[ Page 10987 ]

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

S. Orcherton: Joining us in the precinct today for a ceremony in the lower rotunda are a number of former UN peacekeepers. They're here today commemorating the tenth anniversary of the Nobel peace prize, which was awarded to the United Nations peacekeeping forces on December 10, 1988. They'll all be receiving certificates. I think the Speaker will be in attendance at that event, and I'd encourage members who have an opportunity to join us in the lower rotunda.

The individuals who are receiving certificates are: Mr. Joseph Anderson, Mr. Kerry Burbridge, Ron Caven, Mr. Raymond Chenier, Mr. Ed Dixon, Mr. George Dobson, Mr. Ed Ferguson, Mr. Matthew Gronow, Sgt. Scott Laird, Mr. Tom Leonard, the Rev. Alex Reid, Lt. Jo Anne Steinmetz, Mr. Ed Widenmaier, Mr. William Willbond and Brig. Gen. Douglas Yuill. They'll be joined down in the lower rotunda by Rear-Adm. Ronald Buck, Mr. Ken Parkinson from Veterans Affairs Canada and Mr. Jim MacMillan-Murphy. I'd ask members who are available to come down and join in on this important ceremony and also to welcome these peacekeeping veterans, all of whom are longtime British Columbia residents, to the precinct.

Orders of the Day 

Hon. D. Streifel: I call second reading debate on Bill 51.

NISGA'A FINAL AGREEMENT ACT
(second reading continued)

It was interesting, the other day, when the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs alluded to the concept of parliamentary government and stated that elected members have the authority, by virtue of their position, to undertake decisions that will affect the fundamental structure of society without recourse to that society. The minister stated that we live in a parliamentary democracy, and it is often called a representative democracy. How I wish this were true in British Columbia today. I agree with the minister and his words in the Legislature, and I will quote his words from Hansard:

"The parliamentary system is not paternalism. It's 700 years of democracy in the western world. . . . It's the acceptance of the notion that as a member of the Legislature, you have an obligation to make tough decisions and to stand up and explain and defend the positions that you take. . . . We as parliamentarians have that job."

I would remind the minister that according to parliamentary tradition, we have, or should have, a system of responsible government, not a system of representative government, which means that the government of the day is responsible to the parliament of the day. That is the tradition that we should be adhering to. I ask: is the government of the day responsible to the Legislature? I also ask: how many free votes have taken place on the government's side? I ask: in a true parliamentary setting, should the term "free vote" even be used? Should every vote not be a free vote? I believe myself that the term free vote is redundant in a true parliamentary government.

I see no evidence of a free vote on the government's side in this session; government members will vote the same way they always do. Nor have I seen any evidence of free thinking and free voting on the government's side in the last two and a half years that I have been in this session. So I question: what alternative is left to the people of British Columbia? What is left to the people when facing the reordering of government as well as the significant reorganization of the social fabric of this province? What alternative is left for the people to express their democratic rights when a government with doubtful support -- elected by only 39 percent of the people -- at the present time on this issue attempts to institute a treaty without the support of the general populace?

True parliamentary government, true responsible government, where the cabinet is responsible to the whole Legislature, would and should be the proper vehicle -- providing that this House operated on a true parliamentary concept. However, this House does not. We have a system that is not representative, nor is it, in the true sense of parliamentary tradition, responsible government. So what have we? We have a Premier and a cabinet who are answerable to no one. We have in this province a government close to the definition of an absolute government, a government which in practice, hon. members, resembles the governments of Italy and Germany in the 1920s and 1930s respectively.

I ask: where are the committee structures? They are either non-functional or dysfunctional. Where is the challenge for and the accountability of the government backbenchers? Not to be seen or heard. That is why, when a major change in the structure and composition of our society -- and I refer to the whole society, both aboriginal and non-aboriginal -- is being deliberated upon, I feel most strongly that all members of our society should have a voice in the principles of change. That's not necessary on each negotiated detail but on general principles which will enunciate fair, liberal, progressive and transparent proposals.

As a member of this House, I have observed no evidence of anything even close to the true parliamentary concept of responsible government, established, as the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs stated, by 700 years of historical precedents. How many times have we heard government backbenchers even rise to criticize the government? How many times have we seen NDP backbenchers vote contrary to the government? Is this government perfect? Is any government perfect? I think not. So I question: where are the government backbenchers? Why are they not exercising their parliamentary duty? Look to your colleagues in the United Kingdom. Government backbenchers make their name by holding the government of the day to account. Look to your colleagues in the United States, where they have true representative democracy and such a term as free vote would be wondered about, if not laughed at.

Therefore, when the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs advances the argument that this parliament has the right and responsibility to exact such a major change in our society, then I must strongly take issue with the minister on the moral right of this government, given the decline in the state of true parliamentary government in this province, to enact such significant legislation without recourse to the people.

[10:15]

[ Page 10988 ]

I have no objection to the establishment of treaties in this province. On the contrary, I totally support the establishment of treaties. Who in their right mind would not support treaties? We need certainty and finality. We need to settle all aboriginal claims in order to stabilize the economic situation in British Columbia. We need to complete the treaty process in order to attempt to right the injustices of the past. However, I do not need a lecture from members opposite on the wrongs of the past; I've had a taste of that discrimination myself. These aboriginal injustices were real and sorrowful, and no one can deny this fact. But the courts have ruled that we must negotiate. The courts have said that everyone will be staying around for a long time and that we must learn to live together. That is proper, hon. members. However, we must move towards inclusion, not towards separation and exclusion.

The people who fought for the civil rights movement in the United States and in South Africa despised apartheid. I despise apartheid. So I must question the long-term effects of these proposed treaties. Are we in fact establishing equal rights and opportunities, or are we perpetuating and simply adding to the failed methods of past generations?

In the early 1940s. . . .

Interjections.

R. Masi: Listen up, hon. members.

In the early 1940s, the United States armed forces were totally segregated. In the regular army of a half-million men, there were only 4,700 blacks, two black officers and three black chaplains. Afro-Americans were not permitted to serve, except in separate units and regiments. Walter White and A. Philip Randolph, black leaders at the time, appealed to Eleanor Roosevelt, a beacon of liberalism in those times. They wanted the right to fight -- in fact to be equal partners, not segregated, not separated.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Are we so sure today, hon. Speaker, by attempting again to right the wrongs of the past, that we are, by this treaty, not simply perpetuating the divisiveness and inequality so prevalent in the past hundred years? Let us not wear the cloak of infallibility. Let us not be arrogant and self-serving in our conclusions. Let us take a step back and attempt to measure, over time, the long-term significance of what we are attempting to accomplish by this treaty.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, member. The member for Delta South rises.

F. Gingell: Mr. Speaker, to the member for Vancouver. . . .

Deputy Speaker: Is this a point of order, hon. member?

F. Gingell: Yes, it's on a point of order. If the member for Vancouver-Burrard wishes to interrupt, he should do so from his own seat.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, member. I think all members understand that rule.

R. Masi: So I say: let us take a step back and attempt to measure, over time, the long-term significance of what we are attempting to accomplish with this treaty. A road here, a piece of land here or there and a sum of money now may satisfy the need of present negotiators, but look to the future. What kind of society do we wish for our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren? Young people will not be separated. They will honour the traditions and past culture, as I do mine, but they look to a world of instant communication and advanced technology. Young people will not be content to exist in a locked, compartmentalized society.

Are we so sure that we should support an education system, as designed by this treaty, that is inward-looking and isolated in its conception? Is this the essence of education? Are we sure that the young people of aboriginal descent, in the year 2025, will not look upon this separatist educational structure -- with its restrictive educational motives, as proposed by this treaty -- as archaic, as antiquated 1970s thinking? We are entering an age of interactive learning, satellite campuses, instant communication with the finest universities in the world, total access to information and thought. Are we so sure that we are not stepping backwards and doing our young aboriginal students a huge disservice?

Let us build the right treaty the first time.

P. Calendino: It is a rare privilege and an honour to rise in this House to speak on a topic of such major, historic importance: Bill 51, the Nisga'a Final Agreement Act. This legislation is about to set a new course in history for aboriginal people and for British Columbia. In fact, it is being held up as a beacon of hope for all aboriginal people around the world. This debate on the Nisga'a treaty is truly a momentous occasion and a humbling experience for me. But it is moments like this that make me proud to be part of a government that, even at a time of low popularity and adversity, has the courage and the heart to put its principles of social justice and social equality on the line and win. I am proud to be a member of a government that is prepared to fulfil its moral obligation to end more than a century of discrimination and racism with an honourably negotiated settlement.

The Nisga'a treaty that we are debating in this House this week is about to correct the mistakes of the past and settle historical wrongs in the most reasonable way possible, without litigation, without violence and without blockades. It will finally give Nisga'a people the right to become free citizens and full and equal participants in the social, political and economic life of British Columbia and of Canada -- not an unreasonable wish, after 22 years of negotiations and 111 years of painful waiting.

For the Nisga'a people, the treaty is a reasonable compromise that reflects their culture, their traditions, their hopes and their aspirations for a proud and prosperous future. This must be a joyous time for the Nisga'a people in this province, not because it is Christmas but because this treaty will finally end a century of hopelessness and despair, and because a new year of opportunity is on the horizon for them.

To put into context how the Nisga'a feel, we need only look back at the events of last week in this building and in this capital city. I would like to quote a highly respected Nisga'a elder and a former MLA in this Legislature, Dr. Frank Calder, when he spoke at a forum on the Nisga'a treaty held in Burnaby by the three NDP MLAs some three weeks ago today. "All we want," he said -- and I'm paraphrasing -- "is to be part of British Columbia and part of Canada. We want to be masters of our own destiny. We want to make our own mistakes. We want our people to have hope. We want our children to have the same opportunities that non-aboriginal

[ Page 10989 ]

Those were powerful and moving words that evening, just as were the words of Chief Joe Gosnell when he addressed the Legislature from the Bar last week. Chief Gosnell pointed out that this treaty "signals the end of the Indian Act, the end of more than a century of humiliation, degradation and despair" for the Nisga'a people. At the same time, he also expressed the hope that the land base, the resource allotment and the cash compensation included in the treaty will give the Nisga'a people the opportunity to create an economic infrastructure that will promote meaningful employment and self-reliance so that they do not have to be wards of the state any longer.

Chief Gosnell left no doubt that this is the time to move forward and that we must put political grandstanding aside, because this treaty -- to quote him again -- is about people: ". . .about the legitimate aspirations of people no longer willing to step aside or be marginalized. We intend to be free and equal citizens." Hon. Speaker, I just can't understand why the Liberals over there have taken the radical and extreme position that they have of denying a people their dream -- but, I guess, I never will.

I came to Canada as a teenager in 1959. My family arrived in stages in the 1950s. My knowledge of native people of North America consisted of their portrayal in Hollywood movies and TV series. As my colleague the Minister for Energy and Mines said last week, in those movies, Indians were always the bad guys. When I came here, high school and university did not teach me anything more about aboriginal people in this province and in this country. That, I think, is a shame.

But I'm pleased to say that I have learned a lot in the last few years about the native people, and especially in the last few months. I have learned that native people have the same needs and the same dreams that all of us have. I have learned that they are not inferior to any of us -- witness the eloquence and the tenacity of Chief Joe Gosnell, of Dr. Calder and of many others. I learned that the squalid conditions of their reserves were not of their own choosing but rather were imposed on them by an intolerant and racist society and by a code of law called the Indian Act.

The wrongs that have been perpetrated on aboriginal people in this province must be corrected. I think we all agree on that; I think the members opposite agree on that. Most British Columbians agree; the business community leaders agree; the labour movement agrees; the Civil Liberties Association of B.C. agrees; Liberal mayors and councillors in Terrace and other communities adjacent to the Nisga'as' valley agree.

Now I would like to quote something that the mayor of Terrace said in the Terrace Standard just yesterday: " 'By and large, as a council, we like this agreement,' " Talstra said. 'You can nitpick if you want, but it's part of a trade-off process. . . .' Talstra said Campbell's court challenge of the treaty to force a referendum on constitutional grounds amounts to 'posturing' and playing legal games rather than addressing real-life issues." And this, I think, is a Liberal mayor, who takes exception to what the Leader of the Opposition is trying to do these days.

I want to show, by reading into the record the results of a questionnaire which I sent out last month in my householder to about 20,000 homes in my constituency, that the general population supports the Nisga'a treaty. The results are quite amazing but not unexpected. Indeed, they indicate to me what I have always known: that is, that my constituents are very enlightened, very progressive and very aware of the issues surrounding the Nisga'a treaty. I'm very fortunate to be their representative.

Now, I confess that I did not get an overwhelming number of responses and that therefore the survey is not a scientific one. Nevertheless, I got enough replies to think that the people of Burnaby North overwhelmingly endorse the treaty. I'm going to read the question and the replies. I'll put on my glasses, because the print is too small.

The first question I asked was: "Should the Nisga'a people be able to govern themselves like most local governments but with additional powers over their own culture and language?" A 67 percent majority answered yes, and only 33 percent said no.

The second question I asked was: "Are you comfortable with aboriginal self-government, provided it is subject to all provincial and federal laws, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Criminal Code of Canada?" Again, 74 percent said yes, and only 26 percent said no to that question.

The third question that I posed to them was: "Would you prefer that land claims be settled by negotiations or through the courts?" Again, similar results: 70 percent said "through negotiations"; only 27 percent said "through the courts."

The next question is quite revealing; it is: "Should the B.C. Legislature hold a free vote, not along party lines, on the Nisga'a treaty?" In this case, an incredible 95 percent of them said yes, 5 percent said no, and only one of them said: "Why should we have to bother with that?"

My last question, which is the most important one and which I took to heart, asked the people: "In your opinion, how should I as your MLA vote on the Nisga'a treaty?" I thank my constituents for telling me, to the number of 66 percent, that they want me to vote for the treaty. Only 34 percent want me to vote against it.

[10:30]

For the last few days my NDP colleagues on this side of the House have been eloquently speaking about the contents of the treaty, about the plight of the aboriginal people and about the effects of the Indian Act. I don't want to repeat all the things that have already been said, but I want to remind people who may be watching and the members on the other side of the House that those effects have been devastating. Those members on the other side admit that but are not prepared to do anything about it. So the question I pose to them at this time is: why not? And if not now, when? I'd like to have answers to that.

We know that aboriginal people were deprived of their land in the 1800s; that they were called wild beasts by Premier Smithe in 1887; that white man's diseases decimated their

[ Page 10990 ]

But we also know that under the Indian Act aboriginal children were taken away from their families at the age of five or six to be placed in residential schools hundreds of kilometres away from their homes, where they could be "civilized and christianized" and where they were forced to rid themselves of their "Indian-ness" -- a disgrace, I think, if there ever was one.

Hon. Speaker, it's not by chance that the infant mortality rate among native people is twice as high as that of the rest of society, that the teenage suicide rate is eight times the national average, that unemployment goes as high as 80 percent on some reserves, that alcoholism and abuse affects more than one-half of the aboriginal population and that opportunities that the rest of us take for granted are non-existent for aboriginal people on reserve and even off reserve. As I said, this was not by chance. It was by design of inconsiderate and racist men, of legislators like us in a Legislature like this, who believed themselves to be more human, more civil, more educated and certainly superior to aboriginal people. Those legislators can be forgiven because they lived at a time when there was no room for tolerance, for compassion, for fairness and for equality. But surely, on the eve of a new millennium, one would think that things have changed. Not as much as we like to think, however.

I can hear echoes of those legislators of the past coming from the members on the other side of this chamber. I think they're still in colonial-thinking mode. But if so, I want to remind them of Chief Gosnell's warning last week, when he said: "This colonial attitude is fanning the flames of fear and ignorance in this province and reigniting a poisonous attitude that we as aboriginal people are so familiar with." Chief Gosnell, I believe, does not speak with a forked tongue; he speaks from the soul.

Hon. Speaker, the members opposite say that they respect aboriginal people, that they respect their desire for self-determination, and they profusely apologize to them for the wrongs of the past. How hypocritical can they get? How can they apologize one moment and the very next one deny the Nisga'a what they want most in this life: self-determination? I can't understand that. They on the other side don't seem to be sincere. They wouldn't say sorry, otherwise, and then not be prepared to do anything about it. It's just not acceptable.

In their attempt to justify their objection to the treaty, they come up with a number of lame excuses. They say that they won the referendum, and they say that the Nisga'a government forms a third order of government. I think that they're just clutching to the last straw for fear of losing ground to the revived party of the far Right.

I want to spend a bit of time on the issue of referendum and self-government. As I humbly understand things, a referendum is needed only if the Nisga'a treaty alters the constitution of 1982. The treaty does not do that, and the best legal minds in the land have already said so, because aboriginal treaty rights and title are already recognized and guaranteed in section 35 of the constitution. What the treaty does, as we all know, is modify constitutional rights into treaty rights and exhaustively define them to the point that the Nisga'a agree to release any rights or title that they have or may ever have that differ from those in the treaty. I'm going to repeat that: the Nisga'a agree to release any right or title that they have or may ever have that differ from those in the treaty. And in my humble vocabulary that means that they can't come back in the future and ask for anything more. That, to me, means finality.

But I know that there are people, some of them sitting across the floor, who think that the Nisga'a have been given too much. But the fact that they can't come back to ask for more means only one thing: this is a full and final settlement of the Nisga'a land claim. It means legal certainty for B.C., for the Nisga'a and for investors. It means a better economic climate for all British Columbians. Besides, the courts have said time and time again that the governments have to settle land claims through negotiations and that if we don't, they will do it for us. I think we have a legal obligation to settle these land claims.

But the naysayer Liberals insist on a referendum. They didn't ask for a referendum in the last two and a half years that the agreement-in-principle was in their hands. The Liberal members on the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs did not ask for a referendum. What they asked for was a free vote in the Legislature, and that is exactly what they got. Now they're not even getting that; they're being whipped to order.

Up until July 1998, both the Leader of the Opposition and the Liberal critic said that it would be unfair to hold the referendum at this stage of the process. The opposition knows that calling the referendum now means having bargained in bad faith for the last eight years. It means betraying the Nisga'a at the very last moment. So why the change of heart now? Well, I'm not too sure, but I have one suspicion. I think that it is the advent of a certain Bill Vander Zalm on the political scene. Those members over there are trying to corner the vote of the extreme right.

I want to take a moment to look at the precedents for referendum. The truth is that there is no precedent in our parliamentary system for occasions like this. In fact, in the last 70 years there have been only two or three occasions in all of Canada when a referendum was deemed appropriate: one was on conscription, another on prohibition and the third one on recall legislation in the province in '91. There was never a referendum held on the all-important social policies, such as the introduction of medicare, unemployment insurance, the Canada Pension Plan, etc. There was no referendum when the Indian Act was enacted, so why should we have one now to end it? I would argue, hon. Speaker, that in our parliamentary system there is no precedent for a referendum like the one the Liberals want now.

But the Leader of the Opposition has been saying lately that we should hold a referendum not on the treaty itself but on the principles of the treaty, because the people did not give a mandate on those principles. He changes so often that I don't think he really knows what he's talking about. If one reads those principles, however, one can see that there is nothing evil in them, that they do not take away the validity of the agreement and that they do not imply any taking away of any rights from anybody else in this society. So I would urge the members opposite to read those principles. Perhaps then they will be able to put aside their extreme and radical right-wing façade, because it won't pay them in the end.

I have a little more time left, so I'm going to touch on the issue of Nisga'a government, which seems to be the second

[ Page 10991 ]

The Nisga'a government is a municipal-style government with some special law-making powers in areas integral to Nisga'a culture, internal to their community or necessary to manage their own lands and resources. The Nisga'a can make laws in areas directly dealing with citizenship, language, education, culture, adoption, marriage, property ownership, distribution of wealth and a few others. But the vast majority of Nisga'a powers will pertain to local matters and will affect only Nisga'a citizens.

An Hon. Member: They were there first, after all.

P. Calendino: Yes.

And with these powers, the Nisga'a will have authority to manage their own affairs -- but listen to this, members opposite -- within the framework of the constitution, of the Charter of Rights and within existing federal and provincial laws. It is important to say that even when the Nisga'a make their own laws in any of the areas mentioned above, these laws have to meet standards comparable to those in provincial and federal legislation. For example, when Nisga'a law prevails over provincial and federal laws such as in education, the Nisga'a still have to meet the standards of teacher certification and curriculum comparable to those found in other B.C. schools. Similar standards apply to the delivery of health care, although Nisga'a law may prevail in issues of the administration and structure of health care programs and services and perhaps in the licensing of healing doctors.

Further, I should say that standards and rights of access for non-Nisga'a people will be guaranteed under this treaty. Nisga'a paramountcy extends only within the boundaries of the Nisga'a community. Given that the laws have to meet provincial and federal standards, I think there is absolutely nothing to fear. If one takes the time to read chapter 11 of the agreement, one would clearly see that the Nisga'a government powers are indeed similar to those of a municipality, with a small number of necessary but limited exceptions. Because of these exceptions, some people, and the members opposite, are out there spreading misinformation that the treaty creates a new race-based government. I say to those members: "That is wrong, and that is immoral."

The Nisga'a government does exactly the opposite. It ends race-based government by abolishing the Indian Act on Nisga'a lands. For generations the Indian Act and other federal and provincial laws have set aboriginal people apart socially, economically and legally. Native people were denied the right to vote until 1960, and the Indian Act did not provide any rights for non-aboriginals living on reserves. The Nisga'a final agreement does away with all these inequalities. It brings Nisga'a people into the mainstream of society. It makes them subject to the same laws that all other British Columbians are subject to, including tax laws.

The treaty increases the rights of non-Nisga'a people by giving them the right to fully participate in any Nisga'a government institution that affects them, such as school boards and hospital boards. It gives non-Nisga'a people the right to appeal Nisga'a government decisions that affect them all the way to the Supreme Court of B.C., something that they could not do under the Indian Act. Non-Nisga'a people will not pay taxes to the Nisga'a government. In a nutshell, non-Nisga'a people within Nisga'a lands will have far more rights under the treaty than they ever had under the Indian Act. Their rights, again, will be protected by the Charter of Rights and by the constitution.

[10:45]

Thank you for the privilege of allowing me to speak on this important subject.

J. Doyle: I'd like to recognize. . . . I've got a constituent in the gallery today. My wife Judy is down here for a couple of days to visit.

I'm pleased to speak on Bill 51, the Nisga'a Final Agreement Act, at second reading. I'd like to first of all speak about Nisga'a government. For thousands of years before the arrival of European settlers, the Nisga'a people lived in what is now called the Nass Valley. That's the area that the Leader of the Opposition hasn't visited yet, but he's got his mind made up about it. 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. They followed strict and ancient laws called ayuuk in Nisga'a. Those laws covered the same fundamental issues addressed by societies worldwide, including civil order, property ownership and social issues such as distribution of wealth. Just as their lands were never sold or signed away in treaties, so too their systems of government were never surrendered.

Just as we have a legal and moral duty to reconcile aboriginal rights to lands with today's modern treaties, so too must we reconcile existing federal and provincial laws with a modern treaty of aboriginal self-government. That's what this treaty does. It strikes a fair, workable balance. It gives the Nisga'a the authority to manage their own affairs within the framework of the constitution of Canada, the Charter of Rights and existing federal and provincial laws. The vast majority of Nisga'a powers will pertain to local matters and will affect only Nisga'a citizens. In other words, the Nisga'a will have mainly the same powers that municipalities have -- or have had -- in various parts of Canada. The only exceptions are in areas internal to their community, integral to their culture and 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 circumstances. The powers it has under the treaty are reasonable and necessary for governing a remote, self-sustained community. Those provisions are not necessarily transferable in treaty negotiations with other first nations, 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

[ Page 10992 ]

Nisga'a laws 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. For example, Nisga'a laws are paramount in the area of Nisga'a education. Under the treaty, they will still have to certify their teachers to standards comparable to those in other British Columbia schools. They'll have to have a curriculum. There will be a law that will allow students to move between Nisga'a and non-Nisga'a schools -- a school system with no disruption. However, they will be able to teach the Nisga'a language -- how important that is to the Nisga'a people -- and culture. And if they choose, they may structure their school year differently.

The whole point is to make sure that Nisga'a people receive comparable services under the same standards as other British Columbians, delivered in a way that responds to their unique culture. Again, this cannot be achieved under the Municipal Act. Nisga'a government powers will in no way diminish provincial or federal powers in Canada. The constitution, the Charter of Rights, the criminal law and other laws of B.C. and Canada will continue to apply to the Nisga'a.

As I mentioned earlier, for new laws to be passed and 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 powers. Its tax authority will be limited to Nisga'a people on Nisga'a lands. Outside Nisga'a lands, it won't have any authority except in special, limited circumstances such as marriage and adoption. Even then, its jurisdiction will extend only to Nisga'a people who wish to follow the Nisga'a tradition.

Despite what some of the treaty's most alarmist critics might suggest, we'll never see Nisga'a police chasing people down and forcing them to speak the Nisga'a language or practise Nisga'a culture. As a matter of fact, Nisga'a policing powers under the treaty are the same as those available in any municipality with a population over 5,000, under the B.C. Police Act. The Nisga'a will not be able to establish their own police force until they have satisfied the Attorney General of the province of British Columbia that they have met provincewide standards. Provincial approval is also required if the Nisga'a choose to establish their own court to hear cases involving Nisga'a laws. It would have to meet provincewide standards for structure, procedures and selection of judges. Any decision made in a Nisga'a court would be subject to appeal to the B.C. Supreme Court, and any accused facing possible jail time would have the option of being tried instead in B.C.'s Provincial Court. The Nisga'a may also provide community corrections services such as parole supervision, provided that they meet existing standards. They will not have authority to establish their own correctional facilities such as prisons. I believe a reading of this chapter makes it clear that Nisga'a government powers will be similar to those of a municipality, with a small number of necessary but limited exceptions.

I'd like to take a moment now to address concerns I've heard about the treaty: 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 -- and it's about time. It ends it by abolishing the Indian Act on Nisga'a lands -- and it's about time. For generations, that act has set aboriginal people apart from the rest of British Columbians and Canadians. It sets them apart physically on Indian reserves, the same reserves that South Africa government officials studied when they were setting up the infamous apartheid system. The Indian Act and other federal and provincial laws have also set aboriginal people apart socially, economically and legally, depriving them of even the fundamental right to vote until the 1960s.

Today, as status Indians, the Nisga'a still face many restrictions. These are a people who have been in North America and in the Nass Valley for 25,000 years -- and they still face many restrictions. Shame on those who set that system of government in place, for treating those people in that way. On reserves they're not allowed to own their own houses. They cannot even change their wills or other legal arrangements without the permission of the federal Minister of Indian Affairs in Ottawa. At the same time, status Indians are exempt from most taxes and from many other B.C. laws, including those that govern resource management and environmental protection. Furthermore, the Indian Act provides no significant rights to non-aboriginal people who live on reserves. They can be taxed by band councils that they're not allowed to vote for, and they're not protected by B.C. laws that govern areas such as employment standards and landlord-tenant relationships.

The Nisga'a final agreement does away with all these inequalities. It brings the Nisga'a into the mainstream of society -- and it's about time. It makes them subject to the same laws as other British Columbians are, including tax laws. It greatly enhances the rights of non-Nisga'a people living on Nisga'a lands. The treaty ensures that those non-Nisga'a residents will be consulted about any Nisga'a government decision that affects them. They will also have the right to participate fully in any Nisga'a government institution that affects them, such as school board or hospital board. And 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, that process can go all the way to the Supreme Court of B.C. Furthermore, the province can use the treaty's dispute resolution process to intervene on behalf of non-Nisga'a citizens if it feels that their rights have not been respected by a Nisga'a government. And, of course, their rights will be protected under the Charter of Rights and the constitution of Canada. 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. The treaty honours those rights while maintaining the integrity of existing federal and provincial laws. It doesn't create, as critics say, a third order of government. It doesn't take anything away from non-Nisga'a. It represents the best possible balance of rights and interests to the benefit of all British Columbians.

Forest resources are something I'm very familiar with in the constituency that I represent. Speaking of forest resources, one of the main goals of the Nisga'a treaty is to help the Nisga'a build an economic base and end more than a hundred years of dependency. Forest resources, which the Nisga'a will own outright under the treaty, will be a critical part of their economic base, providing jobs, generating income and helping the Nisga'a become a more self-reliant people. The forest provisions of the treaty will also eliminate uncertainty. For

[ Page 10993 ]

The transition period is one of many negotiated to cover various aspects of the treaty. Those transitions recognize that everyone affected -- Nisga'a people, stakeholders and third-party interests -- will need time to adjust to a new way of doing business. The Nisga'a need time to build their capacity as forest industry operators; licence holders and contractors need time to build business relationships with the Nisga'a.

We are committed to negotiating fair compensation for licence holders and contractors affected by the treaty's forest provisions. In fact, we've already negotiated a framework agreement with the provincial Truck Loggers Association, and we've ensured that strong provisions are built into the treaty to negate its effect on the Nisga'a operators. For example, the Nisga'a have committed to maintaining wood fibre supplied to local mills so their operations won't be disturbed. They've also agreed not to build their own competing mills for at least ten years after the treaty takes effect. Nisga'a rules or standards governing forest practices will have to meet or beat provincial standards for Crown land, including the Forest Practices Code. So no one is going to have any unfair advantages. B.C.'s manufacturing laws will also be in effect, restricting log exports and helping to ensure that logs flow to local mills as they have in the past.

[11:00]

I'd also like to point out that the treaty allows the Nisga'a to seek forest licences off Nisga'a land, just like the rest of us in the province, and the Nisga'a government would pay stumpage on those operations. So Nisga'a people have every right to apply for Forest Renewal funding.

Hon. Speaker, as you may recall, the IWA overwhelmingly endorsed the treaty at its recent annual general meeting, and the Truck Loggers Association, as I mentioned earlier, has publicly stated its support for ratifying the treaty. Those organizations understand the need to achieve certainty and appreciate the extent to which the treaty protects their interests even as it increases employment in the Nisga'a community.

True, existing licence holders will be required to use Nisga'a contractors for at least 50 percent of their operations when the treaty takes effect, subject to the availability of qualified, skilled Nisga'a people. And true, the proportion rises to 70 percent by the end of the five-year transition period. But many of those Nisga'a people currently work in areas outside Nisga'a lands, just as many non-Nisga'a currently work in Nisga'a lands. Under the treaty, skilled Nisga'a contractors will be moving onto Nisga'a lands to meet treaty requirements, freeing up equivalent work for non-Nisga'a operators. This is another example of how the treaty is balanced. It encourages fair treatment for non-Nisga'a people. At the same time, it promises to reduce unemployment, help build skills and generate revenue for vital services such as health and education in the Nisga'a community. All of this is instrumental in building stronger, more self-reliant communities, and that is one of the central goals of the B.C. treaty process.

Another item is first nations quality of life. There is nothing more important to any one of us in Canada and British Columbia. In Canada we pride ourselves on our high standard of living. Our country is rich -- rich in resources and breathtakingly beautiful. Our people are skilled, we live in peace, we are free to enjoy our human rights, and our social programs rank among the very best in the world. For six years running, Canada has topped the United Nations list of the most livable countries in the world, ranked on the basis of education, income and life expectancy. Canada has the world's highest quality of life -- unless you happen to be an aboriginal person.

I believe that most of the members here have seen the results of the recent study done by the federal Department of Indian Affairs. It took the United Nations ranking system, the one that puts Canada on top of the list, and applied it to our aboriginal people. It confirmed that while the rest of us have it very good, aboriginal people live in conditions that are closer to the Third World. In fact, the study found that native people off reserves have a quality of life comparable to Russians. On reserves the ranking was below Mexico or Thailand. That's deplorable. The worst part is that our own Canadian policies and laws have largely been responsible for this shameful state of affairs.

Before their first contact with the European settlers, aboriginal people, especially here on the west coast, enjoyed a high quality of life. Their societies were well established. Trade and travel between first nations were extensive. Contrary to popular myth, living conditions in communities, such as those of the Nisga'a people, were, in the words of early Hudson's Bay traders, the equal of any in Europe at that time. But aboriginal government and social structures didn't look like those in Europe, so the governments of Canada and British Columbia basically considered them invalid and inferior, and they systematically squashed them.

B.C.'s aboriginal people were shunted onto reserves. In most cases, the land offered relatively few resources. Coupled with restrictive laws, the reserve system prevented aboriginal people from making their way in the mainstream economy, forcing them to rely on government welfare programs. They were denied the right to vote in federal and provincial elections -- something that I, as a person who arrived in Canada in 1967, received as soon as I was in Canada for five years. Those people, who had been here for 25,000 years, were denied the right to vote by legislators in Canada. That's a terrible disgrace.

They weren't allowed to hire lawyers to represent them in land claims. They weren't even allowed to meet in groups of three or more to talk about pursuing land claims right up

[ Page 10994 ]

I cite those facts not in an attempt to make people feel guilty. . . . This is not about guilt; it's about history. It's real, it has happened, and we can't just sweep it under the carpet.

I'm not suggesting that the citizens of today should be made to pay for mistakes of earlier generations, because the fact is that all of us are already paying. We've all heard the bleak statistics that stand as tragic symbols of the quality of life in aboriginal communities. Infant mortality: twice the rate of the national average. Unemployment is as high as 80 percent -- 20 percent employed, 80 percent unemployed. Half the adults have an income of under $10,000 a year. And suicide, violence and overdosing stand as the most common cause of death for aboriginal teenagers. Non-aboriginal people are paying the price, too, although we pay in dollars and cents rather than the invisible currency of human suffering. Programs to support aboriginal people after more than half a century of legislated dependency cost our province hundreds of millions of dollars every year. And since aboriginal people started asserting their property rights, we've lost billions in potential investment and jobs -- the cost of uncertainty over the land and who owns it.

Ratifying the Nisga'a treaty represents our first real significant step as a province toward solving the land question and ending an injustice that has gone on far too long. It's not about what we owe the aboriginal people; it's about what we owe ourselves as British Columbians and what we owe to our future generations. A society where everyone has control over their own life is not too much to ask, where disagreements are settled through peaceful negotiation and, most important, where citizenship carries the same value for all. That's a society that our government is committed to building, and we're demonstrating that commitment by ratifying the Nisga'a treaty.

Legal arguments for treaty-making. The legal obligation to negotiate treaties is compelling. In a nutshell, it comes down to the fact that aboriginal people were here first, at least 25,000 years ago, and had their land taken away. That's illegal under our system of law. True, it happened more than a hundred years ago, but history hasn't erased the wrong, and 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.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Furthermore, the courts are under no obligation to build in protections for non-aboriginal people, as we've done 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 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 the aboriginal people have the right to the exclusive use and occupation of the traditional lands, as long as they can prove they occupied the lands at the time that Britain asserted its sovereignty. In other words, if first nations want to take their cases to court, judges are prepared to back them up. Why not we as legislators, instead of our courts?

I believe that treaty negotiation is a better option. Court cases are, by definition, adversarial. Judges decide who is right and who is wrong, and someone is always the loser. It's far better 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 could take literally thousands of cases to reach the kind of comprehensive settlement that's before us in this House today. Imagine the cost, 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 cost in terms of the divisions in our society, divisions which could only deepen with each successive court case. That is the legal argument for negotiating a land claim settlement.

Finally, the moral argument and the moral reasons for ratifying the Nisga'a treaty are strong enough to carry the debate by themselves. First of all, first nations had their lands, their culture, their system of government -- almost everything of value -- taken away from them by European settlers, and they've been fighting to set things right for over a hundred years, despite the many obstacles placed in their path. First, there were laws that threw them off the lands they had occupied for thousands of years, and they were herded onto reserves. Those were arbitrary, chosen plots of land where aboriginal people couldn't practise their traditional economies. Nor did reserve lands offer them the resources to make their way in the mainstream economy, forcing them to rely on welfare and other government programs.

Then, when it looked like native people might try to regain their lands, the federal government made it illegal for them to hire lawyers or to even meet in groups of three or more to discuss land claims. They were denied the right to vote. Their populations were decimated by smallpox and other infectious diseases. Their culture and spiritual practices were outlawed. Their children were taken away and put in residential schools. The ramifications of those particular injustices are still being felt in many homes, as aboriginal people raised in institutions are judged to be inadequate parents, and their children are taken away. So the cycle continues to this day.

This is only one of the tragic legacies of the moral wrongs done to aboriginal people. After more than a century of living in abject poverty, their health status is well below the levels that most of us enjoy. Their life expectancy is seven years shorter than the national average. Infant mortality is two times the national average. Fully half of all aboriginal children live in poverty. All the statistics illustrate how tough it has been for those young children to break the cycle of dependency. Only one in three graduates from high school -- and it's one in ten when they go to university. In most cases, they're not leaving school for higher-paying jobs. Unemployment is 80 percent, as I mentioned earlier, and 46 percent of people on reserves are on social services. Suicide rates are five times the national rate for young aboriginal men and eight times higher for women. Unless we negotiate fair land claim settlements and give aboriginal people a real opportunity to achieve self-reliance and self-determination, their children will continue to feel there's no future and no way out.

[ Page 10995 ]

[11:15]

For instance, the people that live in the Nass area, the area that the Leader of the Opposition hasn't yet visited, and the elected officials in that area -- the mayor of Terrace, the regional director, Joanne Monaghan, the ex-UBCM president -- are all speaking in favour. These are people who live there and are elected to office or else, at the same time, known as B.C. Liberals. But I bet you that they're shaking their heads these days at the actions of that group across the floor. Lastly, I'd like to mention Hubert Beyer, a columnist in weekly papers in our province. In the Golden News of December 9. . .

The Speaker: Hon. member, I have to interrupt you. Your time is completed.

J. Doyle: . . .he said that it's time to get on with settling these treaties.

C. Clark: Thank you for this opportunity to rise today and address Bill 51, the Nisga'a treaty. I'm keenly aware that throughout this debate, each of us must consider the part we will play in linking the past with the future, a past that is filled for many aboriginal people with injustice, abuse and a profound disrespect for their traditions and their cultures, and equally a past that for many non-aboriginal British Columbians is filled with the knowledge that our forebears may have played a part in perpetuating those injustices and that very profound disrespect.

For my part, my family has been in British Columbia for at least a century. My forebears lived at a time in B.C.'s history when racism ruled the day. On the other hand, though, I can also count among my blood relatives some of British Columbia's aboriginal people. Partly because of my family's long history here, the sense of regret that I feel for the treatment that aboriginal people have endured in British Columbia is very real, and my need to find reconciliation is sincere.

As a member of this assembly, I am also keenly aware of the sad part that this Legislature has played in the unhappy tale of aboriginal people's story in British Columbia since European contact. This chamber has denied them the right to vote, the right to engage legal counsel to represent them in our courts and the right to practise their traditions, speak their language and even raise their children.

From this debate, each of us must draw our own conclusions about the place that we will take in history, even if that place is, for us as individual legislators, just as a footnote in the Journals of the Legislative Library. I do not doubt that the outcome of this debate and the vote that each of us will cast will have a profound effect on everyone's future in British Columbia, aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike. We must make treaties in British Columbia; we must settle the wrongs of the past. But with this debate today, we must acknowledge that we are debating much more than this single agreement. We will also be setting a blueprint for the 50 to 60 treaties that will follow and that will be modelled on it. That is why it is essential that we get it right. This debate and the votes that will follow it will set the course for treaty-making long into the future. The impact of the decision that we make about this treaty will be felt long after many of us are gone. This is a historic debate, and as I have said, it is important that we get it right.

Some might be tempted to say that this agreement should go ahead despite their concerns, despite what they believe are fundamental flaws, because they do not believe that this treaty affects them. They might be prepared to trade away ideals that they would otherwise never give up, believing that the Nisga'a deal is a one-time offer that affects only a very small number of people. The reality is that the Nisga'a deal will affect every British Columbian, because it is a template. This is the model on which all future treaties will be made, and in that way it affects us all. Today we are debating not just the past and not even just the present but also the future -- our future and the future of many generations to come. Every future treaty negotiation will use the Nisga'a treaty as a model. The principles that underlie this treaty will form the basis of all future treaties. It is a template; even the Premier has acknowledged that.

But surely, if we are being asked to design a template for every future treaty in British Columbia, there is a better way to do it than this. We are designing a model for every future treaty that will be negotiated in British Columbia. We are setting the course for many generations in the future. Surely there must be a better way to do it than to have 74 people sit in a chamber that is expressly designed to be adversarial and ask them to vote on a complex treaty that is hundreds of pages long, without the benefit of a thorough public consultation. Surely there is a better way to do it than that. That is precisely the wrong way to do it. It is precisely the wrong way to choose the principles that will guide us in treaty-making for the next 25 years.

The right way to do it is to ask the people what they want, to engage the public in a real public debate about treaty-making -- and let them decide. Let them instruct us and our negotiators in the general principles that should guide all of our treaty-making in British Columbia. Ask the public to guide us for a change and allow the people to have a say. Let us recognize that it is the people that are the supreme authority. Acknowledge that government is answerable to them, not the other way around. That is why, in this case, the government must allow the public to be heard clearly and unequivocally. The public must be allowed to determine the principles that will underlie the next 50 or 60 treaties that will come.

Ideally the government would have given the public the chance to do that before the Nisga'a treaty was presented to this Legislature. Ideally the government would have gone to the people and asked them to instruct our negotiators before we finalized this treaty. The Nisga'a people had that opportunity; so should other British Columbians. But unfortunately, the provincial government failed to engage the public in the debate, and now we are faced with ratifying this Nisga'a treaty without the benefit of an open public process. So now

[ Page 10996 ]

It's not the easy way -- to focus a debate on broader principles -- but it can be done. It is still not too late to include the public and to ask them to define their vision for future treaties. No one is suggesting that British Columbians be asked to vote on every sentence, on every comma in this deal. On the contrary, we are asking -- and I believe that the public is asking -- that they be able to take part in defining the principles on which treaties will be negotiated. They want to be let into the process and to take part in shaping their relationships with aboriginal people, to be full partners in negotiations and to define the way that we will live together and build a society that includes all of us.

What, for example, do British Columbians think about the principle of self-government? I think they support it; I certainly do. What do they think of the idea of transferring land in fee simple to aboriginal people so that they can create an economic base for a secure future? I believe they'd support that too, and so do I. Does the public agree that it's long past time that we did away with the Indian Act? I believe they do, and so do I. Do they agree that we must settle aboriginal land claims, not just for economic certainty for ourselves but because it is morally and ethically the right thing to do? I suspect that most British Columbians would agree with me that we need to.

But do British Columbians also agree that treaties should replace old inequities with new ones? Do they agree that treaties should include provisions that would deny some the right to vote or hold office based on their ancestry? I don't think so. Are they prepared to trade away that most basic of democratic rights, not just for a few non-Nisga'a people living in Nisga'a territory but also for all of the other people who will be ruled by governments that are created by treaties modelled on this one but whose family backgrounds do not qualify them to vote? I doubt that even more. I don't believe for one second that British Columbians would be prepared to trade away the right to vote for themselves or for other British Columbians. It is simply too important a principle to trade away.

The Nisga'a treaty creates a jurisdiction where non-Nisga'a people will forever be disenfranchised simply because of where they live. The treaty suggests instead that they should simply be consulted, but that's no replacement for the right to vote. While the Nisga'a government will be responsible for providing many services to all of the people in its jurisdiction and regulating many aspects of the life of everybody that lives on that territory, only some of the people who are subject to that government will have the right to vote. Others, though they will be subject to its laws, will not have that right. They won't even have the right to run for office. That is not a principle that I am prepared to trade away -- not in this treaty, and not in the 50 or 60 treaties that will follow it and be modelled on it.

That's why I can't vote in favour of this bill. The right to vote for the government that rules us is a basic tenet of our democracy. I for one am not prepared to give it up, and I do not believe that the public is prepared to make that sacrifice either. I believe that as more treaties are negotiated and as the public has an opportunity to thoroughly understand the details of this treaty, they will say no, this is not a principle that they are prepared to sacrifice either.

Further, that's why, by ratifying this treaty without engaging the public in a meaningful debate, the government is running the risk of undermining the success of future treaties. If we refuse to let the public into this debate as a full partner at the table now and instead just relegate them to the status of passive observers, we will be risking our ability to gather public support for future treaties.

The principles that we will use to guide us in treaty-making over the next 25 years must have legitimacy in the public's eyes. To do that, we must engage them in a real debate about the issues and allow the people of our province to come to a genuine and thorough understanding of what the issues are and what the history of treaty-making and its future will mean for us. But instead of a debate, British Columbians got and paid for a $5 million advertising campaign that seemed designed to mislead them.

The ads we all paid for did nothing to add to the public's understanding of the issues; instead, they made claims that are clearly wrong. The government ad said that this treaty would give the Nisga'a people a municipal style of self-government, when really what the treaty contemplates is a third order of government -- a government that has powers that are supreme to both the federal and the provincial governments in many areas. That doesn't sound like any municipal government I've seen in Canada.

The ad campaign also failed to make any mention of the overlapping claims that exist in Nisga'a territory, claims that the Gitxsan, the Tahltan and the Gitanyow are now being forced to take to court because they believe it will infringe on their rights. They are being forced to go to court, despite the fact that this government made a commitment that it would settle the issues of overlapping claims before it settled the Nisga'a treaty. The Premier failed to honour his commitment, and that is no way to build the trust that will be required to conclude future treaties.

[11:30]

The process that the government has chosen does not reflect either of these two principles. It has not been honest, and it does not even appear to have ever been intended to lead the public to a deeper understanding of the issues. This stands in stark contrast to the way the Nisga'a conducted the process on their end. The Nisga'a people had not just one but two opportunities in this process. First, they voted for the mandate for negotiations; they instructed their negotiators. Second, they got to vote on the results that their negotiators brought back from the table. Surely British Columbians deserve no less than that.

The Nisga'a leaders had it right; this treaty is not too complex for the people to understand. The principles that it

[ Page 10997 ]

F. Gingell: I know that all citizens of this province, including the aboriginal peoples and the members of this Legislature, want one thing. They want the Nisga'a agreement to honourably and fairly settle the inequities of the past. They want the Nisga'a agreement to set out a clear plan charting the route to the future, and they want that future to work. In 50 or 100 years, we want the children of all British Columbians, be they of aboriginal heritage or from one of our many other diverse cultures, to be able to look back with 20-20 hindsight and say that we were wise, to say with certainty that our vision was clear.

I do not argue with any who say that Bill 51 is by far the most important legislation that will be considered in the thirty-sixth parliament. The first responsibility I have as a member of this chamber is to represent the people of Delta South. But all members have an overarching responsibility to consider all emerging issues, government initiatives and proposed legislation from a wider perspective, from a provincial perspective, and to bring, of course, their own particular experience and approach to these issues.

In listening to the speeches of the government members, I have been surprised by one recurring theme overarching all others: the need to ratify this agreement and to sign this document now. There is little government debate on the merits. There is no careful analysis of the detail. Is it all to be left to federal and provincial bureaucrats? And are we to accept their recommendations unquestioningly?

We bring to this debate our own particular experience and approach. I bring to this debate the 45 years I have spent in fiscal and planning matters. I learned many years ago that one of the keys to completing an initiative successfully is to first prepare a critical path. A critical path is a plan of action that identifies the important steps that must be taken and be completed before construction can begin.

It may sound trite to point out that if you are building a bridge, there are important steps you must take first. First, obviously you must consider carefully if a bridge is indeed the best solution to the defined need. Then before a shovel hits the dirt, you must undertake an environmental assessment to identify, consider and evaluate the long-term consequences of your project. You must do your utmost to determine the ways in which the bridge will change the landscape, and if your originally determined destination is where you still want to go, will this bridge get you there? Then, when you start construction, you must build a cofferdam before you pour the foundations. You have to complete the foundations before you start the superstructure. You must ensure that your superstructural roadway is properly engineered, tested and safe before you open it to traffic. This may all sound obvious, but it is nonetheless true. And like its name, it's nonetheless critical.

So what does this have to do with Bill 51, you ask? A great deal. I suggest that we have a duty to seek out the shoals and plan our journey to completion by the safest route -- a route that is well-lighted, where the shoals and hidden dangers are identified and clearly marked on the chart -- so that we can assure ourselves that we have taken all reasonable precautions against the vagaries of Murphy's law. There are, of course, no guarantees that we will get everything right, but we have a very onerous responsibility to complete our diligent review. To do anything less is irresponsible and will cause more distress and uncertainty in the future.

So what are the issues that cause me concern? What are the issues that my inner voices tell me must be fleshed out first -- the issues on which proceeding unprepared would be no solution or recompense for 111 years of inexcusable delay?

Well, first we have to ensure that the agreement is constitutionally valid. The words of section 6 and section 8 of the proposed agreement do not make it so, any more than the words of Mr. Bill Vander Zalm saying the cost could be $2 billion makes that so. The question is: will the agreement change the way Canadians and British Columbians are governed? Of course it will. The province will irretrievably cede certain powers and authority to a new third order of government. Such action is not provided for in our constitution. The constitution of Canada allocates the powers of government only to the federal and the appropriate provincial government. The provincial government cannot cede their responsibility to another. They do not have that authority; they can only delegate. That is not to say that with the appropriate amendments it can't be done; it can.

To change the way we govern ourselves is clearly the intent of the self-government provisions in chapter 11 of the agreement. Is that wrong? No, not in itself. That's not the issue. The issue is that we are de facto amending the constitution. To say otherwise is simply ignoring the obvious. It means that if this is our intention, and it clearly is the recommendation of the negotiators, we have to do it right. It means that we have to follow a process -- a process that is set out in the Constitutional Amendment Approval Act. We have to obey our own laws. More importantly, we have to follow the intent of our laws, not look for ways around them when they don't happen to suit our purposes or our political whim.

So what does that critical path tell us we must do first? With due diligence and rigorous review, we must ensure that it is within our power to do that which we intend to do, so that we step forward onto safe ground and avoid the quagmire of uncertainty, accusations and retribution, the consequences of which will be far worse than the costs of further delay at this time. If you have poured the concrete for the foundations of your bridge too shallow or in the wrong place or in the wrong size or shape, how do you fix it?

The second issue on the critical path is to ensure that the land that will be transferred to the Nisga'a government under the terms of the agreement is free and clear, without lien or pledge. We also have to ensure that the same holds true with respect to additional lands that will be subject to Nisga'a wildlife management.

A recent article in the November 21 issue of the Vancouver Sun by Neil Sterritt, an earlier leader of the Gitxsan-Wet'suwet'en people and an acknowledged student of tribal boundaries in the Nass watershed, indicates that all is not clear sailing. Competing claims have not been resolved. So this is another issue on the critical path that requires rigorous review before we proceed. The last thing we want to discover down the road is that we have coloured on the map as Nisga'a lands property on which another first nation has a better claim. What compensation then?

The third thing on our critical path is to examine some of the changes that have taken place in recent years on fiscal and tax arrangements between the first nations and citizens residing on Indian reserves, to see if these are working to everyone's satisfaction. I specifically refer to property tax provisions

[ Page 10998 ]

Smouldering issues are erupting all over the province where individuals hold their residential interest by way of leasehold on federal Crown Indian reserve lands. They feel deserted by their government and unheard by their landlords. As a resident of Tsawwassen, I find no logic in the fact that my school taxes go to the provincial government to support education, but my near neighbours' school taxes -- whose children attend the same schools -- are kept by their landlords, the Tsawwassen first nation. This is an issue on the critical path. Does the current arrangement work? Do the citizens see it as fair? Will it erupt as an issue that could poison relationships in the future? Has rigorous review taken place?

The last issue I wish to raise on the critical path is one of quantum. My standard of due diligence on the issue of quantum would, in the very least, require me to confidently estimate and compute the money cost of this agreement. This must include all third-party compensation that will be paid, the natural resource rents that will be forgone, the property taxes that won't be assessable and the income taxes that will not be collected as currently taxable corporations are replaced by Nisga'a government commercial organizations. Natural resource rents have been a major contributor to the government revenues dedicated to health care, education and income support programs that are so important to all British Columbians. Let's understand the dollar consequences of these changes. Let's have them clearly enumerated and projected into the future.

[11:45]

The concerns I express today are on the lack of due diligence and rigorous review, which is reflected in the paucity of definitive cost information. I do not wish to conclude from this that this government is purposely withholding facts and information from the members of this Legislature and the citizens of this province, because that would be an unforgivable act on their part. I can only assume that they have not fulfilled their responsibilities.

It was a privilege last week to listen to Dr. Joe Gosnell speak to this Legislature on the aspirations of the Nisga'a people and the importance of finalizing the land claim agreement. It was obvious from the reception Dr. Gosnell received that all members understood his message, sympathized with his cause and agree on the importance of bringing this longstanding issue to a conclusion. Under no circumstances could a conclusion in 1998 or 1999 be considered premature. But to conclude without clearing all the items on the critical path would be, in my opinion, a grievous error.

This land claims agreement is the first in British Columbia in living memory. It is the first of a parade of agreements that we hope will deal with all the outstanding claims of aboriginal people in this province. But be sure that -- whatever we said last week, say today or may say tomorrow -- this agreement is a mould or a pattern that with minor alterations will cast the tenor and shape of those agreements to come. How can it be otherwise? It is logical. This is not designed as a trial run. It is a contract which, in the words of the Attorney General of the 1972-1975 NDP administration, will be set in "constitutional concrete."

It has consistently been the position of the British Columbia Liberal caucus that the form of first nations government should be delegated rather than constitutionalized. A democratic process is something that evolves. Look how democratic institutions have changed in the twentieth century. In our own province, this government has made 43 amendments to the Municipal Act since they came to office -- 43 amendments in less than seven years. As we approach the twenty-first century, one thing that is certain is that the rate of change is accelerating. We all need to maintain flexibility not only in our own lives as we face changing circumstances, unexpected challenges and new opportunities, but in our institutions of government as well.

Every generation and most peoples have suffered from the barbaric acts of others. History is a litany of oppression and suffering. It is sadly true that such actions still blight our world. But as civilized people, we must work hard to ensure that those acts and the attitudes that condone them are left behind. But we gain nothing by allowing our view of the Nisga'a treaty to be coloured by guilt about the past. It is the purpose of this proposed treaty to create new arrangements and new relationships, and bind them with a solemn promise.

So I'm being asked to support a treaty that, in my opinion, is ultra vires -- outside the capacity of this government. Second, it transfers to one aboriginal family the land that is claimed by another. Third, it perpetuates paternalism through communal ownership, a sociopolitical order that is obsolete for good reason. Fourth, it establishes privilege based on race in voting, taxation and commercial opportunity, whether it be fishing or forestry. Fifth, it commits the people of British Columbia to pay ill-defined but substantial sums of money, over many years, that have not been quantified.

All British Columbians would be better served if this government came forward with a total package to settle all aboriginal land claims. Then British Columbians and Canadians would understand the cost consequences and would avoid an exercise of leapfrog -- or the fear of one -- that could bankrupt us in the process of settling the remaining outstanding claims.

We have to bring closure, and that's important. But we need to recognize that treaties don't always accomplish what they set out to do. Eighty years ago, at the end of the First World War, the leaders of the world gathered outside Paris and concluded the infamous Treaty of Versailles -- a treaty intended to close a chapter on an unhappy past, a treaty intended to guarantee peace in the future. But the basic inequities of the treaty were seized upon by unscrupulous leaders to inflame feelings of unfair and harsh treatment. Finally, every party rued the day they had signed it.

So in finalizing this treaty, we must not rush the fences. We must do it right. In solving the inequities of the past, we must not create opportunities for new inequities. That's why I will vote against Bill 51.

Our children and our grandchildren will be more concerned with the consequences of these arrangements and

[ Page 10999 ]

Seeing the time, I move adjournment of debate till later in the day.

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Streifel moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:53 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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