page 10975 ]

[5:00]

As Dr. Gosnell said to us all here last week, the Nisga'a treaty is a triumph for all British Columbians, aboriginal and non-aboriginal. Then he went on to say that the treaty is a beacon of hope for aboriginal people around the world. What an awesome responsibility! Yet an exciting opportunity confronts us. I think we dare not fail, but failure is precisely what the opposition party and some others want. The opposition has, since just prior to the time of the initialling of this treaty, thrown up every conceivable roadblock possible, all the while claiming that they want treaties and that they respect the Nisga'a. "Oh, how we respect the Nisga'a," the opposition members claim -- almost pleadingly, I think. "Oh, how we respect the Nisga'a leadership, particularly Chief Gosnell," they state. "Oh, how glad we are the Nisga'a came to the capital," member after member from the opposition tries to convince the Nisga'a and this House. But outside the House, a whole different set of words are spoken.

How respectful was it, I ask you, for the opposition Aboriginal Affairs critic, the member for Matsqui, to go on television and state that the Nisga'a's journey to the capital was merely to be cheerleaders for the government -- like window dressing? Is that the member for Matsqui's idea of respect? He sees aboriginals who come all this way to enter into this House for the first time in 111 years as merely cheerleaders. Cheerleaders, hon. Speaker! I could not believe what I was hearing. How did the member see Dr. Gosnell -- as the chief cheerleader? How condescending. How totally disrespectful. But how telling of the attitudes of the opposition.

How respectful was it of the Leader of the Opposition to question the Nisga'a election? The Nisga'a completely ran their own elections, and they were monitored. The Leader of the Opposition has the audacity to question its legitimacy, and then he claims to respect them. How does that add up? It goes right along with the Leader of the Opposition's statements about "our natives." I'm surprised that the critic for Aboriginal Affairs didn't say "our cheerleaders." So don't talk about respect, on the other side. We don't believe you.

If you really had any respect for the Nisga'a, you would cease the verbal acrobatics as well as your destructive actions and sit down honourably with the Nisga'a. The Leader of the Opposition might even consider a visit to the Nass. Maybe if he had visited the Nass, he'd have some respect for the Nisga'a and the treaty. For while the opposition's words are sweet-sounding and sugarcoated, their actions are bitter and could ultimately be brutal. While the Nisga'a do listen to your words, it is your actions they and the rest of the province will judge you by. Currently, your actions have all been one great smokescreen to see the treaty fail, and the ultimate smokescreen has been the court case. This extreme action has been not to further the discussion or dialogue but rather to delay or derail the treaty. The opposition knows full well that all the top constitutional lawyers in this country have stated that this treaty does not, nor will it, change the constitution. But no matter: the opposition really doesn't care about that, for the real point is to delay for as long as possible -- anything to try to kill the treaty.

In light of this court case, I found the opposition leader's apology in the House last week to be totally shallow and meaningless, particularly when at the very same moment the opposition was fighting the Nisga'a with every possible means at their disposal to prevent the Nisga'a from joining the case as co-defendants. Maybe now that the opposition have flip-flopped at the eleventh hour on this issue as well, they might consider a sincere apology to the Nisga'a for fighting for so long their entry into the case as co-defendants. Unfortunately, the opposition's sudden about-face wasn't the result of any change of heart that might have led to an apology, but rather was the result of a fear of the potential political damage when the public became aware of their unethical actions.

This court challenge is only one of any number of ways the opposition has been using to thwart the dream of reconciliation, self-determination and freedom. The Nisga'a have been hoping and working for this for decades. Every one of the issues that have been raised by the opposition has already been talked about, argued about and agonized over for many years. There have also been over 400 public meetings, at which every aspect of the treaty has been thoroughly discussed, and they have again been discussed here in this chamber over the past week.

Treaties are about compromise. Compromise is about give-and-take. This treaty between the federal government -- the federal Liberals, in case anyone has forgotten -- the Nisga'a and the provincial government has had some of the best minds negotiating together in good faith and trust. It has been painstakingly negotiated. It has been the most open and thorough process in the history of the province. Not only have hundreds of meetings been held around the province, but a parliamentary standing committee, of which I was a member, held hearings throughout the province. And now, after all this, the opposition says: "No. We know better." They know better than everyone else who has been part of this treaty. They know better than the federal Liberal negotiators, the federal Indian Affairs ministry, the provincial negotiators in the ministry, all the support staff, all the constitutional lawyers. They know better what's right, not only for non-aboriginals but for the Nisga'a. I don't think so.

I have heard nothing whatsoever in any of their speeches that indicates that they know better. In fact, the opposition leader patronizingly stated that the Nisga'a have negotiated themselves into a gated community, along with all the other aboriginal tribes that follow. He states that the Nisga'a have negotiated themselves into what might be summarized as an apartheid situation. It's almost as though they would have us believe that the negotiations by the provincial and federal government and the Nisga'a somehow hoodwinked Chief Gosnell once again, and that he has really negotiated the Nisga'a out of B.C. and into apartheid-like gated communities, rather than into B.C., as he claims.

How dare the opposition leader make those outrageous and condescending claims! Maybe if he were to visit a current reserve -- it doesn't have to be the Nisga'a, since he seems so reluctant to do so; it could be one of any number of reserves -- he would see how the aboriginals now live in gated apartheid-like communities. This is precisely what this treaty that he

[ Page 10976 ]

Justice, to him, it seems to me, means "just us": what we need -- us -- and what we might be able to give back to them. It sounds like the same old attitude of the past century, only in a modern, slicker, more disguised and, frankly, more cynical and dangerous form. This modern form even comes complete with a splashy from-the-bottom-of-my-heart apology but no action. But there's one thing the opposition leader does know, and that's how to obstruct, how to put up roadblocks, how to put up smokescreens. And he knows how to alienate people -- large numbers of people -- particularly aboriginal people but also other fair-minded, justice-seeking people.

The opposition leader claims he wants treaties but says: "Oh, not this one." He wants treaties on his terms -- not now, though, but in his own time, sometime soon, sometime in the future, when he and he alone has certainty on every dot and comma in some perfect, mythical treaty as yet not seen. In the meantime he says to break trust and tell Chief Gosnell to start again -- respectfully, of course.

But what vision does the opposition leader have? Is there an alternative vision? What dream excites him? It doesn't seem to be about reconciliation; he has been blowing that possibility away in the past few months and has put the last nail in the reconciliation coffin this past week. So what is it, hon. members? Tell us: what does the opposition leader see that no one else has seen so far? If it's not reconciliation, then what is it? Maybe someone else in the opposition caucus will tell us. The problem is that right now, there are so many who don't want to speak. For every two of our members speaking, the opposition has only put up one. Why? Have they no vision either? Or are there some who are not speaking because they know very well that their leader's position is so extreme?

There must be some, I would think, on that side of the House who don't hold such a radical position as the one espoused by the leader. Is there one? Given that there are, I know, some real Liberals on that side of the House, I would have thought that they would support the treaty that the federal Liberals were as much a part of as the B.C. government and the Nisga'a. I simply can't accept that every single one on the other side of the House thinks that the federal Liberals are wrong, that they knew not what they were doing, that they were hoodwinked by the provincial government, that they had no clue about the constitutionality of the treaty or about the ramifications of ratification or the ramifications of failure. That's pushing credibility too far.

It boggles the mind to know that they are in the same party. Don't they talk to one another, or is the opposition leader so discredited as a Liberal that there's no communication? What about the so-called moderates on that side of the House, better known as "the Liberals" or "the real Liberals"? Some have already spoken against the treaty, but it's not too late for others to speak in favour -- or, at least, to even speak. It's every member's responsibility, I believe, to speak on this bill. Our constituents need to hear where we stand, what our rationale is for favouring or opposing the treaty. It's not good enough to stay hidden in the back until it's time to vote -- to vote and then to slip away so no one really knows what you believe and why.

Maybe the real Liberals are afraid to stand and be counted alongside their federal Liberal friends. I guess I understand, though. Their leader seems blindly obsessed by his anti-Nisga'a position. And make no mistake: the Nisga'a see his position as anti-Nisga'a. In light of this extreme position by the leader, I suppose it's difficult for any in his caucus to vote differently than their leader -- even though we have a free vote.

[5:15]

Unfortunately, it seems to me that the opposition is selectively blind and basically wants the current status quo -- or at least a status quo that primarily benefits the non-aboriginals. "Equality," they cry, when they really mean assimilation. We tried that already and failed to take the "Indian-ness" out of the Indian. It's time to listen to those most affected by our past policy -- listen to their aspirations, their hopes and their dreams, which are now contained within this treaty.

Those opposed to this treaty remind me of those in South Africa who were afraid of the changes coming after De Klerk, the president, finally declared that there would be an open and free election two or three years in the future. The opposition during those three years leading up to the elections was fierce and persistent. Not only would many people not buy into the dream of freedom and self-reliance of blacks but they were adamantly opposed to it. They fought, using every legal and persuasive trick in the book; some, unfortunately, even turned to violence.

That same kind of opposition is what we're witnessing here in British Columbia against this treaty. Every legal and persuasive trick is being used, some similar to the tactics used in South Africa, all the while proclaiming how much respect they have for aboriginal people -- only not now. They insist that change be done their way, for they know what's best for aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike.

One tactic that has received a lot of attention is the call for a referendum. This is, to me, the most cynical and appalling tactic. Chief Joe Mathias called it "the white man's veto." I think the call for a referendum probably arises from despair on the part of the opposition. A referendum at the eleventh hour, when we gave our word, with the federal government, at the beginning of the treaty process that the treaty would be ratified in the Legislature and in Parliament. . . .

It will be interesting to see whether the British Columbia Liberals will call on their federal Liberal counterparts to hold a national referendum after we ratify this in the House. It wouldn't surprise me -- any way to kill the bill -- though watching the B.C. Liberals trying to convince the federal Liberals to hold a referendum might be rather educational. I don't think the Leader of the Opposition would get much of a reception in Ottawa, although I admit he would get a welcoming reception from the Reform opposition. Maybe that's where his sympathies really belong.

If we were to hold a referendum provincially, as the opposition demands, how could or why should aboriginal people ever trust us again? What could we possibly say to

[ Page 10977 ]

Then there's the issue of minority rights. As the member of a minority myself, I wish to be spared the possibility of the majority tyranny. That's precisely why we have the safeguards of parliament. As a gay person, I'm only too aware that our hard-fought gains are quite tenuous. If you were to put them to the referendum, the possibility of a majority overriding those rights is very real. That causes a great deal of fear in me, and then anger. I am sure the Nisga'a have exactly the same feelings.

I also wonder if the opposition party and all those opposition MLAs would be calling for a referendum if, instead, the percentage ratio of aboriginals to non-aboriginals were different -- that is, 5 percent of our populace is aboriginal and 95 percent non-aboriginal. Then have that reversed: say the non-aboriginals -- we folks -- represented 5 percent of the population instead of 95 percent and the aboriginals represented 95 percent instead of 5 percent. Then would those same opposition members across the floor demand a referendum? I don't think so.

That was about the percentage of whites in South Africa, and believe you me, they certainly did not want any referendum. If, however, the whites in South Africa had made up 95 percent of the population, there is no doubt that, like the opposition here, the National Party over there would definitely have called for a referendum. In fact, they only came -- kicking and screaming -- to the table at the last possible moment. They held off as long as they could, much the same as this opposition is trying to hold off this treaty as long as possible as well.

Hon. Speaker, this treaty is not perfect.

Am I down to a very few seconds?

An Hon. Member: Two minutes.

T. Stevenson: That's too bad.

Hon. Speaker. . . .

Hon. I. Waddell: Do you want some more time?

T. Stevenson: I would, but. . . .

Hon. Speaker, many people have read this treaty very thoroughly, discussed it with others, debated it, contemplated it, meditated on it, prayed about it. Many are enthusiastic and supportive, while some others are apprehensive. But all of these people, it seems to me, are living with a hope -- a hope that this will begin to address the terrible situation that we've inherited. Others do not share this dream, and they are indeed vocal.

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, member, your time has expired.

Hon. I. Waddell: I rise as acting House Leader, hon. Speaker. Apropos of the Speaker's ruling of yesterday, I'm asking that the House give leave to the hon. member to complete his speech -- not to abuse extra time, but to bring it to a rational and timely conclusion, in that he needed a few extra minutes to do that.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, minister. I'll put it to the members. Is leave granted?

Leave not granted.

Hon. I. Waddell: Let the record be noted that the Liberal Party said nay, in spite of not putting up speakers in this debate.

Hon. C. Evans: I am honoured to rise in my place to support Bill 51, the Nisga'a Final Agreement Act. My speech is not written out word for word, like some that I've heard, so actually I don't know how long it will take to deliver extemporaneously. I'm doing the best I can. Now that the opposition has made it clear, by shutting down the previous speaker, that we have to fit within 30 minutes, I will attempt to deliver what is perhaps the most important speech I ever rose in my place to deliver and will attempt to deliver it on time. However, hon. Speaker, that might require talking faster than ordinary and skipping some of what I meant to say. I'm really sorry.

Personally, I feel that it wouldn't matter if we stood here and talked until Christmas, until New Year's or until springtime comes. There is no issue ever likely to come up in my life more important than the one I rise to speak on today. I just kind of thought we might be allowed to tell the story as best we can. The notion that the opposition wants to cram it into the limited time of limited rules, suggesting that this is as ordinary as voting on appropriations to plow snow, is wacko.

I stood here, hon. Speaker. I came two weeks ago and I watched the ceremonies when the Nisga'a came to Victoria. I watched those big doors open and Joe Gosnell come forward and speak. I thought: this is the best thing that's ever happened to me and perhaps the best thing that's ever happened to this building. And then over the course of the next few days I listened to the folks opposite stand up and speak. I listened to their reasons to not seize the moment, their reasons to not do the deal in the moment that's been given to us, and it put me in a state of rage. I thought that when I finally stood here to give my speech, it would be to pound the desk every second and say: "Another second of history is going by. When? If not now, when?"

And then it occurred to me that this isn't a debate. The hon. members opposite came into the room knowing what the outcome would be. This isn't what folks hoped parliament would be -- I tell my story, you tell your story, the best story will convince the other people, and we'll do the right thing. That is a fairy tale. I decided not to delivery my speech to the good members opposite but to actually talk to my children and my constituents and ignore whatever feelings I might have about whatever is going on over there. I want to say to my family -- to Sandi and Pam and Phil and the children that they might have in the decades on into the future: "This is the finest thing that any of us ever got to do. This is the kind of moment my mom and dad hoped I'd grow up and get to be in, and, kids, you can feel proud forever that we were here."

I want to say to my constituents: "This is a free vote." That means that each of us is supposed to stand here and vote our conscience and vote our intellect. It also means that it would be a good thing if we did the things we said we'd do -- that old principle of democracy called a mandate. Do the things you said before you got elected. If you would actually come here in a moment of freedom, in a moment left up to you individually -- never mind your party or your leader, all that apparatus of governance or politics -- as a person, to do the things you said you'd do. . . . So I thought I'd take this

[ Page 10978 ]

First, mostly for my kids, I need to set a little bit of context. I am rising here, 50 years old, in 1998. It is 250 years since first contact. Capt. George Vancouver met the Nisga'a, and there were 30,000 souls among the Nisga'a. It is 111 years since the Nisga'a came here the first time to address the land question and were turned away. It is 108 years -- twice my lifetime -- since they formed their first land committee and began internally, as a people, to put forward the land issue.

In 1927 the land committee had made so much progress, had convinced so many other native people and white folks and maybe even the odd politician of the rightness of their issue, that Ottawa made it illegal for them to meet to talk about the land question. Imagine that. Lots of the folks here have ancestors who came to Canada because they left places where people tried to make it illegal to get together to have a conversation. That's tyranny. We come -- every one of us, of whatever colour -- from a country that at one time or another tried to tell us what to think.

And then they went a little bit farther. They thought that if those people ever got together, hiding in the dark, talking about the land question, and went so far as to hire a lawyer, they'd win in court, because we had no leg to stand on. So in 1927 they made it against the law to hire a lawyer.

In 1973, 25 years ago -- just half my life; things are moving faster now -- the Supreme Court of Canada said to the people of British Columbia: "Go settle land claims." We were ordered by the highest court in our land to do the thing we're sitting here doing right now -- ordered 25 years ago to walk the walk to this place.

[5:30]

Talking not to those folks over there but to my constituents, I want to deal with this issue of mandate, of my right to stand here today and vote yes on this bill. I've run in three provincial elections, and I ran one time for leader of my party. Here's what I said in 1986 -- as did all my brothers and sisters -- in writing, and it was passed out at the doorstep:

"The NDP believes negotiations leading to a settlement of land claims must begin as soon as possible. Doing so will remove a leading cause of economic uncertainty. Land claims constitute the most longstanding, unresolved justice issue in British Columbia. An NDP government will be a tough negotiator at the bargaining table, looking out for the interests of all British Columbians, and no privately owned land will be the subject of any negotiation. Under the constitution, the federal government has the responsibility for cash settlements."

In 1991, as everybody knows, the policy was essentially the same, but it was writ large; it was up on billboards. Even you folks opposite knew it, because we were led by Mike Harcourt, and he said it every place he went. And he won. About four or five years later, I had occasion to run for leader of this party. I made some of the green folks and environmental folks in my party a little bit unhappy. Here was my platform issue in the leadership race. I said:

"I think it's pretty clear that the blockades and Gustafsen Lake and the events recently in Penticton are a reaction to the absence of change, just like the position of the Reform Party is a reaction to the possibility of change. The treaty-making process might be Mike Harcourt's finest legacy. I would like to see the same political will brought to the resolutions of the treaty issues in the next mandate that was brought to the land use question in our first mandate."

"I think we ought to slow down the creation of parks while we address the treaty-making issue, so that people do not feel that the land base available for treaty-making is eroding at every level and eroding faster than their ability to adapt."

So I went to the microphone, hon. member, and I said: "I promise you a referendum. I'm going to go vote in the Legislature for the treaty. The referendum starts in one month; how the people vote at the polls will determine my actions after the election." They all knew before we ever even ran for office. It was clear as a bell. We said it in three successive elections. There is no referendum as clear as the mandate you get from democracy.

Interjections.

Hon. C. Evans: We'll get to that.

Hon. Speaker, I want to talk a little bit to my constituents about why I think this is good for them, good for rural people and good for the people of the Kootenays. I figure it's a question of justice. It's a foundation of our party that what we desire for ourselves we wish for all people. I have observed that when we are unwilling to extend our wishes for ourselves to everybody else, we don't get what we wished for ourselves, because the principle of justice -- the right of law -- is the foundation underneath everything we do.

When I stood here the first time -- it was March 2, 1992, and at least one or two of the members were actually here then -- I made a speech. The speech was essentially about plunder. It was my first speech in the Legislature; I was sitting down at that end. I talked about the theft from the people of the Kootenays that had gone on since the creation of this province. I explained, for starters, that they took all the money that we had from silver to build this building, and then they came into the building and used the power of law to steal everything else that we had. We talked about the plunder of the land that went on with the old kind of forest practices. We talked about when the Socreds came down to this building and closed our university.

But more than anything else, I talked about the Columbia River Treaty, where some people -- in Canada and British Columbia -- used the power of law to say: "You people who

[ Page 10979 ]

I'm pleased to say that we -- me and my brothers and sisters from the Kootenays -- set out, and we did it. And you know what? Sometimes the members opposite even helped us.

An Hon. Member: Did they want a referendum?

Hon. C. Evans: They even helped us -- no, without a referendum. They came in here. We created a thing we called the Columbia Basin Trust Act, which wasn't going to pay back anything like what was stolen. It wasn't going to put anybody's home back. It wasn't going to end the fires and put the farms back on the land. But it was going to try to do a little bit of justice-making, a little bit of fixing the issues of the past. It was going to cost a lot of money.

Now, let's see. Nisga'a is assumed to cost the provincial government something like $65 million. Members opposite say: "It's too much money. No, we can't afford $65 million. We should go back and negotiate towards zero, because, yeah, it's too much money."

But the day we brought the Columbia Basin Trust Act in here, it was $125 million directly to the people of the basin, another $125 million to Columbia Power Corp., $47 million more for investments in the short term and $250 million of borrowing over that -- $547 million for four ridings in southeastern B.C.

West Vancouver-Capilano voted for it, and Delta South voted for it. How come it was okay for us white folks, you guys? You voted for it without any referendum -- for the people of the Kootenays to have justice. Fort Langley-Aldergrove voted for it, and Langley voted for it. The hon. member reading the paper over there, North Vancouver-Seymour -- good on you -- voted for it. Vancouver-Langara, Richmond Centre and Matsqui. . . . The people in the Kootenays appreciate it. It's just the beginning of the recompense for the past.

But I've got to say to the folks at home that if it was good enough for us -- if we believed in it enough to fight three elections, until we finally won, came into this building and tried to change the world -- how could it possibly be different or too expensive for the Nisga'a? I don't think rural people believe that. I think there's more justice out there. You know what I think rural people understand? I think they understand that cities essentially have been plundering the agrarian community for the whole history of this country. The money comes out in silver; it comes out in electricity; then we log off the land. Whatever it is, it comes to cities. Then, of course, the federal government taxes the cities, and it goes to Ottawa.

You know what? For rural people, the treaty-making process, estimated to cost $8 billion federally to settle all the treaties in B.C. over the next 30 years. . . . That's the first transfer payment to rural people in the history of this province. We don't so much care whose money it is; we just want a job. For the people of the Kootenays, the best thing that could ever possibly happen is the settling of the land claims in the Kootenays, the transfer of some Ottawa money to the Kootenays, the bringing of some certainty to the Kootenays.

I met a trucker. I was in Maple Ridge giving a talk about fisheries, and after the speech was finished, a guy came outside to the parking lot -- I was out having a smoke. He said: "I want to introduce myself. I'm from Terrace. I'm a trucker, and I want to talk about the Nisga'a land claim." This was a year ago. I thought: here goes. I said: "Okay. I'm the Minister of Fisheries, but what's on your mind?" He said: "Well, I'm a trucker of fish; that's why I want to talk to you. I used to be able to work for five or six different companies. I haul reefer trucks to the plants, full of fish; that's what I do for a living. And everything's changed. Capital is rootless. The companies are leaving. Some of them are going to Alaska; some of them are going to Vancouver; some of them are even going to Bellingham. There's only one group of people I can trust to stay there and keep the jobs there. That's the Nisga'a, because they're rooted. They live there."

I think the Liberal Party wants a referendum because they know that the people from the cities could once again out-vote rural people and make sure that we don't ever get this transfer of the capital. They want to make sure it doesn't go to the loggers and the farmers and the orchardists and the ranchers and the fishermen. They want to make sure it goes to West Vancouver-Capilano, like it always did, or to Ottawa, where their buddies live. They want a referendum to make sure that the rural people cannot ever acquire that capital. I wonder if hunters. . . . I want to talk to my constituents. To those of you guys who like to hunt deer, do you want to let them have a referendum about that in Vancouver? Is that a good idea? Should we let them decide how we're going to live? Shall we let them decide if it's okay to log?

I think the referendum was dealt with in three elections, two of them that we won -- especially the one in which we stood up on the eve of the election and said: "When we win, we're going straight to this day. The rural people elected me and my brothers and sisters, and it's time to do the job."

It's important to try and figure out who's for the treaty and who's against the treaty. The people of the Kootenays, watching TV, see our native sons, those icons of the land use argument like Jack Munro, who started out life welding at Kootenay Forest Products before the company shut it down and who went on to lead the IWA. They are on television saying that it's good for working people; settle the treaty. We remember him because he was ours. The people of the Kootenays look at TV and see Dr. Suzuki. Now, there's a guy who understands justice issues. Plucked from his life down here and put in the Slocan valley, where I live, against his will, he grows up to be the icon of the environmental sector.

[5:45]

And then I went around trying to find somebody that was against it. I went to high schools from the Cariboo to Nelson asking kids: "Do you want us to do this thing?" The last debate was at L.V. Rogers Secondary. The room was full of kids. We debated for two hours. It was hard, because kids ask tough questions, as you know. When it was all over, I said: "Okay, it's a free vote, you guys. I'm going down there. Let's play for all the marbles. I'll vote how you vote. All those who want me to vote yes, raise your hands." And 90 percent of the kids in that room raised their hands. "Those who want to vote no" -- a couple; "those who aren't sure yet" -- a couple more. At that moment I realized that as long as you talk honestly to them, the young are for it. They want a world that isn't built on injustice. They want our generation to fix this stuff so they can get on with life. [Applause.]

[ Page 10980 ]

Looking for somebody that was against it, I went to the UBCM. It was a non-issue at the UBCM. I went to the Premier's summit in Castlegar, waiting for a person to say, "Oh, the Nisga'a is big trouble," and it was a non-issue at the Premier's summit. I got 50 farmers and ranchers and processors together in Naramata in the Okanagan, and I asked: "What are the issues that matter to you?" We talked for two days. It was a non-issue at Naramata. I am still looking for the people for whom this is a big deal.

I understand there are some really big institutions in British Columbia, and we have to listen to them. There is labour. I think the B.C. Federation of Labour two weeks ago voted unanimously that they want us to walk in this room and do this deal. That answers for labour. Then there are the companies. Well, where I live, Slocan Forest Products is the company I always worked for. I am so old and I worked there so long that I knew Ike Barber when he used to work for wages. Slocan Forest Products decided to do their own analysis of whether or not they wanted the MLAs that represent their companies to come in here and vote yes or no. I'm not going to read the whole thing for you, but the final lines of their document called "Slocan's View on Treaties and the Ratification Process of the Nisga'a Treaty" say, for the benefit of those of you at home: "Our review has led to the conclusion that the Nisga'a treaty should be ratified."

Then there are the folks at that great institution called the B.C. Business Summit. I've never actually been there, but my understanding is that somewhere there's a room, and in that room there are 800 captains of industry. They are the employers of all my folks at home and all the people in the province. These are the people who drive the economy and who actually understand the economy. These are the people who, if there was something to lose in this issue, would be the very first people to step forward, I guess. What do they have to say? Written by Michael Goldberg, professor from UBC -- way more educated than any of us -- and edited by Jock Finlayson, the vice-president of the B.C. Business Council, this is what it actually said in a document that most of us never read: "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." Those are the rich people; those are the people that control all the capital. They want us to do the deal.

The only other really big organization I know of -- now that we've covered off labour and capital -- is the spiritual self. It's the part of us that goes to church and is engaged in morality. And I'm really happy to say that they've spoken up too, just so we could know if there was anybody opposed -- besides maybe people here. The churches of British Columbia -- pages and pages of them -- say: "We endorse the general principles of the Nisga'a final agreement as the result of good-faith negotiations between the three parties, and we believe that the ratification of the treaty would be in the best interests of British Columbians and Canadians.

So if kids, environmentalists, labour, loggers, business and religious folks all think that this is the right thing to do at this moment in our history, who is there that thinks it's the wrong thing to do? At the risk of actually engaging the people, I said: "This is not about 'I think,' you guys; it's only members opposite and the ghost of Bill Vander Zalm." There's nobody else left, hon. Speaker.

The last objection of the Liberal Party -- a great Liberal Party that's here deciding its own history, actually, as well as everybody else's. . . . The moment of choice for the folks over there is, in part, resting on this question that they keep raising of this new order of government. Folks over there who I know -- because I know some of them -- and who, in their hearts, want to do the deal, are over there reading pieces of paper written by somebody else, saying, "This is not a good deal, because it creates a new order of government" -- written by some researcher so that they'd have something to say when they stood up, because their Whip told them to go in there and do something that they don't personally believe in. I want to talk about that new order of government -- not because I think it will convince anybody over there but so that the folks at home and my kids will get to understand a little bit about what I understand.

It is true that we are changing the nature of government, but it isn't with fear. Folks in the Liberal Party are trying to spread everywhere that there's something at risk: "It's too big to read, so trust me, and I'll tell you that there's something dangerous in here." That's the story they're telling you. What I actually saw the day the Nisga'a came here was flags of British Columbia in the hands of little kids -- Nisga'a kids. And I saw the flag of Canada -- the country's flag, the Maple Leaf -- in the hands of old people, who came here to talk to us and to dance, holding the flag of the province of British Columbia.

What I want to say, not to you guys who don't care -- they won't let you show it even if you do -- but to the folks at home: "You're darn right we're making a new government, and it's called a country." What we're doing is putting Canada together. We are bringing people in to what has previously been an exclusive club called a nation. We are saying: "We want to make a deal that includes you."

There are Indian people all over this province who are opposed, for the understandable reason that the Nisga'a deal is diminishing the claim to 8 percent. It's diminishing the notion of the power of the Indian Act. It's saying that the tax-free status will go away. There are native people who are opposed to that stuff because it's making one country.

I said in my very first speech, when I stood here, that what I wanted you to do for the Kootenays was what I learned at first-aid school: number one, take the injured body away from risk; number two, put the body at rest; and number three, let us heal ourselves. I go back to what we wish for ourselves, we demand for all people. They want just the same.

I move adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. L. Boone: Hon. Speaker, I call private members' statements.

Private Members' Statements

THE WAR ON INNOCENCE

[ Page 10981 ]

The problem first came to public attention when the police in Port Moody decided to do an investigation. They'd seen a little bit more drug paraphernalia at schools, and they had some reason to be concerned. So they went and they did an investigation. They were shocked to find out that in the first six weeks of that investigation -- and they only got to six weeks -- they found 50 kids in just Port Moody who were hooked on heroine or cocaine -- 50 children. This is in a suburban community of 20,000, which I think has a higher-than-average income than many other communities in British Columbia.

Parents in Port Moody said: "If it can happen here, it can happen anywhere in British Columbia, to any community. If the children in our homes are getting hooked on these hard drugs in what seem to be record numbers, then children in any home can get hooked on drugs -- and hard drugs." The result of the community forum -- the good news -- is that parents, police and community leaders have started to come together to try and fight the problem. But they need help to fight the problem.

What we heard at our last community meeting was that there are huge gaps in the system that's designed to meet the needs of families whose children get hooked on these drugs. There are huge gaps in the system that is supposed to be serving children and helping them get off hard drugs -- if they're unwise enough, I guess, to get it started in the first place -- to help them get past their addiction, if they choose to do that.

There is a lack of detox facilities for young people in British Columbia. Did you know that there are only 18 beds in the lower mainland that are dedicated for youth detox? In the entire lower mainland, there are only 18 beds, and not one of those beds is available for girls. The ironic result of the shortage of beds we have here is that the people that get the treatment, the people that get to use those 18 beds, are almost only the kids that are ordered to do so by the courts, the kids that are mandated and told that they have to get the service.

What happens as a result of that is that the children who decide that they want to get help, that they're able to try and beat their addiction, can't get the help. They're told they have to wait up to eight months to try and get it -- eight months. At the end of eight months for a kid that's 14, 15, 16 years old. . . . In that eight-month period between the time they've decided they want to make a change and the time they finally get to the top of the waiting list to get into a detox facility, those kids might have changed their minds. In fact, they've probably changed their minds. They might even be further into their addiction; it might even be worse by then.

I know that the ministers across would like to make me get into a partisan debate, which I know isn't allowed in private members' statements -- and I'm certainly tempted to do that. But when I talk about the shortage of detox beds. . . . I know that some of the members opposite would like to make it very partisan. The reason that I'm raising it in private member's statements is because I think this is an area where we can try and work together, where we can make a change. It's only if we do work together that we will make a change.

[6:00]

One of the mothers who got up and spoke at this town hall meeting talked about how her family had been turned into a war zone. She didn't know, when she came home, which of her possessions would have been sold. She didn't know what kids were going to be hanging around. She watched her son as he lost a dramatic amount of weight, as his skin turned a deathly yellow, as his marks in school went down dramatically. That's what she watched happen to her child, and when she cried out and asked for resources, they weren't there.

What the people of Port Moody are coming together to do is to try and find solutions for this problem, to get resources into their community from a whole number of sources. People are fundraising in the private sector. Volunteers are working. People are coming together to offer their personal services for free to try and solve the problem. What I'm asking in this House today is that we follow that same spirit of coming together to try and solve what is a very, very urgent problem in my community.

J. Smallwood: I would like to thank the member for her statement today. I think it's crucially important. I want to speak from the perspective of someone who also represents a suburban riding and to emphasize the need for spending on social infrastructure -- programs for children, programs for families and programs that support healthy communities.

I have to say that I'm very proud of our government, because our government has been engaged in a historic struggle in this province. It has been trying to do things differently than other provinces have when we're facing federal cutbacks and the withdrawal of financing for those very programs. I think it's important that we put a human face on issues such as this, and I think the contribution that the member has made to this debate is an important one. Governance is about trade-offs; it's about whether you are able to provide the services when families are at risk, even if it is tough financial times for governments. I would hope that the member opposite would support the government in its struggle, rather than pointing at Alberta, which is drastically cutting human services in their province to balance their budget, because that's the most important thing for them.

I want to make the point that our government has programs in place and recognizes the need for additional programs to support children and families. Government already spends $60 million for addiction services to cope with this problem. The government's programs are provincewide and recognize the fact that drug and alcohol addiction is not simply a big-city problem but is a problem that has its roots in

[ Page 10982 ]

Youth addiction services already exist across the province, as I said. They include residential services, supportive recovery services, day treatment and intensive day treatment as well. The government recognizes the need to continue to struggle to address those problems and hopes that the opposition will join the government in encouraging the federal government to live up to its responsibility to health care and social programs for children and families.

C. Clark: Eighteen youth beds -- 18 -- on the lower mainland; that's what we're talking about. Eighteen youth beds, and not one of them reserved for girls. All for boys. There are so few, as I said, that almost all the children making use of those beds are kids that are ordered to get the treatment. They are not kids that want it necessarily -- maybe some of them do -- not kids who have chosen to get it of their own accord. I've been to visit one of those detox centres, and lots of the kids that are in there decide, once they're there, that it was a wise thing for them to have been forced to do. But the sad irony of it is that the kids who want the help can't get it. Eighteen is not enough. It's not enough for the lower mainland. We have a growing problem.

You know, when the government allowed Pender Detox to close and then we very narrowly averted the closure of Cordova Detox, I was alerted to the fact that we do have a very serious problem with detox services. The resources that are there are not enough.

Just in closing, hon. Speaker I want to reiterate the commitment, the request, that the Leader of the Opposition made, which is to sincerely work with the government to try and find these solutions -- not in an adversarial way but by sitting down and trying to find solutions for the problems facing young people in British Columbia so that we can really get somewhere in investing in our future. That's what it's about. Every dollar that we spend intervening early in a child's life pays off in the future. It pays big dividends in the future, and I don't know how else you would characterize that except as an investment. We need to recognize that our current approach is not working and that we need to find a new one.

J. Cashore: I request leave to make an introduction, hon. Speaker.

Leave granted.

J. Cashore: Visiting in the gallery is Brian Churchill, who is a councillor in Fort St. John. He's working with the Muskwa-Kechika advisory board, and he's here on advisory board business with regard to the wonderful outcome of the work of this government with the community up there, which is the northern Rockies. Would the House please make him welcome.

HUMAN RIGHTS: WORK IN PROGRESS

Tomorrow, December 10, marks the fiftieth anniversary of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, a declaration that's going to be celebrated around the world. We can look back about 50 years to the circumstances surrounding that declaration. The world had experienced the horror of two world wars, wars we were determined never to repeat, and the United Nations committed to rebuilding, to improving relations among and within nations, to establishing a new international basis for the advancement of human rights.

That post-war period in Canada was one we can be very proud of. It's one in which our country built a system of underlying support for its citizens -- Canada Pension Plan, unemployment insurance, family allowance, student assistance plans, a national housing program and, of course, Canada's defining social program, medicare. Through the fifties, sixties and seventies, these programs grew and flourished, along with our population.

However, with the economic downturns of the 1980s, programs making up Canada's safety net began to be squeezed, reduced and, in some cases, eliminated -- particularly since 1994, with the repeal of the Canada Assistance Plan and the cumulative to-date withdrawal of $15.5 billion in federal transfers to provinces. These programs, which have in many ways defined our Canadian society, are no longer able to provide either the support or the services that citizens expect.

Today, on the eve of these fiftieth-anniversary celebrations, I want to speak specifically on the articles of the Declaration of Human Rights which address the issues of poverty, so let's set a context first. Fifty years ago the United Nations General Assembly proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights "as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance. . . ."

In particular, there's an article respecting poverty, article 25:

"(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection."

The Canadian delegation to the committee was composed of experts who could not answer the searching questions put to them, even though it was noted that Canada has been ranked at the top of the United Nations development program's human development index. On average, Canadians enjoy a singularly high standard of living. Clearly we in Canada have the capacity to achieve a high level of respect for the covenant rights. That this has not been achieved is

[ Page 10983 ]

Real living standards have declined for a majority of Canadians and are at desperation levels for the growing numbers of the poor. In Canada's free market economy of 1998, the top 10 percent of income earners have increased their share of national income by a factor of 15. That is, today they earn 314 times the income of the lowest 10 percent of income earners, up from 21 times in 1973.

The rapidly growing inequities between the wealthiest 10 percent of the population and the poorest 10 percent of the population are exacerbated by the loss or diminution of nationally supported social programs. Just to read from a couple of excerpts from the committee's report:

"The committee notes that since 1994, in addressing the budget deficits by slashing social expenditure, the [federal government] has not paid sufficient attention to the adverse consequences for the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights of the Canadian population as a whole and by vulnerable groups in particular.

"The committee is greatly concerned at the gross disparity between aboriginal people and the majority of Canadians with respect to the enjoyment of covenant rights. There has been little or no progress in the alleviation of social and economic deprivation among aboriginal people.

"The replacement of the Canada Assistance Plan by the Canada Health and Social Transfer entails a range of adverse consequences for the enjoyment of covenant rights by disadvantaged groups in Canada."

[6:15]

Hon. Speaker, I'd like to share with you some of my favourite rights -- if I can put it that way -- that are enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They begin in section 2 of the Charter, entitled "Fundamental Freedoms." Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of conscience and religion; freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association. There are numerous other freedoms that are guaranteed in the Charter, but those are a few of the highlights and, to me, are some of the most important ones.

I think we in this chamber can all recognize that a document stating that a person has certain rights really doesn't mean a lot if they don't have enough food to feed themselves or to look after their family. In British Columbia we've experienced a 6 percent decrease in recent years in average incomes while the rest of Canada has experienced a growth in incomes, and that's not acceptable. But more seriously, when you look around the world, you can see vast disparities between countries and between peoples. Last year I had an opportunity to visit one of the poorest countries in the world. In fact, the United Nations considers it one of the tenth-worst countries in the world to live in. Whereas Canada is ranked number one, this country is right at the bottom of the list, and that's the country called Cambodia.

I'm sure most of the people living in that country have never even heard of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, much less experienced the freedoms that are supposedly guaranteed by that document. The people living in that country can look forward to a life expectancy of approximately 40 years. That's for the fortunate ones. There are many people who don't make it that far. Cambodia has one of the highest rates of infant mortality.

Clearly a document alone does not guarantee human rights as we would all understand it from a layman's perspective: the right to look after your children, the right to have reasonable health care, and the right to look forward to a life that has some opportunities and some choice. Even in Canada we know that there are people who really don't benefit from the rights that are supposedly guaranteed not only in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but in our own Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In recent months I've been assisting a young woman who's a recent immigrant to this country. She has been subjected to tremendous abuse at the hands of her relatives. She falls between the cracks, because the threat that hangs over her head is possible deportation if she causes too many waves and the relatives that sponsored her revoke their sponsorship.

We have a long ways to go as a society, but the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was a tremendous step forward. It's a good starting point, and I think that from time to time it's a good reference point for us to look back at too. It should guide our actions in everything that we do in this Legislative Assembly.

E. Gillespie: I'd like to wrap up by talking a little bit about British Columbia. I'm very pleased to hear the hon. member talk about how a document alone does not guarantee rights in any way. Certainly the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is something that we need to constantly strive toward, and that's what I'd like to talk a little bit about now.

The overall incidence of low income in British Columbia is about the same as the Canadian average. But the situation for B.C. children is somewhat better. The incidence of children in families with low incomes is nearly one percentage point lower in British Columbia than the Canadian average, at 20.2 percent compared to 21.1 percent nationally. Quite frankly, I find that an alarming and extremely disturbing number in itself.

But this government struggles with finding ways within its limited resources to address the issue of poverty, particular as it affects children and young people, and in many ways

[ Page 10984 ]

Governments do what they can, but the will of the people is what supports government. Bishop Remi De Roo, who served as this province's first chairperson of the B.C. Human Rights Commission, suggests a charter of responsibility to go along with the Charter of Rights, where individuals take to heart the ideal of ensuring the rights of others. Imagine this: a society in British Columbia in which individuals would rise up to say that we must do all we can, as a society, to take care of our poor and our children. We must, as a society, eliminate child poverty.

Our current chairperson of the Human Rights Commission, Mary-Woo Sims, says: "It's time that society recognizes that poor people have rights." She goes on to say: "I'm hoping for the day when we won't need a Human Rights Commission." I couldn't agree more.

TAKING CARE OF BUSINESS

When it drops, an orange, white and blue whirlwind will break loose on the ice as the best franchise in Canadian major junior hockey roars into action, gunning for yet another victory in a long, splendid and proud history of achievement. Tonight the Blazers are in the hunt to continue a 25-game unbeaten streak, a franchise record. There are a lot of records behind this team. In the past decade and a half, the Blazers have played their way into the Western Hockey League West Division finals 13 consecutive times. They've won the Western Hockey League title six times: 1984, 1986, 1990, 1992, 1994 and 1995.

The Blazers have won the Memorial Cup three times, the highest achievement in Canadian major junior hockey -- first in 1992, then back-to-back in 1994 and 1995. Since their beginnings in the early eighties, the Kamloops Blazers have seen 80 of their players drafted to NHL teams. Twenty players and coaches have gone on to represent Canada in the World Junior Championships, with 12 Blazers bringing back the gold from this international event. The coaches don't get gold medals, but Kamloops gives them a pat on the back for a job well done.

The Blazers do a lot more than hockey. These young men, ages 16 to 20, serve as role models for children and teens throughout the city that their team calls home. They visit schools, participate in community events and help their team serve as a great corporate citizen. The Blazers founded the Kamloops Blazers Sports Foundation, which funds sporting agencies and projects throughout the community. Volunteers are key to any successful hockey club. The people of Kamloops have created the Kamloops Blazers Booster Club, which has been recognized as the best booster club in the Canadian Hockey League. Their fundraising efforts pay for billeting and scholarships as well as support for needy families at Christmas.

The Kamloops Blazers have brought tremendous recognition not only to our city but to British Columbia, as well as significant economic activity. The value of the franchise has risen from $400,000 in 1984 to nearly $5 million today. But it's really not about money. For Kamloops, it's about the love of sports, of community and of young people and about providing opportunities. The Blazers represent a wonderful town. We call Kamloops the city with the smiling heart, and the thousands of people who flock there for major sports events understand why. Known also as the tournament capital of B.C., the city hosts hundreds of tournaments each year, including, in the recent past, the 1993 Canada Summer Games; the 1992 and '93 Canadian junior men's and women's basketball championships; the 1998 Junior Women's Canadian Fast Pitch Championships; five separate golf championship events in the 1990s; three provincial curling championships in the nineties; the 1996 Brier -- the Canadian men's curling championship; the 1997 World Cup snowboarding championships; as well as the Canadian Hang Gliding Championship at Sun Peaks, our sensational ski development; the 1998 Ford World Curling Championship; the World Kick Boxing Championship; the World Flyfishing Championship; the 1995 World Trampoline and Tumbling Championship; the annual B.C. High School Rodeo Championship and Indoor Pro Rodeo; the 1997 Canadian Divisional Skating Championship -- Western; and 1998 Skate Canada. Every event, large or small, is enthusiastically supported by the people of Kamloops. Over 5,000 volunteers turn out to host major events, and visitors revel in hospitality and remark about the warmth of their reception and the vitality, excitement and joy of the community.

Yes, Kamloops is a special place, and the Kamloops Blazers are our emblem. Proud and strong, they're known for digging deep when the going gets tough. We weren't necessarily expecting a championship this year, but under the tutelage of Coach Marc Habscheid and the administration of President Colin Day and their organizations, these young men have coalesced into something really special. Every player counts, and achievement is spread across the board. The Kamloops Blazers stand for a community that cares -- a welcoming, vibrant city that strives for excellence and shines with quality. When the Blazers roar onto the ice tonight, they know that the 6,000 voices cheering them on are with them win, lose or draw, because Kamloops cares.

I'm going to give my colleague from the government side a chance to respond now, Mr. Speaker, before I wrap up with a word on the exciting future events coming up in Kamloops.

G. Janssen: The member for Kamloops-North Thompson is obviously very proud of his community and working on one heck of a mailer. It's heartening to hear an MLA who speaks of his constituents in such a high manner. I know that we're all proud when we rise in this chamber to talk about our constituencies and all the good work that goes on there and all the community vitality that takes place there.

Certainly I'm not going to repeat all the world championships; all the games -- the '93 Canada Games; curling cham-

[ Page 10985 ]

One thing bothers me, though. I mean, what we hear in question period from members such as the member opposite is doom and gloom about the economy and about how badly communities are doing. Yet the hotels and resorts and restaurants must be just thriving. Kamloops must be the envy of every other community in British Columbia. Everyone must be working. Every resort, restaurant and hotel must be thriving. There must be construction happening. I know they just built a new arena. I know they must be expanding every single operation there. There certainly aren't enough rooms or enough seats in restaurants.

The Minister of Tourism announced a 39 percent increase. I'm sure that 20 percent of that happened in Kamloops alone. You know, the number of tourist businesses grew to 16,572 from 10,000 in '91; 500 or 1,000 of those must have happened in Kamloops. Jobs are up over 250,000; certainly a vast number of those must have happened in Kamloops. I congratulate the member, and I congratulate his community. I also want to congratulate this government, who, over eight years, has made all that possible. Thank you, hon. member.

[6:30]

But the pace of events in Kamloops shows no signs of slowing. In March of 1999 we will host the Canadian alpine ski championships. Later in the year it will be the provincial double-A basketball championships for both senior boys and girls. The 1999 Canadian pro-golf tour qualifying school will also be held in our city -- as was last year's -- as well as the 1999 Canadian men's amateur golf championship.

Kamloops is a place where, for part of each year, people can actually golf and ski on the same day. Ours is a town that loves its sports and welcomes visitors to enjoy them too. In fact, for folks in Kamloops who happen to be watching, it's time you hiked off to the Riverside Coliseum, because the Blazers are playing tonight. I'm one of the 4,700 people who hold season's tickets for Blazers games. The seat is seldom empty when I'm out of town, as a lineup of offspring gleefully awaits the opportunity to fill it for me. It took two years on the wait-list to get those seats, and once in hand, one doesn't readily part with them. I'll conclude this salute to sports in Kamloops generally, and the Kamloops Blazers in particular, with a cheer for the Kamloops Blazers, who are gearing up for another game as we speak. Whatever tonight's outcome, boys -- and it will probably be another win -- you know that we're with you, heart and soul. Go, Blazers, go!

Deputy Speaker: I really must caution you on the rules of decorum, member -- as much as I appreciate your spirited presentation to the House.

And that completes. . . . Oh, the member for Surrey-Whalley rises on a matter.

J. Smallwood: Next statement.

Deputy Speaker: Yes. We'll go to the final statement.

ON TO THE FUTURE

I rise to speak about the future -- about our government's vision for this province and our hope for families and children and how we're acting on that vision.

Our province is a trading province. We are positioned as leaders not only in the Pacific Rim but in the global marketplace. When things are going well in that global marketplace, we can hold our own, and our industries and the people who work for those industries in this province do well. I think that most of us understand that when things go bad in that global marketplace, it just points out that we, with that leadership, have to provide the kind of input necessary to level that playing field -- to establish it as a fair marketplace and a fair place to do business. In doing that, our commitment to support young people and families so that they can take their position in that marketplace is unprecedented at a time when other provincial governments are cutting services to people and reducing their commitment to public education.

Our commitment to that education is not simply to provide jobs and develop consumers. We are committed as a government to providing the kind of education that supports full citizenship -- not only full citizenship in this province and in Canada but full citizenship in that global marketplace. Education is a fundamental; it's fundamental to a free and democratic society. It's clear that when a child takes their first step into the public education system, that is their first meeting place with other future citizens. It's a meeting place that prepares its citizens in both civic democracy as well as social and economic democracy. Those are fundamental principles in the work that our government is engaged in -- and a fundamental principle that I think we can all be proud of in providing for the next generation of leaders in that global community.

Our government is proud of its record. It's proud of the fact that we have provided 13,000 new spaces in colleges and universities since 1996 alone. For the third year running, we've frozen tuition fees and removed fee barriers for adult basic education. Our commitment is not only to the children and youth of this province, in providing them an opportunity to enter as global citizens and leaders, but to ongoing and continuing education for adults and the opportunities for adult learners to get their basic education -- to return to school, if that's what's necessary.

Despite federal cutbacks, we put $202 million more into public education in the past six years. When I comment on the fact that we're doing things differently in this province, that's just one of the signals. The investment in the future, the investment in opportunities and the investment in full citizenship is a record that we're proud of and a record that will hold up to any province in Canada.

Here's how we stack up. The national rate of enrolment increase in 1998 was about zero -- only 1.2 percent -- and when you look at that enrolment increase, it's a sad commentary on the hopes of a nation. Here in British Columbia we have a rate of 16 percent as the increase in enrolment in continuing education. Again, during the time when the federal government is withdrawing its commitment to programs such as education, health care and other social programs -- the social infrastructure and the hopes for Canada -- our government has stemmed the tide. We've continued to invest and continued to support the hopes and dreams of families in the province.

Tuition fees are now lower than any province, other than Quebec. Ontario's public education spending has been virtually flat in the past five years. National spending actually shrank by 4.5 percent. But B.C. constantly invests more each

[ Page 10986 ]

Professional programs, now so expensive in Ontario. . . . You practically need to be a doctor or lawyer to afford a medical or legal degree.

R. Masi: I would just like to comment a bit on a couple of the statements of the member opposite. In terms of societal change and global citizens, I thought that was an interesting point that was made. I would like to put forward the proposal that education is change. When we talk about the future of education, what we are really discussing is ongoing change. Ongoing change in education means change in purpose, change in goals, change in application of methodology, change in public expectations and change in the impact of technology.

However, underlying all these elements of change we still have certain constants. These constants are literacy, numeracy and communication skills. Underlying these constants, of course, is the study of classical literature, world history, advanced mathematics and scientific principles. So we can't forget that while we do live in a world of change -- and fast-moving change -- we do have certain constants that we hold as important to an educated person.

In the world of education, these two elements -- change and constants -- may sound contradictory, but they're not contradictory terms. Educational research suggests that this apparent contradiction can be classified as a loose-tight variable -- that's educational jargon -- upon which most educational theory is founded. This variable in fact gives education the flexibility and the ability to adapt to societal changes while maintaining basic, fundamental principles of education.

When we discuss societal changes, we must remember that education is often a reflection of society. So as we enter the millennium, the expectations for education will reflect the societal changes brought about by technological advances, attitudinal changes and the change in educational expectations. We will see in the future a massive decentralization of education right through from grade K to university. We will see virtual universities and decentralized campuses. We will see a continuum in education -- from kindergarten to secondary to colleges and schools of technology and to university. Students of any age and any occupation will opt in and out of educational institutions and programs, and in and out of various occupations.

So we won't see the sort of static condition that society has been involved in in the last hundred years. We will see a large component of society opting for technical and technological training, a vast improvement over what we have now with us, based on our historical methodology in education. We will still see, however, a sizeable component proceed toward university, but universities will be different. All this will be accomplished on campuses, in the workplace and in the home. So we will see a new world -- a new world of education -- and it will probably be called virtual education.

J. Smallwood: I would like to thank the member for his comments. With his previous profession as an educator, it's obvious that he knows about the education system.

But I want to take exception to his comments, on the other hand, because education and the opportunities for young people don't just happen. They happen because a government is committed to an education philosophy; it's committed to young people and recognizes that education is the great equalizer. It's the opportunity for young people who would not otherwise have the opportunity to participate on an equal footing with people who are coming from a much more privileged background.

It's the opportunity that is provided by a government that is going against the trend in the rest of the country -- going against the Mike Harrises in Ontario that are closing down 39 schools, going against the practice of the Klein government. I understand that the Klein government has backed away from this, but they were going to charge tuition for kindergarten -- the very first opportunity for new students and new citizens to enter into those houses of learning that we all value so much, public education.

[6:45]

Deputy Speaker: Members, that concludes private member's statements.

Hon. I. Waddell moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:47 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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