Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

[ Page 11051 ]

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Prayers.

Clerk of the House:

December 24, 1998

The Hon. Gretchen Mann Brewin
Speaker
Parliament Buildings
Victoria, British Columbia

Hon. Speaker:

Re: By-election
Electoral District of Parksville-Qualicum
December 14, 1998

The June 23, 1998, resignation of Paul Reitsma, the member for the electoral district of Parksville-Qualicum, created a vacancy in the membership of the Legislative Assembly.

A writ of election was issued on November 16, 1998, requiring that a by-election be held to fill the vacancy. Accordingly, December 14, 1998, was designated as general voting day.

The by-election was held in accordance with the provisions of the Election Act, and the completed writ of election has been returned to me.

I hereby certify the election of Judith Reid as the member to represent the electoral district of Parksville-Qualicum in the Legislative Assembly.

Yours very truly,
Robert A. Patterson
Chief Electoral Officer

Motion approved.

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, I have the honour to present to you Judith Reid, the member for the electoral district of Parksville-Qualicum and North Nanaimo, who has taken the oath, signed the parliamentary roll and now claims her right to take her seat.

The hon. member for Parksville-Qualicum took her seat.

Hon. P. Priddy: I would like the House to help me welcome Frank Read, who is the mayor of Vanderhoof and a strong advocate for people in northern British Columbia. I'm not sure if John Backhouse, the commissioner for northern development, is here; I expect him in the precincts today. I would ask the House to make them both welcome.

Hon. H. Lali: I would like to introduce Tony Toth, who runs the B.C. Roadbuilders Heavy Constructors Association. Would the House please make him welcome.

J. Reid: I would like to introduce my husband Keith and my parents, Peggy and Stan Kubin.

Hon. D. Lovick: I note that there are three people visiting the precincts today from my constituency: my executive assistant Susan Baker and her husband Bob Chow; as well, Mr. Murray Brown, who is the treaty coordinator for the Nanaimo -- otherwise known as Snuneymuxw -- Indian band. I would ask the House to please join me in making them welcome.

Hon. H. Lali: I rise this second time to ask fellow members to join me in recognizing two ministry employees, Al Evenchick and Al Munro, who were both killed on the job by an avalanche last week north of Terrace. They were conducting snowpack stability tests in an avalanche path near Highway 37 when the avalanche occurred. These two experienced avalanche technicians were dedicated to keeping highways in the northwest region of British Columbia safe from avalanches, despite the risk that came with the job. Both men had a reputation for their technical expertise in assessing avalanche hazard conditions.

Mr. Evenchick was a ten-year veteran of the ministry. He is survived by his wife Tanis and two children, David and Kala. Mr. Munro had worked with the ministry for the past four winters. He is survived by his wife Lucy and three children, Cassidy, Miranda and Kavell. Our hearts are with the two widows and their young children.

Al Evenchick and Al Munro performed a vital public service for the safety of motorists. I believe it is appropriate to honour the fact that every day people who work in the public service put their lives on the line for the people of British Columbia.

Hon. Speaker, I ask that we all take a moment today to remember these two fine men and all those who have died while serving the people of British Columbia.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister. We'll proceed with a moment of silence.

[2:15]

Ministerial Statement

MUSQUEAM RESERVE LEASEHOLDERS DISPUTE

Let me begin by saying a few words about the Indian Act and jurisdiction over Indian reserve land. Under the federal Indian Act, an Indian reserve is defined in section 2 as a tract of land that has been set apart by the federal government for the use and benefit of an Indian band. The legal title to the Indian reserve land is vested in the federal government; thus the province has no jurisdiction over these lands.

Let me now turn to the history behind the Musqueam dispute. First is the matter of leases. In 1965 non-aboriginal individuals were granted leases to 75 lots on Musqueam reserve land under the Indian Act. The total rent paid per lot for the first 30 years was negotiated by the federal Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The average rent paid was less than $500 per year. The leases specify that rent increases be calculated at 6 percent of current land values at the time of the rent review in 1995 and that that would be regarded as a fair rent.

In 1995, at the end of the initial review period, the landholders were notified by the band that their rent would proba-

[ Page 11052 ]

The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Musqueam jointly appealed this ruling. The Federal Court of Appeal ruled on December 23, 1998, that the land should be valued as lands held in fee simple, with no reduction for the Indian reserve feature but with a deduction for the costs of servicing and development. The court decided that the band is therefore entitled to receive as rent 6 percent of the value of similar off-reserve fee simple land, after servicing and development costs have been deducted at 1995 values. Leaseholders have 60 days, until February 19, 1999, to seek leave to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.

There is also the question of taxation. Leaseholders now pay from about $5,000 to $7,000 in property taxes. They filed a writ in December of 1998, charging an unfair levy of taxes to non-aboriginal Musqueam leaseholders.

This is the background of the issue, hon. Speaker. I now want to comment on the implications of this dispute for the B.C. treaty process.

Let me start by saying that the province and I, as Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, recognize the difficult positions that both the Musqueam and the leaseholders have in this dispute. Unfortunately, since the dispute involves federal reserve lands, the province is not in a position to resolve this matter. Indian reserve lands are under the exclusive authority of the federal government.

Despite that fact, and being concerned obviously about the integrity and the progress of the treaty process, officials in my ministry have been in contact with their counterparts in Ottawa, and I'm pleased to advise that the Musqueam have agreed to a proposal by the federal government to hire an individual, an expert in the field who knows about land valuation, to provide some information and background to the Musqueam and, ideally, to come up with an agreement that will be fair to the interests of the leaseholders -- the non-aboriginal people -- as well as to the Musqueam. I'm pleased that's happened. I have no idea, of course, whether that will be a success or not, but I am pleased.

Madam Speaker, like every other member of this House, I am well aware that this situation has indeed become a cause célèbre. We should not forget, though, that the Musqueam situation is also a prime example of precisely why we should support the British Columbia treaty process. Treaty negotiations are intended to resolve questions surrounding the status of land. Once treaties have been completed, all the parties to lease arrangements will have a much clearer understanding of the foundations of those arrangements.

That brings me to the comparison to the Nisga'a final agreement. The Nisga'a final agreement creates jurisdictional certainty, and it gets rid of the federal Indian Act, which now governs on-reserve activities such as leasing arrangements and agreements. Under the Nisga'a final agreement the constitution, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and federal and provincial laws of general application apply. On Nisga'a lands, therefore, the same provincial laws will apply as anywhere else in the province.

In particular, the Residential Tenancy Act and other relevant legislation would apply to Nisga'a lands. The province believes that similar outcomes must be achieved in all other treaties. There is no taxation without representation. The final agreement does not give the Nisga'a power to tax non-Nisga'as, whether they are living on Nisga'a land or not. In this and future agreements we will continue to ensure that there are no discriminatory taxes, no taxation without representation and no court-imposed solutions.

By contrast, leaseholders currently living on reserve lands are subject to the vagaries of the federal Indian Act. They do not have the same rights as other British Columbians who live on non-reserve lands. It is unfortunate, hon. Speaker, but some have used this situation -- I'm sorry, but I think it's true, and I'll wrap up very quickly -- to cast aspersions on all first nations and on their business objectives, on their relationships and, most unfortunately, on the treaty process and the Nisga'a agreement in particular. It is not only unfortunate, it is also misleading.

The Speaker: Finish up.

Hon. D. Lovick: Madam Speaker, you are giving me guidance that is asking me, I gather, to wrap this up quickly, and therefore I shall take your advice.

I want to conclude, then, simply with a word of caution regarding what I frankly regard as the deplorable tactics of those who would use the Musqueam circumstance to derail the treaty process. Those who are unaware of the reality of the federal Indian Act and jurisdiction over Indian reserve lands can be forgiven for suggesting that the Musqueam dispute is a harbinger of the future that will be proclaimed with the Nisga'a treaty. Those who do know better and yet persist in fearmongering on this issue cannot, it seems to me, be so forgiven.

The Speaker: In response, I recognize the hon. member for Vancouver-Quilchena.

C. Hansen: I would basically like to take issue with many of the points that were in the minister's statement. Normally, copies of these statements are circulated ahead of time. Had that been the case today, it would have given me that opportunity, but having just received this as I was coming into the chamber, I didn't have that opportunity. But I would like to address some of the very specific points that the minister made.

First of all, I think the minister is quite correct in recognizing that there are three very distinct issues before us involving the Musqueam leasehold lands. There is the issue of the annual rent that is paid for the raw lands. This is not the renting of a piece of property; this is the renting of raw land. The residents in that area, the leaseholders, own the improvements to that land, and they own the actual buildings on that land. They have paid very high prices for those. This is not a case of somebody that came in and put their life savings behind a speculative investment deal. These are people who put their life savings on the line, people who put their retirement investment on the line, for a place to live with certainty.

So one issue is the amount that the lease is going to be increased under the terms of the agreement. As the minister

[ Page 11053 ]

In his statement, the minister talks about the fact that this provided for increases up to 6 percent of market value. We could have a very interesting discussion today as to what market value is all about; that is an issue that is before the courts. But what is in that agreement provided for a process that involved negotiations and discussions not between the leaseholders and the Musqueam band but between the leaseholders and those with whom they signed the lease -- which was the federal government.

Those are issues about which the residents in my constituency are enormously frustrated. They recognize that the level of government that has to deal with this issue is in fact the federal government. I take it that the minister has gone to great lengths to spell that out, to somehow absolve the provincial government of responsibility for the way that the federal government has inappropriately dealt with this situation over the past ten years. But what the minister goes on to say is how this does not somehow affect a broader picture in British Columbia. It most definitely affects a broader picture, because what we see is that we have individuals who are being subject to taxation without representation, which, contrary to what the minister says, is indeed part of what we are looking at in terms of Nisga'a. What the residents face is a lack of process, a lack of fairness. Nobody has been given assurances that non-aboriginal people in the Nisga'a Valley are not going to be subject to the same kind of lack of fairness. We have not been given those kinds of answers.

Hon. Speaker, the one thing that is not in here today in the ministerial statement. . . . What is in here is the minister trying to absolve himself of any responsibility. We can all take some responsibility on behalf of these families. We can all take some responsibility -- all parties in this House -- for taking what action is necessary to make sure that the federal government intervenes in this situation and ensures that there is fairness in this particular situation so that it does not cloud the kind of negotiations that we're going to see in terms of other treaty negotiations around this province. That is essential.

The residents of Musqueam -- the leaseholders -- will be here on Monday. I hope that all members of this House will take the time to talk to them about how they are facing absolute, total economic devastation. We're not talking about people that can afford this kind of financial disaster hitting their lives. So when they are here on Monday, I hope that everyone will take the time to talk to them. I hope that they will be welcomed by this House, and I hope that we as a chamber can learn from the experience that these residents are going through, that we can assist them in fighting this battle with the federal government, and that we can ensure that no other British Columbians are put in a similar situation in the future as a result of the actions of this House.

[2:30]

Leave granted.

J. Weisgerber: I think the Musqueam issue is important with respect to land claims -- not inasmuch as you can draw a direct line from it to Nisga'a, because there really is no parallel; there are no non-Indian occupiers on the Nisga'a lands. But having said that and having listened to the Premier's words that Nisga'a would in fact be a template for future land claim settlements, at this point we've got to recognize the importance of the issue of non-Indian occupiers on Indian lands across British Columbia. Whether you go into the lower mainland, Penticton, Westbank or Kamloops -- it's not only residential occupiers but also commercial and industrial occupiers of land -- the issue of how those people have representation with a government that makes decisions affecting their livelihoods and their homes is a critically important one.

I don't see in Nisga'a the protection that the minister would lead us to believe exists there, should that be applied to future situations where there are leaseholders. Westbank is probably the classic example. Something like 7,000 people live on reserve lands who will be regulated and governed by an institution in which they have no representation. With respect. . . .

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: The member says they are now. So it would follow from that logic that it's okay to continue in that direction? No, I think not.

The challenge is: how do you develop a process for government that recognizes -- in some cases the majority -- occupiers of the land who are not members of the band and not entitled to representation in government? That's the problem. This issue would never occur under different circumstances. I can't believe for a minute that our courts would make the kinds of decisions they've made with respect to Musqueam except in the circumstance where it is non-aboriginal occupiers challenging an unfair lease arrangement with a native landowner, with a native landlord. If anybody living on those leased properties across British Columbia believes it would be any different with them, they are sadly mistaken.

In my mind, the challenge is not to stand up and try to assure people that Nisga'a somehow protects against this, because it doesn't. If new arrangements are made with Westbank or Kamloops, the existing leases will be in place. The treaty won't change the terms of the lease. Therefore there is at risk a huge group of people in this province. I think it behooves all of us as British Columbians to look far more seriously at this Musqueam situation than simply as 75 unfortunate families who are going to lose their life savings -- in many cases, the most important asset any of them has. I think we need to look far more carefully and far more seriously at this situation than has been done to date.

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

Leave granted.

G. Wilson: My comments will be brief. In the first instance, I think it's important that this chamber let British Columbians know that there is absolutely no correlation between what is taking place with Musqueam, the Treaty Commission process, any negotiated treaty or, in particular, the Nisga'a. I think that for anybody to try to link the issue of

[ Page 11054 ]

The issue at hand is whether or not, after a 30-year lease, the renewal at 6 percent of market value should allow those properties that are not owned fee simple by tenants to be assessed at values comparable to fee simple owned land. That is an issue that we need to address and solve; it's solvable.

I'd like to take up the minister's offer to work with anybody who's prepared to sit down and negotiate a solution to this proposition and say that the most responsible and timely action of all members of this chamber is to work with the federal government, the Musqueam Indian band, the tenants and each of us now to find a satisfactory resolution to what is otherwise going to be an unworkable situation. We have the opportunity to solve that. The solutions are there. The federal government is now aware of those solutions. We need to make sure those solutions are put in place.

Oral Questions

B.C. TAX BURDEN ON SMALL BUSINESS

My question is to the Minister of Small Business. Can he tell us why he has not lifted a finger to stop the Minister of Finance from destroying another small business in British Columbia before it has a chance to even get off the ground?

Hon. J. MacPhail: No one on this side can address the specifics of this particular case. We are doing that in another form directly with the person that the Leader of the Opposition raises.

But let me make some general comments. The members opposite, some of whom -- maybe one, actually -- represent ridings that border on other competitive tax jurisdiction situations. . . . We as a government certainly have to make sure that we apply our tax laws in ways that are fair to businesses that actually exist here in British Columbia, and that we do it in a way that is fair to people who want to start up a business in British Columbia as well. Other jurisdictions have the same concerns for businesses that are in their jurisdictions and apply their tax laws in exactly the same fashion that British Columbia does.

Certainly the information that I received from the citizens of British Columbia takes exactly the opposite point of view to what the Leader of the Opposition proposes, and that is to make sure that our tax laws work in favour of businesses that exist here and to make sure that people who come here from elsewhere compete in a fair way as well.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. J. MacPhail: If there are concerns. . . .

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Let me just finish, and it may preclude the member's next question, hon. Speaker -- although I doubt it.

The Speaker: One sentence.

Hon. J. MacPhail: If there are issues about where law that's been applied in the same fashion for the last 40 years. . . .

The Speaker: Minister, this sounds like it's going on a bit. I would like you to be very brief to finish up.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, I was actually giving a technical answer to a question, but fair enough.

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

G. Campbell: You know, hon. Speaker, this is exactly the problem for small businesses in British Columbia. The Minister of Small Business is not an advocate; he is an apologist for a government that's killing small business in British Columbia. Only this NDP government and this Minister of Small Business would think it's a good idea to tax the tools that are actually used to build the province of British Columbia.

I have here a letter from the Minister of Finance in Manitoba. If Mr. Lapointe had moved from B.C. to Manitoba, he would have received a sales tax exemption. More importantly maybe for the government, I have a letter here from the NDP government in Saskatchewan, and he would have been exempted from sales tax there as well.

Hon. Speaker, as you know, he has no sales tax. . . .

An Hon. Member: How much would he have paid in Alberta?

G. Campbell: No one faces sales tax in Alberta.

My question is to the Minister of Small Business once again. Can he tell us why B.C. is the only province in western Canada that would impose sales taxes on people's belongings when all they are trying to do is start a small business?

Hon. J. MacPhail: This government is doing very much to work with small business. Just last week we cut the business tax in this province by 11 percent. We are working very closely with small business people to cut red tape and reduce the cost of doing business in this province. We have one of the largest growth rates of small business in all of Canada. But we are, as well, advocates for businesses that exist in British Columbia now. We are advocates for the businesses that are doing a good job here in B.C. now, and we want to make sure that their business competitiveness is the same as for those that come here from other jurisdictions as well. This is not a new rule; this is a rule that's been applied for the last 40 years. And do you know why, hon. Speaker? Because it makes good business sense for businesses in British Columbia now. If they would check with their own members, who perhaps have different points of view and who write on a regular basis to support this kind of rule, they might take a different kind of position.

[ Page 11055 ]

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

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, only this Minister of Finance and only this Minister of Small Business would think it's a real accomplishment for B.C. small businesses to be paying small business taxes which are 33 percent higher than in Alberta. Only this government, this Minister of Finance and this inept, incompetent and silent Minister of Small Business. . .

The Speaker: Member. . . . Your question, please.

G. Campbell: . . .would sit there and say it's all right for the Minister of Finance to harass Mr. Lapointe, who has been trying to start a small business since last July. In November this government threatened to take Mr. Lapointe's bill to collections.

Again to the Minister of Small Business: will he tell us why he is not standing up for the small business people of British Columbia -- the small business residents, the people who want to create work, who want to create jobs -- and stopping this Minister of Finance from killing business?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order.

Hon. J. MacPhail: This issue is under review. It's not under review in the way that. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, we want to hear the minister.

Hon. J. MacPhail: You know something, hon. Speaker? Any party that would advocate that a tax policy be done on the front pages of the Province newspaper is setting itself up for failure and setting itself up for harming all business in British Columbia. This is a policy that's been on the books for 40 years, and it's been on the books to protect British Columbia businesses that exist now and have to do business in a competitive jurisdiction. If there are situations that need to be looked at, situations that occurred with someone wanting to start a business where they may have paid tax years ago, we're certainly willing to look at those issues. But I will tell you that our government takes a very strong stand on behalf of British Columbia businesses in terms of the tax regime, in terms of cutting the costs of small business, in terms of assisting them to create jobs at an unprecedented record and we will continue to do that.

[2:45]

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING OF TAX CUTS
AND MUNICIPAL TAX BURDEN

Will the Finance minister tell us why she intends to further insult British Columbians by spending $600,000 of their tax dollars on another propaganda campaign instead of leaving that money in the taxpayers' pocket, where it belonged in the first place?

Hon. J. MacPhail: We want to make sure that the people of British Columbia actually know what's in their budget. We want to let the people of British Columbia know that over the course of. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, order, please.

Hon. J. MacPhail: . . .1998 and 1999 and the year 2000, there will be $1 billion in tax cuts given to all British Columbians, hon. Speaker.

You know, there is a role for the opposition to play, but I must say that the naysaying and the myths that they spread about this being a high-tax regime for working people in this country is dead wrong. That's why we have to get beyond them and tell exactly what is happening with the taxes of British Columbians. That's why we actually have to spend a minute amount of money to tell British Columbians that in the year 1999, if they earn $80,000 or less, they are experiencing the third-lowest -- and in some cases the second-lowest -- tax regime in all of Canada. That is the truth; that's the good news: a billion dollars of tax cuts.

The Speaker: Finish up, minister.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, British Columbia is a great place in which to live.

The Speaker: First supplementary, to the member for Matsqui.

M. de Jong: Well, I'm going to try to move beyond the Finance minister, because on the one hand, hon. Speaker, you've got a government that's touting so-called income tax reductions that are going to amount to about $37 million for British Columbians, and on the other hand, you've got the Municipal Affairs minister downloading $41 million of additional tax burden on the ratepayers of British Columbia. Now the Finance minister is going to spend $600,000 advertising her so-called tax breaks. My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. How much money is she going to spend telling British Columbians that they can expect an increase on their property tax notices because of the $41 million she is downloading onto their backs?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. J. Kwan: You know, the members opposite should know that property taxes rest with local governments. The fact is. . . .

[ Page 11056 ]

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Kwan: The facts are as follows. The announcement that was made with respect to unconditional grants. . . . No community will absorb more than 2.5 percent of their total revenue, of the entire budget. No community will actually experience that. In the case of Vancouver, to take an example, the city of Vancouver will only absorb 0.4 percent of its total revenue in unconditional grant reductions. And what is the city of Vancouver saying? They're going to increase taxes by 4.5 percent, and they're saying that they're doing that as a result of the provincial government reduction in unconditional grants. That's where they're actually absolutely dead wrong.

I want to say that in addition. . .

The Speaker: Finish up, minister.

Hon. J. Kwan: . . .to that package, there is a larger package within the grant announcement.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. J. Kwan: The issue is to rebuild the economy.

The Speaker: Minister, time, please.

Hon. J. Kwan: The issue is to invest in infrastructure. And we have. . .

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon. J. Kwan: . . .provided -- to close, hon. Speaker -- $50 million. . .

The Speaker: Thank you, minister. Please take your seat.

Hon. J. Kwan: . . .per year.

The Speaker: The hon. minister will take her seat.

B.C. GOVERNMENT INVESTMENT SEMINAR FEE

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order, please.

Minister, please do not begin until order is restored in the House. I recognize the Minister of Employment and Investment.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I guess, hon. member, judging by your tan, you've just come back from a time-share.

Hon. Speaker, we charge a $125 fee for one of the most intensive programs of what's happening in British Columbia of any province in the country. That's why British Columbia is the choice of 36 percent of people, who want to come to British Columbia from overseas, compared to only 3 percent in Alberta. So clearly this place takes second place to none in terms of attracting business investment to this country from other places overseas.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

And Happy New Year, everybody.

Orders of the Day

NISGA'A FINAL AGREEMENT ACT
(second reading continued)

Experience teaches us that most -- perhaps all -- of the first 50 pieces of legislation passed during this session will in some way or other either fail to achieve their intended purposes or become outdated or simply prove wrongheaded. The Nisga'a final agreement is not immune from that reality. In fact, given its length, its ambitiousness and its complexity, it is vastly more likely than all of the other legislation passed this session to prove faulty in some way or other. Yet no matter how unworkable or outdated or even wrongheaded it may be or become, this agreement will remain fixed and for all practical purposes unchangeable. Moreover, this bill will indirectly entrench in the constitution of Canada some or all of a host of provincial and federal laws, including the laws creating and regulating our system of regional government, the Forest Practices Code, the Forest Act, the Land Title Act, the Municipal Act, the Canada Evidence Act and even the Income Tax Act of Canada.

What, then, is the justification offered for that which seems imprudent and unwise? We are asked to support Bill 51 on the basis that the only way to reconcile the sovereignty of the Crown and the aboriginal rights and title of the Nisga'a is through this treaty. Well, what do we know about treaties? What we know about treaties is that all too often in the past, treaties have meant broken promises, misguided intentions and shattered expectations. Instead of reconciliation, treaties have achieved exactly the opposite.

We on this side of the House nonetheless believe that treaties can, for all of the mistakes of the past, provide an

[ Page 11057 ]

Unfortunately for all of us, the Nisga'a final agreement flies in the face of this opportunity to learn from the failures of the past. Unfortunately for all of us, instead of being a modest, workable, achievable document, the Nisga'a final agreement is far more ambitious than all those treaties of the past which have failed to live up to their ambitions: 700 pages of promises -- promises unparalleled in their complexity, promises which seem in places almost completely detached from any sense of what is real or practicable, and promises which are detached from the meaning and content of aboriginal rights protected under section 35.

This treaty not only commits governments to making massive transfers of land, cash and resources, it also promises to create something which will be called a nation, with a constitution and citizenship rights, with central and village governments, with urban locals, a school board, a health board, a police board, a court system, a community corrections system and even a police force. This new nation will have nearly the same range of lawmaking power as a province.

These lawmaking authorities will not remain fixed or static. Instead, the treaty says they are intended to evolve over time. Instead of certainty and finality, we are offered a complex and multilayered new relationship and the prospect of endless and continual negotiation, renegotiation, consultation and litigation as that new relationship is defined and argued about. There will be layer upon layer of bureaucracy: a joint fisheries management committee, a joint park management committee, a wildlife committee, a forestry transition committee, a technical advisory panel, an elders advisory council, an enrolment committee, an enrolment appeal board, an implementation committee, a ratification committee, the Lisims Fisheries Conservation Trust and enough corporate structures to occupy lawyers and tax advisers for years as they draft settlement trusts, create settlement corporations and even as they argue about something called a Nisga'a corporation intermediary.

All of this explosion of government and laws and bureaucracy is for 5,500 people. Most of these people live in towns and cities scattered across British Columbia and elsewhere. A minority, less than half, lives in four tiny villages set in a valley so lacking in resources that even the federal treaty negotiators admit there is no prospect that these communities will ever achieve anything more than 25 percent self-sufficiency.

[3:00]

I cannot support a treaty which, in its ambitiousness and complexity, raises expectations it cannot possibly fulfil. I cannot support a treaty that expresses a vision of the role of government which is improvident. At a time in the history of relations between aboriginal and non-aboriginal people when we need small successes, I cannot support a treaty that guarantees grand failure.

The question which the reader of the Nisga'a final agreement needs to ask about every page is this: why is this page in a section 35 treaty? It's not just: why are we undertaking this policy initiative? But why must almost every clause on almost every page be entrenched in the constitution?

Treaties can be a means of exchanging or translating the uncertainty of undefined aboriginal rights and title for the certainty of treaty rights. From this perspective, there are principles embodied in this agreement which I support: the idea of a capital payment, land and resource transfers, wildlife allocations, provisions dealing with cultural heritage. All this makes sense in the context of a negotiated recognition and exchange of Nisga'a aboriginal rights and title. Even here, however, I wish that our government could at least be honest enough with British Columbians either to explain the basis upon which the amounts were arrived at or to admit that they're simply a bad guess in the dark. Why is the capital transfer payment $190 million, and not more or less? Six months and $7 million into the propaganda campaign and we still don't have answers to these most basic questions. Of all the parts of the agreement which are vulnerable to the question "Why is this in a treaty?" none is more vulnerable than the provisions with respect to Nisga'a government.

Unlike provisions with respect to land and resource rights, there is no foundation for the constitutional recognition of aboriginal government in the section 35 jurisprudence. Moreover, it is not only difficult, it is impossible to see any foundation in section 35 for creating a new institution of aboriginal government which will have the power to govern non-aboriginal people. Yet Nisga'a government will have that power. That is why chapter 11 is not called "Nisga'a Self-Government." It's called "Nisga'a Government."

It's serious business to be asked to create a new government. There are people who will be subject to Nisga'a government, whose children will be taken from them without their permission, who will be required to use Nisga'a language or practise Nisga'a customs against their will, who will be convicted of Nisga'a offences or be required to pay Nisga'a taxes and who will have no choice in the matter. That's what governments do. We are not talking about a club. We're not

[ Page 11058 ]

Passage of Bill 51 will unwisely sanction the permanent abrogation of legislative authority over citizens of British Columbia in favour of a model of government which is untried and untested and which, even before it starts, enjoys the support of only a modest majority of those who will be subject to it.

Hon. Speaker, in criticizing the inclusion of government arrangements in the Nisga'a final agreement, I am not defending the status quo. I would happily help abolish the Indian Act. I would enthusiastically support an enhancement of Nisga'a autonomy based on a municipal, delegated model. But the route chosen by the negotiators of the Nisga'a treaty is not the basis upon which to move forward from the mistakes of the past. I also have objections to the model of government that is contained in the treaty. It is a mistake to invest Nisga'a government with political power without any serious expectation of fiscal viability. The chain of dependency will not be broken by creating a government that is not expected to sustain itself from its own resources. This agreement will simply replace one chain of dependency with another.

Moreover, Nisga'a government will have that special concentration of power that comes when governments in socially stratified communities own the land and resources and also have the power to make decisions about where citizens can live, what services will be provided to them, what taxes they will pay and who will have access to those lands and resources. In these circumstances, it is imprudent to make grants of lawmaking authority which are expressly paramount to federal and provincial authority. Yet Nisga'a lawmaking powers are expressed to be paramount to federal and provincial lawmaking powers in at least 14 separate areas, including education, the organization and structure of health care delivery, child and family services, and language and culture.

It is particularly imprudent to grant jurisdiction on terms which prevent the federal or provincial governments from imposing the necessary checks and balances by way of amendment or repeal, and yet that is precisely what is intended by cloaking Nisga'a government with the mantle of section 35.

I also strongly object to the creation of two-tiered political rights based on status. Nisga'a government will have jurisdiction over non-Nisga'a citizens residing on Nisga'a lands, in such areas as post-secondary education, health care, land use and eventually taxation. Nisga'a, even those who live hundreds of miles away from the Nass Valley, will be able to vote for and be members of the Nisga'a government; non-Nisga'a citizens living on Nisga'a lands and governed by Nisga'a government will not. That is undemocratic. I acknowledge that Nisga'a government has an obligation to consult with non-Nisga'a residents about Nisga'a government decisions that directly and significantly affect them, but consultation is an unacceptably weak form of democratic accountability.

I also acknowledge that non-Nisga'as may -- I repeat, may -- have the right to vote and stand for office in what the treaty calls Nisga'a public institutions -- namely, the school board, health board, police board and so on -- if the members of those institutions are elected. But Nisga'a public institutions are subordinate to Nisga'a government. I even acknowledge that the Nisga'a can grant citizenship to persons who are not Nisga'a participants and that such persons may, under Nisga'a law, have voting rights. None of that, however, is guaranteed in the treaty. It is permissible rather than obligatory. It could change tomorrow, as it did last month.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

The Nisga'a final agreement manifestly and clearly intends to create two classes of persons: those who are governed by Nisga'a law and do have voting rights and those who are governed by Nisga'a law and do not have voting rights. The treaty goes out of its way to preclude a challenge to this inequality by conclusively defining Nisga'a government as free and democratic. In other words, that which is demonstrably not free and democratic is conclusively defined to be so. This is simply wrong. The question is one of principle. It is no answer that similar problems exist on Indian reserves in communities like Musqueam, Tsawwassen and Westbank. The arrangements there are also wrong in principle, although at least those inequities have not been cast in constitutional concrete.

Some point to the fact that Nisga'a government will be subject to the Charter. I'm not comforted. Section 25 of the Charter expressly states that the guarantee of Charter rights shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any treaty rights that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of Canada, including any rights that may be acquired by way of land claims settlement. So no one will be able to rely on the Charter to oppose the assertion of any power or authority exercised under the Nisga'a treaty. Nor is there any merit to the argument that this regime only applies to people who choose to live on Nisga'a lands, because the fact is that Nisga'a government powers will not depend upon consent. If you are born a Nisga'a or born on Nisga'a lands, you will be subject to Nisga'a government. Nisga'a government will have the power to impose its will coercively upon persons to whom it is not accountable. That is undemocratic. Hon. Speaker, I oppose this bill because it deliberately and unnecessarily undermines the fundamental political rights of British Columbians.

I want to speak briefly about one further problem with the treaty: that is the question of overlaps. It has been difficult for me to listen to the self-congratulatory words spoken in this chamber about justice for the Nisga'a when I know that I am being asked to support an agreement which almost certainly does not afford justice to the Gitxsan -- people whose history I have studied and in whose homes and territories I have spent many days. For as long as the Nisga'a have used the resources of the Nass watershed, so too have the Gitxsan -- trapping, fishing, packing oolichan along the grease trail between the Nass and Skeena rivers. Seventy years ago Marius Barbeau wrote that the Gitxsan village of Kitwancool, which we now know as Gitanyow. . . . He said: "It belongs in some ways as much to the Nass as it does to the Skeena." Yet I have heard no words in this debate from the government about the aboriginal rights and title of the people of Gitanyow. Their chiefs have not been invited to address us; their voice has been silent in this chamber. It is wrong in principle to settle the land claim of one first nation on terms which almost certainly infringe on the claims of others -- yet that is exactly what the Nisga'a final agreement sets out to do.

I turn now to the question of a referendum. There's another lesson from history here. The critics of earlier treaties say that those treaties were entered into without any real understanding or support from the aboriginal signatories. Lacking understanding or support, these treaties lacked credibility from the outset, because there was no true meeting of

[ Page 11059 ]

The Premier opposes the call for a referendum by repeating the mantra of minority rights. This argument is specious. The Nisga'a have constitutionally protected aboriginal rights and title. Nothing in the outcome of a referendum would compromise or diminish those rights, even if the referendum meant that there would need to be new negotiations. The Nisga'a would go into those negotiations with their aboriginal rights and title intact.

[3:15]

It is absolutely essential that we resolve these questions now and that we deal with these uncertainties now to ensure that our government does not make promises to the Nisga'a that it cannot keep. The Premier has said that if our court challenge succeeds, it could plunge the province into chaos. What are responsible people to make of threats like this? Does the Premier mean that the court's decision should not be respected by British Columbians? Does he mean that our negotiators should be given licence to break the bounds of the constitution?

If so, I disagree in the strongest possible terms. Illegal activities are always wrong. They should not be countenanced by those who would govern. A Premier should encourage respect for the rule of law, not undermine it. Yes, these are difficult issues, and they must be resolved. We must resolve them by negotiation if possible, by litigation if necessary -- but never by roadblocks and never by confrontation.

Some say: "Why would the Nisga'a return to the table?" Well, I say to them that if the deal signed in August is unconstitutional, then it or the constitution must be changed. The courts have said that we should negotiate. The courts have not said that we should break the constitution for the sake of agreement.

It is the task of poets, as Coleridge told us, to cause us to suspend our disbelief, to throw aside our critical faculties. But in this chamber we are legislators, not poets. The Nass Valley is not Xanadu, and we cannot -- we must not -- allow the proponents of this treaty to intimidate us into suspending our disbelief.

To those who say that we should create special exceptions here to solve a particular problem in a particular place for a particular group of people, I say: how will you object in principle to the next special exception? The fact is that if the Nisga'a are to undertake constitutionally entrenched self-government on a basis which denies political equality to those who will be subject to their jurisdiction, then we must assume that the same arrangements will be made for all first nations in British Columbia.

I object in principle to those arrangements. There is nothing in the idea of aboriginal rights or title that requires us to abandon the fundamental principles of democracy. The principles upon which Nisga'a government will be established will tear down the walls of the Indian Act which surround the Nisga'a reserves, and build new walls around Nisga'a lands. Walls built benevolently are still walls. Human history is filled with stories of walls built with the best of intentions, which became prisons. Walls do not encourage respect for difference; walls breed suspicion and distrust. In the end, walls divide; they do not bring us together.

I could support a Nisga'a final agreement that provided treaty benefits commensurate with existing Nisga'a aboriginal rights and title. I could support a Nisga'a final agreement that compensated for past injustice with measures which are affordable. I could support a Nisga'a final agreement that provided tools so that those who want to maintain and enhance Nisga'a culture could do so, while removing the impediments to sustainable economic and social development within Nisga'a communities. All of this could be achieved without building new walls.

This agreement contains a fatal flaw. It entrenches in our constitution an idea of government which will perpetuate inequality; and in perpetuating inequality, it cannot help but cause injustice.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, the hon. member that just finished speaking has raised many significant questions. Many of them have been answered, and I'm sure that in committee stage all of them will be answered with just and correct answers, which exist in the treaty itself.

I was not going to address the remarks made by the hon. member, but what he has said actually compels me to do it, to a certain extent, before I begin my speech. The hon. member refers to this treaty as giving the Nisga'a political power that they could use coercively against even Nisga'a citizens.

Well, hon. member, that is the kind of arrogance that led to the reservations in this country in the first place, in our history. That's the kind of thinking that for decades has kept aboriginal people without any rights whatsoever in this country. I say that we arrogate to ourselves the right to dictate to Nisga'a people and other aboriginal peoples as to whether or not they should have any rights. It's absolutely abhorrent to the Supreme Court of Canada in Delgamuukw. It's absolutely abhorrent to the Crown's fiduciary obligation to the aboriginal people, which the Crown is under an obligation to comply with.

So I say to the hon. member: it is important that we look at our history. You cannot divorce what you do in this chamber from what has gone on in our history. What has gone on in our history? Let me just say that around the time, or perhaps even before, the war against slavery took place -- the Civil War in the United States of America -- we were placing first nations into reserves. They were emancipating slaves; we were enslaving our first nations. We were imposing a head tax on Chinese Canadians in the 1860s. There is a whole litany of what we did as British Columbians and as Canadians.

[ Page 11060 ]

We have, obviously, people on the reserves living with a life expectancy of Bangladeshi citizens. They are ten times more likely to live in poverty; they are ten times more likely to have their children apprehended. They are many times more likely to be in the jails in British Columbia and across the country -- and that, my friends, in a country that has been judged to be the best place in the world to live, for four or five years in a row by the United Nations. That's an absolute disgrace. It's important that we move; it's important that we take the blinkers off our eyes and move and make some progress. This treaty represents that progress.

Obviously our pursuit of social justice has been somewhat narrow, has been somewhat uneven, has been less than fair and less than just, because it took the Nisga'a over 111 years to come to a conclusion in this treaty that's before you. It took them 25 years of serious negotiations subsequent to the Calder case. They, in their wisdom, have shown that we must come to a solution based on reconciliation, not division; based on peace, not aggression; based on inclusion, not exclusion; based on dignity, not dependence.

I believe that the several decades of negotiations to arrive at this very important treaty were an attempt to recognize the unique experiences of the Nisga'a people and unique experiences of British Columbians that lived alongside the Nisga'a people the way we did. This treaty is definitely a compromise, but the courts have told us in no uncertain terms: "Go back. Negotiate treaties. Don't come back to the courts if you can help it."

This compromise is not perfect. No compromise is ever perfect. This compromise is an alternative to roadblocks and to armed standoffs. Ask an Attorney General; ask me. Ask the 400 police officers that were at Gustafsen Lake. Which alternative would they support? They support treaties. It's important for them to know that we want certainty around land in this province, certainty around issues of jurisdiction in this province, and they know that treaties are the only way to arrive at that certainty.

I know there are many friends on the opposition side, and they will continue to say that this treaty is not perfect. Well, my friends, nor is the constitution of Canada. We bicker about it every day. But that has not prevented us from nation-building. That has not prevented us from having a country that is the envy of everyone else in the world. Yes, this treaty is imperfect. So is the House of Commons. So are federal-provincial relations; we bicker every day. So is our own province. Imperfections are everywhere, but it's important that we continue to work hard to make this country and this province greater -- a country and a province with a great future, with imperfect institutions, with human beings always striving to make them perfect. This is one of those strides and one of those attempts at making ourselves more perfect than we have been to date.

There is no question whatsoever that we need a process of reconciliation, and this is an attempt at forging that reconciliation with the Nisga'a people. But there is no reconciliation, my friends, without truth. There is no reconciliation whatsoever without understanding the truth.

South Africa had a somewhat similar experience. I had the privilege of hearing Bishop Tutu speak at the Edmonton conference on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. He said eloquently, as only he can, that there were three choices facing South Africans coming out of their age of darkness. One was that they should prosecute everyone who had committed any crimes under apartheid. The equivalent of that in our situation, vis-à-vis Nisga'a or other first nations, would be to take every case to court and end up in the Supreme Court of Canada on each and every issue that's important to the aboriginal people and to British Columbians. Certainly that is not a choice that we make on this side of the aisle.

[3:30]

South Africa chose the third option. The third option, Bishop Tutu said, was, from the criminal justice vocabulary, one of a restorative approach. You try and restore dignity, fairness and justice to those who have been aggrieved. You try and repair the harm that has been done. You try and compensate for the damages to the extent humanly possible. Then, only then, we can forgive and move on.

That restorative justice approach is manifested in our situation in the Nisga'a treaty. This treaty offers us peace where there have been roadblocks and armed standoffs. Where there has been uncertainty, this treaty offers us certainty. Where there have been long and expensive treks to the courts, this treaty offers us a new resolution to the issues. Where there has been injustice, this treaty offers us justice. Where there has been fear, this treaty offers us hope. Where we have been standing still on aboriginal rights, this treaty offers us progress, a step forward.

The reality, the history, the future and our destiny as Canadians and British Columbians demand from us action, demand from us that we move forward, demand a bold new response. This treaty, my friends, is that bold new response to the very serious questions that we face.

I say that sometimes we need to strip away the politics and become human again. We're not just politicians, we're not just activists, we're not just partisans but human beings that lust not after popularity in the polls but allow their hearts and consciences to dictate the politics sometimes. This is one of those times. As V$aacute;clav Havel, the Czech president, novelist and playwright says: "Things must once more be given a chance to present themselves as they are, to be perceived in their individuality. We must see the pluralism of the world and not bind it by seeking common denominators or reducing everything to a common equation."

[ Page 11061 ]

It's true, as Irving Howe says in his afterword to Zola's Germinal. . . . He writes about literature. He says: "Each literary generation fashions its own blinkers and then insists they allow unimpeded vision." My friends, each generation of politicians fashions its own blinkers and then insists that those blinkers allow unimpeded vision. We need to get rid of those blinkers and pass this treaty.

As Havel says:

"A politician must become a person again, someone who trusts not only a scientific representation and analysis of the world but also the world itself. He must not only believe in the sociological statistics but in real people. He must not only trust an objective interpretation of reality but also its soul, not only an adopted ideology but also his own thoughts, not only the summary reports he or she receives each morning but also his or her own instincts."

This treaty obviously has been long in the making -- many decades. It took several decades. The hon. member was talking about consensus ad idem, a meeting of minds of all the parties. Finally, it took 111 years from the time the Nisga'a came here the first time in the history of this province. It took 111 years to arrive at a meeting of minds of the Crown in right of Canada, the Crown in right of British Columbia and the Nisga'a people. All of us are now legally consensus ad idem. We are of the same mind -- British Columbians through their representation, Nisga'a through their representatives and Canada through their representatives. It's time that we move on.

It's important that we look back to the day the Nisga'a walked through the gates to this building, just over a month ago. If I remember correctly -- and I'll stand corrected, if I'm wrong -- I saw in their hands the flags of British Columbia and Canada. Those flags represented their determination and symbolized their desire to become equal British Columbians, to become equal Canadians. Let's honour their desire to be equal; let's honour their commitment to be British Columbians in the fullest sense of the term; let's honour their commitment to be Canadians in the fullest sense of the term.

The hon. member for Richmond-Steveston raised many questions, many legal technicalities. We will provide all of the answers. There are answers to each and every question that he raised in his speech, and those answers will be provided in the committee stage. We will be here providing those answers. He says that this treaty is very, very long. I was actually surprised. On the one hand, he says that this treaty doesn't deal with everything the way he thought it should; on the other hand, he says it's a long treaty. Well, it's important that we make sure that all of the issues which could ever arise and that all of the questions which could ever be asked find their answer in that treaty -- find a process to deal with those issues in that treaty. Yes, the treaty is complex. It's important that we tie down all of the loose ends, and I think it's important that we did that.

Let me talk about the issue of the constitution and entrenchment in the constitution. The last time I looked at the constitutional documents, treaties were not mentioned in the definition of the constitution. The way the constitution of Canada is defined, treaties are not mentioned, not included in the definition of the constitution. The last I saw -- unless something has changed -- the amending formula for the constitution of the country was seven provinces and at least 50 percent of the population voting in favour of the amendment. I know that the hon. Leader of the Opposition isn't asking for a national referendum.

An Hon. Member: I think he did at one time.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yeah, he did; he changed his mind. But then why a referendum? The question is not whether or not the opposition is seeking a referendum. I don't think they honestly care whether there's a referendum or not. I think what this has been about is partisan politics in the guise of asking for referendums. And I say -- not critically -- that it is about minority rights. It is about our role as legislators. It is about the fact that treaties have never been subjected to referendums. Treaties have never been part of the definition of the constitution. The constitutional amending formula is entirely different from a referendum.

It's important that we recognize our leadership, our role as representatives of the people of British Columbia. When we ask for a referendum, I say that we shirk our responsibility to stand up on behalf of those who elected us to this Legislature and actually gave us the privilege to stand up for them in this Legislature and vote for what we believe is the best thing for this province.

There will be a referendum at the end of the day, and that will be the next election. I'll be honoured to stand on the basis of what I have said in the House and what others of my colleagues have said in the House -- more particularly, what the Premier of British Columbia has said in this House -- because I will be privileged and I will feel honoured to be part of this side of the Legislature when we pass this treaty.

Deputy Speaker: I now recognize, for her first speech in the House, the member for Parksville-Qualicum.

J. Reid: I am very privileged to stand before this House today as its newest member. I am privileged to have been selected by the residents of Parksville-Qualicum and North Nanaimo to be their representative and their voice. I come here as a result of the support and encouragement of many people: my parents Peggy and Stan Kubin, my husband Keith, our sons Michael, Sean, Nathan and Ian and our daughter-in-law Grace. Along with their support there has been the volunteer effort of so many special people. I wouldn't be here without them. To all of those people and to all of my constituents, I look forward to providing the representation they deserve.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

The area I represent extends from Deep Bay and Bowser in the north and into the midst of Nanaimo in the south. It includes Qualicum Bay, Horne Lake, Lasqueti Island, Hilliers, Coombs, Errington, Nanoose Bay and Lantzville, as well as Qualicum Beach and Parksville. The natural beauty of the east coast of Vancouver Island and a quiet lifestyle have been a magnet for many people. While we've enjoyed the benefits of new residents, we're also aware of the pains associated with continual growth. We have a significant proportion of residents who are retired and who look at health care services in this area with justifiable concern. The population continues to grow and continues to age, and new facilities must be planned

[ Page 11062 ]

The people of Parksville-Qualicum and North Nanaimo have expressed their deep concern for the economic well-being of our area and for the economy of our province by electing me to be their voice. As they see businesses slip away from B.C., as they see those we have educated leave, as sons and daughters go away to find jobs, they question what has become of B.C. and why. Why do businesses not feel welcome in British Columbia -- even small businesses? Why do we have a business climate that discourages investment? And why does this government insult small business by telling us that we have a perception problem?

I come from a resource-based industry, shellfish farming, and I know firsthand of the terrible burden that has been placed on small business by this government. I know the hours and days and weeks that a business person must spend in dealing with government. Energy is sapped out of businesses. Energy and talent that should go into growth and into employing more people are robbed from us. Along with our dollars go our energy, our dreams and our desire to do more. As a result, businesses cut back, employ fewer people and just survive. That is what's happening all over this province, and that is wrong and unnecessary.

[3:45]

To the Nisga'a people I say: I respect what you are trying to achieve for your people, and I desire that your goals of healing and progress for your society are met. I look forward to meeting with you, and I would hope that our non-aboriginal society realizes how much you have to offer to us all. But as a responsible citizen, I must question the principles behind this treaty. This will be my only opportunity to question the general direction of the government's position and the basic principles that it intends to entrench in the next 50 or more treaties.

As the aboriginal elders have respect and have taken part in this process and have contributed their wisdom, experience and history, so too do I have elders that I respect and desire to listen to. My father was born in Poland and was 16 when the Germans invaded. His survival and the horrific acts of cruelty he endured and witnessed during the war give him a unique point of view. His appreciation of what Canada is and what freedom is and of the potential for man's inhumanity to man gives passion to his concerns.

An older gentleman in Nanaimo called me to give me some advice. He called me because he knew I would listen to him. Indeed, in my constituency there is a high proportion of retired people, as I mentioned, and some of the best advice that has brought me to this place today has come from these people. I too have elders that I respect and listen to, and the concern that I have heard from them is one I share and bring to you today, hon. Speaker.

I would ask the government: what is the goal, the vision for British Columbia? Before we can make decisions that will shape the future of our province and our society, we have to know what we hope to accomplish for the future. I haven't heard that goal; my constituents haven't heard that goal. As responsible people, we hesitate to endorse a treaty without knowing what that goal and objective before us is. What we propose today will establish the face of tomorrow. What will our tomorrow look like? Will it bring about harmony in our society, or anger and resentment? How future society reacts to these treaties will be borne not by the people sitting in this room today, but by the aboriginal people in the next generation and the next, who will remain a minority in our society. We must have a goal, a vision for British Columbia. We have to know what that goal is, and we have to know that all people share that goal and that vision, both aboriginals and non-aboriginals. If we are all working towards the same goal, we will proceed quickly with treaty settlements; we'll proceed without anger and resentment and fear.

Once the goal is established, the details can be worked out. Who has thought through the implications of the treaty proposed today on the society of tomorrow? History must guide us. The aboriginal people have their history, a history of struggle against injustice. And we also have a history that is shared from experiences around the world, a history of learning how to be a country and how to be a province that reflects the beliefs we hold as individuals and that protects freedoms and protects people. Mankind continues to go through a learning process. Civilizations rise and fall, and yet we have arrived at a unique point in history. We have communication tools that have never before existed. We have freedom of and access to the written word as never before in history. We can analyze societies -- what made them great, what made them fall -- and we have an opportunity to apply that analysis to this very significant point in our history. How do we resolve injustices of the past and prepare for a peaceful future? Once again I ask: what is our goal for our society? Do we have a common goal that we can embrace? In brief, I suggest that a goal might be the personal freedom to practice our belief system and the opportunity to try to better ourselves and our families without bringing harm to other individuals, our communities or the environment.

My elders have told me, from their history around the world, that the way to accomplish this goal is to create equality for all people, an equality that is enforced by law and protected by law -- equal protection and equal opportunity. People that have come from other parts of the world are afraid that we take for granted our freedoms, our goal of equality -- that we will give it away as though it wasn't really necessary or important.

If our goal is equality, we have a major hurdle before we can accomplish this goal. The aboriginal people of this province have suffered for generations. They have been disadvantaged by our treatment of them, and now they need our help so that they can recover as a people, regain their customs and learn what direction they want to take for themselves. They need the opportunity to explore their differences and their uniqueness in the framework of this world which we now share and to make their own decisions on how best to heal and prepare for the future generations. This will take

[ Page 11063 ]

Another consideration for the principles of a treaty needs to be its complexity, multiplied 50 times over. One treaty might be manageable, affordable, indeed desirable by the people of B.C., whereas 50 with the same expectations could be unmanageable, unaffordable and ill-advised. Who then gets the full treatment? The first aboriginals that settle their treaties? The first ten, and then the others don't receive the same settlement? Or would they all receive the same promises, only to find those promises and expectations wouldn't be fulfilled? What kind of fools are we that we would negotiate in part without looking first at the whole picture? Who benefits from this exercise? I suggest that we all lose.

Do we go ahead with this treaty and say: "Someone else can work out the problems"? That would be like going ahead and polluting the earth, saying that another generation can figure out how to clean it up. Surely we know better. Surely we know enough now that we are responsible for what we leave for future generations. Whether it be debt, the environment or treaties, we are responsible to investigate the future implications.

Are we acting responsibly when we haven't seen a balanced budget in over ten years and refuse to tell the people of this province, including the aboriginal people, how we will afford 50 treaties and much more government? We are the ones responsible. I am responsible to ask, and the government's responsibility is to respond.

We are seeing people leave B.C. now. Is this the goal of government? I remember being at an environmental meeting once. One of the people there said that one of his goals was to see people disappear from B.C. so that it could go back to the bears and the wildlife. Is this the goal of government: to drive more people out of B.C. by imposing a tax burden we can't maintain, by having a multitude of laws that cause confusion and by having a huge government to support? Perhaps there are some in government who believe in this goal. Perhaps that is what we are seeing here.

I have read the Hansard accounts of this debate. Over and over the hon. members for the government have pleaded: "Just think of the Nisga'a. Use your hearts. Just think of them." With the greatest respect, I disagree. This debate isn't just about the Nisga'a; it is about all aboriginal people in B.C., all non-aboriginal people and how we will function together as a society in the future. The government members have used emotional words and tone, talking guilt, talking sorrow, talking of the Nisga'a and their sad history. Speech after speech follows that framework. We have on one side, "Talk emotion; talk Nisga'a," and on the other side we're trying to talk principles and repercussions. We are talking of apples and oranges. Meanwhile, the people of this province are expecting us to solve a major problem.

My vision for B.C. is where we have a sharing of the best of cultures and societies, where we have a simplicity in laws and government, and where we shoulder our responsibilities and leave the world a better place for future generations. Until we have a vision for B.C.'s future, until we have resolved the principles behind treaty settlement and until we have calculated the cost and made sure that all aboriginal people can and will receive the same benefits, I cannot support this treaty.

The Speaker: Seeing no further debaters, I will call on the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Minister of Labour to close debate on second reading of Bill 51.

Hon. D. Lovick: Thank you very kindly, Madam Speaker. I want to begin by saying thank you in all sincerity to all of those on both sides of the House who participated in this historic debate. Debates in parliament usually are somewhat misnamed, because they seldom occur. Rather, what happens is that we have two parallel streams. One sides says X and the other side Y, and never the twain shall meet. I want to deviate from that just a little bit, if I might. I want to focus on the arguments presented by the official opposition. Indeed, it seems to me that's my obligation; that's my role.

Let me start by saying that I was heartened indeed by the opening comments made by the Leader of the Official Opposition. He noted the importance of what all of us in this chamber had to say on this, as I say, historic debate and the fact that everything we said would indeed be noted, as it should be. He went on to say that we should therefore "communicate honestly, candidly and respectfully" -- absolutely true. Alas, it only took him three sentences to then say something else. He then said: "We must have respect for each other to debate this template for treaties. . . ."

I have said on numerous occasions and the Premier has said on numerous occasions what is meant by template. We have been very clear. The opposition knows that full well. However, they persist at every available opportunity in talking about the Nisga'a template. I suggest that this isn't necessarily either respectful or honest in terms of approaching the debate.

Let me clarify instantly, then, what the point is about template. Point one, the Nisga'a final agreement is not a template for other treaty negotiations. Point two, indeed it is a fundamental concept of treaty negotiations that community differences, regional differences, environmental and resource differences must be considered. That's why the concepts have been developed in the Nisga'a final agreement that we would want to include in other treaties, for equity, expediency and cost reductions.

[4:00]

Sadly, there are numerous other instances where the Leader of the Opposition's words failed to persuade me at least -- and I suspect a number of us -- that there is indeed a real commitment to communicate honestly, candidly and respectfully. He says, for example -- and believe me I have only gone down about one more sentence to find this -- that the bill before this House will not allow full debate -- that they, the opposition, will only be allowed to discuss "a handful of clauses." What utter, absolute, arrant nonsense! Not true. I have said from the beginning that this debate would have full and complete opportunity afforded the opposition to discuss chapter by chapter, line by line, if they so wish. The Leader of the Opposition ought to know that. I won't accuse him of speaking of that which is not, but he ought to know that.

Let's now look at some of the particular arguments presented by the opposition. The Leader of the Opposition's next

[ Page 11064 ]

You know, the next argument is one that I have to, in all fairness, laugh a little bit about, because it's about the court case. We know the opposition has talked about going to court. Ostensibly, their primary argument was that this was a constitutional amendment. Nobody, quite frankly, save them takes that argument very seriously. It's not a constitutional amendment; I think we all know that. But then they go on and present this ingenious argument, and I heard the Leader of the Opposition do this with a straight face. He talked about being sorrowful that they, the opposition, had to participate in this divisive debate and had to take us to court.

Now, let's get this straight. The minority position isn't accepted. We the government say that we believe we're doing the right thing, we explain why we're doing what we are, we proceed, and they say: "Well, we can't get our way in the debate; therefore, we'll take you to court." And then they say that they're sorrowful about it and that it's our fault -- the government's fault.

That reminds me of Clarence Darrow, the famous criminal lawyer. Some of you know the story. Clarence Darrow once defended a guy who was charged with the axe murder of his parents. The defence that Clarence Darrow presented was: "We should show sympathy for the poor man because, after all, he was an orphan." That's the kind of argument, it seems to me, that the opposition is trying to have here.

In case anybody wonders what I'm talking about so far -- and, I think, some pretty good illustrations of what's wrong with the opposition case -- it's all to be found in the first three pages of what the Leader of the Opposition had to say. It's about a 20-page speech, obviously crafted carefully. But in case anybody wonders whether in fact there is any substance there, let me go on.

The next point the Leader of the Opposition makes is that the Nisga'a final agreement is not the road to reconciliation. Rather, he says -- and it's the same point made, I think, by the member from Richmond -- it is one that leads us to "the same elements that we hope to distance ourselves from today: segregation, isolation, insulation, discrimination."

I've thought about that point a lot; I've analyzed that argument. I've read it a number of times and have given some consideration to it, and the only conclusion I can draw is this. The Nisga'a have been trying to get a treaty for 111 years; they've been at the table for 25. They have finally said, along with Canada and British Columbia: "Here's the treaty we want." Now, if the opposition is telling us that this is a treaty that is obviously wrong-headed and simply leads to segregation, isolation, insulation, etc., the only conclusion I can draw that the Leader of the Opposition is actually presenting is: "Boy, are those Nisga'a guys ever dumb."

What else can he be saying? To presume, as they do, that they know the truth and that all those other people -- mostly first nations -- have no awareness of what they're doing, is the height of arrogance. I think it's the ultimate in condescension; I think it's offensive in the extreme. One could readily challenge -- I think I could, bluntly put -- virtually every substantive argument that is presented by the Leader of the Opposition and by the Liberal opposition. I think one could do that.

For example, the next paragraph after the one I just referred to -- that claim about segregation -- says that this treaty is not a prescription for greater equality, that it will replace existing inequalities with new inequities -- or existing inequities with new inequities. Pardon me, Madam Speaker, for splitting those words. Those of you who are trained in classical debate will realize what they have done. They're engaging in the fallacy of equivocation. You start with one word called "equality"; you switch the word to "inequity" the next time. Some would argue that that's a big deal; I don't. Instead, I just point to this. Here's the counterargument to what he said. This treaty represents. . . .

Interjections.

Hon. D. Lovick: I see members laughing, because they obviously haven't had that training, but so be it -- I tried to be polite.

The treaty represents greater equality for Nisga'a citizens and others because all B.C. laws of general application apply, including in such key areas as environmental assessment and protection, and landlord and tenant requirements. Take note -- while we were talking about Musqueam -- that the Indian Act will no longer apply; there will no longer be Nisga'a Indian reserves; Nisga'a and non-Nisga'a will be able to own the land they live on. And after the transition period, Nisga'a citizens will be subject to federal and provincial taxation.

How in heaven's name can one say that this is a prescription for greater inequality? It simply doesn't compute. That is the first substantive claim, and I say that one can fairly readily refute and rebut all following claims. I know much of that will occur in committee. That's as it should be, so I won't spend my time trying to deal with the particulars. Instead, what I want to do is just focus on a few of the larger issues raised by the opposition and the leader in his comments.

The principal one has to do with the powers that the Nisga'a government will hold under the terms of the treaty. Let me start by quoting the Leader of the Opposition. He says: "It" -- i.e., the treaty -- "will give the Nisga'a government paramount powers that are not held by any municipal or aboriginal government in Canada -- powers that include the constitutional authority to pass laws that are legally superior to federal and provincial laws in 14 areas of jurisdiction. . . ."

Let me be very, very serious here, because I take the issue seriously. That seems to be the principal argument presented by the opposition as to why they can't support Nisga'a. They argue, of course, that this is a new order of government and that these are powers that nobody else has and that we all should, therefore, be afraid.

[ Page 11065 ]

The background -- and here's where it gets tricky for people, I think -- is that the concept of paramountcy, quite frankly, sounds a bit scary. People talk about somebody having primary responsibility, and they begin to worry. Let me explain the concept for the record, if I might. The Canadian constitution sets out two sets of lawmaking authority to ensure that either the federal or the provincial government has jurisdiction in particular cases. As an aside, let me note that there is nothing in the constitution of Canada that assigns health to either government. Similarly, there's nothing regarding the regulation of atomic energy, say -- nothing in the constitution whatsoever.

The model for the Nisga'a agreement is concurrence. That's what we call it. What that means is simply that more than one government can have a valid law addressing the same issue. In a concurrent model, if both sides have laws which apply and if they seem to say the same thing, then something called the conflict-of-law rule obtains. This says -- and these are our rules -- that only one law can prevail. Thus the concept of paramountcy: if only one law prevails, that clearly is paramount. For instance, in areas like environmental assessment, health care and post-secondary education, the courts have said that the federal law is paramount.

I note, by the way -- and this is the reason I draw it to your attention -- that this is not a constitutional matter; that's a matter of judicial interpretation. I think there's an important distinction there. In drafting the Nisga'a final agreement, the parties assumed that the court would take a similar view to that taken where federal and provincial laws both occupy the same field. In that situation, what occurs is that the courts try to avoid choosing between the laws by reading the two together. Conflict normally arises only at the margins, in the details.

Because the conflict-of-law rule determines which government has the final say, Canada and B.C., given that they were agreeing to a self-government agreement with the Nisga'a, then had to consider what categories ought to guide them in the assigning of paramountcy, in the assigning to the Nisga'a of the final say. They asked three questions. The first one was: were the matters internal and integral to Nisga'a culture and Nisga'a language? Second, they asked: did the matters deal with assets and benefits that the Nisga'a get under the treaty? And third: were there sufficient conditions on Nisga'a lawmaking authority so that there was not a concern as a result of giving that paramountcy to the Nisga'a?

[4:15]

Similarly, when you deal with the matter of Nisga'a authority over lands and assets, if you say self-government -- if you say it's a land deal and that you, the Nisga'a, are given control of your own resources -- then you can't encumber those resources by setting up a system where somebody else has the final say. For instance, in the case of lands, in the case of assets, if it's the case that the Nisga'a don't have authority over the land base, then the provincial government could come along and say: "You, the Nisga'a, have to build a pulp mill on your territory, even if you don't want it." Whereas if you give the paramountcy to the Nisga'a, they can decide, as the landowner, that they don't want it, and nobody can challenge their right to say: "No, we don't want it." That's what paramountcy is about and why it's necessary.

The third one, about conditions imposed. . . . I think that in all the significant areas where we, the non-Nisga'a and non-aboriginal people, have rights to perhaps be concerned. . . . I think that if you look at the treaty, you'll see clearly that we have imposed conditions to make sure that we have protected our own interests. For example, education and child and family services are two that instantly come to mind.

I guess the point, then, just to restate the issue, is that in most cases, as I said, the paramountcy of Nisga'a law is intended to ensure that the Nisga'a will have primary authority over matters that are internal and integral to their culture and that they will have authority over the assets of the Nisga'a people or Nisga'a government itself -- Nisga'a land, assets and financial management. If you don't give them that, if they can't manage their own land, if they can't be in charge of their own lives, what's the point of having a treaty? If we say that we agree to self-government and we don't give them that power, then the giving of self-government -- the deal, the negotiation of self-government -- is, frankly, meaningless.

Hon. Speaker, I have paid fairly close attention to the debate, and I've listened carefully. I'm not being absolutely truthful in saying that I've listened, because I haven't; I've been out of the House a great deal. But I have reviewed most of what was said in the debate. I paid close attention, and I think it's safe to say that without exception, every member on the other side of the House, everyone who spoke against this treaty, said in fact that they believe in making treaties -- right? They believe that that's the right thing to do and that it's necessary. They have problems, however, with this one.

I have to wonder, however, about whether indeed we can take that in all sincerity. I say that simply because of the kind of comment that was made earlier today -- the kind of comment made by the Leader of the Opposition when he talked about the worry, in terms of things like Nisga'a culture, that the powers given to the Nisga'a to protect their own culture might be "used to enforce compliance with aboriginal. . .practices and traditions." The mind boggles for me. What are we anticipating? Are we saying that the Nisga'a are going to say: "Right -- you're going to have to learn to build a totem pole or play a drum or memorize the house system in Nisga'a territory or speak the language"? What can the issue be? I'm horrified to think that that would become a major issue in the opposition's calculus, because I can see no reason for us non-aboriginal people to be alarmed.

You know, I have to wonder whether the opposition -- especially the Leader of the Opposition, in his remarks -- at bottom really struggle above all with the fact that this treaty gives Nisga'a control over their own lives -- specifically, in

[ Page 11066 ]

That's what worries me. That's the point I want to suggest to the opposition. They may discourse like angels. They may tell us: "We believe in treaties." They may say: "Oh yes, some of our best friends are indeed Nisga'a. We admire Joe Gosnell. We congratulate them on being here and doing all this good work, but we don't support this deal." When I see that kind of reason given for not supporting the deal, it seems to me that they don't support any deal, frankly, with first nations people. I'm sorry to say that, but I think it's true.

I have to note that the land argument is one that I struggle with, as you see now, because I could go on at great length. I'll give you another small example to make the same point, if I might. There is a point made in the Leader of the Opposition's comments, in which he talks in what I think, frankly, is a pretty convoluted argument. He worries, apparently, about offering cash in treaties. He says that there is no explanation; there is no justification for offering cash in treaties. I think: wait a minute. How can you say that? How can you in all honesty and candour say that? The whole point of offering cash is in fact to provide the economic wherewithal to those folks in Nisga'a territory, the Nisga'a people, so they can build a future decided largely by themselves, so that they can become economically self-sufficient, so they can cease to have the kind of marginal existence that most first nations in this province, alas, have had.

I have a great deal more I'd like to say, Madam Speaker, but I note that I'm getting close to the end. Let me just conclude by making this comment. The Youth Parliament of British Columbia met just a couple of weeks ago in this very chamber -- young people from across the province. They had a great debate on the Nisga'a. The debate on the Nisga'a concerned whether there should be a referendum on the Nisga'a. Despite the fact that they all came in wearing their partisan hats -- because they're supposed to be partisan and choose sides when they come in -- at the end of the debate the vote was something like 45 to 19 against having a referendum.

I don't want to extrapolate hugely and wildly, but I'd like to suggest this: maybe we ought to pay a little attention to that next generation. Maybe they realize that what we're doing in Nisga'a is absolutely right, that it is the promise of a better and brighter future which is going to be good for all of us.

We have in this legislation an opportunity to do something wonderful, an opportunity to do something magnificent that's eluded every other generation in this province's history. There are arguments to be presented against this treaty and indeed any treaty. I don't deny that. Nobody for a moment should believe that this treaty is a panacea, that it's going to solve all the problems and that all first nations issues will disappear on completion of the treaty. But it's a huge step in the right direction. It's a demonstration of faith in our ability to reason together, to work together, to change a rather sad chapter in our history and to make life somewhat better and happier for all of us -- first nations and the rest of us alike.

Hon. Speaker, I'm very proud to move second reading of this particular bill.

Second reading of Bill 51 approved on the following division:

[4:30]

 

NAYS -- 33
Weisgerber	Penner	Nettleton
Anderson	Jarvis	Sanders
Chong	Coell	Neufeld
L. Reid	Abbott	Plant
de Jong	Farrell-Collins	Campbell
C. Clark	Gingell	Whittred
Weisbeck	Nebbeling	Hogg
Hawkins	Coleman	Hansen
Krueger	Symons	van Dongen
Barisoff	Dalton	J. Reid
Masi	McKinnon	J. Wilson

Bill 51, Nisga'a Final Agreement Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Noting the hour, I move that the House at its rising stand recessed until 6 p.m., at which time we'll be debating private members' statements.

The House recessed from 4:34 p.m. to 6:05 p.m.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Private Members' Statements

B.C.'S GROWING ECONOMY

During the 1990s high tech has been B.C.'s fastest-growing sector overall, with businesses growing more than 50 percent and value growing by more than 90 percent. Development of a high-tech strategy for B.C. by a working group including 15 top high-tech industry CEOs and university presidents; a new $100 million knowledge development fund, created to expand high-tech research and training; part-

[ Page 11067 ]

In small business. . . . I'm glad to see that the minister is here. British Columbia has seen higher growth in small businesses -- 56 percent -- in the 1990s than any other province in Canada. Small business now supports more than half of all private sector jobs in British Columbia. We're cutting the small business income tax by 20 percent by the year 2000, and by 2001, 90 percent of small businesses will no longer pay the corporate capital tax.

An Hon. Member: Who initiated that tax?

G. Janssen: The member should remember that I have the floor.

New initiatives include easier business registration, more on-line government services and the expansion of one-stop shopping.

The YouBET program -- youth business and entrepreneurship training -- has provided over 3,000 young men and women with the skills and tools of business.

Tourism, the growing $8.5 billion industry, created 32,000 new jobs between 1990 and 1996 and is expected to create another 25,000 jobs by the year 2001 -- results, progress. And $20 million has been invested in Tourism B.C.'s marketing budget to attract even more visitors to the province. The government is also supporting the Vancouver-Whistler bid for the 2010 Winter Olympics. The Leonardo da Vinci exhibit at the Royal British Columbia Museum has attracted more than 300,000 people, breaking all attendance records. The new Vancouver Trade and Convention Centre will increase convention business by 60 percent initially and will double over ten years.

We cut the international jet fuel tax by 50 percent. The new $40 million airport connectors, scheduled for completion in 2001, will significantly improve access to and from the airport. Adventure tourism is injecting almost $900 million into British Columbia's economy.

The film industry, TV, media: since 1987 this sector has grown by 300 percent. It now employs 25,000 people directly and estimates that it will crack the $700 million mark in direct spending this year, headed to $1 billion by the year 2001. Film Incentive B.C., with four different tax credit programs, has been launched to bolster the growth of B.C.-controlled productions. Sixty-four productions generating $430 million in direct spending have come to B.C.; that's a 21 percent increase over last year. In forestry. . . .

Interjections.

G. Janssen: They're silent.

While still the largest contributor to the province's gross domestic product, B.C.'s forest sector is experiencing significant economic pressures. We have addressed those concerns by cutting stumpage, with total estimated savings for the industry of $200 million a year for the next three years. Streamlining paperwork and the administrative burden -- total estimated savings for industry over the next three years: $300 million. Last year $600 million in Forest Renewal B.C. funding was invested and created 7,575 person-years of employment. More wood is being made available at fair market cost to the value-added and independent wood-manufacturing sector.

Oil and gas -- the member from northern British Columbia should be familiar with this. . . . Between 1986 and 1996, natural gas production increased to 24 billion cubic metres from 9.5 billion cubic metres, making B.C. Canada's second-largest gas-producing province. B.C.'s royalty structure for natural gas is more competitive -- yes, more competitive -- than Alberta's at all price levels. And B.C. is having a record year for drilling, an increase of 15 percent in 1998. The Fair Share program which is enjoyed by northern communities -- an innovative program from this government -- ensures that communities in northern B.C. will receive an additional $113 million over the next ten years to improve local infrastructure.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, member. Your time has expired.

G. Abbott: It's a great pleasure to rise and join in the entirely unbridled enthusiasm of the member for Alberni. It's certainly refreshing to see so many half-filled vessels here in the province of British Columbia. Regrettably, back in 1991 they were all full, until this government overregulated and overtaxed at least half the liquid out of them.

Speaking seriously, the fact is that B.C.'s economy is not growing; it's shrinking. Any reliable measure of economic growth in the province or in this country shows that the B.C. economy is shrinking. In fact, that shrinkage is very much a product of gross economic mismanagement by the current administration. As much as we'd like to see entirely full glasses of liquid in this province, as much as we'd like to see a chicken in every pot, we're not going to have it under this current government, because clearly the policies of this government are contrary to the achievement of that goal.

[6:15]

I want to cite a couple of figures to show just what this government's policies have done to our forest industry, which for decades -- for well over a century -- has been the backbone of our economy. According to Price Waterhouse Coopers, in a recent report they did, "the whole B.C. forest industry is expected to lose $350 million in 1998, compared with losses of $130 million in 1997 and $290 million in 1996." In total, over the past three years the forest industry in British Columbia has lost $770 million. That's where this government and these ministers have taken the forest industry in British Columbia. The consequence of that is this: direct and indirect

[ Page 11068 ]

Take housing as another example. In December 1998, North Vancouver had one housing start, Pitt Meadows had one housing start, and both Langley and New Westminster had no housing starts. That is a pathetic and shocking figure of where this government's policies have taken the economy of British Columbia.

In 1997, 107 companies left British Columbia for Alberta. In 1998, 75 companies have left B.C. for Alberta. This is from the B.C. Gazette, obviously a reliable authority. And 16,000 people have left B.C. for the more promising and fertile fields of Alberta, and that's most unfortunate.

In fact, since the unveiling of the NDP's much-vaunted three-year economic plan, B.C.'s economy has been declared to be in an official recession, with negative growth rates of minus 2 percent to minus 1.3 percent forecast. Even Stalin's five-year plans enjoyed much more success than this government's three-year plan has to this point. There are certainly some clear fiscal consequences to this government's mismanagement of the economy. We have seen, for example, in the most recent quarterly report of the Ministry of Finance a deficit now of $659 million -- $311 million higher than budgeted.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, member. Your time has expired.

G. Abbott: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I think that gives us some idea of just what direction this government has taken economic growth.

Deputy Speaker: To conclude, the member for Alberni.

An Hon. Member: The glass is getting very empty now.

G. Janssen: Doom and gloom; the glass is empty; there is no future -- that's what the opposition has been spreading for months. I've tried to be non-partisan, but I have to respond.

Energy -- B.C. produced 43,000 gigawatt-hours, with exports of $179 million. A new generating project -- this is how business is leaving British Columbia. A 240-megawatt high-efficiency gas-fired cogeneration facility in Campbell River -- in the member for North Island's riding -- is starting, I believe, in the next week or two -- and a second one in Port Alberni, in my riding. A 170-megawatt powerhouse on the Columbia River near Castlegar; a 45-megawatt gas-fired generator in Fort Nelson -- I think that's in an opposition riding. . . .

In today's paper, Woodgrove in Nanaimo -- I believe that Woodgrove is in the new member's riding -- started a new $38 million expansion project; that's confidence. The glass is full for those people. They're expanding by 225,000 square feet, to 679,000 square feet. Eaton's will add space. Sport Chek will be there. Woodgrove cinema will grow from three screens to eight screens. And 50 new stores will be there. That's doom and gloom?

In Pitt Meadows, the Speaker's own riding, Queenship Yacht Works in Maple Ridge is expanding. Moly Battery is adding space and employees. Alberni has a new Canadian Tire and a new Home Hardware. In Ucluelet, there's a new Coast Hotel and a Roots Hotel -- $6 million. Tembec of Quebec saw confidence in the forest industry and bought Crestbrook. YVR -- the Vancouver airport -- just expanded and needs to expand again. Casinos: they're opposed to them, except if they are in their own ridings; then they say: "Build them; build them." I think there are two in Penticton; that's an opposition riding.

The jobless rate has gone from 9.9 percent to 7.9 percent, and 83,000 new jobs were created in this province. Growth is what British Columbia is about. Growth with social responsibility is what this government is about.

ROTARIANS INTERNATIONAL

My topic this evening is relative to an organization called Rotary International. I'm not going to speak about all the great things that Rotary International does worldwide and does within our communities, because we'd be here all night. But I do want to speak about Rotary tonight, given that this month is Rotary Awareness Month within the organization of over a million members worldwide. I wanted to speak tonight about one particular program that Rotary runs around the world, one that is so vital to our society.

When I was growing up in my hometown, in my neighbourhood of many children, I remember a couple of young children being struck by a terrible, debilitating disease. That terrible, debilitating disease was polio. These young people became disabled overnight. Overnight they were different. Overnight they were subject to ridicule by children who did not understand the pain and the changes it made to them as far as disabilities were concerned.

As my life went on, I got involved in another organization and had the opportunity to tour Pearson Hospital in Vancouver and see people still in iron lungs -- the impact of polio on their lives and how difficult it was for those people to adjust to a different life. I also saw a project that was completed for ventilated quadriplegics; it moved eight of those people out of Pearson Hospital and into an independent living environment where they could have a life outside of a hospital and, in some cases, where they lived for over 25 years.

Rotary's PolioPlus program's goal is to eradicate polio around the world by the year 2005. That's a pretty incredible undertaking, but I think you should understand that by 2005, Rotary themselves will have put over $400 million into eradicating polio worldwide. Their success rate is absolutely phenomenal. Today there's 150 nations reporting no cases of polio whatsoever, up from 85 million when the program started. More than one billion children have been immunized to date, and $400 million will be the total cost. But Rotary's commitment goes beyond that until total eradication takes place. In addition to that, Rotary International has strengthened labs, volunteers and organizations, and as a result, has made countries, communities and society stronger. I want to give you some examples of that.

In India, in January of 1987, Rotary ran a National Immunization Day. If you can imagine these numbers, 127 million children were vaccinated in one single day. Rotarians played the major role in mobilizing 150,000 volunteers to transport the oral vaccine to these people, to the doctors and to the workers that immunized the children. Now think about that.

[ Page 11069 ]

In Uganda, Rotary volunteers worked with the local authorities to immunize children living in remote mountain villages. If you can imagine, if you had villages in the Rockies of British Columbia and you were trying to immunize the children in those villages, that an international organization could muster the volunteers to get them up there and come in from. . . . They had to enter the country from other countries like Rwanda and Zaire just to get access to those children.

In my own life, Rotary has had some other dramatic impacts. When I was a young man in grade 11, I had the opportunity to travel to the nation's capital on a Rotary adventure in citizenship. That opportunity, as I've told the Rotarians I've spoken to over the years, had a dramatic impact on me. I was ready for some focus in my life, and I was ready for an opportunity to see what was going on outside the boundaries of the small community I lived in. Rotary gave me the opportunity to meet children of my age from across this country, to share ideas and to discuss their religious and ethnic and cultural backgrounds. That opportunity got me back to my hometown a different young man. I think it helped to set the direction for me as to where I went in my life, simply because I had that opportunity.

Rotary also impacted me as a young person -- in swimming lessons, for example. It used to be that in Penticton, on Skaha beach and Okanagan Lake, you could get swimming lessons for an entire family for a dollar, because Rotary subsidized the swimming program. I know of three people who are alive today because people in my family were given the opportunity to take those swimming lessons. They knew what to do when the time came. It is important for us to recognize that the impact of service clubs like Rotary in our communities is phenomenal, whether it be parks, community centres, youth programs, sports, hampers at Christmastime, etc.

The important thing to realize is that this organization in itself is North America's first service club, the first service organization on our North American continent -- today with over a million members worldwide -- and is eradicating a very terrible disease. Rotary also deals with such things as seniors housing, programs for the aged, programs for youth, exchange programs, literacy programs. Their package is complete. As an organization, each of us should remember in the month of January not to forget to thank and recognize the Rotary Clubs in our community.

B. Goodacre: First of all, I'd like to acknowledge the member for sharing with us the wonderful stories about Rotary International. I think most of our communities are blessed with Rotary Clubs, and it's certainly a wonderful thing when people who give so much to their communities are acknowledged in the Legislature like that. I'd also, of course, like to extend my personal congratulations to all the people who take time out of their lives to volunteer and give service to their communities. It's something that we all depend on and, hopefully, all contribute to in our lifetimes -- taking time out of our lives to contribute to civil society and to do what we can to make the lives of others better.

[6:30]

I live in the community of Smithers, and I'd like to take this opportunity to extend my personal congratulations to the Rotary Club in that community. When I was asked to respond to this statement, I was thinking about the various projects around our community and the things that happen, that are there, as a result of our own Rotary Club in Smithers, B.C. As a hockey player, the biggest project that sticks out in my mind, of course, is our civic centre. At the end of the World War, there were a number of hangars in the Terrace airport that became redundant and were available for people to pick up for a dollar. The community of Smithers got together and bid on one of these. It was one of the most massive community efforts in Smithers to have trucks go over to Terrace in the late fifties, bring the beams back to Smithers and build what is now our ice arena. You'll see a plaque with "Rotary Club" on the wall, because they were instrumental in assisting that effort. There's a reminder there, every day you go to the rink, of the contribution they gave.

At our local fall fair, every time you go down there you'll see the Rotary Club. They're raising money for their causes through a food booth that they have there every single year. It's a constant reminder to the people in the community that there are folks there giving of their time to help make life better for others.

Almost all of us have personal friends. . . . And obviously the member himself has benefited from the student exchange program that the Rotary has become so famous for, not just within Canada but internationally as well. It has done wonders for our communities to have visitors coming from other parts of the world to spend time at our schools, to work with the other children in the community, to learn about another culture and then to have people go back to their communities in their countries; it's done wonders for people.

The most recent project that our Rotary Club has been involved in is the skateboard park. Rotarian Gary Pitman in Smithers spent a lot of time with the young people in Smithers, the skateboarders, to have them help him design a skateboard park; that was completed just a couple of months ago. To their credit, the children of Smithers who like to skateboard have got a facility, thanks to the Rotary and thanks to themselves for working together in a partnership to make that happen. It was quite a wonderful thing to see.

In closing, I would like to again extend my congratulations to Rotary Clubs worldwide, and especially in British Columbia.

R. Coleman: Just to close, I think we could just touch on the four objects of Rotary; then I just have a closing comment. The first object is "the development of acquaintance as an opportunity for service." The second is "high ethical standards in business and professions, the recognition of the worthiness of all useful occupations, and the dignifying of each Rotarian's occupation as an opportunity to serve society." The third is "the application of the ideal of service in each Rotarian's personal, business and community life." And the fourth is "the advancement of international understanding, goodwill and peace through a world fellowship of business and professional persons united in the ideal of service."

[ Page 11070 ]

We -- and in particular this government that likes to take shots at volunteers -- have to remember that the volunteer sector is what drives our community and makes it absolutely phenomenal. Let's never forget that. Let's remember what Mr. Gorbachev said, because he knew what it meant. He knew that you can never take the human spirit and, never ever, downplay the value of volunteers and their contribution to any community in any country anywhere in the world.

Hon. I. Waddell: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. I. Waddell: I'd like to introduce someone in our precincts today who's been described as a cool, cerebral lawyer of great intelligence and respectability. Of course, he's not here in body; he's here in spirit. I speak of Richard Blanshard, the first Governor of the colony of Victoria, which the hon. member mentioned. I think it's appropriate that a government member acknowledge, as well, that this the 150th anniversary of Queen Victoria granting royal letters patent to the founding of the colony of Vancouver Island. Six months later she sent Richard Blanshard over here to establish a seven-seat legislative council and to prepare for a full legislative assembly. We are inheritors of that today.

I think we should welcome the spirit of Richard Blanshard here. He was also sent, by the way, to look at the accounting, and I think we should all applaud Queen Victoria for doing that.

PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

Public-private partnerships, or P3s as they're sometimes referred to, offer a very feasible alternative to traditional models of developing public infrastructure within British Columbia. While P3s are not the answer for every project, the model provides an opportunity that should be pursued when taxpayers can get better value for their tax dollars. P3s are partnerships between the public and private sectors where there is a sharing of risk, responsibility and reward, and where there is a net benefit to the public. P3s are partnerships where either parties work together but each has sole responsibility for an element of the project or both parties take joint responsibility for each element. Either way, they work together for the success of the individual project.

A clear advantage of public-private partnership arrangements is to maximize the abilities and skills of either partner for mutual benefits. A healthy society and a healthy economy depend on a balance of public and private partnerships. Benefits include: rapid completion of important projects when public funds are needed for other priorities, increased creativity and innovation by engaging private sector skills in a very competitive environment, more effective and intense use of capital resources through multiple and innovative uses of facilities, and reduction of taxpayer-supported debt by identifying alternative financing options.

It should also be noted, though, that government's first priority is the protection of the public interest. Projects -- public, private or otherwise -- must be able to withstand public scrutiny and an open and transparent tendering and evaluation process. In other words, truly effective partnerships must be linked to clear goals and benefits to both taxpayers and the private interests involved. The question must always be asked: how does it serve the public interest to bring the private sector into this particular project?

P3s should not be pursued when, for example, government control over public policy might be jeopardized or when other considerations mandate that the public sector provide a service. An example of this might be health care in the province. In order to create and evaluate opportunities for P3s in British Columbia, the government has an advisory committee on public-private partnerships, which is made up of senior representatives from business, government, labour and academia throughout the province. The committee's key role is to advise government on the implementation and monitoring of public-private partnerships.

Public-private partnerships are serving to expand and develop our province's infrastructure to serve the public's needs. Here are some examples. In 1996 a major reconstruction of the 16-kilometre-long Strathcona Parkway, which provides access to an increasingly popular Mount Washington ski area, was completed at a cost of $16 million. Under an agreement with the province, Mt. Washington Ski Resort Ltd. will pay at least 50 percent of this cost from a surcharge it will collect on lift tickets over the next 20 years. This dynamic and, I think, great project has not only increased public safety on this well-travelled route, but also promoted the resort as an all-season destination, providing 400 full-time jobs in the winter and 60 jobs in the summer. Contributions to the regional economy are estimated to be in the vicinity of $30 million annually.

Last September it was announced that CU Power International Ltd. and Pan-Canadian Petroleum Ltd. will team up to construct a 240-megawatt cogeneration power plant at the MacMillan Bloedel pulp mill in Port Alberni. This $200 million endeavour will create some 330 construction jobs and 23 long-term positions and, upon its completion, will both supply power to M&B's operations in Port Alberni and improve efficiency and make the plant more competitive. It will also hook into the B.C. Hydro grid and provide some good power and some benefits for the taxpayers.

A similar project has recently been announced for the Fletcher Challenge pulp mill in Campbell River. Each of these and future projects will assist the province in its broader objectives of bringing economic diversification and stability to the province's regional communities. I'll talk a little bit about the co-gen plant later on.

Public-private partnerships are also assisting in the development of British Columbia's high-tech sector. In the spring of 1998 the B.C. government finalized an agreement with IBM

[ Page 11071 ]

With the growing realization that an educated populace is essential to the future of a vibrant B.C., increasingly the public and private sector are finding common ground to work from. In certain cases in the educational sector, P3s can be used to meet educational goals while ensuring the effective use of very scarce resources. At the most basic level, P3s can also be used to provide things like crossing guards at important intersections and computers and training in elementary and high schools.

Other important new initiatives include Tech U of British Columbia, which is focused on developing advanced technologies tailored to the needs of emerging industries. Through educational programs and applied research in partnerships with the private sector, Tech U of British Columbia will be at the leading edge of developments in high technology.

Deputy Speaker: Responding, the member for Chilliwack.

B. Penner: Actually, I'm not responding directly to my honoured colleague but seeking leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

B. Penner: Hon. Speaker, it's my great privilege to introduce a friend of mine, who I just noticed joining us in the gallery: Emon Gaunt. I first met him while we worked here at the B.C. Legislature as interns in 1989, and subsequently we enjoyed each other's company at law school from 1989 to 1992 at the University of Victoria. Emon now resides in Duncan, British Columbia, and I look forward to talking to him later. Please make him welcome.

Deputy Speaker: Responding is the member for Richmond Centre.

[6:45]

I'm actually rather surprised to hear the member for North Island raising this question, because the NDP has been in government for seven and a half years, and over that time they've only availed themselves of the opportunity to do P3s in a very few instances, which I'll get to a little later in the talk. I was pleased anyway to see that the government commissioned a study on P3s in 1996. In October of that year they received a report called "Building Partnerships." That led the advisory committee that put it together to prepare a best practices guide, and that came out one year ago. No doubt there will be more studies and reports in a year or two. But in the meantime, there's going to be a lot of missed opportunities.

I agree with the member: P3s are not a panacea. They are not a substitute to replace conventional financing. However, they do offer a viable and much-needed supplement. They are not and should not be just an off-the-balance-sheet technique for government. If properly used, P3s can produce cost and time savings.

The term "public-private partnership" is a general reference to situations where one or more governments -- sometimes federal-provincial or provincial-municipal or just a single one of them -- and elements of the private sector share the planning and/or the cost and/or the construction and/or, indeed, the ongoing operations. We can have planning, build, operate and possibly eventually transfer it back to the public sector.

Public-private partnerships are about creative approaches to the delivery of public services. They are not an exercise in creative accounting. Rather, they are a mix of public sector and private sector skills. Public-private partnerships are a marriage between the elements of the public and private sectors that permit a synergy to be achieved on capital projects as a result of exploiting the best features of both sectors.

I mentioned missed opportunities earlier, and I want to take just a little bit of time to make some suggestions to the government as to where they might use public-private partnerships. One of these missed opportunities, really, was the Lions Gate Bridge -- the repair or replacement of that bridge. Since 1993 the government has known of the urgent need for this project. The government even went out for requests for proposals. I think they received more than they expected, because there were more than a dozen responses.

There was even a meeting with a shortlist of that group of proponents, and the meeting was on the possibility of a P3 project. However, I'm told that during that meeting the then Minister of Highways made a statement, something along the line that this government did not believe in profit. Now, you can imagine. . . . We have the public sector on one side of the table, and we have the private sector on the other side. The private sector are businesses that are prompted by profit. If you tell them, "Well, we want you to partner with us, but there is to be no profit in it for you," I think you've lost their interest -- and that's precisely what happened.

We find now that the government is going out for requests for proposals, but the government will be paying for the whole shot. It won't be a public-private partnership arrangement -- not in the full sense of that word, anyway. This was a rather abrupt end, then, to that particular private interest in partnering with the government on the Lions Gate Bridge.

For P3s to work, there must be a perception -- at least a perception, if not more than that -- of the truth of a win-win for both the public and the private sector. We have a continuum, really, from one side that's a fully public project to one that's a fully private project. There's a lot of continuum between those two poles. Indeed, the government has made a few steps toward going to the private from the public. There was one mentioned earlier, about the Mount Washington Road. That's fairly close to fully public on that continuum; it's partway along to what we call a user-fee-funded arrangement. I guess the one that's closest to a fully public one is simply where your. . . .

I see that my time has run out. I would thank the member for his comments.

Deputy Speaker: The member for North Island concludes.

[ Page 11072 ]

I'd like just to talk a little more, quickly, about the IBM project and some of the things IBM will do in this private-public partnership. They're going to establish a new Pacific Development Centre in the lower mainland and grow it to about 200 professionals within an 18-month period. They're going to allocate a minimum of 50 percent of the provincial development work to local British Columbia firms, and they're going to establish a scholarship program providing up to fifty $10,000 information technology scholarships for British Columbia residents at B.C.'s secondary institutions. In addition, 5 percent of the value of subsequent sales of government products developed by the partnership would be allocated to develop this scholarship fund. I think that's absolutely outstanding.

Island Cogen Project is a great example of a private-public partnership. Initially it was a joint venture with Fletcher Challenge Energy and Westcoast Power, and now Westcoast Power is the main proponent there. Under the agreement, B.C. Hydro will purchase supplier power from the co-gen plant, and this agreement will mean B.C. Hydro will realize savings in delivering power to its Vancouver Island residents. Steam will be produced as a by-product of the plant. It will be utilized in the Fletcher Challenge mill and will make the mill more competitive in a tremendously competitive global market.

Gas infrastructure, as well, will realize increased utilization and efficiencies. There will be 200 person-years of employment in the Campbell River area -- 23 full-time jobs. An Allied Hydro Council apprenticeship program ensures equity employment training for local first nations and other minority groups and apprenticeship opportunities as well. It's all local buy, which is going to help out a lot of the different suppliers in the Campbell River area, and it's going to be a huge boost to the economy. It will have a two-year construction phase. As I said before, this project will make the mill more competitive in the global market. I think that's really important, given the pulp sector issues that we have in British Columbia today. It will produce -- and I think this is really interesting -- 240 megawatts of power. That's enough to power 200,000 residences within British Columbia or 19 percent of our total domestic power in B.C. It's quite an interesting technological project. On January 19, I'll be participating in the groundbreaking ceremony with many people in Campbell River. It'll be a great day for a fantastic high-tech project that's a public-private partnership, and it will benefit Campbell River.

CANADIAN WOMEN VOTERS CONGRESS

I speak today to the creation of the Canadian Women Voters Congress. Founded on July 1 of 1996, Canada Day, the congress is a grass-roots organization dedicated to providing all Canadian women with a strong and effective voice. Women constitute 52 percent of the population, yet their influence remains minimal. In order to affect the direction of governmental policies and action, a significant, resonant and influential presence is essential. This comes from the Canadian Women Voters Congress, whose group is situated in Vancouver, and their desire is to provide a national forum for women.

The congress is non-partisan, but it acknowledges that the way to be recognized is through the collective voice heard within the circles of government power. The vision for the congress is a nation where women are proactive in directing their governments and participating fully in the democratic process.

The functions of the congress include: to monitor the decision-makers to ensure that bureaucrats, politicians and government agencies conduct themselves as employees sensitive to and respectful of the needs of their employer, the public -- the taxpayer, hon. Speaker; to promote the expectation and the right of open accountability to the voters; to encourage qualified candidates for public office to express their philosophy of governance and to explain what they hope to achieve in office; to support primarily those who are interested in closing the gender gap and in becoming spokespersons for women's concerns that are not separate from the national interest but are one and the same; to examine issues and stimulate discussion in order to expand awareness of the implications and consequences of political proposals; to identify and research proposals and decisions that will affect the health and status of Canadian women; to initiate and implement discussions uncovering the voices of women across the nation; to gather and disseminate information to decision-makers, providing a channel that funnels women's voices to those who are in a position to effect change and providing coaching through education and information to aspiring women candidates. These are the functions of this organization.

They intend to put this opportunity for British Columbia women in place this spring, and they intend to model their proposal on the proposal that has gone forward at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, over the past five years. This is an opportunity that will be available at the downtown campus of Simon Fraser University. It is indeed an opportunity for women to come together and learn some skills, and for elected members of this Legislature as well.

Again I will honour our newest member, the member for Parksville-Qualicum -- and North Nanaimo. She and other members of this chamber will be asked to participate in this forum, which is upcoming, and to share their wisdom on these questions and also to be supportive of young women who will follow us into these seats in this very chamber and in chambers across the country. I support that. I trust that it is a concept that is well-supported by members of this chamber, and I look forward to the member opposite's comments on this very timely topic.

E. Gillespie: I'd like to thank the member for Richmond East for raising this issue in this House, particularly today. Only yesterday I was visiting Royston Elementary School, speaking with grades 4, 5 and 6 students. One of the questions I'm always asked when I visit schools is: what is it like to be a woman serving in the Legislature of British Columbia? What is it like to be a woman working in politics? My answers have changed over the two and a half years that I've been serving in this chamber, and I'll talk about that a little bit right now.

[ Page 11073 ]

Women have a proud history of effecting change. The motto for the Canadian Women Voters Congress is: "There is a way for every woman in Canada to effect change." But we do have a proud history of effecting change as members of families, as members of communities, as consumers and certainly as workers. Women do have the right to vote; women do have the opportunity to seek elected office. But, of course, there are impediments that women face in seeking elected office, as they do in many other aspects of our society.

[7:00]

Women are looking for equality of opportunity. That has been the struggle of women forever: to seek equality of opportunity -- opportunity to participate in their communities as equals, to have access to educational and career opportunities and to have equal pay for work of equal value.

You know, my idealistic youth is further and further away from me. I have to look back almost 30 years now. I have a lot to thank my parents for in terms of the era in which I was born. I have a lot to thank women for, women who came before me and who opened doors for me -- doors which I never even perceived as being closed. I have to hold that responsibility very close to me: that it is always my responsibility to continue to hold those doors open for women who will follow.

Never did it occur to me that there were doors that would not be open to me and to my contemporaries -- places I could not go if I so chose. Never did I expect that I would be considered a less valuable employee than a male counterpart. Never did I expect that I would have to face a decision about an unwanted pregnancy. Never did I expect that my opinion would be discounted simply because of my gender.

Do women in elected office make a difference? Do they effect change? You bet they do. We've certainly seen evidence of that in this province over the last 30 years, particularly since 1991, with the establishment of the Ministry of Women's Equality.

I know my time will be very limited, so I'm just going to mention some of the kinds of areas in which the Ministry of Women's Equality has taken an active role in leading. We look at developments in affordable and quality child care for families across this province. Economic equality. . . . I regret that I don't have time.

I just want to say to the students of Royston Elementary once more that yes, there is a place for women -- and, as a matter of fact, for all citizens in our province -- in elected politics. We must always work to keep those doors open, and I commend the Canadian Women Voters Congress for the initiatives that they're taking.

L. Reid: I thank the member opposite, the member for Comox, for her comments. Certainly it's important that all of us who interact with young women on a regular basis, whether it be in elementary school settings or at town hall meetings. . .that those who come out to be interested in the political process actually do believe that they're supported in that process. I firmly believe that.

I'm asking today that each member of this chamber encourage the participation of young women in their riding, to take part in this forum. It will be the first ever in British Columbia. The dates are April 29 through May 2, 1999. Again, it's hosted at the downtown campus of Simon Fraser University, and it's hosted by the Centre for the Study of Government and Business at the downtown campus. So the folks there have come together to craft a curriculum which is all about focusing on this career choice, politics, being one that's uncommon for women, and, hopefully, making people more aware of the necessity for that but also decreasing the discomfort around that choice and so getting people more interested in taking on a career in politics.

Certainly they are going to talk about strategy, tactics, logistics, how to convey information and how to be part of public speaking scenarios. They are also going to look at some case studies that basically take information and learn to apply it to a variety of settings. All of this will happen over a three-and-a-half-day period. I mentioned earlier that the program is modelled after the Yale University women's campaign school. I will, with the Speaker's indulgence, give the telephone number so that people can make contact with these groups. Canadian Women Voters Congress: 878-8228. The contact for the women's campaign school at Simon Fraser University is 291-5078.

I would be delighted, come the spring session of this Legislature, to know that each member of this chamber has sent someone from a constituency in their corner of the province, so that we can have women from every corner of this province skilled, supported and given some opportunities to go forward and bring some useful discussion to the career of politics. I would like nothing better, as a British Columbia legislator, than to know that some regard has been returned to the profession of politics. All of us have a role to play in ensuring that women feel just as comfortable in this chamber as our male counterparts who have occupied these august chambers for far longer. I look forward to everyone's participation, and I certainly thank the hon. Speaker for my time today.

Hon. D. Streifel: I thank the members for their thoughtful statements this evening, and I move this House do now adjourn.

Hon. D. Streifel moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 7:06 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1999: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada