2001 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 36th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes
only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2001
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 22, Number 6
[ Page 17401 ]
The House met at 2:10 p.m.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm pleased to introduce some members of the first nations leadership. There are three representatives here from the First Nations Summit: Kathryn Teneese, Danny Watts and Gerald Wesley. From the B.C. Association of Friendship Centres: George Cook, Paul Lacerte, Bruce Parieien and Ron Rice. And from Nisga'a: Nelson Leeson and Patricia Vickers. Would the House please make them welcome.
L. Stephens: In the House today are some constituents from Langley: Brock and Terri MacDonald and their son Matthew. They are here in beautiful Victoria to celebrate spring break. Would everyone please make them welcome.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm pleased to introduce Annelies VanWijk. She's from Utrecht, Netherlands. She's a communications student who is joining us in the Legislature today. She is here to learn all about the media and communications in British Columbia. She is a little bit hampered by that exercise, having to work with Keith Baldrey. [Laughter.] But other than that, she is probably well on her way to learning a great deal. Will you please make her welcome.
B. McKinnon: I'm pleased to introduce to the House today a young lady who's very close to my heart, Shanda Bowie, and her grandmother, Ann Stordy, who are visiting from Calgary. I ask the House to please bid them welcome.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I have another introduction to make: Heidi Reid, my former administrative assistant from the Attorney General days. Earlier on, she was my assistant in the Premier's office. This is her birthday today. I would ask the House to wish her a happy birthday.
G. Campbell: I'm pleased today to introduce to the House the interns who will be working with the opposition in the months ahead. First, Jamie Gillies, who was born and raised in Victoria and has a BA honours degree in political science from UVic. Marla Frketich, from Port Alberni, completed her honours degree in political science at the University of Victoria and intends to pursue a master's degree in international affairs and security studies. Susan Martyn is from Abbotsford and graduated from UBC with an honours degree in political science. Jay Schlosar is originally from Sicamous and is currently enrolled at UVic and is completing his master of arts degree in political science. And Tracy Tang is from Coquitlam. She's a graduate from UBC with a BA in English and French. I hope that these interns enjoy their time here in the Legislature and help us move forward to create an even better British Columbia.
D. Symons: It is indeed my pleasure today to introduce to the House five people who are near and dear to me: my wife, Margareta Symons, my daughter-in-law Angela Symons, and three delightful and active grandchildren Jeffrey, Dylon and Nicholas. Would the House please make them welcome.
D. Lovick: Mr. Speaker, I've had the pleasure for the last 14 years to address that group of bright, energetic and capable young students who've become Legislative interns here in Victoria. And I'm happy to note that this year there was no exception to the rule; they are still bright, intelligent and energetic. But I wanted to note some in particular. Ms. Audrey Chan, Mr. Jonathan Fershau, Mr. Stephen Hartman, Ms. Tiina Searle and Ms. Christine Tassos all seem to be exceptionally exceptional and, coincidentally, they all happen to be assigned to our caucus. So I would just like to ask my colleagues if they would be so kind as to join me in extending a warm welcome to all of these people.
J. Sawicki: I have guests in the gallery from my constituency. They are Dave and Joyce Schulz, and they've brought with them their two grandchildren, Tara and Chris Kautow. Dave and Joyce have just moved into our riding, and I want to welcome them to our community. The grandchildren, Tara and Chris, have studied government in school -- not provincial government yet, but they wanted to spend their spring break coming to see it in action. I really want the House to join me in making them all very welcome.
[1415]
S. Orcherton: Joining us in the gallery today are a number of guests: Michael and Judy Kubrak; Marilyn and Don Manley; Trudy Aldridge; Rosalyn Cook; and a number of citizens from Nanaimo, Courtenay, Comox and Campbell River. They are all members and all advocates with Citizens Supporting Complementary Medicine. They work very hard on behalf of changes to our medical system in British Columbia, and I'd ask all members to make them very welcome to these chambers.
L. Reid: I do have someone in the gallery today. It's Karen Legeer. She's visiting us from the very fine constituency of Surrey-White Rock, so my comment is to my colleague as well, and a welcome on behalf of both of us. Please make her welcome.
J. Pullinger: It's my pleasure today to introduce Richard Hughes, who is a very strong and outspoken regional director in the Cowichan Valley for Cobble Hill and also our candidate in the coming election. Please help me welcome Richard Hughes.
C. Clark: Patrick Lauzon is joining us today from the beautiful community of Burquitlam. I hope everyone will make him welcome.
Hon. I. Waddell: A proclamation is being issued designating today as Journée de la Francophonie in British Columbia. [Mr. Speaker, in British Columbia there is a vibrant and dynamic French-speaking community. March 20 has been proclaimed Journée de la Francophonie in British Columbia.]
[Translation.]
We're very pleased to have two representatives of what I've called in French "a dynamic and living community." That is Mr. Claude Provencher, who is president of La Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique, and Mme. Yseult Friolet, who is executive director of that organization. Would the House please make them welcome.
Hon. S. Hammell: Visiting us in the gallery today is a friend of mine, Sucha Singh Claire. Sucha won the award of
[ Page 17402 ]
excellence for being a pioneer of the world's famous Punjabi market of Vancouver. He has also won an award of honour for being the best reporter and columnist in 1996 for the Indo-Canadian Times. Also with Sucha are some guests from England, Mr. Joginder Singh and Mr. Mehar Singh Kang. So would the House please make them welcome.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Today in the gallery are three young aboriginal women who are working with the Pacific people partnership on aboriginal youth issues. They are Reaghan Tarbell, a Mohawk; Suzanne Bate, Métis, from Alberta; and Vanessa Nevin who is a Mi'kmaq from New Brunswick; also Scott Clark from the United Native Nations; Colin Braker from the First Nations Summit; and five members of the Aboriginal Rights Coalition who are Diane McLaren, Kate Insley, Isabel Heamon and Ava Fuller. From the Aboriginal Employees Association is Larry MacFadden, and finally, also in the gallery is Harley Desjarlais from the Métis association. Please make them welcome.
Hon. G. Robertson: I'd like to introduce this afternoon Kathleen Craigie and Sarena Costa from my office, and also I would like to introduce two constituents of mine from Campbell River, students from Timberline high school, Damian Giles and Mike Ball. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.
[1420]
Hon. G. Janssen: With us today is a fellow parliamentarian, Mr. Matt Brown, MP for Kiama from the Parliament of New South Wales, Australia. I ask the House to give him a warm British Columbia welcome.
B. Goodacre: Visiting us today from Smithers, British Columbia, is Werner Eichstadter and his son, Daniel. They're here while Daniel's mother is busy across the street representing the Bulkley Valley Teachers Association. I'd ask the House to please make them welcome.
Introduction of Bills
MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS
AMENDMENT ACT, 2001
S. Orcherton presented a bill intituled Medical Practitioners Amendment Act, 2001.
S. Orcherton: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.
Motion approved.
S. Orcherton: Across Canada, a long history of interference by the College of Physicians and Surgeons exists with the public's right to choose medical doctors who incorporate complementary or alternative therapies in their practices -- a combination of the best of conventional western medicines and the best of alternative medicines. Complementary medicines include therapies such as environmental medicine, acupuncture, homeopathy, botanicals, orthomolecular medicine, vitamins and minerals and chelation therapy.
This bill allows physicians to use their own judgment in the interests of their patients to diagnose and treat patients using complementary therapies. This bill also protects physicians who practise complementary medical therapies from harassment by the College of Physicians and Surgeons. Similar legislation has been adopted in Alberta and Ontario. The BCMA conducted a study in 1996 indicating that close to 60 percent of British Columbia's physicians often encourage their patients to seek alternative therapies. Sixteen thousand citizens in British Columbia asked me to introduce a petition in the last sitting in support of this initiative.
This bill gives patients the option to choose physicians who integrate non-conventional therapies. I'd like to thank, in particular, the Citizens Supporting Complementary Medicine, both the Vancouver Island and lower mainland groups, who support this initiative, along with the Association of Complementary Physicians of British Columbia, who have completed extensive research on this topic and have proposed many of the amendments adopted in this bill. I would also like to thank Judy Kubrak, Randy Gomm and Sandy Simpson of the Chelation Association of British Columbia and, in particular, Mr. Hugh Pearson, who have helped so much in pushing this initiative forward.
This bill is a necessary step forward for our health care system today and recognizes that these treatments are appropriate and supported by the public. This is about choice, choice for patients and choice for physicians in British Columbia.
With that, I move the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill M202 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Oral Questions
INCLUSION OF GENERATING PLANTS'
REVENUES IN B.C. HYDRO
BUDGET PROJECTIONS
G. Campbell: Yesterday in the House the Minister of Finance attempted to justify his $400 million revenue optimism contained in his B.C. Hydro predictions for this year's budget. Contained in the documents that the minister tabled was a breakdown of how he generated those anticipated revenues. The Keogh diesel generating station in Port Hardy is listed as operational and scheduled to deliver $100 million to the government. Can the minister confirm that his revenue projections depended at least partially on the Keogh diesel generating station driving $100 million of revenue into the government's coffers?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Officials discussed B.C. Hydro's 2001 results. Any number of scenarios were discussed, including the option of running that generator. No final decision has been made.
[1425]
The Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition has a supplemental question.
G. Campbell: In fact, when you look at the documents that the minister tabled yesterday, the report dated March 2, it
[ Page 17403 ]
is pretty clear that one of the ways that the government was anticipating generating revenue was $100 million from the Keogh generating plant. And yet, to show you how spurious these projections are, last August 25 B.C. Hydro itself was applying to the B.C. Utilities Commission to close down the Keogh diesel generating plant. In their submission to the Utilities Commission they said: "
B.C. Hydro professionals wanted this plant closed down. And yet the minister and his officials were claiming $100 million in revenue from the plant. How can the minister expect us to believe any of his budget numbers when these ones are so spurious and false?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The documents I released reveal a wide variety of scenarios within B.C. Hydro, and it reflects a wide variety of options to meet the target that is set for them. I will say it again for this Chamber: I sought advice from a wide range of folks, both internal to my ministry and others, on what was an appropriate target for B.C. Hydro for the coming year. Clearly, given the low water they're experiencing, the $1.1 billion profit that they made last year will not recur. I believe a target of $300 million is prudent, and they will be able to attain it.
The Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition with a further supplemental question.
G. Campbell: There indeed isn't a wide variety. There are four separate options which are listed here. B.C. Hydro's own professional staff said this in their application to shut that plant down last August. It wasn't an option that any reasonable person would have been considering.
This is what they said: "The station should not be refurbished due to its deteriorating condition and environmental concerns. The returns just aren't there for us or the community. We can no longer justify keeping this plant in operation." Yet this minister is still suggesting that he considered $100 million in revenue from the diesel plant. On August 31 the B.C. Utilities Commission made their position clear. They agreed with B.C. Hydro's request that the Keogh diesel generating plant should be shut down once and for all for everyone's benefit. Can the Minister of Finance tell us how he expects us to believe that he'll be able to wring $100 million in revenues from a dead generating plant?
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members. Order.
Hon. P. Ramsey: B.C. Hydro has said that they will attempt to meet the target. I believe they will meet it. Indeed, I believe they will exceed it. I believe they have a variety of means to do so. The member wishes to focus on one.
Hon. Speaker, here we are: we're debating budget again, or we're not actually debating budget in this chamber. This seems to be the only aspect of Budget 2001 these members want to debate. They don't want to debate the $24 billion budget that we have here in revenue and expenditure to support health care and education. They sit on their hands and refuse to recognize the choices that are contained in it and refuse to come clean on what their budget would look like for the people of this province.
G. Farrell-Collins: First of all, I want to extend my sincere thanks to the Minister of Finance for tabling these documents yesterday. There are four items listed as a way to generate an additional $400 million on top of the minus $100 million revenue projection that Hydro had in place at that time. One of the four says, "Run Keogh -- $100 million," and there's some discussion about that. How does the Minister of Finance expect to run Keogh when the B.C. Utilities Commission said the following in their decision: "The commission has reviewed the application and finds that the Keogh generating station is no longer a useful facility for generating electricity and should be removed from utility service"? On what imaginary planet does the minister plan on generating $100 million out of a plant that won't run?
[1430]
Hon. P. Ramsey: You know, we are now engaged in budget debate in this chamber. Or rather we're not engaged in budget debate, because the opposition simply refuses to debate. We have tabled a budget that says we're going to put priorities on health care and education and maintaining balance, which we have done for the third year in a row. We have said that this is a higher priority for British Columbians than dramatic tax cuts, and we have said that the quality of life is a competitive advantage that we need to enhance.
Those are the choices in this budget, and those are the choices that we're prepared to defend. The silence from the opposition benches on the real issues in this budget is deafening.
G. Farrell-Collins: I noticed in all of that that the minister failed to answer the question, so I'll ask it again. B.C. Hydro says in its own press release, "The equipment at Keogh generating station is aging and past its serviceable life. It has not been used for backup power for quite some time. One unit has been inoperable since 1996, and the second unit continually fails to start," when they go around once a month just to check and see if it's still alive. How does the minister responsible for B.C. Hydro
Hon. P. Ramsey: The target that I have set for B.C. Hydro of $300 million is a midpoint of the range that treasury and Crown corporations secretariat discussed with B.C. Hydro. That is the target that we have set. It is one that B.C. Hydro says it will attempt to meet. I believe they'll not only meet it; they will probably exceed it. There are a wide variety of options for doing that. The member wishes to focus on one possible option. No final plans have been made. There are a wide variety of options available.
But here we are again. We have a budget that says to this opposition's pet project, dramatic tax cuts: "No. We're not going to do it." It costs revenue, and you have a choice of either driving the province back into deficit or slashing health care and education. We say on this side: let's preserve the balance that we have attained over the past two years and
[ Page 17404 ]
have a third balanced budget. Indeed, we think we can attain it in the future as well. And, hon. Speaker, let's preserve our health and education funding for British Columbians.
G. Plant: Well, the difference between NDP budget projections and Ripley's Believe It or Not is that sometimes even Ripley's Believe It or Not is believable.
I want to turn to one of the other items that the minister relies upon in support of his B.C. Hydro revenue projection. Burrard Thermal has never run more than 4,300 gigawatt-hours in a year. Yet to quote from the document the minister tabled yesterday: "Notwithstanding this, if we assumed 5,500 gigawatt-hours
On what basis, other than a wing and a prayer, did the Minister of Finance think he was going to get $92 million more out of Burrard Thermal?
[1435]
Hon. P. Ramsey: Actually, in their long-range planning B.C. Hydro says that Burrard Thermal could generate 7,000 gigawatt-hours. That is what they have in their long-range planning documents, and they've invested over $200 million to make sure it does so in a way that complies with environmental protection on the lower mainland.
Hon. Speaker, this is another option for Hydro. They have not finalized their plans. Running Burrard is an additional option. It will depend on a wide range of options that they have in front of them. The target of $300 million is reasonable and can be attained.
We keep tilling the same ground, yet the silence from the opposition members is deafening. I don't hear them standing up and saying that they would oppose the 5,000 new spaces we've added to colleges and universities. I don't see them standing up and saying that they want to
The Speaker: Thank you, minister.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Hon. Speaker, what I do see them saying, outside this chamber, is that somehow they are now prepared to run a deficit. After years of saying balanced budgets are the only tool, outside the House they say the budget answer is now deficit financing in B.C. again. We say no, hon. Speaker.
WCB POLICY ON PREMIUM
PAYMENTS AND REBATES
M. de Jong: I have a question for the minister responsible for the Workers Compensation Board. Shakeland Wood Processors are a cooperative that employs about 70 people at a shake and shingle facility in Mission. They haven't had a great year, and that's something they have in common with a lot of businesses in B.C. In fact, they owe about $98,000 in WCB premiums. They had that confirmed in a letter on February 12.
The good news is that two days later, they got a second letter that told them WCB owed them a rebate of $110,000. End of problem -- right? Wrong, because WCB won't pay back the rebate except over five years, and if you can believe it, in the meantime they're sending the bailiffs in to shut the mill down.
So my question for the minister is: why is it, when WCB owes you money, you have to wait five years, but when you owe them money, it's do or die right now? And what is the minister going to do to make sure that 70 people don't needlessly lose their jobs because of a stupid, illogical WCB policy?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'll be happy to look into it for him. If the gentleman has any documentation, I'd be pleased to see that. WCB is visiting my office tomorrow, and I'll get specific answers back to the House.
The Speaker: The member for Matsqui has a supplemental question.
Interjections.
The Speaker: The member has a question.
M. de Jong: I think the former Premier is stuck in time somewhere -- another day, another place. My question for the minister, though, on this very important issue is: how many other companies are in similar circumstances? How many businesses are owed rebates by WCB for premiums they shouldn't have paid in the first place and are now being pursued by the Workers Compensation Board for premiums they claim and are being told: "We're not going to pay you for five years, but you've got to pay us right now"?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm surprised that a member of this House who is also a member of the bar is completely oblivious to the fact that WCB is an independent agency that is governed by a board of administrators. I've made a commitment to this member
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members. Order, members.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I have made a commitment to this member, if indeed he is serious about his constituent's issue, that if he was to table the information, I would have that conversation with WCB and provide detailed information to this House.
[1440]
The Speaker: The bell ends question period.
The member for Matsqui rises on a matter.
Tabling Documents
M. de Jong: I seek leave to table documents.
Leave granted.
Reports from Committees
R. Kasper: Continuing reporting, hon. Speaker, pursuant to the committee's terms of reference, I have the honour to present the report of the Special Committee on Information Privacy in the Private Sector for the fourth session of the thirty-sixth parliament. I move that the report be taken as read and received.
Motion approved.
[ Page 17405 ]
R. Kasper: I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.
Leave granted.
R. Kasper: I move that the report be adopted. This report of the Special Committee on Information Privacy in the Private Sector contains the committee's findings and recommendations on the matter of privacy protection for personal information collected, used and disclosed in private sector activities. The committee's recommendations reflect the four primary findings that emerged during the committee's public consultation process, which included expert witness briefings, public hearings, a call for submissions and an opinion survey of British Columbians.
The first of those findings is that British Columbia, in considering the matter of legislation to protect the information privacy of British Columbians in private sector activities, must consider the implications of the federal Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act on this province. That legislation states that in January 2004, it will apply to British Columbia and any other province that has not passed privacy legislation for the private sector that is deemed substantially similar by the federal government.
The committee also heard that British Columbians, both business and consumers, support legislation. The committee was advised that 92 percent of British Columbians agree that B.C. needs an information privacy law for the private sector. British Columbia also emphasizes that any privacy law for the private sector must balance the private sector needs for personal information with individuals' rights for information privacy.
Finally, the committee found that there was a strong consensus amongst individuals, businesses, privacy advocates and legislators that the private sector privacy laws must be harmonized among all jurisdictions in which private sector organizations do business.
In view of those findings, the committee recommends that the government of British Columbia enact legislation to protect the information privacy of personal information held in the private sector, and that the proposed legislation achieve a fair and workable balance between information privacy and the use of personal information for legitimate private sector purposes.
The committee further recommends that proposed legislation harmonize with other Canadian and international jurisdictions by establishing a legal framework based on internationally recognized fair information principles.
Hon. Speaker, on behalf of the committee, I would like to express our appreciation to the individuals and organizations that assisted the committee in its work, those witnesses who appeared before the committee and those who provided written submissions, the information and privacy commissioner of British Columbia, the corporate information access and privacy branch of the Information, Science and Technology Agency, Ipsos-Reid and the office of Clerk of Committees.
The Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I'll put the question of the adoption of the report.
Motion approved.
Petitions
J. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, I rise to present a petition.
The Speaker: Please do so.
J. Wilson: On behalf of approximately 2,000 members of my constituency of Cariboo North, I would like to present this petition to the House, emphasizing their concern about the huge increase in the natural gas prices this winter.
G. Campbell: I rise to table a petition.
The Speaker: Please do so.
G. Campbell: I rise today to table a petition sponsored by the B.C. Nurses Union, signed by 10,000 British Columbians who support their demands for better pay and better working conditions.
[1445]
Tabling Documents
Hon. C. McGregor tabled the 2000 annual report of the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology.
Orders of the Day
Motions on Notice
Hon. G. Janssen: Hon. Speaker, I call Motion 1 on the order paper, standing under the Premier's name.
REFERENDA ON ISSUES AFFECTING
MINORITY RIGHTS
Hon. G. Janssen: "Be it resolved that this House is opposed to the provincial government using referenda to determine policy on issues affecting minority rights such as First Nations' treaty rights."
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm pleased to have this opportunity to speak to an issue that is fundamental to our role as legislators and fundamental to the kind of British Columbia that we want to live in.
I've always believed that true democracy is not only ruled by majority. True democracy must be built on a stronger foundation, one of inclusion. Our British Columbia, indeed our Canada, is a welcoming place that celebrates diversity. We recognize the value of the unique contribution that every individual, in every community, can make to our society. That strong foundation gives us a much broader view of democracy -- what social scientists call a pluralist outlook. It isn't as simple as the formula of majority rule, but it reaps tremendous benefits for us all.
This foundation of inclusion is the reason that Canadians have put limits on majority rule. One of the ways that we've done that nationally is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That document sets out rights for all citizens but also ensures basic protection for minority rights -- protection that politicians can't overturn without taking extraordinary steps.
One of the ways that majorities, of course, can express their views is through a referendum. But we should never see
[ Page 17406 ]
them as a cure-all for the problems of democracy. And I say that no politician should ever be allowed to hide behind a referendum to duck a difficult, divisive issue, an issue that goes to the core of who we are as British Columbians and as Canadians.
When I migrated to this great country and great province, I knew that this was a place where I wanted to have my future. This is a place that's one of diversity. This is a place that protects those rights, and I want to make sure that no politician is ever able to turn back that guarantee of rights that we now have in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
And nowhere is that more true than in the area of minority rights. A referendum is the blunt instrument of majority rule. And when it comes to defending or defining the rights of minorities, a referendum is a bad idea, plain and simple. As Prof. Will Kymlicka wrote, the result of majoritarian rule has been to render cultural minorities vulnerable to significant injustice at the hands of the majority and to exacerbate ethno-cultural conflict.
It can always be tempting to point fingers at other jurisdictions. There is no shortage of examples in other places and other times: slavery in the United States of America; the murderous reality behind the term "ethnic cleansing" in the former Yugoslavia; the horrific slaughter in Rwanda; and most notorious of all, the Nazi Holocaust. But we have not been immune to the persecution of minorities in Canada -- far from it.
[1450]
Remember the internment of Japanese Canadians during the Second World War and the mistreatment of German Canadians, Ukrainian Canadians and Italian Canadians. Remember the passengers on board the Komagata Maru turned away after an interminable wait in British Columbia waters. Remember the Chinese exclusion act and the head tax. Each of these measures was popular at the time. Let me repeat: each of these measures was popular at the time. It took absolute courage to stand against them, as people like Grace and Angus MacInnis did as CCF Members of Parliament and exacted a steep political and personal price. But they paid the price happily, because they stood for justice and equality.
To our shame, neither Canada nor British Columbia can claim an unblemished history. Nor can we say that those injustices are buried in the past, because the legacy of those injustices is part of the daily lives of thousands upon thousands of British Columbians. That sad fact is truest of all when it comes to British Columbia's first nations. Wrenched from their land by force, torn from their culture by misguided bigotry and alienated from basic rights by government fiat -- that was the reality for B.C.'s aboriginal peoples.
When I first came to this country in the late sixties, I was amazed at the openness of B.C. society, its willingness to embrace newcomers and the fundamental decency of all British Columbians. Yes, there was racism. Yes, there was intolerance. But things were changing then, and they have changed a great deal more since. The fact that I address this House at all, let alone as Premier, is proof of that. Yet there was something that struck me then, something that seemed completely at odds with that sense of fairness and openness in British Columbia. It was the fact that only seven years earlier, aboriginal people didn't have the right to vote. My ancestors in British Columbia had that right in 1947.
As time went on and I learned more about the history of my new home, I realized that this anomaly was anything but. It was the rule in the way Canada and B.C. dealt with first nations. I learned how the potlatch had been banned by law. I learned that in 1927, parliament actually passed a law making it illegal for aboriginal people to hire lawyers to represent them in any activity related to land claims. I learned about abuses in the residential school system. And I also learned that despite all of this, most first nations still had faith in our institutions -- their tremendous ability to continue to have that faith. Most still believed that negotiations could lead to a fair and balanced solution. I knew then, as I know today, that this faith must be honoured, and must be honoured by this Legislature and by the people of British Columbia.
When our government was elected, we set about keeping faith with the aboriginal peoples of this province. We continued the commitment made by Jack Weisgerber and the Socred government to resolve the land question that had been borne almost entirely by first nations peoples for 150 years.
[1455]
We started by recognizing just how fortunate we were in British Columbia that negotiations were still possible and just how important it was that they proceed. We launched an open public process. Let me speak to those whose ears have turned deaf: we launched an open public process.
After listening to British Columbians, we set out the principles B.C. would follow in our negotiations with the first nations people. Things like private property are not on the table. The Canadian constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms will continue to apply equally to all British Columbians. Existing tax exemptions for aboriginal people will be phased out. All agreements-in-principle will be taken to the public for review, and all final agreements to the Legislature for ratification. Simple, clear -- very simple and very clear -- fair principles that reflect the way British Columbians approach these negotiations
We campaigned in 1996 with those principles clearly before the public. We in fact had an agreement-in-principle with the Nisga'a before the public as we campaigned and won a mandate to govern and to proceed with treaty negotiations. And we consulted at every step of the way.
Let me just give members some examples from that single process, the one that led to the Nisga'a treaty. We held more than 450 meetings with advisory groups and the public. A legislative committee held 31 public hearings on the agreement-in-principle in 27 communities around B.C. The final debate on Bill 51, ratifying the treaty, lasted 116 hours -- longer than any debate on any other piece of legislation in the history of British Columbia. That kind of openness and public involvement is built into every part of the treaty process in British Columbia.
In 1994 we signed an agreement with the Union of B.C. Municipalities ensuring that local governments can participate in the process. Through treaty advisory committees, they are partners on our provincial negotiating teams. There are regional advisory committees as well, giving stakeholders from a broad range of interests direct access to our negotiating teams. Provincewide, the Treaty Negotiation Advisory Committee gives business, labour, and environmental and community groups access to the process.
Anyone -- and I say anyone -- who says there isn't consultation with the public is parading absolute misinformation. Those who are parading that misinformation just aren't being straight with the people of British Columbia.
[ Page 17407 ]
Yet there has been a call from the Leader of the Opposition to put treaties to a referendum. Why? Well, the answer depends on the day you ask the question. Some days it's because there wasn't enough consultation. That argument, as we've seen, just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Other days it is because the Nisga'a treaty supposedly amends the constitution. That is just as specious; the B.C. Supreme Court has said so. On the other hand, this country's foremost constitutional lawyer, Peter Hogg, says that none of the documents that make up the constitution will be amended, nor will the treaty "become part of the constitution of Canada. As a matter of law, therefore, there is no requirement that the Nisga'a treaty be approved in a provincial referendum."
[1500]
But Peter Hogg doesn't stop there. He adds this: "The treaties are long, complicated documents reflecting years of negotiation and much compromise on both sides. It would be very difficult to communicate all the issues in a balanced way in a provincewide referendum campaign." That is putting it mildly.
Nobody can seriously believe that a referendum campaign on minority rights would be anything but bitter and divisive. Surely the experience of Quebec has taught us at least that much -- at least that much. To put the entire treaty process on hold, to shut down negotiating tables across this province while we held that kind of protracted campaign would risk everything, everything that we've gained to date. Bear in mind that one estimate puts the economic cost of not settling land claims at about $1 billion a year in British Columbia. That would be another billion dollars down the drain while aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities alike put their lives on hold for a referendum. And we aren't even counting the cost of the referendum itself.
But there is an even greater cost. That's the loss of faith that would inevitably ensue, and we would never let that happen in British Columbia. Essentially what we would be doing is saying to B.C.'s first nations: "Forget the past decade. We're changing the rules on you in midstream, just as governments have done so many times in the past." And if that referendum failed, if the majority defeated the treaty process, then we'd be staring chaos right in the face.
Every member of this Legislature has to understand that too many aboriginal people already believe the treaty process is moving too slowly. They have been calling on their leadership to walk away from the bargaining table and march into the courtrooms -- or worse, do acts of civil disobedience.
Miles Richardson, the head of the B.C. Treaty Commission has said: "A referendum on a change of mandate would destroy the treaty process in British Columbia and throw us back to the days of confrontation in the courts and on the land and all of the costs that foists upon us."
After Delgamuukw, let no one think that the courts will give us a better deal than negotiations. They have made that very clear. They have also made clear that aboriginal rights exist, and the courts are prepared to enforce them. But they are as yet undefined, and as long as that's true, B.C.'s future is also undefined. We have an opportunity now, for a moment in history, to have a voice -- an accountable, elected, democratic voice -- in shaping that future. For British Columbia, for every community, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, the way forward is through negotiation, not confrontation; through compromise, not through conflict that's inherent in a referendum -- which is why, I might say, the Vancouver Sun, a very strong supporter of the opposition, disagrees with them on this issue and disagrees vehemently. To quote from their editorial of March 16: "The Liberals' plan to hold a referendum on native treaties in B.C. is impractical, divisive and morally repugnant."
[1505]
Strong words, Mr. Speaker, but words my friends opposite should heed, as they should heed these ones from the same editorial: "What the Liberals are proposing is a referendum on basic rights -- something that should never be done." It is absolute nonsense to pretend, as the Leader of the Opposition does, that treaty rights aren't minority rights. Of course they are. They are fundamental to our relationship with B.C.'s first nations. I would ask: why is this, of all issues, the one where he chooses to hold a referendum? Not on his dramatic tax cut, not on freezing the minimum wage, not on raising the annual allowable cut, but on treaties. Surely this, of all issues, is one where we can show leadership. Surely this, of all issues, is one where courage and vision can prevail.
We've made progress in so many ways in the past decade. When I think of that society we want to see where every member and every culture is treated with dignity and respect, I know today that we are closer than ever to that society. We've gone a long way to ending discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Children can now learn heritage languages like Punjabi, Cantonese and Mandarin in our classrooms. We're increasing funding to preserve the languages of B.C.'s first people and will strengthen the legislative protection for these languages.
The new equal opportunity secretariat is making members of visible minority communities aware of jobs in government. And we have made particular progress towards real equality for B.C.'s majority: women. That includes groundbreaking programs to prevent violence against women; access to reproductive health services, including abortion; and a commitment to pay equity.
We are closer to that society I spoke of, but we're not there yet, hon. Speaker. So long as land claims remain unresolved, the legacy of injustice remains intact in our aboriginal communities. That injustice is what I'm addressing in this motion.
I quote the Globe and Mail: "One year is a long time if you've been negotiating for five or seven years, and then you have to slow down for a referendum." Archie Little, a negotiator with Nuu-chah-nulth, said it well earlier this month when he told the Globe and Mail: "We want to get on with our lives."
Yes, I believe he's right. Let's allow B.C.'s aboriginal communities to get on with their lives in British Columbia. Let's allow our resource communities to get on with their lives. Let's welcome British Columbia's first nations, the original inhabitants of this great province, into the body politic as fully participating, equal and self-determining members of British Columbia. Let's allow the power provision for this province to give us all the courage to get on with the business of making that kind of vision a reality in British Columbia.
[1510]
M. de Jong: Democracy. Equality. Justice. Those are strong words -- strong words spoken, I think, again today with passion as we have heard them spoken in this place around this issue in the past.
[ Page 17408 ]
I have, in the five years that I have occupied the role of opposition critic, often asked myself as I have learned -- and I have learned a great deal about first nations -- if those words perhaps mean different things to aboriginal people than they do to non-aboriginal people. As the Premier has said, the history is quite different -- a history of injustice and inequality perpetrated against aboriginal peoples.
I have had the opportunity to visit in communities and gain, I think, a better understanding -- not a complete understanding, but a better understanding of some of the things that the Premier has alluded to: those challenges, those terrible injustices and how that has had an impact on the lives of aboriginal peoples that extends beyond any single generation.
I think the challenge that all of us face is understanding the need to address those issues, to address that reality in a way that is fair but also respects the role we have in involving the people we purport to represent here in this chamber.
I listened to the Premier's words very carefully. I was, in particular, listening to his description and his argument around what we are proposing to add to this process of treaty-making, his argument and explanation for how that, in the words of his motion, affects minority rights. I didn't hear the argument. I heard passion about an issue that I think the Premier and his colleagues believe in, as I think we all do in this House. But I didn't hear the argument about how consulting with British Columbians and asking their views and their ideas about the treaty-making process represents an assault on minority rights.
I will talk about what it is that we see as the role for British Columbians in this exercise. But absent that argument and dealing with the specific wording of the motion in front of us and recognizing that this may come as a great disappointment to the Premier, I am prepared to support the motion. Nothing could be further from the truth than to suggest that what we are proposing is an assault on those rights that are, as the Premier himself admits, constitutionally protected in this country.
[1515]
We have asked ourselves and discussed how it is that we can draw British Columbians into this process. The Premier says that there has been consultation. There has been some, I suppose. But if he has travelled to the same communities as I have, he will know that there is a growing feeling of disconnect in the communities where these treaties
We have a different idea than the government about how we can get there, about how we can get there more quickly, about how we can energize this process. But the Premier, of course, and his colleagues, when it comes to this issue, have all of the answers. And you dare not say one thing different or challenge one assumption, because if you dare to do that -- and it has been a distasteful element of this debate from the outset -- you are a racist, you are anti-aboriginal people. You can't have a discussion about the process that you think might help realize the result we're all looking for without being accused of being anti-Indian.
We make no apology for the fact that if we are given the opportunity to form government, we will ask an all-party committee to sit down and draft some questions around the issues that we think need to be addressed, the issues that we think our negotiators need to have instructions on -- instructions that they have received through a public process, not some hidden process. We think that will provide them with the credibility, the legitimacy that they will need to move forward more efficiently, more quickly. Surely members on all sides of the House have, in conversations with first nations leadership and the people they represent, gained an appreciation for the frustration that they feel around the delays in this process.
How many treaties has the Treaty Commission process generated to this point? There are bands that the minister of the day confirmed have incurred more in the way of negotiation-related debt than they can hope to achieve in a final settlement. That's illogical. Surely we need to look at finding a way to improve that process. The government says: "You can't do that." The Premier says: "That's out of the question." Well, we disagree.
We disagree with the criticism that says, in asking those questions of British Columbians, that we are putting issues before them that are too complicated. How many times have I heard that? How many ministers have I heard this response from: "You can't do that. You can't involve British Columbians in considering the principles that should be enshrined in treaties. It's too complicated"?
An Hon. Member: Rubbish.
M. de Jong: I agree. It is rubbish. I think British Columbians are eminently qualified and able to turn their minds to this issue. I think British Columbians are fair people; I think they are just people. And I think, when asked to address these issues in a thoughtful, meaningful way, that's what they'll do, and we're going to give them an opportunity to do just that.
[1520]
So when members opposite stand up and take great umbrage, I say to them
So I don't know that there is a great deal more that needs to be said. We are, in examining the wording of the motion before us, happy to support it. And my words to the Premier are: "Beware of your own sanctimony."
It's a terrible thing when a government has come to a point where all it can do is try to divide. It is a terrible thing, and that's what this government is trying to do. It won't work. It won't work. We're going to support this motion, and if British Columbians give us an opportunity to form government in the days ahead, we are going to involve them in solving a matter that has gone unresolved for too long: aboriginal and non-aboriginal rights. We're going to bring them together and find a solution to this matter.
A. Petter: I listened intently to the comments of the member opposite. I think the only thing that should be more disturbing to British Columbians than the position of the opposition party in favour of referenda with respect to defi-
[ Page 17409 ]
ning their policy for treaty mandates is their failure to acknowledge that by engaging in such referenda, they would in fact be making policy that affects minority rights and first nation rights. The fact that they fail to see that is more disturbing to me -- and I think to members of this House it should be more disturbing -- than the proposal itself.
The fact of the matter is that we have a system of treaty negotiation in this province and in this country, and the members opposite should be, if they are not, well aware that the rights that first nations enjoy under those treaties come about through a process of negotiation and that negotiation results in treaties that protect certain rights that are acknowledged and protected, as well, in section 35 of the constitution. So the position that governments take to the negotiating table and the policies they bring do indeed influence the outcome of those negotiations and those treaties, and that in turn defines the rights that first nations enjoy under those treaties.
As I read this resolution, it's very clear. It says, "Be it resolved that this House is opposed to the provincial government using referenda to determine policy on issues affecting minority rights" -- not necessarily degrading those rights but affecting them, although if the members opposite are prepared to concede that their policies are ones that would degrade those rights, then that would be fine as well. It certainly fits within the term "affecting" -- such as first nations treaty rights.
Now, as I understand the position of the members opposite, it is that they are committed to engage in a referendum that will help to determine the policy and principles that they will take to the negotiating table as part of provincial mandates. Certainly that was the policy they enunciated most recently. There are so many, it's hard to keep up with them.
[1525]
Does that policy affect first nation treaty rights? Clearly it does. Does that policy mean that those rights will be affected? Absolutely. One doesn't negotiate to no effect. The outcomes of negotiations are treaties. Those treaties help to define either through crystallization or through creation rights, and those rights are therefore affected by the negotiating mandates. One has only to look at the Liberal Party's own fact sheet on this, in which the Leader of the Opposition is quoted as saying: "In the final analysis, however, we believe that all British Columbians should have a say on the principles they wish to see reflected in treaties." Well, those principles once reflected in treaties define rights. And this resolution says that we should not have referenda with respect to matters that define rights for minorities such as first nations.
I understand that the Leader of the Opposition and the members opposite would prefer to find solace in the arguments of Philadelphia lawyers than they would in addressing the principle of this resolution. But if they do not understand what is obvious and clear -- that their proposal affects rights, as the Vancouver Sun acknowledges
Lest there be no mistake about this resolution, I wish to propose an amendment to make absolutely clear what they, and apparently they alone -- perhaps with the exception of one columnist -- fail to understand: that is, that their proposal to go to people in a majoritarian referendum to determine mandates that will affect their position at the bargaining table, which will affect the outcomes of treaties that they themselves negotiate, will indeed affect minority rights. If they don't understand that, shame on them.
Let's be clear that this resolution should not be twisted by Philadelphia lawyers into escaping that conclusion. To do that, I therefore wish to table and move the following amendment:
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members.
A. Petter: "Be it resolved that the motion 'Be it resolved that this House is opposed to the provincial government using referenda to determine policy
Interjections.
The Speaker: Excuse me, minister. Could I hear the amendment, please, members.
A. Petter: The amendment is: "Be it resolved that the motion, 'Be it resolved that this House is opposed to the provincial government using referenda to determine policy on issues affecting minority rights such as First Nations' treaty rights' be amended by substituting a comma for the period after the words 'treaty rights' and adding the following: 'including policy or guiding principles for treaty negotiation mandates.' "
Members opposite, you can run, but you cannot hide from the inescapable facts and consequences of your position. It's time to change your mind yet again. If you're going to change your mind on everything else, at least change your mind on an issue that affects minority rights and first nations rights that have been fought for, for generations, and are now coming at long last to a satisfactory conclusion. Do not use tricky legal arguments to try to escape the conclusion. Change your mind yet again on something where changing your mind can make a difference.
On the amendment.
J. Weisgerber: It's interesting that this government that's in so much trouble can't even get a one-sentence motion right. The Premier introduces it, and after one speaker they're obliged to get up and table an amendment -- to a one-sentence motion.
I wish in my heart that I could believe that the Premier was half as sincere as he would have us believe. Sadly, what I see is a government desperate for another wedge issue -- not concerned about rights, not concerned about resolving land claims, but indeed desperate for re-election.
[1530]
The lack of faith by the members across the other side in the people of British Columbia is astounding. It's disturbing. What these 30-odd people would have us believe is that they alone have the wisdom to see the right path, that they alone have the integrity to make the tough decisions. I happen to believe that the people of British Columbia are far more generous than that. They are far larger in their hearts than this government would possibly give them credit for.
[ Page 17410 ]
I was saddened to hear the Premier making reference to atrocities that, sadly, had nothing at all to do with referenda, but rather had to do with the abuse of power by governments. The Nazis didn't go to referenda. All of the other atrocities that the Premier talks about weren't the result of some referendum or some public decision. They were decisions by people who were mad with power, who abused minority rights.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, if we want to talk about first nations, let's cast our minds back. For 125 years the first people were turned away from the doors of this Legislature by Liberal governments, by Socred governments, by Conservative governments and, to your great shame, by NDP governments. So don't talk to me about what governments can do and what governments don't do, because indeed it was 1972 to 1975
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members. Member, could you take your seat, please. Just take your seat for a moment, please, member. Excuse me. Take your seat for a moment.
I don't like to interrupt the member, but we've had two speakers that were listened to in relative silence. I would ask that this member be given the same courtesy.
J. Weisgerber: If we want to resolve land claims -- and we should -- then we should find a way that works. In the ten years since this government was elected, there has been one treaty resolved, and that treaty doesn't fall under the Treaty Commission process. Negotiations were started on that treaty nearly 25 years ago and joined by the province nearly 12 years ago.
In that period of time the Sechelts have walked away from an agreement. In that time this government hasn't been able to conclude one single treaty that it started negotiations on. And to sit over there and say, "Our way is the best way; there can't be a better way of resolving treaties," is nonsense. The system's not working. Treaties aren't being concluded, and there needs to be a better way of resolving things.
An Hon. Member: Not by referendum, though.
J. Weisgerber: The members talk about a referendum. I think perhaps it's a carryover from their involvement in the Charlottetown accord, where they lined up with governments in Ottawa and across this country provincially, where they lined up with the elite, where they lined up with money to try and deprive ordinary Canadians of their rights. They got their backsides kicked, and they haven't gotten over it yet.
Mr. Speaker, these people who were opposed to the Charlottetown accord have decided that referendums are a bad thing, that you can't do good work by referendums. So I think this motion is entirely a political exercise, and I think that it's unfortunate. I think it's unfortunate that people have come into this House, because I believe they expected to hear better. And I believe that if you were sincere, Mr. Premier, about resolving land claims, you would have some success to demonstrate in this House. And you don't. You don't have any successes.
Your process over the last ten years has fallen short. I believe there's a need for a new way of resolving claims; I believe there's a need to be able to move more quickly. And I'm going to look at whatever proposals are put forward that can make that process work more effectively.
[1535]
The Speaker: The hon. member for Richmond-Steveston on the amendment.
G. Plant: You know, this Legislature is a chamber for all of us as members. It doesn't actually belong to the government. It belongs to the people of British Columbia who elect their members. I can think of no more poignant abuse by a government than to have its Premier come into the Legislature and make a motion calling on the provincial government to do something.
Who is the provincial government? It's these people here. It's the man who spoke to the motion. That's not his job. His job is to pass legislation; his job is to introduce legislation. His job, with the assistance of others, is to bring in the budget. His job is not to come in and introduce motions calling on -- what? -- the provincial government. Well, let me ask this question for a moment: who here in this chamber represents the government? It certainly wouldn't be the Premier standing up calling on the Premier, as the head of the government, to do something. That would be kind of a waste of the time of this Legislature. Or maybe it would be just a purely political stunt, gesture politics taken to the highest extreme possible.
You know, every once in a while I wake up in the morning and ask myself the question: is this the most incompetent, most egregiously mismanaged government in the history of British Columbia? And I hold just the reservoir of doubt for a moment: maybe it isn't. But do you know what just happened? The Premier of the government of British Columbia put a motion on the order paper. He stood up and he spoke to it, and within a nanosecond another member of his caucus stood up and had to fix the mistake in his motion. What a disgrace -- within a nanosecond of having sat down. This government has so little confidence in its own motions that it stands up and says: "Well, I guess maybe we didn't express ourselves very clearly. We'll have to try it a different way. Maybe we'll introduce an amendment which is completely inconsistent with the rest of the motion. Maybe we can do that. Maybe we can introduce an amendment."
After nine years these guys
If I were sitting in a reserve community right now talking to the chiefs of British Columbia, I don't know what I would say if they said to me: "What just happened?" One moment the Premier stands up and makes this speech, and the next minute the former Attorney General -- former Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, former minister of this, former minister of that -- stands up and says: "Well, I guess the Premier's words weren't quite good enough to say what I think they should mean."
[ Page 17411 ]
[1540]
All right, let me take the amendment on its face. Let me assume for a moment, if I may, that everything the Premier said in his motion is completely useless, completely wrongheaded, and that what we're here to debate are the new words of the former Attorney General, the member for Saanich South. All right; I'll think about those words. Those words say that it would be wrong for the government to use the vehicle of referendum to ascertain from the people of British Columbia, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, some input into the guiding principles that should affect the treaty mandates of the government of British Columbia.
I oppose that. I oppose that vision of democracy, because I believe that there is a use for the referendum process in this province. Actually, some of my favourite words on the idea of referendum were spoken by the Premier in this House when he introduced the Recall and Initiative Act. He stood up and talked about how great the idea of initiative was. And you know what? Initiative is a process that permits referenda. It wasn't my bill. I wasn't here then. It was your bill; you drafted it. And guess what. You could have a referendum under the Initiative Act created by this government on issues of minority rights. That smells like hypocrisy to me. It smells like something the Premier thought was a good idea seven or eight years ago and that he doesn't think is a good idea today.
An Hon. Member: It's closer to an election today.
G. Plant: Oh, a little closer to election time. Amazing how the prospect of an election causes the mind to focus.
Interjections.
G. Plant: The member for North Coast will have ample opportunity to speak.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members. Will the member for North Coast come to order, please. The member for Richmond-Steveston has the floor.
G. Plant: Let's be clear. Since we have, metaphorically speaking, tossed the Premier's motion into the scrap heap -- scrapbook? -- of history
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Aboriginal Affairs on the amendment.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: That's what we wanted to hear -- that they're opposed to settling land claims in this province. As the member for North Coast said, when they're near the election, they shelve all their principles and their policies and change them on the spot. This side of the House has introduced
Interjections.
The Speaker: Minister, could you take your seat for a minute, please. Members. Would the Opposition House Leader come to order, please. The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs has the floor.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: How long did it take them to put aside their principle of not speaking on matters of consequence in this House? Not very long. All we have to do is raise a matter that's important to this side of the House, and they're opposed to it.
I want to address some of the points that have been made by the member for Peace River North. He talked about a lack of progress on treaties. Nothing could be further from the truth. When that member was a minister, that government -- the Socred government -- had 20 years, and not one treaty did they bring in. This government has brought in the Nisga'a treaty, and yes, it took a while. It took six or seven years -- yes. They had been negotiating for a long time, but we had progress.
Now we have progress with three agreements-in-principle. He's wrong that they've walked from those agreements-in-principle; the Sechelt are still there. But British Columbians want us to move forward, not backwards, as the opposition wants it. They want to stop the process. They want the opposition to the process to get solace in the fact that we're not making progress. It's absolutely necessary that as a matter of good faith, we continue to move forward.
[1545]
You know what, hon. Speaker? British Columbians know that a referendum would be disruptive, that we would go back to the days of chaos and road blockades and litigation that would upset the progress that we're making at the treaty tables. I want to say why I am standing here and why I feel so deeply about this. When we became government, when I ran for this Legislature, we had 40 percent of the area in the Cariboo set aside because of log-arounds and land use disputes. You know what? We had to resolve those, and we've covered 80 percent of the province with land use decisions. Did we have a referendum on any of them? No. Do we need one? No. The people came around to involve themselves and to find the solutions that are locally based.
And you would, by having one referendum as you said you would, for all time
-- one referendum
Our solution is progressive involvement of people at every stage of the treaty negotiation process -- at every stage. And you know you can't put in a referendum a simple question that will resolve the issue, or in the years that they've been talking about it, the opposition would have come up with a simple question or ten questions.
In fact, the principles have been discussed widely. British Columbians have had a chance to see the principles in the Nisga'a treaty, and they've received the treaty at home. We've published the principles that go into treaties time and time again. And we remind people at every treaty table, when at the treaty table we move to the next stage. We cannot have a referendum on the mandate every time we change it. Let's not be silly. Our negotiators don't have final mandates. They are given negotiating mandates to come and get the best deal they
[ Page 17412 ]
can. Sometimes you add a little bit to the mandate, change it a little bit. You can't stop and have a referendum every time you do that. That's not the process of negotiation.
Interjection.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The naïve member opposite suggests that we publish the mandate. Well, then, there's no point in negotiating, if you publish the mandate. When you back off your mandate, then, because you can't get a deal, would you go to referendum again? No, it's impractical.
The whole point is that when the people want to be involved, they can be involved -- hundred and hundreds of public meetings. You know what? In the Nisga'a treaty there is no question that the chamber of commerce and the local government -- municipal councils, regional districts -- came onside, and they spoke for the local people. We didn't ask the people in Vancouver about the Nisga'a agreement in its specifics and how it affects that area, and we're not going to ask the people in Quebec and Ontario what they think, because they're paying. And some members opposite think those that pay should have a say. I don't think the people in Quebec or Ontario should have a say. And I don't think the people in Vancouver need to be involved in all the details of a far north treaty -- no. But on a treaty that affects them in the lower mainland, yes.
The treaty advisory committee has been working for years. And you know what they say? "No referendum." The elected people who are there at the table day in, day out discussing the details about how it affects them say no to a referendum. I say that we listen to the people of the treaty advisory committee from the lower mainland.
The opposite side has talked about certainty and finality and equality. Yes, everybody would vote for that, and that's probably the kind of referendum they'd put there, because everybody votes for that. I say to you: tell us which principles that we've put there on our web site, that we use in negotiations, that you don't agree with. Which ones? That we're not going to expropriate private property -- do you disagree with that? Do you think the people are going to disagree with that? No, they all agree. That the environmental laws should be met or beaten by the aboriginal treaties, that the standards have to be met or exceeded? No, I don't think people are going to vote against that. So just what principles are out there? Engage in the debate.
As other members have said, as we get closer to the election, they don't want to be pinned down on what they really want. But what's important to me is the attitude. If you ask people, "Why would you want to have a say in a referendum?" it's probably because they want to say no. And those that would say no would be pitted against the first nations and other people in the communities who support them.
[1550]
I had that conversation in the airport with somebody who was really angry. He wanted a referendum so he could say no -- say no to equality and certainty and ability to move forward on behalf of all British Columbians.
What principles would they put to a referendum that would guide our negotiators? I don't think they can answer that. Our way, on this side of the House, has shown progress. We've got some 70 interim measures that give more certainty for non-aboriginal people and for aboriginal people and give people some hope that there is progress, that we can work out some of the things step by step as we move towards agreements.
We've got 33 tables that are in the agreement-in-principle stages. Yes, and many first nations aren't ready. They don't feel that they have the capacity to go full out. Indeed, it's a costly process. We don't have enough negotiators to simultaneously negotiate all the details of all agreements-in-principle across the province. Thirty-three tables are difficult. But we will pick up momentum, and we are picking up momentum. I think the right thing to do is to continue to show the people that we have made progress and that we will continue to make progress. They should take heart that negotiation works.
The other side wants to stop the process, pretend that they can look at every agreement-in-principle and break faith. In fact, you know, the Liberals' legal adviser on the other side has said that agreements-in-principle are good faith agreements and that it would be bad faith to look at those again. Hon. Speaker, this side of the House will honour agreements-in-principle, and we will move them towards final agreements.
Yes, it would be nice, but I think we have to listen to the leadership in the province, the people who, when they consider whether we should negotiate and provide an environment of reconciliation, say yes. And that's pulling people in British Columbia together to give every region a chance to be involved and support a treaty that's specific to their region and their local community. When you get deep divisions in communities, what do you do? You show leadership in bringing people together.
We had local government in Nanaimo that was unhappy, that didn't feel that we were addressing the issues associated with the treaty that might affect them: property, zoning, taxation, and so on. So what did we do? We said that we will progressively involve them and they will be at the table when matters affect local government. We adapted the process. We set up a treaty-related measure in our first urban treaty to respond to the local concerns. You can't address those concerns in a referendum. You don't know what the local people are going to raise. The climate and the attitude that you take to the treaty table are all-important. It's the reactionary, negative approach we hear from the other side that is going to bog down treaties and create chaos in this province.
[D. Streifel in the chair.]
If you go to the table as a party to the negotiations and say that we want to make progress together
I submit that that is what we achieved in Nisga'a, and we achieved that without a referendum. We achieved that by being able to adjust our mandate, change our mandate, change the local aspects of a treaty. This side honours local involvement, open doors and many opportunities to be involved in the treaty process through all the stages.
[ Page 17413 ]
Hon. Speaker, I vote in favour of this amendment.
[1555]
D. Miller: I truly and honestly believe that proposing a referendum on minority rights, in this case aboriginal rights and treaties, is an act of moral cowardice. I'm dismayed that having taken this position and having tried to weasel around what it means for some time now, the Leader of the Opposition doesn't have the courage to stand in this House and explain his position. It is an act of moral cowardice. I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not interested in splitting hairs, like the member for Russell and DuMoulin -- oh, sorry, Richmond-Steveston -- who, I believe, is the real architect of the Liberal policy. It was written many years ago in Russell and DuMoulin's office. That member was part of it, and he has been unwavering ever since.
I want to examine two issues. I want, first of all before I proceed, to comment on the remarks of the member for Peace River South, and I want to say that I have respect for that member. We were elected at the same time, in 1986. And while we have always been on opposite sides of the House, I've always appreciated what I think is the character of the member. And I want to say that he's wrong in his remarks. He ought to know better. It's revisionist history at its worst.
The facts are these. When Dave Barrett was the Premier between 1972 and 1975, the federal government's position was that they would not negotiate land claims. They did not accept that they had a responsibility to do that. And as a provincial government our position was that we couldn't carry the ball. It was primarily federal, and unless the federal government came in, we could not take our place at the table.
We tried a variety of things to show good faith in those days, like a commission to redress the issues in the McKenna-McBride commission, which took reserve land away from aboriginal people. But that was what prohibited the administration, in those years, from joining treaty talks -- because there were no treaty talks.
And by the way, when the federal government finally changed their position, did Pierre Trudeau or whoever the leader was at the time say: "We have to have a referendum to change our position"? No. They took an act of courage and leadership and said: "This is our position."
The member for Peace River South ought to remember, because he was the first minister of aboriginal affairs that officially went to aboriginal people and said: "We're prepared to join treaties in this province." The Premier of the day was Bill Vander Zalm. Regardless of what you might say about Bill Vander Zalm, did he require referenda to make decisions on issues? No, he didn't. He had the courage of his convictions. Even when he proved to be wrong, he had the courage of his convictions. And that's when B.C., by the way, joined the treaty process -- when that member for Peace River South was the minister responsible for aboriginal affairs.
Did Mike Harcourt require a referendum to determine that our party's position was that we would join those negotiations, that we would honourably try, along with Canada and first nations, to reach land claim agreements? No, he didn't. He stated, and proudly stated, his position that British Columbia ought to be there and that if he led a government -- this was while we were in opposition -- we would join those treaty negotiations. We didn't need the pandering that referenda, I think, suggest.
And finally, we have an opposition leader who, for whatever reason, has chosen the worst -- the very worst -- road in terms of trying to resolve what I think and have long believed to be the most significant and major issue in this province.
The government of Mike Harcourt, exercising the courage of its convictions, proceeded to negotiate with Canada and the Nisga'a with the objective of reaching a treaty -- the first modern land claim treaty in this province. The work required to do that was enormous. But the work required on the part of the Nisga'a is beyond belief.
[1600]
We talk about negotiations as though, and we assume that, negotiations are with equal parties, that we're all equal in these sets of negotiations, we all have the same advantages, we all have the same resources, and we all have the same ability. Maybe that's the thinking of Russell and DuMoulin as they sit in their offices in downtown Vancouver. Travel to Canyon City, travel to Greenville, travel to Kincolith, travel to Aiyansh, and ask yourself: how did these people summon the will and the courage and the conviction? How did they do it? They didn't have our advantages. How did they do that consistently year after year and watch leaders die pursuing that goal? How did they get there? Members opposite should hang their heads in shame.
If you think this is just some cute little device about elections
Ask yourself: how did the Nisga'a do it, without the kind of privilege that we've had in our society through all those years, being focused, never losing sight of that goal? And when we brought that treaty into this House, the proudest day in the history of this parliament, what did we get from the opposition? They voted against it. Boy, that's leadership. And they want to be the government of this province. That's leadership. They voted against it.
Not content with just voting against it, they launched a civil suit. They challenged it in court. It went to the B.C. Supreme Court, and they lost. Not content with that, they launched an appeal in the Court of Appeal, which I think has yet to be heard. What a despicable act.
Not content with that, they've now said
My friends, you think you can coast to power? You think you can coast to power by saying nothing and you're going to have an easy road afterwards? You watch it. You watch it, if you form the government, my friends. You are in for the sorriest surprise you've ever had in your lives. If, if, if
Not content with simply challenging it, they now launch a court appeal. Then we have the absolutely bizarre statement from the Leader of the Opposition, who, by the way, doesn't have the courage to take part in this debate
[ Page 17414 ]
going to do on the hustings -- run and hide? Is he going to have a big shield around him? Moral cowardice. Moral cowardice.
They say that if they form the government, they're going to take their private action and they're going to convert it to a government action. And we will have the sorry, sorry spectacle
Now we're going to have a referendum. First of all they said: "We're going to have a single question." And then I think the member for Matsqui even surprised his leader. He said it might be a dozen questions. They don't really know, but they are not abandoning and they will never abandon this idea of a referendum on these minority rights.
[1605]
Then the member for Matsqui said, "Oh but by the way, it'll take us a year to put this together. By the way," he said: "we're going to continue to negotiate while we do that." Tell me what's wrong with this. We need a referendum to establish the principles that'll guide negotiations, but in the meantime we'll continue to negotiate.
And by the way, do they think first nations people are absolutely and utterly stupid? Do they think they have no sense of their position? You've insulted people so much, and you laugh and you slide it off, and you put up your fancy guys here to weasel out of it -- through you, hon. Speaker -- and not one of you has got the courage to stand up and join this debate. You ought to be ashamed of yourselves.
Now, put yourself in the first nations shoes. Okay, let's assume that you're the lead negotiator of a first nation, and you've been negotiating, and there's a change in government. And that government's policy is: "We're going to have a referendum. It'll take a year or so. But by the way, we want to sit down at the table and negotiate."
What answer would you give? Has not one of you got the courage to give an answer over there? What answer would you give if you were faced with those circumstances? Tell me. Tell the people of British Columbia. One of you stand in this chamber and tell the people what position you would take if you were put in that position. Is not one of you capable of standing?
What about the member for Kamloops-North Thompson? He's always got a lot to say. Kamloops-North Thompson has always got a lot to say. Most of what he says is from his chair. Why is he so silent today? Why doesn't he stand in this chamber and answer that question? You know what the answer is: if you were an aboriginal leader, you'd take a hike -- take a hike, my friends. We're going back to the old-fashioned methods. We're going to get your attention.
This is an issue that ought to transcend politics -- and God knows, politics in this province can be pretty wacky, pretty bizarre. But this is an issue that ought to transcend politics, especially the cheap, petty politics I see being played over there.
I was at home in Prince Rupert with some friends of mine when we watched the television coverage of the three members of the Liberal caucus: the leader of the Liberal opposition; the member for, as I say, Russell and DuMoulin; and the class clown from Matsqui, who seems to love to weasel around. I was shocked by what I saw. But the comments of the people I was with still resonate with me. Some of them were aboriginal and some weren't. That's the mixture of friends I have at home. A very good friend of mine, maybe not trying to be over the top, quipped: "Gee, I wonder if Lincoln would have
Does anybody over there understand the meaning of moral courage, the meaning of taking a position, right or wrong, without fear or favour? It's not a question of pandering to voters; it's a question of what your honest conviction really is on these questions. Does anybody over there understand that? Are you so morally bankrupt?
[The Speaker in the chair.]
The Speaker: Through the Chair, please.
D. Miller: Mr. Speaker, this is an issue that I would be almost happy to reconsider. But you can work in other ways. I think this morally bankrupt gang took the bait today, and they got hooked. They've been exposed for what they really, really are.
[1610]
Hon. C. McGregor: There are days when you feel so proud to stand up and represent your community in the House. Today is one of the days that I am so proud to be following my colleagues from North Coast, from Cariboo South. They have spoken so eloquently to their knowledge of this issue from the perspective of someone who works with aboriginal people in their own community day after day and from a minister who is responsible, in fact, for working on aboriginal issues as a representative in this government.
I feel so much pride to be able to stand together with them today and have my perspective heard on this important question of making sure that aboriginal people enjoy the same rights as every other British Columbian and that we turn back from this divisive strategy that the members opposite continue to promote, which would divide British Columbians and pit aboriginal against non-aboriginal.
The whole issue of referenda on minority rights is, in principle, wrong. I can't help but reflect on the remarks that the Premier has made since his time of becoming leader, where he talks about our commitment to British Columbians in the areas of social justice, fairness and moving everyone forward. There is so much work we still need to do in working together in partnering with aboriginal people to make sure aboriginal people move forward with us.
I was a member of the Aboriginal Affairs select standing committee in 1997, and it was chaired by my colleague to my left. I was honoured to have the opportunity to serve British Columbians in that way. But I think most importantly, I learned a great deal about aboriginal issues and the situation that many aboriginal people find themselves in, in communities around the province. The member for Matsqui was on that committee as well, so it disturbed me in fact when I heard him make reference to what he viewed as our desire to stop conversation and consultation with British Columbians on this
[ Page 17415 ]
very important question -- that somehow our efforts here today in some way turned back the view that British Columbians needed to be involved and consulted and to discuss the issues related to aboriginal issues, treaty negotiations and all of us moving forward.
Nothing could be further from the truth. We on this side of the House have made considerable effort since 1991 -- not that I've been party to all of those meetings and opportunities -- to involve British Columbians in debate and discussion around this important question. Today's debate is not about if it is appropriate for British Columbians to be involved in this discussion. Of course that's appropriate, and if there are ways in which we can improve those mechanisms by which we talk to one another on these questions, absolutely we should do that. If the members opposite were taking that view that we first need to turn to reports as we saw in the Aboriginal Affairs select standing committee or other documents that talk to the need of communities to be more actively involved in making decisions around principles, in making sure that they are involved in treaty advisory processes, then I would be in total agreement with their view. That is indeed what we on this side of the House are attempting to do in our approach to aboriginal negotiations.
I learned a great deal about the sad British Columbia history as it relates to the treatment of aboriginal people. I can't tell you the great shame I've felt in listening to the stories that we heard in the Nass and other parts of the province about how we have gone out of our way, as British Columbians and as Canadians, to deny rights to aboriginal people. And to see the conditions under which some aboriginal people live in our province also makes me feel great shame. So making efforts, as we have been working together with aboriginal communities to improve living situations and the health and education of aboriginal people, are very important goals and priorities that we should continue to make progress on.
[1615]
I would like to speak to the need for reconciliation as well, because it isn't just about the current situation that we find ourselves in or aboriginal communities find themselves in, in the current context. But there needs to be an acknowledgment. In fact, as we recommended in the standing committee report, there needs to be an apology to aboriginal people for the great shame and the behaviour we had here in British Columbia and across Canada in denying them things like the right to vote and continuing to deny the opportunity for economic development and activity as a result of the Indian Act and not moving forward with treaty negotiations.
My colleague from the Cariboo has spoken to the issue of making progress on aboriginal land claims, and I would agree. We have made progress. And the passage of the Nisga'a treaty in this House was a great moment for those of us on this side of the House who believed it to be -- and continue to believe it to be -- a step moving us forward. We have in fact resolved a number of AIPs in recent weeks, and it has been very, very disturbing to hear the members on the other side of the House talk about turning the clock back, taking away those agreements, reviewing them and denying the aboriginal peoples, who have engaged in legitimate, fair negotiations with this government in moving towards a treaty and reconciliation. To have that turned back and denied is, quite frankly, some of the most shameful positions we've heard from the members opposite.
The members opposite have tried to suggest that British Columbians need a new tool, or a new opportunity to be able to be involved in consultation around treaty negotiations, and a policy framework -- or principles, if you will -- of negotiation. So I want to talk for a moment or two about who does support moving forward on treaty negotiations, because in my community everyone, almost without fail, wants to move forward. Ordinary Kamloops residents will phone me up, and we'll be talking about questions related to aboriginal issues, because it is a very important topic in our community at the present time. We've had some recent conflict in our region, particularly around an area of the province called Sun Peaks, a development where there is a ski hill on Crown land. There has been considerable concern with some of the issues that were raised by aboriginal people and those that were concerned with economic activity in the region and how, without resolving these matters between ourselves, we would not be able to continue to make progress and move forward, and that our region would lose economically.
[1620]
This was a very fundamental issue, and so I received many calls from local residents. What they said to me is that they understood that resolution of these questions was important from a certainty perspective, that they might not always agree with the positions they heard expressed by the leaders in the aboriginal community around rights and title and particular areas where claims were being placed. But they did completely understand that a referendum would only move us backwards and that it would create the kind of conflict and confrontation that we have worked so hard to try and end in our region of the province.
Who else in our community, besides ordinary people who have come to me and talked to me about it, supports
And who is involved in that? Well, the member opposite, in fact. The member for Kamloops-North Thompson is involved in that process. And I challenge him today to stand up and tell how that process works. In fact, we do bring together both non-aboriginal and aboriginal governments, together with federal and provincial representatives, and we have worked together to achieve a benefit that flows broadly not just to non-aboriginal people in our community but in partnership with aboriginal people who live in our region.
I think it's fair to say that every educational institution, and in particular our school board, works very hard with aboriginal communities to address their issues as they relate to students being able to receive the education they deserve. Statistically, we know there is a lag, and the aboriginal students haven't had the same access and opportunity to move forward in the educational realm as others have.
So we have taken a partnership approach, and in our community that works. To take it then to a referendum, as the members opposite would do, would only destroy that trust and destroy the bridges that have been built between levels of
[ Page 17416 ]
government, local government, provincial government and community members. It will take us back to the time when there was much more conflict and confrontation in our region of the province. What the members opposite are suggesting is not only unnecessary, it's absolutely unjust. It destroys relationships, and it will create uncertainty and conflict and continue to pit aboriginal and non-aboriginal people against one another.
I would like to speak for a moment or two to the principles for treaty negotiation. I think this is an important matter, because the members opposite have suggested in some way that we haven't had principles, I guess, in guiding our negotiations or that in fact somehow those principles were remiss. They left out important issues that British Columbians hadn't had the chance to consider or to be consulted on prior to moving forward with a treaty negotiation mandate.
So let's talk specifically to what these principles are, the first of which has been referenced by several of my colleagues in the House today. That's the principle of private property, that it's not for sale. Private property will be respected in negotiations with aboriginal people. That is widely supported. In fact, in 1996, when I ran as a candidate for the NDP in Kamloops, this was a very big issue. The entire campaign was largely focused on aboriginal issues. This was a principle that non-aboriginal people said was extremely important to them because it spoke to the question of certainty. Our government made very clear, and the principles of treaty negotiation that have been on our government's web site since they were developed back in 1991 have made clear, that that right will be respected. Private property owners' rights will be respected. Is that a principle that we should take in treaty negotiations? Absolutely it is. It has been widely accepted by British Columbians as an appropriate principle to be applied to the negotiations process.
Let's talk about some of the other issues, because some of them are ones that I am quite familiar with from my previous work in the Ministry of Environment. Access to hunting, fishing and recreational opportunities on the land base -- this was a fundamental issue both in the review we had in the standing committee report and in the representation we heard from the B.C. Wildlife Federation, from recreationalists, from a number of communities and individuals within communities. Access to public lands in order to engage in those recreational opportunities -- fishing and hunting and so on -- was very important to British Columbians. So it's been established as a principle that guides our negotiation.
In fact, I'm not sure that aboriginal people always agree. I'm speaking to these principles, and I know that there are aboriginal groups who would say: "Well, there should be limitations on your access, etc." That's what we do at the negotiating table. We take those views and, with the community and in fact with those advisory processes that have been set in place, define more specifically how those rights will be defined. But the principle remains, and it is a principle that British Columbians support.
[1625]
We heard the Premier talk about the principle of making sure that the Canadian constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms are respected. There should be fair compensation. Again, this is a principle that is very important, particularly to the business and industrial community -- that compensation be awarded fairly in the eventuality that there are infringements on any interest as a result of treaty negotiations. Is that a principle British Columbians support? Absolutely it is. It's been a principle that has guided our work with aboriginal people since we began negotiating.
There should be provincewide standards for resource management and environmental protection. In fact, I recall in great detail the debate in this House on that matter as it relates to the Nisga'a treaty. Are those principles respected? Are the Nisga'a expected to manage the land base in the same way, respecting the environmental values that other British Columbians are expected to do? Absolutely they are. It is a fundamental principle and one that British Columbians support. They have since the treaty process began. Is that a matter that needs to be put to a referendum? I would suggest not. I would suggest that it's a principle that's well established and that people fully support.
Existing tax exemptions for aboriginal people will be phased out. Now, this is a controversial principle. Amongst non-aboriginal people it's one that many people feel strongly about, and it is one we continue to maintain in the treaty negotiations that we have engaged in as a government. Is that a principle that requires a referendum? Absolutely not. I could speak to any person out on the street here in Victoria, in Kamloops, in any part of the province, and ask them: "Do you support that as a principle?" "Absolutely," they would say. In fact, it's guided our work since we began the treaty negotiation process.
What the members opposite are proposing is nothing about principles to guide our actions around treaty negotiations. It isn't about principles at all. It's about taking a position that will cause people to divide on the basis of whether they're aboriginal or non-aboriginal people. I find their behaviour absolutely reprehensible -- absolutely reprehensible.
I want to speak for a moment or two to the issue of consultation with the public, because I heard the member for Peace River North say that we have to find ways that work for treaties, that there has to be a better way to resolve things, that the treaty process is largely stalled, that we haven't got enough AIPs, that we haven't got enough agreements and that there needs to be better consultation with the public. I agree with every piece of what that member said, except you don't achieve that by hosting a referendum. It cannot be done that way. All you will do is set back the progress we've already made, destroy relationships and set up conflict between people -- to say that the only way you can consult with them is to ask them to walk in and fill in a ballot.
My gosh, hon. members, if that's the only way we can do consultation in this province, then we are in deep trouble, because people in British Columbia expect a face-to-face conversation. They expect us to meet with them, to talk with them -- not to say yes or no on a little piece of paper but to hear and listen and respond. That's the process we've set in place around the province as it relates to aboriginal treaties and consultation mechanisms.
[1630]
I do want to speak briefly to the consultation process, because the members opposite have implied
[ Page 17417 ]
I do want to speak, as well, to the framework that's been designed to ensure that local people have had an opportunity to be consulted prior to treaty negotiations conclusions. Our approach has been to make sure that we have third-party advisory committees, that we take a provincial, a regional and a local approach as to how we involve community members in that negotiation. So at a provincial level we have a treaty advisory process. A number of stakeholder interests are involved, and those individuals have the opportunity to meet with government, to meet with negotiators, to take those principles and guide them into a broader framework that makes sure we take forward their views as we negotiate to a conclusion in the treaty process.
We do that, as well, at the regional level. When there is a treaty about to be negotiated in a certain portion of the province, there are actually public notices taken out. Those regional people meet with local members in the community. They sit down and talk with them about how to move forward on any number of issues as they relate to wildlife management, access to Crown land, provincial highways management -- whatever the issues are that are about to be negotiated with those aboriginal peoples.
Then there is a local advisory process, and those individuals have the opportunity to talk at a very local level about the implications for decision-making around treaty negotiations. Those include not just elected folks like
I've met numerous people in my community who have given hours and hours and weeks and months of their lives in order to participate in those processes, to make them meaningful. They then take the information that they've learned out to others in their community to broaden the debate and the discussion around the treaty negotiation that's in place.
So there is a principle of openness and a dialogue between people, as it relates to treaty negotiations. And that is not enhanced in any way by taking a little ballot into a booth and putting an X beside a series of statements in order to determine if people believe that we should move forward and resolve land claims. That doesn't enhance any work that we would do at a community level.
[G. Mann Brewin in the chair.]
As a member of the standing committee, I heard people say that the consultation processes aren't perfect. They need to be better. At the municipal level we heard that, and we did take steps to modify the approach we were taking at both a regional and a local level, to more actively involve local government officials in our negotiations and consultations.
We also heard that ordinary British Columbians, just rank-and-file folks, wanted to have more opportunity to hear about the process and learn more about it. We made a series of recommendations, many of which were given directly to the B.C. Treaty Commission, for new activities that they could engage in to more actively discuss these issues with British Columbians.
Do you know what they said? When they found about the long history in British Columbia -- our lack of commitment to negotiating with aboriginal people, the situation aboriginal people found themselves in, in terms of poverty, in terms of their children's health, in terms of abuse -- many people said: "We didn't know. We really didn't know."
You know what? The schools should do a way, way better job of talking to us about these questions, because we do have an obligation, and we do want to move forward, and we want to resolve these issues.
Even when I've come across, as I do from time to time, individuals in my community who have no interest in the social justice side of this question, of reconciliation and fair treatment of aboriginal people
[1635]
How can we stand here in this House today and believe for a moment that putting an X on a little ballot, next to a few funny little words that have been phrased so carefully as to achieve some outcome
It's difficult sometimes in this House to find an issue that you feel passion about. Sometimes it feels kind of ordinary. You get tired, and you think: what are you doing this for? We all got elected in this House because we had a set of ideals. We stood for something, and we wanted to make the world a better place. Maybe that's a naïve view to have, but I still want to do that. I still want to be an MLA that cares about the community, that wants to make decisions that move people forward.
So today, to be able to debate this resolution and talk about how we do have choices -- that we can create partnerships with aboriginal people, that we can build our communities together -- has made me feel that my time here has been well spent. I am so fearful that if the other side has the opportunity to become government -- and God help us if that happens -- they will set us back so many years in the relationships we've built, in the progress we've made. The efforts we've made together to make communities better for both aboriginal and non-aboriginal people will be lost.
I'll put this question to my community during the election. In fact, I have great confidence that the people of Kamloops will see beyond the smokescreen of the other side, that they will look in their hearts, as the member for North Coast said, and find the place that tells them that reconciliation and moving forward is the right thing to do. I know that they will say to those naysayers on the other side: "I can't put my X beside your name."
B. Goodacre: I want to start by talking about the riding that I represent, Bulkley Valley-Stikine, which goes from Burns Lake on the eastern border of my riding, where about 40 percent of the population are members of about six different bands that are in and about the Burns Lake and the Granisle area. As we go up Highway 16 and Highway 37, you'll find that in most of the communities the aboriginal population ranges anywhere from 5 percent in Houston to as much as 90 percent or more in some of the smaller communities in the far north like Telegraph Creek and Lower Post.
[ Page 17418 ]
The thing I want to focus on is that when you hold a referendum question on either the principles of treaties or on a treaty itself, what you're basically doing is asking for a full public discussion about the relationship between aboriginal people and non-aboriginal people. I want people to reflect on the effect that has on the aboriginal peoples who live in these small communities throughout rural British Columbia. You don't see it in the city, because people in the city don't have large populations of first nations folks living in their neighbourhoods. But we do. And in the time that I've been involved in provincial politics and before that in the town council in Smithers, when we were talking about treaty issues, the relationships between the mainstream society of our area and the first nations folks became front and centre.
[1640]
I can remember when the treaty process first began. I was on town council in Smithers, and we had a meeting in the Hudson Bay Lodge, where about 400 people showed up. Herb George, speaker for the Wet'suwet'en people, got up to speak to this group of people about what the treaty process meant to the Wet'suwet'en nation, and that crowd booed him down, would not allow him to speak. We had a big harangue in that meeting where, fortunately, a large number of people got up one after another and criticized very strongly the small group of people in that room who shouted Herb down and would not allow him to speak. Those people -- there were about 20 of them -- subsequently left the meeting. Herb got up and made his remarks. And that was at the start of the process. During the election process we also dealt a lot with the question of referenda, because in that election, for those who remember, there was a third party running -- called the Reform Party at that time -- and that was one of their issues. They wanted a referendum on the Nisga'a treaty, and that became part of the election platform in my riding in a big way.
I can remember even strong, solid NDPers from way back calling me up and saying: "Bill, you support the Indians too much, and I'm sorry, I can't vote for you. I've voted NDP all my life, but I will not vote for you, because you are too strident on aboriginal rights." And those people still live. They're in our ridings. So when you talk about putting a referendum question, fine and dandy. There are all sorts of legal reasons why you may or may not want to do these things. We can talk until we're blue in the face in a place like this about, as somebody mentioned earlier, the niceties or the minutiae around this question. But where I live, it plays itself out in the way people are treated on Main Street.
Most of us come from a very privileged type of background. We don't have to worry about what it feels like to be walking around in the community and being a totally ignored human being. It's only since the early seventies that the aboriginal people in rural British Columbia have had access to businesses and restaurants. I mean, it is sad to say that at a time like 1973, people were still being refused service in hotels and restaurants in my riding because they were aboriginal people. It may strike people here as unbelievable, but wherever you have flashpoint issues like Sun Peaks, you will find that this behaviour will surface. You will find that just because somebody is of first nations descent, they will show up someplace where people are mad at the Indians and they will be treated like dirt. It happens today. It happened 20 years ago. And I think that that's something that we, as legislators, really want to bear in mind -- that what we do in this House has an effect on people's lives.
Fair enough, 3 percent of the population happens to be aboriginal. Well, closer to 30 percent of the people in my riding are aboriginal. We took the Premier to Atlin in September to visit the community. The northern summit, which comprises the Tlingit people, the Tahltan people and the Kaska Dene, had invited the Premier to speak to a gathering that was held in Atlin. While he was there, we went to the school and talked to the school children, and we had a meeting in the afternoon in the community hall and then subsequently had a meeting in the evening for the wider community.
About three weeks after that visit, I got a copy of a letter that was sent to the Premier by an individual, a recent immigrant from Europe to Atlin, who has been there about seven years and actually was present at the evening dinner with the Premier. In that letter he criticized the Premier for not meeting with the white people in Atlin but only meeting with the Indians -- a very interesting comment, considering that about 400 people live in Atlin, and the Premier touched base with close to 300. About 75 percent of that small community had an opportunity to see the Premier that day.
[1645]
Included in the comments from this person, who has lived here for only seven years, was a remark that he knew more about the back country of the Taku River Tlingit than the Taku River Tlingit themselves knew. I just found it passing strange that somebody could actually put that phrase to paper and send it to the Premier of British Columbia. It's a very interesting attitude, and it's not an unusual attitude.
When the talk of a referendum came up during the Nisga'a debate, I remember putting a letter into the Interior News newspaper in Smithers that I did not like the idea of holding a referendum mainly because -- and I did use the word, I believe -- bigots or racists or whatever would come out of the woodwork. It's these particular people -- a small minority of people, granted, but like the 20 people that I mentioned that were in that 400-person meeting -- who have no sense of the hurt that they can put on another person by the way they treat them. We're asking people to go through a referendum process during which their children will be subjected to this kind of abuse on a day-to-day basis that will carry over. We've seen it happen.
I had a number of people come up to me after I wrote that letter, saying: "Why did you call me a racist because I support a referendum on the Nisga'a treaty?" I pointed out to these people
When we were holding our hearings for the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, I remember one particular fellow in Salmon Arm, I believe. He was the president of the local B.C. Reform Association and quite proud of it. He called for a referendum, but he had a twist on that referendum: no aboriginal person in this province should be allowed to vote in this referendum. That was his take on it. The member for North Island was on the committee and asked him, first of all, if that's what he said, and then subsequently he said: "Yeah, that's what I said." "Then why did you say it, and what did you mean?" He said: "Well, it's pretty obvious how they're going to vote, so why bother letting them have a vote?" That was his answer, and that's in the record. It would be nice to believe that we don't have very many people who
[ Page 17419 ]
think that way in this province. But sadly, those of us who live in areas where there are large aboriginal populations know better. There are too many people who are like that. If for no other reason, I think that we should be very, very careful about moving forward on this.
I ask the House to support this amendment and also to support the motion, because the use of referenda on any matter dealing with aboriginal people will cause the kinds of hardships that we say we're trying to avoid, that we say we're trying to repair. If we are truly serious about making life better for the first nations of this province, then we've got to find a way to work closer with the aboriginal people of this province and not find ways to create bigger divisions.
[1650]
Hon. J. Kwan: I would like to enter into this debate by first thanking the Songhees first nations for allowing us on their traditional territory. I want to say that this issue we're debating today is about democracy. Democracy, to me as a minority person, means giving voice, giving voice to the people who don't otherwise have a voice. It does not mean giving voice to the people who already have a voice. It's not to say that the people who already have a voice should not have a voice, but the fact of the matter is that the people who have a voice are already there. What we need to do in the cases of minority rights issues is to ensure that those who are not at the table are at the table. That is what the treaty process is about.
This issue is about process. It is about a process that has been 100 years long. The members opposite say that we need to go to a referendum because there's not been enough consultation. In my own community, Vancouver-Mount Pleasant in the downtown east side, you know what? A process that goes on and on by consultation, especially in trying to prevent people who don't have a voice from accessing a voice -- and those are the people who have the minority rights in our community -- is process by exhaustion. It is not a democratic process; it's a process to drive out the people who don't otherwise have voice. This has been a debate that has gone on for over 100 years. We don't need more process around this issue.
We have actually seen in this instance that generations of first nations leaders have died in this process. We have seen generations of people grow old. I remember Chief Gosnell when he was here
It is about minority rights; make no mistake about it. This is the right thing to do. The amendment that's been put forward by the member for Saanich South makes it clear. It isn't the case that we haven't got it. It isn't the case that the Premier didn't get it. It is the case that the members opposite don't get it at all. They don't even understand the basic premise of having the majority vote on a minority rights issue and what those ramifications are and what that means. They have no thrust of the understanding of basic minority rights and what that means for this country and how that impacts our democratic system. That is a shame.
I had thought that we had gone a long, long way in moving forward in democracy and rights for all people and justice for all people. And we have witnessed in this House today from the shameful acts of the members opposite that we are way, way behind and that there is still much, much work to be done.
You know, hon. Speaker, when the Chinese community fought for the right to vote, when the Indo-Canadian community fought for their right to vote, the Japanese community, even the aboriginal community, the women's community
Why now? I ask the members opposite: why now? It does not make any sense. I would hazard to guess why now. I would venture to say that the members opposite have a different agenda. Their agenda is about division. It's about hate, it's about violence, and it is about injustice. It is as clear as that. It is about an approach that will set back the advances that the people of this country and the people of this province have made.
The prevention of minorities in their right to have self-sufficiency, the prevention of minorities to have their right of self-governance, the prevention of minorities to their right of self-independence, the prevention of the rights of minorities for self-determination -- that is what the referendum process will do. It is an approach that will perpetrate and enhance hate. It is an approach that actually kept slavery alive. Make no mistake about it. Understand what the ramifications are in a democratic system today, here and now, and that's what the opposition is calling for -- the perpetration of an approach that would keep things like slavery alive in our country. We cannot accept that. It cannot and it must not be allowed.
[1655]
If we are to have justice for all, then the appropriate thing to do is to ensure that the people who have the minority voices in our community have the fair process that is before them -- through the treaty process. In my own community in Vancouver-Mount Pleasant, treaty processes may not necessarily be appropriate for them, but it is about voice and the fundamental question around voice and democracy. It's about giving voice to the people who don't otherwise have it. It is about rebuilding and strengthening communities and keeping communities healthy and not dividing them.
In my own community, where people look to find voice, particularly in the aboriginal community, voice means programs for the first nations community whereby they can recapture their history, their language, their pride, their strength and everything that they had before the non-aboriginal people came to this country. It is about the elders telling their stories and recapturing those stories and actually putting them down and registering them, making sure that those stories are passed on from generation to generation. It is about programs that will help them build ceremonial drums and teach the young generation of aboriginal people what those ceremonial drums mean and how to use them in an appropriate format. It is about teaching young people to rebuild their history and to recapture their culture. It is about recapturing who they are and their pride and their language -- the essence of what makes all of us individuals. We pride ourselves in our own essence of who we are in the souls within ourselves.
[ Page 17420 ]
With the help of people like Scott Clark, who is the president of the UNN, United Native Nations, and Chief Joseph, who is the Vancouver Aboriginal Council leader
This debate must end with the recognition from the other side of the House, for them to understand, that when you say you want to bring a minority rights issue to a referendum for the majority to decide on, you are indeed setting back the clock. You are saying to the minority people: "We will shut you down, shut down your voice, to ensure that there can be no justice for you in this process."
I want to close with a quote from Albert Einstein. He once said: "Great spirits have always faced violent opposition from mediocre minds." To the great spirits of the aboriginal people, the first people of this land who have passed on, whose lives have been lost, whose generations have been trying so hard to rebuild in their fight for equality and justice, and to those who are still with us and the future generations, I want to thank you. I want to thank you for your tolerance during these hard times. I want to thank you for your courage. I want to thank you for your perseverance. I want to thank you for your patience. Perhaps most important of all, I want to thank you for your will to survive because you believe in justice and because you believe in the notion that justice will indeed prevail.
On this side of the House we say that there could never be referenda for minority rights, for any minority rights issues. I as a minority person have faced discrimination. We have faced challenges in my own community. My ancestors before me have died in that fight as well. I only recently found out that a great-great uncle of mine was actually part of a movement, the Barrett movement, fighting for the rights of minority people. I only just became acquainted with him. I've actually sometimes wondered why I am involved in politics. I didn't realize that I had that in my bloodline from my ancestors.
[1700]
That is the reason why I joined this movement on this side of the House with this party -- because they believe in it, not because of what the populist movement might be, not because they think about the wind of the day, the way the air is blowing, in terms of where they should go. One day they're here, and the next day they're there. They have no basic fundamental principles around rights, equality, fairness and justice. Our movement on this side of the House is about those.
Perhaps one of the proudest moments that I have experienced in the honour of being an elected member representing the people of Vancouver-Mount Pleasant is probably because the single most basic principles of equality and justice
I see the member for Richmond East here, who actually, I thought, believed in these fundamental rights. Well, then I ask for her courage to not stand with her colleagues in voting against this motion and this amendment.
I know personally the member for Vancouver-Langara, and we've had many, many conversations before. I know that he fundamentally believes in these rights, and he fundamentally believes in treaty-making processes and that this is the right process that we have embarked on. I know that I feel it when I talk to him; I feel it in my heart. I ask for his courage now to stand in this House and not vote with his colleagues on this shameful attempt to set back the clock.
I understand that the current member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain, who is a former liberal
There is absolute silence on the other side. I have never experienced that either. There's absolute silence, and they're looking down. They're not even looking at me as we engage in the debate. I wonder why that is. I ask all of the members opposite to look us squarely in the eye and look at the first nations people of this country, of this province, and say to them: "We will not give you your right that you deserve, that you had, that was taken away from you."
I ask them to look and be courageous. If you believe in these fundamental beliefs, get up and be courageous and be accountable. Look us squarely in the eye and simply say: "No, we believe in the times of slavery. We believe in the times of dependence within the system, and we will not give the first nations people the right to self-determination -- the right that was taken away from them by the governments before us."
It is time to make sure that we do not turn back the clock. It is time to make sure that minority rights are never under threat in this great province of ours that accepted people like me and my family and others.
[1705]
I want to close with a final story that was shared with me by a constituent of mine. The story goes something like this. Once upon a time, there was a bench that sat in a wild field that was in a beautiful, beautiful place called British Columbia. On this bench sat the first people of this country, of this province. They were the first nations, the first people of this province. They sat on this bench. And over time, people came to visit. Non-aboriginal people came to visit, and they asked for a seat on this bench.
The first nations people allowed them to take a seat on this bench, until one day the first people, who owned this bench, found that they had no more space for themselves. They somehow got moved off of the bench, and they were not
[ Page 17421 ]
allowed to sit back on this bench. Since that time the people have been fighting -- not to say, "We want the whole bench back," but simply to say: "We want a seat back, a legitimate seat, to be equally treated and to equally participate in a democratic society that we all now enjoy."
It is time to make sure that the bench that sits on this great land called British Columbia has the first people of this province sitting there as part of the ownership of this bench that we all now share. I ask for all members' support on the amendment that's been put before us and on the final motion so that we do not take back the voice and the democratic rights of the minority people of our province.
Hon. Speaker, I move adjournment of debate.
Motion approved.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I call continued debate on the budget.
Budget Debate
(continued)
Hon. P. Ramsey: Seeing no other speakers, I rise to close debate on Budget 2001.
Hon. Speaker, this budget is about the choices that we as this government have made. As I said in my remarks last Thursday, it's based on what we've heard and the values that we share with British Columbians. These are the choices we're making about our future choices about the kind of province we want to live in.
It has become clear, both before and after this budget was introduced, that in B.C. we are at a crossroads, facing two clearly different approaches to governing and setting priorities. For our part we have made the choices clear. Members of this caucus have stood up in this House and expressed their clear choices and their priorities, which they see reflected in this budget. Regrettably the opposition has chosen not to do that, not to come into this chamber and put clearly on the record what their choices are and what the consequences of those choices would be for British Columbians. That, I submit, is a huge failure of an opposition that would be government.
We know this about their agenda, because they've said it everywhere: they want dramatic tax cuts. It's the one-point program of the Liberal opposition. And it's in front of everything else, including the needs of today's families. But they have refused to tell this chamber, they have refused to tell the people of the province, what that choice entails.
Their advisers have not been so quiet. The Investment Dealers Association has said clearly that the one option for doing that sort of dramatic tax cut is to push the province back into deficit. We say no. The budget is balanced -- last year, this year and next year. The Fraser Institute just came out today very clearly and said what they think this government ought to do. They were quite clear. They said you can't have dramatic tax cuts unless you're prepared to curtail government spending in a savage way. They recommended huge reductions, privatization of health care, a voucher system for schools and selling Crown corporations. That's their adviser. They said: "It's not free. You have to do something, and this is the way to do it."
[1710]
Faced with those choices that we've heard outside -- not in this chamber, can you believe it
Hon. Speaker, look at what they don't want to talk about. This budget, Budget 2001, increases funding for health care and education by $1.2 billion. It invests some 52 percent of that increase, 52 percent of all new program spending, into our public health system for doctors, for nurses, for hospitals and for health services throughout the province. And $681 million of that goes into the communities that these members represent and that this side of the House is fine to support. It's a shame that they don't want to come in here and say: "Yeah, in Abbotsford we welcome that new hospital, even though it's going to be borrowed money. In Prince George, yes, we think we should have that new MRI machine and the dollars to run it. In the Comox Valley, absolutely that new CAT scan should be up and operational in the coming year." All of those things are included in this budget.
This budget also increases our support for public schools. I'm glad that the Minister of Education is in the House for this closing, because I know she is committed, as I am, to maintaining our class size in kindergarten-to-grade-3 at the smallest in the country and continuing the work we've done to build and renovate schools. This budget provides the capital funding for 22 new or wholly renovated schools and another 190 significant additions and renovations.
We have to solve the shortage of doctors and nurses. We're providing another 400 training spaces on top of the 400 that we funded and committed to last budget; $12 million more to educate and retrain working nurses; and all those new incentives under the health action plan that we have committed to retract and retain doctors, particularly in northern and rural British Columbia.
Finally, in the health area we are recognizing that mental health must be as accessible as possible: $31.5 million for B.C.'s mental health plan. It triples last year's funding.
Hon. Speaker, when I introduced this budget and now when I'm closing it, I wanted to focus on post-secondary education. Maclean's magazine called B.C. Canada's education province, and we are building on that legacy. Look at the record we have here: $312 million in additional funding for our schools, our colleges, our universities, our institutes, and more than $500 million in capital investment as well.
We've seen some of those investments: the new cancer research agency in downtown Vancouver, the new MSA hospital in Abbotsford, the expansion of the hospital in Prince George. We've seen right across this province the effect of that, and we know what it'll mean for health care in our communities.
Post-secondary funding goes up by some 8 percent. I heard people talk outside the House, not in. The good Lord knows that we haven't heard anything inside the House from this Liberal opposition about what their priorities would be. Not a single solitary word, silence -- the silence of a paucity of ideas and a one-point election platform. We have heard outside the House that we are going to be facing a skills shortage if we don't act, and act now. We are acting. We are committing to double the number of new apprenticeships and training spaces to over 50,000 in the next four years.
[ Page 17422 ]
[1715]
And this budget doesn't walk away from our social responsibilities. We've talked about child care, which rises to $45 million in this budget for Child Care B.C. We've talked about the increase in the B.C. family bonus, something that this government introduced and is now the norm across the country. The national child benefit goes up to $1,332 per child annually -- per child.
We've also said people living with disabilities deserve a helping hand, and we're increasing funding by $60 million for people who are living with disabilities.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
This is what is needed more than tax cuts. This is part of creating quality of life in our province and making sure that no one is left behind. And it starts young. It starts with the Premier's commitment to double the school meal program, the hot meal program for some of the neediest children in our province. It starts with the commitment of the Minister for Children and Families to make sure that aboriginal kids get a good, strong start in life so that minor problems don't become major ones.
Far from saying that this is something that doesn't support the economy, as the Leader of the Opposition said in his all-too-brief remarks, I would say that this is precisely what needs to support the economy, so everybody comes along and we have the skills and education that we need, so we have the strong environmental standards that secure markets for our products, so we have that clean and green British Columbia.
The economy of British Columbia continues to grow, and grow well. It performed well last year. I won't repeat all the statistics. It is poised to do well in the coming year too. We are projecting economic growth of 2.4 percent. Now, I have heard -- again, not in the chamber; Lord knows the Liberals wouldn't want to actually debate a budget in the chamber, but outside -- that this is perhaps optimistic. Well, last week during budget week there were actually three independent economic forecasts that came out. The Conference Board of Canada said last week that B.C. will grow by 2.4 percent next year. Scotiabank said: "Well, we don't think it's that good -- 1.7 percent." And the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce said: "We think it's closer to 2.7 percent."
The forecasts in this budget are well thought out. They are prudent. We are on the way to achieving them. We're going to continue a cautious approach to fiscal management for the coming year. This is a budget that speaks to the provincial needs for a growing economy. We will have a $1.1 billion surplus in the coming year. We will have a $300 million forecast allowance in case the economic downturn in the States and the rest of Canada is deeper than we are now projecting.
We have balanced the books -- last year, this year and next. Our personal taxes are among the lowest in Canada. We put increased resources into health care, education and social justice. This is a province of diversity and community. This is a place of compassion, a growing place of opportunity and hope. This budget reflects the values of today's families. I'm pleased to now close debate on Budget 2001.
Hon. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology, that the Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply.
[1720]
Motion approved on the following division:
| YEAS -- 37 | ||
| Zirnhelt | Doyle | Gillespie |
| Kwan | Waddell | Hammell |
| McGregor | Giesbrecht | Farnworth |
| Lovick | Petter | Mann Brewin |
| Pullinger | Randall | Sawicki |
| Priddy | Cashore | Orcherton |
| Stevenson | Robertson | MacPhail |
| Dosanjh | Bowbrick | Janssen |
| Evans | Ramsey | Smallwood |
| G. Wilson | Streifel | Miller |
| Sihota | Calendino | Walsh |
| Boone | G. Clark | Lali |
| Goodacre | ||
| NAYS -- 34 | ||
| Kasper | Weisgerber | Penner |
| Nettleton | Anderson | Jarvis |
| Sanders | Chong | Coell |
| Neufeld | L. Reid | Abbott |
| Plant | de Jong | Farrell-Collins |
| Campbell | C. Clark | Hansen |
| Whittred | Weisbeck | Nebbeling |
| Hogg | Hawkins | Coleman |
| Stephens | J. Reid | Krueger |
| Thorpe | Symons | van Dongen |
| Barisoff | J. Wilson | Roddick |
| Masi | ||
[1725]
Hon. G. Janssen moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved on the following division:
| YEAS -- 37 | ||
| Zirnhelt | Doyle | Gillespie |
| Kwan | Waddell | Hammell |
| McGregor | Giesbrecht | Farnworth |
| Lovick | Petter | Mann Brewin |
| Pullinger | Randall | Sawicki |
| Priddy | Cashore | Orcherton |
| Stevenson | Robertson | MacPhail |
| Dosanjh | Bowbrick | Janssen |
| Evans | Ramsey | Smallwood |
| G. Wilson | Streifel | Miller |
| Sihota | Calendino | Walsh |
| Boone | G. Clark | Lali |
| Goodacre | ||
| NAYS -- 34 | ||
| Kasper | Weisgerber | Penner |
| Nettleton | Anderson | Jarvis |
| Sanders | Chong | Coell |
| Neufeld | L. Reid | Abbott |
| Plant | de Jong | Farrell-Collins |
| Campbell | C. Clark | Hansen |
| Whittred | Weisbeck | Nebbeling |
| Hogg | Hawkins | Coleman |
| Stephens | J. Reid | Krueger |
| Thorpe | Symons | van Dongen |
| Barisoff | J. Wilson | Roddick |
| Masi | ||
The House adjourned at 5:31 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright © 2001: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada