[ Page 11001 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Hon. G. Clark: It gives me great pleasure today to introduce a number of faith leaders from across British Columbia who are in the gallery today. They represent the diverse group of well over a hundred spiritual leaders who delivered a statement just a couple of weeks ago in support of the Nisga'a treaty and of bringing justice and reconciliation to all aboriginal people. It's most appropriate that they're here today to join us as we celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

With the indulgence of the House, I'd like to introduce, first, the members of the subcommittee who wrote the statement of behalf of the much larger faith leaders' groups: Aziz Khaki from the Council of Muslim Communities of Canada, Bella Tata of the Zoroastrian community of British Columbia and Deirdre Kelly from the Catholic diocese of Victoria. I'd also like to acknowledge the man who wrote the original statement that became the basis for the faith leaders' community statement. That's Bishop John Hannen of the diocese of Caledonia, who's an Anglican bishop and an adopted Nisga'a himself.

Also in the gallery are local signatories to this important statement, including Rev. Dr. Russell Brown, St. Michael's Anglican Church; Waldemar Braul, the Aboriginal Rights Coalition; the Venerable James Cowan, Anglican diocese of British Columbia; Rev. Michael Hemmings, Christ Church Cathedral; Rev. Canon David McKay, St. Mary the Virgin; the Venerable Logan McMenamie, Church of St. George the Martyr; Rev. Dr. Harold Munn, St. John the Divine; Gaye Sharpe, Pilgrim United Church; Rev. Peter Shurvin, chaplain, Royal Jubilee Hospital; Rev. Glenn Simm, St. Paul's Anglican Church; the Right Reverend Robert Smith, First United Street Ministry and past moderator of the United Church of Canada; Rev. Andrew Twiddy, St. Matthias Church; the Very Reverend John Wright, Christ Church Cathedral; Sr. Mary Zarowny, the Sisters of St. Ann.

As Premier, and on behalf of the government side, I'd like to thank you again for your statement of support for the Nisga'a agreement and land claims negotiations. You've shown leadership and courage, and offered us guidance and wisdom. I ask the House to welcome and thank the distinguished faith leaders who have joined us in the gallery today and those from across the province for their support of the Nisga'a treaty.

L. Reid: I see in the gallery today Mr. Tony Toth, who is here representing the British Columbia Road Builders Association. I would ask the House to please make him welcome.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: We have in the gallery His Worship Wayne McGrath, the mayor of Vernon. Would the House please make him welcome.

A. Sanders: Mr. McGrath is indeed in the gallery, and he's accompanied by Blake Kimura, who's the city administrator for Vernon. As the MLA for Vernon, I certainly welcome them both.

Hon. L. Boone: In the gallery today are two extremely important people. One person keeps my office on the straight and narrow, helps me to be on time and keeps me stable -- that's my constituency assistant, Irma Van Helvoirt. The other keeps my home life stable and keeps me on time, as well -- and I, hopefully, keep him on time -- and that's my partner, my favourite man in the world, Mr. Fred Bagg. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. C. McGregor: I too would join in welcoming some important people in my life into the House today. It's always important to recognize staff who work with you. I'd like to acknowledge the support that I get from Paula McRae, who is my executive assistant in Kamloops, who is really my right-hand person -- she really represents me well in my absence due to my duties as Minister of Environment -- as well as from Christine Skrepetz, who is my ministerial assistant here in the House and offers me the same service in Victoria. And a new staff person, Chris Houghton, will be joining my staff in the new year. Would the House please make them all welcome.

D. Symons: I see in the gallery someone that could strike fear in the hearts of MLAs in this area. He's the gentleman that looks into our accounts and how we handle our private affairs: H.A.D. Oliver, the conflict-of-interest commissioner. Would we please make him welcome.

Hon. H. Lali: I would also like to join the member from across the way in welcoming Mr. Tony Toth of the B.C. Road Builders Association. In addition, I would also like to introduce a couple of people who make sure that I stay on time in the constituency. That's my constituency assistant, Millie Mitchell, and my executive assistant, Keith Simmonds. Would the House please make all three welcome.

T. Stevenson: I too would like to join in welcoming the faith leaders, but most particularly a longtime friend, the Right Reverend Robert Smith. Bob Smith has been a friend of mine for many years, and I'm glad to see him here today. I hope the House would make him particularly welcome.

Hon. M. Farnworth: In the gallery today is someone very important to me -- that is, my executive assistant, Gwen Ranger, formerly my constituency assistant. She has been doing the job now for almost 20 years, and I am her third MLA. She is one of the first assistants, I think, who wrote the book on what it means to be a constituency assistant. So would the House please make her most welcome.

Hon. M. Sihota: I know that the Premier has already done this, but as he is a good, close personal friend and someone who I admire for the work that he has done, I would also like to welcome Aziz Khaki to the chamber today. Would all members please give him a warm welcome.

H. Giesbrecht: I would also like to recognize a constituent and a loyal supporter, someone who basically does all the work in the office when I'm away. Essentially, I've always said that I work for her as much as anyone else in the constituency. So would the House please welcome my constituency assistant, Gail Murray.

The Speaker: I'm just going to say, to close off introductions, that if there are any in the gallery who haven't been named, welcome to all of you.

[ Page 11002 ]

Ministerial Statement

FIFTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF UNITED NATIONS
UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

[2:15]

In a few moments I would like to read the statement from the faith leaders on the important occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But before I do, I think it is important to acknowledge the unity achieved by the leaders representing diverse communities. I understand -- or at least they tell me -- that it is very rare in Canada, maybe even unprecedented, for so many faiths to join together to work towards a common goal.

The idea of a statement in support of the Nisga'a treaty was first raised by a subgroup of faith leaders attending a meeting on June 15, 1998. As members may be aware, I've been meeting with the leaders of British Columbia's spiritual communities for about two years now, and we've discussed a host of ethical, moral and social issues that face our province today. Believing that the significance of the Nisga'a treaty should not be lost amidst the ongoing discussions on other issues, the subgroup volunteered to draft a statement of support that could be endorsed by other leaders. Brought together by a common goal, over 100 faith leaders, representing close to 20 different faith communities from across our province, have signed the statement so far.

The unity of their support for resolving land claims demonstrates courage and dedication and reflects the principles embodied in the UN Declaration of Human Rights. I'd like to congratulate the faith leaders who have participated in this achievement. You have united under a common cause towards the goal of bringing justice to all aboriginal people. This was a difficult and important challenge, and your efforts to address injustice are testimony to your skills and abilities as leaders in your communities. Your accomplishment shows all of us that 50 years after the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, we can take pride in our achievements but still remain vigilant that there is more work to be done.

I'd like to now read the faith leaders' statement into the record.

"We, the undersigned, believe that it is common to our religious and spiritual traditions that:

"there is a universal destiny of the goods of the earth, where land is a gift to us all, not for us to exploit but to care for. We know from our experience of aboriginal spirituality that aboriginal people see themselves as inseparable from the soil from which they came and that they consider themselves as part of the land that has been entrusted to them to care for, to use and to share;

"there must be reconciliation and respect between neighbours;

"where there has been injustice and inequity, there must be justice and reconciliation.

"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 a 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.

"We believe that the ratification process should be preceded by a public dialogue based on respect and information-sharing which leads to mutual understanding and reconciliation.

"We commit ourselves and our communities to such a dialogue and encourage all British Columbians to join us on this journey of understanding and reconciliation."

On a personal note, for over 12 years now, I've been involved in many processes as a politician, and I must say that my engagement with spiritual leaders from all around the province has been one that has been very rewarding for me. I hope that for them it has been part of a journey where we try to work together -- where governments are part of the solution, but where truly, at the end of the day, people have to make a difference in their communities. You have shown great leadership, in my judgment, on this very important question. Thank you.

The Speaker: I recognize in response the hon. member for Richmond-Steveston.

[ Page 11003 ]

The origin of the declaration and the unspeakable horror that produced the declaration were, I think, enormous, cataclysmic events in human history. For 50 years the declaration has been a beacon for all those who are committed to justice, wherever they may be -- justice around the world, justice here at home. Fifty years ago there was much work to be done around the world to advance the causes and the principles that are embodied in this declaration. There was also much work to be done here in British Columbia. Fifty years on, there is still much work to be done around the world to advance the principles expressed in the declaration, and there is still much work to be done here in British Columbia.

The declaration is universal. It speaks to the possibility that there are common values shared by all humanity, and it gives expression to those values. It speaks about democracy; it speaks about equality. It speaks about how fundamental it is to all societies that we have universal suffrage -- that all people subject to governments on the face of the earth have the ability to vote for or against those governments. The declaration is universal. It speaks to those principles in Cambodia; it speaks to those principles in Switzerland; and it speaks to those principles in the Nass Valley in British Columbia. And I am constantly informed by the power of those principles when I think of the business that is before us in the form of the Nisga'a final agreement.

I am also honoured, frankly, to have the opportunity to stand and speak today in the presence of the faith leaders of British Columbia. I admire and respect the work they have done to come together to try and find what it is that unites them rather than separates them, and to see if they can express a voice on behalf of those in British Columbia who have faith in the cause of justice, the cause of equality, as expressed in the Universal Declaration.

The declaration provides for me and, frankly, for all of us in the opposition and, I'm sure, for all of those in the government -- a framework which speaks to the need for justice for the Nisga'a, as it speaks to the need for justice for all British Columbians. It provides a framework which legitimizes and supports treaty-making, and we support that. It creates and provides a framework which inspires the need for a Nisga'a final agreement, and we support that.

But it does not answer all of the questions that it is our duty, here in this Legislature, to ask about the Nisga'a final agreement. You know, one of the things that the Universal Declaration does is that it protects our right here in this chamber to debate freely those issues and to disagree with each other about those issues -- to recognize that values, even though universal, may conflict; that rights, even though universal, do not always work together in harmony, and that in order to solve the real and practical problems that face human societies and communities, we in this chamber have a duty to strike a balance sometimes among those rights and values. Frankly, those of us on this side of the chamber who have read the Universal Declaration and share all of its principles have examined the Nisga'a final agreement, and we have a different opinion about whether or not it in fact gives proper effect to all of the values and principles that are expressed in the declaration and that are part of our common culture as Canadians -- Nisga'a or non-Nisga'a.

We have all of those questions before us in this chamber. I'm sure that to the extent they're able to, the faith leaders are following that debate with interest and that they will continue to do so in the days to come, as the debate continues. I agree with the Premier: there is much that needs to be done. I, on behalf of all the members of the opposition, pledge our continuing commitment to ensure that the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are given the fullest, fairest possible reality here in British Columbia for all British Columbians today, tomorrow and for generations to come.

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

Leave granted.

G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, it's a privilege to be able to stand on this fiftieth anniversary of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights to make comment with respect to this ministerial statement. It is equally a privilege to do so in the presence of the faith leaders of British Columbia, who, I believe, have shown courage and leadership on matters of human rights over the years.

The matter of a human right is an inherent right. It is not one that can be granted, not one that can be debated and not one that can be conditional. If we are to stand up and put forward a proposition that all of us in British Columbia are equal, then we must start from the premise that those inherent human rights are rights that run with us as individuals and that run with us as a result of our heritage, our history, our traditions, our culture, our customs and that which makes us unique in British Columbia.

I have had in my years the opportunity to travel and live in many parts of the world. I have seen many communities and societies in which human rights have been abridged, where individuals have been kept subservient under fascist governments, under colonial governments, under governments that have denied the right of individuals to a simple opportunity for free expression.

I've always prided myself that as a Canadian, we don't do it that way in Canada. It is regrettable and lamentable, however, that our history tells us otherwise, because as a white Canadian -- albeit a Canadian who has had six generations in this country -- I am nevertheless a product of a colonial period, a colonial time in which a foreign government dominated over this land. Therefore I have to say that as a white Canadian, it is often easy to slip into the language of paternalism, the language that says that we must look to our vision and through our laws and through our constitution and through our government. We will, through the benevolence of our system in society, grant to those who have had generations upon generations upon generations on this land. . . . We will grant to them a human right, an individual right, an aboriginal right or a right to governance.

[2:30]

At this time of human rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, I think all of us must recognize that

[ Page 11004 ]

Let me close with one thought that causes me serious concern. On this fiftieth anniversary of human rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Canada, I am shocked and I am greatly disturbed that in this province, on our streets in Vancouver in 1998, we can have people who seek to stand in protest on our streets, advanced on by large members of the police force with bludgeons, who are hitting them, pushing them back and causing great grief. The right to free assembly and the right to freedom of speech are the most necessary of human rights. They are the most fundamental of rights. We have to ask ourselves: where are we going in this country? What are we doing in this country, if this becomes something that is seen on our televisions, on our streets -- something that is not the Canadian way and is not something that we should practise and certainly not something that we should condone?

I'm pleased to stand up on this day and to give you this statement on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

I recognize the member for Peace River South.

J. Weisgerber: I too seek leave to respond to the statement.

Leave granted.

J. Weisgerber: Madam Speaker, it certainly is a pleasure and an honour and another momentous moment to respond and speak to this issue of human rights and, particularly, the church leaders' support for the Nisga'a treaty. I think it's tremendously important in this Legislature, where one could argue that in early days both legislators such as ourselves and church leaders such as those assembled here probably played the greatest role of any individuals British Columbia in subjecting aboriginal people to different treatment. I mean that not as a criticism of church leaders but simply as an affirmation of our history. I think it's in that context that I want to look at the declaration by those leaders and respond to it in this assembly.

Certainly there should be no question in anybody's mind that aboriginal people in this province have been treated badly, that they have been treated not only as second-class citizens but as third- or fourth- or fifth-class citizens. There is equally no question, in my mind at least, that we need to resolve land claims and that we need to resolve land claims by way of treaty-making. As a matter of fact, I take some pride in having played a very small role in bringing British Columbia to that decision. But to then suggest that we must adopt every item and clause of an agreement negotiated or we are somehow less than honest, less than forthright -- less than good British Columbians -- offends me. It offends me deeply.

Everybody has their own vision of justice. Just because you've got one extra MLA and you happen to sit on that side of the House, that doesn't make your vision of justice any better than mine. Nevertheless. . . .

Interjections.

J. Weisgerber: Immediately we move into heckle mode, and I guess one can only look at the source.

Madam Speaker, let me keep this on the level that I think it deserves to be treated at, and that is that we need to resolve these issues. Where better to debate the appropriateness of the clauses of a treaty than in the Legislature? What better place for us to disagree?

Finally, I want to say, as I've said before, that those of us who are busily patting ourselves on the back -- believing that the signing of a treaty or a land claims agreement is somehow going to miraculously change the living conditions of aboriginal people in this province -- had better take a drive into the Peace River country, where there has been a treaty for 100 years. They had better take a drive through the Prairies. I would urge them to stop in communities like Hobbema, where aboriginal people got 160 acres of land that turned out to be incredibly rich in subsurface resources, so money isn't a major issue. Look at the living conditions in those communities, and I believe you can come back to this House with a decision that you have very much only started a process that is much more complex and much more difficult than those making the brave statements across the way would lead us to believe.

G. Farrell-Collins: On another matter, hon. Speaker, I ask that perhaps the House, our Legislature, would send condolences to the family of Shaughnessy Cohen, the Member of Parliament for Windsor-St. Clair. She made her mark -- quite pronounced -- in the House of Commons in Ottawa, chaired numerous very important and significant committees and was known for her vigour, her youthfulness and her exuberance. She passed away on the floor of the House of Commons yesterday. Hon. Speaker, I would just ask that you, on our behalf, send our condolences to her family.

The Speaker: I am very happy to do that on behalf of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.

Oral Questions

PLACEMENT OF FOSTER CHILDREN

Hon. L. Boone: Hon. Speaker, you know, this is probably the most difficult job that I have, which is to review the very

[ Page 11005 ]

Hon. Speaker, I am not going to pretend that we can ever stop all the deaths of children out there. It is something that I don't think anybody over there. . . . And if you were in my situation, hon. member, you'd be saying the same thing. We have a responsibility as a society, I have a responsibility as the minister and the children's commissioner has a responsibility to try and ensure the safety of children. We must all work very hard to do that, and I certainly make my commitment to do that within this ministry.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister. First supplementary, the member for Richmond East.

L. Reid: Certainly I don't believe that the minister's response is adequate. And I can tell you that the reports that I have now read are riddled with inadequacies, serious deficiencies in care, missed opportunities to provide. This child lived his life in a situation that was not in his best interests. Three years after the Gove report, this ministry is still placing children at risk. Why?

Hon. L. Boone: You know, three years later this opposition is still trying to make politics out of the very, very difficult situation of children who are dying. This is a terrible situation. The foster parents that we have, have received training and continue to receive training. Our social workers continue to receive training. We have introduced a risk assessment tool that is now touted as one of the best in the nation. We are doing everything we can to make sure that children are not placed into inadequate situations.

But we're not dealing with a science here; we're dealing with human beings who have to make human assessments. This is not a job where people can expect that they're not going to make the wrong decisions sometimes. Those things happen. We will do everything within our power to give our staff the necessary assessment tools to make sure that they make the right decisions, but we can't guarantee that there won't be some wrong judgments made there.

FUNDING IN BABY MOLLY CASE

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. . . .

C. Clark: If the minister would like to listen. . . .

The Speaker: Members, I can't hear. The Chair can't hear the question. Members, come to order.

C. Clark: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

It was just a year ago that this ministry signed an agreement with the Engbrecht family to provide for Baby Molly's care for the rest of her life. The minister will remember that the children's commission, when it investigated the case, found that the ministry was to blame for inadequately managing Baby Molly's foster placement. And now this ministry has the gall to try and yank some of the funding that they've provided for Baby Molly's care. How can the minister credibly claim that she's doing everything in her power to fix the problems in her ministry when she won't even live up to the obligations that she made a year ago to Baby Molly's family?

Hon. L. Boone: I'm not sure what the member is talking about. I will have to look into that and find what exactly she is referring to.

However, I have never said. . . . Obviously the member listens as well as she did last year, because I have never said that I've fixed all the problems. I said far from that. I said that we are living in a situation. . . . This is very much a human issue. We are human beings; we are dealing with human beings. My staff are human beings. They make value judgments and decisions all the time, and sometimes those decision are wrong. I have told my staff over and over again that if they follow the procedures -- if they do the best job they can -- and they make the wrong judgment, I will back them up on that, because I recognize that not one of us in this House can say that we've never made a mistake. I don't expect that to happen, but for you to say that I've ever pretended that we've fixed all the problems is an outright untruth, hon. member.

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

[2:45]

This minister should stand today. . . . If she is serious about doing everything in her power to fix the problems in her ministry, she should stand today, keep her commitment, live up to what she said she was going to do and guarantee Baby Molly's family that her ministry won't yank the funding that they promised to provide for them.

Hon. L. Boone: Hon. Speaker, you must know that ministers are not going to stand here and make decisions that are based on a question from the opposition.

On a regular basis, funding is assessed for different families and different programs, based on their needs. For us to say that we are not going to reassess various families' funding at different times would be absolutely ridiculous, because those things do in fact happen on an ongoing basis. We have a responsibility to the public to make sure that our dollars are spent as best we can, and we will continue to do that.

COST OF BUY B.C. PROGRAM

[ Page 11006 ]

SALE OF B.C.PRODUCTS ON B.C. FERRIES

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order, please.

Hon. D. Miller: I can understand, hon. Speaker, that some beverages might be banned, but for the life of me I can't understand why apple juice -- or apple juice made by a particular producer. . . . Nor do I acknowledge that is the case. But I certainly will investigate that. Of course, as the member knows, right now -- whether there's a ban or not -- you couldn't buy any brand. [Laughter.]

PRIORITY OF REGISTERING SEX OFFENDERS

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

J. Weisgerber: At a recent meeting of Justice ministers, a federal-provincial report recommended against the creation of a national registry for convicted sex offenders. The report says that a national database could not hope to provide a comprehensive list of potentially dangerous individuals, because many have bargained down to non-sexual charges and others have been charged but not convicted.

Incredibly, these same ministers have started physical registration of legal firearms under Bill C-68, effective December 1. Can the minister tell us why he and his colleagues believe that it is more important to register legally owned sporting rifles than it is to register convicted sexual predators who are moving back into our communities?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: With respect to the firearms, it's federal criminal legislation that the Attorney General of the province doesn't have the choice to not enforce. The police in this province will enforce it as long as the federal government makes it the law, although we may do so reluctantly.

However, on the issue of the national registry for sex offenders, the member knows my position. I was the one that raised the issue of the need for a national registry for sex offenders and the need to eliminate pardons for sex offenders. The federal government and many of my other colleagues have not lived up to that need, and I will continue to press them to do that.

The Speaker: The member for Peace River South, first supplementary.

J. Weisgerber: The Attorney General is indeed on record. The Attorney General is on record as saying that he would consider going it alone with a provincial sex-offenders registry if Ottawa failed to provide a national registry. The Attorney General knows that's a position that I've campaigned on for a number of years. Has the minister decided, in the face of that report, to establish a provincial registry so that individuals and families can know when convicted, dangerous sexual predators move into their neighbourhoods?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: A very, very good question. Ontario said that they are thinking about doing a registry in Ontario. If another major province in the country goes ahead, we will go ahead in British Columbia to do the same and hook up with each other and forget about the federal government -- although it's their responsibility. They're not living up to it.

FOREST RECREATION CAMPING FEES

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: From the height of my office, I haven't conducted any witch-hunt.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order, please.

M. de Jong: I thought I heard the Forests minister say he wasn't trying to ascertain who told the public the truth. You know, the problem is that he should have consulted with his own ministerial official Carl Withler, whose e-mails to Mr. Jean, who is the gentleman we were talking about a few days ago, confirm that that's just what's happened. "The whole incident is under a thorough investigation at the ministerial level," according to this Forests ministry official.

Interesting that the e-mail also says: "Don't worry about the Boundary forest region in respect to this matter. [The minister] could best send his bloodhounds a little closer to home." So there's a little advice from Mr. Jean.

My question is this: why is the minister more interested in ferreting out those officials within his ministry who have some intention of telling the public the truth than in ending these hideous recreational site fees that are sucking money out of British Columbians' pockets?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: If we followed the tax cuts that those people over there want, we'd shut down the whole Forests ministry.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members!

[ Page 11007 ]

Interjections.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The first I knew that there was a draft regulation in the hands of officials and llama trail operators was when I got it from one of the members in my own caucus.

The Speaker: Thank you, members. That ends question period.

Ministerial Statement

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO
BUSINESS SUMMIT RECOMMENDATIONS

Our education system and our health care system are two things that we take pride in here in British Columbia. They make this province one of the best places in the world to live. Education is about more than schools, books and computers, important as those are. A quality education system requires the skills and commitment of trained teachers. That is why our government is committed to hiring more than 1,000 teachers to reduce class size in the early years. I want to take this opportunity to make it abundantly clear that under no circumstances will this government waver from that commitment.

Access to health care services is equally fundamental. It is a basic right of all British Columbians to have equal access to medical care on the basis of need, not on social status or family income. The keyword in my statement is care. Hospitals don't deliver services; nurses, doctors, paramedics and a host of other health care workers deliver care. That's why we're committed to hiring more than 1,000 more nurses -- because we're determined to maintain the quality of care. I want to take this opportunity, as well, to make it abundantly clear that this government has every intention of fulfilling the Premier's commitment to hire 1,000 new nurses in British Columbia.

The cuts advocated by the members opposite, the Liberal Party, at the business summit would eliminate our ability to hire those nurses and teachers. One billion dollars in cuts would mean the entire elimination of the Ministry of Forests, the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture, the Ministry of Fisheries, plus the Ministry of Employment and Investment. I do not believe, nor does this government believe, that the public will support such radical reductions. The proposal to contract out the operation of schools and privatize hospitals and universities is an extreme recommendation, which could save money only by attacking the wages of the very people we count on to make our health and education systems the best possible.

On this side of the House, unlike the side opposite, we value the contributions made by our correctional officers, our environmental officials, our home support workers and our paramedics, teachers, nurses and administration clerks. We recognize that they often provide vital services under some very difficult and tough conditions, and this government has no intention of abandoning those workers or jeopardizing their future or the future of their families.

We welcome the opportunity to work with the business community to strengthen our economy. But today I want to assure the people who deliver public services in this province that we understand the contribution they make to our well-being. We as a government will reject solutions that seek to strengthen the economy by weakening health, education and vital public services.

The Speaker: In response to the ministerial statement, I recognize the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain.

C. Clark: The Minister Responsible for the Public Service proves again that he doesn't have to be in cabinet for long to demonstrate that the facts don't have to be correct for them to be stated in this House.

[3:00]

But I'll tell you this. There is one thing that the minister gets terribly, terribly wrong. The thing he gets wrong is the fact that somehow the suggestions that the official opposition makes are the ideas that are going to damage our ability to pay for health care and education. The thing that is damaging our ability to pay for health care and education in this province is this government. It is the very fact that this government has driven our economy into the ground. They have put so many people out of work that fewer and fewer people are paying taxes, and there is less revenue coming into government, so we are less able to provide for health care and education in British Columbia. That's what the Minister Responsible for the Public Service misses.

The essential ingredient in protecting those important services is to get British Columbians back to work, whether they're in the public sector or in the private sector. That's the essential ingredient, and that's what the minister has missed today. The first thing that we on this side of the House will do to get that happening is to make a dramatic cut in personal income taxes. It's the first thing we will do to put more money into British Columbians' pockets. We know that if we put money back into people's pockets, they'll go out there and spend it in the economy. And -- guess what -- they'll give it to government, so that we can improve our health care and education systems. That's what they'll do with that money.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. . . .

C. Clark: The minister's got it wrong. We on this side of the House are standing up for British Columbians. We're standing up for working people; we're standing up for parents and students; we're standing up for the elderly and ill

[ Page 11008 ]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Well, we've seen a bit of a new twist to ministerial statements today.

Members will come to order. I recognize the hon. member for Okanagan-Penticton.

Petitions

Tabling Documents

Orders of the Day

NISGA'A FINAL AGREEMENT ACT
(second reading continued)

It appears that British Columbians are alive to the fact that this Nisga'a final agreement is actually moving forward to reality. For some it is considered a very good thing, but for many it is a source of serious concern. I want to begin by recognizing the hard work that has gone into bringing the negotiations to this stage. To the Nisga'a people, I commend them and their leaders for their patience, persistence and dedication to negotiation as the route to resolve this serious historical conflict. I want to acknowledge the years of work by all the negotiators, those acting for the Nisga'a and the two levels of government, both federal and provincial. Most often, if one is not directly involved in the actual process, we underestimate the complexity and difficulties involved and the efforts made to reach solutions.

I will go so far as to acknowledge that even within the government there exist sincerely held beliefs and honest commitment on this issue, culminating with the tabling of this Bill 51 in the Legislature on November 30. In making this recognition, however, I believe that there are notable exceptions, as exemplified by certain government actions in seeking the ratification of this agreement. It has been interesting to observe aboriginal policy and actions by this government and how they have evolved since the NDP took power in October '91. The Premier now has a new-found interest in the Nisga'a agreement and native land claims, since his federal fish war fizzled into public oblivion.

I want to follow up on a comment made by the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs in his submission to this House on Tuesday of last week. To paraphrase his comments, he said that ultimately MLAs should be guided by their own judgment, which is the essence of our democratically elected parliamentary system. My personal decision relies on both my experiences over the years and my own assessment of a broad range of expert opinion, as well as my best assessment of the real views of British Columbians, including the Nisga'a people and other, non-Nisga'a native peoples. I want to assure everyone, but most importantly the Nisga'a people and their supporters, that I absolutely do not form my opinions exclusively on what the majority thinks.

My comments today and my beliefs on this issue are significantly influenced by my experiences in small business and my 15 years as a director in a very large business, which is also a farmer-owned cooperative, a form of organization built on democratic principles. A lot of my comments today will be in the first person, which I apologize for, in one sense. Yet I feel it is necessary and appropriate to illustrate my points as to why I believe what I do. Each of us, whether we do it consciously or not, throughout our life develops our own personal set of principles, criteria and experiences, which we draw on to evaluate difficult decisions such as the one we as members of this House are facing today in Bill 51.

With an agreement and an issue as complex as this one, there are endless critiques and alternatives that could be raised. It has been important in my own review of this issue to focus on the critical, relevant issues and not to sweat the small stuff. As a business person, I have done numerous deals, contracts and various negotiations. From an early point in my career, it has been important to focus on the big picture, and I intend to do that here. The relevance of the details is in how they illustrate or contribute to the big picture.

Accordingly, I want to focus on aspects of the Nisga'a final agreement that I regard as particularly troublesome, some to the point of being deal-breakers for me personally -- first of all, the costs of the treaty. I want to deal separately with the up-front costs of the deal and the ongoing operating costs of maintaining and servicing the agreement.

The one-time costs are in cash and land: $350 million in cash and about 2,000 square kilometres of land, conservatively estimated by government at a value of $106 million. The money will be paid out over 15 years by the federal and provincial governments. Some of the costs include: $190 million in capital costs, $10 million for fish conservation along the Nass River, $11.5 million for the Nisga'a to buy a share of the existing commercial fishery, $30 million to set up local government, $30 million of federal money for training while the Nisga'a become self-governing, $36 million of provincial money collected for stumpage fees on Nisga'a lands, $41 million for road improvements. In addition there will be payments to third parties, such as forestry and mining companies, who have claims within the Nisga'a territory. There will also be continued federal payments of $24 million per year for social services that are currently paid under the Indian Act. These are unquestionably significant front-end costs to the treaty which are rightly of concern to many people -- all of it borrowed money on top of what is already record national and provincial debt.

The front-end cost is an issue; however, I am not so concerned about the cash cost -- that it is a deal-breaker. I have concerns, yes, but my other concerns are much more serious in the long term. I would go so far as to say that I would even be prepared to recommend to a skeptical public

[ Page 11009 ]

The creation of a third order of government. Clearly the creation of a third order of government in this final agreement is something which I cannot and will not support. Let us be unequivocally clear. The government structure proposed in the Nisga'a final agreement is not the same as any municipal government anywhere in this province or in this country. Further, it is questionable to say that it is municipal-like. In a province where many people rightfully feel that we already have too many levels of government, we certainly should not be contemplating another unique level and form of government in addition to what is already in place. The concept of a third order of government has been aggressively pushed for years by native leaders and was part of the Charlottetown accord, which was soundly rejected by the people of B.C. and of Canada.

In the proposed structure of Nisga'a government, the Nisga'a will have a central government, four village governments and three urban locals in Terrace, Prince Rupert and Vancouver. As proposed, this third order of government is unnecessary, it is inequitable and it carries with it a very high operating cost. A lot of it will be borne by all taxpayers, not just the Nisga'a people themselves. It is not a delegated authority from the federal and provincial governments. It is not the same and it should be. Unlike any municipal government, the Nisga'a government will have paramount law-making power in at least 14 areas, meaning that some Nisga'a laws will legally prevail over federal or provincial laws in the event of an inconsistency or a conflict.

There are no practical arguments to be made on this issue, only emotional ones. These arrangements will be troublesome and expensive to manage in perpetuity. What makes this aspect of the final agreement most troubling is that by the act of accepting this agreement, this third order of government is locked in constitutionally, which means that the provincial and federal governments can never modify it without the express agreement of the Nisga'a government. This provision, as well as a number of other discriminatory provisions, becomes cast into constitutional concrete through the ratification of this treaty. As such, it is wrong. It discriminates between native and non-native, it discriminates unnecessarily, and it does so at great ongoing cost to all taxpayers.

In closing my comments on this issue, I want to relate a quote attributed to Jack Ebbels, the lead provincial negotiator: "[The Nisga'a government, if the treaty is approved,] would be municipal-like. . .but the big difference is that municipalities are creatures of the provincial government and could be gone with an act of the Legislature. This is a treaty right to self-government, and it cannot be altered unilaterally. It can only be changed by agreement of all three parties."

The right to vote by non-Nisga'a living in the Nass Valley. Non-native citizens living in the Nass Valley will not be allowed to vote or to run for office in Nisga'a village governments or in the Nisga'a Lisims government. If the final agreement is allowed to retain such a provision, as it now does, then I can only conclude that the cure is as detrimental and negative as the original ailment. It is hard to believe that as we engage in an exercise of trying to reconcile historical injustices, we will discriminate against certain Canadian citizens in the manner proposed in this agreement.

[3:15]

A recent legal opinion developed for the Union of B.C. Municipalities refers to what it called "reopeners" in its analysis of certainty and finality of the Nisga'a final agreement. The paper listed a number of issues in the final agreement and the various subsidiary documents that can be and will be reopened for further negotiation at various times in the future. Many of these issues become increasingly critical in the context of another 50 treaties in British Columbia. The position that this agreement will be viewed as a template has been acknowledged by virtually everyone. The principle in this agreement will be viewed as a right by every other native band in negotiations, and it is not an accident that others are now trying to speed up their negotiations.

I want to make some comments about the unnecessarily and unbelievably complex bureaucratic and expensive design of the agreement. I will be the first to say that issues in agreements like this can be complicated. However, if the elected people in government with financial accountability to their electorate do not deliver aggressive, focused instructions to their negotiators to seek a simple, uncomplicated agreement, then it will not happen. Both federal and provincial governments have failed all taxpayers on this count, including the Nisga'a people themselves. What is especially tragic is that the huge, ongoing costs of complying with this agreement are the direct result of the inequities and wrongheaded discrimination that are entrenched in this deal and that will be entrenched constitutionally.

We are setting ourselves up for a serious double whammy. Not only will we perpetuate fundamental permanent inequities, we will be doing so at great ongoing cost to all taxpayers, which is so unnecessary if we are prepared to treat everyone equally. It should be a clear signal to people when even members in the legal profession question the fundamental inequities and the associated costs of implementing this proposed agreement. I categorically reject the view that it cannot or should not be much simpler than it is. I reject the attitude: "This is the way it is. The world is a complicated place, and if the lawyers say it should be 252 pages, then so be it." Our governments have failed all of us on this count.

I know from direct personal experience that simple agreements are often the best agreements. People say it can't be done, but I say it can be done and it should be done. Who in this chamber or in this province needs or wants more complexity in their lives? Who in government today -- elected or public servant -- needs more detailed and complex law, regulations and contracts to manage and to implement? My question to both levels of government is: what have you done to simplify this agreement into something which is less bureaucratic and which is affordable and equitable to all citizens and taxpayers?

I want to address the serious issue of the ongoing annual cost to service and maintain this agreement. The federal negotiator estimates that after 15 years, all Canadian taxpayers will continue to pay for 75 percent of the cost of the Nisga'a

[ Page 11010 ]

The other relatively unseen and unheard-of costs will be the actual continued cash outlay for bureaucrats, lawyers, consultants, negotiators and advisory boards and committees to service this agreement on an ongoing basis. As an illustration of the undesirable complexity I'm talking about, I refer people to chapter 8 of the final agreement, dealing with fisheries. Under this agreement, the Nisga'a will have access to Nass River salmon under a number of sections.

Under the final agreement, the Nisga'a will be guaranteed an allocation of 17 percent of the total allowable catch. Sections 21 to 27 set up a separate Nisga'a harvest agreement, which will entitle the Nisga'a to an additional 9 percent of the total allowable catch under a number of different conditions and processes. Under section 28, if the federal minister considers that there is a surplus to spawning requirements, the Nisga'a could be given additional harvest opportunities.

Under sections 35 and 36 of chapter 8, the Nisga'a will have a right to harvest the portion of the total allowable catch that results from improved Nisga'a enhancement initiatives, in proportion to their cost contribution. Think about the practical reality of how to calculate that one, not just one time but every year for the life of the agreement -- which cannot be changed unilaterally by either level of senior government.

Finally, under chapter 8 -- section 111 and schedule G -- the Nisga'a will be given funding of $11.5 million to buy boats and licences in the general commercial fishery. The funding will be half from the federal government and half from the province.

My purpose is not in any way to question the Nisga'a's right to access salmon or other species in the Nass River. However, I say to people: read the fisheries chapter as one example, as well as the subsidiary harvest agreement. Ask yourself how this is going to work in a practical way as we go down the road. I'm certainly not saying that the agreement is not in plain language; I feel it is in plain language.

My concern is that we are setting up a bureaucracy that will have no end and that will generate, on an ongoing basis, a myriad of rules, calculations, processes, consultations and decisions. The native legal industry will be ungainfully employed for years and years into the future. These arrangements will be, without question, an ongoing source of conflicts and expense. The commercial fishing sector in this province already, by everyone's admission, suffers grievously from intergovernmental conflict, overlap and tension. Now we are proposing to introduce into this mix another level of governance in the fishing sector, operating under a unique set of rules set out in the agreement. I ask people to consider what the impact will be on the cost to the taxpayer to manage and support the fishing industry, when current levels of public expenditure are already rightfully being questioned.

The next aspect I want to address is the inequities and inequalities that will be entrenched constitutionally through the ratification of this agreement. Under the final agreement, the Nisga'a will have a constitutionally protected exclusive commercial fishing entitlement of 17 percent of the total allowable catch. This will be a special commercial salmon-harvesting right that is distinct from the right of any other commercial fishermen. This provision is needlessly and unfairly discriminatory to all other B.C. fishermen. It is one of a number of examples where ethnicity will be a basis for constitutionally protected discrimination between two groups of citizens who should have equal rights. The implications for fisheries management are equally serious and have already been mentioned.

Taxation. If the Nisga'a agreement becomes a reality, there will be more tax parity than there is now. But there are certain existing taxes that the Nisga'a will not pay at any time in the future. For example, they will not pay stumpage fees to the province. Yet the Nisga'a will have the right to apply to Forest Renewal B.C. for forest enhancement funding.

I have already mentioned the fundamental inequity of taking away the right of non-Nisga'a residents to vote. Many of these inequities are forever, and many will have constitutional status under this treaty. Many of these inequities are blatantly obvious and fundamental in a democratic country that claims to treat each person equally.

Hon. Speaker, I've tried to summarize some of my major concerns about the proposed agreement. I believe that the views I have expressed are consistent with those sincerely held by a significant number of B.C. citizens. It is an undisputed fact that the injustice imposed on the Nisga'a by the rest of Canada must be reconciled. I agree completely with the position that treaty negotiation is the avenue of choice to achieve reconciliation.

It is my observation, however, that when a group of people are oppressed and have been so for a long time there is a tendency for the pendulum to swing the other way. I think that we as politicians very often delude ourselves in our quest to make the world seem fair and equal. We do so for all the right reasons. I believe, however, that we also have to be honest with ourselves. Even though the quest for fairness must go on, there is a limit to what is realistically achievable in any particular situation. I am not persuaded by the argument that this injustice has gone on so long that, problems or not, the Nisga'a final agreement must be signed immediately. I can assure Chief Joseph Gosnell that I have done the soul-searching that he asked me to do. I did it long before he asked me to do it, and I have continued to revisit the issues over and over again.

I want to comment now on the need for a referendum on this significant decision for British Columbia. Again I want to reference the comments made by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs in this second reading debate, which I will paraphrase as follows. He said that after an MLA has done all the consultations, study and investigations they believe are necessary -- I will now quote the minister -- "the MLA will ultimately rely on her or his judgment." I absolutely agree with the minister on that point. I agree that we as MLAs should consider a wide variety of input to check and temper our own judgments.

I will illustrate my unequivocal support of a referendum on this matter, however, by comparing my current elected responsibility -- and the minister's elected responsibility -- to my experience as an elected director on the board of a large cooperative. Cooperatives by design, purpose and intent clearly strive to be democratic organizations. In the case of the Fraser Valley Milk Producers Cooperative Association, the elected board of directors had the job, as the minister said, of using their judgment on all aspects of their legal, moral and fiduciary responsibilities to the members.

[ Page 11011 ]

In 1992 our board had negotiated a potential merger with two similar dairy cooperatives in Alberta. The Alberta cooperatives would collectively outweigh the influence of the B.C. co-op in the new entity. There were difficult market and financial reasons for making this unprecedented proposal to the membership. One of the Alberta co-ops was in financial difficulty. If the proposed deal was done, it would be irreversible; there would be no turning back. The nature of our B.C. cooperative, which was founded in 1917, would be changed forever.

Many producers were openly hostile to the idea, but we as a board focused on the facts. We presented the relevant facts as we knew them -- the upsides, the downsides, the strengths and the weaknesses. I will always remember chairing a meeting in Enderby, where the most vocal questioner and critic came to me afterwards and thanked us for not trying to sell him on the deal by using rhetoric and for never once saying to him: "Trust us." He thanked us for answering difficult questions factually and allowing him to make up his own mind. It was a lesson for the rest of my life. The vote was 91 percent in favour of doing the deal -- a deal, as I said, that many members had great concerns about. The figure of 91 percent is not one to sneeze at. It was the highest percentage that I'd seen at any special general meeting in 15 years.

[3:30]

There is the argument put forth that if a referendum were to be allowed on this issue, the majority would simply steamroll a no vote for their own selfish purposes. I reject this argument. I reject it because I have a strong belief in the workings of a true democracy. I have a belief in the collective wisdom, intelligence and decency of the members of our democracy in B.C. and Canada. Give our citizens the opportunity and the responsibility to rise to the challenge of doing the right thing, and I believe they will do so. Part of the responsibility would be for all of us as elected representatives to present the facts as we see them, the pros and cons, in a balanced and even-handed manner. Sadly, this has not happened with the government's $5 million media campaign. And sadly, the government has not had the confidence to date to place their faith in the collective goodwill and wisdom of our citizens. A referendum on the principles of the Nisga'a template is not only a good thing to do; it is the right thing to do. People want to have a say on this serious issue, and they are entitled to do so.

I want to close with a few quotations from a recent open letter by Cyril Shelford. He has written a couple of books. I've watched him over the years -- a humble man, a former Minister of Agriculture, a former MLA for the ridings of Omineca and then Skeena for a total of 24 years. He is someone who has lived and worked with native people for most of his life.

[R. Kasper in the chair.]

On certainty and finality, he says: ". . .so-called certainty won't happen until well into the next century, after all the other 50 claims have been settled." On economic self-sufficiency, he had this to say:

"Unfortunately, more than half the reserves in Canada are in isolated areas where nothing could make them self-sufficient, no matter what government is in power or under their system of self-government. All the many studies I've read haven't pointed this out to the natives, which leaves them thinking it is possible, which is totally unfair."

"It should have been pointed out in every report that even with self-government, it's not possible without major taxpayer's support forever. . . . Yet it seems that both levels of government and the Treaty Commission are more than anxious to continue down the same road that failed in the past."

I have made many decisions in my lifetime. Many were made very quickly, and some took a long time. One rule I've always set for myself is that I would not get stampeded or intimidated into a decision, and I intend to apply that rule in this situation. Accordingly, I personally do not agree with the Nisga'a final agreement proposed in Bill 51. Therefore, for the reasons given, I will be voting against it.

Thank you, hon. Speaker, for the opportunity to express my views.

B. McKinnon: I'm honoured to rise and speak to the Nisga'a agreement. This is an extremely important time not only for the Nisga'a but for all first nations people and all people of British Columbia.

It is an awesome task that has been given to me as a legislator of this province. My colleague from Vancouver-Langara said it so humbly: it is a decision which may have a profound effect on all peoples of this province and in our country; it is a "sacred responsibility which is both a privilege and a burden." It is one of the most important challenges that we in government face today: the challenge to reconcile the legal rights of the first nations people with the sovereignty of the Crown and of our common rights, values and principles as British Columbians and as Canadians. I do not take this responsibility lightly, as members of the opposite side would have everyone believe.

As members of the opposition, it is our duty to the people of British Columbia to give them the true facts of the legislation before us. The NDP spent five million taxpayer dollars to try and sell the people their version of the treaty, which contains some half-truths and ignores important details that the people of this province should know. The NDP have taken the Nisga'a treaty to a political level that is self-serving and that they feel will take them into an election.

The Premier says: "It's my deal, and it's a done deal. There will be no changes, no amendments and no referen-

[ Page 11012 ]

The Premier and members of this government have told us repeatedly that this agreement is to be a template for all other agreements that are still in the making. If this is so, then we must look at this agreement and see if it will fit in with all the other 50 or so agreements yet to be ratified. We should be asking ourselves: would this agreement work in the urban centres of the province? Would we all be able to live with an agreement such as this in Vancouver, Surrey, Victoria? The Nisga'a template will affect us all, whether we live on Nisga'a land or in the urban areas of this province. We need to do it right the first time, not just for the Nisga'a but for all first nations people who are looking for a fair settlement in the future.

I believe in treaties, as does everyone on this side of the House. Treaties should be negotiated with openness, not behind closed doors. Treaties should include the interests of all British Columbians and should also include the values of fairness, equality, certainty and finality. I believe that we need to get rid of reserves, get rid of the Indian Act and get rid of the poverty and suffering of our first nations people, which has gone on for too long. I believe that if we don't all start from an equal footing and have equal rights, we will not succeed in the goals we set for ourselves in this country.

The opposition has been calling for improvements on the Nisga'a template since the agreement-in-principle was first announced. What we are trying to do here today is get this government to listen -- not only to what we in the opposition have been saying all along but to what the people of this province are saying. All British Columbians want to resolve the uncertainty about aboriginal rights and titles. The people of this province are continually fed half-truths by this government, and they have become very skeptical and frustrated about accepting anything this government tells them as believable. This treaty before us today is being imposed on British Columbians without their consent, without them having an opportunity to agree or disagree. It is a shame that this government doesn't have the courage to ask the people, rather than dictate to them.

Hon. Speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition said in his speech: "This treaty is not a prescription for greater equality. It will replace existing inequities with new inequities." The minority report recommendations put forward by the all-party Aboriginal Affairs committee were completely ignored by this government. Why have committees? Why waste taxpayers' money? These are questions that need to be asked if governments have no intention of listening to what these committees have to say.

This is not a treaty on the road to reconciliation; it is not a treaty of the people. It is a treaty of the NDP telling everyone how it's going to be. We have only one taxpayer, whether it's for federal, provincial or municipal government. These 50 to 60 treaties in British Columbia are going to cost us provincially and federally. We have not even begun to take in the cost of treaties across Canada. The people of this province will have to live with the impact that this settlement will have on our fisheries and our Crown lands.

This treaty denies non-aboriginal residents the right to vote and run for office -- the most basic of all democratic rights. The Nisga'a will have a government that cannot be considered merely a municipal-like government. What the Nisga'a will be getting is a government that is not recognized by our Canadian constitution. Municipal governments are established by a provincial Legislature, delegating certain limited and local powers to the municipal body that it creates. The point is that whatever powers the Legislature delegates to a municipality, it can retrieve at any time in the future. It can even abolish the very municipality it created. The form of the Nisga'a central government proposed under this agreement fails to meet the test of any criteria for municipal governments. The powers given to the Nisga'a by the province under the treaty are not delegated to it but are, in fact, forever irretrievable. This agreement prevents non-Nisga'as living on Nisga'a land from voting in their elections, even though these same people will be subject to Nisga'a laws and will have to pay Nisga'a taxes.

The Charlottetown accord was soundly defeated in a referendum. Canadians at that time were then given a choice. By British Columbia law, if anything changes our constitution, it must be put to a vote by the people of this province, and this why we are calling for a referendum on that point.

A workable solution has to be found, which is equal and fair to all Canadians and British Columbians alike. The Nisga'a have negotiated in good faith, and for them a treaty is long overdue. Being long overdue is not a reason to give the Nisga'a a treaty that does not make them equal in every respect. We have a duty to try and improve the Nisga'a template, if possible. There are many positives in this treaty, but there are also many questions that still need answers. Will this government answer any of the questions that need answers? Will they make any effort to change the inequities of this treaty? Hon. Speaker, the answer is no to both questions. Desmond Tutu once said: "My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together." Let us here today be human together with the Nisga'a.

A. Sanders: I rise today to speak to Bill 51, the Nisga'a final agreement. I want a treaty for the Nisga'a people. I want a treaty for the Gitxsan, for the Tahltan, for the Gitanyow, and for the 50 or 60 other bands that are yet to settle. I want all land claims settled in British Columbia. That's good for the economy; it's good for investment in B.C. And that is good for all British Columbians. Moreover, because we have a moral responsibility, it's good for aboriginal people. I want the first treaty we sign in British Columbia -- the one that is the gold standard for all other treaties that follow -- to have certainty, finality and transparency. Nisga'a could be that treaty, but it's not.

[3:45]

The Premier has brought Bill 51 to this House and chosen to attach the treaty only as a schedule to the bill and deny us anything except general debate. I cannot vote for all of these sections that I favour; I cannot vote against the ones I don't. I am denied the opportunity in this House to do anything other than vote for or against Bill 51. And that's not good enough.

This is the blueprint for all other treaties; the Premier has told us so -- 50 or 60 yet to come. It's just not good enough. It's not good enough for me; it's not good enough for the aboriginal people whose treaties will follow; it's not good enough for my constituents. But it must be good for somebody. Could it be the Premier? If Nisga'a is good for B.C., then

[ Page 11013 ]

Deputy Speaker: The Chair recognizes the Deputy Premier on a point of order.

Hon. D. Miller: I would ask the member to withdraw the comments she just made with respect to truth-telling. I think they offend the rules.

Deputy Speaker: I would ask the hon. member to withdraw the remark.

A. Sanders: I'd be happy to, if it offends the Deputy Premier.

Hon. D. Miller: No, it offends the House.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, order.

Hon. member, I would advise that it is an unconditional withdrawal.

A. Sanders: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I withdraw the remark.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you.

A. Sanders: If Nisga'a is good for B.C., then the Premier should tell us the truth, not $5 million in messages to buy the taxpayer with propaganda, not deceptive ads on every B.C. radio and television station, newspaper and magazine, day in and day out -- half-truths spun into a sugar pill for taxpayer consumption.

British Columbians resent being misled, being duped. Tell us the truth, the whole story. We are adults. Give us all of the information, and let us decide what's good and what's not good about Bill 51, about the Nisga'a final agreement. Nowhere in NDP advertisements were British Columbians more misled than in the description of Nisga'a self-government. Taxpayer-financed ads were deliberately inaccurate if they said the Nisga'a people will "govern themselves in a way comparable to municipal government." Not true. Nisga'a government is not a municipal-style government; it's not even close.

Let's look at the facts and let British Columbians judge for themselves. Municipal governments are established by a provincial Legislature delegating certain limited or local powers to the municipality. These powers are retrievable at any time in the future. The powers given under Nisga'a government are irretrievable; the powers have irrevocable status. Once signed, the treaty casts these powers in constitutional concrete -- galvanized. This kind of government has never existed in any other land claim in Canada. No other aboriginal group in Canada has a government of this kind. Why Nisga'a?

Municipal governments do not have sacred power. Nisga'a government, with its sacred power, does, and therefore it is not municipal government. Municipal governments are given powers over local issues such as taxation of property, waste disposal, business and trade licences and land use planning. These governments are empowered to enforce penalties if municipal laws are violated. The powers given to Nisga'a government go far beyond such local matters. Nisga'a government will have 14 areas of shared constitutional authority where Nisga'a laws supersede federal and provincial law. The Nisga'a can make laws in education, higher education, professions, trades, health services, children and families, wildlife. . . . The list goes on.

Nisga'a government is not municipal government, as the Premier's ads would tell us. In fact, it is in a category never before seen in this country. Under true municipal government, all adult residents have the fundamental right to run for municipal office and to vote in their municipal elections. This most basic right of all Canadians will be revoked for any non-Nisga'a living on treaty lands, even though these individuals are subject to Nisga'a law and are potentially subject to Nisga'a property tax. These individuals do not have the fundamental right of democracy.

Never did I expect to see, in any Canadian province -- especially British Columbia -- that an individual would be denied this basic right. Nisga'a government is not municipal government. Why did the Premier not tell us the truth? Why did he not give us all of the facts so that we could judge for ourselves? What do we know that we support in Nisga'a, and what do we know that we do not, when the facts are not before us? Why can we not have any say when all British Columbians' futures are at stake? It's the least we could expect from a treaty made behind closed doors.

I support aboriginal self-government. I support aboriginal communities, like all other communities, having the ability to govern their own affairs. I support the goal of truly municipal-style government for aboriginal peoples, not an aboriginal government that has irretrievable powers and special status under the constitution to be set up as a third order of government in Canada. I support an aboriginal government that has all municipal powers and where provincial and federal laws are legally supreme. I accept nothing less.

Another flaw in governance under the Nisga'a treaty is that the provincial government will be constitutionally obligated to consult with the Nisga'a before changing any provincial law which may affect their laws. This will create the same sort of uncertainty that now exists in relation to consultation on land use decisions. Just imagine if every first nation had its own Forest Practices Code or Environmental Assessment Act, like the Nisga'a will have. Before the provincial government can change its laws -- for example, to reduce red tape and costs -- it would have to consult with dozens of aboriginal governments. It's a recipe for bureaucracy, higher costs and, ultimately, fewer jobs.

How much will the Nisga'a government cost taxpayers? Contributions from the federal and provincial governments will be increased to $32.1 million a year and will be adjusted for inflation, population and any extra functions Nisga'a government assumes. The federal government estimates that even after 15 years, taxpayers will contribute at least 75 percent to the Nisga'a government costs. Dependency on taxpayer funding is increased under the Nisga'a final agreement, not decreased.

As a template for 60 more treaties to come, the Nisga'a model of self-government must be rejected. It is wrong to entrench special status for any government under the constitution that accords rights on the basis of ancestry and culture. Democracy is the best system of government the world has ever known. It may not be perfect, but it is the best. We can and we must work to achieve justice for the Nisga'a without

[ Page 11014 ]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It is a great debate, it is a great subject, and it feels great to be standing here supporting the first modern-day treaty in British Columbia. I want to go back into some of my own personal experiences, because that's probably why I'm standing here today.

This summer, after the agreement was reached and it was out and we were at home for a summer break, I was sitting around a campfire with a group of young adults. Most of them were loggers and working in the logging industry. They asked about the Nisga'a deal, and they asked all the hard questions. In the end they asked: "Is this the right deal, and is this the right time?" I told them that after a lot of soul-searching and a lot of work on this treaty from my position in cabinet, it was the right deal and it was the right time.

I didn't know what to expect. Because they were loggers, I thought we might get a bit of a reaction. But you know, they looked at me -- and we're talking here now about young men in their late twenties and thirties. . . . One of them, who was the leader in the debate, really, looked at me and said: "I sure hope you're going to move forward with this, because if you don't, our generation won't forgive your generation." They don't want to deal with it a generation from now; they want to deal with this question now. It's that kind of understanding that moves me to really explain my position and support on this treaty.

Previous B.C. governments really didn't get on with the deal. They got a start. The Socreds got a start in the last year of their mandate, and it was honourable to get that start, but there was an awful lot of energy spent getting them there.

When I grew up, I grew up in the shadow of what past governments had -- the fear and ignorance that they had -- doing what they thought was best for B.C. aboriginal people. I remember young children running away from gated communities -- residential schools. I remember people running across the field. You'd look out across the hay field in the morning and see someone running. At first you might think it would be an animal, but no, it was a person. A young Indian child was trying to get home, trying to escape the oppression of the residential school.

My mother and father would tell me that the conditions weren't great there. They didn't understand, I think. They didn't pressure me, but in growing up in that era and asking those questions. . . . I've gone back to my parents to ask why they didn't fight against the residential schools. My mother taught there, in a collegial way, with some of the other lay teachers for a very, very short time, and my grandfather and my father hired aboriginal people. As a family, we were prepared to accept them as equal, but somehow there was something bigger that we couldn't get our heads around. Somehow they were there. There was some kind of institutional oppression, some kind of barrier. In fact, as I came to learn later, it was a barrier of law. We had put aboriginal people on reserves, denied them their rights and somehow expected them to live some other way than the way they were living.

I respect some of those young leaders who ran away from that school. I remember one in particular, who told me that he ran and was protected by his own family when he got to where the family was involved in a haying operation. This fellow, who is now or has been a chief, begged his father to allow him to stay home and not have to go back to the Indian residential school. Fortunately, his father agreed to protect him, and he never went back to those schools.

[4:00]

Then I watched the Calder case, and I watched the aboriginal people organize to reject and shut down the Indian Affairs department -- in some cases, successfully; in our area, unsuccessfully. I watched for a year while the Department of Indian Affairs divided and conquered the members of the tribal council and reopened their offices and kept the same kind of oppression going on. I remember when Chief George Manuel wrote a book called The Fourth World, where he tried to show that the two cultures could work together.

I remember out of frustration, after watching and trying -- through the Cariboo regional district that I was a director of -- to get the provincial government into land claims negotiations, because there were road blockades going on in the Nazko country. . . . In fact, our regional district set up probably the first land claims committee that any regional district ever had. It tried to make the relations between the local level of government and the aboriginal governments better. That committee existed for quite a while, and it helped to educate the directors, but we failed to get attention. Perhaps it wouldn't happen today, but in those days there was no more attention paid to it.

A decade has passed since that time. I realized that the only way to get some movement was probably to go out and get involved in provincial politics, because the issues were not being dealt with. Mike Harcourt and the NDP said they would get on with it, and I ran. Here we are nine years later, after incredible effort on the part of the Nisga'a and others and the provincial government and many of the third parties, finally realizing a first deal.

In the Chilcotin, relations have been tense since 1864, when a road was being built and the Chilcotins killed a crew of roadbuilders. That has been called the Chilcotin War. They were killed because the white people who were coming up and building a road into the Chilcotin were raping the first nations women who were associated with the first nations workers. They were feeding the workers from the first nations only scraps, and above all, they threatened them with smallpox. The leaders at the time felt that they had no other recourse, so a raiding party went out, and unfortunately a number of people were killed.

What happened after that was that the chiefs were persuaded to give themselves up and to go and attend treaty talks in Quesnel. Instead, they found that they were taken and

[ Page 11015 ]

To this day, the Tsilhqot'in are still looking for the graves of those hanged chiefs up in Quesnel somewhere. It's quite probable that the hospital is sitting on them. They're using very sophisticated means to try to find those, because it's very important to the peace of mind of those people that they find those leaders.

But I think -- I know -- they went underground. There were no more overt skirmishes, and that was probably the most violent incident between white and aboriginal people. But it was a different way of handling things. That was how they felt they could best handle it -- a people who'd had very little contact with white people.

Further south in the Secwepemc country, the chiefs got together. They brought some of the Chilcotin together, but there were southern Carriers and others from the area that I represent along with the member for Cariboo North. In 1910 a number of these chiefs met with Wilfrid Laurier. The chiefs said -- and this is their statement about their situation at the time:

"We never asked them [the white man] to come here, but nonetheless, we treated them kindly and hospitably and helped them all we could. They had made themselves as if they were our guests. We treated them as such, and then waited to see what they would do. They [the whites] commenced to take up pieces of land here and there. They told us they wanted only to use those pieces of land for a few years and then hand them back to us in an improved condition. Meanwhile, they would give us some of the products they raised, for the loan of our land. Thus they commenced to enter our houses or live on our ranches.

"With us, when a person enters our house he becomes our guest, and we must treat him hospitably as long as he shows no hostile intentions. At the same time, we expect him to return to us equal treatment for what he receives. Some of our chiefs said: 'These people wish to be partners with us in our country. We must, therefore, be the same as brothers to them and live as one family. We will share equally in everything -- half and half in land, water and timber, etc. What is ours will be theirs, and what is theirs will be ours. We will help each other to be great and good.'

"They have stolen our lands and everything on them and continue to use the same for their purposes. They treat us as less than children and allow us no say in anything. They say the Indians know nothing and own nothing; yet their power and wealth have come from our belongings. The Queen's law, which we believed guaranteed us our rights, the B.C. government has trampled underfoot. This is how our guests have treated us, the brothers we received hospitably in our house.

"We have no grudge against the white race as a whole, not against the settlers. But we want to have equal chance, with them, of making a living. We welcomed them to this country, and it is not, in most cases, their fault. They have taken up and improved and paid for their lands in good faith. It is their government which is to blame, by heaping up injustice upon us. But it also is their duty to see that their government does right by us and gives us a square deal.

"We condemn the whole policy of the B.C. government towards the Indian tribes of this country as utterly unjust, shameful and blundering in every way. We denounce the same as being the main cause of the unsatisfactory condition of Indian affairs in this country and of animosity and friction with the whites."

They fought for the country. I've got quotes here of chiefs who came back and reported to a royal commission or to the 1926 House of Commons special committee. They reported -- coming back, just wanting the rights of full citizens -- but were being told that they had to give up their status; they could no longer be Indian if they wanted to become full citizens of the country. In most cases, they went back to their reserves. Some of them lost lives; some of them lost limbs. The same thing happened after the Second World War. Mr. Rosette of Canoe Creek, for example, lost his Indian status because he had been away overseas for five years. The rule was that if you were gone for five years, you lost your status. He only got it back seven or eight years ago.

This racism that's been endemic in the years past still exists; the attitude still persists. I just go back to one of the columns I read recently. On December 4, Barbara Yaffe in the Sun wrote: "Critics of the Nisga'a treaty predict separate, racially based communities will pockmark B.C.'s landscape once all aboriginal negotiations are completed." I hope that her comments -- with her allusion to smallpox, the great scourge of first nations when the white man arrived -- displays poor judgment and not a deeper underlying feeling.

But despite this long-running tradition of institutionalized racism, the Indians have remained patient and cooperative. The Nisga'a, in their patience, were finally able to come to the Bar of this House -- the House that they were barred from for over 100 years.

In that same spirit, closer to home, is an example from the southern Carrier people. They are the majority in the west Chilcotin area around Anahim Lake, and they created a land use planning table. They actually offered it to be an experiment; it was one of the pilots under the CORE process. It started when the people decided that they would work together and sort out their problems. It wasn't a treaty but a land use deal. As a result, many years later, now we have them working together and sharing equally as partners in a sawmill out there. It's a wonderful success story about how people can work together if they have the process and the will to work.

When that Anahim round table reported out, Chief Cassidy Sill came down to Victoria. There was no great celebration here, but there was an announcement in the Cariboo. He came into my office, because it was a moment too important to pass up. He wanted to make it a special moment and wanted me to know something. So he came in and said: "We used to have a name in our language for the white man after he came into the Anahim Lake area. It was a name in Carrier that said 'they who are above us.' " He looked at me and said: "We have a new name for the white man, now we've got this deal settled, and the name is 'they who are our equal,' at the same level as we are."

In all my years of all the stuff in politics you have to put up with, it's moments like that which make it worthwhile. I remember where I was sitting when he made that point to me, and I've quoted it since. So that's the promise and the reality of treaty agreements. Once they're negotiated with the involvement of the people of the local area, we come up not with a divided community, but a community that has gotten rid of fear and disrespect and has entered into a new era of trust. They've gotten rid of the environment of uncertainty, and they can move into the environment of justice.

I want to credit some of the first nations and the chiefs in our area for their patience. They come from Canoe Creek, and

[ Page 11016 ]

The Cariboo people have for a long time, when they've had to face this issue when there were problems of confrontations, demanded that the government step in and do something. There's a lot of talk about whether or not we have a mandate to vote for this treaty or a mandate to settle this treaty. I feel very sincerely that we have a mandate, because for ten years I've been talking to people about what it takes, what the conditions of an agreement will be -- and is that acceptable? And when put to people, my experience is that they will support us.

Back in 1990 -- it was in May -- there was a huge rally at Williams Lake. There had been a road blockage, and there were logging trucks blocking the highway and thousands of people in the streets in front of city hall. They were concerned about a blockade off the main road where the military had been confronted by the Toosey band, and the banner headline in the Williams Lake Tribune that came out of that said: "Provincial Inactivity Targeted at Rally." They were concerned that we hadn't settled land claims. They were concerned that we hadn't dealt with the legitimate aspirations of the first nations people in the area.

It reports the resolutions that were put by the organizers to the thousands of people who were assembled, and they said: "Deal with land claims and resource management issues in the forests. Immediately send in mediators agreeable to both sides, or failing that, set up a tribunal of representatives from the province, the natives and the third person. Begin work immediately to bring the parties to talk and discuss detailed proposals and resolve the impasse. Have both sides agree with an outcome of mediation."

There was a four-point proposal made and received at the time in support of the local MP, who was a Conservative. I supported it at the time, and I believe it had the support even then from Neil Vant, who was then on the government side.

The rally was sponsored by a Save Our Jobs committee. It was a group of union and non-union groups -- people concerned about their jobs in the area. I spoke at that rally, and I joined my constituents, demanding that we settle land claims. It was for the good of the economy and for the quality of life in British Columbia. I said then, and I will repeat it again here today: "It is very misleading for anyone to suggest that by refusing to accept the concept of Indian title, the government is somehow looking after the interests of the rest of us, or that this refusal will have the slightest beneficial effect on the outcome. The courts speak in terms of Indian title, not something else, and only an ostrich would maintain that semantics will make any difference."

[4:15]

As usual, the Socred government stalled in dealing with aboriginal concerns. Only under immense pressure did they initiate the Treaty Commission process, and now, as I said earlier, we do finally have a first agreement, even though it isn't a Treaty Commission agreement.

The public pressure was immense. We had editorial after editorial in the Free Press. For example, in 100 Mile House they said: "Provincial MLAs must get off their collective seats, stop passing the buck onto the feds" -- as they like to address their federal counterparts -- "and be the catalysts themselves in solving the problems." I think I took that direction because there was great fear in that town that there wouldn't be resolution.

The Williams Lake Tribune was blunter. It said: "In the interests of Williams Lake and area, the governments had better step in, and soon. Let's not get to the point where the Chilcotin becomes another Oka." In fact, we went on to have a problem around Gustafsen Lake. We weren't fast enough to deal with the issues out there.

So my experience has been that when I asked for people comments around this, in engaging in the debate, many letters were written to the papers. Of all those letters, two called for a referendum, ten were against the agreement, and the large majority -- 38 -- were in favour of the treaty.

I've worked hard to consult with my constituents this fall. There were many, many meetings. I had meetings up in Cariboo North, in Quesnel. I met with faith leaders, social groups, high school students, university students, labour groups, forest industry representatives, environmentalists, first nations, municipalities, the regional districts. There's an extensive list. I've had several debates in which I challenged the MLA from Cariboo North to defend his position on the treaty. The debates elicited great interest in the community. They were well attended, and I found, unalterably, that when we explained what was in the treaty, the opposition diminished considerably. After one very heated debate, when I asked the people there what the solutions were if this wasn't the solution, a person from Quesnel wrote to me and said: "I just wanted to drop you a note to say how impressed I was with your answers during the second televised Nisga'a debate. Although I'm not a supporter of your government, I am a supporter of the Nisga'a deal, and I agree that if the naysayers have a better deal, then step forward." No one has stepped forward in my constituency, hon. Speaker.

If we think the courts are a solution, listen to the South Cariboo Labour Council president, who said, when he wrote to the paper:

"If you feel the judicial system is the way to go, just talk to anyone who has been through the courts. If they won, they won on a huge basis and someone else lost on a huge basis and gets to start all over again. If the settlement happened to be anywhere near a 50-50 split, there was so much damage done that neither side is on speaking terms."

But perhaps the biggest issue of a human nature that we have to deal with when we're dealing with treaties is the issue of fear. This came out when the Premier and I met with faith leaders in Williams Lake, and some of them told us that their congregations were afraid. They fear the uncertainty, the confrontations, the anger and, ultimately, often the violence that

[ Page 11017 ]

But the biggest fear on all sides is the loss of control over the land and the livelihoods that flow from that. I understand that concern, and I've taken the issues to the land claims advisory process; I've taken the issues to cabinet. I'm happy to say, as a landowner and as a former rancher and logger, that I am adamant that the way of life of the people I represent will remain intact. It won't be without some change, perhaps, but I'm also adamant that there will be fairness in dealing with people who might, unfortunately, be displaced through treaties. But our original position, of course, is that there should be no displacement, and that will be our main objective in treaties in the central part of the interior. Of course, we have said that private land won't be on the table, but there may be land available to treaty participants if there are willing sellers and willing buyers. The cash component can be used to buy land and, with that, obtain water and grazing rights.

I approach this view of land as being important. It's part of the aboriginal culture; it's part of our culture. My background in the Cariboo goes back to 1928, and I now live on property that's been in my family for 55 years. I've lived there 25 years. Even that attachment is somehow. . . . While it's a while in many people's terms, it is nowhere near the 4,000 or 5,000 or 10,000 years of the aboriginal people who came down our valley, who stripped the birchbark off the trees to make canoes and baskets and who otherwise used the land. So I understand that feeling about the sense of place and about the fact that we have to have some kind of land as a component of the settlement.

I'd like to say a few words about the forestry provisions in the treaty. The Nisga'a, historically, had very little input and participation in the forest sector in their traditional territory. This has changed, though, in recent years. For example, the Nisga'a have established five contract companies. The interim protection measures agreement between B.C. and the Nisga'a, signed in 1996, gave the Nisga'a significant say in the forest management within their traditional territory. That agreement laid out a formal process for consultation between B.C. and the Nisga'a, and the public knew about those arrangements and understood the arrangements. That agreement was amended in July '98 in order to enhance the Nisga'a's input into forest activities in the proposed Nisga'a settlement lands. B.C. recognized the need to ensure a smooth transition for the forest sector from a pre-treaty environment to a treaty environment.

The forestry component of the treaty is important because it helps define what will happen on Nisga'a lands. The land is probably the most important factor for the Nisga'a to develop a self-reliant, sustainable community. It is to the land that the aboriginal people have a defined right. Simple cash compensation, a notion promoted by the opposition, is not acceptable. We won't have deals.

With regard to the cost of the treaty with respect to forgone stumpage, we've estimated it at $36 million. As I've said, it is an estimate from a range. It was a negotiated amount, and that constitutes what will be given up in provincial revenue.

But certainty is an important part of what we achieve in treaties. We need treaties; the forest industry needs treaties. We need to put an end to road blockades and confrontation. After the treaty was signed, there was an area that had been blocked for over ten years, the Ishkseenickh valley. Now that valley is open for forest development and other developments. We have opened up land for development by the settlement of treaties.

The province fought hard at the treaty table for a nine-year transition period with respect to the forest resources. During the first five years the licensees presently on the Nisga'a land will continue to harvest under the transition provisions of the treaty. For the next nine years there will be a set allowable cut on the Nisga'a lands, which will go from 165,000 cubic metres in year one to 130,000 in year nine. The transition measures will ensure that the treaty won't destabilize our investment climate and the forest industry.

The opposition has suggested that the forest industry outside the Nisga'a settlement lands and in the Nass wildlife area will have created more uncertainty on those Crown lands. This just simply isn't true. The wildlife committee will have no mandate regarding land use and forestry. The committee will provide recommendations. It won't make decisions, and it won't have veto power. The provincial minister responsible for wildlife will make the final decisions. So it's hard to see how anything could be clearer.

It's been said that there weren't adequate consultations of third parties during the treaty negotiation process. There have been endless meetings with the local third parties -- over 400 meetings in the local area. If anyone didn't know what was going on, it was simply because they chose not to find out what was going on. In spite of inheriting a treaty process that had confidentiality guarantees, we found ways to put out the position papers to the people who'd be affected by the positions that were put forth. Local licensees were extensively consulted through the local forest advisory committee and on an individual basis. Those consultations significantly influenced the outcome of the forest component of the treaty -- for example, access issues between Nisga'a lands and Crown lands and the grandparenting of operation permits into the transition period. Many people, a long list of people, were on the Nisga'a regional forest advisory committee. There was constant contact with the industry, right up to the day the forestry negotiations were completed.

We've entered a new component, and that is compensation for contractors and people who don't have legally compensable rights in the area. We've established some principles with the truck loggers. I'm proud to say that that will, as the known effects of the treaty. . . . As it's implemented and as it's made known, their issues will be dealt with. They accept that. The northwest logging community understands that; the truck loggers understand that. It's been said that there will be an overlap of forest practices. It's simply not true. Each party that operates in that area will have one code, at one time, to work with. Indeed, Slocan Forest Products have said to us that they support the treaty.

Hon. Speaker, I understand that my time is up. I believe that we have in this treaty the makings of a new relationship between the aboriginal people and the people of British Columbia, from all walks of life, and that this treaty will pave the way for a positive future and a positive economy in the northwest.

P. Nettleton: Thank you, hon. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to this issue -- that is, the issue of the Nisga'a treaty. I should say that I'm somewhat humbled by the fact that I have this opportunity, given the calibre of debate and

[ Page 11018 ]

I represent the riding of Prince George-Omineca. Again, I'm delighted and privileged to speak on behalf of the constituents of Prince George-Omineca and many of the communities outside of Prince George, including a number of first nations communities, to which I will make some reference in my comments.

At the outset, I would like to comment generally about the Nisga'a and other first nations. I should say that the Nisga'a and other first nations -- it's no secret; this has been discussed here in some detail -- have suffered at the hands of the first European colonists. They continue to suffer, as we, having brought our own version of civilization, convinced first nations that their world had passed away and that they could never make it in the world that we had brought. We have collectively been guilty of patronizing first nations. It's no secret that we have fostered a dependency on ourselves which has served to undermine the pride and dignity of all first nations. It is my submission that we continue to be guilty of the waste of the talent and abilities of first nations and of the productivity to which they could attain and, hopefully, someday will attain. The treaty process is important. Again, I understand that I'm stating the obvious, but the treaty process is important and must succeed if we're to ever attempt to begin to address some of these concerns.

[4:30]

Hon. Speaker, I cannot, nor do I, purport to speak for the Nisga'a people, but it is my sense that British Columbians, specifically those who live in the northern half of this province, are feeling disenfranchised. They're feeling profoundly suspicious that if they are not given the opportunity to fully understand and input into the treaty process, whether by way of referendum or maybe some other means, then this treaty and others, which will, should and must follow -- but nevertheless will follow the pattern of this one -- will not work. It is not just the government of British Columbia and the leaders of the Nisga'a nation that must work to make any land claims agreement work; it is all the people of British Columbia, native and non-native. I think we understand -- at least we're beginning to understand -- that we must all work to address the concerns of first nations and to make the treaty process work.

With specific reference, then, to this treaty, I would like to mention three points, if I may, as to why it is that I have taken the position that I oppose this treaty. One, I oppose the treaty because it will not break the cycle of government dependency. It's clearly a well-established, well-recognized problem that there is some difficulty in terms of the cycle of government dependency, as it relates to first nations.

Now, this treaty, in my respectful submission, is too open in many respects. To give some examples, the treaty contemplates ongoing transfers to fund its own government operations, which have not been quantified and which could continue in perpetuity. Further, given this seemingly disproportionate size of the bureaucracy contemplated by the treaty and the opportunities to further expand the government, combined with the Nisga'as' paramountcy in the area of their own government and their own fiscal management, there appears to be an unlimited potential for increasing entitlements. Nor does the treaty foreclose any of the special benefits from other government programs for aboriginals. I would like to add that the treaty includes a ratchet clause, allowing that if other treaties are negotiated which provide more favourable tax treatment, this will be open to the Nisga'a as well.

I am not opposed to the notion of self-government. Clearly, we have to make some sort of a move. I certainly support a truly municipal form of government. However, it is our position that this agreement contemplates a form of quasi-provincial government which will merely serve to perpetuate the grievance-guilt cycle and which I believe will ultimately do nothing for the independence of first nations.

The second point I would like to make is that this treaty was negotiated in isolation from the treaty process overall, but it will nevertheless have the effect of setting the template for all future treaties. With all the work that went into this treaty -- and clearly there has been a great deal of effort that has gone into this treaty -- we would like to think that we would not have to reinvent the wheel that many times. The government has also indicated that it expects this agreement to form the template for future treaties. Unfortunately, our final offer, so to speak, represented in this agreement with the Nisga'a, will form the starting point for future negotiations with other first nations. It has become, in a sense, an opening bid. At least one first nation has already said that it will be the floor for negotiations with them. Our cards are the only ones that are on the table.

Another point is the self-government aspect of this treaty. It seems clear that the provincial map will be dotted with treaty lands on which individual first nations governments with individual powers and differing areas of paramountcy will reign. There will be new divisions based on ancestry and culture. How is that for certainty? No business of any kind will be able to operate effectively anywhere without its own conflicts-of-law specialists on call.

We have heard it said that native land claims make up 110 percent of the province. Regardless of whether this is accurate or not, nevertheless it is common knowledge that there are overlapping claims and that this is more the rule than the exception. Even in the Nass Valley, which is remote and relatively unpopulated, the Nisga'a treaty runs afoul of the land claims of the Gitxsan people, so they will have to be compensated with more cash or other lands at some point. How is this going to play out in the areas of the province in which three or more first nations claim the same lands?

The Nisga'a treaty should not have been negotiated or concluded in isolation. The defining principles, terms of reference -- whatever you want to call them -- should be settled between the two levels of government and all first nations with an express interest in entering into treaty negotiations, particularly with respect to self-government and with respect to the total amount of land and cash that would be set aside for the conclusion of all treaties in the province. The drawing of actual boundaries and specific allocations of land and cash require that all parties be at the negotiating table, unless we are all content that the sky is the limit. However, I don't think the taxpayers of this province are that liquid anymore.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Further, once these terms of reference are concluded, they could be and should be published and the public given an opportunity for feedback. As I've said, when the public is not involved in the process, they will not be committed to the success of the process, which ultimately is necessary.

[ Page 11019 ]

Some of my earliest childhood memories are of living in a small northern community and travelling with my father, who worked a great deal with first nations in remote villages in the northern part of Alberta for some 13 years. I recall the sights and sounds; I recall the moose hanging out in the sun to dry; and I recall the warm friendship and fellowship and experiences of those times. Indeed, I sense some commitment, some sense of obligation to first nations, not only from those early childhood memories of travelling in those remote villages with my father, who worked at meeting the social and spiritual needs of first nations. . . . Again, I think it was a great opportunity, not only for myself but for my father and others, to learn from first nations in terms of their way of life, their approach to life. Those are experiences that I cherish, looking back some years.

More recently, I've worked at a native community law office in Fort St. James and had the opportunity to travel extensively into the remote villages in the region which I now represent. I've had the privilege of attending a potlatch, and I've sat with elders on the steps of the band office in various villages and talked about their past and the way of life that has come and gone. We've talked about issues which concern them, whether it is traplines, which are from a way of life that has disappeared for many of the elders, who now lament that fact. . . . We've talked about issues in and around forestry and the resource sector. We've talked about a good number of things. Again, it has been my opportunity to listen and to learn from first nations and to develop, I believe, something of an appreciation for their approach to life, their patience, their perseverance and their commitment to working through many of the issues with which we here are now faced. That reinforces some sense of empathy and concern for the aspirations of first nations.

Again, I find myself in the enviable position of representing Prince George-Omineca, which includes a number of first nations communities, many of which I visited as a legal aid lawyer, including Saik'uz in Stoney Creek; Nadleh Whut'en in Fort Fraser; Stellat'en in Fraser Lake, out towards Takla Landing -- which is roughly three hours, when the roads are good, from Fort St. James, in the outer fringes of Prince George-Omineca; and Middle River, which is a wonderful little community. I've had the opportunity to travel to that community, a very remote community, a number of times. The young people in that community have taken me and my son out fishing, and I've spent a great deal of time with them, sharing with them something of my thoughts and experience from the point of view of my background in law, but at the same time listening and learning, I believe, much more than I was able to share with them.

Back to the Tl'azt'en nation, which is a vibrant community of first nations who are involved in the forest sector by way of joint ventures and things of that nature. . . . There's a strong educational component in the Tl'azt'en nation, strong links and friendships which I hope go on for many years to come. Closer to home, to Fort St. James, is the Nak'azdli band. Again, I've worked very closely with the chief, in his previous life prior to becoming chief and more recently as chief of the Nak'azdli band. Yekooche is the final band within the Prince George-Omineca riding. I've spent a great deal of time there, first as a legal aid lawyer meeting with residents of that community, working through a variety of problems from a legal standpoint on a regular basis. I've met and talked with elders not only during that time but since that time and, more recently, have hunted in that area for moose -- on one occasion successfully. Again, it's with a great deal of concern and a great deal of thought that I have approached this issue, as I'm sure other members of the House have, with reference to the treaty.

In conclusion, I should say that I'm all for treaties. I think that's stating the obvious. I do not believe that we can in good conscience allow first nations to be marginalized. A good treaty will allow our first nations to finally stand up on their own. It will snip through the apron strings with which first nations have been ensnared and will reaffirm their dignity. It will encourage first nations to govern and manage themselves according to their own culture and traditions and to still live in harmony with their neighbour citizens of British Columbia, Canada. Thank you for this opportunity to have shared a few thoughts on this issue.

[4:45]

J. Weisbeck: I rise today to speak on this very historic occasion, second reading of Bill 51, Nisga'a Final Agreement Act. We've heard a great deal of history throughout this debate, and that history has reminded us that mistakes have been made. I think we now have the opportunity to learn from those mistakes and reshape our future -- one of understanding and equality.

Even though that history has been very informative throughout this debate, I've heard very little from the members opposite about the content of this treaty. It is essential that the treaty be carefully analyzed. It's also unfortunate that only a handful of clauses will be discussed. It denies us the right of every member of this House to express their views on every section of the Nisga'a template. It's unfortunate that the entire treaty couldn't be discussed, because it could show that we support a large part of the negotiations -- further proof that the government has chosen to politicize the debate and has not given clarity to the process, once again muddling the debate for their own political gain.

I appreciate the importance of closure with Nisga'a Canadians and of finding a solution to the inequities that have existed. But one must never lose sight of the final result, a result that must give certainty, finality and especially the ability to live together as equal Canadians. This treaty will form a template for all other treaty negotiations in British Columbia. It will be a benchmark which all other first nations will start from in their talks -- not a ceiling, but a floor for discussions. There is no doubt that these negotiations will have a huge impact on the economic, social and political fabric of this province. We must never lose sight of what we want British Columbia to look like in the future. We must be able to take this agreement and apply it to 50-plus other treaties over the next 20 years.

But given this current treaty, I don't think it will be a British Columbia that is functional economically, socially or politically. It will be a British Columbia that has created a situation of economic uncertainty. It will create a tax burden on the average British Columbian that is unaffordable. It is a treaty that will create a social situation where new walls have been built to replace the old ones. It will create 50-plus government bureaucracies which would be not only unmanage

[ Page 11020 ]

There are very good aspects to this treaty, and I would compliment the negotiators on those parts. Members opposite have admitted that there are no perfect treaties. In this case, I would agree: this is not a perfect treaty. Frankly, there are too many imperfections to allow it to go forward.

All British Columbians want to be heard, to resolve these imperfections. There are a number of areas that I would like to touch on, areas where I have had the most input from my constituents. They include certainty and finality, affordability, overlaps and self-government.

On the issue of certainty and finality, there is no doubt that resolution of treaties would be one step in the right direction to create a positive environment in British Columbia. We're all aware of the uncertainty created by government policies in British Columbia. We're also aware that uncertainty in aboriginal claims has had an impact on the resource sector. We're also aware of the unwillingness of this government to recognize the concerns of the business sector in British Columbia and the uncertainty it creates for the expansion of business and the attraction of investment to this province.

Does this treaty create certainty? Can this treaty create certainty without an extinguishment clause? There's some question as to whether "cede, release and surrender" being replaced with just "release" will achieve finality. The fact that there will be continued discussions over at least 50 years under the treaty, where ongoing discussions will be required, doesn't give one a positive feeling that finality will be achieved. The treaty itself recognizes the lack of certainty.

There's a ratchet clause in the treaty that gives Nisga'a Canadians the opportunity to open talks should others negotiate a better treaty on taxation issues. They would be able to expand their treaty and their settlement.

There will be uncertainty in wildlife management and fishery management in the Nass. Consultation will also be required whenever changes in provincial law could impact on the validity of any Nisga'a law. This constitutional requirement for consultation could paralyze government and increase the costs as the increase in litigation becomes more frequent.

On the issue of affordability, the argument had been made that the majority of cash will be coming from the federal government. The presenters of this argument would have us believe that federal dollars are derived from a different source, like they have their own pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. We must remind ourselves that there is only one taxpayer, and that person supports all the levels of government, including the level of government proposed by this treaty.

The Premier has admitted that the treaty settlements would not be cheap. In a pathetic attempt to soften the blow to taxpayers, he quoted a figure of $6 billion to $7 billion. Once again, he can't be upfront with British Columbians and tell them the truth, that the figure is far greater. The Premier has an obvious problem with numbers, as we're all aware -- as he made us very aware of in his pre-election budget. Historically, he has always downplayed the problem.

Considering that the Nisga'a's agreement gives $89,000 to all members of the Nisga'a nation, and recognizing, as well, that all the other treaties will not settle for less, the math is very simple: $89,000 times about 170,000 aboriginal people in B.C. comes to $15.13 billion. Can British Columbians afford $15 billion at a time when health care and education are under siege, especially at a time when this government has created a made-in-B.C. recession? It's very worrisome when the answer to all of this is for the government to spend $5 million on an ad campaign. This treaty is not affordable to British Columbians. Included with the upfront costs and the loss of revenue, there will be the ongoing costs of treaty implementation. There have been predictions that the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs could become one of the largest ministries, as the need for more staff arises.

A third issue that concerns me is the overlaps created by this treaty. I'm somewhat puzzled that the aboriginal peoples have gone ahead with this treaty, knowing full well that their neighbours have made claim to the same lands. There would appear to be new injustices created by a treaty designed to eliminate old injustices. Not only will it create dissension among the aboriginal peoples, it will also create uncertainty. Investors could still be involved in a minefield if they have to deal with claims over the same area. These overlaps must be addressed before the treaty proceeds.

We are opposed to the model of self-government proposed by this treaty, because it divides Canadians along ethnic lines. It will give the Nisga'a's government special new rights and statutes under the constitution. Nisga'a government will be able to pass laws that are legally superior to federal and provincial laws. No other municipal or aboriginal government in Canada has had that authority. It will create a nightmare of overlapping jurisdiction. There will be overlapping health laws, transportation laws and taxation laws, to name only a few. The Nisga'a government will be entitled to create its own forest practices code, scaling standards and environmental assessment act. The final result will add new costs, increased bureaucracy and an entirely new level of government at a time when existing resources are stretched to the limit.

All of this is frightening when you consider this government's appetite for increasing the size of government. This is very apparent when one looks at the increase in size of government since the NDP has been in power.

The federal government is as guilty. I had the opportunity to visit Yellowknife in the Northwest Territories. I walked around the city of Yellowknife, a town of 17,000 people, and I was amazed at the number and size of government offices. The federal government spent $30 million building a parliament building to represent 60,000 people -- all of this to have the territory divide into a new territory, where all of this expense could be duplicated.

The combination of these two governments and their freewheeling spending habits will cost the Canadian taxpayer millions. This new Nisga'a government will cost taxpayers $32 million a year. That figure will increase as population increases and as inflation and new programs are added. The bureaucracy will grow as the interactions to resolve the unresolved issues continue to increase. Even after 15 years, it has been predicted that the Nisga'a government will be subsidized by 75 percent.

We strongly support the goal of truly municipal-style governments. Nisga'a Canadians should have the ability to govern their own affairs, like all local governments, subject to the same laws as the rest of Canadians. Federal and provincial laws should always be legally supreme. No Canadian should be able to set themselves apart from the rest of Canada. Unfortunately, this treaty doesn't recognize equality among all Canadians. It has given the Nisga'a local government special rights, and it deprives non-aboriginals living on Nisga'a lands of the right to vote.

[ Page 11021 ]

The Speaker: I now recognize the Minister of Health.

Hon. P. Priddy: Thank you, hon. Speaker. [Applause.] I just stood up!

Interjection.

Hon. P. Priddy: Indeed.

It truly is an honour to rise today to speak in support of this bill and this historic treaty. While I wish this day had come many years ago, many decades ago, I'm proud that we're now taking this step -- what is really a monumental step -- toward healing old wounds, righting old wrongs and moving forward to a better future for everyone. I'm proud that the Nisga'a people and representatives of the people of British Columbia and of Canada sat down and painstakingly. . . . I mean, this was incredibly hard, arduous, long work. The skill that it took on everybody's part and the patience to do that show that the commitment all parties had to reach an agreement was a commitment that was deep in their souls.

I'm proud, hon. Speaker, because it's absolutely essential to the future of British Columbia. I'm proud because this is a treaty that resolves an injustice that has simply gone on for too long. Most of all, I'm both proud and excited because this treaty enables the Nisga'a people to build their own stronger, more self-confident and more self-reliant communities. They will be able to do this. They have the skills; they need the opportunities.

It also marks an end to the paternalism that has poisoned our relationship with the Nisga'a for so many decades. In the Legislature there have been a number of examples raised and quotes read about that kind of paternalism. When you are treated in a paternalistic manner, you stay a child. You're never allowed to grow; you're never allowed to access all of your opportunities; you're never allowed to fulfil your own destiny. It also heralds the beginning of a new era with past injustices put behind us, one in which we can work together to repair much of the damage that has been accumulated over the last 150 years.

[5:00]

As the Minister of Health and, previously, the Minister for Children and Families and the Minister of Women's Equality, I've seen the evidence of this 150 years of damage in very real, very human and very tragic terms. It's what happens to people who are forced from their traditional territories onto reserves, who for a long time didn't have basic rights, like the right to vote and the right to meet and talk about land claims. It's what happens to people who have not been welcomed into the fabric of Canadian society with the respect and the dignity that they deserve. We talk so much in this country about welcoming people into the Canadian fabric of society and doing that with equality of access, with respect and with honour. This has not happened.

The reality for B.C. first nations has been significantly poorer health than there has been for British Columbia's non-aboriginal population. An aboriginal baby welcomed, like I hope all of our babies are, is more than twice as likely to die before the age of one as a non-aboriginal infant -- twice as likely to die as a baby. We can't afford that kind of tragedy. First nations children are more likely to die in a fire, in a traffic collision or from drowning, and aboriginal youth and young adults are six times as likely to die of suicide. This pattern is repeated in nearly every area of health, for almost every age group. The tragic reality of poor aboriginal health outcomes is not some kind of coincidence. It's a legacy of injustice and of a system that simply doesn't work for first nations children and first nations communities, and it doesn't work for our province.

The treaty leaves this painful history behind. It ends the race-based reserve system and allows the Nisga'a people to achieve greater self-reliance and opportunity. It takes them out from under the Indian Act and creates greater equality. I believe it ends jurisdictional uncertainty and ensures the laws of Canada and B.C. are applied consistently and equitably on Nisga'a lands. The Nisga'a children of today and the Nisga'a children of tomorrow will not grow up being kept separate and apart from the rest of the province. They will, for the first time, be able to take their place as Canadians and British Columbians in every sense of the word.

With this treaty the Nisga'a people will be able to manage their own affairs within the framework of the Canadian constitution. They'll be able to build strong, self-reliant communities. While the treaty does not create a new order of government, it does restore their authority and responsibility for their land. They will have the right to make laws in a wide range of matters, from adoption to forest resources to social services to wildlife. Nisga'a lawmaking authority will be shared with the federal and provincial governments, and in most cases, federal and provincial laws prevail in the event of a conflict or an inconsistency.

There are a few exceptions to that, for purely internal matters in the areas of culture and government administration. But in most cases, Nisga'a laws will apply only on Nisga'a lands, with a very few exceptions -- adoption, marriage, social services -- which lie at the heart of Nisga'a culture and families. The Nisga'a will also continue to administer health, child welfare, and education services provided under arrangements made prior to the treaty. And non-Nisga'a people living on Nisga'a lands will have significantly increased rights under the treaty, compared to those they have today, when you look at a number of those services.

We all view things from a particular perspective and the current perspective I have is that of the Minister of Health. I really think that this treaty, in many ways, has everything to do with health -- healthy children, healthy British Columbians and Canadians and healthy communities. It's interesting that in a sense, health care was already out front on this one for the Nisga'a people. While our provincial health system has worked its way toward more regional and community-based health decision-making and service deliveries, things have been headed that way, in that direction, for a very long time in the Nass Valley. The Nisga'a Valley health board has been in place for well over a decade, delivering federal and provincial health programs in a coordinated and responsive manner. In

[ Page 11022 ]

Essentially, the treaty provides for a certain level of community control over health care, within both federal and provincial established standards. The Nisga'a people will have the ability to make laws around health that apply on their lands. However, the delivery of health services must meet federal and provincial standards and must treat everyone equally. We're not talking about two separate health systems, but we are talking about increased local control, which is something we've been working toward in all parts of the province. The Nisga'a will pay Medical Services Plan premiums for the Nisga'a people in much the same way as many businesses and organizations pay MSP premiums for their members. We won't have two different kinds of CareCards and two different kinds of health systems. The Nisga'a will contribute to our health system in the same way that everyone else does. But what they do gain through this treaty, which is so important, is an opportunity to build local health services that are responsive to and respectful of the communities they serve. Whether or not the Nisga'a Valley health board continues to fulfil this role or a new organization is created by the Nisga'a to do so in the future, these basic principles will remain.

Despite the small number of paragraphs in the treaty that specifically deal with health care, the health implications of this treaty are significant. I've already talked about the painful reality of health outcomes for aboriginal people in British Columbia. But there is another side, as I mentioned earlier, to this story. There's the positive reality of what happens when people gain control over their own lives, as this treaty finally allows the Nisga'a to do.

It has become well established that good health -- health in its broadest understanding -- depends as much on economic and social factors as it does on the physical factors that have been traditionally linked with good health. The cycle of poverty, unemployment, lack of opportunity and lack of education is directly related and connected to poor health outcomes. The opposite is also true: the empowerment of people also improves health outcomes, and this is what we are seeing now and will see more of.

Just to give an example, if I might for a moment, I'll quote from the provincial health officer's 1997 annual report, which devotes a section to the health status of aboriginal children. The report says: "Preliminary results suggest that youth suicide rates are lower for communities that have achieved self-governance, are engaged in land claim negotiations, have cultural facilities, and have control over local health and social services such as health care, education, police and fire." Quoting from a recent study, the report goes on to say: "When all six of these 'cultural reconstruction' factors were present in a community, the youth suicide rate fell to zero in the study period."

When we know the tremendous tragedy -- that's six times the provincial rate of suicide amongst youth -- and when we see that drop to zero within the time studied but certainly dramatically, dramatically reduce when those youth are engaged in their community, are connected to their culture and, along with elders and adults, have control over services in their community. . . . They want to live. They have a reason to do so. They're proud to be aboriginal -- in this case, proud to be Nisga'a -- and they want to live and carry on that tradition.

The provincial health officer summed up the significance of this, actually, by saying: "This fits with what we know about the factors that influence health -- individuals and communities are healthier when they are empowered and have a sense of control over their lives and their destinies." It's no different than it is for any other people in any other community in this province. This treaty, hon. Speaker, empowers the Nisga'a people. It will give them a sense of control -- not only a sense of control. . . . It will give them control over their lives and their destinies, and it is critically important to the long-term health of their children.

There are many economic and legal arguments -- and many people have made them -- in favour of this treaty, none of which I'm touching on in my comments. It's not because I don't think they're important -- not at all. But, for me, I don't know if there's very much that's more important than the health and well-being of our children. By finally achieving a just resolution of this treaty, we aren't simply making a legal decision with economic implications; we are making a social decision that offers a healthier future for the Nisga'a people, for their children and, in the end, for our province.

This treaty shows we can build a healthier future. We can achieve justice and can move forward. We can put a painful past behind us and move on toward better times. The Nisga'a people have shown good faith and tremendous courage in sitting down at the table and working through what were some very, very difficult negotiations. The governments of Canada and B.C. have done the same. Now it's time to ratify the treaty and move forward. I will be voting in favour of this bill, because it makes sense and because it's the best thing we can do for our province. But more than that, I'm going to vote for this treaty because we owe it to our children and the Nisga'a children.

R. Coleman: I'm pleased to enter into the debate this afternoon. This treaty affects a lot of people in a lot of ways, and there has been a lot of public comment relative to it both in my riding and in other ridings across the province.

The previous speaker, who is a former Minister of Women's Equality, held a public meeting in Surrey in November, along with the MLA for Surrey-Whalley. At that public meeting, there were 90 people that packed a conference room at the Sheraton Hotel Guildford. I wasn't at the meeting, so I'm not going to get into the outcomes and the feelings that were in that room that night, although they were reported in the local paper. But I do want to bring attention to the comments of Mercy Thomas, a Kincolith Nisga'a resident. At this meeting she said "she was angered by the fact that there was no female presence at the negotiating table, [at] the timeliness of the Nisga'a vote and [by] the lack of information that was provided to the Nisga'a people." She further went on to say:

"'My land is all I've got, and in a lot of ways it's being ripped out from under my feet and the feet of my people. . . . Most of us were not informed of what the deal entailed and we had to get the information off of television.'

"Thomas said she was happy the MLAs chose to come out to hear what the public had to say, but in the long run, it doesn't matter what the public thinks, because the government's mind is already made up. 'I don't think what I say and what the

[ Page 11023 ]

majority of people say is going to make that much of a difference, but it's important the public knows the truth and not the lies and false truths that the government is trying to feed everyone."'

[5:15]

Hon. Speaker, as a former minister and a Minister of Women's Equality. . . . I would hope that this government has taken this treaty and applied it to women's issues to determine whether in fact this treaty, on balance, is good for the women of the Nisga'a nation, is going to treat them fairly and is going to address the concerns of Ms. Thomas, because, frankly. . . .

Interjection.

R. Coleman: This is a Nisga'a speaking. This is not myself speaking; this is someone who went to a public meeting -- and took the time to go to a public meeting -- to be in the room with that individual.

Recently I met with a Nisga'a gentleman in my riding, a businessman who had a vote in the Nisga'a treaty and who had a number of questions and concerns about the treaty and about how it will affect him and his family. His concerns centred around a number of issues. But in particular, he was concerned that if the lands and the funds to the Nisga'a people are given to a collective, how can individual Nisga'a gain their fair share of the proceeds of either land or funds, particularly if they don't live within the traditional territory? The individual was very concerned that many Nisga'a have never been told that as individuals they will not benefit from the treaty but will rather be at the wishes of the collective. He was also concerned that the Indian Act, which has long been criticized as paternalistic, will now be replaced with another paternalistic system that still does not allow for the benefits of the treaty to flow to the individual.

During our discussions we covered a number of points, such as the feeling that the individual Nisga'a is really unaware of the actual outcomes of the treaty in their daily life and their future. The individual should know that there is no windfall here, no guarantees that they will receive anything directly as an individual and no guarantees that things will be better or improved.

My constituents -- some 180-plus phone calls in the last month -- that I have spoken to individually have a number of other questions about the treaty. I'm going to try and address those relative to some publications that we've put together -- it's the alternative guide to this prospective treaty -- and some of their questions today.

The first thing is the question: what do you mean by a referendum on the principles of the Nisga'a deal? We don't need a referendum on all 250 pages of the Nisga'a treaty. We need a vote on the basic principles that the Nisga'a' template will establish for future treaties. For example, we don't need a vote on the lands selected by the Nisga'a or the number of fish and wildlife the Nisga'a will have as treaty entitlements. But we should have a vote on the overall cost to the taxpayer envisioned for the settlements of all treaties in B.C. We should have a say on whether it is acceptable to include commercial fishing rights in treaties. We should certainly have a vote on the proposed, new third order of government for aboriginal groups that we've established for all time under our constitution.

Another question that follows from that is: are you really just asking for a referendum on minority rights? The answer is: not at all. Existing aboriginal rights are already protected under the constitution. They cannot be extinguished or surrendered without aboriginal consent. Whatever aboriginal rights the Nisga'a have today, they will continue to have, irrespective of the outcomes of the ratification process. However, the Nisga'a template will create a model for treaties that will give aboriginal people several types of constitutionally protected rights. Some of those new treaty rights will be modified existing rights, but others will simply be new, special rights and benefits. We all have a right to vote on those expanded new treaty rights, because they will inevitably affect all of our rights as British Columbians and the way we interrelate with aboriginal government.

The next question I get asked very often is: what is the total cost of the Nisga'a deal? The fact is that we don't know what the final costs will be. The government has identified costs totalling at least $490 million, including $320 million in cash costs and $170 million in land and other costs. Of that amount, B.C. taxpayers will contribute $227.5 million through the provincial government -- or almost 47 percent -- in addition to their share as Canadian taxpayers through the federal government. These costs do not include the $29 million annually that the Nisga'a government now receives in federal and provincial transfer payments, which will be increased to $32.1 million per year under the Nisga'a treaty.

The next question I often get asked, relative to this. . . . Going back to my friend, the Nisga'a gentleman in my riding, he said: "Will people living on Nisga'a land be able to own and sell their land?" The Nisga'a lands will be initially transferred to the Nisga'a government and will be collectively owned fee simple by all Nisga'a people. The Nisga'a government will decide which lands, if any, will be sold and/or leased and held as private property by individual Nisga'a citizens and any other non-Nisga'a resident and corporation. In that sense, it is possible for Nisga'a lands to be owned and sold under our provincial land title system.

One of the other questions you get from time to time is: what type of Nisga'a laws will be legally paramount? In the event of any inconsistency or conflict, valid Nisga'a laws will be paramount in the following areas on Nisga'a lands: Nisga'a citizenship; structure, administration, management and operation of Nisga'a government; Nisga'a lands and assets; regulation, licensing and prohibition of businesses, professions and trades; the preservation, promotion and development of Nisga'a language and culture; direct taxation of Nisga'a citizens; adoption; child and family services; preschool-to-grade-12 education; advanced education; organization and structure of health care delivery; authorization and licensing of aboriginal healers; Nisga'a annual fishing plans for harvest and sale of fish and aquatic plants; and Nisga'a wildlife and migratory bird entitlements.

The next question is: once the Nisga'a treaty is finalized, will the Nisga'a government continue to be supported by Canadian taxpayers? The answer to that question is yes. Although the Nisga'a will be required to use a portion of their own revenues to defray the ongoing costs to Canadian taxpayers of funding Nisga'a government, the federal government chief negotiator estimates that after 15 years, contributions from Canadian taxpayers will continue to account for 75 percent of the cost of Nisga'a government. The initial financing agreement provides for a one-time implementation assistance of $10.4 million and annual transfer payments of $32.1 million to the Nisga'a government for each of the next five years, over and above the costs of the treaty. About $2.9 million of that amount will be provided annually by the provincial government, with the balance being provided by the federal government. The $32.1 million per year will also be

[ Page 11024 ]

Another question, again, is: will all residents on Nisga'a lands have equal voting rights? Unfortunately, the answer to that question is no. Under the proposed treaty, non-Nisga'a residents will not have a right to vote for their local government. We believe that that is not only fundamentally wrong but unconstitutional. All Canadians should have an equal right to vote for their government. The Nisga'a alone will have the right to control what land, if any, is sold or leased to non-Nisga'a. But once they make that decision, anyone who lives on that land, who is subject to Nisga'a laws and any delegated taxes, must have an equal right to vote and participate in that government.

The next question one gets asked is: will the Nisga'a forest lands be subject to any provincial stumpage fees? Well, the answer is no. The Nisga'a government will set its own stumpage rates and will collect all stumpage revenues. Although the Nisga'a will not be required to contribute to Forest Renewal B.C., they will be entitled to apply for Forest Renewal B.C. grants.

The next question is: what is the estimated value of the forest, mineral and oil and gas resources on Nisga'a lands?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members.

R. Coleman: Hon. Speaker, thank you.

I'll repeat that question: what is the estimated value of forest, mineral, oil and gas resources on Nisga'a lands? Well, no one knows for sure, because the provincial government has never done a timber cruise or geological assessment of the lands in question. The Forests minister has admitted that some experts estimate that the timber value is $70 million, but the official negotiated value of timber revenues that will be surrendered to the Nisga'a by the province is $36 million. No mineral, oil or gas values have been publicly identified.

The next question one gets asked, hon. Speaker, is: will this treaty provide certainty and finality? Again, unfortunately, the answer is no. The Nisga'a treaty will go a long way towards codifying the Nisga'a nation's aboriginal rights. By releasing any rights not provided for in the treaty, they should provide some economic certainty. However, there are at least 50 areas under the treaty where ongoing consultation will be required or where British Columbia and the Nisga'a nation will negotiate and attempt to reach agreement on unresolved issues. There is a clause that will allow the Nisga'a to renegotiate for more favourable tax treatment if any other first nation in the northwest strikes a better deal. That is not finality.

[5:30]

The proposed treaty would also require British Columbians to consult with the Nisga'a government before amending any provincial law that may impact on the validity of any Nisga'a law. If replicated in other treaties, this would result in a bureaucratic nightmare that would severely hamper the province's ability to govern its own affairs. It would establish a constitutional requirement for consultation that could paralyze government activity in much the same way as resource activities are now impaired by legal requirements for consultation where aboriginal rights and title might be affected. This could have severe economic consequences and most certainly result in costly litigation.

Hon. Speaker, there is a plethora of other questions to be answered relative to this treaty. But let's get some suggestions for improvement on the table:

1. Get a clear negotiating mandate from the people on the principles that all treaties should reflect, by way of a one-time provincial referendum on questions developed by either an all-party committee of the Legislature or an independent citizens' panel. The aim should be to develop an acceptable, affordable mandate that offers the potential to expedite treaties that provide certainty, finality and equality in all respects.

2. Establish up front how much land and cash taxpayers will be expected to contribute for settlement of all land claims in British Columbia. Treaties will obviously contain different portions of cash and land, but the value per capita available to all first nations for settlements should be clear and consistent, so that everyone is treated equally.

3. Negotiate municipal-style, self-government agreements outside of treaties, with equal voting rights for all residents and delegated powers that ensure that federal and provincial laws are always legally paramount and that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is always protected. Do not create 50 or 60 aboriginal governments that each have their own permanent special status and new rights under the constitution, with laws that in some cases are legally superior to federal and provincial laws.

4. Ensure that the federal and provincial laws regulating environmental assessments and forest practices and standards are consistently applied and not further complicated with different laws created by aboriginal governments.

5. Facilitate aboriginal participation in the commercial fishery through monetary assistance in treaty settlements, while rejecting aboriginal-only commercial fishing rights and entitlements in treaties.

6. Ensure that existing aboriginal rights protected under section 35 of the constitution are fairly reflected and codified but not dramatically expanded through treaty settlements.

Hon. Speaker, today is December 10. A year ago to the day I was in my office in this building and received a call from my wife. I was advised that my mother-in-law, Helen, had died. Exactly a year ago we lost a very special person in my mother-in-law, Helen Yelland. Helen was a war bride who was among the millions of brave, tenacious and special people that stood united to protect our rights to democracy, freedom of speech, expression and equality during the Second World War. She believed in family, in community and in her church. She meant a lot to me, and she meant a lot to my family. She believed in family and community. She also believed in fairness for all Canadians in her adopted country.

As a layperson, Helen's perspective on land claims was quite simple and immensely logical. She wanted treaties to

[ Page 11025 ]

Hon. Speaker, I grew up with aboriginal people. Fifty percent of my school were aboriginals, and today I count many of them as my friends. I have done business with them, and as a policeman I worked with band constables to establish working relationships with bands. I have discussed my comments today with some of them, and they support my position, because they don't feel that this treaty goes where it should go. Aboriginal people have not done well by us and have not been well treated, at times, by their own governance. The individual needs to believe that treaties will benefit all the members and not just a few, that access to the benefits are not restricted to where you live and that you have a future in Canadian society, no matter where you live. This treaty does not get there; it has a way to go. My own aboriginal friends tell me that.

Hon. D. Lovick: I would move adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Lovick: I wish all members of the chamber a pleasant and safe weekend, and with that I would move adjournment of the House.

Hon. D. Lovick moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:38 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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