Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

[ Page 11979 ]

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

W. Hartley: Today in the precincts -- and they will be in the gallery shortly -- from Highland Park Elementary School is a group of some 26 grades 4 and 5 students, five adults and their teacher, Mr. G. Easton. Highland Park Elementary is in Pitt Meadows. Would members make them welcome.

Orders of the Day

NISGA'A FINAL AGREEMENT ACT
(continued)

The Chair: Pursuant to the motion passed on April 21, the Chair will put the question on sections 3 to 10 seriatim.

Section 3 of Bill 51 approved on the following division:

YEAS -- 38
Evans	Zirnhelt	McGregor
Kwan	G. Wilson	Hammell
Boone	Streifel	Pullinger
Lali	Orcherton	Stevenson
Calendino	Walsh	Randall
Gillespie	Robertson	Cashore
Conroy	Priddy	Petter
Miller	G. Clark	Dosanjh
MacPhail	Sihota	Lovick
Ramsey	Farnworth	Waddell
Smallwood	Sawicki	Bowbrick
Kasper	Doyle	Giesbrecht
Goodacre		Janssen
NAYS -- 31
Whittred	C. Clark	Campbell
Farrell-Collins	de Jong	Plant
L. Reid	Neufeld	Coell
Chong	Jarvis	Anderson
Nettleton	Penner	Weisgerber
Weisbeck	Nebbeling	Hogg
Hawkins	Coleman	Stephens
Hansen	Krueger	Thorpe
Symons	van Dongen	Barisoff
Dalton	J. Reid	McKinnon
	J. Wilson

[1010]

Section 4 of Bill 51 approved on the following division:

YEAS -- 38
Evans	Zirnhelt	McGregor
Kwan	G. Wilson	Hammell
Boone	Streifel	Pullinger
Lali	Orcherton	Stevenson
Calendino	Walsh	Randall
Gillespie	Robertson	Cashore
Conroy	Priddy	Petter
Miller	G. Clark	Dosanjh
MacPhail	Sihota	Lovick
Ramsey	Farnworth	Waddell
Smallwood	Sawicki	Bowbrick
Kasper	Doyle	Giesbrecht
Goodacre		Janssen

[1015]

[1020]

YEAS -- 38
Evans	Zirnhelt	McGregor
Kwan	G. Wilson	Hammell
Boone	Streifel	Pullinger
Lali	Orcherton	Stevenson
Calendino	Walsh	Randall
Gillespie	Robertson	Cashore
Conroy	Priddy	Petter
Miller	G. Clark	Dosanjh
MacPhail	Sihota	Lovick
Ramsey	Farnworth	Waddell
Smallwood	Sawicki	Bowbrick
Kasper	Doyle	Giesbrecht
Goodacre		Janssen
NAYS -- 32
Whittred	C. Clark	Campbell
Farrell-Collins	de Jong	Plant
L. Reid	Neufeld	Coell
Chong	Sanders	Jarvis
Anderson	Nettleton	Penner
Weisgerber	Weisbeck	Nebbeling
Hogg	Hawkins	Coleman
Stephens	Hansen	Krueger
Thorpe	Symons	van Dongen
Barisoff	Dalton	J. Reid
McKinnon		J. Wilson

[ Page 11980 ]

YEAS -- 38
Evans	Zirnhelt	McGregor
Kwan	G. Wilson	Hammell
Boone	Streifel	Pullinger
Lali	Orcherton	Stevenson
Calendino	Walsh	Randall
Gillespie	Robertson	Cashore
Conroy	Priddy	Petter
Miller	G. Clark	Dosanjh
MacPhail	Sihota	Lovick
Ramsey	Farnworth	Waddell
Smallwood	Sawicki	Bowbrick
Kasper	Doyle	Giesbrecht
Goodacre		Janssen
NAYS -- 32
Whittred	C. Clark	Campbell
Farrell-Collins	de Jong	Plant
L. Reid	Neufeld	Coell
Chong	Sanders	Jarvis
Anderson	Nettleton	Penner
Weisgerber	Weisbeck	Nebbeling
Hogg	Hawkins	Coleman
Stephens	Hansen	Krueger
Thorpe	Symons	van Dongen
Barisoff	Dalton	J. Reid
McKinnon		J. Wilson

[1025]

YEAS -- 38
Evans	Zirnhelt	McGregor
Kwan	G. Wilson	Hammell
Boone	Streifel	Pullinger
Lali	Orcherton	Stevenson
Calendino	Walsh	Randall
Gillespie	Robertson	Cashore
Conroy	Priddy	Petter
Miller	G. Clark	Dosanjh
MacPhail	Sihota	Lovick
Ramsey	Farnworth	Waddell
Smallwood	Sawicki	Bowbrick
Kasper	Doyle	Giesbrecht
Goodacre		Janssen
NAYS -- 32
Whittred	C. Clark	Campbell
Farrell-Collins	de Jong	Plant
L. Reid	Neufeld	Coell
Chong	Sanders	Jarvis
Anderson	Nettleton	Penner
J. Wilson	McKinnon	J. Reid
Dalton	Barisoff	van Dongen
Symons	Thorpe	Krueger
Hansen	Stephens	Coleman
Hawkins	Hogg	Nebbeling
Weisbeck		Weisgerber

Section 8 of Bill 51 approved on the following division:

YEAS -- 38
Evans	Zirnhelt	McGregor
Kwan	G. Wilson	Hammell
Boone	Streifel	Pullinger
Lali	Orcherton	Stevenson
Calendino	Walsh	Randall
Gillespie	Robertson	Cashore
Conroy	Priddy	Petter
Miller	G. Clark	Dosanjh
MacPhail	Sihota	Lovick
Ramsey	Farnworth	Waddell
Smallwood	Sawicki	Bowbrick
Kasper	Doyle	Giesbrecht
Goodacre		Janssen
NAYS -- 32
Whittred	C. Clark	Campbell
Farrell-Collins	de Jong	Plant
L. Reid	Neufeld	Coell
Chong	Sanders	Jarvis
Anderson	Nettleton	Penner
J. Wilson	McKinnon	J. Reid
Dalton	Barisoff	van Dongen
Symons	Thorpe	Krueger
Hansen	Stephens	Coleman
Hawkins	Hogg	Nebbeling
Weisbeck		Weisgerber

[1030]

YEAS -- 38
Evans	Zirnhelt	McGregor
Kwan	G. Wilson	Hammell
Boone	Streifel	Pullinger
Lali	Orcherton	Stevenson
Calendino	Walsh	Randall
Gillespie	Robertson	Cashore
Conroy	Priddy	Petter
Miller	G. Clark	Dosanjh
MacPhail	Sihota	Lovick
Ramsey	Farnworth	Waddell
Smallwood	Sawicki	Bowbrick
Kasper	Doyle	Giesbrecht
Goodacre		Janssen
NAYS -- 32
Whittred	C. Clark	Campbell
Farrell-Collins	de Jong	Plant
L. Reid	Neufeld	Coell
Chong	Sanders	Jarvis
Anderson	Nettleton	Penner
Weisgerber	Weisbeck	Nebbeling
Hogg	Hawkins	Coleman
Stephens	Hansen	Krueger
Thorpe	Symons	van Dongen
Barisoff	Dalton	J. Reid
McKinnon		J. Wilson

[1035]

[ Page 11981 ]

Section 10 of Bill 51 approved on the following division:

YEAS -- 38
Evans	Zirnhelt	McGregor
Kwan	G. Wilson	Hammell
Boone	Streifel	Pullinger
Lali	Orcherton	Stevenson
Calendino	Walsh	Randall
Gillespie	Robertson	Cashore
Conroy	Priddy	Petter
Miller	G. Clark	Dosanjh
MacPhail	Sihota	Lovick
Ramsey	Farnworth	Waddell
Smallwood	Sawicki	Bowbrick
Kasper	Doyle	Giesbrecht
Goodacre		Janssen
NAYS -- 32
Weisgerber	Penner	Nettleton
Anderson	Jarvis	Sanders
Chong	Coell	Neufeld
L. Reid	Plant	de Jong
Farrell-Collins	Campbell	C. Clark
Whittred	Weisbeck	Nebbeling
Hogg	Hawkins	Coleman
Stephens	Hansen	Krueger
Thorpe	Symons	van Dongen
Barisoff	Dalton	J. Reid
McKinnon		J. Wilson

The Chair: Members, pursuant to a motion passed on April 21, the Chair will put one question on the remainder of the committee stage of Bill 51. Shall sections 11 through 70, the amendments standing in the minister's name, the schedule, the preamble and the title to Bill 51 pass, and shall the Chairman report the bill complete with amendment?

Sections 11 to 70 inclusive, amendments standing in the minister's name, schedule, preamble and title approved on the following division:

YEAS -- 38
Evans	Zirnhelt	McGregor
Kwan	G. Wilson	Hammell
Boone	Streifel	Pullinger
Lali	Orcherton	Stevenson
Calendino	Walsh	Randall
Gillespie	Robertson	Cashore
Conroy	Priddy	Petter
Miller	G. Clark	Dosanjh
MacPhail	Sihota	Lovick
Ramsey	Farnworth	Waddell
Smallwood	Sawicki	Bowbrick
Kasper	Doyle	Giesbrecht
Goodacre		Janssen
NAYS -- 32
Whittred	C. Clark	Campbell
Farrell-Collins	de Jong	Plant
L. Reid	Neufeld	Coell
Chong	Sanders	Jarvis
Anderson	Nettleton	Penner
Weisgerber	Weisbeck	Nebbeling
Hogg	Hawkins	Coleman
Stephens	Hansen	Krueger
Thorpe	Symons	van Dongen
Barisoff	Dalton	J. Reid
McKinnon		J. Wilson

The House resumed, the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 51, Nisga'a Final Agreement Act, reported complete with amendment.

[1040]

Hon. J. MacPhail: Now, hon. Speaker.

The Speaker: We'll move into third reading of Bill 51.

I recognize the member for Matsqui.

M. de Jong: Madam Speaker, this should have been a day of celebration.

Interjections.

The Chair: Members, members.

M. de Jong: For the Nisga'a, some of whom are here in the gallery today, who have waited so long, this should have been a day of unbridled celebration, a day when they could say to their people -- to themselves -- that the people of British Columbia swung the doors open in an open debate, a complete debate, and that a treaty that withstood the test of the democratic principles, the democratic institutions of this province, which will set them on the course, hopefully, of prosperity and self-reliance, has been ratified in British Columbia.

They can't say that, because that debate has not taken place. For those many British Columbians who are troubled by portions of this treaty or who question the workability of certain of its provisions, this could also have been a day of celebration -- quieter celebration -- a day when they could look back upon the debate that has taken place and say: "We tried, we posed the questions, we raised the points and we addressed the issues that are part of this treaty. The people's representatives voted, discussed, debated and made their decision, and their decision stands." They would have had the satisfaction of knowing that that debate took place, and they could have celebrated that fact. They cannot celebrate; it is not a day for celebration.

[1045]

Something extraordinary happened last night -- something truly extraordinary. We heard from speakers who

[ Page 11982 ]

I watched last night as the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, who has come to his post in the midst of this debate -- for any number of reasons -- on a day and during the course of a debate where I would have thought he would have chosen to focus on what he believes to be the highlights of the bill before the House. He chose, instead, to engage in a level of personal attack that I thought unseemly in the extreme. I saw and heard that member address members and say to them: "You're only there because of me."

What arrogance! People on both sides of this House are here because the people of British Columbia put them here. And when they put them here, they asked them to do a job. That job, for the past number of weeks and months, has been to debate a piece of legislation that will change the way we live in the province. This government has chosen to deny members -- and, by extension, British Columbians -- the opportunity to do that job.

[1050]

I left this place last night disgusted and disappointed -- disappointed that we on the opposition side wouldn't have an opportunity to continue with the debate around an unprecedented motion and disgusted that the members of the government benches would applaud and seem to derive some pleasure from curtailing democratic debate. If they truly believed this was the right thing to do, I would have thought that at least there would have been an air of reluctance on their part. But they derived pleasure; they enjoyed it. They celebrated the foreclosure of democratic debate. They walked out of here cheering, laughing and celebrating. I was disgusted.

Last night I asked myself: what about closure? Should we have closure? Is it a legitimate part of the rules of this House? Is it a legitimate function of what governments are sometimes required to do? I think the answer is yes. I think there are examples of circumstances in which the imposition of closure on debate is justified. I think journals like this one are full of examples where Houses have, by agreement, chosen to allocate time for debate and impose closure -- and sometimes without agreement. So I don't think it's a matter of crying out against the tool of closure. But if we agree that in the arsenal of procedural weapons -- that ample arsenal that is available to governments -- closure is included, then the question is: can it legitimately be applied here? Can it be applied to the debate we are engaged in and have been engaged in for, I think, 29 or 30 days? Does today's application of that principle represent a legitimate use of the tool? It won't surprise you, Madam Speaker, to know that my response to that question is a resounding no.

Why is that? Why is it inappropriate for this government to impose closure at this time on this bill -- on this legislation, this treaty? How did we get here? How do we find ourselves at this point in the debate? The government doesn't want to talk about this. The NDP doesn't want to talk about the fact that this debate began on November 30. Members of the Nisga'a tribal council were in the audience, and Chief Gosnell made a moving address from the Bar. There was, I think, a sense of hope that this debate would, if nothing else, clarify to this House some of the positions of the parties and clarify some of the provisions of the treaty itself. The treaty had been discussed in a very general way in the public domain, but now we were going to get the opportunity to scrutinize it clause by clause and ascertain, to the best of our collective abilities, how those provisions were going to operate now, in the near future and in the long-term future. There was that sense of hope.

[1055]

We stopped because of newspaper headlines. We stopped because the Premier realized that his government was spinning out of control in the midst of a ferry scandal that showed no sign of abating. In the whirlpool of scandal that was created, he and his Deputy Premier were about to be sucked under. So the government ran away, and we left this chamber. The government ran and shut the House down.

The point that no one on the government side wants to acknowledge, that none of them want to admit, is that if we had stayed here -- or if we had even abided by the promise the Premier made, following the appointment of his new minister, to be back in two weeks -- we would be done now. We would be finished. If they had only kept their word, we'd be done and we wouldn't be dealing with closure. We wouldn't be dealing with a draconian motion that is foreclosing on all opportunity for debate. The government doesn't like to hear that; the NDP does like to hear the fact that they are the architects. From day one, they have been the architects of their own dictatorial edict on this debate. They can't hide from that fact, though they want to.

[ Page 11983 ]

An Hon. Member: And finish.

M. de Jong: . . .and finish it, understanding that there is a budgetary calendar that has to be abided by? The government has other legislative obligations that it needs to abide by. We all know that. We all know that the fiscal year ends March 31. The government might think we are fools, but at least give us a little bit of credit. We understand that they have other obligations, so we waited, having said at the commencement of the debate -- having said in this House and in the halls -- that our objective was to debate and critique this bill in a responsible manner. We made a commitment. Every single member of this opposition made a commitment that we would not engage in procedural trickery or chicanery, and we did not.

[1100]

The Speaker: Members, members.

M. de Jong: The Government House Leader -- and I want the record to show this -- has just chastised me, Madam Speaker, for not making a speech last night. I want the record to also show why that is: because her party foreclosed on debate. When I stood up in this House to seek leave to respond to the motion on the table, that member, the Government House Leader, said no. She said no to every single member of the opposition.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members will come to order. I remind members that third reading is to be debated on the act itself. I'm sure the member is aware of that.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order.

M. de Jong: I've listened carefully to the debate that brings us to this point. I listened to the Attorney General; I listened to him try to excuse what the government has done. I don't know to what extent he has been involved in the decision to impose this draconian closure measure, but I heard his attempt to defend it. This is what he said: "You've had 116 hours. That's enough." The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs says: "That's enough." And in the very next breath the Attorney General says: "But you know, if you needed more time, we could sit on weekends. We could sit at 2 a.m. on Saturday morning." It is as if members of this government truly believe that this chamber is for their use only.

It was July 28, 1998, when the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs had this to say. . .

An Hon. Member: When he was on this side.

M. de Jong: . . .when he was on this side of the House: ". . .to have the government bring in its agenda and force the opposition to sit all night -- force the members of this chamber, the staff in this building and the other people who are working here to violate every single labour standards act there is, because we're working around the clock, something that this government would not condone for any other working person in British Columbia -- is offensive. That is really, really offensive." And that is precisely what the minister -- the Attorney General -- would have had British Columbians subjected to, in terms of scrutinizing this treaty.

I remember the promises; I remember the promises from other members of the government. I remember the Labour minister when he was Aboriginal Affairs minister. For the life of me, I don't know how he can sit there today and countenance what his government is doing, after having made an explicit promise -- not a conditional promise, not a promise that he attached certain caveats to -- that this bill would be exposed to clause-by-clause scrutiny.

Hon. D. Lovick: It was.

M. de Jong: And now he says, "It was" on the day his government imposes closure. He has -- and, I daresay, his colleagues have -- a fundamentally different notion of democracy and debate than I have and my colleagues on this side of the House have.

[1105]

The Speaker: Members, come to order. On third reading.

M. de Jong: I hear government members, and I've heard it again this morning, over the last 20 to 25 minutes. . . . How many of those members have this morning yelled across the floor to say: "You're opposed. You're opposed to the treaty." That's their logic: "We can impose closure, because you guys are opposed. We don't need any debate. There's no reason to scrutinize the provisions of this bill. If you're opposed to a piece of legislation, why have any debate?" Why don't you just lock the door, send everyone home, and we won't have any debate about any legislation?

You know, when the Minister of Small Business sat in Ottawa -- as he's likely to remind us at some point today -- he was a member of an opposition that prided itself on debating legislation, knowing that they weren't going to win the vote. But then he comes to Victoria and sits on the government side of the benches, and if you're opposed to something the government wants to do, it's: "Get the hell out of here, because that's not part of the program."

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for Matsqui, I ask. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members will come to order. The Chair would like to remind all members about some decorum and language and expression in the chamber, and to remind members that this is third reading and the reading of the rules. . . .

Interjection.

[ Page 11984 ]

Member, continue.

M. de Jong: The government would defend their actions today by trying to cast out the spin, the famous NDP spin: "The debate has been useless." This in spite of any number of references from the various ministers involved about the types of questions, the quality of questions, the importance of the debate. But today and yesterday, it's the spin: "It's been useless."

What have we learned from that debate? If the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs is correct, if we've learned nothing. . . . Maybe he's right. But at times like this -- I say this candidly -- I often look to what the member for Peace River South says and does. I think he has a sense that comes from having spent some time here, having been the province's first Aboriginal Affairs minister. I place great stock in his observations as -- admittedly -- the only independent member of this House. He asked the question: "Has the debate served any useful purpose?" He concluded that it had, and I agree with that. It was useful to understand, to get a better sense of, the amount of money that the government was spending on an implementation committee that we learned has nothing to do with implementing the treaty. A budget, which we were told -- again, by the former minister -- was absolutely ironclad, would not exceed $2.3 million, ballooned to $7 million, and the minister somehow thought that that was irrelevant.

[1110]

The Speaker: You are the designated speaker, I presume. Thank you.

M. de Jong: And there's more. But let me also say this, Madam Speaker. I think we learned some positive things. The former minister, the present minister and the Attorney General -- the three of whom represented the bulk of participation on the part of the government's side. . . . I think there were times during this debate when members of the opposition actually got some useful and helpful information, and on occasion our minds were put at ease. We said: "All right. That's a convincing enough argument for us to say to our constituents that that isn't an issue for us any longer." What we sought to do was seek those assurances, where we could, throughout the treaty.

Were there questions asked in a clumsy manner? Yeah -- some of them by me. Yeah, some of those questions could have been phrased better; some of them were unclear. Were there answers that defied comprehension? Yeah, there were some of those too. But there was a genuine attempt on the part of members of the opposition to critique and derive information from the ministers, and the only reason that process has been sidetracked by the NDP government is because there is now a political imperative to do so. It has nothing to do with the spin that we heard yesterday and we'll hear today and we'll hear again tomorrow about how the opposition conducted itself, because there is precious little -- I dare say no -- evidence to support the allegations that the government is making.

British Columbians who have watched this debate -- and no one, except perhaps Frank Calder, has watched it all. . . . I won't repeat, because all members know, what Frank Calder had to say about the imposition of closure. I wonder -- and I wouldn't presume to speak for him -- if he is celebrating today.

The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs -- and I want the record to show this, Madam Speaker -- shows a paranoia that members of the opposition would seek to test, through the course of debate, the treaty for its constitutional validity. He somehow has difficulty believing that an opposition, in being asked to vote on a piece of legislation, would want to test, during the course of debate, its constitutional validity. I'm not sure what the legal. . . .

[1115]

The Speaker: Members, points of view are obviously entitled to be on this floor.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member, I encourage. . . . Back to the contents of the bill, for third reading.

M. de Jong: I do think they're sensitive about it, Madam Speaker. It defies description, quite frankly, that a minister of the Crown would somehow believe it inappropriate that an opposition dealing with a document that necessarily attracts constitutional permanence would engage in a line of questioning that tests that very subject. Well, tough. This line that the Attorney General and the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs are spewing forth, that somehow this represented an examination for discovery. . . . Well, if the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs takes exception to the fact that we were posing questions designed to determine whether certain provisions of this bill and this treaty would withstand future challenges, he's right. And you know what? That's what we, on the opposition side, got elected to do.

Over on the NDP side of the floor, they have a different theory. It doesn't surprise me that they are not concerned about constitutional validity, because when they are confronted with the fact that they have broken the law, they just ignore it. And when they're really cornered, then they come into the chamber and change the rules -- the way they changed the rules to invoke closure, to deal with the probate fees and to deal with gaming. It's unseemly, and it ain't pretty.

The Speaker: Would the member inform the House how this relates to third reading of this bill, which is to be about the act?

[ Page 11985 ]

The Speaker: Members, members. Hon. members, the member for Matsqui has the floor. If others wish to speak, he will have to finish. Members on both sides of the House, I appreciate that feelings are pretty high, but let's not forget the rules of debate here.

M. de Jong: It may be difficult for members of the NDP government to fathom the frustration that is felt by democratically elected members of the opposition when they have debate curtailed in the manner that this government has chosen to do. But that feeling is real and, I daresay, a representation of the frustration and anger that British Columbians feel. So when the Government House Leader chooses to engage in banter and heckling, I think she does a disservice to all members of the House and to the people of British Columbia.

What else did we learn in the debate? As I said earlier, if we didn't learn anything -- and if the whole exercise was pointless -- then maybe the government's argument is valid. But you know, Madam Speaker, British Columbians watched a government advertising campaign that set as one of its highlight features the fact that this treaty was going to provide for and create municipal-style government. That was a marquee part of the government's sale of this treaty. Was it true? What did we learn during the course of the debate?

We had a lengthy discussion about that with the Attorney General. My colleague from Richmond-Steveston put a series of questions to him. We wanted to test that assertion, because that's what the government was saying to British Columbians and that's what the government was advertising, spending $7 million or $8 million promoting this treaty as the creation of municipal-style government. "Don't worry. It's just like your local government." What did we learn? We learned from the Attorney General that it just ain't so.

[1120]

The member for Richmond-Steveston didn't get up in the morning last week and exact that answer out of him in ten minutes. It took a little longer. It took hours, if not days, to garner that admission that what is being created -- whether one likes it or not, whether one supports it or not -- is not municipal-style government. The government objects to that process. The government objects to that level of scrutiny. And the question British Columbians are asking themselves and will continue to ask themselves -- and sadly will never know the answer to -- is: what else would the member for Richmond-Steveston or Richmond East or Peace River North or Saanich North and the Islands have learned -- would we have learned -- if we had had the opportunity to continue with the debate? What else would we have learned for the benefit of future negotiations, if the debate had been permitted to continue? We'll never know, because on this, the first treaty, the government chose to cut us off.

What won't we be discussing, Madam Speaker? Just about a third of the treaty. The treaty sets up a court structure. Some people think that's a good thing. I was curious to know the rationale for doing that. Was it an attempt to incorporate an element of aboriginal justice into the broader justice system? Was that the rationale? Was it a rationale designed to import different notions of sentencing? I wanted to explore with the Attorney General whether or not there were other ways that that might have been accomplished without purporting to create an entire court criminal justice system for a relatively small population in the Nass Valley. I think those would have been appropriate, legitimate questions, and we'll never get those answers.

We'll never get those answers about the cost. We'll never get the answers about the accountability for those costs. I think those were legitimate questions. I think that if the former minister, the now Minister of Labour, had remained at his post, we might have had that discussion. Having made the specific promise that he did only a few short months ago, I cannot believe that he would have allowed his government to do what this present minister has allowed the NDP and the Premier to do.

[1125]

We won't talk about the capital transfer. We won't talk about the amount of money, about how that figure was calculated. We won't talk about the loan repayment. We won't talk about the sudden new policy to forgive loan repayment that the government seized upon at the eleventh hour. Maybe that made sense. I don't think it did, but I'm sure the government could have at least attempted to offer something in the way of explanation. But we'll never hear that explanation. We'll never hear that attempt by the government to justify and account for the manner in which that figure was calculated; we'll never know the answer to that. We'll never have an opportunity to explore the cost-sharing agreements that are so much a part of this treaty -- the so-called side agreements.

The government's response to that is: "You had 116 hours. Why didn't you do it?" But you see, the thing with democracy is it's not always on the government's timetable. I know that's a novel concept; I know that's difficult for them to appreciate. I know that when they've been cornered by the rules, when they've been cornered by their own scandal, it's difficult for them to believe that democracy actually extends beyond the borders of their own little caucus room. I find it reprehensible that their response to my concern that we

[ Page 11986 ]

That's the message people are going to take away today -- on a day when they should have been celebrating, when even the people who have difficulty with this treaty should have been able to go away and say: "Well, at least we had the debate; at least we posed the questions; at least we had an opportunity to be heard." On the day they should be celebrating that, they're leaving this place knowing one thing and one thing only: as far as the NDP government is concerned, it's democracy on their terms. It's debate as they see fit. It's a schedule as long as it's convenient for them and, more particularly, as long as it's convenient for a Premier who's on his last legs.

So I'm angry, because I didn't get elected to come here and deal with a government that decides the rules are only good as long as it's convenient politically. That's not why I got elected to come here. I know that there will be days when those rules will operate in a way that is helpful to my party's cause and, probably more likely, there will be many days when those rules operate in a way that will cause us grief and frustration. But if we're not prepared to defend those rules which we as a society have chosen to impose and which grant us the democratic right to engage in debate, then pretty soon the question is: why have them? That's the message British Columbians will take from what has occurred over the past few days.

[1130]

Hon. D. Lovick: Two roads diverge as I stand here, and I propose to take the one less travelled. The temptation, frankly, is for me to respond to a number of the points made by the member and to take issue vehemently with a number of those -- especially constructions about things that I have said or not said or other members have said; especially about the imputations of particular motives to people. But I think this chamber has suffered grievously the last while because of that approach to debate: debates about personal agendas, about personal failings -- perceived and real -- degenerating, in my mind, to personal attacks sometimes entirely uncalled for.

I'm going to try my very best to avoid that, because I think this is an extremely important debate -- hugely important, of historical significance -- and also, in fairness to the opposition, a debate that calls into question the nature of how we do business in this chamber. And I am mindful of that.

I want to begin my remarks by making this point. Last night I had the pleasure of listening to the member for Peace River South. I was in my office, but I always pay attention to that member, frankly, because over the 12 years I've shared a seat in this chamber with him. I've grown to respect his integrity and his judgment -- albeit we have significant disagreements. At the end of his speech, I wrote him a note. The note said nothing hugely important, except: "I too share your sadness that the debate ended this way. I don't think closure is a preferred option that anybody wants." Indeed, I am horrified to think that members opposite think that the government does this with alacrity and enthusiasm or because they can. That's not the issue at all. It's one of those things that nobody is entirely happy about, and I felt deeply for Frank Calder, as a parliamentarian, who also, as I read and heard and understood his comments, said: "I wish it didn't have to happen that way." The point, though, I think, is that we on this side of the chamber have come to the conclusion that it did have to happen that way, and therefore, with reluctance, we say what we are and we do what we are doing.

Before I go into some substantive points that I want to make, I also want to say that I think we must be absolutely scrupulously careful in how we function in this chamber so that we don't cave in to our feelings of antagonism, frustration and anger -- and I'm as guilty as anybody else in this chamber of caving in to those on occasion. I make the point -- almost as, dare I say, a plea, as somebody who has been in here as long as anybody else and who has had the unique opportunity to be opposition, government, cabinet and Speaker -- that we are in danger of destroying this institution. I think it's. . . .

[1135]

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm glad the member says that. I think it's appropriate to say it now, because instantly she will say: "Yeah, because you are invoking this measure." I want to say, rather, that one of the reasons, alas, that this measure was invoked is because this chamber, in terms of its interaction between opposition and government, has become profoundly dysfunctional. We can't make deals between the two sides; we can't do that. Accordingly, there isn't the bond of trust that there must be for this place to operate. That breaks my heart.

I've been as fearless a competitor as anybody in this place; I won't hide that. Indeed, my friend the Opposition House Leader knows that very well, because we've had some pretty good battles of that kind. But the battles ought to be about issues, and they ought to be about substance. They shouldn't be pointing at people and saying: "Yeah, yeah, yeah. You're only doing this because you're afraid of. . ." -- etc., etc. That doesn't advance the cause of either side in this House one whit, and it goes a long way, frankly, to eroding and taking away from the integrity of parliamentary democracy. That's my opinion.

I realize the danger of my taking this road less travelled. If I want to be critical, of course, I set myself up for attacks from the other side. So be it, and I will proceed then as gently as I can. Let me start by making this point: in all the great debate -- in all, dare I say, the sound and fury surrounding this time-allocation motion -- a couple of basic things have been forgotten. Number one, I don't believe there is any parliament in the world that allows unlimited debate. Every single parliament with which I'm familiar -- and I have, I think, pretty good familiarity -- has some mechanism to ensure that the business of the majority will get done.

It's the old maxim; it's the old rhyme that most of us learn when we start our first business of learning about parliaments and legislatures. It goes like this: "The minority will have its say, but the majority must have its way." That's democracy; that's parliament. The only question outstanding is how well the interests and rights -- indeed, the sovereign rights -- of the minority are recognized and accepted.

In my considered opinion, this debate has endeavoured to do that. The government has said: "We have listened to the

[ Page 11987 ]

I want to touch briefly on the fact that in our considered opinion the opposition was, indeed, given ample opportunity to debate this. It's a huge bill. Everybody knows that. We've had just as big ones in this chamber -- I say this, and I hope I don't sound accusatory; I don't mean to be. But surely part of the opposition's job is to be selective in its commentary and its criticism. Surely nobody believes that one goes through every single word and has long debates about things that are, quite frankly, not very important. Rather, you focus on what matters and on what's significant.

The opposition sent us very clear signals, about this treaty, in the beginning that these were the concerns they had, and that's fine. Let's have a debate; let's have a discussion on those. But, alas -- based on the many hours I spent as minister in this chamber and the other hours I spent in my House duty watching the debate -- it seems to me that we were spending a huge amount of time that, quite frankly, was not productive, and I say that with as much understanding as I can possibly have. Moreover, the opposition was given its opportunity. The government said that we could have extended and weekend sittings. We made those opportunities available.

[1140]

Hon. D. Lovick: You know, it's not the case entirely. . . . I must take issue here with my colleague across the way, the opposition critic for Aboriginal Affairs, about the legal matter. When I was in that portfolio, I would guess that we spent somewhere between 20 and 30 hours fencing about issues regarding constitutionality and the impact on the constitution. The member says: "Oh no, we weren't doing anything about a court case." But the problem is that there was a court case. That side of the House deliberately chose, when we introduced Nisga'a, to go to court. Obviously, then, all of our legal advice on this side of the House said: "You had better be careful, because anything you say can become part of a court case."

So please, then, members opposite -- through you, Madam Speaker -- don't pretend and don't take righteous indignation and umbrage that we would suggest that you took 30 hours in debate, knowing that we couldn't answer the questions. . . . You knew we couldn't, and you knew that was our legal advice, yet we went through the pretence of debate for 20 or 30 hours on that very issue. Frankly, I was offended by that, because if you want to argue from a parliamentary prospective, doing that -- going to court and then trying to introduce that as part of a debate in the Legislature -- seems to me, prima facie, to be an abuse of the Legislature.

The Speaker: Minister, I'd like to make two interjections. Firstly, if you would address your remarks through the Chair -- a bit of a slippage there. Secondly, we're on third reading of the bill, and that means the contents of the bill only. Please proceed.

Hon. D. Lovick: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the guidance, and I apologize if I have offended.

I'm making the point -- and if the point is being made too obliquely, again, I apologize -- that we are doing something important. A huge amount of opportunity was extended to have a debate, and alas, instead of debating the merits of this treaty, we have now been spending six or eight hours on this procedural issue. I find it difficult to reconcile this grand concern for not enough time, yet spending all this time on this procedural issue. It seems to me that those two don't somehow connect.

I have to make one more point regarding the procedural dimension, simply because I think we owe that to those who pay attention to what happens in this chamber. If the opposition wants to argue the primacy, the paramountcy and the importance of parliament -- and I'm glad to hear them do that -- then they have to reconcile that with the fact that they stood up in the beginning of the Nisga'a debate and said that the Legislature was not the place to be deciding this. Rather, the people should decide -- it should be a referendum -- or the courts should decide. You can't do that. If you want parliament to be parliament and do what it does, then you don't proceed to undermine parliament by saying that we, elected members of this Legislature, don't have the right to introduce and pass and debate a treaty -- because that's what was said in the debate in my time as minister.

Hon. Speaker, the point has been made, and I won't belabour it. We have had a long debate on Nisga'a -- the reasons why that treaty is so crucial. The Premier has said that the time for talking is over, that the time to get on with it is now. I agree with that; I think he's absolutely right. The Nisga'a, certainly, have waited long enough. A number of other people whose interests have been left in abeyance, because of our waiting for this treaty, have waited long enough. I note, by the way, that the First Nations Summit has issued a release today, urging the government of B.C. to move forward with the ratification of the Nisga'a treaty in the provincial Legislature. That body, as you know, representing some 70 percent of first nations in this province, has said: "We have waited long enough."

[1145]

[ Page 11988 ]

The Speaker: The member will take her seat. A point of order by the Minister of Labour.

Hon. D. Lovick: I don't challenge the member opposite on her right to say what she's saying, but we are on third reading; we are not on the procedural motion.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, the debate has so far been a bit wide-ranging on this topic, and the Chair's role has been to try to bring members and the debating members around to focusing on third reading. I continue to do that in as moderate and as cautious a way as I can, knowing and appreciating the sensitivities and the feelings in this chamber.

With that in mind, hon. member, continue.

C. Clark: The minister is quite correct that the government has a duty to govern, but the government also has a duty to listen. And if the government is going to listen and to hear, they have to allow people to speak to allow the minority to make its voice heard. That is the duty of the government. We have been through committee on this, and the government is denying the opposition -- and the public through the official opposition -- the opportunity to debate a third of this historic treaty, which this government itself says is historic.

We could have been here in February and March. We could have been here in the fall to debate this. Instead, this government is prepared today to conclude the most historic debate that this Legislature has had since I have been here, in the most shameful manner imaginable. This government is prepared to bring forward the most draconian motion ever introduced in this House. They are prepared to conclude what should be a celebration for many people with a shameful, draconian assault on the democratic rights of the members of this Legislature.

Surely this is a crowning achievement for a government that has proven itself over the last year to be absolutely determined to pervert the process, to corrupt the rules that are there to protect the public interest, to subvert the rules that are supposed to be there protecting the right of people to be heard. We have seen it again and again, in report after report: condemning this government for its willingness to deny minorities' rights to be heard, to deny public servants the opportunity to give legitimate advice and to deny the processes that are there to protect the public. Surely this is the crowning achievement for a government that's been determined to do that.

[1150]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. . . . The member will take her seat.

The Chair is increasingly concerned about personal references and attacks. I think it's very important that such references be done carefully, if at all.

I encourage the member to proceed.

C. Clark: The purpose of being able to debate this in committee is not just simply so that the opposition can make its voice heard and complain or make its criticisms public; it's not simply to do that. It's so that we can also try and shed some light on parts of the treaty that no one has so far shed any light on. That's how the public is able to make judgments about what this treaty means and to make decisions about what it will mean for their future. It's a way to help the Nisga'a people understand what the government is intending. It's a way for the courts to understand what the government is intending. When the opposition goes through clause by clause and asks those questions and makes that detailed examination that was promised repeatedly by the government, that's what we're trying to achieve. It is not a matter, as the government would lead you to believe, of just standing here and holding up the process. It's an opportunity to try and shed light on -- to illuminate -- those parts of the treaty that we don't yet understand. We've seen throughout the debate, as we've asked the questions, that the government doesn't have all the answers, that they have needed to go back and clarify issues. Surely that's a benefit of having it debated clause by clause in this House.

When we go through it in order, from front to back, and get only two-thirds of the way through it, we leave those important chapters unilluminated. We leave the courts without any way to determine what the legislators who introduced it meant. We deny the public, the Nisga'a and the opposition the opportunity to ask those questions and understand fully what this will mean for future generations.

The government is correct about one thing: this is a historic debate. It will change British Columbia forever. The former Attorney General is quite correct: this treaty will be constitutional concrete. We will not be able to go back and change it, so surely it is simply only responsible to do everything we can to make sure we understand what it means. I would ask the members on that side of the House to remind themselves of the way they started this debate. They stood up in this House and said: "Remember, you are a part of history. What you do in this debate will go down as a part of history."

[1155]

[ Page 11989 ]

The Speaker: If I may make a suggestion, I'd like you to say "till the next sitting." I need to do a little coaching here, if you don't mind.

J. Cashore: You'd think that after 121/2 years, I would have learned that -- "until the next sitting."

J. Cashore moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Lovick moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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