Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

[ Page 11991 ]

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Hon. J. Kwan: I'm delighted today to welcome and introduce, on behalf of my colleagues, members of the UBCM executive, who are having their meetings here in Victoria: first of all, UBCM president Mayor John Ranta, of the village of Cache Creek; UBCM second vice-president Jim Abram, Comox-Strathcona regional district director; UBCM past president Mayor Steve Wallace, the city of Quesnel; UBCM executive director Richard Taylor; Councillor Ed Gatzke, town of Creston; Councillor Janise Elkerton, district of Pitt Meadows; Aaron Dinwoodie, Central Okanagan regional district director; Mayor John Les, district of Chilliwack; Mayor Frank Leonard, city of Saanich; Hans Cunningham, Central Kootenay regional district chair; Ann Hancock, Okanagan-Similkameen regional district director; Councillor Bonny Hawley, district of Houston and NCMA representative; and last but not least, director-at-large Robert Hobson, Central Okanagan regional district chair.

I'd like to have the House give them a very warm welcome, as they are having their executive meeting here this week -- and also having visited Cache Creek yesterday to announce on behalf of the province the extension of small community protection grants for all small communities throughout British Columbia. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

Hon. G. Clark: On this historic day, it's my pleasure to introduce a group of Nisga'a leaders who are here with us for the duration of the day to observe these important deliberations. I would like to introduce to the House today Chief Joe Gosnell, Ed Wright, Rod Robinson, Harry Nyce, Herbie Morven, Gary Alexcee and Nelson Leeson. There are other Nisga'a leaders accompanying them for this discussion. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

S. Orcherton: There are so many people in British Columbia who have worked hard to make it a better place, not only for all of us who live here but for their families.

[1410]

Hon. G. Clark: It is also my pleasure to introduce the constituency assistants in the gallery. All of the NDP caucus constituency assistants are down here in Victoria for their annual meeting, and they're here in the chamber today. I'm not quite sure why they're behind us, but it's because. . . .

An Hon. Member: They're always behind us.

Hon. G. Clark: They're always behind us; that's right. I think that members on both sides of the House would appreciate the fact that the constituency assistants working for members of the Legislature have a difficult job, and they are the reason why we are privileged to serve. They do outstanding work on behalf of all of us. We get whatever credit there is, and they take all the heat, but the truth is that they do most of the work. I would ask all members of the House to make them welcome today.

B. Goodacre: Hon. Speaker, I rise to share with this assembly a piece of very sad and tragic news. My part-time CA, Joe L'Orsa, passed away at work on Tuesday night. He was on the phone to me at 4:30, in the best of spirits. He was even making a joke with me about how life begins at 60, in reference to the fact he had his sixtieth birthday about a month ago.

Joe was born in Connecticut, but returned soon with his mother to the Smithers area, a rural part called Driftwood, where they still have a family property that his brother and his son live on. He came to Smithers with his family when he was a very young boy and has lived in Smithers. He was an accomplished musician who, over the last 17 years with the Bulkley Valley Folk Music Society, affected the lives of thousands and thousands of people through his music and through his contribution to helping young people with their musical development. His contribution to our community is immeasurable, and we will miss him very much.

The Speaker: Thank you very much, member, for bringing us that news. We wish the family all condolences from the members of the House.

Oral Questions

LIONS GATE BRIDGE SIDEWALKS

Interjection.

[1415]

Hon. H. Lali: This is the first real question we've had in the House since 1991. I want to thank the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard for his question. The people of Vancouver have been waiting for the Lions Gate Bridge for a very long time. I'm glad to say that it was an NDP government which finally responded to that particular issue.

I know that the hon. member has been working very, very diligently on behalf of his constituents. He just never lets up. I'll take the member up on his offer. I know that the biking coalition has asked me to come up and ride a bike across the bridge, so I make that commitment here. I would love to join the hon. member and go on a bike ride over the Lions Gate Bridge and take a look at that whole issue.

[ Page 11992 ]

T. Stevenson: Actually, I challenged the minister some time ago to ride with me across the Lions Gate Bridge, as I have done recently, to see how dangerous indeed it is at the present time. I'm certainly glad to hear that now he is making a commitment to join me on a bicycle ride with a number of other cyclists. I'd like to know specifically, really. . . . How long, though, do I have to wait?

Hon. H. Lali: This is getting tougher by the minute. The one commitment I can make to the hon. member is that it's not going to take 60 years. That's for certain. In the next few days, I'll join the hon. member for a bike ride across the bridge.

RECYCLING OF TETRA-PAK BEVERAGE CONTAINERS

Hon. C. McGregor: I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to address what I believe to be a very important recycling and waste issue. In fact, I believe it was appropriate for government at the time, given the specific circumstance around the beverage container Tetra-Pak, to give an exemption for a one-year period, during which the producers would be able to have an opportunity to find an appropriate location in which to recycle their product. In fact, hon. Speaker, the problem was that there wasn't any available recycling opportunity for Tetra Brik. So we formed a committee; we asked the industry to work with us and form a committee through which to respond directly to how to address this problem. That committee is doing its work. Staff is monitoring that on an ongoing basis. We expect a positive resolution shortly, so that they will be in the system on October 1.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Burnaby-Willingdon.

J. Sawicki: I do understand, from last weekend, that there are some producers who are preparing to put out a new juice product in Tetra-Paks this summer. Can the minister assure the House today that she will remind those producers that this container will in fact enter the system this fall?

Hon. C. McGregor: I expect every beverage container product to be recyclable as of October 1, and that, of course, includes any new products in Tetra Brik.

DEVELOPMENT OF TECHNICIAL UNIVERSITY

[1420]

The technology university, Tech B.C., is a key part of that strategy. As the member will be aware, the municipality in Surrey committed some land to the project. We have been negotiating with the city and working hard to bring forward a plan that will give fruition to that university. I, frankly, am hopeful that the plan will not be limited just to the university but will also help in terms of enlivening a downtown development for Surrey that has been a long time coming. It always takes a little longer for these good things to happen. But we're working hard. I'm hopeful that we'll have an announcement in the very near future.

LAND CLAIMS SETTLEMENTS AND TOURISM GROWTH

I have a question for the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture. My question is this: how long will it take to ensure that we have some kind of certainty for people in the tourism industry who are looking to expand upon the opportunities in this province around back-country recreation, coastal navigation and those kinds of enterprises?

Hon. I. Waddell: I'm glad the member asked me that. You know, tourism is an $8.7 billion business in this province and is growing; it's the fastest-growing business. You know, just today a senior vice-president of the Royal Bank of Canada here in British Columbia said publicly to a conference that we should get on with the settlement of land claims, because if we don't, it's hurting the future possibility of tourism growth in British Columbia. This is -- perhaps he is a New Democrat, I don't know -- not usually associated with the party and so on, or with the government.

I asked the opposition -- if they were here, they might listen to this -- if they were here they might listen to this -- to consider that the business community, as they told our group. . . . Some of the members here on the government side were on the committee of the Legislature, which I have the honour to chair. We had 33 meetings across the province. We heard 800 briefs on Nisga'a and other land claim settlements. And we were told in no uncertain terms by the people of British Columbia -- not only tourist operators, not only small business people, but the general majority of the population that came before those intense hearings: "Get on with the settlement of land claims. Begin with Nisga'a and get moving with the other ones, so we can have future growth in the province."

[ Page 11993 ]

PROSTATE CANCER RESEARCH AND TREATMENT

[1425]

S. Orcherton: My question is for the Minister of Health. The minister knows there are many issues around cancer and cancer treatment and research that have been topical as of late in Victoria and in British Columbia. One of those issues is one where 500 people have lobbied me around prostate cancer research and treatment for prostate cancer, asking the ministry to move in new directions in that regard. I wonder if the Minister of Health could give me an update so that I could pass it along to those constituents of mine, in terms of what indeed is being done in terms of prostate cancer research and treatment in British Columbia.

Hon. P. Priddy: The member is correct: it has had a lot of discussion, here in Victoria particularly, with the fast-tracking of the Vancouver Island cancer clinic. As it relates to his question around prostate cancer, I'm actually quite pleased to say that in terms of the survival rate for prostate cancer in Canada, the survival rate is about 7 percent higher here in British Columbia than it is anywhere else in the country. This is, in a large result, a direct response to the kind of research and treatment that is being done here. Brachytherapy is now being provided in British Columbia -- the only province in the country that is covering brachytherapy, which is a new treatment for prostate cancer. People previously had to go to the United States. There are new prostate cancer drugs on the market, and when I announced new money for cancer drugs, prostate cancer took up a significant amount of those dollars.

I would also say that we will soon have a very exciting announcement about new prostate research here in B.C.

HIGHWAY SIGNAGE POLICY

Hon. H. Lali: It is an honour to stand up and answer questions. For the first time, we're getting some real questions here.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members.

Hon. H. Lali: I would like to assure the hon. member that there is a sign committee in place with members from the public service as well as people from industry. We'll be coming back with a very comprehensive sign policy so that we can have some uniformity throughout the province.

NORTH VANCOUVER ISLAND TOURISM

The North Island, as we all know, is one of the most spectacular and beautiful pieces of real estate in North America.

The Speaker: And your question.

G. Robertson: The logical question, in my mind, is that since we have these wonderful transportation corridors, the next logical step is to move people up to the North Island. I was wondering what plans the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture has to enhance tourism on northern Vancouver Island.

Hon. I. Waddell: May I say, before I answer, that the hon. member for North Island has been a tireless advocate of getting tourists out of the lower mainland and other places up-Island, up to the North Island. I congratulate him for that. There are three ways we can do that, I think, to begin. . . .

The Speaker: Briefly, minister. You can see that the light's on.

Hon. I. Waddell: Yes, three ways. One is to help people with tourist infrastructure: get them some more money so that they can build more facilities. Secondly, we can work together on the ferry service to make it better and more convenient with more convenient times. Thirdly, I think we can market it more; we can advertise it more. We have a tremendous increase in American tourism and a tremendous increase in tourism coming in. Our challenge is to get them out into the regions, and we're going to do that for North Island.

[1430]

Ministerial Statements

EARTH DAY

In British Columbia we enjoy a natural environment of unmatched beauty and diversity and a quality of life second to none. Yet with these benefits come important responsibilities: to keep our land, air and water clean, healthy and safe; and to protect biodiversity and habitat. There are countless actions each of us can take in our daily lives to help sustain our province's Super, Natural legacy for future gener-

[ Page 11994 ]

As well, all British Columbians are being encouraged to look ahead and consider the many ways in which they can benefit the environment all year long through individual or group action. Whether it's planting a tree, restoring a stream or enhancing habitat, reducing waste and energy consumption, the careful use of toxic products or using environmentally friendly transportation, everyone can make a difference. I encourage all members to give their support and encouragement to the many thousands of British Columbians and people across the world who are celebrating our environment this week through Earth Week activities taking place in their constituencies.

M. Coell: I am pleased to offer some comments with regard to Earth Day and Earth Week. I think that all in this House, and indeed all in British Columbia, are grateful for the province that we live in, for the natural resources that we have and for the opportunities that they afford us.

Madam Speaker, I'm not going to comment on Six Mile Ranch decisions, Burns Bog theme parks or any of the other failures of this government. This is a day for volunteers. This is a day and a week for individual British Columbians to work hard and to enhance their own environment and the environment for their families. We on this side of the House encourage that. We encourage all British Columbians to take part and to recognize that what they have is great. It is their duty and obligation to ensure that when they pass it on to the next generation, it is enhanced and sustainable.

NATIONAL ORGAN DONOR AWARENESS WEEK

Across the country people are dying every day because of the lack of organs suitable for transplant. Right now 547 British Columbians are waiting for solid organ transplants. Some of these women, men and children will die while waiting. Last year 21 people died while waiting for an organ transplant. On that list of 547 people are about a dozen who are children. It would seem to me, as a parent, that every day you wait must feel like a month or two months when you are holding your child, who you know will not survive without an organ replacement. So clearly there's a critical need to increase the availability of organs for transplants in order to save as many lives as possible. I am very proud of the fact that British Columbia has taken a leadership role to increase the rate of organ donation and decrease waiting times for organ transplant surgery. It's not a matter of financial resources. If there is an organ available, people receive the surgery immediately, obviously.

[1435]

These steps are a good start. The reality, however, is that potential donors are still being missed because we don't have a clear, simple, unambiguous national system for organ donation. Last month I was pleased to join B.C. Transplant Society executive director Bill Barrable and the member for Rossland-Trail in making a joint presentation to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health in Ottawa. What we called for was the creation of a national organ donor system. We recommended B.C.'s system as a model. The committee's report was released this week, although it has not. . . . The Minister of Health will take time to review it, but I'm disappointed that the committee itself did not adopt B.C.'s recommendation. I believe strongly that the best way to increase transplants and reduce waiting times for people in all provinces in our country is through an integrated nationwide system.

Here in British Columbia we'll continue to support the important work of the B.C. Transplant Society and to encourage more and more British Columbians to register as organ donors. A priority for our government is improving health care and reducing wait times. I'm determined to ensure that we're doing all that we can to reduce those wait times for British Columbians who need life-giving organ transplant surgery.

S. Hawkins: First of all, I want to thank the member for Vancouver-Quilchena for allowing me the opportunity to respond. This is an issue that's very special to me. I ran a neurocritical intensive care unit and was responsible for not only looking after major trauma patients but also talking to families about making the gift of life.

I think organ donation is an issue which is literally a matter of life and death for many, many people. The number of patients in British Columbia and Canada on wait-lists for transplants continues to grow. People die in this province because of the lack of organ donors. There is no question that transplants save lives. In fact, the Canadian organ replacement registry is an academic repository of data on the treatment of kidney disease and the outcomes of many types of transplant procedures. The registry shows that patients on dialysis have a 50 percent expectation of five-year life survival. A kidney transplant patient, however, has an 85 percent expectation of five-year survival. Transplants save lives.

In B.C. it costs in excess of $50,000 per patient per year to provide for dialysis needs of patients. On the other hand, a patient with an organ transplant has an initial expense of about $30,000 and then about $10,000 a year for anti-rejection drug costs. It is very seldom in medicine where one can see a treatment that is both economically and clinically superior. When that situation occurs, we should leap at the opportunity and encourage it in every possible way.

[1440]

[ Page 11995 ]

Members on this side of the House as well are disappointed in the way that this government initiated significant new changes in the Human Tissue Gift Act. These were introduced last year in the infamous Bill 50, in the form of regulations. Members on this side of the House are disappointed that the changes were introduced that way.

I'm aware of other jurisdictions that have done this, and their changes are quite extensive. They cover all kinds of areas -- from those who will be authorized to report under the legislated referral of organs, to the kind of training that is required for those who are required to report, to those who will be authorized to investigate and obtain permission for donor organs. There are liability considerations. There are police and emergency personnel responsibilities. There are even offence sections in the legislation in other jurisdictions.

These will be some of the most significant changes in this province, and as I said last year -- and I say it again today -- this House didn't get to debate some of the most significant and important changes to the Human Tissue Gift Act. I think that's disappointing. As the minister points out, it is a non-partisan issue. It's important to both sides of this House and to patients across this province. I think the responsible thing to have done is to have had the debate in this House, to make sure that all those kinds of considerations were debated. I'm also disappointed, because the minister did make a commitment last year to share the draft regulations. As I pointed out last night and today, they weren't done.

Hon. Speaker, it is important. Organ donation awareness is important. We know that organs save lives; there's no issue there. I would challenge every member in the House, and I would encourage every member in the House and everyone watching in the gallery today, to consider being an organ donor and to consider giving the gift of life.

The Speaker: The member for Surrey-Cloverdale rises on what matter?

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

Leave granted.

B. McKinnon: Visiting the Legislature today are a number of grade 10 students from Pacific Academy, in the Fraser Heights area of Surrey, and their teacher Mr. Douglas, along with three adults accompanying them. I ask the House to please make them welcome.

Tabling Documents

The Speaker: The minister tables a report.

Orders of the Day

NISGA'A FINAL AGREEMENT ACT
(continued)

I have been reading some books by one of my very favourite authors, Rohinton Mistry. One of the books I'm just getting into is Such a Long Journey. It has been a long journey, and when you take the message of Rohinton Mistry's book -- I have read reviews of it, so I think I can say this. . . . In the midst of an amazing heroic struggle on the part of people who are oppressed, at the end of the day there's still an abiding feeling of hopelessness after all those efforts are expended. It's a story of oppressed people struggling to survive, struggling to give hope for the next generation. In the case of the story -- another long journey -- of the making of the Nisga'a treaty, we again come back to the theme of hope. Here, I submit, hon. Speaker, we have achieved that which, in a fair way, enables hope to be manifested among the Nisga'a people for future generations.

[1445]

Hon. Speaker, this is a very significant day. I want to say in the context of the discussion that we're having today that based on my experience, I have come to the conclusion -- perhaps I have some of the scars on my back to prove it -- that political expediency has led to the opposition strategy to extend the debate beyond any reasonable limit. That concerns me. It concerns me because the struggle to achieve a settlement, which is the result of more than 20 years of negotiation and more than five with British Columbia, is a struggle that has gone on for an awfully long time. It's a struggle that has consequences not only for the Nisga'a but for hope as it might be experienced in first nations outside of the Nisga'a area.

With regard to the opposition, there are differences. There's no question about it. They have said that they see it as giving away too much. We see it as building a new relationship where it's not about giving away, but about recognizing historic reality. They say: "One law for all." We say, "Obey the

[ Page 11996 ]

This is a significant day, hon. Speaker, that completes the restoration of the honour of the Crown for British Columbia -- a very significant day. I'm very happy to be here at this time and in this place. No negotiated deal in the history of British Columbia has seen more scrutiny in this House and prior to coming into this House: more than 400 meetings in the region, years of meetings with the Treaty Negotiation Advisory Committee, the treaty advisory committee, the regional advisory committee.

The original framework did not provide for the openness in which this treaty was negotiated, once, as a result of discussions between ourselves and the Nisga'a, it was decided to open up the process to the greatest extent possible. The Nisga'a did not believe that it would be right, simply because they had been left out of negotiations when decisions were made to allocate land tenure in what they saw as their traditional territory. . . . They were not at the table. Nobody raised a fuss at that time. But believing that two wrongs do not make a right, they took the position that it should be opened up.

The official opposition's legacy, in my view, is one of seeking to exploit political opportunity. Their position kept changing, because they were trying to identify the political compass that would indicate the direction that would lead them on the path to gain the greatest possible support in terms of the body politic and help them with their electoral chances. I cannot say that in a self-righteous way, because I'm a politician; I understand that, and I do that too. But as I said before, I think this particular issue is one issue that rises above some of the issues that we deal with on a day-to-day basis.

[1450]

I want to tell you, hon. members, that when I recommended to the Premier that there be a free vote in the Legislature on our side of the House, I did that knowing that I had personally met with each and every member of this caucus and that that in each member's heart of hearts, they supported this treaty. So obviously I had no question with regard to making that recommendation.

You know, hon. Speaker, they asked for that. That was, in a sense, a deal, and they got it. They got the agreement on the recommendation of the free vote, because at that time, that was what they wanted. They knew that there were members on their side of the House that would want to support it. They got it, and I think it's obvious for all to see that their members are under the whip. That indicates something -- without getting into it -- some comment on some of the points that have been made with regard to the kind of rhetoric that we're hearing in the House in the context of this discussion. The fact is that they did not follow up on what they said they wanted at that time and what that committee enabled them to have in their agreement. They never followed through on it -- and we did. On this side of the House, each and every member is free to vote with his or her conscience.

Hon. Speaker, there are some real Liberals over there; there are a few. There are some over there that are part of a coalition, and they have chosen to define themselves under that banner. They have distanced themselves, for instance, from federal Liberals. But there are a few Liberals over there, and some of them, I believe, are uncomfortable. Isn't it amazing that those members over there -- the real Liberals that are under the whip -- are being forced to read scripted speeches because they are dealing with something that they find very, very difficult in the context of their real Liberal relationships.

Isn't it ironic, when you consider that surely they know that in a few weeks their colleagues in Ottawa will be giving speeches in favour of the treaty, that they -- the colleagues here in this House of those very same federal Liberals -- are giving speeches opposing the treaty. Isn't that an irony? The fact is that Hedy Fry will stand up in the House of Commons and speak glowingly in favour of the treaty -- and so will David Anderson, and so will Herb Dhaliwal, and so will Raymond Chan, and so will Lou Sekora. Lou Sekora, the very good friend and party-mate of the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain, will stand up and say the 180-degree opposite in the House of Commons that she has said in this House. I point that out with sadness.

I know that most of them aren't the Liberals they say they are. And I know that there are some real Liberals over there. And I still hope that when it comes to the time for voting, they will listen to their hearts.

[1455]

Treaties are about building a new relationship grounded in recognition and respect. During this debate it's interesting to note that we've often heard quoted the words of the president of the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs, Stewart Phillip, a man that I know. And I have a lot of respect for his leadership ability. But let's be factual here. It wasn't many years ago that Stewart Phillip took out an ad in the Vancouver Province declaring sovereignty over the area that he considered to be the traditional territory of his people. The fact of the matter is that the Liberals have found themselves supporting a chief whose very fundamental position is to not recognize the existence of the province of British Columbia. Those are strange bedfellows, hon. Speaker, strange bedfellows indeed.

I was privileged between 1993 and 1998 to lead this file. I'm part of this story, and what a privilege that is. And when it comes time for me to tell my grandchildren about this, I'm not going to be talking to them about this debate in the House, and I'm not going to be talking to them about some of the rhetoric that we hear coming from all sides within our political system. I'm going to be talking about what's in that treaty, because I feel really good about what's been crafted there. We can be proud about that.

I can remember that when I was the minister, I walked away from negotiations for a while because we had a dispute

[ Page 11997 ]

The opposition has had the opportunity to do the right thing, and in my opinion they have not done the right thing.

Well, it has been such a long journey for the Nisga'a -- a much longer journey, in a sense, than it has been for any of us. We just have to think of land conflicts that result in situations where we find refugees and victims of violent conflicts -- Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo, Serbia, Afghanistan, Macedonia and many places in Latin America. We see this in the news every day, and we see the results of these conflicts.

We have enjoined that journey in a negotiated way, which is a civilized way of achieving that which enables us to go on together upholding that respect that we have for each other. We're talking about first nations in this province where 60 percent of their population is under the age of 25 and desperately needs hope in order to have a future; where there's the highest suicide rate among adolescents; and where there's the highest infant mortality rate. We need to get on with the process of seeing that turn around.

[1500]

J. Weisgerber: It's a pleasure for me to rise and to follow the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville. I think he demonstrates a very clear, very genuine and very sincere commitment to the land claims process, and he made a significant contribution to it.

For the first time in many, many years, I find myself hesitant to rise and speak. It's not the first time, because the first time I rose in this House was in 1987 to respond to the throne speech, and I was very much in awe of this place. I was eager, but I was hesitant. I was in uncertain territory, and I was in a new environment, and the hesitation that went with that I think is understandable to all members.

But I'm hesitant today because I find myself saddened deeply by the events of the last two days. I find myself hesitant to speak because I know that there are members on this side of the House and, I expect, members on the other side of the House who are not going to have an opportunity even to speak to third reading of this bill. There are a number of us who will have an opportunity, but we know that the clock is ticking and that time is limited.

I'm also hesitant to speak because I'm doing it in an environment in which we have brought in, for the first time in the experience of any member of the House today, a limit on debate. Never before in the brief experience of any of the members sitting in this House have we limited debate. It seems to me that we hear references to. . . . Well, we're now going to hear all kinds of debates about whether we brought in closure or there was no closure. But, madam Speaker, the point is that the government, in bringing in closure, didn't make references to precedents here in British Columbia. They chose, instead, precedents in Ottawa, precedents in Alberta, and they used those as a rationalization for closure, for a limit on debate.

I suspect that we will see more of this. I think we now have seen the government try out closure and like the taste of it -- enjoy the mechanism. It was pretty evident to me last night. I honestly did not believe that the government would bring in closure on a closure motion. I certainly never expected, after five or six hours' debate, that the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast -- the member who sat here beside me as a defender of democracy and a defender of parliamentary practice -- would in fact be the person that would call closure on the closure motion. If we are going to close that kind of debate and we're going to close debate on Nisga'a, how many more times is it going to be easier for the government to call closure rather than to allow debate?

[1505]

Look around, Madam Speaker, at the faces in this Legislature. They're not happy faces. They're not happy faces on this side of the House, and they aren't happy faces on that side of the House, because we instinctively understand that what's happening here is wrong.

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: The member for Prince George-Mount Robson says she's happy. Well, if indeed she is, I guess she's one of very few, because the faces across the way don't reveal. . . .

Interjections.

J. Weisgerber: Plaster on your smiles if you like. I've been watching this Legislature for the last 24 hours, and we are not engaged in an honourable process. We have come a

[ Page 11998 ]

The former minister very genuinely talked about the time that was taken to develop the Nisga'a treaty. He talked about the fact that negotiations had to be genuine, that there had to be give and take, that you simply couldn't ram a deal down the throats of the Nisga'a people. But obviously that doesn't apply to the representatives of the people of British Columbia generally, because the government has said very clearly: "We're going to bring this deal in, and we're not going to change a comma. We're not going to allow for this process to have any influence at all on the outcome." So I wonder why it is so important to engage in a genuine process -- and I believe it is, with respect to negotiating treaties -- but that this House simply be a rubber stamp for the decisions taken by this government. I wonder why it is that we are expected not only to rubber-stamp this thing but to rubber-stamp it and like it.

What we're hearing in this House is a reflection of what we're hearing across British Columbia. I don't know how many legislators have had an opportunity to get out of these precincts in the last 24 hours, but you should. You should have an opportunity to go to the coffee shops and the coffee klatsches, and you should have an opportunity to hear, not what your parliamentary assistants are telling you, but what the people of British Columbia are telling you. I have, and I can tell you that people are disgusted. People are saddened. This is not the way that this deal should have been concluded.

[1510]

But I do want to say to the Nisga'a who are here today, to the Nisga'a in the Nass Valley and to aboriginal people all around British Columbia: you and we and all British Columbians deserve much better.

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, I rise today to speak to this House about this place and what we do here, about how yesterday we watched, I think, one of the sadder moments in the history of the province of British Columbia. It's certainly a sad moment for anybody who believes in democratic institutions; it was certainly a sad moment for anybody who believes in the importance of the Legislature.

Over the last few minutes I've heard members of the government say: "Well, isn't this funny. We can get on with this, and people outside don't care what we do in here." When you think about that for a minute, you've got to understand that what you do is undercut all of the institutions, all of the democratic institutions, that we have. What we're seeing practised here today in this House, what we saw implemented last night by the Aboriginal Affairs minister, was not democracy; what we saw was despotism. What we saw was the worst form of despotism. What we saw was public policy that has been driven by one person's personal agenda, and that is simply wrong.

Everyone in this House is clear that this is indeed one of the most important pieces of legislation that we've ever had before us in this House. The denial of duly elected representatives' ability to talk about that treaty, to ask questions about that treaty and to learn about that treaty eats and will gnaw at the very heart of this treaty from the day it is passed till the day we pass from the face of the earth. From this day forth, it will gnaw at the heart of the treaty and the hopes that a member opposite -- like the former Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville -- may have. Those hopes are going to be gnawed at, day in and day out, because this government has not allowed in this House a full, open, honest debate about all aspects of this treaty.

Treaties, by their very nature, are voluntary documents. They are documents that all sides enter into voluntarily. And if they are not voluntary documents, then they do not stand the test of time: they create problems; they don't solve them. This is not a voluntary document anymore. It is a document that is being imposed by closure on the people of British Columbia. This is a document that is being imposed without full debate. All of the work of the Nisga'a leaders over the last century is being undermined by this government's rush, this rush for a personal agenda.

[1515]

The Speaker: Members, members.

G. Campbell: We're having a document of this importance imposed on the people of British Columbia without full debate. The fact of the matter is that we've had approximately 33 days of debate on this treaty -- 33 days of debate on a treaty that will be there forever, that will be encased in constitutional concrete forever.

On the opposition side of the House, there are 35 members. There are 35 members in the opposition of this House, all of whom have interests in making sure that this treaty is at least fully reviewed, rigorously debated and fully understood. In fact, one of the advantages of legislative debate is that it allows us to build bridges of understanding. It allows us to build the kind of connections we have to between different parts of our community, so that they know where we're going. Yet the right to build that bridge has been taken away, because the understanding of people -- the answers to the questions that people legitimately ask -- has been closed off by this government.

I want to take my hat off to Frank Calder, the Nisga'a elder who has said consistently through this government's efforts to close down debate that this government is wrong to do it. He understands the malignancy of this kind of politics for something that's supposed to last as long a time. . . . He understands that this imposition will lead to injustice. This imposition will lead to people believing that this treaty does not have long-term legitimacy. That -- I would suggest to you, hon. Speaker -- is a real disservice to the Nisga'a people that this government pretends it is trying to serve.

This is no way to build a new relationship; this is no way to build a new relationship between the people of this

[ Page 11999 ]

To take four or five days to convince the Attorney General that he should come clean and explain to the people of British Columbia that this is not a municipal style of government is hardly the responsibility of the opposition. That is a very simple question: is it municipal-style -- yes or no? The answer is also simple: no, it is not. It's done like that.

But the government decides that 33 days is enough for the entire opposition to discover what's taking place in the debate. Yet for some reason, the government felt it was totally appropriate for the new Minister of Aboriginal Affairs to take over 50 days to figure out what was going on with this treaty. Now, I agree with the government: there is no question that every single member on this side of the House is far more intelligent and far more capable than the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. But surely we deserve to have the same amount of time, and the same amount of input, with the same number of questions, the same ability to learn about this treaty as the minister did. Let's be very clear: this government decided that those days were not important to the Nisga'a people.

[1520]

We know that the legislative debate is essential. It is particularly essential when we are passing a piece of legislation which is this vast, this broad, which touches the lives of people in so many different ways -- not just the Nisga'a people but people across this province. It is critical that we get it right.

Let's just look at this legislation for a second. This is the Nisga'a Final Agreement; it is 206 pages -- 206 pages of work. These are the Nisga'a Final Agreement Appendices -- over 400 pages. These are the three side agreements -- over 100 pages. The government first pretends that it's got it all right -- no problems. We were told at first that there wasn't one mistake. Nothing would be changed in this document -- not one thing, not one comma, not one "t." Then what happens? We find that the government indeed has changed this.

But worse still, we know from looking at this government's record in the past that they very seldom have passed a piece of legislation in this House which has not had problems with it. The critical thing here is those problems. The members opposite don't suffer from those problems; they still get their paycheques. They still have their offices; they still have their employees. But there are thousands of other people who lose their jobs and lose their futures and lose their opportunities when this government is careless. The best example of this government's carelessness or government carelessness goes back to a piece of legislation in 1990, Bill 64, as was mentioned yesterday by the MLA for Delta South.

I will stick with third reading, but the issue with third reading is to point out that this government has so much trouble getting anything right that the chance that they have got almost 1,000 pages of documents right in this final agreement is slim to none. The fact of the matter is that when you look at this government's work, thousands of people have unfortunately paid the price for their carelessness and their incompetence.

The motion to close down debate was brought forward on Tuesday morning. It was one page; it was less than a page; it was barely a paragraph. It was brought down on Tuesday morning. By yesterday afternoon, 81 percent of that had to be thrown out because it was wrong, made no sense and didn't work.

What happens if we have the same situation take place here? What happens to the Nisga'a people? What happens to the Gitanyow? What happens to the rest of British Columbians? It is a serious issue, and this government has decided to close down debate, which closes off the people of British Columbia's opportunity to protect themselves from this government's incompetence. That is wrong.

Unfortunately, the government's decision to close down debate, the government's decision on how they would manage this bill. . . . Rather than help to build bridges that will unite us -- to build a road to reconciliation -- they've literally done just about everything they could think of to divide British Columbians. Listening to the members opposite speak, they would have British Columbians believe that unless everyone thinks exactly the same way as they think at exactly the same time as they think it -- for exactly the same reasons -- then somehow or other those other British Columbians do not care. The fact is that British Columbians had a vast reservoir of goodwill with regard to treaty-making.

[1525]

A government that says it can do anything it wants, a government that has consistently flouted the law and, in some cases, broken the law, a government that has taken away rights from British Columbians with reckless abandon -- has retroactively taken away those rights -- sits and is somehow surprised that we on this side of the House think that it's important that a piece of legislation like this be constitutional. We suggested to the Attorney General of British Columbia last July that he take this agreement, the proposed agreement, to the courts and that he refer it to the courts themselves to assure that it was constitutional, to assure that all people's

[ Page 12000 ]

So will this go forward? Will we carry this forward? Yes, absolutely we will. We want to be sure that this agreement and this treaty are constitutional and are within our fundamental law in Canada. It's not a law that you can simply put aside. It's not a law about which the government can simply say: "It's not convenient for us this year to deal with the constitution. It's not convenient for us this year to protect Canadians' rights." I can guarantee the government that we will continue to fight for all Canadians' rights, for equality for all Canadians. We will continue to fight for the rights of all aboriginal people to be able to define their future, together with the community.

We will continue to try and provide the people of British Columbia with access to the treaty-making process in a positive, constructive way, so we can build a future in this province that embraces the hopes, the desires and the concerns of the Nisga'a people, the Gitanyow, the Musqueam and of all the rest of British Columbia as well. We believe in all British Columbians seeing a bright future. We believe in all British Columbians being able to walk forward together. We believe in all British Columbians reaching out to one another and building a future for their families and their children in a way that is done within the law.

As we close this debate down in this sorry fashion and this government forces this treaty through this Legislature -- without answering fundamental questions about how the treaty will work, without answering fundamental questions about how this treaty will be paid for, without answering the fundamental questions that British Columbians have asked from day one with regard to this -- I would like the government to know that on this side of the House we will continue to provide not just aboriginal people but also non-aboriginal people in this province with the hope that we can build a true road to reconciliation and open up a true process that will provide aboriginal children and aboriginal communities with the same level of hope and opportunity as non-aboriginal communities.

We want our children to be able to look to the future with pride and with confidence -- with one another, together. We will continue to strive for that hope. Our fundamental hope is that we will be able to restore the integrity of this chamber so that the people of the province will look to this chamber with pride and know that it's a place of open, honest, straightforward debate, where we learn from one another, share with one another, build bridges of understanding and build a future for our children together.

[1530]

I must say that as proud and pleased as I am about what is occurring in this chamber today, as we bring this debate to a conclusion and hopefully support this very important development of social justice, I am saddened too. But I am saddened by a very different thing than some of the members opposite. What saddens me is that we continue to see this kind of sophistry, this kind of attempt by members opposite to pretend that this is all about process -- to pretend a deep concern for social justice -- while acting in every way possible to impede its development.

The Leader of the Opposition spoke the other day about the need to apologize to aboriginal people and to the Nisga'a people. Yet he talks about that need to apologize at the same time as he makes every effort to ensure that the very injustices he would have us apologize for continue. He talks about the need for a new relationship based on goodwill, yet he and his party are doing everything in their power to get in front of the courts to prevent that relationship from occurring. He talks about the need for debate and enlightenment, when he and his party have made it crystal-clear that -- no matter what happens in this Legislature -- they, to a person, will vote against this treaty.

The struggle of history, the struggle for justice, is never without controversy. It is never free of those who say: "The time is not right." It is never free of those who are prepared to deny or delay justice. My colleague the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville, the former Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, quoted William Gladstone when he said: "Justice delayed is justice denied." Gladstone, I believe, derived that quote from a previous quote of Jean de la Bruyère, a French writer who wrote: "When it is our duty to do an act of justice, it should be done promptly. To delay is injustice." That is something we should well consider in this Legislature. But there is no one who knows better the lesson of justice being delayed amounting to justice being denied than the Nisga'a people themselves. For the Nisga'a, the debate over this treaty has not gone on for more than 100 hours; it has gone on for more than 100 years. The Nisga'a people came to this Legislature 112 years ago, in 1887, and they asked for the opportunity for there to be a debate. They were told to go away. They were told that there was no time, there was no need, there was no validity to their request. The Nisga'a people did not give up. They pursued the cause of justice. In 1913 they took their case across the water to Great Britain, to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council -- the final court of appeal at the time, for Canada -- only to be told that they could not have their case heard there either.

[1535]

[ Page 12001 ]

Of course, we have seen, during the course of the last seven years under the current government, the progress that has been made. But that has also been made very slowly, with a cost-sharing agreement; an interim measures agreement in 1993; an agreement-in-principle in 1996; a treaty initialled, finally, in 1998; and the debate that leads us to this moment -- all, as the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville indicated, subject to extensive scrutiny and extensive debate. Over 100 years of struggle and through that period, through that delay, in which the Nisga'a sought to have their rights recognized, they were denied the basic rights that many of us take for granted. In addition, of course, they were denied their inherent rights, relegated to postage-stamp parcels of land -- reserves that they themselves did not even control but that were held in trust on their behalf by the federal government -- and subjected to an Indian Act that stripped them of their rights to self-determination and treated them as wards of the state. That situation exists to this day. That situation will not end until we end this debate and pass this treaty. Then, and only then, will it end.

Now we have a chance to correct that historic injustice. We have a chance to create a new relationship that is indeed based upon equality and a recognition of those historic rights, a treaty that respects the aboriginal people's and the Nisga'a people's desire to have self-determination over matters that are of concern to them but to do so within the context of British Columbia and of Canada, subject to the laws that we are all subject to -- a form of self-determination that will ensure not only that they can act as a people within Canada but that they can achieve some economic self-determination, as well, and share in the bounty of this province. How ironic it is that they, as the first people, have been denied that bounty while we, the rest of us, have enjoyed it to a much greater extent. Finally, of course, the treaty will cast aside the long shadow of the Indian Act, that shadow that has been cast for so many years upon them and continues to be cast upon so many aboriginal peoples. The recognition of these rights, as I say, doesn't come easily. It's much easier, frankly, to litigate, to obfuscate and to delay. I think that indeed is what we have been witness to in this chamber today and previously, and that does sadden me.

It does take determination and courage. And, yes, it does take some bloody-mindedness to press ahead and face the obstacles and overcome injustice. We've seen that elsewhere. The struggle to overcome apartheid in South Africa would not have been achieved unless there were people who were prepared to press ahead, notwithstanding the obstacles. Rest assured, there were plenty of people in that struggle who said; "No, no, it's a good idea, but not now. No, no, let's go to the courts. No, no, let's delay it," or just: "No, no."

The struggle in the United States to achieve civil rights and to overcome segregation was no different. It was a struggle in which there were plenty of people who were prepared to stand up and rationalize and talk about process and say: "Maybe just a little bit longer" and "It's too soon" and "It won't actually help things" and "There's another way of doing it" and "Maybe we should consult some more." But, fortunately, there were some people who said: "Enough." They said: "The time to put aside injustice has come. One more day of injustice is a greater injustice." That is the time that has come today.

[1540]

Now, when the opposition speaks, they talk about the need to protect traditional values, the values that will be displaced by treaty-making, the values that are somehow threatened by giving first nations their rights. It seems to me there's been quite a change in attitude. In the last election campaign, they spoke against the use of a referendum. Of course, I won't rehearse their flip-flop on that issue, when they now are apparently quite prepared to support the use of such an instrument.

Of course, they have supported free votes in the Legislature. In fact, I recall the Leader of the Opposition saying in the last election campaign that the one thing he felt was necessary in order to ensure that the treaty proceeded was that there be free votes in the Legislature. Now, of course, we see what's happened to that commitment as well. The opposition party, even in advance of getting to the Legislature, has decided to marshal arguments in court to try to thwart this treaty and has put in every effort they can to ensure that every one of their MLAs is brought into line, is commanded to come and to oppose this treaty at all costs. So much for a free vote. So much for their commitment. So much for their high-minded principles and their concern about rights.

There is a time to debate, and there is a time to decide. I think that the time to decide has come. That may be very uncomfortable for members opposite, because it is easier to carry on and talk and avoid and obfuscate than to actually say what it is that one is prepared to do -- to actually say whether one is prepared to turn that page of history. I know that when I leave this place years from now and I look back, one thing that I will take such pride in -- both as having been a minister involved in this and as an MLA -- is that we as a government and I as a person were prepared to stand up and be counted and to turn that page.

I hope every member, including those opposite, think very carefully what they want to say to those who ask them in years hence what role they played in this process and in this debate. Do they want to be counted in the annals of history with those, elsewhere and now here, who will say no, who will rationalize, who will obfuscate and who will litigate? This is a very, very important question. It's not just a question about politics. It's not just a question about parties. It's a question about ourselves and who we are and whether we're prepared to move forward.

Are we prepared to delay justice further? Are we prepared, by doing so -- as William Gladstone said -- to deny justice? Are we prepared to tell those in the future that we were part of the reason why this process did not go ahead in the way it could have done, or that we tried to stop it when it did go ahead? I think each of us has to examine our own consciences.

What I want to say is that this is a very special moment in history; it is a very proud moment in history. It is a moment

[ Page 12002 ]

[1545]

I'm sure that they were as in awe of this place as I was when I came here, elected from a small community of about 3,000 to 4,000 people, one of the farthest-north communities in this great province of British Columbia. I came down here, and I entered this building, and I entered this room for the first time in my life. I looked around, and I thought. "My goodness, what am I up against? What are we here to do? How's it going to be done?" In fact, there are days today, eight years later, when I walk in here and am just as in awe of what we've been entrusted to do by not only the constituents that elect each and every one of us but by the people in the whole province. I can tell you that I take that job seriously.

In fact, hon. Speaker, you will recall that you were elected at the same time I was. You probably never thought in your life that you would be presiding over a House as Speaker eight years later when we're facing a closure motion, a cutoff on debate about one of the most serious bills in the province, and that you would have to sit and rule this House on something as important as this bill and to actually witness debate -- real debate: questions, answers -- not forthcoming anymore. It's a sad day not just for me but, I'm sure, a say day for you and for all those members that were elected in 1991 who came here with a sense that we were going to try, even though we each do it differently, something better for the province.

I don't think that what we're doing today and what we've done for the last two days is better for all the people in the province -- and that includes the Nisga'a. I said in my second reading remarks that if we were going to have a treaty -- I agree with treaties -- it must be fully debated. People in the province have to know what's in the treaty. What does it really mean? What are we really talking about, and how will it affect me? How will it affect the Nisga'a -- now into time immemorial?

That's the important reason why we came here. That 's the important reason why we should be in this House finishing debate on the Nisga'a agreement, not closure on the Nisga'a agreement. The Nisga'a know as well as we do that when you push something like this through, as is being done by the NDP at this present time, it's going to be that much harder to work. Had we been able to discuss it, to lay out the issues on the table for each and every one -- whether you agree or whether you don't agree. . . . But, at the end of the day, most rational people will say: "Okay. At least I've had my time. At least I understand a little bit more about it, and I'm going to work that much harder to make that treaty work."

[1550]

Interjection.

R. Neufeld: If the Minister of Transportation and Highways wishes to speak, he can speak when his time comes.

I lived in a community called Fort Nelson. When I first went up there to work, there were probably more native people there than there were white people. I've worked for and with many of those people. They are all my good friends. And it's interesting. It doesn't matter who I talk to in the community of Fort Nelson, where I spent 30 years -- 20 full years and about 10 half-years. They tell me that something is wrong and that we should be carefully reviewing this bill.

It's also disturbing to listen to the last member who just spoke, talking about how terrible we are on this side of the House because we don't agree, or to listen to the previous Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, who stood in this House this morning and talked glowingly about my good friend from Peace River South -- how much he enjoyed listening to him and how much knowledge he had about aboriginal affairs and his stature in aboriginal affairs in this province of British Columbia. And those things I totally agree with. And how he respected that person. . . .

You know, he used to say the same thing about me when I sat down there with that person from Peace River South. But for some reason, I moved a little further down the row into the Liberal ranks, and do you know what? I totally changed, I guess. I'm not the same person any more. I find that offensive. I find that absolutely offensive, because I'm not.

Interjection.

R. Neufeld: The Minister of Transportation and Highways wants to continue to catcall. I would suggest that he make sure that he's very careful about what he says, because he has a cabinet colleague -- the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast -- who now sits in his cabinet, who used to sit on this side of the House and used to complain about how this government drove bills through this House without the proper procedure, without the proper debate. That same member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast used to come to me to convince me to join his great party, the PDA, because it was such a great party and it had hundreds of thousands of people joining it and said that the NDP of the day were terrible. He now sits in that cabinet, in that caucus. So, about those issues, we should be careful. I caution members opposite not to talk too much about it anymore.

I also remember clearly the day Mr. Gosnell came to this House, stood at that Bar and gave an impassioned speech about the Nisga'a -- what they had faced in their lifetime of trying to get a treaty, all the people that had worked so hard to try and get a treaty, and the hours and the years and the months that they spent trying to get a treaty.

[1555]

[ Page 12003 ]

If you just think about that person's patience, compared to the government of the day's patience. . . . Patience is not long-lived on that side of the House when it comes to political expediency. We witnessed that when this group that was so concerned about the Nisga'a treaty adjourned us in January. They called us in November to debate the bill, then adjourned, then came back in January early, prior to when we had agreed to come back, because it was so important, according to the Minister of Finance. We came to the House, and we were discussing the bill. We were talking about it. We were asking questions. Our critics were asking very good questions about the bill, trying to lay out what was in the Nisga'a agreement and what wasn't in the Nisga'a agreement, to try and get some sense of what this huge document is all about -- to try to get the government to explain to us how they decided that this was the right agreement.

We sat here for just a few days, until all of a sudden the heat got too hot for the government. The fire in the kitchen was too great for the Premier and the Deputy Premier and the whole cabinet. And you know, all those words about really being concerned about the Nisga'a, about really being concerned about getting the treaty through, went out the window. Each and every one of them was happy to leave this House. And they did. They said that it was to bring someone up to speed on the treaty. We could understand that. Having listened to that member for as many years as I have, I know that he had to have some extra time. I thought he was pretty well up on the agreement, to be honest. So we went away. It took two months before it was politically expedient for this government, who say they really care about all these issues, to bring us back.

Interjection.

R. Neufeld: But you know, as my colleague just told me, it wasn't because they wanted to come back and debate Nisga'a. They had to come back to present a budget. That's why we came back. It had nothing to do with coming back for the Nisga'a agreement. The last day of the month of March we came back here to discuss a budget and then go into the Nisga'a debate.

I have a hard time choking back some of the remarks of some of these members that tell me I don't care, when I spent January and February at home waiting for the phone to ring so that we could come back and start debating this historic first modern-day treaty in the province of British Columbia. January -- well, half of January -- and February and March. And then they have the gall to come here and chastise us because we didn't want to sit at nights or on weekends. If you can imagine: all that time we sat waiting for someone to get up to speed on the agreement, and they chastise us.

I think the critic for Aboriginal Affairs said it all this morning when he said: "This is a sad day." Really, it is not a happy day. I don't see a whole bunch of happy faces over there. People should be happy today, but they're not. If you -- anyone in this House -- think back to last July. . . . There was a private member's bill that was passed -- put forward by the member for Richmond East -- on grandparents' rights. I saw smiles on everyone's faces. Everyone was happy. Guess what: we all got to discuss the bill. It was something good.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

But what have we done with the Nisga'a agreement? We've gotten to chapter 12 out of 22, plus the bill. The government has put a motion forward, one that has never been used in our parliament before and one that I hope never gets used again. Closure on something as historic as the Nisga'a agreement is absolutely unacceptable to us on this side of the House, and it's absolutely unacceptable to British Columbians, regardless of where they live in this great province of ours.

[1600]

The debate up until now has been productive. Our critics have found some profound things in the Nisga'a agreement that weren't forthcoming without the debate in the House. We found out all kinds of things. One issue I recall very clearly is that the treaty contains no valuation for mineral resources on Nisga'a lands; the government has no idea what the resources are worth. There are numerous things that we've found out, and there are other things that we would have liked to have found out on behalf of all British Columbians. Chapter 12, "Administration of Justice" -- doesn't the government think it would be worthwhile for British Columbians to be able to see the debate on what's going to take place with the administration of justice in the Nisga'a agreement or the Indian Act transition?

There is all kinds of debate around those issues that would have been helpful to British Columbians, who will now still be wondering about each and every one of those chapters, or the fiscal relations that are going to take place. Hon. Speaker, don't you think it would be wise for all British Columbians to at least have the opportunity, if they so wish, to read Hansard and find out what the minister's comments are on some of those issues, rather than just read the legalese in the bill? Wouldn't it be wise to be able to do that for British Columbians? How about taxation -- chapter 16 -- or capital transfer and negotiation of loan repayment? Hon. Speaker, those are all serious issues that this House has been cut out of.

The debate has been concluded not by will but by demand of the government. In fact, I think this government should be really ashamed, because again, closing debate -- closure on closure; something that's never happened before -- is all to help the political agenda of the Premier of British Columbia. This whole debate around the Nisga'a agreement has been politically manipulated. . .

Interjection.

R. Neufeld: . . .for the benefit of the Premier of British Columbia. The Minister of Small Business can agree with me or not, but that in fact is the truth. It is the truth. You may not like that, but in fact it is the truth. It's obvious to all British Columbians.

[1605]

[ Page 12004 ]

We should be talking about these issues so we can understand them more. In fact, some of the Nisga'a people even talk about that right now, whether the government likes it or not. They would like to see it discussed; they would like to see it opened up. They would like to know, also, what is in the agreement.

The critic for Children and Families discussed her chapter at length, about what happens with children and families, to put it on the record -- or the critic for Women's Equality. All the critics should have the opportunity to stand up in this House and ask questions that are pertinent to their critic area. Hon. Speaker, I talked about taxation just a bit. But wouldn't it be nice if we could have our Finance critic stand up in this House and be able to ask, I guess, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs about taxation -- how it will apply to the Nisga'a, when it will apply and where it will apply? Wouldn't that be a nice touch?

Instead of everyone out there having different little opinions, you could actually -- I don't know how long it would take -- be able to extract that information from government so that we could get it out to people, so that the newspapers could get it out to people. I think that's valuable. I think that's why we're here in this House. That's why we've been elected to this House: to actually try to find those things out. That's my job; that's what I was elected to do. I am being told that I can't do my job anymore -- or others on this side of the House. The critic is being told he cannot do his job anymore.

The NDP thought 33 days of debate was enough -- 30 or 33 days -- irregardless of if we're talking about a treaty that's going to last forever. They're here for a long time. I come from an area where the treaty was signed over 100 years ago and is still in full force and effect -- Treaty 8, where I come from. Nothing has been changed in it. I suppose how it's interpreted has been changed over time, but the treaty is still there. I expect this treaty will be there for a long time. I can't for the life of me understand how a government that says it's open and honest wants to, and has, pulled closure on closure. As I said earlier, it's unacceptable to me, and it's unacceptable to most British Columbians, especially if we go and look at more quotes. It doesn't matter which member of that caucus -- or, particularly, which member of cabinet -- you read about. They've all said that debate would be full and open -- as long as it takes.

[1610]

That's supported by Mr. Frank Calder. I don't know Mr. Calder. I'm going to be honest: I've never talked to Mr. Calder. But I have read comments of his, and my friend from Peace River South, who knows him, talks highly of him. I can only assume and would agree that he is a great gentleman. He has some reservation about what's taking place with closure today in this Legislature. Each and every one of you on the government side knows that. You've heard his comments as well as I have, and I think his comments are right. I think he knows that it's going to be tougher to initiate and put into place a treaty that hasn't been fully debated in the province of British Columbia. He knows that.

You folks should listen to those kinds of people. If you don't want to listen to the opposition, you don't have to listen to the opposition. You can go on your merry way. Most of you are so sanctimonious that you're right, anyhow, that you're going to do whatever you want to do, because it's the right way to do it as far as you're concerned. That's the way you've always been.

An Hon. Member: Or invoke closure.

R. Neufeld: Or invoke closure, because you think you're right and everybody else is wrong.

I want to leave the NDP government with a last message. Mr. Calder said that closure is not the way to introduce the first modern-day treaty in the province of British Columbia. He says that's not right, and we say that's not right.

Hon. I. Waddell: I rise to speak in third reading of this very historic debate. I want to just start by speaking as Minister of Small Business and Tourism. The members will perhaps be aware from one of the questions that was asked today in question period that Mr. Matt Vickers, a senior Royal Bank of Canada official for aboriginal banking, told a conference yesterday in Vancouver on the economic implications of land claims and treaties in British Columbia that unsettled native Indian land claims are the biggest constraint to tourism growth in B.C. Mr. Vickers quoted from a cost-benefit analysis by KPMG consultants -- well respected -- of all potential treaties, including Nisga'a, saying that the study concludes that investing in land settlements eventually pays off and British Columbians can expect $3 in financial benefits for every $1 cost to the taxpayer. That's a senior banker. And I quote that not just because I want to see tourism grow in British Columbia or I want to see business grow in British Columbia and I think that one of the great impediments is that we have unsettled land claims. That's what people in the business community are telling us: to get on with the settlement -- to get on, and we'll have a bright future.

[1615]

Hon. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition gave a speech this afternoon, talked about one person's agenda. I don't

[ Page 12005 ]

But you know what? When the constitution was repatriated in 1981 by the Trudeau government, our group, the federal NDP, stood at that time. . . . We had to make a difficult decision. It was a tough decision: should we support this or not? Should we, in fact, oppose the closure and the time allocation that they have in the House of Commons, or should we support something that we thought, in the end, would benefit the country? We stood for something that benefited the country. And, you know, 15 years later, after the Queen. . . . I was there when the Queen signed the documents on the front lawn of the Parliament Buildings. I still think back and think how proud I was of the vote that we made, because we were on the right side of history on that one.

And so -- and I say this with respect -- I don't need a lecture from the Leader of the Opposition on the perils of democracy and how to deal with a matter like this. I ask him: does Alberta not believe in democracy? They had some time allocation. Does Ontario not believe in democracy? Does the Parliament of Canada not believe in democracy? Does Westminster, in England -- the mother of Parliaments, which has a time allocation after a proper debate -- not believe in democracy? I think his point is simply nonsense.

Has there been enough debate on this particular bill? Well, the Nisga'a have waited over 100 years. They're still waiting, patiently, up in the gallery today. In British Columbia, we've been about -- what? -- 20 years; with the B.C. government, the last five years. I see Mr. Calder up in the gallery. Do you remember the case, in the early seventies, Calder v. Attorney General of B.C.? How could you forget it? That was when the Nisga'a brought to the minds of Canadians for the first time: "Do you know what? There may be a thing called land claims, and they may have a legal case." The courts have told us: "Settle these land claims." That's why we're doing it in the House.

We are now in our 126th hour of debate. Has there been enough debate? Well, for them, 100 years; for B.C., 20 years; for the government of B.C., five years; for us in this House, 126 hours. I think it's time to make a decision. The time has come, and in one hour, we will make the historic decision for the first modern land claim treaty in the country.

The hon. member for Peace River South and the hon. member for Coquitlam-Maillardville were kind enough to mention that in 1996 I chaired a committee of this House, the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. We put out a report, and I'm going to quote from that report. "Towards Reconciliation" was the title we chose. All the members of the committee -- opposition and government -- chose "Towards Reconciliation: Nisga'a Agreement-in-Principle and British Columbia Treaty Process."

[1620]

Let me read a little further, because it gets into the substance of the debate. Here's what the committee said: "There is public support for a major commitment by governments to settle aboriginal claims. The treaty process is overwhelmingly viewed as the best option, a better alternative to blockades or to litigation." So I ask the opposition: what do they want? Do they want litigation? Do they want us to go to the courts and let the courts order us? You wait and see what the courts would order. Look at the Delgamuukw case, for example, and see how strong they would be, compared to what we've got with a negotiated treaty.

Or do you want to have confrontation? Do you want. . . ? I noticed that the opposition was siding with the chief in Penticton, who, of course, had blockaded the road to the ski area. Do you want confrontation? Do you want litigation? Or do you want negotiations? If you want negotiations, you've got to come to a settlement of the negotiations.

The committee report says this, and all members signed this part of the report: "There is widespread support among first nations and others to eliminate the special status of the Indian Act and to move to full equality for aboriginal people in British Columbia." Here are people in our province who, when they want to make a will -- we were told when we travelled in the committee -- have to have approval by Ottawa. This is a people who are treated specially. As the member for Vancouver-Burrard -- he's not here, but he is usually -- would say, when people say that this treaty brings in a form of apartheid. . . . He says he finds that insulting and intolerable, because this is getting away from the Indian Act. This is bringing true equality.

Now, we're taking some chances. We're doing a self-government in the treaty. That's what the opposition objects to -- and they're quite right to point out and quite right to ask questions. . . . They have asked questions about self-government. Self-government is something unique and it's something relatively new. But it's something that was put in by first nations. I believe strongly that we will see a renaissance in aboriginal communities when we take away the power from bureaucrats, the red tape and the patronizing attitudes, and give people freedom to govern themselves locally within the Canadian constitution, within the Charter of

[ Page 12006 ]

You know what? A treaty is a negotiation. I look at the Nisga'a around here, and I know that they had to give up some things. You know, under the Indian Act you may have a patronizing status, an unequal status. But you also don't have to pay taxes. When I've travelled the country as a member of various committees, I've found that was the one thing that non-aboriginal people objected to. They wanted first nations to pay taxes, because they wanted a degree of equality.

[1625]

But the Nisga'a, in this treaty, had to give up the taxation powers. In other words, they have to pay taxes after a phase-in period. That's not easy. But that was part of the negotiation. That's what the hon. member for Coquitlam-Maillardville talked about today. You have a negotiated treaty, and you have to accept that.

I watched the opposition debate this treaty, and I don't put the opposition down. I think there are members of the opposition -- I know, and I saw them in the committee as we travelled the province -- who sincerely struggle with these problems, as we all do. I presume good faith in them. I think the opposition is sincere in this.

But what worries me -- I say this is only my own point of view -- is that the position the opposition has taken is on the substance, on the treaty, not on the procedure. I've been there. I know that when you have trouble with the major question, you get into procedural issues. But on the major issue of voting for or against the treaty, I unfortunately must say that I think the opposition is falling into the hands of and parlaying to the worst elements in British Columbia. They are pandering to the darker side of British Columbia. I think they are doing it because they want the Reform vote in the election, but that's only my opinion. I believe sincerely that as a result, they're going to find themselves on the wrong side of history.

You know, the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville talked about his grandchildren. I don't have any children, and he has. I know his son; he worked for me in Ottawa. I know his son well. His son's got sons now, so he has got real grandchildren. I thought, when he was speaking, what will he say to his grandchildren, compared to what the opposition will say? Well, the opposition can say: " I took part in a historic debate, and I voted against the closure or the time allocation. Yes, that's what I did." But this member and the members on this side will be able to say: "We voted for the treaty. We voted for the substance."

I want to address a little bit the concerns of some of the people in Vancouver-Fraserview, in my own riding. I've already said that this is a compromise, that you get things and you give up things. I want to say this to the people in my riding; I want to recall when I was a young lawyer.

I went up to Mackenzie, British Columbia. I worked for Chief Harley Chingy. I was about 25, had just become a lawyer. We were trying to stop some railway from going through the Indian reserve at the time. I think it was Lloyd McKenzie -- he was Judge McKenzie, a great man -- and he held a royal commission on this land and on railway lines going through there. I got a chance, actually -- first time in my life, because I came from a big city -- to stay with Chief Chingy and his people up there.

I got the impression, perhaps naïvely. . . . Perhaps it's a naïve overstatement, a generalization. But I got the feeling that what Chief Chingy and his people wanted was a piece of the action. They wanted to be in the system, not out of the system. There was logging going on all around them, and they weren't getting any contracts. Even their fish were getting killed in some of the mining that was going on. They wanted to be part of things. They wanted to be part of the system.

When I saw Joe Gosnell stand here at the Bar of the Legislature. . . . I'm glad he was there voluntarily. I appeared in the House of Commons at the Bar of the Legislature by compulsion, after I touched the mace, but he was there voluntarily. He said, as I recall, that his people want to be part of Canada. They want to be into Canada. They want to take part in British Columbia. They want to be part of that economic system, and I think that's great hope. That's what the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville said today, and I say that to my constituents.

Many of my constituents are Chinese Canadians and Indo-Canadians, and they have felt discrimination, perhaps, in a way that I haven't, or their forefathers and foremothers have felt this discrimination. You know, the CCF. . . . In the 1930s there was a headline. . . . The leader of the CCF, J.S. Woodsworth and the great MP in Vancouver-Kingsway in those days, Angus MacInnes, stood up for Chinese Canadians to actually give them the vote. The Liberals of the day said that a vote for the CCF is a vote for the Chinaman. We stood up for that, and you know what? We were on the right side of history. Think how history has come around. That's why many of my constituents, especially Chinese Canadians and Indo-Canadians, support this treaty. They support the Nisga'a, because they know what it is like, what equality really means and what rights really mean.

[1630]

I remember the debate, and I remember that we weren't getting anywhere with him. And I want to say this when Mr. Calder's in the House. We were able to say to him: "Look, Mr. Trudeau" -- look, Prime Minister -- "when the Calder case went to the Supreme Court of Canada, who ruled for aboriginal rights? Who ruled for treaty rights? Who took the lead?" It was Justice Hall of Saskatchewan, a great Conservative, the father of medicare. He agreed. It was Justice Spence, a great civil libertarian from Ontario. It was Justice Laskin, who subsequently became Chief Justice of Canada -- an enormous intellectual and a great Canadian. And Trudeau paused, and you could see his mind move. And he opened his mind to the

[ Page 12007 ]

So I had the opportunity -- and you've got to be lucky in your political career, I think -- to see the birth of section 35 and, in 1983, to see it put in the constitution. And when we put that in -- when we put the Bill of Rights and section 35 in -- after enormous debate, where the opposition stormed the Chair and, after it was passed, members rose and sang "O Canada" because it was so historic. . . . This today is as historic a debate. It is, in fact, the most historic debate I think we'll ever face in this House.

I want to conclude by quoting one of my favourite authors, who is a great CCFer and a great writer: F.R. Scott, who was a poet and a constitutional lawyer. His best description of Canada is contained in a poem called "Laurentian Shield." It's about the Canadian Shield and about the rocks and trees in Canada. He says Canada. . . . You can say this in British Columbia and the other provinces. He described it as "vast, cold, silent, awaiting the struggle." I am so proud, as all members on this side of the House are, that we in fact are part of that struggle, in enacting the first modern treaty in British Columbia. This is it, this is now, and as the present Minister of Aboriginal Affairs said -- and I'll conclude with this -- when he was in opposition, when we first raised this in the House: "If not this treaty, which one? If not now, when?" I say right now, and I move third reading.

[1635]

The previous speaker was talking about the legacy that they would be proud of. The legacy that I think the government members will wear, as a result of this debate, is using this particular procedure in a way that has never been used before in Canada, in a way that really tramples the rights of 75 members in this Legislature and, in particular, the rights of the 35 members of the official opposition.

There is a very important anniversary coming up this Sunday that probably few in this chamber other than myself are aware of. On April 25 in the year 1599, there was an individual born by the name of Oliver Cromwell. Four hundred years ago this Sunday, Oliver Cromwell was born. Oliver Cromwell was known as someone who defended the rights of Parliament. When Oliver Cromwell was first elected to the British legislature in the mid-1620s, the Legislature never met. Now, does that sound familiar in terms of what we've been through over the last year? The Legislature had its opportunity to meet. King Charles had the right to bring the legislature together to do the people's business, and he didn't. He didn't bring it together for years. I believe it was eight years, if my memory serves me right, that the legislature went without sitting.

What's interesting is that in the years that King Charles I refused to bring the British Parliament together, he was unable to bring in new tax measures to collect revenues in order to support the monarchy. As a result, do you know what King Charles had to do in those years? He had to raise fees. He used fees, illegal user fees, that he went out and collected from people with the force of his army. Actually, one of the people who was caught and fined by the King was Oliver Cromwell himself, and that was probably one of the motivations that got the anger up in Oliver Cromwell in terms of what the rights of Parliament were all about.

Doesn't that sound familiar here, in terms of what we've seen of government going after new sources of fees in order to keep it going, and then only bringing this Legislature back together again, at the end of March, not because we had to debate the Nisga'a treaty. . . ? The only reason the House was brought back together when it was is because that was the last possible date the Minister of Finance could bring in a budget and still do the job that is required of her in this Legislature.

We had lots of opportunity to debate this piece of legislation in November and December of last year and in January when we came back together, thinking that we were going to be here long enough to see this process through. We knew it was going to be a time-consuming process, and the government knew it was going to be a time-consuming process. We came back in January, not when anticipated but in fact two weeks earlier, so that all of the questions could be asked and all of the answers could be given.

We only lasted two weeks, because this government got mired in scandal and pulled the pin. They didn't just pull the pin on this Legislature. They pulled the pin on the Nisga'a people. They pulled the pin on the debate on the Nisga'a treaty. Then we came back only at the end of March, because they were forced to come back in order to bring in a budget.

We have heard a lot about rights. We have heard much about the rights of aboriginal peoples in this province, and we have heard a lot about the rights of Nisga'a people. We have heard a lot about how this agreement is going to start the process of addressing those rights that have been denied for so many years.

[1640]

This is not a chamber that is here to serve a government in power. It's not here to serve the political party that happened to win a provincial election or, at least, to come up with the most seats. This chamber isn't here to serve those interests. It's here to serve the interests of all British Columbians that all 75 of us represent. Because I was elected as a member of one political party, that doesn't mean I have the right not to speak for and represent those who live in my constituency who

[ Page 12008 ]

The motion that was brought in yesterday to curtail the debate in this House is not the normal closure motion that we have seen used in Canada. In fact, it's not the normal closure motion that we've seen used in the British Commonwealth. In fact, it is something that is not covered in our rules. It is something that has never been used before. It is a legacy of this debate, because now that it has been used by a legislature, it is a precedent that can be called on again. I have no doubt that as the books of parliamentary procedure in the Commonwealth are written in years to come, what has happened in this chamber this week will become a part of those future books on parliamentary procedure in the British Commonwealth, because what we have done here. . . .

This government has broken new ground. They have broken new ground in terms of taking back the rights of parliament, the rights of legislatures, the rights of individual members of this chamber and taking those powers back into the government in power, taking those rights back to the Crown, in essence. They are the very rights that people fought wars over to establish -- the rights of a parliament, the independent rights of members of a legislature, the independent rights of Members of Parliament. In this chamber in the last 48 hours, we have taken enormous steps backward in terms of what those rights are that each and every one of us should depend on and that protect the rights of each and every one of us in this chamber. It is the legacy of this debate.

The debate of this Nisga'a agreement should have been an honourable debate. It should have been a thorough debate.

Let's go back to November of last year, when we were finally called together to debate Bill 51. I think we've got to ask ourselves, comparing where we were then with where we are now: "Are we farther ahead in terms of advancing the rights and the future of aboriginal peoples in British Columbia?" I know that many of us had questions, going into that debate, as to what the implications of this treaty were. I know that many British Columbians had questions as to what the ramifications were and what it meant for the long term in British Columbia. And I think we have to ask ourselves: "Do we now have fewer questions and more answers?"

[1645]

We certainly have had many questions; we have had many answers. But there are many questions that are still in the minds of members of the official opposition and, even more importantly, in the minds of British Columbians as to what the ramifications are and where we're going in the future.

What it has pointed to is the very essence of the problem, which is that we have a treaty that was negotiated behind closed doors by people who clearly do not have a mandate to negotiate from the public of British Columbia or from this Legislative Assembly. What we had, when this agreement was first presented to the public. . . . And it wasn't presented to the public by the government, hon. Speaker; it was presented to the public by the Leader of the Official Opposition. For the first time we could actually read through the words that were being proposed. For the first time we could actually see what the negotiators had come up with. We had asked many questions up to that point as to the basis of the negotiations that our provincial government negotiators were taking into those meetings. This agreement, when it saw the light of day, gave us the opportunity to ask those questions.

This process of debate in the Legislature, the committee stage. . . . We can look at the second reading debate, which was a chance for everyone to stand up and make speeches about how they saw the future of land claim negotiations and treaty rights in British Columbia. But the second reading debate didn't give us an opportunity to ask those pointed questions. That's what committee stage was all about; that's where we expected to get the answers. That was the first opportunity that British Columbians outside of this government had to have their questions put and answered -- the first opportunity.

There was talk about public meetings. Certainly we had the Aboriginal Affairs Committee that was struck in 1996 to look at the agreement-in-principle, and that all-party committee went out around this province and held public meetings and asked for input. They produced a report, which my colleagues in the official opposition played an active part in. They also came up with their own minority report, which is the first time that that has happened in British Columbia in this Legislature.

Hon. Speaker, that was the public input at that point. Was it listened to? No. That report of the committee was ignored, and the government basically went on with their negotiations that were happening behind closed doors with a negotiating mandate that nobody understood and that nobody had an opportunity to impact on, other than a few members of the executive council of this government.

Hon. Speaker, Bill 51 is not just about the Nisga'a treaty. It is much broader than that. There is talk about whether this was a blueprint, whether this was a template. There were all kinds of different words to describe what the Nisga'a treaty was. But whatever language you use to describe the Nisga'a treaty, one fact remains: it is the first modern treaty to be negotiated in this province. And by that, it is historic. The government members have used that word, and I certainly support that. It is historic.

[1650]

[ Page 12009 ]

It is extremely complex, and it's not just about what happens on the Nisga'a lands. We have every reason to expect -- British Columbians have every reason to expect -- that the language that is contained in this treaty is language that is going to be used in future treaties that are going to be put before us. So it is vitally important, since we were not allowed into the negotiating sessions where this language was arrived at, that this chamber be allowed to ask detailed questions as to what this language means. So it's not just a case of spending 116 hours on one treaty. It's a case of spending 100-plus hours on the first of many treaties, and it is time that has been well spent.

In the answers that we have got, many of the concerns have been allayed. I am surprised that the government would want to shut down a process that gives them the opportunity to address some of the fears that British Columbians have. Government members have talked about many of those fears as being the mythology -- the myths that have developed -- around the Nisga'a treaty. Well, let's get those issues on the table. Allow us to put the questions so that the government ministers can stand up and allay those concerns. But in many cases those concerns have not been allayed. In fact, those concerns have been exacerbated by the answers that we have got, because what we realize is that many of the implications have not been well thought through, and many of the implications are yet to be determined.

The role that the official opposition has played during this debate in committee stage has been very vital in challenging the ministers in terms of what has and what hasn't been determined, because it has allowed some of the light to shine in. But there is a lot of light that is now being shut out. I know for a fact that many of the constituents in my riding who are leaseholders on the Musqueam reserve were very anxious about this particular piece of legislation and this treaty, not because this treaty was going to affect them directly or because the passage of it was suddenly going to have a major impact on the very real difficulties that they are facing today. . . . But what our questioning allowed was for us to find out how the government was going to interpret this language so that as we negotiate a treaty with the Musqueam band in Vancouver, we can recognize, while those negotiations are still underway, what this language means and how it's going to impact on British Columbians.

What we have in the Nisga'a treaty is a treaty that was signed. . . . It was presented to this chamber as a fait accompli -- no amendments. It was a document that. . . . It was made quite clear to the official opposition, at the time when this debate started at the end of November that there would be no amendments allowed -- no amendments to the legislation, no amendments to the treaty and no amendments to the schedules or the side agreements that come along with the treaty.

The government told us that this document was cast in stone and could not be changed. I am very troubled by that, but I'm even more troubled by the fact that we're negotiating 50 to 60 new treaties today in British Columbia. What this government is telling us is that when those treaties are initialled, they too will be cast in stone. And we will not be able to amend those treaties after they are initialled. Why don't we take the time during this first agreement to learn from whatever mistakes are in this treaty so that the next 50 or 60 treaties can be done right?

[1655]

But the public does want a say in the parameters that are followed in negotiations. They want that say in the negotiating mandate. If we had had a referendum on the mandate the government is taking into negotiations, I believe we would be much farther ahead today in treaty negotiations than we are. What we have is a government that has come forward with a treaty and has said: "This is it. Take it or leave it. Like it or lump it" -- cast in stone. I can tell you firsthand, from conversations that I have had with constituents and other British Columbians in other parts of the province, that people are angry and frustrated because they have not had a say. They have not had an ability to impact on the negotiating mandate that went into this particular treaty.

If there was that kind of buy-in -- if the public had had their say, if there had been a referendum -- some people would have voted in the minority on that referendum in terms of a negotiating mandate. But at least British Columbians would have the ability to say: "Well, I cast my vote in this particular way, and the majority of British Columbians have decided this should be the negotiating mandate." Even those that voted in a contrary way would at least have to admit that there was a democratic process that led to the negotiating mandate that was put forward on behalf of the people of British Columbia.

We don't even know if there was a negotiating mandate. We tried last year to find out from this government whether or not they had a specific mandate that was given to the negotiators. Or was it just: "Show up at the negotiating meetings and make it up as you go along. Come up with a document that can somehow find a consensus among the three parties, and then let's cast that in stone and go forward"?

We doubt whether there was a negotiating mandate that went in. Had there been a negotiating mandate, at least the light of public scrutiny could have been cast on that negotiating mandate, and British Columbians could have felt that they were part of this process -- instead of a process that is being forced on them against the wishes of many and, I believe, the majority of British Columbians in terms of the direction that we were going.

When we started this debate, many government members talked about how a referendum would in fact be the tyranny of the majority and how you can't use a referendum to determine minority rights. What we have had in this chamber in the last 48 hours is a tyranny of the majority. What we have is the rights of individual members in this chamber --

[ Page 12010 ]

When this government talks about protecting minority rights, it shows that they are very hollow words. What we have seen now in terms of all of the political rhetoric that has come out, the pious words that have come out of government members about setting right the wrongs of the past, all of those pious words that came from government members during the second reading debate. . . . What we now realize is that those words ring very hollow, because what we have seen is that they are not prepared to stand up even for legislative rights when it comes to forcing this piece of legislation through.

[1700]

In the amendments that the Premier moved yesterday, he eliminated the last two hours of committee debate on Bill 51. Instead, with that last bit of scrutiny being abolished, being eliminated, with that last bit of scrutiny being thrown out the window by the Premier -- the last opportunity for the opposition members to put the pointed questions and get answers or try to get answers, the last two-hour opportunity in this chamber for us to ask questions on behalf of the people of British Columbia. . . . The Premier yesterday amended Motion 62 to eliminate that last two hours.

As this debate ends, as this bill is rammed through with that cloud hanging over it -- a cloud that will taint the Nisga'a treaty in perpetuity -- as we reach the final stages of that debate, we realize how many questions being asked by those who are going to be affected by future treaty negotiations in this province are unanswered. This government is hiding behind its manipulative legislative procedure. It's hiding behind the abuse, I believe, of the standing rules of this House, as a way to not be expected to answer the difficult questions.

The difficult questions that were being put have been cut off in a way that is contemptuous of this House and, I believe, is contemptuous of the public of British Columbia. The reason that that is happening, we now know, is purely and simply because the Premier needed another photo op -- the Premier whose legacy will be that of the photo-op Premier, the Premier who loves to make announcements, the Premier who loves to go to ceremonies, who loves to sign documents. It is being dictated by that agenda rather than by the public interest of all British Columbians.

It is with great sadness that I take my seat in this debate as we see this debate cut off. It is a sad day for British Columbia, a day that in fact should have been a celebration not just for the Nisga'a people but for all British Columbians.

[1705]

I thought today, as I was listening to those ministers or those members talking about the social justice issue and about the way in which, certainly on that side of the House, those former ministers think that Bill 51 and the treaty it will bring into effect -- at least, from the perspective of the province -- will address those social justice issues. I thought how unfortunate it is -- even if you accepted all of their concern and accepted for a moment that the Nisga'a final agreement represents the best possible response to that concern -- that there is a problem. Now let me say this: I actually do accept what is said about the social justice issue. I do not accept that the bill before us -- or the treaty that will be created as a result of it -- represents the right response to that social justice issue.

But I sure do also think that for all those who have worked so hard to bring about this day, there's something that's happened to poison the well. There's something that has happened to soil the gift that some members in this House -- all members in this House -- would want someday to give as some way of making redress for the social justice issues, for the wounds that exist in our society because of the historical legacy, the complete failure in the relationship between aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities in British North America for as long as we have coexisted here at this particular spot on the surface of the Earth. Those wounds run deep. This treaty represents someone's idea of an attempt to heal those wounds. I cannot help but think that what's happened here over the last 48 hours is going to keep those wounds there, is going to preserve those wounds in a way that was so completely unnecessary.

You know, for days in this House we have been debating Bill 51. For days in this House, until last night, we were debating Bill 51 in committee stage. Here is one of the things about that debate that no one has talked about for the last 24 hours. I was part of most of that debate, and I'll certainly admit that at times that debate went slowly. But nearly every hour of every day, and certainly every day of that debate, we turned pages in this agreement. We turned pages in the bill that was before us. We began at a point where we had left off the previous day, and we worked our way, through the course of the day, as far as we could get, with members on this side of the House asking questions and ministers of the Crown giving a variety of answers -- some responsive, some not responsive.

[ Page 12011 ]

[1710]

Like my friend and colleague the member for Matsqui, I certainly would not pretend for a moment that every single question I asked during the course of that debate was profound or significant -- no more or less so, I suppose, than any other committee stage debate. But when I stand here now and I look at the issues we covered, I know that there were issues where I thought we barely scratched the surface, where I thought we actually barely began to touch what was important about what was before us.

In fact, there are lots of those questions. There are unanswered questions about this treaty on the pages of the treaty that we have spent hours examining, yet we're not going to get to ask any of those questions any more than the people of British Columbia are going to see answers to the questions that need to be asked in chapters 12 or 13 or 14, all the way up through chapter 22. I can't help but think that the failure to allow a complete and full debate on this treaty is going to poison this treaty. It poisoned it yesterday; it poisons it today. I don't want to overstate the case. I don't know how long that poison will last, but I think it's pretty significant poison. I think that British Columbians deserve answers to the questions that we have not yet asked.

When I say that we were making progress, here's what is implied by that. There would have been a day -- making the kind of progress that we were making, asking the kinds of questions that we were asking -- when I think we would have reached the end of the treaty. I don't know how long that would have been in the future. Some days we met subjects and issues where there seemed to be a willingness on the part of government ministers to be forthcoming, to provide the information, to provide the clarification that I think is a fundamentally important part of establishing the record that we need to have for the people who are going to try and make sense of this document in the years to come. Other days it seemed as though we tripped over sensitivities, we tripped over hot buttons. Some days, I'll admit, we actually worked hard to do that, because, after all, this is about politics. This is a political chamber. This is a place where we debate political issues. And some days we actually worked hard to talk about those tough political issues, because the people of British Columbia are asking those questions that raise those issues. Some days I know I felt like we didn't make much progress as we went through the treaty.

But we made some. Every day we made some progress. What that means is that sure as shooting, there would have come a day when we finished. And I don't think it would have been that long away. I don't think we're talking about six months. I've heard the number 60 days. Frankly, I doubt it would be that long. But it would have been some time off in the future.

[1715]

One of the arguments I've heard in support of that proposition is this: "Well, the Nisga'a have been waiting for 111 years; it's time to get on with it." Fine, we were getting on with it. I can't imagine that someone could actually hold the belief that because the Nisga'a have been patient to wait for 111 years, they wouldn't be patient to wait for 20 or 30 or 40 more days. That strikes me as being a preposterous proposition, but yet I heard it. So I thought, better deal with it.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

The other argument I heard was: "Ha, you in the opposition have just been filibustering." I suppose anyone can get Hansard out, and they can form their own judgment on that. But I have to say for myself, in my own limited part in this whole process, that I never got that feeling. I never got the feeling that we were filibustering. I got the feeling from time to time that the Attorney General was uncomfortable with the issue that we were debating. And when he was uncomfortable about the issue we were debating, there were times when he stood up and said: "Let's get on with it." Well, there you are.

I don't think that makes the question unimportant. I don't think that makes the issue unimportant. I've looked back. And, you know, I'm not saying for a moment that someone couldn't scrutinize a long Hansard transcript and find half a dozen questions that don't look like they were the most important questions ever asked in a parliamentary democracy. But I bet someone who wanted to know what this treaty was about, someone who knew that we were casting in constitutional concrete arrangements that are intended to last for centuries, someone who knew that we had never done this before in the province of British Columbia, someone who knew that we had before us hundreds upon hundreds of pages of close and carefully written text, someone who knew that this was supposed to be the solution to a problem that has bedevilled the province of British Columbia since before it was invented, would say: "Those are okay questions. Those are questions that need to be asked. Those are questions worth asking. Those are questions that the government should give answers to. They're reasonable questions."

How will the Nisga'a government work? How will the Nisga'a come together in their assemblies? How will they make laws? What does it mean for the Nisga'a to make a law?

I'll never forget one moment early on in this debate when I had the effrontery, I suppose -- if you look at it from the government's perspective -- to stand up and make the observation that the Nisga'a will have lawmaking authority and that we should treat that with some seriousness. Lawmaking authority isn't just about coming together in voluntary associations. Lawmaking authority is the ability to make rules and then impose them on others. That's serious business.

All of us in this chamber hope and have reason to expect that the Nisga'a will exercise the lawmaking authority that they are going to get as a result of this treaty responsibly and

[ Page 12012 ]

[1720]

Those are the kinds of questions we asked. We asked a lot of them, but I didn't write a document that was 700 pages long. It was the government that helped create that situation. I don't think any of the questions we asked about those issues were irrelevant or in any way support the argument that there was a filibuster.

But what are the other arguments about why it's appropriate to shut this debate down now? Well, the government doesn't like the fact that we ask questions which have something to do with the issues that are raised in our court case. I am sorry, but you know, if the government of British Columbia is not prepared to come to this chamber and stand up and defend the things that it has done in this treaty to the people of British Columbia, then I'm not sure why we bother coming here at all. Time after time, we did hear government ministers say: "Oh, I am certainly not going on the record and stating a position with respect to issues concerning the constitutional authority of Nisga'a government. I would never do that." I think that's not a very good excuse for curtailing this debate.

You know, here's one of those little ironies -- those little ironies that rear their ugly heads every time the NDP touches anything. If we had actually not been obstructed by the NDP in our court case, we might have answers to those questions by now. I wasn't the one who said to the court: "Don't decide these questions now; let's wait for the word. Let's delay deciding those questions." That was the NDP who said that. I'm ready to ask the court those questions now. I was ready months ago. We were all ready months ago. I'm ready today, but the government refuses to allow the court to look at the questions. That's obstruction. That's delay.

Here's another great argument that comes from the other side. They say: "Oh, you guys are wasting time." This is the one that -- I have to admit -- I find the most ridiculous. The proposition from the government is: "Well, we answered that question once. We told you, but you kept asking." Hon. Speaker, I hope this isn't news to some of the ministers opposite, but when they tell me things, I don't believe them anymore.

[1725]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. . . . Enough, members.

G. Plant: . . .engaged in by this government.

I spoke earlier about the issue of social justice. The issue of social justice requires that we respect minority rights. The issue of social justice is an issue around giving effect to what the constitution of Canada says is the recognition and affirmation that we must afford the aboriginal rights of the aboriginal people of British Columbia. That's minority rights. Our constitution requires us to respect those minority rights. This treaty represents an exercise in attempting to give effect to that recognition and affirmation.

So there we are. The philosophical argument that lies at the heart of the treaty is an argument about the need to recognize and protect one class of minority rights -- the minority rights of the aboriginal people who inhabit the Nass Valley. Yet in the name of protecting the rights of one minority, this government has abused its majority powers to override the rights of another minority: the members of the opposition and all those for whom they speak. That is, I would think, the perfection of hypocrisy: a government that claims that it is the guardian of minority rights.

All my life growing up in this province, generation after generation of members of that political party fooled British Columbians into thinking that they were the guardians of minority rights. You know, hon. Speaker, there was a time when I actually believed them. And here they are today, under the guise of protecting minority rights, using their majority power the same way generations of other oppressors have done it. I don't see any sign that they even begin to understand the problem.

Let's be clear, hon. Speaker. When you deny people a voice, when you say that their voice will not be heard, you never eliminate the voice. The voice will not go away. What the government has done by invoking closure in circumstances which are entirely and grossly unnecessary is to marginalize the views of all those who dare to question the treaty. And it is to trivialize the treaty itself.

But let's be clear about what else it does. It won't shorten the public debate on this issue. What the government has done has surefire guaranteed that this debate will get longer, not shorter, because when you shut people out, you make them angry. And when you make them angry, they will not shut up. They will not go away. Their voices will be heard. And that is absolutely going to happen. I don't know where it will happen. Maybe it will happen. . . .

Interjections.

[ Page 12013 ]

Member, continue.

[1730]

An Hon. Member: Twice as long.

G. Plant: Maybe it will be twice as long. Maybe it will be three times as long. Because the people who represent British Columbia in Ottawa will say: "Well, hang on. The questions weren't fully answered. They only got to chapter 11. There's a lot more that needs to be asked about this treaty." And who knows? Maybe the record of what was done here for the first 11 chapters would be enough so that the people who represent this province in Ottawa could say: "There are the answers to the questions." I don't know. It'll be up to those who represent us in Ottawa. But I'm pretty confident of one thing: when you shut down debate, when you curtail debate, when you guillotine debate and make people feel that their voice was not heard, they will find a way to give expression to that voice.

I want to speak for just a minute or two about the issues that are really important that we have covered in this debate, because I think it's important to examine them all, brief though that examination may be. Here are some things that we -- at least, I -- discovered during the course of this debate that I don't think were widely known before this debate began. I think many British Columbians think that the Nisga'a treaty will somehow create and provide a package of benefits that will ensure that there are land and resources and cash available -- the amount of which has been identified -- that will sustain the social program needs of Nisga'a people.

Well, in fact, that's not quite true. Because one thing we established -- only within the last few hours of the debate, in fact, before it was shut off -- is that for all those people who are of Nisga'a ancestry who don't live on Nisga'a lands, the status quo will prevail. If the province is providing education services to them at the expense of the taxpayers of British Columbia, it will continue to do so. For all practical intents and purposes, that won't change. The same is true for income assistance, children and families and health care needs. So for all that we thought we had an understanding of the true cost of this agreement, we're actually only beginning to have a true cost. One of the saddest issues in this whole debate that has not been touched is the simple fact that this treaty will do nothing for urban aboriginals. Half the Nisga'a people are left out of this treaty, and that's an issue we did not have an opportunity to canvass in debate.

People throughout British Columbia have lost faith in the institutions of government. People tell me: "You're an MLA. You're irrelevant." Well, the truth is that what the government did last night and what it's doing today confirms that suspicion. I have seen it suggested -- and I've suggested it -- that the imposition of closure on this treaty taints the treaty. I think it's far more serious. I think the imposition of closure creates a seed that will corrupt the treaty permanently, because I do not think that this treaty can be said now, today, to stand on a firm, solid, democratic foundation. Its foundation is flawed.

The truth is that the Nisga'a final agreement will now take its place on the shelf of the flawed achievements of a government which breaks the law and then, with a wink and a nod and a cynical sneer, simply enacts the legislation needed to make it legal retroactively -- that which was once illegal -- and then erects walls of immunity to protect itself from its citizens. Now, hon. Speaker, I know that all members of this House want social justice for the Nisga'a. This is not the road to social justice for the Nisga'a. I will not support third reading.

The Speaker: The Government House Leader rises on what matter?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Joining us today for this historic occasion, travelling from my constituency, is a young man named James Fletcher, who is here specifically to see the ratification of the treaty by our government. He's a young man who is very active in his community, active in student politics at Simon Fraser University. I'm absolutely delighted that he's joining us here. Please welcome James Fletcher.

[1735]

Leave granted.

V. Anderson: In the Legislature today are 50 students from Sir Winston Churchill Secondary School in Vancouver, here on this auspicious occasion. They were here early and, I know, learned a great deal from this occasion today.

E. Walsh: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

E. Walsh: I am truly honoured to be here on this historic day, and especially to be sharing it with the Nisga'a. But this day, for me, is truly historic for another reason, and that is that at 4:06 p.m. this afternoon, my daughter and my son-in-law had their first child, my grandson Allan Neilson Lindsay. I would ask the House to please welcome my grandson to this province.

The Speaker: I recognize now the Premier.

Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, I'm immensely proud to close debate on the Nisga'a Final Agreement Act. I must say that I'm very pleased to see in the gallery today my friends, the Nisga'a leadership -- who, I know, are very proud as well. I know that they are thinking now about their parents. I know that we have here, as well, the people who negotiated the treaty. I see many of them -- Jack Ebbels, people on the provincial government side who were part of the implementation team, Richard Inglis and others, who are here to join us today for this historic day.

Hon. Speaker, while the debate in this chamber unfortunately has become polarized between the government and the opposition, between the New Democratic Party and the

[ Page 12014 ]

The treaty is not an abstract concept. The challenge that we and aboriginal people face together in this country -- in this province, particularly -- is far from a dry or abstract concept. We live in a province where 3 percent of our citizens are aboriginal people. Their life expectancy is 12 years less than those who are non-aboriginal. The suicide rate for young aboriginal people is six to eight times higher than for non-aboriginal people. The alcoholism rate for aboriginal people is dramatically higher; substance abuse is higher. The unemployment rate is staggeringly high for that 3 percent of our province.

Many aboriginal people living on reserves -- and I challenge anybody to travel to reserves in this province to see that -- live in what can be characterized as Third World conditions, amidst a very affluent province. It seems to me that that is what this debate is about. It is morally unacceptable to have 3 percent of our province living in those conditions amongst affluence. If you accept that -- and I think everybody does -- then you have to ask the question: do these social conditions exist for aboriginal people because of their race, because of genetics? Of course not. Nobody in this chamber believes that, and no well-meaning person anywhere in British Columbia believes that these social conditions exist on aboriginal reserves because those people are aboriginal. Surely it is obvious that the conditions exist in large measure because of actions taken by successive governments over the years, by people who preceded us in this chamber and people who preceded the present government in Ottawa.

[1740]

This treaty will not fix all those social problems. We should be honest with the people of British Columbia about that. The Nisga'a people are honest about that as well. This treaty does not fix years of systemic discrimination. It does not right the wrongs of the past. It does not restore automatically their standard of living to those who are living off reserve or to those who are non-aboriginal. It does not do that at all.

This is the beginning of a very difficult journey for the aboriginal people who are Nisga'a. This is only a very large step forward to giving aboriginal people a sense of respect, to giving the Nisga'a people the opportunity to do for themselves what they have always wanted to do, which is try to pursue, with justice and dignity and respect, self-determination for the Nisga'a people. While this treaty does not fix those problems, it is a necessary step towards resolution.

We are not here, I'm sad to say, solely for moral reasons. We're not here for that at all. I wish we were. Perhaps we should be. We are here because we are legally compelled to negotiate treaties, because in this province, unlike every other province, aboriginal people did not negotiate treaties. Aboriginal people have gone to court, starting with the Nisga'a, starting with Frank Calder, and they have been successful. My friends across the way, those critics of this treaty, I tell you: the courts have compelled us to sit down and negotiate land claims treaties. We have done so for years. We have struggled, we have compromised, we have negotiated with respect. This did not come easily. It did not come quickly, frankly, because we have worked so hard to try to get it right.

This is not perfect for the Nisga'a or for us or for Canada. But this is the result of good-faith negotiations, and we must now come to grips with that. We must now approve this treaty, which was honourably negotiated by the Nisga'a, by the province and by the government of Canada. We are compelled to do so.

[1745]

The Speaker: The hour has come for the question to be put.

Bill 51, Nisga'a Final Agreement Act, read a third time and passed on the following division:

[1750]

[ Page 12015 ]

Hon. J. MacPhail moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:51 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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