Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

[ Page 11925 ]

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

Prayers.

L. Reid: In light of our recognition of volunteers, it gives me great pleasure today to welcome to the precinct of this building some individuals representing the Canadian Guide Dogs for the Blind here in Victoria. Joining us in the gallery today are Gerry Cafferky, who is accompanied by Ritchie, a golden retriever in training; Glenys Hughes; Bill Pyatt; and Steve Baird. Superb volunteers make an enormous contribution to the community.

I would invite the members of this Legislature to come out to Beaver Lake on Sunday, May 30, around 9:30 a.m., and see those animals in training, who one day will be seeing-eye dogs for British Columbians.

[1410]

J. Weisbeck: Would the House please welcome two members from the Kelowna branch of the Canadian Home Builders Association: its president, Ray Wynsouw; and the president-elect, Mike Ohman.

W. Hartley: I have a couple of introductions to make today. Visiting us are a number of young people. There are 22 grade 5 students, along with ten adults and their teacher, Mr. Watts, from the Life Christian School in Tacoma, Washington. Would members please make them welcome.

Also in the precinct, and in my office earlier today for a visit, are Mohammed Rafiq and his wife Andun Rafiq. Mohammed is here to be honoured for serving 25 years with the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. They live in Surrey, and they're involved in a farming operation in Maple Ridge. Would members please make them welcome.

T. Nebbeling: I see a familiar face in the gallery again today. She is the mayor of Squamish, Corinne Lonsdale, who is in Victoria once again to fight on behalf of her community. She's dealing with some of the economic problems we face in Squamish. She's a fierce fighter, and I hope the House will make her really welcome.

S. Orcherton: Joining us in the gallery today is an individual who works very hard on behalf of working people in our community and greater Victoria. Joining us is Mr. Stu Shields, the president of Canadian Auto Workers Local 333, representing workers who operate the transit system in Victoria. He's here today after recently concluding positive negotiations in a settlement regarding the transit workers. I'd ask the House to make him very, very welcome to these chambers.

T. Stevenson: In the gallery today is my new constituency assistant. She's been with me for about six months now, and her name is Nafysa Lalani. I'm particularly pleased to have her join my staff, because she brings some unique experience. She's a young person who's been active in the Young New Democrats for many years, and she also comes from the Ismaili community. Of course, in my community there are many Ismailis as well as young people, and that's a help for me. I ask members to make her welcome.

Hon. I. Waddell: I ask the House to join with me in congratulating YVR -- that is, the Vancouver Airport -- its board chair, Graham Clarke, and CEO, Larry Berg, and their staff on the opening today of the new south terminal at the Vancouver International Airport. That terminal will take 157,000 people a year -- many of them tourists -- to the coast, to the interior and to the north of British Columbia, this Super, Natural province. I'd like the House to join with me in congratulating the people on this great opening today.

Oral Questions

RAIWIND POWER PROJECT

[1415]

The Speaker: Minister. . . .

Hon. M. Farnworth: . . .today, but internal issues in Pakistan continue to play a significant role in what's happening there.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Matsqui.

M. de Jong: Madam Speaker, what the minister said a year ago and what he has said consistently is that British Columbians are going to see a healthy return on their investment, and that ain't going to happen. The problem is that everything the minister has said and continues to say is inconsistent with what you hear. When you talk to the water and

[ Page 11926 ]

Hon. M. Farnworth: One of the interesting things that that member forgets is that when he raised these questions before, we told him that we were not exposed to the tune of $10 million but that it was insured. He conveniently forgets to tell that.

On his trip to Pakistan, it also came to our attention that he spoke to the people in Pakistan. He spoke to business communities in Pakistan. Do you know what he told them? He said: "British Columbia is a great place to invest." So my question to the member for Matsqui is: is the. . .

The Speaker: Minister, no questions.

Hon. M. Farnworth: . . .message he gives the people in Pakistan, 10,000 miles away -- that B.C. is a great place to invest -- the truth, or is it the message that he likes to try and give the people here in British Columbia? Which is it?

The Speaker: Minister, thank you.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The fact of the matter is that this is a great province to invest in.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. . . .

Second supplementary, the member for Matsqui.

M. de Jong: Actually, hon. Speaker, the minister almost gets it right. What I said to the people of Pakistan was that British Columbia was going to be a great place to invest after the next election.

You know, I listen to these NDPers, and it occurs to me that you'd have to be an NDPer to describe as successful a power project that hasn't generated one red cent of profit and is actually paying for the power they need to keep the lights on. So let me ask the minister this: this project that's now losing upwards of $80,000 (U.S.) per day. . . . There is now discussion that they are now negotiating for the sale of power directly to India, as a means of somehow salvaging this fiasco. Would the minister stand in the House today and provide British Columbians with an update on the status of those negotiations with India?

[1420]

Hon. member, let's be clear. You stood up in Pakistan and said that British Columbia was and is a great place to invest.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

I recognize the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain.

C. Clark: You know, only the bright lights in the NDP on that side of the House would think that it was a good deal to build a power plant in the middle of nowhere for customers who don't need the power and then, if they did, couldn't afford to pay for it.

Now, here we've got a minister who has gambled $10 million of taxpayers' money on a shady deal that's losing $80,000 a day. Can the minister explain for us how he expects taxpayers to make money on a deal that's losing more money every single day than even the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin can charge in expenses over the course of a whole year?

Hon. M. Farnworth: You know, hon. Speaker, the hon. member says that we're gambling. Well, the only gambling that has taken place in this province took place at the Liberal convention on the weekend, where the take at the Grand Casino in Kelowna was up 120 percent over the weekend before. That's the only gambling that took place.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order.

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

C. Clark: That's further proof, I guess, that if you give the NDP enough extension cord, they'll hang the taxpayer out to dry -- right? That's what happened in Raiwind. We've got a project that's losing $80,000 a day of taxpayers' money, and this minister said that taxpayers wouldn't be on the hook for a penny. If he is so confident that taxpayers are going to come out of this ahead, will he guarantee for us today that taxpayers won't lose one red cent on this ill-conceived, politically driven pet project of the Premier?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Hydro has been working with SNC-Lavalin to ensure that taxpayers' interests in this province are represented. That's why I stated earlier that the $10 million that the opposition likes to talk about has been insured. We have been ensuring that our interests are protected.

The fact of the matter is that there are discussions currently underway with the government of Pakistan, as there are with every other major industrial company that's involved in the independent power production plants in Pakistan. The fact of the matter is that there is a lot of work being done. We have been very happy with the role played, for example, by Canada's embassy in Pakistan, which has worked hard to represent the interests of British Columbia. So the right thing is being done right now.

REGULATION OF OVERWEIGHT VEHICLES

[ Page 11927 ]

The letter goes on to refer to a regulation brought in in 1989 while I was in cabinet. The implication is that the minister is simply dealing with a regulation for which I was directly responsible. Can the minister confirm that the 1989 regulation was in fact an amendment that exempted vehicles manufactured before August 1989 and those licensed before June 30, 1990? Can the minister also confirm that these amendments are still in effect?

[1425]

I want, though, to pick up, if I might, on one point made in the question and just clarify that no, this minister cannot ensure that the RCMP do or do not enforce a regulation. Indeed, it would be inappropriate for me as a minister to try and assume that responsibility.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Peace River South.

J. Weisgerber: I'm disappointed with the minister insomuch as in the supplemental that I drafted, I had a line which suggested that this minister was a very thorough individual and would never sign a letter that he didn't understand the contents of. Foolish me! The letter also suggests and warns owners that overloaded trucks can result in higher business costs when inappropriate use results in invalid warranties or lack of insurance coverage. Can the minister advise British Columbia truck owners of circumstances in which ICBC might deny coverage because a truck exceeded the gross vehicle weight rating?

Hon. D. Lovick: I appreciate the direction of the questions; it's nice to have some substantive questions in the chamber for a change. I want to say that I think he's asking me, frankly, to engage in a bit of hypothetical thinking, and I'm reluctant to do that. I want to simply make this point: the legal advice that the corporation has been given, as reported to me, is that if indeed they do not enforce the regulation that is now in fact in place, then conceivably they could be subject to legal liabilities. Therefore they're proceeding cautiously.

Similarly, the other dimension of the question has to do with safety. If the story we are getting is that trucks are systematically and consistently overloaded, in some cases much beyond the warranty specifications and so forth. . . .

The Speaker: Minister, would you finish up, please?

Hon. D. Lovick: Madam Speaker, I am simply saying that we are conducting the policy we have for safety purposes and legal reasons.

RAIWIND POWER PROJECT

Hon. M. Farnworth: The only Technicolor dream machine is that member's memory or mind; he thinks he's somehow something more special than everybody else. I'll tell you that the answer to his question is no, it's not gone. The fact of the matter, as I told you once before. . .

The Speaker: Through the Chair.

Hon. M. Farnworth: . . .is that it's insured through the export development agency. So $6 million of that is insured.

The second point I'll make again is that there is a contract that is currently under negotiation.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

[1430]

The fact of the matter is that we are working with our partners.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. M. Farnworth: We have been working with the Canadian embassy. We have been working with every other international to ensure that these things are protected.

The Speaker: The bell ends question period.

Orders of the Day

Motions on Notice

TIME ALLOCATION ON BILL 51

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members, come to order, please.

[ Page 11928 ]

The Speaker: Come to order, please. Come to order, all members.

Hon. G. Clark: It's my pleasure to rise and support the motion before us, hon. Speaker.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members.

Hon. G. Clark: I would like to spend some time talking about why we are moving this motion at this time. We have had, to date, 116 hours of debate on the Nisga'a treaty.

The Speaker: Mr. Premier. . . .

Hon. G. Clark: Oh, I apologize. Hon. Speaker, I move the motion on the order paper standing in the name of the hon. Minister of Finance.

[Be it resolved that further to the oral notice given by the Government House Leader on April 12, 1999, pursuant to Practice Recommendation No. 3, the following provisions shall, unless otherwise ordered, apply to the proceedings on Bill 51 intituled Nisga'a Final Agreement Act:

1. Proceedings in Committee of the Whole shall be brought to a conclusion by twelve o'clock noon on April 22, 1999, without any question being put save on the motion to report the Bill complete to the House, upon adoption of which all sections, schedules, amendments in the name of the Minister, preambles and title of the Bill shall be deemed to have been adopted in Committee of the Whole;

2. For the purposes of Bill 51, the House shall proceed forthwith to Report Stage and Third Reading of Bill 51 as its first order of business for the afternoon sitting on April 22, 1999, immediately following Oral Questions;

3. Proceedings on Report Stage and Third Reading shall be brought to a conclusion by 6:00 p.m., April 22, 1999, and every question necessary for the disposal of Report Stage and Third Reading of Bill 51 then under consideration shall be put forthwith by the Speaker without further debate or amendment.

4. Save as provided herein, proceedings pursuant to this order shall not be subject to provisions of Standing Orders relating to times and days of sittings of the House.]

The Speaker: Members, members.

Hon. G. Clark: It's my pleasure to rise and support this motion. We have spent 116 hours of debate on the Nisga'a treaty in this chamber -- more debate on the Nisga'a treaty than on any other bill in the history of British Columbia. The previous record for debate in this chamber on a bill was in 1998 for the Labour Code amendment, which took 108 hours of debate. For the Public Sector Restraint Act in 1983, the debate was 95-1/4 hours. The 1964 federal flag debate, which is often seen as a historic debate, the longest in the history of Canada, was 103 hours. And, to date, we have spent 116 hours of debate on the Nisga'a treaty.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, come to order. It's very difficult to hear what the debate is with all the interruptions. The interruptions are not appropriate.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members. . . .

Hon. G. Clark: This motion before us is, in effect, a time allocation for this bill. It is not closure in the normal sense of the word. It's important for the people of British Columbia to understand that. A closure motion. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members. . . . Premier, if you'd take your seat just for a moment, please.

I would like to draw attention to the fact that if. . . . Both sides expect to have their points heard in some silence and with some respect.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I beg your pardon, hon. members. The Chair has something to say here, and I expect respect for the Chair in this chamber. I caution the members again: all expect to be listened to in some silence and expect to extend the same courtesy to the others. There will be time for debate in this chamber. Contradictions and interruptions are not appreciated.

Hon. G. Clark: It's interesting to see the kind of spoiled-children attitude across the way.

Interjections.

Hon. G. Clark: Listen to them. I hope the people of British Columbia are watching and can hear the kind of contempt that the members opposite have. This is precisely why we have brought in time allocation on this bill, because they're not interested in a debate on the substance of the Nisga'a treaty. They're only interested in playing politics every single day in this chamber.

[1435]

Hon. G. Clark: Listen to them, hon. Speaker.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, this is not tolerable. I think we'll wait for a while. Time will be used in debate or in interruptions or in rulings from the Chair. But it would seem to me that this chamber would prefer some debate -- in which case, the rules of this chamber are parliamentary rules. Everyone in this chamber knows what they are. I encourage all members to recognize those rules. A motion is on the floor, and the motion is a duly put motion. I insist that there be some respect while it is being addressed.

Interjections.

[ Page 11929 ]

Hon. G. Clark: It's interesting. Time allocation is used in Ottawa repeatedly -- three times this year alone. Closure in their friends'. . . . Ralph Klein in Alberta has used closure 15 times in the last 17 months.

We have debated the Nisga'a treaty in this chamber longer than any bill in the history of British Columbia. Ordinary closure -- which is, without notice, moving the cessation of debate -- is not what we are doing here. Some ten days ago, having already consumed record debate, we put this House on notice that we intended to pass this treaty at this time. When the motion was tabled in this House, the members opposite know that we said we would sit evenings, we would sit weekends and we would sit whenever they would like. But after a record amount of debate, we intend to pass the Nisga'a treaty, and that's what we're doing.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, it is impossible to hear any of the debate with all the interruptions.

Hon. G. Clark: Unlike an ordinary closure motion, which is not debatable, time allocation motions are themselves debatable and offer the opposition the opportunity to make their case on the record, instead of heckling like school kids. They have the opportunity to stand up in this House and make their case for the record.

Hon. Speaker, we have been as upfront as possible throughout this process, including putting this motion on the order paper. We have given notice. We have already debated a record amount of time. We've given notice of the time for when we intend to pass it. We offered cooperation with the opposition to sit as long as they wanted to debate this treaty, and they have chosen to reject that, because their real agenda is to play politics and oppose the Nisga'a treaty. Everybody in British Columbia knows that.

The Liberal Aboriginal Affairs critic said they would end negotiations right now with all aboriginal groups in this province, if they were to form the government. We know their agenda. Their agenda is to oppose the treaty process; their agenda is opposed to the Nisga'a treaty. Their agenda is to filibuster this treaty without debate, so that they can say to all of their friends out there that they are fighting this because they don't intend to conclude this treaty.

We have been more than reasonable, more than fair. I ask anyone on the other side, any British Columbian, to say that a record amount of time, 116 hours of debate to date, with offers for night sittings or weekend sittings or anything that's required to fully canvass this debate, is not fair and reasonable. The time has come and the time is now to pass this historic treaty.

Hon. Speaker, 111 years ago the Nisga'a came to this chamber; 111 years ago they met with then Premier Smithe. They sat down with the then Premier and said it was time to negotiate a land claim, as King George had already commanded. They sat down with the Premier of the day and asked him to sit down in good faith, with respect, and negotiate a land claim. They were turned away from this chamber 111 years ago.

[1440]

In 1971 they went to the Supreme Court of Canada to assert title to their traditional territories. They were successful in the 1970s in laying out a case which the modern land claims process is all about. That process is very simple. British Columbia is the only province in Canada where aboriginal people never signed treaties. They never gave away their rights; they never gave away their land. They never sat down and negotiated a treaty at all. Through 111 years, they have kept that dream alive. They have been patient.

After 1971 the federal government chose to sit down and negotiate with the Nisga'a. Still they could not get resolution, because those people, like those across the way. . . . They want to put their heads in the sand and deny aboriginal rights, deny the law of the country, deny the constitution of Canada. In 1991 that member over there -- who was then Aboriginal Affairs minister, the member for Peace River South -- and the then Premier Bill Vander Zalm made a very historic decision. That decision was for British Columbia to join the negotiations in 1991.

For eight years there have been intense negotiations; there have been intense debates. I challenge anyone across the way to say that this has not been discussed in British Columbia, that this has not been debated. It has been debated. You may not have heard, but the Nisga'a have been debating this issue for 111 years in this province. They have not wavered. They have done so with respect, without confrontation, without violence. They have done it consistently for 111 years.

For the last eight, we have been in intense negotiations. We had an agreement-in-principle before the last election. Interestingly, before the last election those members and that Leader of the Opposition said that they were in favour of the agreement-in-principle. But now, to seek votes and to play politics, they've changed their position. Now they're pandering to the worst elements in British Columbia: they're pandering to intolerance. That pandering to intolerance is shameful, and we see it every day in this chamber. If there are any real Liberals across the way, any people who believe in social justice or compassion or aboriginal rights, they should stand up now and declare themselves, instead of pandering to the worst instincts in British Columbia.

[1445]

[ Page 11930 ]

We underestimated their contempt for aboriginal people. We underestimated their contempt for the process. We underestimated the fact that they want to betray all of those negotiations now. They stood in this House day after day and filibustered. We have had ample time for debate: 116 hours. We have offered more time. We gave ten days' notice, and we said: "On everything that's important in this bill, we are open for debate and discussion, and we look forward to that debate and discussion." We said that we'd sit evenings; we said that we'd sit weekends. We said that we'd sit whenever they wanted but that we intended to pass this treaty. After waiting 111 years, the Nisga'a people deserve better than what these Liberals are putting them through. After respectful negotiations, I say very clearly to the people of British Columbia: the time for talking is over. The time to pass this treaty is now. And I'm proud of it.

Hon. Speaker, I'd like to move some amendments to the notice of motion, which will allow for further votes on each section of the bill. I move:

[That the motion be amended by deleting all of the words after "act" in line 3 and by substituting therefor the following:

1) At 10:00 a.m., April 22, 1999, during proceedings on Bill 51, the Chair of Committee of the Whole shall forthwith put the questions, seriatim, on sections 3 to 10 of the bill and thereafter put a single question to complete the committee stage, to dispose of all remaining sections, schedules, amendments in the name of the Minister, the preamble, the title and the motion to report the Bill complete, such questions to be decided without amendment or debate

2) The House shall proceed to Report Stage and Third Reading of Bill 51 forthwith upon receipt of a report from the Committee of the Whole that the bill is complete.

3) Proceedings on Report Stage and Third Reading shall be brought to a conclusion by 5:45 p.m., April 22, 1999, and every question necessary for the disposal of Report Stage and Third Reading of Bill 51 then under consideration shall be put forthwith by the Speaker without further debate or amendment.

4) In proceedings on Bill 51, where a division is called, the Chair or the Speaker, as the case may be, shall put the question two minutes after the division has been called.

5) Save as otherwise provided, proceedings pursuant to this order shall not be subject to revisions of the Standing Orders relating to times and days of sittings of the House.]

[1450]

The Speaker: Members, the motion. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: The amendment has been put, and copies of it are available from the Chair.

I gather we have an introduction from the Minister of Advanced Education.

Hon. A. Petter: I seek leave to make an introduction, hon. Speaker.

Leave granted.

The Speaker: While the introduction is being made, perhaps the amendment could be circulated.

Hon. A. Petter: I am pleased to introduce some visitors today from my constituency of Saanich South. There are a number of students from a grade 11 and 12 class at St. Andrew's Regional High School who have just joined us for this very historic debate, together with their teacher, Mme. Weaver. I would like the House to join me in making them very, very welcome.

The Speaker: I recognize the member for Matsqui.

Interjections.

The Speaker: All members, come to order. I have recognized the member for Matsqui, and he now has the floor.

M. de Jong: An extraordinary motion and an extraordinary amendment to that motion. I am going to move that the House recess for 15 minutes so that we can review the document.

The Speaker: I'll acknowledge 15 minutes. We'll stand recessed for 15 minutes, and I'll ring the bells.

The House recessed from 2:52 p.m. to 3:07 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

On the amendment.

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, this debate started on November 30, 1998, and at that time we were led to believe by the Premier, by the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and by the House Leader that there would be a full and complete debate of this bill.

This amendment and this motion are the most menacing, autocratic, undemocratic assault on this place, the B.C. Legislature, in the history of the province of British Columbia. For the first time ever, hon. Speaker and all those members opposite, the people's elected representatives in this province will be denied the right to vote -- to even discuss, to ask questions or to vote -- on this important piece of legislation. For the first time in the history of the province of British Columbia, for the first time in the history of Canada, people will be prohibited from voting on each and every clause of a change of this nature.

Once this treaty is passed into law -- as a former Attorney General of this province has said, a former New Democrat who cared about the law, who cared about the Legislature, who cared about the role of elected representatives, the MLAs in this House. . . . As he pointed out, this law will be locked in constitutional concrete forever. This government wants to close down debate and close out discussion and close out the people of British Columbia, and that is wrong.

I'd just like the members to think back about why it was that we sought elected positions. Why is that we seek to

[ Page 11931 ]

[1510]

I had the opportunity of working and living in a place that didn't have a democracy. Let's think about what a democracy is. A democracy is about a place that respects the rights of individuals; it respects the rights of minorities. Yes, it believes in the rule of the majority, but it understands that part of that is to protect minorities and to understand that minority rights are equally important. That's one of the things that this Legislature has an obligation to protect. This Legislature has an obligation to protect and defend the rights of minorities against the tyranny of the majority.

Today this government has decided to shunt that aside, to forget about that and to do something for the first time in the history of the province: to close off debate and discussion. That is simply incorrect. There are many, many questions left to be asked with regard to this. Let's be very clear, as we look at these amendments and as we look at this move by the government, that there are many questions from many people in the province of British Columbia that remain to be asked.

There is no urgency here. The Premier was correct in this regard at least: it has been 111 years. It was wrong to slam the door on the Nisga'a. No one disagrees with that. Many of the things that we did to aboriginal people in Canada were wrong. That's why one of the things that we advocated on this side of the House was a simple, straightforward apology. It was something that British Columbians advocated; it was something that the standing committee advocated. It is something that is not included in this treaty, and people in British Columbia have a right to know why the government is not willing to apologize to aboriginal people through treaties, as was recommended by the people of British Columbia.

So what's the hurry? This government knows, and the people of this province know, that this debate has been going forward. They understand that the questions that have been asked have been legitimate questions. The government's own representatives, their own ministers, have said that. What's the hurry? Well, it's clear what the hurry is. The hurry is this Premier's personal political agenda. The hurry may well be that caucus's agenda to get this Premier out the door of the Legislature as quickly as they can, but that is not a reason to close down debate. It is not a reason to change the fundamental principles of this institution. This is just politics. Politics is always what has driven that side of the House, and that is wrong.

The public has been shut out of this debate from the start, and for the Premier or that group to think otherwise is wrong. The standing committee was established. We remember that. I remember that the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture was the Chair before he was elevated to his grand new position. We were supposed to go around. . . . I can recall being told in the election that the standing committee would go around. . . . The Premier himself said to people: "We're going to listen to British Columbians. We're going to understand them. We're willing to change this" -- until the standing committee was appointed, until the election was over. Then what we were told was: "There will be no changes."

That standing committee was going around the province under false pretences, because the people were clearly being told. . . . This wasn't to listen; this wasn't to learn. This was to sell something. This was to tell people what they were going to get, because the Premier said that there would be no changes in this treaty. Then we were told: "Don't worry about the standing committee" -- that group of MLAs who spent their time going and speaking to. . . . "Don't worry about them, because we've set up the Treaty Negotiation Advisory Committee" -- 31 independent, non-partisan British Columbians there to explain what was taking place in the treaty chapter by chapter, so that we could look at and understand what the impacts of various decisions were going to be. The undertaking was clear; it was crystal-clear. No treaty would be signed; nothing would be initialled until the Treaty Negotiation Advisory Committee had had the opportunity to review every single chapter.

[1515]

Then we were told. . . . We all recall hearing this, and certainly many aboriginal communities remember hearing this: overlapping treaties would be resolved before we moved forward. The Premier makes his impassioned plea for the Nisga'a treaty. We know that the Tahltan are worried about it; we know that the Gitxsan are worried about it. We know from the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs that they're worried about it. They are predicting long-term litigation as a result of this. Throw it out. Forget about them; forget about those other aboriginal communities, because they're not quite as important as this Premier's personal political agenda. Once again they misled the people of British Columbia. Once again they misled the aboriginal communities of British Columbia, as well as the non-aboriginal communities.

Then we were told, when this was introduced last July, that the government was going to have a non-partisan information program. It was going to cost $2.3 million. Then we found out that it wasn't going to be non-partisan after all; it was going to be political propaganda, pure and simple. When we came into this House, we found out it wasn't $2.3 million; it was $8 million of propaganda. As we've gone through this debate, what we've discovered is that many of the points in that propaganda program were not the truth. We found out that this in fact is not going to be a municipal form of government. We found out in fact that the $490 million was not going to be enough to cover all of the costs of this agreement.

Then we were told by the Premier that there would be full debate, clause by clause. Every clause would be debated.

[ Page 11932 ]

So they brought the House back at the end of November -- the last day of November. Then the government adjourned it. There was an agreement between House Leaders that we would meet at the end of January and meet right through, because this was an important matter of public concern that we should debate here in the Legislature. Then, again, the Government House Leader decided to break her word on that. So we came back earlier, because it was so important that we deal with this quickly. When that happened, what happened? Ten days into the debate, the Premier and the Deputy Premier were not willing to stand here, answer questions and be held to account for their disastrous management of the Ferry Corporation. So they closed down the entire House, because of their personal politics.

Then we had a new Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. We were told that it would be two weeks before we were back in this House to debate this issue that's critical to the people of British Columbia -- two weeks. Two weeks expanded to ten weeks. Suddenly, the middle of February became the far end of March.

Now we have the government saying how critical this is, how critical the timing of this is. The only thing critical to this government is the timing of the resignation of that Premier. That's the only thing that anyone on that side of the House cares about.

Now we have a motion that drops the guillotine on democratic discussion, on our effective House rules, on the public's right to know exactly what's taking place with this treaty. It is a desecration of democracy. Every member on that side of the House should be ashamed of themselves for even thinking of supporting it.

These were the words of the Premier of British Columbia. Now, I understand that many people don't believe what this Premier says. But at times it is possible for people to rise up above the norm, and this should be one of them. This should be a time when people could count on the government, on the Premier, to deal with something that's supposedly so important and is telling us the truth. This is what he said on November 10: "It could take a few months to pass." We have not been debating this for a few months. The government closed this House down for a few months; that's what happened. "It could take a few months. . . . We will give the opposition the chance to debate each and every clause." Secondly: "We will carry on to debate the sections of the legislation as long as it takes." That's not the Premier's political agenda; it's not the political agenda of the cabinet ministers who are looking for his leadership. It is the agenda of the people of British Columbia; it is the opposition's agenda to make sure that this is fully, diligently and wholesomely debated in this House so that we know what's taken place.

[1520]

Well, I've got news for the government, hon. Speaker. There are 35 members of this House that want to debate this clause by clause on behalf of the people of British Columbia, and it is wrong and undemocratic for this government to close down debate. This Legislature is a place for debate. Let's all be very clear: where there are no questions, no answers and no discussion, there is no democracy. What this government is doing is undermining and undercutting a precious institution in the province, and every member opposite has a responsibility to their constituents, the people of British Columbia, to maintain and in fact to work to restore the integrity of this institution, as opposed to undermining it.

We have discussed 11 of the 22 chapters of the treaty. This government is very clear that they do not expect questions to be asked on the administration of justice, on the Indian Act transition, on the cash costs and loan repayments. They're not interested in answering questions on the way transfer payments will work and on the ongoing costs to all taxpayers of the Nisga'a government. They're not interested in answering questions on the way taxation will be applied to the Nisga'a, on the return of cultural artifacts and on the designation of heritage sites. They're not interested in answering questions on local and regional government relationships, on the incredibly complex process of dispute resolution, on the rules surrounding eligibility and ineligibility of enrolment, on how government can even be sure that the ratification process has worked properly and on the implementation process. This government is not willing to answer those questions in a fulsome manner; it is not willing to answer those questions in a forthright manner. In fact, what they are saying is that they want to close off discussion of all of those questions.

In addition, this government has decided that we do not have the right -- that the people of British Columbia do not have the right -- to ask questions on the side agreements on taxation, fiscal transfers and how the Nisga'a's own-source revenues will be factored into cost transfers. We won't be allowed to ask one question or even have a vote on 67 sections of this settlement legislation.

What I think is important for everyone to understand is that what happens in this assembly matters. I know there are days when people think: well, it's just another place. It's not. What happens here matters. Consider what we've learned in the discussions that we've had so far. The Attorney General has admitted that the Nisga'a government is not a municipal-style government, as the government has said it has been. He said: "The best I can say is that is a political description of Nisga'a government. It is not a legal description." It is not a municipal style of government.

[1525]

[ Page 11933 ]

We've learned that the Nisga'a propaganda campaign, far from costing $2.3 million, cost $8 million to the taxpayers of British Columbia, and not one dime -- not one cent -- of the money for the Nisga'a treaty implementation office has been spent on treaty implementation. We've learned that the government agents have been misused to help the government snoop on local media coverage of the treaty. We've learned that the NDP has no idea about the cost of its sweeping new requirements for consultation. In fact, we know that the government has no idea how those consultative processes will work. And we've learned that the NDP has quietly rejected its own policy of requiring that overlapping claims be settled.

What else isn't the government telling us? What else isn't the NDP telling the people of British Columbia? What else are we not going to learn about until it's too late? I'm surprised the government doesn't look at this as an opportunity to solve problems before they occur. This is a government that brings back pieces of legislation literally every session to improve on the massive mistakes it's made in legislation that it's introduced earlier. I can't remember a session when we haven't had to deal with amendments to the Forest Practices Code, in spite of the fact that the government said that they had it all right -- and there were 80 amendments when it was first brought in.

This government always thinks that it knows best. In fact, they think that government can do whatever it wants. The problem is that it's the rights of British Columbians that are damaged when anyone in government thinks that that can happen. What else isn't the government telling us? What else won't we know until it's too late to change it? How much will the Nisga'a government cost the B.C. taxpayers? We won't know, because we can't even ask the question. How will taxes be applied to the Nisga'a or to non-Nisga'a living on Nisga'a lands? We can't say for sure, because we haven't been able to ask the questions. How will the dispute resolution process work? We don't know, and we're not allowed to ask questions.

Why else does this debate matter? This treaty is forever. It's done; it's finished. These debates are crucial. They're crucial to the purposeful interpretation of what's taking place in the treaty; they're crucial to the courts. This government should know that the courts use debates in legislatures and in parliaments to determine what exactly was meant when things were said. They use it for amplification. Indeed, the courts have said that if you want to protect the interests of British Columbians and Canadians, it's important to have that full legislative debate.

The only reason that the case about whether or not this is constitutional is not before the courts today is because the courts actually thought there would be a full debate of all of the items in this legislation. I guess, hon. Speaker, we have to ask ourselves, when an elder like Frank Calder holds up a red flag to the government and says, "Be careful. . . ." When an elder like Frank Calder, a Nisga'a statesman, stands up and says to the government, "Do not impose closure," surely they can listen to someone like Frank Calder and say: "You're right. We will open this up. We will finish debate in an orderly and straightforward manner."

I think we have to ask ourselves today in this House: where, even, is the Treaty Commission today? The Treaty Commission has a responsibility to all the people of British Columbia as well. They should be protecting the people of British Columbia's right to a full, open and honest debate in this House, and I would expect to hear from them shortly with regard to this draconian, unjustified measure by this government.

[1530]

This is what Eugene Forsey said:

"What the pipeline debate revealed, above all, was that the government and the presiding officers alike had simply no understanding of the basic principles of parliamentary government. They had no understanding that it rests on discussion. Their use of closure and their treatment of the bill in committee showed that. . . . They had no understanding that parliamentary government rests on the rule of law, that the government must not break the rules any more than any private member, that majorities are not enough, that they must be majorities acting within the rules."

The government's abuse of closure in that debate and in this debate is significant, because this motion, this amendment, is even more abusive to this Legislature than you can imagine or than they ever would have imagined in the fifties. To use Eugene Forsey's words:

"[This government has] no understanding of the sacredness of an opposition, of the fact that the decisive difference between parliamentary democracy and 'people's democracy' is the existence of a freely functioning opposition, an opposition with the means of becoming the government, peacefully, decently and in order. [They have] no understanding of the sacredness of the office of Speaker. They saw him transformed from the servant and shield of the House into a creature and tool of the executive. . . ."

The issue that we have before us today -- this motion and the amendments -- closes down the effective opportunity

[ Page 11934 ]

Hon. Speaker, I want to simply close with this. The suggestion has been made by the Premier -- and the chortling from the benches opposite -- that we have not done a responsible job of asking questions. The fact of the matter is that the government's own representatives, the ministers of the Crown, have said on a number of occasions that the questions we have put forward are good questions. They may well be complicated questions, but they are good questions. "I think it's been a very productive debate," said a minister of the Crown. "I appreciate the member opposite for not only some insightful questions but also some good suggestions. . . ." "I'm just trying to make sure we get that specific, because that's an interesting question." "I appreciate the questions that the members are raising." "It's an interesting question that the member opposite poses." "These are important issues that obviously need to be canvassed further."

That statement was made on Monday of this week. There are many more significant, substantial and important questions which must be asked in this House, which the people of British Columbia must be able to ask through this House.

[1535]

The Speaker: Members, members.

G. Campbell: My question today. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, the Leader of the Opposition has the floor.

Proceed.

G. Campbell: My question today is simply to ask the members opposite: is there anyone left on that side of the bench, on that side of the House, that will stand up for democracy? Is there anyone left on that side of the House that will stand up for their constituents? Is there anyone left on that side of the House that will stand up and demand debate? Is there anyone left on that side of the House who understands that this is an important matter that must be fully debated and that questions must be clearly answered? Is there anyone left -- one person in the NDP -- who's willing to stand up to this dictatorial affront to this sacred place?

Is there anyone left who will stand on principle? The principle should be that open, honest public debate is critical in a democratic institution. Is there anyone left who will stand up for their constituents and stand against closure? Is there anyone left who will stand up to make sure that this does not become a day that lives on in the history of the province as a time when democracy was shattered, when rights were stolen, when the opportunity to move forward together was snatched away from the people of British Columbia? Is there anyone left on that side of the House?

Hon. D. Miller: One of the feelings I have -- and a great deal of pride with respect to the bill that we're debating -- is that, for the very first time, it is eliminating the paternalistic legislation that has governed aboriginal people in this province. For the very first time, it's a bill that's giving rights to the Nisga'a people. Since the Leader of the Opposition closed on the issue of granting of rights, it then strikes me as somewhat paradoxical that a bill that for the very first time starts to grant these rights is opposed so vehemently by the opposition.

I want to cover a couple of areas that are quite critical with respect to the issue at hand. I do note again that these are important questions. The Leader of the Opposition talked about not being able to ask questions and, to the best of my knowledge, has not taken the time to ask one single question.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. . . .

Hon. D. Miller: Protect me, hon. Speaker. I need protection from these. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. . . . Minister, take your seat. Members will take their seats. Members know the rules about interjections and interventions; they're not tolerated.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. . . . There are ways of dealing with that kind of issue. Members have that opportunity.

Minister, continue.

Hon. D. Miller: Well, it's interesting that we're talking about rules. I heard a great to-do about this sacred chamber and the rules of this chamber. One of them is that when a member is speaking, that member ought to be afforded the opportunity to say what's on their mind. If the opposition disagrees, fair enough; they do have the opportunity to also speak. But with the great respect for rules and the impassioned speech that I heard from the Leader of the Opposition, you would have thought that the Liberal caucus opposite would want to respect the very rules that they are so concerned about.

But I was going to say. . .

[1540]

The Speaker: Members. . . .

Hon. D. Miller: . . .that, to the best of my knowledge, the Leader of the Opposition has not participated in the committee stage of this bill, which is for asking those kinds of detailed questions.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. . . .

[ Page 11935 ]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members.

Hon. D. Miller: . . .it is used probably far more in other provinces and at the federal level and in other countries than it has traditionally been used in British Columbia. But make no mistake about it: it is a feature of every single parliament. British Columbia is not unique. In fact, we are the same as Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec, Ontario, etc. They all have this same device in their rules. That's the first point.

The second point is this: this device has not historically been used a lot in British Columbia, but it has been used.

Interjections.

Hon. D. Miller: And I really go back to my plea: if the hon. people opposite respect the rules, then surely they ought to allow members to speak freely without this constant din.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. . . .

Interjection.

The Speaker: The minister has taken his seat, but he will be resuming in a moment.

I wish to underline the rules about interruptions and the rules about letting a member. . . . That is one of the privileges of being here: you have the right to make your comments without undue interruption -- all right? Everyone has a chance. It is also the case that members have a chance to make their own speeches. I encourage all to take an opportunity to do that.

Hon. D. Miller: As I was saying, this device, commonly called closure, is one that is common to all parliaments -- the ones that we knew -- including what they call the Mother of Parliaments in Great Britain, and it is used regularly in those parliaments.

Is Mr. Klein, the Premier of Alberta, less of a democrat -- is he a dictator? -- for the fact that they have used closure in Alberta 15 times in the last 17 months? Is he somehow some ogre, some dictator in Alberta, because his party has used closure in their Legislature? I don't know that any member opposite would make that claim. Is the federal Liberal government dictatorial in terms of using closure at the federal level? I don't think any Canadian would make that statement; nor do I think members opposite would make that statement. It seems to me that there has been an excess of hyperbole with respect to what we are doing right now.

I think the more important question is being overlooked. Our leader said -- and I think it is important to repeat it -- that while we have the opposition decrying the opportunity to ask questions, that same opposition, without even having seen the level of detail in the Nisga'a agreement, went out publicly and said: "We will never, ever agree with the Nisga'a treaty." Not after exhaustive questioning but before they asked any questions, they said: "We will never, ever agree to this treaty."

There have been some inconsistencies in their position. I spoke about that when we had second reading on the Nisga'a treaty. I pointed out that various of their members. . . . The Leader of the Opposition, when he was the mayor of Vancouver, supported the Nisga'a negotiations, which he knew were leading to the Nisga'a treaty. That is a matter of public record. That was the position he took then; he's changed his position. We know that the member for Matsqui took a position, and not only in this House. He's on record in Hansard; he's on record on the Ben Meisner program in Prince George. We know that he said that there should not be a referendum with respect to this treaty. We know; that's a matter of public record. We also know that the member for Matsqui said this morning, on Ben Meisner's program: "There has to be a referendum." And they talk about honour; they make speeches about honour.

[1545]

The issue, in hindsight, was not the time they took to do it; it was what they did. When we look back, we don't say: "Oh, they only took 100 hours to debate withdrawing the right to vote or 50 hours to take away part of their reserves." That's not the issue. The issue is the treaty before us and dealing with aboriginal land claims in British Columbia. It's also, hon. Speaker, with respect. . . . I think I'm now one of the most senior members of this chamber. I have been here, along with some of my other colleagues, longer than many other members of this chamber. Over that 13-1/2 years. . . . While I do occasionally get loud, I want to say that I have the utmost respect for this House, for this parliament and for the rules by which we conduct our business. I get frustrated by that, but I am also acutely aware that the issues are not fundamentally the rules. The issues are the real issues we're debating.

The Leader of the Opposition said several things that I think. . . . One in particular -- and I think he ought to take his own advice -- was that we ought to rise above the norm. I'll say that we have to rise above petty politics, and I sincerely wish that members of the opposition would heed the advice of their own leader. The other. . . . I think this is an important point, because we are talking about issues of time and rights. The Leader of the Opposition said that this debate started in November; this debate started 111 years ago.

As the MLA for the North Coast, I have known the Nisga'a people since the time of my first election and, subsequently, when the Nass Valley became part of my constituency. I have watched, over 14 years. . . . In fact, I'll go back even further, having done some work in the 1973-75 period with the Nisga'a as well, in terms of setting up their separate school district and those kinds of things. I have known these people personally for 20 or 30 years.

[ Page 11936 ]

[1550]

What we're doing -- and I note that. . . . I would hope that with the passage of time, there will be a reflection -- when we pass this legislation, when we conclude this treaty, when we joyously celebrate that event. . . . I would hope that in the future, long after I'm out of this chamber -- and there are new members here -- they will look back and reflect and say, with a sense of pride: "We did the right thing." I talked about the sense of pride that I felt as a member of this chamber, and I want to be able to talk to my grandchildren about that historic role. I wonder why members opposite don't want to have that same opportunity.

Our view, and the general view across the world, has changed dramatically. I want to close by citing two articles. I've been following with a great deal of interest the Globe and Mail's publication. . . . Because of the end of the millennium, they've been publishing front-page articles from the Globe and Mail going back a number of years. Today's publication was from today's date in 1964.

I recall 1964. It was the year that I was, I think, 19 or something like that -- or 20. I was heading up north for the first time. I guess I was not particularly tuned in to world events, but it struck me. . . . I looked at a story today about the trial of Nelson Mandela, which was taking place in April of 1964 in South Africa. I saw some of the things that Mr. Mandela said at that time, and I understand more and more why he is such a great man on the world stage in terms of what he did. He broke the law to try to achieve justice for people in South Africa, and he did it knowing what he was doing.

I was struck by a view on that same page, which I'm sure nobody in this world would now agree with. But a scant 35 years ago, Garfield Weston, the head of the food chain George Weston Ltd. of Toronto, came back after touring South Africa to tell the British people that apartheid was misunderstood. This is a quote, and I don't say this other than to illustrate that I hope that not too many years will pass before members on the opposite side would reflect on the position they're taking today. Mr. Weston said at that time -- and this is a terrible quote -- in lauding apartheid and telling about how the black people in South Africa were treated so well: "And believe me, every black pickaninny or black mammy can call on the government for solution to any social problems."

An Hon. Member: How many years ago?

Hon. D. Miller: I cite that, hon. Speaker, because quite often the passage of time allows us to reflect on what we're engaged in. I've made that plea before, and I'll make that plea again. This is probably the most important business that any legislator in this chamber will ever be engaged in -- probably the most important business. And to have it reduced to the pettiness that I've witnessed over the past number of weeks doesn't do us or this chamber any justice.

We are using a device that is used in every parliament of the land. We're not using it in a pre-emptive way. We're using it after the longest number of hours of debate of any bill that's ever been in this chamber. We're using it despite the protestations of the opposition. I've made the point that it's not really about debate; that's not the issue.

Why, then, would the opposition go out before we start a debate and say: "Under no circumstances would we ever agree with this bill"? Why did they proceed to launch a court case? They're being disingenuous.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: The act, I guess, is one. . . . Perhaps they pumped themselves up to do it. They don't do themselves any service by doing it.

If they reflect seriously, I know that some of those members over there actually do have a different opinion; I know that for a fact. I know that they're bound by the Whip that's on with respect to the Liberal caucus, notwithstanding that the Leader of the Opposition said -- in, I thought again, a disingenuous way -- that there would be free votes. If he were the Premier, there would be free votes. There are no free votes on that side of the House. I know that some of those members support this treaty, and I know they're muzzled by the Leader of the Opposition.

I think it's a pretty sad day. I hope there will be some reflection. I hope we move quickly to pass this bill, to get on with it. I know that my constituents want that to happen. I think the public wants that to happen. But most importantly, after 111 years, surely we can achieve that simple objective and do it very quickly.

[1555]

The minister stands up and gives us a passionate speech about how the Nisga'a people have been seeking justice for 100 years. I didn't hear that minister stand up in February,

[ Page 11937 ]

On February 1, I looked up to that corner of the chamber in the gallery, and there was Frank Calder, waiting -- as he'd been waiting, like the minister says, for 100 years with the Nisga'a people to pass the Nisga'a treaty. The Government House Leader stood up in this House and said that she was going to shut down the Legislature.

I was waiting, because I had heard the Deputy Premier's speech in second reading. I had heard how passionate he felt about the urgency to pass this treaty. I was waiting for the Deputy Premier to leap to his feet and make exactly the same speech he just made 30 second ago, but he didn't. He refused to, because he doesn't believe what he just said. He doesn't believe it. He knows that the reason the Nisga'a treaty wasn't passed in the fall was because his government had a political agenda around it. Its agenda was not the urgent agenda they talk of now -- to bring it before the House, to have second reading, then to follow it with committee and have the Nisga'a treaty finished in the fall. Instead, the Deputy Premier sat in the caucus meetings and cabinet meetings with his colleagues and decided to put this treaty on the back burner.

Well, they first spent $2 million, then $3 million, then $5 million and then $7 million on an advertising campaign, focus groups, polling -- all paid by the taxpayer -- because the Premier of British Columbia was so low in the polls that he thought he could use the Nisga'a treaty as a means to resuscitate his political career. That's political opportunism, hon. Speaker; that's crass, petty politics. When they finally did call the House, in December, to debate the Nisga'a treaty. . . . Five months later, when they finally did call the Legislature to get on with that urgent debate -- to get on with the justice which they say the Nisga'a people are waiting for and have been waiting for for 100 years and which is supposedly encapsulated in this treaty -- we did second reading and we adjourned. It was agreed that we'd come back in January and finish the committee stage -- a little belatedly, I might say, but that was the agreement.

[1600]

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: I see that the Government House Leader doesn't understand the way government business is supposed to move through the Legislature. I understand that. I can't wait for her to engage in the debate and tell us how it is that the government's agenda in the Legislature has been derailed so incredibly badly, has been bungled in such an incompetent way that we're here today invoking the most draconian measure that the people of British Columbia have ever heard about in this Legislature. That's not the responsibility of members on this side of the House; that's not even the responsibility of the members on that side of the House. That's the sole responsibility of the Government House Leader, who doesn't know how to manage the agenda of this House -- never has and never will.

Let's talk a little bit about what this is like. Let's talk a little bit about what's happening here today. I think it's important that people understand that. Let's talk about what the government is doing here today. The Deputy Premier stood in this House and said that what the government is doing is invoking closure, that it's a procedure that exists in every parliament in a parliamentary democracy and that it's everywhere -- everybody has it and everybody does it. Well, that is simply untrue. That is not what the government's doing. And I hope he knows it, after 13-1/2 years in this Legislature, but perhaps he doesn't.

Let's talk about what the government is actually doing here today. Let's talk a little bit about what closure actually is. Closure is when a debate on some item before the Legislature has reached a point where the government has decided that enough is enough and that it's going to invoke closure, it's going to call the debate and call the vote on the various sections in committee and follow that by a vote on third reading and move the piece of legislation through the House. Sometimes it's been done on second reading. It's almost never, in this House, been done on committee stage, and it's certainly never been done the way the Deputy Premier says they're intending to do it here today. This isn't closure. There is nothing in the standing orders in the Legislature of British Columbia to deal with what the government is doing today, because it has never happened before.

What the government has done is reach out all the way across the Atlantic Ocean to the House of Commons in Great Britain and pull out a provision that has been used in the House of Commons in Great Britain off and on for the last 100 years. The government will say that it's done all the time. In fact, what the government is doing today is a time allocation motion. When a closure motion comes forward, it's put on the floor of the House, and a member of the government -- usually the Government House Leader -- stands up and moves that the debate be closed and that it be ended.

But that doesn't cause the debate to finish. There are two steps that have to happen. The Speaker or the Chair has to decide whether or not that invocation of closure is an abuse of the House, whether sufficient debate has taken place, whether the issues before the House have been thoroughly canvassed and whether the rights of individuals and the minority are being trampled upon. If the Speaker or the Chair decides. . . .

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: It's pretty pathetic, hon. Speaker, I'd say.

If the Speaker of the House decides that in fact the rights of the minority are being trampled upon or that the debate hasn't proceeded enough, then the Speaker has the right to say no. The Speaker, as the guardian of all members of this House, has the role of making sure that their rights are protected. If the Speaker decides that the rights of the minority are not being trampled upon, he or she may allow that vote on closure to take place. Then if that passes and the House expresses its will. . . . That vote passes, and the question is put, and we pass the section that we're on at that time in the Legislature -- or second reading or third reading. That's what's supposed to happen.

[1605]

[ Page 11938 ]

That's closure; that's what closure is. As draconian as that is, as bad and heavy-handed and sledgehammerish as that is, this government is going further. It has created a way to go further. It has found a way to be even more dictatorial. It has created a way in British Columbia that has never, ever, ever -- in a hundred and however many years of there being representative democracy in British Columbia, even before Confederation. . . . They've found a different way to go even further -- even more draconian, even more dictatorial. They're invoking time limits. They're invoking something that goes beyond that. They're invoking a guillotine motion.

I know that a guillotine motion has been used in other jurisdictions around the world. If you look around the Commonwealth, if you look at those jurisdictions and you see what they've actually done. . . . If you actually go and look at their order paper and their votes and proceedings and see what they've actually done, it's not what the government intends to do here today. Nobody in the British Commonwealth has ever had the gall to bring forward a motion like the one that's before the Legislature here today -- nobody. Even if they do it the way they do it -- a guillotine motion -- in the House of Commons in Great Britain, they still clump together the votes, and you still have a chance to vote on a bunch of sections of the bill. You may not have debate, but you have a chance to vote on those sections. You have a chance to see it.

There is not one jurisdiction that I've been able to find -- or that anybody I know has been able to find -- where a motion like the one that was put before this House a couple of days ago exists -- not one. The former Speaker and former Minister of Aboriginal Affairs who is the current Minister of Labour says that it's done all over the Commonwealth. Well, in Great Britain in the House of Commons, when they do the guillotine motions, if you look at their order paper, you can find that in fact the reason they're doing them in the vast majority of the cases is to move legislation through by agreement. In fact, the government side and the opposition side sit down and look at the time allocations, and they come to an assessment. They set an agenda, and it's agreed upon. It's not controversial. It's not even divided upon; they don't even vote on it. They just agree to do it. It goes on the order paper, and away it goes.

I can find not a single example in the British Commonwealth where the kind of motion that sits on our order paper has ever gone forward -- not one. I challenge anybody to go out and find one that is as draconian and restrictive and dictatorial as the piece of garbage that sits on our order paper in the form of the motion proposed by the Government House Leader. So the government has decided they're going to amend it. Maybe they realize that they had a problem. Maybe they realize that they were the only group of people in the entire British Commonwealth in 800 years of parliamentary democracy to bring forward that kind of motion and to have the audacity to put it on the order paper. So they've gone and tried to move an amendment.

[1610]

Well, we all know that in the Legislature, we sit from ten to noon on Thursdays. So there were two hours, at least, for the members opposite to attempt to rush through whatever is left in the Nisga'a treaty in committee stage and to try and ask at least some questions on what was left over. But the amendment removes even that. So on the one hand, the government gives; on the other hand, it takes away. They just don't get it, hon. Speaker.

Let's talk about why we're in this situation here today, why the government has arrived at this particular predicament in front of us today. The Nisga'a treaty was introduced in a final form last August. It became public last July or August.

An Hon. Member: August 4.

G. Farrell-Collins: August 4. We could have come back in the fall, and we didn't. We could have come back. . . . We did come back in December to do second reading, and we came back in January. We were two weeks into committee stage, and the government pulled the plug on it. The government pulled the plug because the political heat was getting too much for the Premier to take. The Premier of British Columbia -- one man, one individual -- was getting some political heat. He stuck his tail between his legs, and he ran out of this House and took 75 members with him. The Nisga'a people just had to wait.

We were here in January; we were here in February. We could have been here in March to finish the debate on this, but no -- the government had another agenda. Its agenda was to cover up for the incompetence and the absolute scandal that is seeping from every pore of the government benches. They couldn't be here to answer the questions that were being asked by them, so instead they turned and ran.

I know we're going to hear other speeches from members of the government side today, saying that it's time to get on with it. It's time. The Nisga'a people have waited over 100 years for this treaty, and it's time to pass it. I know they're going to say that. Where were those people -- where were their voices -- in February? Where were their voices on February 1, when their Premier, their leader, pulled the plug on the Legislature and ran from the people of British Columbia? Where were they?

The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, who was in the House a little while ago, was sort of shouting across the chamber about the questions. I heard the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin shouting across that the questions that were being asked were terrible and that it was a waste of time. And I think the former Minister of Aboriginal Affairs had some other disparaging remark to make about the questions that

[ Page 11939 ]

On Thursday, April 1, the current Minister of Aboriginal Affairs said in response to a question regarding compensation of forest licence holders: "That's a good question." When he was asked the question, he said: "That's a good question." He didn't say: "That's a pathetic question," or "That's a ridiculous question," or "You're wasting time." He said: "That's a good question."

On April 12 -- 11 days later -- he said: "That's a good and complicated question. . . ." And he proceeded to answer it. He went on, and he said: "The questions that the member poses are important questions. . . ." "I think it's been a very productive debate. . . . I appreciate the member opposite for not only some insightful questions but also some good suggestions. . . ." That was not even a week ago -- not even a week ago.

[1615]

That was on Monday. Today's Wednesday. On Monday we had to canvass it further. On Wednesday we have to close the debate down. What happened in the intervening period? Was there another secret caucus meeting of the NDP? Was there another confession session, where the Premier came and told the members of his caucus what really went on with Dimitrios Pilarinos, the hunting knife, the deck and the casino? Was there another secret session of the caucus, where they decided whether or not to use the hunting knife? Was there another session where the Premier acceded to the caucus's wish that his time was up -- the captain of the ship was going down with the ship and the members of his caucus wanted to throw him off the ship? Did they agree on a time frame? Is that what happened? Is that what happened between Monday and Wednesday? Was it the personal political agenda of the Premier that decided that this debate had to end? Where was it? Where was this transition?

Or maybe the Government House Leader didn't tell the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs on Monday that that afternoon she was going to put an item on the order paper that would close debate. Just before that, on April 2, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs said: "I'm not suggesting for a second that I will not allow a full debate." And he said he wasn't going to use closure. Only days before this draconian motion -- which is worse than closure -- was entered on the order paper, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs was telling British Columbians that he wasn't going to invoke closure. Did the Government House Leader tell the Aboriginal Affairs minister what was happening? I doubt it.

M. de Jong: Don't the leadership contestants share information?

G. Farrell-Collins: The member for Matsqui asks a legitimate question: whether or not the members opposite are sharing that information with each other, whether they know what's going to happen and whether they know if the debate's going forward.

I want to recall for some of the New Democrats what they're doing here today, so that they get a sense of how draconian and how unique it is -- how it's never been done before in the history of this parliament.

The former Minister of Aboriginal Affairs said: "Show me. . . ." I think he said it earlier on, and I apologize to him if I'm misquoting him; I'm trying to paraphrase. "Show me one British Columbian that believes that this has never been done before." Well, I'm one. Let me show this House what happened to another government that tried to invoke closure -- that tried to bring in the heavy-handed gavel, the heavy-handed sledgehammer, of closure -- mindful always that what this government is doing is worse than closure and has never been done before.

I want to go back. . . . The Leader of the Opposition quoted some of this earlier, but I want to quote for this House some of the other items that are in this very powerful essay that was written by Eugene Forsey, who was probably one of the foremost constitutional experts that this country has known. He was somebody, I think, that the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs referred to as "another leftie," although I don't know that he would necessarily be pleased with that. Let me quote from one of his books. He's talking about the pipeline debate, a debate that brought down a government in the 1950s and banished them to opposition for some period of time. And that was just closure; this is worse. Let me show you what he said: "The bill ought to have been thoroughly debated. But it was not. It was rammed through by the repeated use of closure in circumstances absolutely unprecedented, and by repeated violations of both the letter and the spirit of the rules" -- an important distinction.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'll let the minister have his opportunity to quote the sections that he thinks are important.

Just so people will know, on the pipeline bill, closure was applied only four times -- in committee stage and through the various stages of the bill. What this government intends to do is wrap it all into one and close the debate down on the entire bill virtually all at once.

[1620]

That's not what we do here. What we do here, particularly in committee stage, is not just determine whose side people are on. This isn't one five-year-long election campaign. This isn't a five-year-long slogan. What we do here is important work.

We examine bills and legislation by committee for a couple of reasons. First of all, we examine those bills in detail in committee so we can find out if there are problems in them, if they require amendment, if there's a better way and a simpler way of doing what it is that the government achieves, or whether or not the government knows what it wants to achieve and whether or not what's in the bill is actually going

[ Page 11940 ]

It's crucial for another reason. Once legislation is passed, inevitably almost all legislation, and certainly this piece of legislation, is going to end up before the courts in one form or another. It's the first modern-day treaty, and you just know it's going to end up before the courts at some time. When the courts try and interpret what's meant by legislation, they often go back and look at the debate that took place while the bill was being examined in committee, to determine what it was that the government meant by certain sections, what it meant by certain clauses. That is important work. It is important to draw that out from cabinet ministers. It is important to get that debate back and forth so that in the future, people can look at it and understand what was meant and interpret it properly.

But there's probably an even more important reason why we need to debate this bill section by section, clause by clause, and do it in a thorough and responsible manner. It's because it's the first of 60 modern-day treaties. Fifty or 60 treaties are going to follow this treaty. And those negotiations are going on right now, today, in dozens of locations across the province, in various areas with various groups of people, from the federal government to the provincial government representatives to aboriginal and first nations representatives right across the province. What we find out in this debate in committee stage has an impact on how those other treaties are going to be written. Because you've got to know, when you're writing 50 or 60 treaties, that chances are -- maybe I'm wrong -- you might not get it perfect the first time. In fact, you might not get it perfect the first 15 times. You might not get it perfect at all or ever.

But does that mean we stop trying? Does that mean the government just signs a treaty, brings it into the House, and that's it -- done? "Are you against it or are you for it? It's all over. Let's go home." That's not what it's about. We are doing the people of British Columbia and future generations, aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike, a service by examining this treaty in detail, by making the questions, by asking the questions, by debating those questions so that people know where this treaty can be improved upon. That's an important job for us to do. I've sat here and listened to the debate over the last little while. I agree with the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs when he says that it's been a good debate, that good suggestions have been offered, that good questions have been asked and that insightful questions have been asked. I agree with the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs.

[1625]

Hon. Speaker, with all due respect, I've sat here for eight years and watched this government pass legislation, and there hasn't been one piece of legislation that they've passed where they've had it perfect -- not one. Hundreds of bills have come through this House that the government has amended, that's it's changed, that it's improved upon. It's not just about a campaign slogan -- whether you're for or against the legislation. It's also about what's in it, and it's about how that debate is going to progress.

Hon. Speaker, I'm going to be speaking longer. I'll be our designated speaker on this, just so you know.

I want to come back to what Eugene Forsey had to say. He said:

"Parliamentary government is not just a matter of counting heads instead of breaking them. It is also a matter of using them. It is government by discussion, not just by majority vote. Parliament is not just a voting place. It is also, pre-eminently, essentially, a talking place, a parlement. 'Parliaments without parliamentary liberty,' said Pym, 'are but a fair and plausible way into bondage. Freedom of debate being once foreclosed, the essence of the liberty of parliament is withal dissolved.' "

"The immoderate use of closure" -- in the pipeline debate -- "was indeed a double violation of the constitution. The government's four closure motions broke no rules of the House."

"They did something far worse: they violated the spirit which gives life to all our laws and all our rules, the unwritten conventions of moderation, self-restraint, decency, fair play, without which our whole system crumbles into ruins.

"What prevents the Parliament of Canada from getting an amendment to the constitution abolishing French as an official language? No law. What prevents any provincial legislature from prolonging its life indefinitely? No law. What prevents a government defeated in the House from refusing either to resign or go to the people? No law, just those unwritten conventions of the constitution."

"When the government did the same thing to the next two clauses, and then applied closure to all three, and three others as well, they made an almost complete mockery of the whole committee stage. It is hardly necessary to add that that stage is one of the most important stages. [It is] '. . .the centre of the whole legislative action of the House of Commons. It is in committee. . .that the fate of a bill is really decided; its ultimate form is there settled in the clash of parties and opinions or by the compromises made between them.' [Fulton says,] '. . .by custom. . .wide-ranging question and answer are permitted.' 'That,' as Mr. Fleming said, 'is where we have the general discussion. That is where we get information. . . . If you take away our rights. . .you deny to us and you deny to the Canadian people the opportunity to get that information without which. . .no self-respecting Canadian House of Commons can proceed.' It is in committee that members can ask questions and keep on asking questions till they force the government to admit either that it does not possess the information or will not divulge it."

[ Page 11941 ]

[1630]

We have talked repeatedly in this Legislature about a fixed parliamentary calendar, and the government has absolutely refused to move on it. In some of the other Houses that the government is referring to, where they use this type of motion, they have a fixed parliamentary calendar. Part of the arrangement on that is: we're going to sit on these days, and then we're going to be in our constituencies on these days. The government comes forward with an agenda, and they sit down. . . .

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: The reality is that the members of the government don't even talk to each other. The member opposite should come and talk to the member for Delta South, and she'll learn the truth about that answer.

In other Houses across the Commonwealth, they sit down, they have a fixed parliamentary calendar, and the government comes forward with its agenda. They allocate time to bills and legislation, and they make it work. For some reason, this government has gone out and. . . . Despite the fact that our model doesn't fit, they've taken this guillotine motion and tried to weld it to what we do here in British Columbia. There is a balance to be had. You don't just get in government to decide which rules you like and which rules you don't like, and get to do whatever you want. We know that's the government's philosophy. The Minister of Forests said that being in government means that you can do anything you want. That's what the Minister of Forests said: "When you're government, you can do anything you want." Their actions today prove that they believe that.

I want to go back to the essay, because there's another quotation that I think is important -- particularly for former Speakers to pay attention to. Mr. Forsey goes on to say: ". . .the Speaker's words seem to imply that if the rules get seriously in the way of doing something the government wants done, no reasonable person can expect the government to follow them or the Speaker to enforce them, at any rate, after a certain point." The rules are there only as long as the government likes them. If they don't like the rules, they change them -- not with any consultation, debate or examination of the rules. If they don't like the rules, they change them.

We know that when the courts tell this government that it's broken the law, all the government does is change the law. That's exactly what they're trying to do here today -- exactly the same thing. Whenever the law becomes inconvenient for the New Democrats, the socialists, they just pull out the dictator's uniform and ram through a new law. Whenever the rules scare this government or don't fit with the Premier's political agenda, whenever he can't intimidate or browbeat or threaten or coerce or hold a gun to the head of somebody -- whether it's in this House or in the forest industry or in volunteer agencies -- he just changes the rules.

[1635]

I see the member for North Island laughing, because to him it's all a big joke. He's in government, and he can do whatever he wants. The fact that there are rules or laws. . . . They don't apply to him; they don't apply to the government. They just change the laws. I should ask my colleague the Attorney General critic how many times this government has found itself at the wrong end of the courts and has come back to this Legislature and changed the law -- not only changed it but changed it retroactively. That's exactly the motivation behind what they're doing with this motion and this amendment. That's exactly what it is, and that's why their actions over the past years are so indicative of the motivation for this resolution.

The government only wants to follow the rules when they work for the government. When they cease to work for the government's agenda, they'll just create new rules. Never before in British Columbia has this type of motion ever come before this Legislature -- not even once. Hon. Speaker, do you know why? Do you know why they didn't just use regular closure, which is in our rule book -- standing order 46? The reason they didn't use closure is because they didn't want to have a vote on each section. It might take a day. It might actually take one more day to have a vote on every section. Gee, hon. Speaker, that's a really good reason to change the rules -- for one day.

They're afraid, or they can't handle it, or they're too tired to sit here and have a debate and to even have recorded votes. They're afraid to do that. If they had used the rules that exist in this book, in our rule book. . . . As draconian as closure can be when it is used improperly on bills that shouldn't have it. . . . As draconian as that is, if they'd used the rules that are in this book, it would have probably taken them about 17 hours to get their bill through. So we'd end up here at 5 o'clock in the morning on Friday, and they would have passed the bill using closure -- using the rules that are here. That's about how long it would have taken. But that's too much to handle; they just can't handle that. I don't know. Maybe the Premier has got a speech somewhere, or maybe he has to testify somewhere, or maybe he has to meet with some police officers. I don't know where he has to be. Maybe he is meeting with his criminal defence attorney. I don't know. But there is some agenda that is driving this debate. There is some agenda that is driving the time frame here.

[ Page 11942 ]

[1640]

Interjections.

G. Farrell-Collins: Actually, that's not all of it. The member is going to pass me more, just so they get a sense. That's what we're debating.

You bet we should spend some time on that! We should be spending a great deal of time on this piece of legislation, and if it takes as long as it takes, as the Government House Leader said, then that's what it should be. We have been moving through this bill in a responsible fashion. We've discovered things. And to be honest, there are some things that we thought were there that we found out weren't there. Isn't that amazing! We all learned something in that debate.

It is valuable because there are lots of questions out there about this treaty. I would think that the Nisga'a people, having waited -- I agree -- way too long for this to happen, would want non-aboriginal British Columbians to have an understanding of the treaty, at least to know why they agree with it or don't agree with. That's what this is about. Because you've got to live together at the end of the day, you should at least understand what the rules are, in order to live together.

So if it takes another week or two weeks, then that's what we should be doing. We should be doing that debate. We could have been finished by now; we could have been finished long before now, if the government had stuck to its agenda. But we didn't. They had problems; they delayed the House; they ran away from the Legislature. Now we're back here. Let's take the time that's required to do this job properly. The people of British Columbia deserve that right; the Nisga'a people deserve that right. The people of this province and our descendants deserve the right to make sure that this treaty is debated in detail, is examined in detail, so that people have a chance to know what's in it.

There's another quote here from Mr. Forsey. There's a couple more, and then I'm pretty much finished with what he has to say. The government seems upset that the opposition would raise questions, would demand accountability, would question the treaty, would probe it -- that somehow we would obstruct the treaty. Well, Mr. Forsey said: ". . .the opposition had threatened obstruction. So it had. It had a perfect right to threaten it, and it had a perfect right to engage in it. There is a widespread impression in Canada that obstruction is something new and vicious. It is neither." And we weren't even obstructing; we were asking legitimate questions.

I want to say one last thing, from Mr. Forsey -- my last quote here. Some of it the Leader of the Opposition mentioned earlier, but I want to read the whole thing into the record because I think it's important. It's insightful; it's indicative of what we're dealing with here today. He says:

"What the pipeline debate revealed, above all, was that the government and the presiding officers alike had simply no understanding of the basic principles of parliamentary government. They had no understanding that it rests on discussion. . . . They had no understanding that parliamentary government rests on the rule of law, that the government must not break the rules any more than any private member, that majorities are not enough, that they must be majorities acting within the rules. The presiding officers repeatedly and flagrantly broke the rules; the government and its supporters to the last man" -- and I would add last women, to put it in context for today -- "almost invariably sustained them in so doing. . . .

"They had no understanding that parliamentary government rests on unwritten conventions of self-restraint and fair play, that if any one part of it uses all its legal power it can wreck the whole thing. All their conduct showed that.

"They had no understanding of the sacredness of an opposition, of the fact that the decisive difference between parliamentary democracy and 'people's democracy' is the existence of a freely functioning opposition, an opposition with the means of becoming the government, peacefully, decently and in order.

"They had no understanding of the sacredness of the office of Speaker. They saw him transformed from the servant and shield of the House into the creature and tool of the executive, without a syllable of protest, without so much as a sign even of uneasiness. They showed no consciousness of the fact that it is the Speaker's particular duty to protect the rights of the opposition. He must, of course, also protect the rights of the government, notably the right to get a decision after proper debate. But the government's rights are very seldom in danger, because it ordinarily has a majority. It can look out for itself. The opposition cannot, because it ordinarily has not a majority. That is why it is the Speaker's duty to guard with the utmost care and vigilance even the more technical rights of the minority. Unless he does, the very fabric of free parliamentary institutions is in danger.

[1645]

"Last, but not least, the government and the presiding officers showed no understanding that obstruction is a necessary part of the parliamentary system. They were not even clear about the necessity of a device for ending obstruction when it has performed its function: they thought it was a device for preventing obstruction.

"The other thing that stood out, no less starkly, was the government's total inability to understand, or even believe in, this sense of outrage. They seem to have been genuinely unable to see any reason for it at all; genuinely surprised, puzzled, even hurt, by it."

[ Page 11943 ]

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Everybody in British Columbia knows it, and the members opposite know it too. The reason they left here in February is because the Premier of the province couldn't manage a thing. It doesn't matter what Crown corporation he had or what policy issue he was dealing with. It doesn't matter whether it's gaming or whether it's B.C. Hydro or B.C. Ferries or whatever you want to call it. He's messed it up, and he doesn't have any answers left anymore. Just campaigning constantly isn't working any more. He's plunging from crisis to crisis, from event to event. He's having to demand all sorts of creative energies, creative efforts, to try and get his agenda through, because he doesn't know how to do it the right way.

This House doesn't belong to him. I would say to members opposite: your party doesn't belong to him. It's time you stood up to him. It's time you stood up to the Premier of this province and told him that enough is enough. It's not just bad for this Legislature; it's bad for your party, and it's bad for the future of this province.

I want to say one last thing about this, because we are about to do something that is unprecedented. There are other countries in the Commonwealth, and other countries that used to be members of the Commonwealth that perhaps no longer are, where democracy is far more tenuous than it is here. They've been at it far less time than we have here. They have far fewer precedents on which to base their decisions. They're learning how a democracy works, and they're struggling to make it work. If we've got people in this province who would do what they're doing today, imagine what the people in their countries do. Imagine the abuses that are taken with their parliaments. Imagine what they're going to do with a motion like this one.

[1650]

On that order paper is going to be this motion, and they're going to know that it passed. They're going to take it to their House, and they're going to ram through something, whether it's a violation of human rights, some corrupt arrangement to finance a power plant, legislation to remove people's right to vote or legislation that would extend the mandate of a government beyond an acceptable limit of time and put them on the slippery slope to a dictatorship. Whatever that legislation is, when the time comes, you know where they're going to find the ticket to make it happen? They're not going to go to some little country somewhere in South Asia or Africa, where they don't really have democracy. They're going to come to Canada, and then they're going to come to British Columbia. I tell you. You go out right now, and you look across the parliamentary democracies. You can't find a motion that looks like this anywhere, and we're going to pass one. We're going to stand in this House, and we're going to vote in favour of this.

They're going to find it here, that shining beacon of democracy that many countries across the world look at. Maybe they don't like what goes on in the United States, but I can tell you that if they don't like what they see there, they look to Canada. All they have to do is look at the way we've behaved here and at what we've got on our order paper and at our motion. They've got every reason to stand up in their country and say: "Hey, it's not draconian that we're pushing this through to extend the life of the government for another five years, to make me president for life and to remove your rights to vote and to taxation with representation. They do it in Canada. It's right here. It's on this piece of paper. You can look it up on the Internet if you don't believe me. It's right there."

Interjections.

G. Farrell-Collins: I hear members opposite laugh at that. Maybe they should travel the world more. Maybe they should go to some of those countries where democracy is far more tenuous than it is here in British Columbia, and they should listen to the excuses that dictators give for removing people's rights. Maybe they should do that. Maybe they should go to a country, like the Leader of the Opposition did, where democracy doesn't exist and find the excuses that those people use and come up with. Maybe they should do that.

I want members opposite to really take some time to think about what they're doing here. I want them to read this motion, and I want them to go and find a motion anywhere that looks like this one -- anyone. The member for Yale-Lillooet -- he's got time on his hands. Maybe he should try and find one. You find me an example of one that does what this motion does and stand up in the House and tell us about it, because you won't find it.

I think it's time the New Democrats went back, looked at themselves in the mirror and looked at what they've become. They should look at the type of party they've become; they should look at the type of government they've become. Your own party members across Canada don't even cite you as an example of where they want to go anymore. What's his name? Mr. Axworthy, I think, in Saskatchewan -- the federal Member of Parliament -- wrote a letter to Alexa McDonough, talking about where he thought the party had to go. He's leaving the federal party; he's going to run for Roy Romanow in Saskatchewan. He wrote a letter giving some direction to her about where he thought the party should go in the future. You know what? You guys didn't make the list -- never mentioned you once. You're no longer that west coast beacon of social democracy. You're not there anymore. You've lost it; it's over. You've had your chance. You've had eight years, and this is what it has ended up in.

[1655]

[ Page 11944 ]

Hon. H. Lali: You lost the last election.

G. Farrell-Collins: The member says we lost the last election. I hate to say it again, but that's because we told the truth -- something that government refused to do. And the auditor general said so. I think it's important that if the member for Yale-Lillooet has something insightful to add to this debate, he should get up and be part of the debate. I'll give him an hour or so. He can go to the library and find the motion. I'm sure, with his skill, he'll be able to find it. I wait to hear what he has to say.

The people of British Columbia and, more importantly, the members of that New Democratic Party have lost confidence in this government. Their time is up. The fact that they would bring this kind of thing forward in order to rescue them has all the signs of every other government that has ever fallen, that has ever crumbled from rot from the inside. The people of British Columbia know it; you people know it; your party members know it. Call the election and get on with it, and then we won't have to deal with this kind of stuff from time to time.

F. Gingell: One often commences debates in this Legislature with the words that it is a privilege to stand and speak to the particular bill or the particular motion. But not today. This motion adds to the sorry record of this NDP government. It's simply one more example of the ethical values of this government; hypocritical, cynical, dishonest, contemptible. I struggle to find the words to describe the NDP actions of this week. This attempt to stifle debate by the use of a form of guillotine to ram through the Nisga'a treaty marks a new low in misgovernance -- even for the NDP.

The Premier didn't give a fig about aboriginal treaties until it became clear that he needed a fresh issue to deflect attention from his sorry record as Premier. Last summer the Premier squirmed onto the stage at the last minute for the signing of the Nisga'a agreement-in-principle and, standing on tiptoes, wrapped in a native blanket and gazing dewy-eyed into the cameras, proclaimed this historic event as his doing.

Well, they were crocodile tears that he shed. From that day on, the Premier and this NDP caucus have used every technique possible, including a colossally one-sided $8 million advertising blitz, to attach themselves to this issue. He called MLAs to the Legislature for a rare winter sitting to fully and carefully debate this historic and far-reaching treaty. What followed was, of course, the lowest form of political deceit. The House was suddenly adjourned for two weeks, supposedly to enable the latest NDP licksplittle, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, to learn his portfolio. The real reason was to get the Premier away from the heat surrounding the fast ferry scandal. It was ten weeks before the House was recalled.

Now, with only two-thirds of the Nisga'a treaty debated, the government is using a guillotine motion to cut off debate. It turns out that the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast is indeed a quick learner. He has flipped on this issue. From demanding full and thorough debate when he sat on this side of the House, to promising just a few weeks ago, as Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, full and thorough debate, he is now parroting the NDP support for this historic double-cross.

[1700]

Perhaps this government expected this opposition to be as inquiring and responsible with respect to the Nisga'a Final Agreement Act as they were in opposition in 1990 in considering the Indian Self-Government Enabling Act -- another important piece of legislation which it was clear at the time was important to all non-aboriginal leaseholders on reserve lands. It has proven to be more significant to British Columbians, particularly homeowners in Musqueam, the Okanagan and a growing number of communities in British Columbia.

Let me take you quickly through the record of Bill 64, which was tabled by the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, the member for Peace River South, on July 24, 1990. Second reading came up the next day, on Wednesday. The MLA for Peace River South gave a brief description of the bill. On behalf of the opposition, Mr. Guno -- who I believe was the member for Atlin -- said: "I have a few comments on second reading of this bill. My colleague the regular critic on native affairs is unavoidably away today, so I'm charged to make these comments."

He first commented on the grand title that was used to describe the bill. Secondly, he made it apparent that everybody in the Legislature needed to understand the consequences of the province withdrawing from property taxation. He also brought up the issue of how Indian bands would contract for services. The whole speech lasted no more than two or three minutes, but he raised these three issues and indicated that when the critic for the NDP official opposition was back the following day, in committee stage they would go into this in some great detail.

Well, the issue did come up the following day in committee stage. On July 26, Mr. G. Hanson said: "Mr. Chairman, my colleague the member for Atlin Mr. Guno dealt with this matter in second reading last evening. He reports that the bill is to be approved on this side of the House. The three different provisions of the bill that account for the various categories of taxation are satisfactory to this side, and we will approve the bill."

That was it -- not one single question in committee stage on this bill. Just think how important that discussion would have been to the justices of British Columbia and the federal courts when dealing with the issues of property taxation, appeal processes, assessment procedures with respect to the Indian Self-Government Enabling Act, and the role and the duties of ITAB. Nothing was said -- not a word. Sections 1 to 40 inclusive were passed, without discussion and without debate, in one single motion.

[1705]

F. Gingell: No wonder, yes -- no wonder they're upset with us for trying to ensure that the people of British Columbia understand the full ramifications of this bill. The courts, as they are brought into the scene -- as they will be in years to come -- to rule on its various sections and the meaning of those sections will look to the committee debate.

So to conclude, this treaty is indeed turning out to be historic, but not for the reasons that the Premier and the

[ Page 11945 ]

J. Smallwood: I have to confess that I am of two minds in speaking today, because with the exception of the previous speaker, this House has witnessed quite a spectacle -- a spectacle of the Leader of the Opposition and the House Leader for the opposition just continuing the filibuster that the Liberals have engaged in over the last some 120 hours, showing the kind of political judgment that is an embarrassment to this House. When I say I am of two minds, it is because I think their demonstration -- the theatre in this House -- undermines their protestations better than anything I could say.

Having said that, I intend to talk about the process that we're engaged in now, to bring some clarity and balance to the outrageous statements of the Opposition House Leader. We had this gentleman stand up in the House and talk about -- indeed, read into the record -- an article by Mr. Forsey. He talked about the outrage that Mr. Forsey expressed by an action of Mr. Howe, the Trade and Commerce minister, in introducing closure. But what he didn't tell this House was what Mr. Forsey was truly talking about and how it relates in no way to what is going on here. Shame on you for misleading this House, and shame on you for misleading the people of this province!

Let me read the parts that this gentleman did not share with this House. The article says specifically that the Minister of Trade and Commerce, Mr. Howe, concluded his opening speech by giving notice of closure.

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, member. The member for Vancouver-Little Mountain rises.

G. Farrell-Collins: That member alleged that I misled this House. I would ask her to either raise a privilege motion or withdraw her comments.

Deputy Speaker: Did the member mean to impugn any member of the House?

J. Smallwood: It was certainly not my intention in any way to impugn the motives of the member. If the member received it in that way, I will withdraw.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, member. Continue your debate, please.

J. Smallwood: I also intend, by quoting this article as the member has done, that it will become clear to the whole House that the member's statements were. . . .

[1710]

J. Smallwood: Thank you for all of the help.

I'll continue. The article says that the Minister of Trade and Commerce, Mr. Howe, concluded his opening speech by giving notice of closure before anyone else had uttered so much as one syllable, whether of support or criticism. That was unprecedented. When the bill itself reached committee stage. . . .

Interjection.

J. Smallwood: Here's where the second part comes, hon. member; you should have read the whole article. When the bill itself reached committee stage, Mr. Howe rose on clause 1, uttered 52 words of explanation and moved that further consideration of this clause be postponed -- moving closure for the second time. Shame on you for misleading the people of this province by standing up. . . .

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: I recognize the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain.

G. Farrell-Collins: The Speaker, as well as all members of this House, understands what the rules are -- so does the Deputy Speaker -- and those kinds of comments by that member. . . . Not only are they not through the Chair, they are against the rules of this House, and I demand that she withdraw them for the second time.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Minister of Labour, on a point of order.

Hon. D. Lovick: On the point of order, I would just remind the member that if he were to carefully read standing order 40, he would discover that probably 20 percent of his remarks were of a questionable right to be uttered in the House, because they were personal attacks; they were disparaging comments. I suggest that a too-slavish adherence to standing order 40, as the member is carrying on now, will effectively cripple debate in this Legislature.

Deputy Speaker: I think that members on both sides have made valid points, and we as members should all listen to the points that have been made and carry on the debate in a parliamentary way.

The member for Vancouver-Little Mountain rises.

G. Farrell-Collins: I am very familiar with the rules of this House, as is that member opposite. He knows full well that if there is an objection to be made, it's to be made at the time it's made and not afterwards on a second point of order. Further, there's no option granted to the member opposite. I demand that she withdraw the allegations that she made.

Deputy Speaker: I'm sure the member will withdraw remarks that may impute the motives of any member of the House.

J. Smallwood: In respect of this House and the House's practice, I'm pleased to withdraw any offending comments.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, member. Please continue debate.

[ Page 11946 ]

The process that we are engaged in is unprecedented. Let me speak to that process. This House has had before it, for a full 120 hours of debate, a bill that is making history. It's making history in a number of ways, not only because it deals with the long-awaited rights of the Nisga'a people, but because of its very makeup. The Opposition House Leader hauled out this document and referred to the weight of the document. He said to this House that it was their responsibility to go through this document to ensure that all of the questions were asked and answered.

I am one of those members that he referred to -- a member of this government caucus and a senior member of this House -- and as a member of the opposition, I had the privilege of holding a government accountable for its actions. I know that the opposition in this House not only has the responsibility to do it but must do it in a timely fashion, must account for the other business of this House and must ensure that they do not become an obstacle to the business of the people of this province.

[1715]

Interjection.

J. Smallwood: You are a member who has been called in front of the bar. You have not only the. . . .

Deputy Speaker: Member, could you take your seat for a minute. I think members should all be aware of the use of language in the House -- that we want to use good temper and moderation, parliamentary language. So if we could carry on in that vein, please, members. And please, members, all comments through the Chair.

J. Smallwood: We have members in this House who are professional members trained in law. That member has that training and must bring it to bear in his responsibilities. A minute ago he was heckling across the way, suggesting that the information before people in this province was government propaganda. He knows better. He has had the opportunity, as people throughout this province have, to look at the actual document. If you have not done that, then shame on you, sir.

The document that we have the opportunity, as members, to look at provides us both with information and with an avenue, not only through this House but through the resources that have been made available through subsequent ministers responsible for this particular piece of legislation, for private briefings, for briefings for their full caucus -- an opportunity to come into this House informed, an opportunity to ask questions and an opportunity to do the people's business.

The practice that we're dealing with at this time in the Legislature is foreseen in the rule book. Another point that I want to make. . . . The Opposition House Leader said that there was no provision in the rule book -- again, wrong. I can quote verbatim, from the rule book, the provision that the House Leader for the government has used -- another example of how the opposition and the Opposition House Leader have been less than forthright. Shame on you!

Interjection.

J. Smallwood: The member across the way asks me to quote it. I will do it for the member. I'm astonished that you're unaware of it.

Deputy Speaker: Through the Chair, member.

J. Smallwood: If the member would like to look at the rule book, under "Practice Recommendation 3," the member will see very clearly that there is a provision and that the provision has been used properly.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, the member for Surrey-Whalley has the floor.

J. Smallwood: I'll continue with respect to the comments and the theatre that we had the opportunity to witness in this House with the Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition House Leader. I want to debunk each point that was made, because I think it's important that people understand the process we're in and it's important that they hold the opposition responsible. Along with the rights and privileges of being a member in this House comes a responsibility to do the people's business, not to play politics. The righteous indignation that we have witnessed is just that. It is feigned, and it is orchestrated. We've all sat here and watched the members of the Liberal opposition being delivered their little packages of speeches. We've seen the opposition members stand up, speech after speech after speech, quoting the same phrases.

[1720]

I'm going to go back to the motion that was introduced in the process that we're dealing with now. What the Government House Leader did two weeks ago -- two full weeks ago -- was get up in this House and indicate the process that would be undertaken in this House over a two-week period -- I stand corrected. That is unprecedented. As a member of the opposition when I was first elected, I was in the House when the previous government brought in a closure bill, and let me tell you, there was no notice. Let me tell you, the opposition stood there and had the government stand and move motion after motion after motion, and none of us had any notice, any ability to do the people's business.

The Opposition House Leader talks about the ability of a member to stand up and vote yea or nay. This opposition has

[ Page 11947 ]

There has been a lot of talk by members of the opposition, and I predict that we'll hear a lot more in the next day and a half. We'll hear the kind of feigned indignation, the kind of righteous outrage. . . . But I submit to you that it is nothing more than theatre. They've had an opportunity to do their job. They've had an opportunity to ask the questions, to put their concerns before the House. They have not done so. They are playing politics, and they should be ashamed of themselves.

Interjections.

J. Smallwood: Hon. Speaker, with all of the heckling that is going on across the way, when I accuse them of playing politics, they'd readily admit it. They say: "Oh no." Well, it is not a sport. The people's business is truly a privilege. Standing in this House and having the opportunity to give voice to the people's concerns is a solemn responsibility, and this opposition has failed the people of this province.

[1725]

I have to admit that the hon. members opposite protest sometimes too much, because they have said very clearly right from the beginning -- well, once they changed their position to opposing the treaty -- that they will not support this treaty. As has been pointed out, they did so without any debate whatsoever. I think that is an appropriate consideration to make in terms of determining whether or not adequate time has been given to questions on this particular treaty.

The Nisga'a treaty is the work of many decades and years. It has for the first time, in a modern treaty, put together the mechanism to create certainty in our lives and in the lives of the Nisga'a people. Obviously, with the Sechelt agreement-in-principle coming on board and many others being discussed, I think it is important that we recognize that we have made progress. Progress is slow; it's difficult; it's tedious. Sometimes it brings to the fore the kinds of issues that we're dealing with today.

I think it's important that we recognize that Nisga'a have peacefully sought, over the last 111 years, to bring about a change. They have not engaged in blockades; they have not broken laws. They have sought peacefully to negotiate with governments over the last 111 years to reach where we are today. I believe that it was appropriate for the government to put the opposition on notice that this is how much time we have left and that we need to deal with this particular treaty.

In the context of that, I think it's also appropriate to particularly address the remarks made by the member for, I believe, Delta South. The hon. member referred to the courts being able to look at discussion and debates in the House when a particular piece of legislation is under review by the courts. Courts certainly look at that, and do so quite often. But the courts are never bound by what is said by the parliament. Courts are bound by the piece of legislation in its entirety. The court looks at the document and within the four corners of that document to determine what should or shouldn't be done.

[1730]

I say, with a great deal of disappointment in my heart, that the opposition has failed on that score, and they have attempted to abuse the privileges of the House to arrive at a particular goal they had. It was the stated goal of the opposition to. . . .

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, through the Chair, please.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Let me rephrase my remarks. It is appropriate that we recognize that the opposition set out to create hurdles in the passage of this treaty. One obviously does not want to deal with the issues that are before the courts, and I'm very careful and cautious in not talking about the merits of the case. But the opposition very clearly took this matter to court to have it adjudicated upon before it was debated, discussed and in fact passed in this House. That's their right, but that simply shows that they have utilized every means possible to make sure that we either slow down the pace at which we're going or we not move at all. I think that's appropriate to remember when we're discussing the particular question and the motion that is before us.

I think that Nisga'a people and other first nations people right across this province are watching this debate with a great deal of interest. I think they have been watching this debate with a great deal of interest on a regular basis. I have seen Frank Calder, a former member of this House, sitting in the gallery day after day, day in and day out, watching and listening to this debate. He's here today. I'm sure he's extremely interested in what we do and how soon we pass this treaty.

These are commitments that have been made by governments after due deliberation. The federal government, the provincial government -- the Crown in the right of the province, the Crown in the right of the federal government -- and the Nisga'a people made a commitment that they would pass this treaty at the earliest possible. Given that particular commitment, I think 120 hours of debate is reasonable and appropriate.

[ Page 11948 ]

[1735]

They were offered the time. They were offered night sittings; they were offered weekend sittings. I think it's important to recognize that those were the gestures that were made. It's important to recognize that adequate debate has been had, and it's time to move on, because the Nisga'a have waited a long, long time. It's time to move.

L. Stephens: It's a pleasure for me to join in the debate today -- this very important debate. I think that what I've heard members opposite say, particularly the member for Surrey-Whalley, demands some response. You know, she talked about the role of opposition. She was absolutely right: it is indeed the role of the opposition to do the people's business. That's what we're doing; that is exactly what we're doing. What we are also doing is protesting the banana republic tactics of that government -- because that's exactly what it is; that is exactly what this is.

The government said that 116 hours is enough time to debate this treaty.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, please, members. I'm having difficulty hearing the member for Langley.

L. Stephens: Well, I guess the truth hurts. It's a little too close to the truth, which is why the members opposite have reacted in such an aggressive way.

The government also says that 116 hours is adequate, is enough time to debate this treaty. Clearly it is not. Not only the opposition but also members of the general public are saying that. We have faxes; we have letters. There are letters to the editor; there are editorials that are talking about the need for a more full and open debate. Full and open debate -- that is something that this government doesn't seem to understand or certainly doesn't want to bring forward at this time.

What is the significance of what the government has done now? The significance of a closure motion in this House -- the significance of the one that was originally tabled and not the amendment that the Premier brought forward. . . . You know, one thing that the Premier said when he was making his remarks that I was struck by was when he said: "The time for talk is over." But that's what we do in this House. That is the people's business in this province. At least, the opposition believes that it is. Obviously the government does not. Obviously the government does not believe in free and open debate on what I agree is a historic and significant piece of legislation for this province. It is -- absolutely. That is why we need to have that free and open debate until we do get the answers that we, the opposition, deserve and that the people of British Columbia deserve.

[1740]

This is a black day for the province of British Columbia. Never before has a closure motion like this been introduced in this House by any government -- not one. This motion is a disgrace. It's unfortunate that the government members opposite don't understand that. They don't understand their parliamentary history, they don't understand the significance of parliament, and they certainly don't understand the trust that they must have -- should have -- from the people of British Columbia. They certainly don't get it with the kind of legislation that they bring forward, the kind of closure that they're bringing forward.

This is an unprecedented abuse of democracy. This is dictatorial and unprecedented. This motion entirely removes from the MLAs the right not only to ask the questions but even to vote on each section -- not just on sections 3 to 10, as the motion says, but on each section -- of this legislation. It's an abuse of the Legislature and an abuse of democracy.

But during the debate so far, we have identified numerous costs and obligations associated with the treaty that the government didn't disclose when they were talking about this treaty and when they introduced it in the House. We're still only two-thirds through this agreement, this legislation. That's all we are: two-thirds through.

Interjections.

L. Stephens: You know, members opposite say: "Go faster." This is a legal document. This is a very legalistic document, and it certainly sets out in minute detail what the Nisga'a people will in fact be given as a result of this legislation. This isn't something you just gloss over, as obviously the members opposite would wish us to do -- just gloss over

[ Page 11949 ]

[The Speaker in the chair.]

You know, the government members opposite said. . . . This is what members opposite have said before we began the debate. The Premier said to the Times Colonist on November 10, 1998: "It could take a few months to pass. . . . We will give the opposition the chance to debate each and every clause." Each and every clause -- what happened? The other thing. . . . The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs said to the Globe and Mail on April 2, 1999: "I am not suggesting for a second that I will not allow a full debate." We didn't have it.

Interjections.

L. Stephens: We did not have it. Members opposite don't seem to understand what full and open debate means.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order. It's very difficult to hear the speaker who has the floor.

[1745]

Here's another example. I mean, they don't seem to get it. They say one thing and do another. The former Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, in a news release on January 13, 1999, said: "We expect that committee stage debate will be very similar to procedures used during budget estimate debates, with detailed examination of all aspects of the legislation and the final agreement." He said that this is a complex piece of legislation, and he was absolutely correct: this is a complex piece of legislation. "The government will have the necessary resources on hand to provide thorough and complete answers to any questions MLAs may have on all sections of the bill."

Some Hon. Members: We did.

L. Stephens: Members opposite, you didn't. The government did not. We have a closure motion. They simply cannot talk about thorough and open debate.

The Premier also said to the Vancouver Sun on June 30, '98: "We won't rush it through. . . . I want the debate. I'd like British Columbians to be involved in the debate." Well, so much for assurances by members opposite to the public and to this House that in fact we would have open debate. It hasn't happened. No matter how much members opposite and the government protest, the facts are there for all to see. That has not happened.

The member for Surrey-Whalley talked a little bit earlier about Eugene Forsey, and she challenged our House Leader's version of events. What I would like to do is read into the transcript the entire passage that the House Leader debated -- and the member for Surrey-Whalley. We'll see exactly what was said and why it was said.

This particular passage talks about why closure is bad. It talks about why committee stage is so important in these bill debates. This particular session is. . . Let me just for the record also say that Eugene Forsey's is an essay on the Canadian constitution, and he uses the pipeline debate as an example of that. This particular section is called "The Bill in Committee." I want all members to listen to this.

"For the improper use of closure the government was solely responsible. For the treatment of the bill in committee, which was even worse, the government and the chairman of committees must share the responsibility. When the government took the position that Mr. Howe's 52 words of explanation on clause 1 constituted 'consideration' and the Chairman so ruled, they violated the plain sense of the rule and the meaning of the English language. When the government did the same thing to the next two clauses and then applied closure to all three, and three others as well, they made an almost complete mockery of the whole committee stage."

Forsey goes on further to say: "It is hardly necessary to add that that stage is one of the most important." Indeed, the centre of the whole legislative action of the House is in committee, where the fate of a bill is really decided:

"Its ultimate form is there settled in the clash of parties and opinions or by the compromises made between them. This applies with special force to the discussion of clause 1. That. . .is where we have a general discussion. That is where we get information. . . . It is in committee that members can ask questions and keep on asking questions, till they force the government to admit either that it does not possess the information or will not divulge it."

[1750]

Secondly, has the opposition threatened obstruction? Absolutely not. There has been no obstruction here; there has been no filibuster. Again, hon. members, I would remind you that this is in fact the Nisga'a treaty -- this is it. This isn't going to take two days, five days, ten days or 29 days. This is serious stuff, and the members of the opposition are conscientious in making sure that we go through every single clause here. But we're being denied that opportunity. The opposition absolutely agrees with the government that this is a historic document and is important to the people of British Columbia. It is important to the aboriginal people in British Columbia. And we've been denied the ability. . . .

Interjection.

L. Stephens: Thank you. . . . This is the rest of it.

[ Page 11950 ]

Interjection.

L. Stephens: What the opposition is opposed to are the high-handed, completely undemocratic actions of this government. That is what the opposition is opposed to. This opposition is a responsible opposition. It's committed to making sure that every single section in that Nisga'a treaty is debated and sees the light of day and that we have the answers that the people of British Columbia deserve.

One of the other issues that I want to raise, too, is why we need this thorough debate. I'm going to refer again to Mr. Forsey. This particular section is called "Constitutional Aspects. . . ." I think this is a constitutional question as well. Certainly the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and the former Minister of Aboriginal Affairs would recognize that this is indeed extremely important. This particular bill is, I think, one of the most important to ever come before this House. It's certainly the most important bill in this session. It's the most important bill, I believe, since I have been in this House -- since 1991. To suggest that we should just sort of haphazardly move through this simply because the government members say "You're asking too many questions," or "You're taking too long" is not acceptable.

It's important that every citizen in British Columbia knows what's in this treaty. One reason is that there are huge enormous, sums of taxpayers' money involved in the laying out of this particular treaty and in the implementation and the ramifications of this treaty. There are huge unknowns for everyone at this point in time, and I think it's incumbent upon all of us to make sure that we have the opportunity to look at each and every one of these as much as possible.

[1755]

During the Nisga'a treaty debate in the last two weeks, the Liberal opposition has established that the Attorney General has admitted that the Nisga'a self-government is not municipal-style. Those were statements made by all members of the government -- that in fact the Nisga'a treaty would bring forward a municipal-style government. Now we find out through the debate that that is not the case. Let me just read to you what the Attorney General said: "The best I can say is that that is a political description of the Nisga'a government. As the Attorney General, I am only concerned with a legal description of that government. . . . I want to make sure that we don't descend into attributing some meaning to this treaty by using terms that have no legal meaning."

There are a number of questions that were asked and answers that came forward that show clearly that there need to be more questions and more answers around this treaty. For this government to try to stifle that -- to try to stop the opposition doing the government's business -- is unconscionable. It begs the question: what else is there in this agreement that needs clarification? What else in this agreement needs to see the light of day?

Hon. Speaker, noting the time, I move adjournment of debate.

L. Stephens moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that the question now be put.

The Speaker: I recognize a point of order from the Opposition House Leader.

G. Farrell-Collins: I don't know if the Government House Leader has been listening to the debate at all today, but I think she would understand that there is a little bit of temper -- I would say heat -- in the debate for the very reason of what's contained in the motion and contained in the amendment. It's the government's attempt to trample the rights of the opposition to be heard, to have. . . .

Interjections.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'm getting to my point of order, for the members opposite, hon. Speaker. It is clear that the requirement under standing order 46 requires a ruling of the Speaker. If she doesn't want it on a point of order, then that's fine. I'd like to speak to the motion however she wants to deal with it. I seek your advice.

The Speaker: The motion is not a debatable motion. I accept your point of order and the comments that you have made in it, and I thank you for that. I wish to make a ruling.

An Hon. Member: Sit. Good boy.

The Speaker: Hon. member, that is totally out of order.

The ruling is that the Chair will not put the question at this time. I believe there to be important debate still to be heard and speeches still to be made, so I will not put the motion at this time.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call private members' statements.

The Speaker: For our first private member's statement, I recognize the hon. member for Burnaby-Willingdon, who might wish to wait just a moment until those who have business elsewhere depart the chamber.

[1800]

Private Members' Statements

THE "ECO" IN ECONOMY

[ Page 11951 ]

As sure as these things happen throughout the province, I rise again in this chamber as part of my Earth Day activities to raise issues that I believe we should be addressing here as legislators, as decision-makers. In past years, I've used this occasion to talk about the extinction of species and the loss of biodiversity. I have used it to talk about the environmental costs of our throwaway society and the over two billion beverage containers that British Columbians throw away each day. I am very pleased to say that since we expanded the beverage container deposit-refund system, many of those are now being returned and recycled.

I've also used this spot each year to talk about the challenges of tax shifts, increasing the taxes on resource waste and pollution, and reducing the taxes on labour and investment -- not wholesale across-the-board tax cuts that facilitate big business to continue doing business in the same old way, but targeted tax cuts that encourage innovation, environmental restoration and job creation. I was absolutely thrilled to see the commitment in the Minister of Finance's budget speech a couple of weeks ago -- perhaps it only feels like a couple of years ago -- to look at tax-shifting in British Columbia.

The reality is that while there are compelling environmental reasons for cleaning up our act both for our own health and for that of future generations, it also makes a lot of economic sense as well. There is tremendous economic opportunity in taking care of the ecosystems of the Earth -- or, as the title of my private member's statement suggests, "seeing the 'eco' in 'economy.' " Green taxes and green economy initiatives not only create jobs and clean up the environment, but they also increase market efficiency and enhance -- not decrease -- corporate competitive advantage. Now, I don't expect that statement to be received without a great deal of skepticism. But the reality is that we have two choices. We can continue in the direction we are going: more tax cuts for big business, fewer environmental regulations and enabling business to extract ever more resources and employ ever fewer people -- in which case, I suggest, both our economy and our environment will continue to decline. Or we can use our collective human ingenuity and creativity to transform our old consumptive economy to a new sustainable economy that creates jobs and economic activity -- from not only serving people but also taking care of the environment.

During the last six months, I have talked to literally dozens of green entrepreneurs here in British Columbia that are doing just that. They've got market-ready or near market-ready technology in energy conservation, new kinds of energy, wastewater treatment, freshwater supply, and solid and toxic waste treatment. In the critical field of green energy -- because, let's face it, with climate change upon us we need to deal with alternatives to fossil fuel -- the Ballard fuel cell has already taken British Columbia to the world stage. But I will tell you that there are equal innovations in solar, wind, tidal, geothermal and, yes, even recapturing methane from landfills -- companies that are ready in British Columbia right today to put in those pilot projects.

In my own community of Burnaby, I'm working with BCIT, which is working with their private and public partners on photovoltaics -- a photovoltaic tower of power. They're even planning their next technology building to have building-integrated solar energy that will supply almost half of the building's total energy needs.

[1805]

New environmental technology businesses will be helped by this year's budget announcements on the reduction of small business and on the increased tax holiday for new companies. They will be helped by the anticipated sewage regulation renovations and with the municipal infrastructure dollars that have already been announced.

But we need to do more. We need to have the courage and the foresight in British Columbia to wholeheartedly embrace the opportunities of a green economy, to recognize both the environmental imperatives and the competitive economic advantages of doing so. We need to make the tough but fair adjustments to both our tax system and our public policy in order to make that happen. With that, I will look forward to the reply to the member opposite.

The Speaker: In reply, I recognize the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain.

C. Clark: The member opposite titled her presentation "The 'Eco' in Economy." There's something that I'd also like to put back into the economy, and that's jobs, hope, opportunity, a future for people's children in British Columbia. That's what I'd like to see put back into the economy. I'd like to see a British Columbia economy that creates jobs for people again, a place where people know they can come and create a future for their children again. That's the kind of British Columbia that I want to see; that's what I'd like to see put back into our economy.

What we consistently see with governments across the country is a false dichotomy created between creating jobs and protecting the environment, when indeed the two are not at odds with each other. What governments have consistently done is argue that they need to bring in these regulations that will kill jobs, hurt the economy, and that they need to do it because they have to protect the environment. I would argue very strongly that it's a false dichotomy and that we need to get away from it, because British Columbians deserve to have their province returned to being a place where they can make their lives and know that their children will be able to make their lives.

There's no excuse for the fact that towns across British Columbia are literally shutting down, that small business people. . . . I know the member did talk about small business people and entrepreneurs in British Columbia and how they're doing so well in some of these environmental businesses. Well, the fact is that it's a real struggle today for anyone in any small business -- whether it is an environmentally oriented one or in high-tech or any other area -- to make a go of it in British Columbia today. That's because of the tax structure and the regulatory structure. There's a lot that government can do about that to return people's hopes and dreams.

You know, when someone loses a small business in British Columbia -- which they're doing in record numbers -- they don't just lose their business, lose their job. They lose their life's dream. They lose everything that they've invested, everything that they've worked for their entire lives.

So when the government says that they care about small business and want to make it work better and want to find

[ Page 11952 ]

Thank you for the opportunity to respond, hon. Speaker.

The Speaker: Thank you, member.

For final comments, I recognize the member for Burnaby-Willingdon.

[1810]

I think, hon. Speaker, that what we really need to get our head around is that it will be a very different century for the environment and for the economy in the next century. One of the greatest challenges will be to make sure that our regulations and our taxation actually discourage environmentally destructive practices and encourage the transformations that we need to make, especially in something that is so fundamental to our society -- that is, energy and the use of fossil fuels.

Hon. Speaker, if you caught the showing of the National Film Board film "Turning Down the Heat" on David Suzuki's "The Nature of Things" about a week ago -- produced, by the way, by a local Vancouver talent, Jim Hamm -- you would have seen the energy transformation that is occurring everywhere else in the world: Japan, Germany, Denmark and Iceland. I want to read to you just briefly. . . . In Iceland they've announced plans to turn themselves into the world's first hydrogen economy, in partnership with -- get this, hon. Speaker -- Shell and Daimler-Benz, eventually replacing the gasoline and diesel in all of its cars, buses and fishing fleets with non-polluting hydrogen.

What a tremendous economic opportunity! In fact, some have said that the new energy revolution will be the largest investment opportunity and job creator since the advent of the computer. While traditional business interests and those who defend them may resist change, my message today is that when you put in the "eco" and it takes precedence in the economy, it makes economic sense as well as environmental sense.

In closing, for those who think that I am dreaming and who don't really believe that the transition to a post-fossil fuel world is not only essential but possible, I want to leave you with the quote from Arthur Schopenhauer: "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

The Speaker: Hon. member, you'll see that your time is up.

J. Sawicki: I have a final sentence. On this Earth Day, we can only hope that we quickly reach the third stage.

CREATING COOPERATION IN CASCADIA

[1815]

Our cooperation has numerous clear advantages. Some of those advantages are. . . . It is an effective way to add leverage to investment strategies through the rationalization of common functions, and to eliminate redundant activities. The corridor coalitions on the border, trade, transportation, tourism, growth management and environmental issues can raise the Cascadia region's profile as a competitor for funding. We can achieve collated benefits for local uses as well as for through traffic. Border and gateway -- including port and airport -- and staffing and infrastructure improvements will encourage commodity and passenger flow through these now-congested areas.

A third advantage of the corridor context is that it can create an idea-sharing forum that offers leverage in the innovative, comprehensive use of such solutions as intelligent transportation systems, telecommuting, regulatory harmonization, joint facilities, and work rules and hours of operation at key border facilities.

Another is that corridor cooperation can create a larger, more secure financial base that allows access to funding under the most favourable conditions. The benefits include the use of the full range of evolving current financial mechanisms and public-private partnerships and the possibility of a distinctive Cascadia corporation as a focal point for organizing financial resources, which can support major investments.

Another advantage is that cross-border cooperation can assist the important tourism industry in the region, both through transportation initiatives and through advocacy of sustainable tourism principles and the promotion of the coordination of a two-nations vacation concept. Corridor coalitions can advance marine, air and land conservation in the Georgia Basin and the Puget Sound and develop strategies to relieve the impacts of rapid urbanization in the rapidly growing region.

[ Page 11953 ]

E. Conroy: We're all fortunate to share the rich social, cultural and environmental benefits of this great province. However, it's important to keep in mind that our neighbours to the south -- Washington, Oregon and Idaho -- have also received this bounty of physical beauty, natural resources and immense economic potential. This region called Cascadia, framed by the Pacific on the one side and the Rockies on the other, also shares the challenges and responsibilities of maintaining its economic growth in a sustainable manner. As such, while British Columbia must keep focused on its needs, it's crucial to understand that ensuring the viability of this province's future is interlinked with our Cascadian partners.

A prime example of this regional connection is the Pacific NorthWest Economic Region, or PNWER. I'm pleased to be our government's representative on PNWER. It is a public-private partnership that works towards the development of policies that respond to the challenges of globalization. PNWER includes Alaska, Idaho, Montana, the Yukon and Alberta, as well as Oregon, Washington and British Columbia. If PNWER were a country, it would have the tenth-largest GDP in the world. I mention that just to back up what the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock has said about the importance of our region. With a population of 18 million, to have the tenth-largest GDP in the world shows the strength and the potential that we have here in this region.

The provincial government also recognizes the need to take advantage of the opportunities afforded by this bustling economic region through diversification and business-friendly policies. We have cut the small business tax rate to 5.5 percent and increased the corporate capital tax threshold. As well, we have instituted the business lens on regulation and a $20 million high-tech fund to attract business to B.C. We have also continued to move forward in establishing B.C. as a tourist hub.

[1820]

It's important to temper this agenda of regional partnerships with a willingness, at the same time, to speak up for the needs of the province. The historical bond that this geographical area shares has certainly engendered a spirit of cooperation, but it also allows us to stand firm in protecting B.C.'s interests. Engaging in a vigorous dialogue with our neighbours to ensure B.C.'s future prosperity should not provoke fear. Indeed, it is a testament to the strength of our friendship -- a friendship that can only grow and flourish.

The Speaker: With final comments, I recognize the member for Surrey-White Rock.

G. Hogg: I appreciate the comments of the member for Rossland-Trail and his interest in and participation in the activities that have taken place. Truly, we have the opportunity in this corridor to be one of the pre-eminent economic forces in the world. We've already demonstrated that. By continuing our coordination and cooperation, by reducing the redundancies, we will definitely move into that position. It is interesting to note that Cascadia is hosting a conference on this very subject matter in Victoria in May of this year and hoping to have participants from all across the corridor coming forward to look at ways that we can ensure that global competitiveness.

The interregional linkages that have developed across the border have reached a high point -- a high point that would have been unthinkable only a decade ago. Cross-border linkages now take place in a broad array of policy areas, from the economy to the environment to trade, transportation and -- most important to this region -- tourism.

The driving force between this transborder cooperation in Cascadia has mainly been the private sector. Governments that choose not to participate in the new regionalization of Cascadia will ultimately pay the price for non-participation through lost opportunity. It's crucial and important that we have our municipal, regional, provincial and federal governments actively participating in the initiatives which the private sector has put forward.

The population of the Cascadia corridor is expected to increase by roughly 40 percent in the next two decades. With this growth comes a host of environment challenges that will have no regard for the border, creating a critical need for cross-border cooperative initiatives to deal with the challenges at the regional level. To tap the full potential that Cascadia holds, more work is needed on both sides of the border, particularly in terms of the transportation sector, because of its vital importance in regional commerce and tourism.

Again, we must cooperate regionally in order to better compete globally.

The Speaker: In actual fact, the third private member's statement is from the hon. member for Rossland-Trail. There was a switch made with other members earlier today. So I recognize the member for Rossland-Trail.

THE GIFT OF LIFE

[1825]

[ Page 11954 ]

One of the thrusts of our proposal in Ottawa was that. . . . Well, British Columbia -- and I think we should all be proud of this -- is the only province in Canada to have an organ donor registry. I, as a person who has received a transplant, certainly feel that there really is an urgency in this country to have an organ donor registry. There are all kinds of people who are in a situation of urgently requiring organs, and an organ donor registry would really help. I guess that when I said I'm disappointed with what I've heard thus far coming out of Ottawa. . . . It seems as though the notion of a national organ donor registry may not be in the cards. That's of concern to me. I expected the committee to recommend ways to increase the supply of organs for Canadians waiting on transplant lists.

I just want to read from the Globe and Mail of April 20 of this year. It says: "Last year, about 3,200 Canadians were on waiting lists for transplants. Only half that number -- 1,612 people -- received the organs they needed. Canada has about 14 donors per million people, while Spain, considered a world leader, has 29."

Canada, at 14 per million is the lowest in the industrialized world for organ donation. I don't know what that says. I don't think we're the lowest in the industrialized world because we're bad people. I think what's happened is that our technological ability to deliver organ transplantation, no matter what form it is, hasn't kept up with our ability to harvest -- and that's maybe not a very good word to use -- or to ask for organs for transplant. It seems as though we just let all of these opportunities fall between the cracks; we're not taking advantage of them. It's very disappointing for me that Canada is the lowest in the industrialized world with regard to transplantation.

We in British Columbia are happy to provide innovative leadership in health care, and we've offered our organ donor registry model to the rest of the country. That's what I'd hoped for, in coming out of the discussions in Ottawa, but it didn't do that. We're going to continue to discuss the option of a national organ donor registry with our federal and provincial counterparts, but as I stand here tonight, I'm not so optimistic that it's going to happen.

This week is Organ Donor Awareness Week, and again I was hopeful that there'd be some good news around this. But it's coming out as though people who require organs -- people whose lives could be saved, people who have families, young children -- simply are not going to have that opportunity. It's a shame, because we can do it. We just have to have the will and desire to do it. I think that the federal government, in this case, has to take the lead. We in British Columbia have, I think, done our part with our organ donor registry and our changes to the Human Tissue Gift Act, which I'll allude to later. I'm hopeful that something can happen in the next year or so, but I think we're in kind of tight right now.

[1830]

S. Hawkins: In the three years that I've been here, I think there have been very few issues that have had unanimous support in this House. One of them that would get unanimous support, I think, is an organ donation awareness program. Certainly I have the same sentiments as the member who just spoke regarding the need for a national registry. It makes sense to me, someone who has been on the front line and dealt with patients who required organs, someone who has also dealt with families and asked for organs. I'm kind of disappointed reading the papers in the last few days, as well, and seeing that perhaps that's not coming through. I would have hoped that that would have been something that we would have had a positive announcement of.

I remember that almost two years ago, the member and I had a private members' statement debate over this very issue. I remember the member standing up, and I was very moved by him telling his personal story about how his son came running out of a store. . . . He'd been tracked down in the downtown of the place where he lives. An organ became available, and this member got a new lease on life. I think we were all relieved and very glad that it happened to someone here. We're very glad that he is very healthy and continues to serve his constituents to this day. That was a very personal story from a patient.

Let me tell you a couple of other insights and perhaps make you aware of what a nurse at the bedside goes through. I know it's very difficult. When I worked at the bedside, I ran a neurocritical intensive care unit, and we would see the most horrible accidents: head injuries, multiple traumas. One of the hardest things I had to do was talk to families and, with the physician that was responsible, ask for a gift of life. Out of something very, very horrible. . . . We had to explain that something good could come out of this. It was very difficult for families and very emotional for us but very gratifying when we saw that people could make those kinds of gifts at a time of pain and suffering. I think that people need to understand that. People need to understand that good things can happen from bad incidents.

I think we shouldn't be afraid to let our families know that we do want to donate. I think that's very important for public awareness. I also want to say that I live with somebody. . . . My spouse happens to be in charge of transplants in the valley. Sometimes I'm around when he gets the call that he's got a kidney for a patient, and I see him struggle when it has the same tissue type, unfortunately, that could go to two patients. Then there is a decision to make. It's a very happy decision, and yet it can be a very struggling decision for him, because he has to decide which patient has the best chance of having it.

I see him go through his emotions when he loses a patient that he's become very close to, that he's treated on dialysis for perhaps two years or three years or longer and seen three times a week. It's like losing a family member. I see him going through the times that he loses a patient or the times when he can actually make that call and be crying on the phone and at the same time be talking to the patient, who's very excited and also emotional about getting that transplant.

It's a wonderful gift we can give. I think we made some very good decisions in this House last year when we supported an amendment to a bill that came forth in this House. Those were the changes to the Human Tissue Gift Act. I'm disappointed, because it's been almost a year, and we've heard nothing about those legislated referral changes. I'm disappointed, because first of all, they were going to be

[ Page 11955 ]

[1835]

The Speaker: With closing remarks, I recognize the hon. member for Rossland-Trail.

E. Conroy: Let me begin by expressing my gratitude to the member for Okanagan West for her very kind words. Maybe I'll even go further and thank everybody from the other side of the House for their cooperation with this issue. Last year, when we did vote on the changes to the Human Tissue Gift Act, it was unanimous, and everybody was very supportive of the issue. So, I guess -- not all I can say about that -- I wish that it would happen with a few more issues in this building. It's not that it's not a nice place to be anyway, but maybe it would be a little more pleasant. But I do sincerely want to thank everybody on that side of the House for their cooperation.

Hon. member, we did work on those changes. I promise you that within the next day or so, I'll get you the information that you asked for.

Let me talk a little bit about those changes and the reasons why we did make the changes to the Human Tissue Gift Act. As I said earlier, in Canada we're the lowest in the industrialized world when it comes to organ donation. So in British Columbia. . . . I guess, you know, you get involved in things as a result of things that happen to you, so I kind of had to get involved in this one.

But in recognizing that, what can we do to increase the donation? One of the things we discovered was that we don't know how to ask people. The changes to the Human Tissue Gift Act that were brought forward last year are based on a model that was adopted in Pennsylvania in the United States. In that particular instance, it increased organ donation by about 30 percent. The changes we've made here in British Columbia are very similar to those. So we're hopeful that we can increase our organ donation here in British Columbia by about 30 percent and indeed lead the country in that area. In Pennsylvania, where this was done, the requirement for eye transplantation -- I'm looking for the right word, but anyway, everybody knows what I mean -- has been eliminated. In British Columbia we import those kinds of things, so we're hopeful that we can do the same with the elimination of that here in B.C.

For me, who was in hospital and beside people who I knew weren't going to make it if they didn't get an organ -- and I saw some of those people do that -- this was a wonderfully proud moment -- and, I hope, for everybody in this House when we pass the changes to that act. So all of us should be proud.

Hon. member, I'll get that material to you, and I'll also keep you apprised as to the progress that we're making with regard to the increase in donations.

[1840]

Hon. M. Sihota: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. M. Sihota: It is a great pleasure for me to introduce to all members of the House approximately a dozen members of the 3rd Douglas Sea Scouts. They're joined here by Mr. Sands and a number of other adults. They're here to watch the debate and learn a little bit about how the Legislature functions. I've just met with them. They're a quiet, shy and very reserved group of young gentlemen, who I'm sure are enjoying their visit here in the Legislature. Would all members please give them a warm welcome.

The Speaker: The member for Rossland-Trail rises on what matter?

E. Conroy: I also ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

E. Conroy: I'd like to take this opportunity to introduce two people who are pretty important to my life, and those are my constituency assistants Susan Deyaegher and Elaine Whitehead. Would the House please make them welcome.

The Speaker: Now, for our fourth and final private member's statement, I recognize the hon. member for Langley.

PREVENTION OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN WEEK

Domestic violence is defined as serious or repeated injury caused by a person who has family ties or a sexual relationship with the victim. Perpetrators' use, or the threat of the use, of physical or sexual assault against women is the number one concern facing British Columbia women today. Indeed, the police, hospital emergency rooms, sexual assault centres and transition houses have recorded an increased incidence of sexual assault, domestic violence and murder against women during the past decade. Almost every day, stories are reported in the media of women being murdered, injured or disappearing from their communities. This violence cuts across all age, social, economic, cultural and religious boundaries. The only similarity these victims have is their sex: they are all women.

[ Page 11956 ]

The costs to government for the health care, social services and the justice system have been estimated at $385 million per year. So each and every year $385 million is spent on the violence that is perpetrated against women.

Equality cannot be achieved when women continue to live in fear of violence simply because they are women. Most people feel safe when they're in their own home, but for many women and children the home is often the most dangerous place of all. A women is nine times more likely to be killed by her partner than by a total stranger. While not all incidents are this severe, abuse often leaves women in fear for their lives.

We need training programs for police, lawyers, judges, probation officers and victim services workers so that they understand the dynamics of domestic violence. This is rarely just an isolated incident. Often there is a cycle of escalating violence, in which attacks increase in frequency and intensity. Violent partners know that increasing the level of violence increases their domination and control over women.

Family violence often goes unreported, in large part because the incident is seen as a private, personal or shameful issue. Also, incidents go unreported due to the fear of reprisal or repeated attacks. However, when women do reach out for help, particularly from the criminal justice system, they very frequently find that the system fails to offer the help that they need. This lack of assistance for battered women reflects the common misconception concerning who carries the blame for domestic violence. The first question many people ask when they hear of these incidents is: "Why does she stay?" In fact, the woman is blamed for tolerating the relationship. Not only does this question remove the blame from the abuser, it ignores the reality that most battered women face. That is why I believe we must be committed to adopting strategies that keep women safe and enhance victim services.

Other jurisdictions have laws requiring evidence of spousal abuse. That creates a presumption that children should not be placed in the custody of an abusive parent. Even though experts agree that spousal abuse is one of the leading indicators of child abuse and neglect, many abusive spouses continue to receive custody of the children. We must address this serious problem in the province of British Columbia.

[1845]

Ending violence is a complex task. Violence against women is a crime and must be seen and treated as such in our criminal justice system. Abusers must be held responsible and accountable for their behaviour. Women must receive fair and equitable treatment in the justice system. Early intervention is necessary to break the cycle of abuse, and families must receive appropriate and timely measures to change attitudes and behaviours.

Three years after B.C.'s most terrible massacre in Vernon, women are still being murdered or injured, or they simply disappear off the face of the earth. There must be a stronger commitment through legislation and policy to stop violence against women.

The Speaker: In reply, I recognize the hon. member for Kootenay.

E. Walsh: I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond to this very important topic. It's an important topic not only to the people in British Columbia -- everyone in British Columbia -- but in fact throughout the world. I thank the member for Langley for speaking on what is a very painful topic for many people, unfortunately -- that the violence still in fact exists throughout this province.

In 1995 a proclamation was issued by the province, designating in perpetuity the fourth week of April as Prevention of Violence Against Women Week in British Columbia. As the member opposite has pointed out, this year it began on April 19. This designation reflects the commitment that the government of British Columbia has in fact put forward to stopping violence against women.

Statistics on violence against women tell a horrifying story in this province, some of which we've already heard from the member opposite. But, you know, it goes beyond what we read in the headlines in the newspaper, and it even goes beyond what we see on the screen of the television set. Every day that we live, everywhere, women experience some form of violence.

The member opposite spoke of some statistics in the province. I'd like to just talk about some of these statistics especially, which many women and their children live with, and about the effect that they have on their families. One in three women in British Columbia is assaulted by their husband or partner. When one looks at a family, this could be a mother, sister, daughter, daughter-in-law or granddaughter. So every family somewhere is, in probability, affected somewhat.

One in two Canadian women experiences at least one incident of male violence by the age of 16. Women in B.C., as the member opposite has actually stated, report the highest rate of violence in the country -- 59 percent, I believe; 81 percent of the women who were murdered were killed by their spouse or their partner. Most sobering of all these statistics is that children are the witnesses to these abuses.

What do all of these statistics that we've heard now tell us? Well, what they say is that as long as women are victims of violence, they are never going to reach their full potential, and they're never going to be able to contribute to their families or their communities as fully as they should be. Violence against women causes profound suffering, and it entrenches inequality in our society.

The government spends about $4.5 million a year on violence prevention programs in the schools and communities throughout the province. The Ministry of Women's Equality

[ Page 11957 ]

[1850]

The first year of the campaign focuses on violence against women, with subsequent years, now coming up, looking at how abuse of power and control lead to violence against other members of the community. The B.C. Association of Broadcasters has donated $50 million in broadcast time over the next decade. The advertising, the design, the production and the printing companies have volunteered their services for the project. I would just like to encourage all communities and all people to get involved in fighting for this very worthwhile project that we must do. Let's fight and prevent violence against women.

The Speaker: For closing remarks, I recognize the hon. member for Langley.

L. Stephens: I want to thank the member opposite for her words and to reiterate that education is indeed extremely important for this issue. It is important in our schools, important in our communities, and it is certainly important in this House.

Really, the core issue around domestic violence is that men abuse women. I think that many of the men want to stop -- a lot of them, I think, don't feel particularly good about their behaviour -- but they don't know how. They don't know how. That's why it's extremely important that we have the counselling programs not only for women and children but also for the men. There's a group of individuals in Vancouver who have taken up the task of providing that counselling. There are a number of different groups all around the province, and that's the B.C. Association of Counsellors of Abusive Men.

They have a program which I think is quite exciting, and it's a little bit different than what others have been doing. I'd like to share a little bit of that with members here today. They're talking about the principles of abusive men's counselling. These principles give the highest priority to the safety of women and children. They hold the abuser responsible for the abuse. That is extremely important. That has to be clearly stated, and it has to be enforced. They're not willing to accept explanations which neutralize or rationalize abuse in the context of relationship dynamics or personal history. Because of this, they have made some tremendous breakthroughs in this kind of research. Some of the treatment models that are out there today and that we've seen developed deal with anger management and appropriate social skills. As far as they go, they have been somewhat effective but certainly not as effective as we would like to see.

This organization believes that confronting these abusive beliefs is the key to changing the belief system of abusive men. The organization does that by a process of bringing those beliefs to the awareness of the men, confronting those beliefs, creating dissatisfaction with those beliefs and showing them alternate or more satisfactory beliefs. While many abusive men hold a particular belief that determines the way they behave and interpret events to justify their abusive actions, there are three traits or characteristics that they have found around these relationship beliefs. The first one is that the self is central and separate -- concerned only with the self -- then disregard for others and a lack of connectedness with the internal other.

There's a whole range of other means of addressing this issue that this organization and others have undertaken. I would encourage all members, if they are interested in this issue and in this particular organization and the new methods of counselling that are coming forward. . . . I would be happy to provide that information to any member who is interested in how we can keep women and children safe.

The Speaker: Thank you very much, member, and all members who participated in the private members' statements today.

I recognize the Government House Leader.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that the House at its rising stand recessed until 7:15 p.m. and then, upon its return, sit until adjourned.

Motion approved.

The House recessed from 6:55 p.m. to 7:15 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Motions on Notice

TIME ALLOCATION ON BILL 51

The Speaker: In continuation of debate, I recognize the member for Langley.

L. Stephens: I am pleased to resume debate on this motion to amend the closure motion. Before we broke for dinner, I was talking about some of the items in this treaty that need to be debated more fully and certainly more openly. I was asking what some of the clarifications needed to be around this particular piece of legislation.

One of the issues I spoke about was the fact that the government continued to call this agreement a municipal-style government, when what we've found through the debates that we've had up until this point is that that is not in fact the case. The Attorney General has admitted that. The other thing that we've found out to this point in the debate is

[ Page 11958 ]

These are just some of the things that have been disclosed during the debate on the treaty thus far. So, with over a third of the treaty left to be debated, who knows what else is in there, what other kinds of revelations may come forward? Or is that why the government doesn't want to have open debate and further debate? Does the government in fact want to try and hide what is in this particular agreement?

When the Premier made his remarks, he talked about social justice and the fact that the opposition. . . . He thought that the opposition didn't believe in social justice and that the NDP were the only ones who did. Well, if you want to talk about social justice, then you have to look at this agreement, because there are many people -- Nisga'a people -- who say that this agreement does not bring social justice.

Interjection.

L. Stephens: The Minister of Small Business says: "That's a small minority." Well, hon. Speaker, it sounds like this government doesn't care; it doesn't care about minorities. Obviously that is absolutely the truth, because that is exactly what they are doing in this House with this closure. They are abusing the rights of the minority. The minister opposite should know that in a parliamentary democracy, in order to have and to value and to cherish that parliamentary democracy, parliament must uphold the rights of the minority. That government doesn't seem to understand it, which was ably illustrated by the remarks of the Minister of Small Business.

That is why the opposition is in such opposition to this closure motion, which says: "We don't want to hear any more debate. We don't think it's appropriate. We don't think you need to know. We don't think the opposition needs to know; we don't think the people of British Columbia need to know; we don't think the aboriginal people in this province need to know."

[1920]

There are a number of aboriginal women who have spoken openly about this, from a number of aboriginal reserves in this province -- not just the Nisga'a. I will refer the members to Dianne Rinehart's article in the Vancouver Sun of April 13, where those aboriginal women had the courage to speak out. That's what it took -- courage -- because these women know that on their reserve lands they are discriminated against and they are intimidated, and many of them are fearful to tell the truth of what is happening. And what this government wants to do, through this particular treaty, is perpetrate more of the same kind of discrimination that has gone on under the Indian Act.

Interjection.

L. Stephens: The former Minister of Aboriginal Affairs says: "No, that's not true." Well, show us, hon. minister. Let's have the debate. Show us where aboriginal women are protected under this treaty -- and where everyone else is as well.

They say that the policy of transferring the administration of social programs -- which is underway and which this government and the federal government have initiated. . . . The transfer of those programs is underway, and they're telling us that it is so "mismanaged and misdirected that it threatens the democratic rights and freedoms of native Indians." And this government is involved in that. There's no financial accountability, no democracy and no equality on first nations reserves. It's going to the bands with no accountability, and no one is checking to see that it goes to the people and programs for which it is intended.

So a lot of what we want to know and what we want to hear from this government, which talks about social justice and does exactly the opposite. . . . It's scandalous. They should be ashamed. That government should be ashamed of not allowing full and open debate on this treaty, which is so important to so many people in this province.

Some of the band councils are continuing to deny benefits and housing to native women on the reserve who lost their Indian status after marrying non-native men, despite federal legislation reinstating the women's status.

Interjection.

L. Stephens: The former Minister of Aboriginal Affairs says that there's nothing like that in the treaty. And there isn't; the treaty is silent on that. Aboriginal women want to know whether or not the provincial government is looking after their interests. Obviously they're not, because, as the former minister has just said, the treaty is silent on that. The government is not answering the questions of aboriginal people, it's certainly not answering the questions of the people of British Columbia, and it's certainly not answering the questions of the Liberal opposition.

This government has no shame. It has deliberately invoked closure in this House -- something that has not happened in the province of British Columbia on an important piece of legislation such as this. I agree with the government when they say that this is a historical piece of legislation, an important piece of legislation. I agree with that, and I agree -- and so do members of the opposition -- that we need to have treaties. But we need to have treaties that are openly debated, treaties that people are involved in, and that's not happening with this treaty. That is why members opposite here are so outraged at the way this government has behaved

[ Page 11959 ]

The Speaker: Hon. member, you'll notice that the light is on.

L. Stephens: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I have one last. . . .

The Speaker: A quick sentence.

L. Stephens: We're tired of the broken promises, tired of the deception and denial. Invoking closure now, on this momentous and vitally important debate, will be a stain on the NDP government and the NDP Party forever.

H. Giesbrecht: I must confess that I am somewhat puzzled by some of the things that are taking place here, and I want to remind the hon. members here that it wasn't that long ago that the opposition spent about six hours debating a motion to recess for half an hour, and I find this debate somewhat similar. I use an analogy from my previous life, where I was a school teacher. Toward the end of the class, I would give them an assignment, and then I would say: "If you use your time wisely, you'll probably have enough time to finish this before the bell goes." More often than not, there would be some student who would focus their mind on everything except the task at hand and at the end of the period complain that they didn't have enough time to finish the assignment.

[1925]

Interjection.

H. Giesbrecht: The member for. . . . I would be perfectly willing to concede my time, if the hon. members were very serious about going back to the committee-stage debate and were actually asking some questions and getting answers to all the questions they have. But that isn't the point of this discussion. They know it, and I think the public out there knows it as well.

The member for Vancouver-Little Mountain made some comments earlier that really had nothing to do with getting any answers. It's sort of typical. I've seen this over and over again, where he kind of sinks to the bottom of the pond and wallows in the sludge that's down there and feeds on it. Then he floats to the top and spews forth all kinds of venomous rhetoric.

The Speaker: Hon. member, as all members in this House know -- and I'm sure the member knows -- personal allusions are not acceptable in debate in this House, so the member will withdraw those.

H. Giesbrecht: I apologize, hon. member. I withdraw the remark. Of course, I've heard the same kind of thing from the member for so long that I really wonder whether, after the hundredth time, it advances the cause.

As I said, we probably should dispense with this debate and use the precious time left to let them put their questions forward. But this debate isn't about time, and we should have that clearly understood. It wouldn't be so bad if most of the points they made were actually dealing with the facts. The word "half-truth" comes to mind, and then, of course, there could be quarter-truths, but I think the opposition has kind of gone metric. They're now dealing in milli-truths, and I don't think I need to instruct people on what portion of the truth that would be.

There was a suggestion from the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain that this is somehow what we're doing for political expediency. I think you have to remember that this is about justice for first nations people. This is the first of a number of treaties that we are going to have to debate and get settled before too long, otherwise the courts are going to do it for us. I think that it's about nothing more or less than justice and fairness for first nations.

There has been an awful lot made about the fact that the opposition were promised an opportunity. . . . I would maintain, of course, that they got the opportunity, and they didn't make very efficient and effective use of their time. I sat through many of the debates in here -- second reading and a lot of the committee stuff -- and, quite frankly, some of the questions were insulting to Nisga'a people, because the suggestion in some of the questions was that they didn't have the knowledge and expertise to handle their own affairs.

There's still little focus on the issues that they term critical. Endless questions on minute details that any reasonable person could have found the answers to. They could have simply asked outside of this House to get answers to a lot of their questions. Now they've wasted their time, and they cry foul after 116 hours of debate. They treat the electorate a whole lot of irrational rhetoric and politics. That's all it is: just cheap, partisan politics.

[1930]

"It's a triumph, I believe, which proves to the world that reasonable people can sit down and settle historical wrongs. It proves that a modern society can correct the mistakes of the past. As British Columbians, as Canadians, I believe we should all be very proud. It's a triumph because under the treaty, the Nisga'a people will join Canada and British Columbia as free citizens, full and equal participants in the social, economic and political life of this province and, indeed, of this country."

In Chief Gosnell's address there's also a line that I think is worth reading. It's toward the end of his remarks:

"We are not naïve. We know that some people do not want this treaty. We know that there are naysayers -- some sitting here today. We know that there are those who say that Canada

[ Page 11960 ]

and British Columbia are giving us too much, and a few who want to reopen negotiations in order to give us less. Others, still upholding the values of Smithe and Scott, are practising a wilful ignorance. This colonial attitude is fanning the flames of fear and ignorance in this province and reigniting a poisonous attitude that we as aboriginal people are so familiar with."

On December 2 -- it was the same day -- the member for Kamloops-North Thompson made an interesting comment:

"We should not be in the Legislature today debating the Nisga'a treaty when the question of constitutionality is before the courts. There is sound, legitimate argument that the treaty as drafted changes the Canadian constitution, and the present NDP government of British Columbia knows this full well. B.C. Liberals believe that the courts will rule that the creation of a new third order of government under the treaty -- with its powers vastly superior to those of municipal governments, its ability to pass laws with supremacy over provincial and federal laws, and its freedom from the requirement of royal assent -- does indeed comprise a constitutional change. If the court so finds. . . ."

[1935]

Hon. Speaker, if you want evidence of this, all you need to do is read their comments in second reading. You need to read their public comments, and you need to consider the reasons for their court action. All of it belies their suggestion that somehow they wanted more time. The fact of the matter is that they wanted the government to invoke closure, because then they would have an issue. That's all this is: politics.

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

I want to read a quote from today's Times Colonist. It says in the last two paragraphs:

"Nisga'a Chief Joe Gosnell said he and some other members of the Nisga'a nation will be in Victoria Thursday to watch the bill pass" -- listen! -- "and he has little sympathy for the Liberal objection. The opposition" -- and this is still part of the reading -- "is making it appear that the document is relatively new, but it has been around for more than three years and there have been at least 500 meetings about the treaty around the province, he said. 'The discussion can't go on forever.' "

Interjections.

H. Giesbrecht: They sit there across the floor and babble their opinions, but the fact of the matter is that they want the Nisga'a to go back to where they were 20 years ago. There is no attempt to deal with the issues that have faced the first nations people in this province. If you go back in terms of history, it's rather interesting that after all this time they get so close and have three parties at the table, and they come up with a deal that is made up of compromises from all three parties at the table. They have public meetings explaining this all over the province -- something no party to a negotiation should actually have to do, but they've done that.

Then they sit here and say, "We've got to debate this" -- not another week, not another two weeks but forever, it seems, because they can't tell you how long they want to debate. That is probably the most self-serving position they have taken -- after 116 hours of debate, more than the Labour Code in 1992. It was pointed out here that Ralph Klein, the person they like to emulate. . . . They go down to Ralph Klein to get input into how he runs things. They want to be like Alberta. I've actually had some people praying that we should make B.C. like Alberta, with its open gaming laws and its cuts in health care and education and stuff.

Of course, Klein can invoke closure 15 times in the last 17 months, and they still want to be like Alberta. But somehow, when it's done here -- when we announce two weeks before we're going to do it that this thing has to be wrapped up, that there's other business at hand -- they whine about the fact that somehow this is an affront to democracy. Well, what about democracy for the Nisga'a people? They waited more than 100 years, and who on that side of the House is going to stand up for first nations? It's about time somebody drew attention to their position.

I don't have any problem. Most of my constituents are clearly saying that this has been debated long enough. They've talked about this forever. The Nisga'a people have waited for centuries. It was mentioned that out in the rotunda they had a ceremony where they named the people that had been struggling for justice and fairness and that had died in the process. And guess what: here we sit and argue about process. I think, hon. Speaker, that that says it all, so I'm going to close there. Thank you for the opportunity. I have absolutely no difficulty in accepting my responsibility and getting on with the job at hand.

[1940]

It's hard to understand, therefore, why it's been the subject of such stop-and-go debate. . .

Interjection.

K. Krueger: . . .or why it's the subject of such rude heckling by the member for Vancouver-Burrard, who's normally

[ Page 11961 ]

Of course, the Premier called the Legislature back into session in January to resume debate on the Nisga'a treaty, and we commenced the committee stage of the proceedings. Curiously, the Premier then abruptly adjourned debate and ran from the Legislature with all the government MLAs on the opposite side. And just before he did, he appointed a new Aboriginal Affairs minister, firing the existing Aboriginal Affairs minister -- to our astonishment, because he seemed to be doing a capable job of presenting the government's case up until that time.

The Premier had made various commitments to the people of British Columbia and to the official opposition, and so had the previous Aboriginal Affairs minister, to the effect that the treaty would be debated clause by clause and that the opposition would have opportunity to ask all of the questions that it needed to ask. Those questions are being put to the opposition by the public, who are tremendously concerned about this treaty and all of its ramifications.

The new Aboriginal Affairs minister is a person who wrote a book about the Nisga'a treaty and other subjects, and he expressed grave concerns -- the same sorts of concerns that I and members on this side of the House are constantly expressing as well. When the Premier adjourned the Legislature, he said that it was to allow the new Aboriginal Affairs minister to, in his terms, get up to speed on the Nisga'a treaty. That surprised us, because we've always considered him a fairly bright guy. He used to be the Leader of the Official Opposition, and we weren't sure that he needed two weeks to get up to speed. But, in fact, the Premier apparently decided that he needed two months to get up to speed. The new Aboriginal Affairs minister took two months to get up to speed, and we finally came back to the Legislature, of course, just over two weeks ago.

A matter that took this minister two months to prepare for and has been debated for two weeks is abruptly, this week, the subject first of a notice of intention to invoke closure and now, in the last two days, the subject of an unheard-of motion in this Legislature known as a guillotine motion -- guillotine closure to take away the right of our constituents to have their questions spoken in this Legislature, to take away the right of opposition MLAs to ask those questions in the Legislature, to even deny us a vote on the provisions of the treaty and to ram the thing down the throats of British Columbians without further debate.

Mr. Frank Calder is a Nisga'a member who has watched a great deal of this debate from that gallery up there. Mr. Calder's name is a name that will be in the history books of British Columbia forever, because he was more than instrumental in the long battle for justice that the Nisga'a fought and are still fighting. Mr. Calder clearly does not believe that closure in this matter -- and arguably, one would expect, guillotine closure in particular -- is appropriate. This is what he said on the CBC on April 15, 1999, less than a week ago: "It's going to be the first treaty in this province, and I would like to see it thoroughly considered before passage or agreement on it. I think I speak on behalf of quite a number of people in that respect. A closure, to me, is more of a coercion. I don't want any treaty to be coerced on me." That's a direct quote from Frank Calder, who's watching this debate tonight and who thinks that the NDP are doing an irresponsible thing. He doesn't want to see it happen.

[1945]

In fact, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs has had this to say about our questions. He said on April 2: "I'm not suggesting for a second that I will not allow a full debate." And the House Leader from the government side said: "We will carry on to debate the sections of the legislation for as long as it takes." Why do these people say one thing and do another? Why does that happen? The previous minister said: "We expect that committee stage debate will be very similar to procedures used during budget estimates debate, with detailed examination of all aspects of the legislation and the final agreement. This is a complex piece of legislation, and the government will have the necessary resources on hand to provide thorough and complete answers to any questions MLAs may have on all sections of the bill."

And it goes on and on. The Premier said: "We will not rush it through." And the Premier said there would be clause-by-clause debate on this treaty and on this legislation. For the last two weeks in this House the new Aboriginal Affairs minister has been engaged in the appropriate committee stage question-and-answer dialogue with this official opposition, and these are some of the things he said along the way. He said on April 12, just over a week ago: "I think it's been a very productive debate." And he's right. He said: "I appreciate the member opposite for not only some insightful questions but also some good suggestions. . . ." On April 14 he said: "I'm just trying to make sure we get that specific, because that's an interesting question."

Over and over he has expressed his appreciation for the quality of the questioning by the official opposition. That's our duty, as you well know. It's our duty to examine the legislation that's put before this House and the details of this historic treaty, which is going to have ramifications for everyone in this province now and forever. It's very difficult to change, and there are tremendous ramifications to it.

So why is this matter suddenly so urgent? Why would this government take this absolutely unprecedented step in the whole British Commonwealth, let alone in British Columbia? It's never been done here before. Indeed, there are many situations where closure is not an inappropriate way for a government to proceed. But this form of closure -- guillotine closure -- is unheard of in British Columbia. It has some precedent in Britain. Why? Because a very small group -- a radical group, generally -- is obstructing the business of the House, and the government and the official opposition take the view that it's important to derail that obstruction and to get the business of the House done and to proceed.

That's not the situation here at all. We've just gone over examples of things that the Aboriginal Affairs minister has said, verifying that this has been a constructive and worthwhile debate and entirely appropriate. The members opposite -- the government members -- surely are receiving the same

[ Page 11962 ]

Suddenly the matter is urgent. This is from the same government that in January argued that the imminent closure of Highland Valley Copper -- in the constituency of the member for Yale-Lillooet, hard up against the constituency of the member for Kamloops -- did not meet the test of urgency. Those 1,046 jobs disappearing on May 15, according to the layoff notices, is a matter that didn't meet the test of urgency, but suddenly it is urgent to ram this treaty down the throats of British Columbians.

[1950]

Now, of course, continuing -- fleshing out this picture for people who may be watching the Hansard broadcast tonight -- the Speaker has the right to refuse a closure motion. At 6 o'clock this evening the Speaker did just that. Presumably she will continue to do that throughout the night, because it is wrong for closure to be invoked in this case. However, the motion that the government has brought forward is a dramatic insult to the Speaker and to this House, because it disentitles the Speaker the opportunity to rule on the closure motion and disentitles her to a say. We say that is wrong.

This is a matter of ruthless political expediency on the part of a desperate Premier, mired in his political and personal scandals, caught in his dismal results and facing the consequences from an electorate that will never forgive or forget what the NDP have done to British Columbia in this decade. The 1990s should have belonged to British Columbia. We entered the 1990s at the top of the heap in Canada. We had the highest-performing economy in Canada, and we've been plunged to the worst-performing economy in Canada. We suffer the indignity of being one of only two places in all of North America to currently be in recession: British Columbia and Chiapas, Mexico.

People are migrating to Alberta, Ontario, Washington and Oregon -- everywhere but here -- because the jobs are gone. Why? Because we have an incompetent government run by a tinpot dictator, with more of the same lined up to replace him when he falls on his sword after he tries to claim this particular Nisga'a treaty as his swan song.

Deputy Speaker: I'll remind the member of unparliamentary language and the reference to another member of the House.

Continue.

K. Krueger: This government has a sorry record of taking charity gaming money from charities, of being told by the Supreme Court of British Columbia that it is in violation of the Criminal Code of Canada.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: On a point of order, I recognize the Minister of Labour.

Hon. D. Lovick: Madam Speaker, I must -- I am sorry. I know there's a certain latitude allowed, but for the member to say that this government committed a crime is absolutely unfair and untrue. I demand that he withdraw it. He knows better; he must not say that.

Deputy Speaker: Will the member withdraw his statement?

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, order. The debate. . . .

K. Krueger: Withdrawn, hon. Chair. I'm not sure what the member heard, but what I said was. . . . What I meant to say was -- and we'll check the record -- that the Supreme Court of British Columbia said that this government was operating in violation of the Criminal Code of Canada by taking charity gaming funds from charities. That's a matter of public record; that is in the reasons for judgment.

Deputy Speaker: I will remind the member, and all members of the House, that the debate is on the motion. I will ask the member to please keep the debate relevant.

K. Krueger: This is a matter of context, because currently before this House is another bill which seeks to retroactively give this government authority to do something that the Supreme Court of Canada has said it cannot do. It cannot charge the probate fees that it's been charging. The legislation is on the order paper to retroactively appropriate. . . .

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, the debate is on the motion.

K. Krueger: When you have a government that is willing to do whatever it wants -- in the immortal words of the Forests minister, "Government can do whatever it wants"-- and when it's told by the courts that what it's doing is illegal -- enacting retroactive legislation to conclusively deem itself to have had the authority to do that -- then it shouldn't surprise anybody that this sort of draconian motion is introduced. Yet it does surprise people, because somehow, against all experience, we expect better from our government.

[1955]

[ Page 11963 ]

Interjection.

K. Krueger: The Minister of Small Business is heckling.

Chief Stewart Phillip, the president of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, carries on: "The made-in-B.C. treaty process, which the government is so proud of, operates in the total absence of good faith. B.C. negotiates treaties on a 'first-come, first-serve' basis. Any indigenous group willing to sign on the dotted line can claim traditional territories of other indigenous peoples with the government's blessing." And what of that? What of the fact that the Gitanyow have overlapping claims with the Nisga'a, which this government -- in its ruthless drive to conclude a treaty and claim a feather in its cap -- has insisted on ramming through?

Chief Phillip goes on to say: "B.C. has not properly reviewed the long-term impacts of this treaty with respect to relations between B.C. and indigenous peoples." And he's right. Nor has this government properly reviewed and allowed the opposition to ask the questions it needs to ask, which bear on the relationship -- which this treaty will blemish -- between the Nisga'a people and the rest of British Columbia, including the non-aboriginal population.

Chief Phillip goes on to say: "We will not soon forget or forgive the government's legalized theft of our traditional territories with the first indigenous nation they found willing to make a deal." Granted, the Nisga'a have had a long and awful record of injustice, and they've been very patient. They have tried for 111 years to get the right treaty with British Columbia. It's an absolute insult for this government to suggest that 116 hours of debate is too much. That's barely one hour for every year that the Nisga'a have struggled to have a treaty. How is 116 hours of debate the magic number?

Chief Phillip goes on to say: "What about all of the other indigenous nations whose land is included in the Nisga'a treaty? What good faith has this government shown toward them? Invoking closure on the debate on the Nisga'a agreement will lose for the government any shred of credibility that it may have had." He's right that if there's any there, it's a shred.

We know that this government and this sorry Premier have been hanging their hat on this treaty -- hoping that somehow it'll pull them out of the fire, and they'll be seen as the champions of aboriginal people -- and throwing their biggest problems into the lap of our former leader, the former Leader of the Official Opposition, causing him, the man who said it would be easier for him to have a sex change than to cross the floor and be a member of the NDP, to betray himself. Some people are calling him Flip, and some people are calling him Geraldine. But I'm calling him a man that I used to respect. I'm very, very sorry to see that he has reached this point in his life.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Member, take your seat.

Hon. D. Lovick: I am sure I don't have to draw the member's attention to the rule he is violating. He knows full well that those personal insults are simply not allowed in parliamentary discourse. Standing order 40 makes it very clear. I would ask the member to. . . . Ideally, he ought to apologize, it seems to me, for that. But certainly let's rise above that kind of debate, members.

Deputy Speaker: I'll remind all members of the House that under standing order 40(2): "No member shall use offensive words against any member of this House."

K. Krueger: I was actually quoting the member's own words. I believe the exact quote is that it would be easier for him to have a sex change than to abandon his principles. I guess the court of public opinion will decide whether those principles have been abandoned or not.

To go on with this letter: "Invoking closure on the debate on the Nisga'a agreement will lose for the government any shred of credibility that it may have had. As the first made-in-B.C. treaty, the Nisga'a agreement must be subjected to full and open scrutiny by the B.C. public and indigenous peoples." That hasn't happened. Full and open scrutiny was well underway. The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs had repeatedly complimented the opposition on the quality of its scrutiny. That was underway. Now that is being abandoned, as this sorry government seeks to cram this matter down the throat of the Speaker and the throats of British Columbians and the official opposition.

[2000]

I often wonder what members opposite think when they first get up in the morning. Do they look forward to coming to this Legislature? Do they look forward to doing the kinds of things that they have to do -- speaking on behalf of a government like this, a government that invokes motions like this, trampling all over the democratic rights of their constituents and ours, over their rights as well as ours? In spite of the fact that we're brutalized by motions like this and that we see the democratic principles of this institution trampled on by the government, at least we retain our dignity, our right to a free vote and our right to represent our constituents when we vote. But time after time we see the sorry spectacle of members on the NDP side standing up and voting for government motions that they cannot possibly agree with, holding their noses and having to ram the unfortunate things through.

I know, hon. Speaker, that what you want to do is uphold the traditions of this House -- long and honourable traditions.

[ Page 11964 ]

Self-government, as described in this treaty, is far bigger than "self." It doesn't only pertain to Nisga'a people on Nisga'a lands; it pertains to everybody on Nisga'a lands. It tramples on the democratic rights that every citizen of Canada has an expectation of enjoying and every right to enjoy.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

The rights of aboriginal women, which were discussed in her usual thorough and competent detail by the member for Langley, are a matter of profound concern. They have been expressed to members on this side of the House and, surely, members on that side of the House over and over again. They are not adequately protected in this treaty. The rights of non-Nisga'a people who live on Nisga'a lands. . . . The rights of all future British Columbians, who will be saddled with the responsibility of paying for provisions of a treaty that are impractical and absolutely unaffordable -- let alone the overlap in claims that Chief Phillip was discussing.

Hon. Speaker, I am glad that you feel no obligation to be anybody's yes-person, and I challenge the members on the NDP side of the House -- the government side -- also to know their responsibility is to their constituents, present and future, and not to the Premier -- not to the man who's on his way out, not to the man who probably made his last speech in the Legislature when he introduced this motion. Their responsibility is to their children, their constituents' children, their constituents and themselves, and they should not vote for this motion.

They should allow us to carry on with the clause-by-clause debate that we were promised on the Nisga'a treaty. They should force their Premier to honour his promise that the timetable would be the one set by the official opposition. They should take the position that there are many matters before this Legislature that are much more urgent than this motion. They should not support the motion, and they should allow us to carry on with the business of the day for the people of British Columbia.

[2005]

This session, with regard to the Nisga'a treaty has been such a stop-and-go matter, clearly subject to political whims and difficulties and agendas of this government. Certainly the government could afford to take a cooling-off period, back away from this ill-advised, improper, highly unethical, guillotine closure motion and allow the business of the people of British Columbia to proceed in this House in an orderly way.

You know, people are always astounded to realize how this NDP government flouts their responsibilities and the business of this House, how the rules of the House are crafted and then bent to enhance the government's ability to ram its agenda through and impose its will on the people of B.C. The motion today surely is one of the worst examples thus far -- something no other government in British Columbia has ever done, something those members opposite would have screamed blue murder over if it had been done to them by the Socreds. Of course, it never was, because those were principled people. Those were cabinet ministers who would resign when challenged by the NDP members opposite, many of whom are still here.

I remember a Socred minister resigning over a bottle of wine that he put on his expense account. These people won't resign no matter what they're caught doing or are accused of, no matter how often the courts tell them they have no right to do the things that they've been doing. This government apparently is not at all shy to stomp all over the rights of British Columbians by stifling the ability of MLAs -- on this side of the House and on the NDP side of the House -- to state their constituents' case, to bring forward the constituents' concerns and to ask those legitimate questions that we've been asking and that the Aboriginal Affairs minister has expressed his admiration for throughout the last couple of weeks of debate.

How can this Premier suggest with a straight face, having taken two months off to get his new Aboriginal Affairs minister up to speed, that it's now a matter so urgent that after two weeks of debate he has to impose this hitherto unseen, radical, draconian measure of guillotine closure?

The people of British Columbia are frightened by this treaty and its implications. Their concerns are profound and justified. Many facts that had not yet been admitted by this government have come to light during the course of the committee stage of this debate on the treaty, and no doubt many more will come forward if we're allowed to complete the debate in an orderly way. Nobody can point to a single question during this debate that's been inappropriate or a waste of time. It is utterly false for members opposite to refer to our committee stage debate as a filibuster. Nobody is taking that bait. Nobody believes the government when it makes those allegations, just as nobody believes them in anything else they say, because it is false.

The overwhelming majority of people who've contacted me about the Nisga'a treaty have expressed concerns, and people are asking us to ensure that it is not ratified in its present form. The chief federal negotiator said publicly he doubted that in 15 years the Nisga'a people would be able to pay 25 percent of the cost of their own administrative infrastructure. The Nisga'a people are given the authority, for example, to establish post-secondary institutions -- universities, presumably -- on Nisga'a lands, funded by the general taxpayer until such time as they generate enough funds to fund them themselves from their land. And that's not likely to ever happen.

When Chief Phillip warns of decades of litigation that will flow as a result of this closure -- let alone guillotine

[ Page 11965 ]

[2010]

We have seen in the recent past -- in Bosnia, in Rwanda and now in Yugoslavia -- how close we are to not being a civilized world.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, member.

K. Krueger: Let's not carry on in British Columbia with this terrible precedent.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, member. Your time is up.

B. Goodacre: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

B. Goodacre: In the gallery today we have a fine local musician by the name of Dave Gallant; a local author and publisher, Tat Jamieson; a former resident of New Aiyansh, Yishe Sobol; the medical health officer for the Nass, Dr. Isaac Sobol, who is studying in Vancouver at this time; and the editor of the Island Catholic News, Marnie Butler. We joined you, Mr. Speaker, for a show of slides from Tibet that Dr. Sobol brought back with him as part of the work that he does, sharing medical expertise across the world. He is now, of course, devoting his expertise to helping the Nisga'a people. With that, I'll start my remarks tonight.

Years ago, the Calder case turned around the history of aboriginal relations in this country. I have a very special attachment to the Calder case inasmuch as the main lawyer that argued that case was a cousin of mine, Mr. Tom Berger. So I developed fairly early an interest in the situation in the Nass Valley and in the fate of the Nisga'a people as it proceeded from the Calder case through the many years of litigation. At that time, as a young student in university, I took an interest in the plight of aboriginal people in this country. It's been a very interesting experience, observing the development of the relationship between aboriginal people and the country of Canada -- the province of British Columbia, in particular. There was a time in this province when no political party would recognize that aboriginal title in British Columbia had never been extinguished. There are people who still make the argument in this province that aboriginal title has been extinguished, despite the rulings of the Supreme Court that that is not the case. We as a people have a strong responsibility to deal with the fact that aboriginal people do have rights and title in this province.

[2015]

That leaves us with negotiation, hon. Speaker. And throughout Canada, since 1973, we've seen a number of historic negotiations come to fruition. Most of those negotiations, as we know, have taken place in remote, northern parts of Canada and have had very little bearing on highly populated areas. So the Nisga'a treaty brings with it a certain range of risk that these other treaties don't, one of them being that. . . . Fine and dandy, the Nass Valley is relatively isolated, but we know that with the B.C. Treaty Commission, we're looking at treaties throughout the entire province, and not very many of those areas are sparsely populated like the northern part of British Columbia is.

I'm fortunate to be living in a part of British Columbia that is very sparsely populated and has a large aboriginal population that still lives in their traditional territories and very much uses their traditional territories, to the extent that they can. These people are very, very concerned with the way this Legislature is dealing with the rights of aboriginal people. They can see that we are starting to focus more energy on the kinds of things that are said in places like this than in their villages and communities. They were hopeful, when this process started a few years back -- the early part of this decade -- that it meant that we were serious about coming into their communities and seriously talking about their issues and talking about rectifying some of the serious injustices that they perceive have happened over the years: bringing resource development into their territories without any compensation or participation, clearcutting their traplines -- again, without compensation or even consultation. These kinds of things have been happening steadily and continue to happen even to this day.

We have a growing cynicism amongst aboriginal people that the southern agenda of non-aboriginal people has taken hold, because they read the newspapers, and they see that the debate in this province is being pushed into an area where they're not really part of the debate anymore. That's a very crushing blow. We're talking about a very, very small minority of people, but we're also talking about people who have traditionally inhabited huge areas of land because of the type of lifestyle they had. I mean, traplines can't exactly be fit into an urban landscape.

So where do the aboriginal people of British Columbia belong in this process? My argument is that we have to sit back and realize that this Nisga'a treaty is not simply about whether or not British Columbia was aggressive enough at the table -- not whether British Columbia went to the table and made sure that every single nuance in that treaty would be

[ Page 11966 ]

[2020]

In the northern part of my riding, where we have a very good history of mineralization and some very profitable operating mines right now, the Tahltan people have worked things out with those mines -- but not with any help from the people of British Columbia. They have no recognized rights by our government -- and that's either the government of Canada or the government of British Columbia. The only rights they've been able to ascertain are basically what they've been able to negotiate directly with the mine owners.

Now, their view of those lands is that those are their historical lands. We've seen the Delgamuukw case, and the Delgamuukw case makes it very clear that mineral rights are part of aboriginal title. Yet we still have a long way to go to recognize, as a society, that these claims to mineral rights on the traditional territories of aboriginal people actually ought to be recognized in practice. We have a long, long way to go.

When we sit around here the way we are debating this Nisga'a treaty right now -- as if the only people that really matter in the negotiation of a treaty are the non-aboriginal people -- it gets a little bit touchy for the first nations citizens in my riding. Because, again, they're a small minority of people. They feel -- and I think justly so -- that as a society, we don't pay much attention to their needs.

As a person who grew up in a rural part of British Columbia, I have always had the sense that rural British Columbia has been ignored by the urban territories here and the urban agenda. That the rural parts of British Columbia are a playground for urbanites is very analogous to the feeling that first nations have about their territories, which are their homelands. Other British Columbians call it Crown land and seek to suggest that ownership rests with the Crown, when in fact ownership obviously does not exclusively rest with the Crown, because aboriginal title does exist. The purpose of negotiations is, of course, in theory to reconcile these two legitimate claims on the resources.

Of course, right now we are dealing in this House with the Nisga'a treaty, which is the first attempt that Canada and British Columbia have made to sit down with a first nation in British Columbia and hammer out an actual accord where we have shared jurisdiction and responsibility for a resource. I think that when we look at it that way, we realize we're making a great step forward with this treaty -- a really great step forward.

[2025]

The Nisga'a people -- rightly so -- have asked for exclusive jurisdiction and protection under section 35 for those areas of their lives that no other people should have anything to say about. That's one of the small prices that we can pay as members of this society: to recognize that these societies that were here when we arrived -- our ancestors who represented the British Crown here in British Columbia -- were just as organized as any other society on the face of the Earth.

Most of us tend to forget what kind of societies our ancestors came from. If you read John Ralston Saul's book, Reflections of a Siamese Twin, he talks about the trouble that the early French settlers had with keeping the young men in the colony. They kept running away to live with the aboriginal people because it was so much freer. Because of the deprivations that they had to live under, living in the French barracks, and the kind of lives that they lived in France, where they were absolutely dominated by a society that was anything but free, the idea of being able to live in the kind of freedom that they had available to them by living with the aboriginal people of Quebec at that time was so attractive that it was almost impossible to keep people in the French settlement. That is the kind of thing that we still haven't come to grips with as a society: the very dynamic nature of aboriginal societies and the way they have kept their culture alive despite the persecution from the wider society over the last 500 years.

I would like to close by reminding us all that we have a much, much bigger job to do with the whole treaty process than simply passing the Nisga'a deal. We very clearly have to get on with the agenda of reconciling the differences between aboriginal society and the dominant society. The Nisga'a treaty is a good step in the right direction, and the sooner we get on with it, the better off we'll all be.

[2030]

B. McKinnon: I'm appalled by the behaviour of this NDP government and embarrassed by what they are doing to our democracy. I look back in our history to the many young people who fought in World War I and World War II for our freedom. They fought for us, they fought for our right to democracy, and many of them gave their lives for that right. We have a government in this province that is trampling on that right tonight. We have a government that should be hanging their heads in shame.

As an elected MLA in the province of British Columbia, I am appalled that both the Nisga'a treaty and the Nisga'a

[ Page 11967 ]

The Nisga'a treaty will be a tarnished piece of history. This will not be a treaty anyone in this House can be proud of. Whether this side of the House chooses to support the treaty or not is not the question. What is important is that democracy works in the Legislature. Debate on legislation is an important step in our democracy. Debate helps the court understand the legislation. Debate at the committee stage helps to define the real meaning of the legislation before us.

The Nisga'a debate has established for us that this government has no idea whatsoever what the mineral resources are on Nisga'a lands, even though we have two mineral claims on category A lands. The premier himself admitted on January 25 that there may be spectacular values associated with Nisga'a land in the future. The Attorney General confirmed that the treaty contemplates the Nisga'a expanding their territory. Lands can get bigger, not smaller.

The government has listed 19 sites in the treaty that may be subject to environmental contamination and compensation claims and refused to remove these sites from the treaty. The government has no idea what the cleanup costs will be that we as taxpayers will be liable for. This government has committed B.C. taxpayers to a potentially costly, open-ended obligation for sites that have no business being in this treaty. That is wrong.

The government anticipates the possibility that the Nisga'a will charge non-Nisga'a higher access fees than Nisga'a members to hunt and fish in the Nass Valley. This just confirms the double standard and lack of fairness that permeates much of the agreement.

The NDP has spent $8 million on a propaganda campaign describing Nisga'a self-government as municipal style and has repeatedly denied that the Nisga'a self-government powers far exceed those of a municipality. On April 13 the Attorney General admitted that municipal was an inaccurate way to describe Nisga'a government.

We haven't even begun to debate on the financial section of the treaty, and we have already found out that B.C. taxpayers will be paying the Nisga'a a minimum in annual stumpage fees of $0.35 million and $71 million in road upgrades that are not included in this treaty -- this in addition to the $41 million upgrade to the Nisga'a Highway and a $30 million upgrade to the two-lane road to the Kincolith. The government has also confirmed that it has guaranteed the Nisga'a $2 million in Forest Renewal B.C. funds over five years, over and above their treaty entitlements. Section 74 of the treaty requires that Nisga'a must qualify for FRBC under existing guidelines like any other applicant.

On January 21 the Attorney General said he had no intention of delaying the conclusion of any treaty to resolve an overlapping claim by the neighbouring Gitxsan and Gitanyow nations. They would be negotiated on a first come, first served basis.

[2035]

Interjections.

B. McKinnon: You will have your chance to debate this whenever your time is. . .

Deputy Speaker: Members, members.

B. McKinnon: . . .so debate it on your time, not mine. Thank you.

Deputy Speaker: Member, you have the floor to debate the motion. Any comments to other members come through the Chair, please.

B. McKinnon: This government promised the people of the province that they would have a full and complete debate on the Nisga'a treaty. The Premier said: "It could take a few months to pass. We will give the opposition the chance to debate each and every clause."

The Finance minister said: "We will carry on to debate the sections of the legislation for as long as it takes." The now Minister of Labour said: "We expect that committee stage debate will be very similar to procedures used during budget estimates debates, with detailed examination of all aspects of the legislation and the final agreement. This is a complex piece of legislation, and the government will have the necessary resources on hand to provide thorough and complete answers to any questions MLAs may have on all sections of the bill." It goes on and on. Not a word from the mouths of ministers can we believe. They sit and laugh on the other side because they think it's funny that we don't have democracy in this House any more.

This government has brought British Columbia to its knees, and now, with closure on the Nisga'a treaty, they're showing their true colours to all indigenous people in this province. It is important that the Nisga'a are given an honourable treaty, a treaty they can proudly bring to their people -- not a treaty that has been tainted by this government and their Premier's political agenda.

I would like to read a letter written to the Vancouver Sun by Chief Stewart Phillip, president of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs. I know you've heard it before, and I think you should listen this time. In the letter it says:

"If the Nisga'a agreement is not a treaty which the New Democratic Party government is willing to defend in a fully open, meaningful and substantial debate, it has no business fast-tracking its passage.

[ Page 11968 ]

"If the goal of the treaty process is to achieve certainty, closure is not the way to do it. The Clark government's approach to treaty-making will undoubtedly mire indigenous peoples and the province in years of court cases.

"The made-in-B.C. treaty process, which the government is so proud of, operates in total absence of good faith. B.C. negotiates treaties on a 'first-come, first-serve' basis. Any indigenous group willing to sign on the dotted line can claim traditional territories of another indigenous people's with the government's blessing.

"B.C. has not properly reviewed the long-term impacts of this treaty with respect to relations between B.C. and indigenous people. We will not soon forget or forgive the government's legalized theft of our traditional territories with the first indigenous nation they found willing to make a deal.

"What about all of the other indigenous nations whose land is included in the Nisga'a treaty? What good faith has this government shown toward them?

"Invoking closure on the debate on the Nisga'a agreement will lose for the government any shred of credibility that it may have had. As the first made-in-B.C. treaty, the Nisga'a agreement must be subjected to full and open scrutiny by the B.C. public and indigenous peoples.

"To ratify the Nisga'a treaty without resolving the overlap issues among indigenous people is an act of aggression and bad faith.

"Blatant acts of political opportunism designed to facilitate self-serving political expediency will result in many, many more decades of litigation and economic uncertainty."

[2040]

Interjections.

B. McKinnon: That's not the kind of language, hon. Speaker, we should hear in the House. It's disgraceful, just as the government is.

Interjections.

B. McKinnon: Listen; you might learn something.

The Premier himself has said that this treaty is a template for all other treaties in this province. We have 50 to 60 treaties that still need to be ratified. Yet we are not allowed to finish the Nisga'a in its entirety. Why is that? Is it because the Premier wants to hand over the Nisga'a as a done deal by the time the convention comes around next week? The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs said at the beginning of this month -- he actually vowed -- that closure wouldn't be used. Once again, this government has lied to the people of this province and to this House.

The NDP are denying us, as elected representatives, our right to ask questions about this treaty. The people of British Columbia count on the opposition to get answers to the questions that will affect the taxpayers; they will be the ones footing the bill. This is our one and only chance to get this treaty right for all the people of this province, including the Nisga'a and all first nations people. Once this treaty is passed, it will be set in constitutional concrete forever.

On June 30 last year, the Premier promised: "We won't rush through. I want the debate. I'd like British Columbians to be involved in the debate." Let's take a look at where we are in the debate. We have a 22-chapter treaty, and only 11 chapters have been completed. The size of the bill is an enormous 462 pages of schedules, including very critical ones on finance and taxation. The cost to the taxpayers of this province was over $100 million in legal fees to negotiate this treaty. How many hours did it take to negotiate the Nisga'a treaty? I suggest that it took more than the 116 hours that we have been allowed to debate it. Most of the enabling legislation in this treaty is yet to be debated.

Yet we don't hear the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs standing up for the Nisga'a. What happened to his voice? He was always the advocate of due process. He has been praising the opposition for its productive, important and insightful contributions to the debate. Yet we hear nothing from the minister in defence of the treaty and the concerns that the Nisga'a people will now have because of closure, as he sold his soul to the NDP.

This treaty will be unfairly tainted by the railroading of this legislation through the British Columbia Legislature. It will be tainted by this government's closure on the full scrutiny of this legislation by members who were elected to do the people's business. This treaty will be tainted by the Premier's broken promise of debate on each and every clause. The Nisga'a deserve better.

J. Weisgerber: It's not a pleasant exercise tonight to stand and speak to this closure motion; it's not a pleasant conclusion to a historic undertaking. When I was appointed Minister of Native Affairs in 1988 -- gosh, it was a long time ago, 11 years ago -- at that point the Nisga'a had been engaged for some 15-odd years with the federal government and had been unable to get provincial governments to enter into the debate. I will confess, as I have before, that I took on the responsibility of Minister of Native Affairs believing that we as British Columbians should continue to deny a responsibility in that process.

[2045]

When I listened to the Premier introduce this motion, he gave us a brief history of the 100-odd years that the Nisga'a

[ Page 11969 ]

I suspect that what happens is that finally a time comes when not only the politicians but the people of this province or of any other jurisdiction come to a decision and we move forward on it. I've indicated that, given a choice, I would vote against the Nisga'a treaty. I would vote, and have voted, against the Nisga'a treaty because I believe that the self-government model is a serious strategic blunder. I believe that we will see in this country a succession of aboriginal governments of the Nisga'a model. I believe that we will hear, across this country, a demand from the bands and tribal councils that have had treaties, perhaps for centuries, to jump on the bandwagon and adopt that kind of government.

It's tragic, because I think, for a whole host of reasons -- interrelational reasons and others -- that the Sechelt government, which has many very similar powers but a fundamental difference in its structure, will be ignored. It'll be ignored by aboriginal communities, because somehow the Sechelts were accused of selling out -- of being Uncle Toms. All the unkind adjectives were put on them in 1987, when they entered into that agreement. So I think that, tragically, that model of government is going to be ignored. I don't think that makes it wrong, nor do I believe that because I'm going to vote against the Nisga'a deal, given an opportunity, that means that I don't want to see treaties done.

Surely we've matured in this House to the point where one can disagree with specifics in a deal without being seen to be in opposition to the process. Surely we've come that far along, although if one were to be some kind of masochist who would put themselves in the gallery day after day here, you would wonder about that. You would believe that either you had to wholeheartedly endorse the treaty that was before us or you were opposed not only to treaties but to aboriginal rights, to progress in aboriginal communities -- that you were absolutely reactionary in every approach to aboriginal issues. Probably that would spill over into your other relationships as well.

[2050]

The eight years that it has taken the negotiators, on behalf of the province, the federal government and the Nisga'a. . . . There was no damnation of those people for dragging their heels. British Columbians and Canadians who were at least thoughtful about it said that this was a critically important issue. This treaty -- this Nisga'a agreement -- is going to show the way. This Nisga'a agreement is going to be a precedent, a blueprint, a cookie-cutter -- whatever adjective you want to put to it.

There was nobody who didn't recognize that this treaty was critically important, and we wanted to see it done right. I never dreamed, as minister, that it would be eight years, given the fact that the Nisga'a had debated and negotiated to the extent they could with the federal government. So if eight years is a reasonable period of time for the negotiators, why would someone decide that 116 hours was the magic formula and that after 116 hours of debate here, it was meaningless, it had no reason and it was filibustering? I don't think so, Mr. Speaker.

When we were in the area of valuations of land, for the first time in my history -- including the time that I was a minister, in the very preliminary days -- I had an opportunity to question the minister about how land was valued, and I came away from here more knowledgable as a result of that. More importantly, I think, on the record was an explanation from the minister on how land was valued.

When we talked to the minister and had an opportunity to question the minister about how the province, having negotiated a municipal style of government with the Sechelt, was persuaded to accept a constitutionally enshrined model of government with the Nisga'a, for the first time in my experience I heard what I thought was a reasonably sensible explanation. The minister said that they'd gone in believing that the Sechelt model was the correct one, and they had been persuaded to the contrary. I didn't think that was useless. I didn't think that was a waste of the time of this House. I thought it was important to have that on the record.

We had an opportunity to talk and question the funding for aboriginal government. I was greatly concerned about the growth and proliferation of government that was possible in the formula laid out for self-government. When we examined. . . . The minister was good enough to provide information on the five-year funding model, and he recommended to me that I wait until we get to the fiscal arrangements section. He said to me: "Don't bother me now; don't interrupt the flow of debate here with that question. Down the road, we're going to come to fiscal arrangements, and we'll have an opportunity to examine them."

Mr. Speaker, tragically, we never got there. So the Legislature -- the members on both sides of the House -- and, more importantly, the people of British Columbia are going to be denied an opportunity to have that insight into how the fiscal arrangements were arrived at and what the intentions of the provincial government were in entering into those.

[2055]

[ Page 11970 ]

So I'm disappointed, because as much as I think there are fundamental mistakes in the Nisga'a deal, there are many admirable elements to the deal. Again, most thinking people would agree with that, I believe. There were elements in wildlife allocations that I think were superior and are superior to the allocations that were done in the old numbered treaties that, for many years, people thought were the end-all. I've said before that I think the certainty language that was developed after the Supreme Court ruling on Delgamuukw. . . . While the government had sworn that not a comma would be changed from the agreement-in-principle, in fact there was a willingness, post-Delgamuukw, to sit down and come up with some pretty sensible certainty language. There are all of those elements.

To want to get on the record a complete analysis of the Nisga'a deal doesn't mean -- at least, from my perspective -- that I simply want to go and tear the deal apart. I do think there are fundamental mistakes, and it's my right and my responsibility to vote because of that.

I also happen to believe that there should have been a referendum; that's no news to anybody in this House. I have consistently, since 1994, believed that it was a process that we should follow.

I enjoyed very much the opportunity to travel with the select standing committee on this aboriginal issue. But I heard the now Minister of Small Business and Tourism talk about that as an extension of the Nisga'a debate. The fact of the matter is that this member, as the Chairman, made it very clear not only to us as members of the committee but to presenters that we were not there to talk about Nisga'a. We were there to talk about the issues that flowed as a result of the Nisga'a framework agreement and an anticipation that it would ultimately become a treaty. But we debated in committee. I think it was a good working committee; it was one of the better, more functional committees that I've been on. I give all due credit to that same minister for the work that he did as Chair.

Some of us wanted a referendum; some of us felt very strongly about that. What we did all agree on was a free vote. I expect that we'll hear from members that, given the amendment we're now discussing, we're actually going to be able to have a free vote. Sadly, nothing could be further from the truth. A free vote in any legislature that has that practice exempts confidence motions from free votes.

[2100]

Any thought of a free vote and the recommendation that we grudgingly accepted and unanimously agreed on became meaningless with the intense involvement of the Premier on this deal. Having said even that, I had anticipated the opportunity to at least come and hear and debate and understand the deal fully, and I looked forward to members, without the coercion that we're under tonight, voting on this deal, even in the pretense of a free vote. I believe it's important for members on both sides to be able to go back to their constituents and defend the decision that they made with respect to voting on this most important deal. I think it's critically important.

There may well be myself and others who are criticized in our communities for voting against the deal. There certainly will be criticisms in the constituencies of the members who vote for the deal. But this exercise tonight totally obliterates any pretense of a free vote. What we're voting on. . . . We're voting under duress, we're voting under closure, we're voting under time limits, and any pretense of a free vote is gone.

Even the motion to shut down debate was in itself flawed. Within a short period of time we came back and heard the government table an amendment. It's not an uncommon thing. Someone noted earlier -- I think it was the Leader of the Opposition -- that every year, we face a barrage of amendments for legislation, often only one year old, that needs to be corrected. Still we find ourselves being forced into a vote on the most critical piece of legislation that's been before this House in my short tenure.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

I can't recall another piece of legislation in this province that will have as long-lasting an impact on the fabric of our province, on the makeup of our province, and we're putting it into constitutional concrete. What an incredible leap of faith they're taking! It's not us. It's not members on this side of the House. Members on this side of the House are saying: "No, let's go slow. Let's not jump into this thing. Let's take maybe even another two or three weeks." In the life of this parliament, another two or three weeks. . . .

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: I hear mumbling that suggests that perhaps the Minister of Education thinks it might be longer than that.

Interjections.

[2105]

Interjections.

J. Weisgerber: Just a minute. Hold it, folks. I'm not going to enter into a debate on how much longer it was going to take, but I think one could look at how far we've come and project, reasonably, the amount of time left. Even though we're only halfway through the sections, I think we're well over halfway through the debate. I think that whatever time we've spent in committee certainly represents a movement past the halfway point. But what if it didn't? What if we actually had to take 60 more days out of this Legislature to pass the most critical piece of legislation that any of us, in our political careers, will be involved in?

[ Page 11971 ]

I had questions, as I indicated, that I sincerely wanted to ask. I have absolutely no interest in prolonging this debate, in filibustering it. It serves me not. As an independent member, nobody came to me and said: "How late would you like to work? Would you like to have night sittings? Would you like to sit on weekends?" No one said to me: "Mr. Member, we will accommodate your interests." Apparently, there were negotiations between the parties, or at least offers -- and I'll be happy to hear from the minister -- but I can assure the minister that no House Leader came to me and asked whether I had a time frame that I wanted to accommodate myself within.

So my opportunities to debate this legislation are prejudiced, and they are being prejudiced by the closure motion. I think it is fundamentally wrong, and I think it is tragic, given the importance of this legislation, that we are prepared to put it forward. When I hear people like Frank Calder expressing their concerns. . . . Now here's a fellow who deserves to be listened to. If nobody on this side of the House has an opinion that the government respects at all, Frank Calder's opinion is one that should be recognized; it's one that should be listened to; it's one that should be appreciated.

Frank Calder was elected as a New Democrat. He crossed the floor -- and I wouldn't damn him for that -- and sat as a Socred. He also took a case to the Supreme Court of Canada that fundamentally changed the way governments deal with aboriginal people. He sat in this House. He may well be here tonight, although I can't see him. He's a man who was first elected in 1952, I believe it was -- or 1949 -- so he's not a young man, although he's still a very keen observer of the process. He said that closure is wrong.

[2110]

Because I'm not here to filibuster either this debate or the other processes that are underway here, I'll conclude by again saying how sincerely disappointed I am to see this debate prematurely shut down.

D. Jarvis: I also wish to enter into the debate tonight on the amended motion on the order paper which effectively closes off the debate on Bill 51 -- the guillotine motion, as my associate from Vancouver-Little Mountain, who nicknamed it, would say. Before I start, Madam Speaker, I think I owe it to the member for Peace River South, who very eloquently gave a talk a few minutes ago and, I think, pretty well pointed out most of the features of what most of the members on this side of the House sort of believe in themselves. . . . I know I do, and I think it was well put. I wish I could sit down at this point, but I just have to get up and say a few words myself.

When we first entered into the debate on the Nisga'a treaty, it was under this premise -- and I'll quote from the Premier: "We will give the opposition a chance to debate each and every clause." Well, with this motion, it certainly shows that this is not so. We know now that the Premier has misled us again. That was far back in November, about five months ago, at the end of November, and we were called to Victoria to debate the treaty. It was just prior to having to adjourn again. It seems like we've been here and out -- and in and out -- over the past five months, mostly due to scandals on the government side of the House and the fact that they were required to appoint a new Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Minister Responsible for British Columbia Ferries.

Since this change of ministers and the scandals, the Nisga'a debate has been on and off, as I said, several times. In the very protracted debate that we've been having for over five months now, since the end of November, there has been much criticism that we have been sort of filibustering this debate, which is not so, in the sense that although we've been speaking for 116 hours, we've only been here for approximately 19 days.

An Hon. Member: Twenty-nine days.

D. Jarvis: Or 29 days -- as I've just been corrected. That is not a long time, in the sense that when you give consideration that there have been months that we could have discussed this before. . . . It was two months. We've had a dry spell for two months in between. Where was the government at that time? Why weren't we back in the House? Probably the most concerning thing about all that short period of time is that we have not discussed the people's business in this province for almost ten months now -- not just 29 days of Nisga'a debate. We haven't discussed anything on health or anything on education since back in July of 1998.

[2115]

The government is in tatters. It is in an unorganized state. There is no structure here whatsoever. As I say, we have not

[ Page 11972 ]

Hon. J. MacPhail: Aw, you're the only one I confided in. I thought you were a confidant.

D. Jarvis: Well, that's all right.

The present Minister of Aboriginal Affairs said just two weeks ago that a foul deed such as closure would never be done. So here we are on the precipice of a foul deed, a deed created by this government's desperate attempt to show someone that they could possibly do something right -- that is, put together a treaty -- for a change. Then they can go away and do it the wrong way, as they usually do, with any major thing that they try to do.

The economy, as I said, is a shambles. They cannot balance the budget, but they can stop the truth from being spoken or relayed to the people of British Columbia, through this closure motion. Who could believe that this government would really actually stoop that low after they made those statements, that they would make this an open process?

[2120]

But they want to see the facts of the bill before them, and this government is now preventing them from doing so, with this closure. The people of British Columbia have not had the opportunity to digest all this treaty information that's been thrown at them, and they will not be happy with the way this sort of dictatorship is operating today, by closing out all the debate.

Now, I think the gentleman from Bulkley Valley-Stikine said some really true things, in the sense that he said that the mainstream of British Columbians are spooked by this treaty. And I honestly think they are, because there is that uncertainty. Things have not been explained to them the proper way, and that's what they're waiting for.

For example, I sent out an information letter to my riding about two months ago, and I had hundreds and hundreds of replies. Most of them said they had never understood what was really going on in the treaty. Although they weren't in favour of it, you've got to consider. . . . How can we cut off a debate halfway through? And it has been halfway through, when you start looking at it. We've only dealt with 11 out of 22 chapters in the treaty. We have a schedule that has 468 pages; we haven't looked at one page of those. And this government says that it's time to close off the debate, that we have spoken too much on it.

Well, I just feel that that is balderdash on the part of the government's spin doctors. They're trying to get us out of this Legislature because there's something else amiss in their party, and they don't want to be here to face the opposition, who are here. And why we are paid to be here is to criticize this government -- to be in opposition. We have been doing a fairly a good job, obviously. It's been nine months since we've been here to do the people's business. The only time they brought us back was for a few weeks here and a few weeks there and a couple of days here and there, to discuss the Premier's legacy.

I can't let it go by. Our member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine was talking about the Tahltan Indians and how he felt that it was their right to do work in British Columbia, and all the rest of it. But I don't think the Tahltans have any rights, in the sense of being given work to be done. The Tahltans work in the Red Dog mine, and they're working in Eskay Creek. They came out to work and learned how to build roads, and they're probably one of the best road contractors in the northwest part of B.C. They got what they have now not through rights but through hard work and knowledge of what they were doing. And that's ostensibly what everyone else who's out there trying to work in this province. . .on the same premise that they work on.

[2125]

This treaty agreement bill should be better served than to end up being passed by a closure motion. Closure will only damage the process of treaty settlements, and it will only damage the Nisga'a themselves. With no legislation vote as promised, on a clause-by-clause basis, this government is really not fooling anyone in this province. They will, basically, regret it in the long run. I know that although at this time the majority of the people in this province are in favour of a treaty per se, they are not prepared to accept the content of this agreement without at least a little more discussion and examination of it.

Closure processes in this province have been few and far between. I think there's only been a couple that have been used in this province. To even consider it now on an important bill such as this one, which has really had so little debate, is wrong; it's criminal, as far as I'm concerned. This treaty, without question, causes moral and constitutional consequences unlike anything before in this province.

Closure of a significant bill such as this would only lead to a further split of those involved not only indirectly but directly throughout all of British Columbia, for, as we know

[ Page 11973 ]

The people know that a debate is being held, but there are significant numbers out there who don't really know what it's all about. As I said before, I had a letter go out in my riding. There was a lot of apathy prior to that as to the Nisga'a agreement -- very few calls to my riding, very few letters. After they were given a better idea -- and so much for the $8 million the government spent in their advertising -- the people out there still did not know what it was really all about.

I can feel in my bones that the people out there are just waiting for an election. If they can't have a referendum. . . .

[2130]

D. Jarvis: In my bones I can feel it. I can feel that there's going to be an election.

The people in British Columbia want to see either a referendum or an election. As we know, Madam Speaker, there's nothing they can do at this point, because this government will not face up to the real truth as to what's happening to this province. So they become apathetic and non-caring -- not because they're non-caring, but because they've reached a point where they have no opportunity to put this government into check. They now feel that this government can do anything it wants. That was evidenced by our Forests minister, who said the famous words several years back -- that this government can do anything they want.

I feel that the basic premise of the people out there, when they replied to me on the questionnaires I sent out to them. . . . They felt that the extent of the agreement was too invasive on this whole province -- the principles that were included, the content that was not included, and on and on. All of them asked that we express their feelings in this debate. I had a 91 percent return in favour of a full debate. I had asked them if they. . . . They said to me that if I was going to debate the Nisga'a treaty in the House when it returned at the end of March, they wanted me to express their concerns and in turn to give it back to them.

But how can we possibly tell these people that this government is not really concerned with the people out there? They are only concerned with passing this bill so that the Premier can walk into the Nisga'a council at the end of this month and say: "Here. I'm delivering a treaty." All very well, but the people out there have not had the opportunity to see the whole agreement.

When you go into the table of contents of this book, we've discussed just over 11 chapters out of 22. We haven't discussed anything about the administration of justice in the agreement or anything to do with the Indian Act and the bylaws. We have done nothing about the negotiation of loans, the fiscal relations of the treaty and the taxation end of it. Everyone is really quite concerned as to how the taxation is going to come about and when it will come about. We've never discussed that. On and on -- dispute resolutions. . . . We haven't discussed the basic implementation of the Nisga'a agreement. As I said, there are probably over 900 pages in this agreement that we have not discussed thoroughly.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Whose fault is that?

D. Jarvis: The Minister of Finance yells over to me, "Whose fault is it?" as though it's our fault.

Hon. G. Wilson: It is.

D. Jarvis: Again the Aboriginal Affairs minister says that it is our fault. Well, we have been prepared to discuss this bill for months and months -- over five or six months. Where has this government been? Where has this government been all the time? If the truth be known, we have come into this Legislature. . . . We come in here on Monday and Tuesday and Wednesday and Thursday, and we don't have debates on Friday. We've been here for 29 days over a course of five months to discuss 11 of 22 chapters of the Nisga'a agreement.

[2135]

D. Jarvis: It's not our fault; it is their fault. Where have they been for months and months? It's because of the scandals on their part that we haven't been able to sit down and honestly debate this bill. In order for the Premier to deflect the scandals, he appointed a new minister. He fired that minister over there and appointed that minister over there. That is why the delay. We've discussed this bill four days a week, for a total of 29 days. For five months we've been working on it, because this government did not want to get up and face the people. Again, that is why they are bringing in this guillotine closure motion today to close down this House. They'll probably run for the hills, when we should be back here on Monday morning -- or tomorrow morning. We should actually be discussing the budget and having the budget debate, which they've failed to have after they brought forward the most disgusting budget you ever saw and the worst budget there has ever been in the history or British Columbia. They simply do not comprehend. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, the member for North Vancouver-Seymour has the floor.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members!

D. Jarvis: There's a problem with this government. The problem with this government is that they don't know how to manage this province properly. They're so concerned with this Nisga'a agreement that the economy is collapsing around us. There is no confidence out there in the business world, and

[ Page 11974 ]

What really shocks me the most. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, those who wish to make any comments should ask for an opportunity to speak, or be in their own seats.

D. Jarvis: . . .is that quite possibly the next leader of the government party over there could be the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, who used to sit down here and criticize those people over there. The things that he used to tell me -- because I've known him since 1991, when we were elected together. . . . I'm surprised that he can stand over there -- sit on that side -- and spout them back at us. That is why he's being called Flip.

The Speaker: To the amendment, hon. member.

D. Jarvis: Exactly, Madam Speaker. I was just coming back to that. Somehow I got off the track. No one knows how that happens, but it does.

This government, by way of closure, is turning the treaty process into a sham in order to create, as I said before, a legacy for this Premier -- because he's going. We know he's going; it's just a matter of time. He's slowly going off into oblivion, and he needs a legacy to show that he has done something positive. That in itself is somewhat questionable -- something positive, while B.C.'s house of cards is slowly crumbling around him -- like his other sort of side legacy, which is the fast ferries.

[2140]

I've got to say this about the present Aboriginal Affairs minister, Madam Speaker. I think he's been tainted by the fact of his walking across the floor here, and I regret it, because he has changed his principles on this bill and in the fact that he's supporting this closure.

The Speaker: On the amendment, not personal references.

D. Jarvis: I'm referring to the amendment, Madam Speaker. This government is challenging democracy in a way that is not good for this province, by bringing forth this amended motion. On that basis, I would say that there will not be happy people in British Columbia tomorrow when this bill is closed out. Nor will there be happy people in the area that is in the so-called Nisga'a Valley. The Gitxsan will not be happy, and the Gitanyow will not be happy. A lot of people will not be happy because of the way this government treats the people in this province, with such disdain. On that basis, I will have to say that I will not support this motion.

Hon. G. Wilson: In 1991, I stood in a televised leaders' debate and uttered 17 words that suggested that "this, ladies and gentlemen, is the reason that nothing gets done in the province of British Columbia."

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, it's very hard to hear. The minister has been given the floor to speak. Some members have already spoken and others haven't, and perhaps there will be an opportunity. But in the meantime, the minister has the floor. The Chair would like to hear what the minister has to say.

Hon. G. Wilson: Those 17 words brought 17 Liberal MLAs into this Legislative Assembly. I think that was the first time in 12 years that the Liberals had been here and certainly the first time in over 20 years that they had been here in any significant numbers. At that time, in 1991, what we said we were going to do as Liberals on that side of the House. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members.

Hon. G. Wilson: We said we were going to bring in effective opposition that was going to be constructive, that was going to work with government and that was going to try to amend the rules of this House to allow an opportunity for orderly debate. That's what we said.

The Speaker: I encourage the minister to speak to the amendment.

Hon. G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, the reason this has relevance to the amendment is because those members opposite are trying to suggest to the people of British Columbia that somehow, after 116 hours of debate, we are trying to ram this treaty down the throats of British Columbians. That's what they are trying to suggest.

Well, I think it's important for us to recognize a number of things. First of all, there isn't one of those members opposite who said they would vote for this treaty -- not one of them. They said that prior to reading a single word; they said they wouldn't vote for it. After 116 hours, they say they haven't had enough time to debate it. Well, the good thing about Hansard is. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members.

Hon. G. Wilson: Hansard not only records what was said, but it also gives you an idea of what was not said. Let's take a look at when they had an opportunity to scrutinize the agreement-in-principle in detail, in the estimates debate of the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs last year on July 7, 8 and 9. These Liberals spent 13 hours and nine minutes debating aboriginal issues, of which they spent two hours and 20 minutes on the Nisga'a AIP.

[2145]

[ Page 11975 ]

These members opposite have had ample opportunity to bring forward every single issue of relevance to the people of British Columbia. I have here -- and because the hour is late, I won't read them all -- many, many examples of the inane debate, like super golf courses in the Nass Valley, which was a concern for the member from the interior there. . . .

Interjections.

Hon. G. Wilson: I don't know -- from wherever he was in the interior.

Then we had the member for Kamloops-North Thompson, who went on ad nauseam about the possibility of the Nisga'a setting up their own casino. He was worried about gaming. He then went on to suggest that they were going to set up their own labour code, something we repeatedly told him that the treaty would not permit. He didn't just say it one day; he came back the next day and asked the same questions over and over and over again.

We've got the member for Richmond East, who was trying desperately in the children and families section to understand the simple provisions that we were going to put in place for the protection of aboriginal people. We repeatedly said: "There will be no difference in the services provided to Nisga'a children. There will be no gap; they will not fall through the cracks. We will make sure that they are well respected and protected." She couldn't understand that. She came back for almost two hours on that particular question, over and over and over again. This was a clear filibuster.

These members opposite have no interest in trying to work out the detail of the Nisga'a for any reason except one. The reason they want to do it is because they're about to launch a case in the courts of British Columbia, and they were using the committee stage to try and build a legal case. That is the reason.

Interjections.

Hon. G. Wilson: I see the member for Richmond-Steveston. The member for Richmond-Steveston heckles and says that that's outrageous. Those members say it's outrageous.

Let me read to the members opposite a letter of April 21, 1999, from the Leader of the Official Opposition to the Treaty Commission that says: ". . .because of the formal record that legislative debate establishes for the courts." He then goes on to say the reason he wants debate: "The answers to the questions on the Nisga'a treaty will form part of a critical interpretive guide for the courts in any future deliberations resulting from legal challenges or subjects requiring judicial review." That's what this is all about; that is precisely what this has been all about.

[2150]

I don't think there were five or six of the members who stood up and read into the record their champion of aboriginal rights and treaties, Chief Phillip, the head of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs. . . . So ignorant are those members opposite that they don't realize that the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs is opposed to the Nisga'a treaty. They are opposed to treaty negotiations through the commission. These people are so ignorant that they don't even know who they're quoting in the House. That's how ignorant members opposite are.

There can be no doubt that the members opposite have no interest in moving this treaty forward. Let me quote from the official opposition critic for Aboriginal Affairs, who was so concerned about the treaty negotiation that he took off to India. Perhaps he thought Indian Affairs required him to go to India. That's how ignorant the members are over there. He went off to India and to Pakistan, because he was more interested in muckraking -- to try and bring back questions which we heard today in question period -- than he was in sitting in his seat, doing his due diligence and making sure that this treaty was negotiated.

Let me quote. This is what the Liberals want. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order. Minister, take your seat.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order. Minister, continue.

Hon. G. Wilson: Let the record show where these members opposite stand with respect to treaties. Let me quote from this morning's interview with Ben Meisner and the official opposition critic.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister, I'm sorry to interrupt you, but I must do so. I want the members to be quiet in this House. It's impossible for anyone to hear, and that is part of why we're here.

[ Page 11976 ]

Hon. G. Wilson: Lest anybody believe what these members opposite say about wanting to sign treaties, let me quote the official opposition critic, from Ben Meisner's show today. Ben Meisner asked the question: "Would you stop the treaty negotiation process until you got it to the people of the province?" And what was the response? "Well, I don't think we have any choice. The treaty process would stop." [Applause.] And they applaud it. Then the treaty process would collapse. Those members think that somehow collapsing the treaty process would be good for British Columbia. That member thinks that by making that statement on Ben Meisner's show, he's giving some kind of credibility to the members opposite.

[2155]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. G. Wilson: It's bad enough that the official opposition critic said that he would stop the treaty process. When Mr. Meisner asked him who his clients were in British Columbia, what was his response? He said specifically: "Quite frankly, our clients are the non-aboriginal people of British Columbia." These are the people who stand up and say they're in favour of treaties. These are the people who will, the moment this treaty passes in this House, advance their legal case against the Nisga'a to try and block it in court. These are the shameless people who stand up under the guise of being Liberals. What a joke! What an absolute travesty!

What they forget. . . . I speak now specifically to those members from Langley, Little Mountain, Delta South, Richmond East, Richmond Centre, Langara, West Vancouver-Capilano and North Vancouver-Seymour, because those are members who were elected in 1991 when we went through the first stage of the Nisga'a and when we were going through the stages with respect to Charlottetown.

Interjections.

Hon. G. Wilson: The member from Penticton says they threw me out. [Applause.] And they applaud. Why? Because in 1992 and 1993 we gave our word that if they negotiated treaties under section 35 of the Constitution Act, we would support them. We gave our word. Today where do they stand? Where do those members stand?

I remember the day when I gave a job to the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain to come and work in the offices here. I remember when she was hired and her philosophy at that time, which was that of a Liberal. Today that member is Liberal no more but has embraced the policies of the federal Reform Party. Each one of these members opposite. . . .

Hon. Speaker, do you know what?

The Speaker: Minister, to the amendment, please.

Hon. G. Wilson: With respect to the particulars on time, here are the members who say they want more time. Hon. Speaker, do you know that this is the opposition who selects to choose its time wisely? This is the opposition who ten times held up debate while they debated whether or not we should adjourn for dinner -- ten times they spent time. Do you know that they spent more time in one sitting debating whether or not they should go for dinner -- eight hours they spent debating whether they should go for dinner -- than on the estimates on the Premier's Office, B.C. Ferries, Fisheries, Advanced Education, Human Resources, Agriculture, Youth and B.C. Rail? They were more interested in their bellies than they were in the people of British Columbia.

[2200]

It is quite clear, when the Leader of the Official Opposition only a couple of days ago said that they would require 60 more days -- 60 more days to debate this bill. . . . What would they do in 60 more days that they couldn't do in 116 hours on this bill? They would delay, they would stall, they would repeat, and they would simply name-call the members opposite and misrepresent the truth of this treaty.

In most jurisdictions of Canada, we have a mature enough opposition that government can come forward and set their legislative agenda in front of the opposition and request a reasonable assessment of how much time it would take. We could not get any of those commitments from the members opposite. This opposition would have us delay the other business of British Columbians ad infinitum, ad nauseam, until they stalled the implementation of the Nisga'a debate. Hon. Speaker, that's unconscionable.

This opposition is not going to stop the orderly business of governing British Columbia, and this opposition, notwithstanding their chances in the courts, is not going to stop the implementation of one of the most important pieces of legislation for first nations people in the history of this province, because what we are doing is making history in British Columbia for aboriginal people.

There is no question that for all the rhetoric we hear on the other side, the record speaks for itself. These members opposite are tired of having to debate a bill that brings in a modern treaty for first nations. They simply stalled it, they delayed it, and they did not bring meaningful discussion, notwithstanding one or two members opposite. I note that the member for Peace River South gave intelligent discussion, intelligent debate, and I'm sorry that the member didn't get a greater opportunity, because of the official opposition dominance of the debate. Certainly I would say that the member for Saanich North and the Islands gave a reasonable description with the respect to the wildlife section. I think there was a

[ Page 11977 ]

The choice is very clear. Do we now say, at this juncture, that it is time for us to pass a treaty that will give advantage to the Nisga'a people to come into a modern British Columbia, that we'll develop a modern treaty, that we'll advance first nations people in this province? Or do we allow the members of the opposition to prevail so that they can, in the words of the Leader of the Official Opposition, allow the traditions of the past to prevail?

I say that we have had enough debate on this question. The members on this side say that it is now time to advance the modern treaty forward, so that we can bring behind it other first nation treaties and settle this matter. I believe that the time for discussion is over.

Hon. Speaker, I move the question now be put.

The Speaker: I gather the minister moves the motion. I see the member for Matsqui, who rises on what point?

M. de Jong: On the amendment, Madam Speaker.

The Speaker: There's a motion on the floor at the present time that has been moved -- the previous question.

The Opposition House Leader on a point of order.

[2205]

The Speaker: Hon. members, I appreciate the point that was raised, but the Chair has decided that the question will be put. Given the number of speakers and the wide range of points that have been canvassed in the extended time provided, I am now going to allow the motion to be put. So the question. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, the motion is that the question now be put.

[2210]

YEAS -- 37
Zirnhelt	McGregor	Kwan
G. Wilson	Hammell	Boone
Pullinger	Lali	Orcherton
Stevenson	Calendino	Walsh
Randall	Gillespie	Robertson
Cashore	Conroy	Priddy
Petter	Miller	G. Clark
Dosanjh	MacPhail	Sihota
Lovick	Ramsey	Farnworth
Waddell	Hartley	Smallwood
Sawicki	Bowbrick	Kasper
Doyle	Giesbrecht	Goodacre
	Janssen
NAYS -- 29
Whittred	C. Clark	Campbell
Farrell-Collins	de Jong	Plant
L. Reid	Neufeld	Coell
Chong	Sanders	Jarvis
Anderson	Nettleton	Weisgerber
J. Wilson	McKinnon	J. Reid
Barisoff	Symons	Thorpe
Krueger	Hansen	Stephens
Coleman	Hawkins	Hogg
Nebbeling		Weisbeck

The Speaker: I recognize the member for Matsqui. On what matter?

M. de Jong: On the main motion.

The Speaker: No, hon. member. The next motion is the amendment to the motion, and the question is being put on the amendment.

M. de Jong: Point of order.

The Speaker: Your point of order is. . . ?

M. de Jong: Madam Speaker, there have been no speakers on the main motion. It is a discretionary matter for the Chair.

The Speaker: Hon. member, we are voting on the amendment at this point. The next question to be put to the House is on the amendment to Motion 62.

[2215]

Amendment approved on the following division:

YEAS -- 37
Zirnhelt	McGregor	Kwan
G. Wilson	Hammell	Boone
Pullinger	Lali	Orcherton
Stevenson	Calendino	Walsh
Randall	Gillespie	Robertson
Cashore	Conroy	Priddy
Petter	Miller	G. Clark
Dosanjh	MacPhail	Sihota
Lovick	Ramsey	Farnworth
Waddell	Hartley	Smallwood
Sawicki	Bowbrick	Kasper
Doyle	Giesbrecht	Goodacre
	Janssen

[ Page 11978 ]

The Speaker: I now put the question on the main motion as amended.

M. de Jong: Point of order, Madam Speaker.

The Speaker: Your point of order?

M. de Jong: Simply this, Madam Speaker: this is a discretionary call. I think the record should show that not one member of the official opposition has had an opportunity to speak to the main motion.

G. Farrell-Collins: Not one.

M. de Jong: Not one, Madam Speaker.

The Speaker: Thank you for the point, hon. member. The rules say that with the carrying of the first motion, it covers all amendments. And amendments. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Page 407, Erskine May, twenty-first edition. I've got my authority, thank you very much, members. The question before us, then, is the main motion as amended.

[2220]

YEAS -- 37
Zirnhelt	McGregor	Kwan
G. Wilson	Hammell	Boone
Pullinger	Lali	Orcherton
Stevenson	Calendino	Walsh
Randall	Gillespie	Robertson
Cashore	Conroy	Priddy
Petter	Miller	G. Clark
Dosanjh	MacPhail	Sihota
Lovick	Ramsey	Farnworth
Waddell	Hartley	Smallwood
Sawicki	Bowbrick	Kasper
Doyle	Giesbrecht	Goodacre
	Janssen
NAYS -- 29
Whittred	C. Clark	Campbell
Farrell-Collins	Plant	L. Reid
Neufeld	Coell	Chong
Sanders	Jarvis	Anderson
Nettleton	Weisgerber	J. Wilson
McKinnon	J. Reid	Barisoff
van Dongen	Symons	Thorpe
Krueger	Hansen	Stephens
Coleman	Hawkins	Hogg
Nebbeling		Weisbeck

G. Farrell-Collins: I rise to reserve my right to raise a matter of privilege on the manner in which the government Whip directed the Chair on closure.

The Speaker: Thank you, member.

Hon. J. MacPhail moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:25 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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