2007 Legislative Session: Third Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2007

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 22, Number 7

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Frank Garden

Simpson

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

Ramadan

Nuraney

International Day of Older

Persons

C. James

Economic goals of Nanaimo

community leaders

Cantelon

Shelagh Germyn

Trevena

East Kootenay Regional Hospital

Bennett

People with developmental

disabilities

Simons

Oral Questions

Lobbying activities of Graham

Bruce

C. James

Hon. W.

Oppal

Hon. M.

de Jong

L. Krog

Routley

Horgan

J. Kwan

Farnworth

Tabling Documents

Tsawwassen First Nation harvest

agreement, tax treatment agreement and real property tax

coordination agreement

Petitions

D. MacKay

Second Reading of Bills

Tsawwassen First Nation Final

Agreement Act (Bill 40)

Hon. M.

de Jong

C. James

Roddick

Fraser

Cantelon

L. Krog

Rustad

Gentner

Bennett

[ Page 8541 ]

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2007

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. P. Bell: I was joined today in the Legislative

Assembly by a number of distinctive groups who have formally announced their

endorsation of the provincial mountain caribou recovery strategy. I'd just like

to take a few minutes to introduce them.

We had with us today Candace Batycki of ForestEthics, and we had

John Bergenske of Wildsight. Both of these organizations represent a total of

ten conservation organizations in the province, including ForestEthics;

Wildsight; Conservation Northwest; Fraser Headwaters Alliance; Sierra Club of

Canada; B.C. Nature, which is the Federation of B.C. Naturalists; North Columbia

Environmental Society; Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society; Quesnel River

Watershed Alliance; Shuswap Environmental Action Society.

We were also joined by Les Auston, the general manager of the B.C.

Snowmobile Federation; Dave Butler, who is a member and past chair of the

environmental committee for HeliCat Canada; and John Allan, the president and

CEO of the Council of Forest Industries. Jim Hackett from the Interior Lumber

Manufacturers Association also joined us.

It was a very exciting day for all of British Columbia,

particularly for the future of the mountain caribou. I would ask everyone in the

House to please thank the organizations I've mentioned here today.

C. James: I am pleased to welcome Mary Ann and Al Fleming,

who have travelled here from Nanaimo to join us in the gallery. Mary Ann came

today to share the story about the treatment her mother received at a Retirement

Concepts facility in Nanaimo.

I would like the House to make them welcome.

Hon. T. Christensen: As many members will know, the

province has proclaimed October 2007 as Community Living Month. This is a time

for communities across British Columbia to celebrate the abilities and

achievements of people with developmental disabilities.

[1335]

The B.C. Association for Community Living is using Community

Living Month to raise awareness about employment for people with developmental

disabilities. We are joined today in the gallery by 15 individuals who are all

making a contribution to our collective understanding of inclusiveness and the

abilities of persons with developmental disabilities.

I would ask the House to please join me in welcoming Michael

Prince, who's a board member of BCACL; Paul Pallan and Connie Clarke, both board

members of BCACL; Wendy-Sue Andrew, who is a parent and president of Community

Living Victoria; Carlene Thompson, a family member and member of the Community

Living Victoria board; Joanna Frey, who is a participant in Community Living

Victoria's day program; Marion and Patrick Frey, who are Joanna's parents;

Linette Baker, a manager of community services for Community Living Victoria;

Jenny Howard, a parent and supervisor of Community Living Victoria's

supported-apartment-living program; David Martin, a participant in Community

Living Victoria's supported-apartment-living program; Ashley Haagensen from the

Garth Homer Society supported employment, who is a client of the

supported-employment services seeking employment; Mary Emmond and Carol Stocker,

who are both Garth Homer Society supported-employment-services clients who are

currently part of the workforce; and Kim Dillon, who is a Garth Homer Society

supported-employment-services employment counsellor.

I would ask that the House please make all of these individuals

very welcome today to help us support Community Living Month.

D. Routley: Could the House help me welcome my friend

Meaghan Walker, her partner Charles Champion and their baby Douglas Champion.

Meaghan is a Cowichan Tribes member and a dedicated servant to her community. I

want us all to help make them very welcome to this House.

J. Yap: It's always a great joy when a new baby is born.

Today I would like to share with the House the great news of the birth of Alyssa

Joyce Robertson, born to Brianna Kempton and Ben Robertson. They actually are

constituents in the riding of my friend the MLA for North Vancouver–Seymour.

I'm told by the grandmother that Alyssa was born 17 days early on

August 29 at 1:34 p.m., weighed 6 pounds 1 ounce and, according to grandma, is

the most beautiful baby in the world — grandma being Paige Robertson, my

constituency assistant.

N. Macdonald: I'd also like to take this opportunity to

introduce John Bergenske and commend him for the work he did on the caribou. I

know how many years he's worked on that. I also commend him for all the work he

does on many land use issues in our area. So welcome, John, and the House can

join me in that welcome.

J. McIntyre: I was hoping the House would join me today in

a warm welcome to the grade 5 students from West Bay Elementary in my

constituency of West Vancouver–Garibaldi. They were here this morning with

teachers and parents, and we had a wonderful visit in the rotunda. We were

joined by the Premier, and the kids had lots of interesting questions as usual.

I hope everyone will give them a warm welcome in the House today.

C. Trevena: I have great pleasure in introducing a number

of people from Campbell River in the House today.

Firstly, Shelagh Germyn, who a week ago left Campbell River on a

run to highlight the lack of child

[ Page 8542 ]

care in the province. Her Million Steps for Child Care gained huge momentum,

and she's taken her message through Vancouver Island. Shelagh is an amazing and

practical advocate for her passions for women's education and for child care.

In the gallery with her are people who have been delivering child

care, campaigning for child care and making sure our children get the best start

in life. There's Kathy Rae, child care consultant from Sunrise Resources for

Early Childhood Development in Campbell River; Gwen Bennett, who is the manager

of Cari's Infant and Toddler Centre in Campbell River; Monica Brown, the manager

of Christian Life Daycare; Joyce McMann, the family place coordinator for

Campbell River; Sharlene Poslosky, who's a early childhood educator; Bonnie

McGill, who's also an early childhood educator; and Brenda Rempel from Christian

Life Daycare, who is a supervisor there.

[1340]

We also have Brian Staton, the RV driver and retired teacher from

just south of the Oyster in Miracle Beach who drove down the RV for the run. I

hope the House will make them all very welcome.

R. Cantelon: I'd like you to welcome today a delegation

that's in the precinct this afternoon from Nanaimo. Community leaders are here

to advance their shared economic vision of the city. They include Chief Viola

Wyse from the Snuneymuxw First Nation; councillor Bill Yoachim of Snuneymuxw

First Nation; His Worship Gary Korpan, mayor of the city of Nanaimo; city

councillor Jeet Manhas; Bill Mills, the CEO of Nanaimo Port Authority; Ross

Fraser, the chair of Nanaimo Port Authority; Jerry Pink, the chair of the

Nanaimo Airport Commission; Mike Hooper, the CEO of the airport; and Dr. Leslie

King, the vice-president of Malaspina University College. Please make them feel

welcome.

For a further indulgence, I'd like to report today on the progress

of our absent member for Kelowna–Lake Country. He visited our constituency in

Nanaimo to join me in cheering on his team, the Okanagan Sun, in the B.C.

championship game against the Vancouver Island Raiders. Needless to say, the

Vancouver Island Raiders triumphed, but although his team didn't do well, Al

made out with me quite well as far as our considerations of the opportunities

therein. Please wish Al his best. He's doing well and hopes to be with us soon.

B. Bennett: I wanted to welcome three of the people who

were here for the caribou recovery announcement today. Dave Butler lives down

the street from me in Cranbrook. Dave, welcome to the House. Dave represents the

commercial recreation sector. Les Auston is with the B.C. Snowmobile Federation,

as the minister said. Les led the two clubs in Cranbrook and Creston to

voluntary agreements with regard to caribou habitat.

Jim Hackett is here representing a lot of really small mills in

the Kootenays and elsewhere in the southern interior. They also made some

voluntary deferrals that helped make this whole thing work. I would like to

welcome those three people.

Hon. M. de Jong: In the gallery today, fresh off her

triumphant premiere in this chamber yesterday, is the chief of the Tsawwassen

First Nation, Chief Kim Baird. For members' information, she has informed us

that she intends to be here for the duration of the debate that will take place

in this chamber. We're pleased — I'm sure all members are — about that.

She's joined by Councillor Laura Cassidy. I just want to take a

moment to pay tribute to Ms. Cassidy who, during the time that I have been

intimately involved in the discussions and negotiations that led to yesterday's

historic tabling of that agreement, has been just a stalwart supporter of the

Tsawwassen and Chief Baird. So please, if members would also welcome Councillor

Laura Cassidy.

They are both joined by two senior staff from the Tsawwassen First

Nation. Please welcome Tanya Corbet and Melinda Cassidy.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, last Thursday an event of some significance

took place that I think all members and British Columbians can take pride in. On

Thursday of last week in the city of Montreal, a young British Columbian donned

the storied jersey of the Montreal Canadiens. Carey Price put on number 31 and

tended net, I think, 21 years to the day after another goaltender of note did

the same thing — Mr. Roy — for the Montreal Canadiens.

Carey Price, the son of Lynda Price, who is a chief in British

Columbia and a member of the First Nations Leadership Council, proceeded as a

rookie in his first NHL game to stone Sidney Crosby and the Pittsburgh Penguins.

He did his team proud, and he did all British Columbians proud.

Tributes

FRANK GARDEN

B. Simpson: I have sad news to convey to the House today. A

former member of this House, Frank Garden, passed away this weekend from colon

cancer.

[1345]

Frank was born in Scotland, became a journeyman bricklayer and

then immigrated to Canada where he spent about three decades in the forest

industry, first with MacMillan Bloedel on the coast and then with Weldwood of

Canada in Quesnel.

Frank was a city councillor and then became MLA for Cariboo North

and served for a term here. I remember Frank as someone who always had a quick

smile on his face and a kind word to say. As a Scotsman, I always thought he had

a touch of the blarney; there must have been some Irish in his blood somewhere.

I can still hear him sing "Danny Boy," and I'm sure members of this House have

heard him sing that on many occasions.

Unfortunately, he has now left his family, his five grown children

and his wife. A memorial service will be held this Friday in Powell River. I'd

ask the Speaker to convey our regrets on behalf of the House to his wife and

family.

[ Page 8543 ]

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) RAMADAN

J. Nuraney: I rise today to expound on the virtues of the

month of Ramadan. This year Ramadan started on the 13th of September and ended

on the 12th of October. Ramadan is the ninth month in the Islamic lunar

calendar. Every day during this month, Muslims around the world spend daylight

hours in complete fast. Muslims refrain from food, drink and other physical

needs during this time. It is a time for sacrifice, discipline and reflection.

Let me also say that religiosity without social service is a show

of conceit. Ramadan is the holy month during which Muslims not only fast and

reflect but indulge in the practice of generosity and help those who are less

fortunate.

Muslims believe that it was during this month that the Koran was

revealed to the prophet from Allah. There are approximately 80,000 Muslims in

the lower mainland, and they play an active role in the development of our

province. The diversity and pluralism of our country are a great testament to

the great values Canadians espouse and are in keeping with the ethics of Islam.

It may be of interest to this House to know that it was Prophet

Muhammad who incorporated human rights and multiculturalism in the first

constitution he declared when he moved to Medina from Mecca some 1,500 years

ago.

INTERNATIONAL DAY OF

OLDER PERSONS

C. James: Today I rise to acknowledge a day that is past

but needs to be recognized. October 1 marked the United Nations International

Day of the Older Person. I was fortunate to be able to spend that day with

members of the Fairfield New Horizon seniors centre right here in this

community.

This day allows time to reflect on the contributions and

challenges facing an aging global population. It's also an opportunity to

reflect on those challenges right here at home. Senior citizens contribute

enormously to the well-being of our communities serving in countless ways. We

owe them a very special debt. Many seniors do very well and are redefining what

it means to grow old in an age where increased life expectancy is contributing

to the rapid greying of our communities.

But as we've seen in recent weeks, others are not being treated so

well, and today I'd like to speak about a particular individual. Mary Lavallee

lived in Nanaimo. She had children, grandchildren and great grandchildren. She

was a World War II veteran, and on December 14, 2006, she died after suffering a

stroke.

Mary was a resident in Nanaimo at a care home operated by

Retirement Concepts. Before moving into that home, Mary lived with her daughter

Mary Ann. Mary Ann considered it a privilege to care for her mother, but the

demands became too great, and she ended up going into a care home.

[1350]

Mary Ann noticed things. Her mom's feet weren't elevated. Pills

were on the floor. The quality of food declined. Staff changed often and

struggled to learn the routines. Two months before Mary died, she complained of

a sore mouth, and the doctor said she had a bad infection caused by a lack of

oral hygiene at the facility.

This one story — just one story, Mr. Speaker — reminds us all of

our unique obligations to B.C.'s seniors. Though all promises should be kept,

promises to seniors carry special moral weight.

So to acknowledge the International Day of Older Persons, I ask

every member in this House to join with me in affirming our commitment to do

well by the seniors of our province.

ECONOMIC GOALS OF

NANAIMO COMMUNITY LEADERS

R. Cantelon: It's a challenge when communities like Nanaimo

move from resource-based economies — in this case, forestry and fishery — to a

more broadly diversified economy. It's a challenge to the leadership of the

community to move forward with new innovative ideas and different strategies.

Anytime you move ahead of the pack, you're subject to the

criticism of naysayers who would always want to punch a hole in a good idea and

shoot it down. The best strategy is to move forward in a group that's committed

to the plan and that's committed to the strategies.

It worked very well in revitalizing downtown. They formed a formal

partnership between city councillors and the business leaders in the community,

resulting in 110 new businesses in five years, a thousand new jobs, a 20-percent

increase in employment and a great success.

The new conference centre is about to open in 2008, and that's

already booked well into 2008 and all the highlight season of 2009.

Now we're ready to take it to the next level, and the group that I

introduced to you earlier today are ready to lead that with a common vision and

common goals to expand the economic opportunity for all the citizens.

It's going to open up transportation. It's going to open up the

gateways. It's going to expand the airport and the cruise ship area and benefit

all the people in the community — most significantly will be the partnership

with first nations. Nanaimo has a rich history of partnering with first nations,

and now we want to take that and expand the opportunity for all first nations

people.

Malaspina University College plays a key role in this in building

capacity among first nations. I think it's very noteworthy that the enrolment of

first nations in Malaspina University College is the highest in the province at

1,885 students — 10 percent of the total enrolment.

Let's congratulate these community leaders on their successes and

encourage them to take it to the next

[ Page 8544 ]

level. I'm sure the citizens, first nations and all, will benefit from their

efforts.

SHELAGH GERMYN

C. Trevena: A week ago today on a rainy, dark morning about

50 people gathered in Campbell River for a pancake breakfast and a celebratory

send-off. Child care providers, child care workers, people who care about child

care and children joined together to show their support for Shelagh Germyn, who

was about to start A Million Steps for Child Care.

She was piped through the city with a parade of people behind her

as she started those million steps and hundreds of kilometres. A week later she

arrived in Victoria, having run the entire way from Campbell River to the

capital. Everywhere she went, she was greeted by people who care about child

care. They carried bright banners, which they have now brought to the

Legislature.

Shelagh is a remarkable woman. She takes a cause on, is passionate

about it and makes something happen. Last winter she saw on Campbell River's

community television station a recording of a meeting about the crisis in child

care. She heard about the huge wait-lists and about families who couldn't find

child care and how that was impacting their ability to work. She heard about the

early childhood educators leaving the profession they love because they don't

get paid enough.

Shelagh is not one to sit by and let something that's wrong

continue. She decided to do something about it. So she decided to bring the

crisis in child care to people's attention by doing one of the things she loves

— running.

Shelagh doesn't need child care. Her children are adults, but she

doesn't want to be the caregiver for her son or daughter's children because they

can't find child care, and she doesn't want that to happen to anyone else.

On that wet autumn morning in Campbell River, Shelagh stood in

front of her supporters and told them the reason she was doing that run. She

told them it was because our children need high-quality child care. She told

them it was for them and for their kids.

Let's hope that this run doesn't just end at the capital and at

the Legislature but is the start of something new and is the start of a program

of child care for every child who needs it in B.C.

[1355]

EAST KOOTENAY REGIONAL HOSPITAL

B. Bennett: You know, Mr. Speaker, almost every day we come

in here, and during question period we hear about one crisis in the health care

system after the other. I guess the public could be forgiven if they began to

get the impression that that's all health care is about and that there's no

progress being given.

So today, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to take this opportunity to tell

you a positive story in the context of B.C. — the Conference Board of Canada

actually saying that we do have the best health care system in the country.

Where I live, in the East Kootenay, we now have a regional

hospital that serves all 80,000 residents. I just want to read into the record

what we have accomplished at the East Kootenay Regional Hospital over the past

five years.

We now have a dedicated chemotherapy unit that functions as a

satellite to the cancer centre in Kelowna, providing adult oncology services to

all of my constituents and the constituents from Columbia River–Revelstoke.

We've got telemedicine now available for renal, thoracic, oncology

and pharmacy. We've got new nursing positions, an infection control officer, a

clinical nurse educator and a respiratory therapist. We've got mobile MRI. Who

would have ever thought that the East Kootenay would have access to an MRI? We

have that now; we didn't have that before.

We've got capital improvements at the actual hospital. We've got

upgrades to the facility infrastructure. In the 1990s they let the air

conditioning, the heating and the electrical deteriorate to the point where the

facility was hardly operational.

We've got a new emergency facility, a new ambulatory care unit, a

new and expanding diagnostic imaging centre, a new reception, a new medical

records system. I don't have time to read all of the new specialists that we now

have serving the 80,000 people in the East Kootenay.

I just want to say that health care has a positive story. There

are lots of positive things happening in British Columbia today. Where I live,

the people of the East Kootenay have access to a better level of care than they

have ever had in the history of our region.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

PEOPLE WITH

DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES

N. Simons: I'd also like to acknowledge Community Living

Month by extending the best wishes of this caucus to people who work in the

community living sector and to the people with development disabilities who

benefit from their dedication. Today we're all wearing the "I believe" button,

which was designed by Chris Arnold of Terrace, who spent his life helping to

raise the quality of life of people with developmental disabilities by helping

them find employment.

People with developmental disabilities enjoy the right to

participate as full members of our society, alongside their brothers and sisters

in school, with friends and relatives in the workplace, and in their living

arrangements with partners, families, caregivers or on their own throughout the

communities.

For a long time families had difficulties caring for their own

family members because of a lack of understanding and a lack of resources

available in our communities. People became marginalized both physically and

socially when they lived in institutional settings and went to their own

schools.

[ Page 8545 ]

But over time we began to value and celebrate inclusion. As a

society, our policies and legislation began to respect the inherent abilities of

each person to contribute in a meaningful way to society.

I have two minutes to recognize the government's proclamation of

October as Community Living Month. It's two minutes to express goodwill and

thanks and to recognize the dedication of all those who work with and advocate

for people with developmental disabilities.

I'd like to thank them for highlighting the achievements of those

they work with but also for taking the risk and registering their concerns about

the dangerous lack of services that exists in our communities; about the

wait-lists that continue to grow; about the administrative mess resulting from

continual reorganization; and not least, about the funding gaps that look like

canyons to us and must feel like despair for those in the sector.

To you and to our friends who receive services throughout B.C.,

your concerns will continue to be raised in this chamber, and your voices will

be heard long after Community Living Month is over.

Oral Questions

LOBBYING ACTIVITIES OF

GRAHAM BRUCE

C. James: Yesterday when the opposition raised questions

concerning the lobbying activities of Graham Bruce, a former cabinet minister,

the Attorney General told us to take it up with the proper authorities.

Today we hear that Mr. Bruce denies that he was a lobbyist. I want

to quote from minutes from the Cowichan Tribes treaty committee: "The reason why

Graham Bruce was brought aboard was to secure the Cowichan Tribes' share of $3

million for the 2008 North American Indigenous Games." Sounds like lobbying to

me.

[1400]

Those same minutes show Mr. Bruce met directly with the Premier to

secure these funds. Again, sounds like lobbying to me.

My question is to the proper authority — to the Premier. When is

he going to close the gaping loopholes that allow his Liberal friends and

insiders to walk on through, to be able to lobby without ever registering as a

lobbyist?

Hon. W. Oppal: If there are serious allegations that are

made — and they were made yesterday and again today — then they should be made

to the proper authorities. It doesn't do any good at all to raise these

questions in this House regarding allegations…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Attorney.

Hon. W. Oppal: …of misconduct. You know, it's easy to slag

persons' reputations while being clothed with the cloak of immunity in this

House, but we're dealing here with reputations of people.

If there is wrongdoing, if there's any evidence of wrongdoing on

the part of any of those persons, the law is clear. Read the law. The law tells

you what you can do. You have remedies under the law. That's what I would

suggest the opposition do.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a

supplemental.

C. James: At the last legislative session in the spring,

the only response we got from the government was: "It's before the courts." Now

it appears the only response is: "Go to the courts." What is this government

doing? Absolutely nothing.

Mr. Bruce met with the Premier to secure funding for an agency

that he represented. He succeeded in getting that money, and the minutes show

that Mr. Bruce used that money to fund his own salary — to line his own pockets.

Mr. Bruce contacted the Premier directly on July 10, 2006, to make his pitch. He

also made it clear he was lobbying other ministers, including the current

Minister of Community Services and the current Minister of Children and Family

Development.

Mr. Bruce told the Cowichan Tribes treaty committee — and I quote

from the minutes: "I'm calling in my credits with these ministers and other

government officials to use their full capacity to support Cowichan Tribes with

new initiatives."

Again, to the Premier. One of his friends has been caught lobbying

the Premier's office to secure funds for their own personal benefit, and it's

certainly not the first time this has happened. Why didn't the Premier put an

end to this blatant insider trading? Why is he trying to protect his own?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, that's a brand-new definition of insider

trading. The securities lawyers will be pleased to hear about that one.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Hon. W. Oppal: I repeat: the issue is simple. If there is

wrongdoing here, if the allegations represent wrongdoing on the part of any

person, then the remedy is there. Read the law. Read the act. The act sets out

the remedies that are available.

Go to the appropriate authorities. Go to the police. Those are

your remedies.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further

supplemental.

[ Page 8546 ]

C. James: You would think that the Attorney General and the

Premier would be concerned about this kind of information, but apparently not,

according to the Attorney General.

I'll provide them with more information. We know that a former

cabinet minister called in his credits with the Premier and other ministers to

secure $3 million in funding. The minutes show that $121,000 of that money went

directly to Graham Bruce for lobbying. He secured his own salary.

The trouble doesn't end there. Mr. Bruce convinced the treaty

committee to front his salary out of moneys loaned to the band from the B.C.

Treaty Commission, which is a clear violation of the rules governing treaty

negotiations in this province. Mr. Bruce was paid with treaty money to lobby his

cabinet friends on a matter that wasn't related to treaties.

[1405]

He then committed to repay the moneys once he secured the funding

by lobbying the Premier.

My question is directly to the Premier. Why did he help Mr. Bruce

violate basic finance rules and then try and cover it up?

Hon. M. de Jong: It may appeal to the opposition leader's

sense of politics to cast aspersions over characters in this chamber, where she

is granted the immunity that all members do enjoy. But there is a process in

place, whether it is via the Lobbyists Registration Act or the Members' Conflict

of Interest Act.

I am aware of information that is in the public domain from Mr.

Bruce, where he confirms he contacted the Conflict-of-Interest Commissioner in

2005 and is in the process of meeting with him again to ensure….

Interjections.

Hon. M. de Jong: Now, members opposite, in pursuit of their

political agenda, may not wish that process to run its course, but that is the

fair and equitable thing to do.

And while I am on my feet, quite frankly, before the Leader of the

Opposition maligns the Cowichan First Nation, I want everyone in this House to

know that we stand with the Cowichan First Nation in pursuit of hosting the 2008

Indigenous Games. We stand with the Cowichan First Nation as they pursue

solutions to a housing issue that has gone unresolved for far too many years,

and we will continue to stand with the Cowichan First Nation as they seek

reconciliation in British Columbia.

L. Krog: Well, hon. Speaker, bluster just doesn't cut it,

for the integrity of government and the processes by which we operate in this

province are in jeopardy when this government refuses to respond to appropriate

questions about a very serious matter which was raised in this House yesterday.

I'm astonished at the reaction of the Government House Leader to what is a very

serious issue.

This is a quote from Mr. Bruce, from the treaty committee minutes:

"We've had to do some creative bookkeeping in how we can present it to the

appropriate authorities, but everything is okay."

The Attorney General likes to talk about appropriate authorities.

I would remind him that he is the chief law enforcer in this province.

So I'll ask the Attorney General: who is the appropriate authority

when taxpayer dollars are caught up in a misappropriation scandal and cover-up?

Hon. M. de Jong: What a remarkable assertion from a member

who should know better. To make these conclusions on the basis of incomplete

information — information that is not available to me, not available to him….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: Yet in his zeal to try and malign the

character of individuals who are not here in this House to defend themselves, he

draws these conclusions and makes these assertions. It's inappropriate.

It is inappropriate to make those sorts of assertions in a way

that also casts aspersions on the Cowichan First Nation, who are out there

trying to do their best on behalf of their people, trying to host an indigenous

games next year, trying to solve a housing issue that has plagued them for too

long. I think it's shameful on the part of this member.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

L. Krog: If the Government House Leader would spend as much

time listening as he did talking, perhaps he'd be interested in a solution to

this. Perhaps he'd be interested in talking about an investigation. Perhaps he'd

be announcing in the House that it was an independent prosecutor appointed.

Perhaps he'd be interested in defending the integrity of government processes.

[1410]

I would remind him that the rules governing loans from the B.C.

Treaty Commission are absolutely clear. Loans are to be used for treaty

negotiations, not lobbyists. The rules state that loans are to be used to

prepare for and carry out treaty negotiations, but that's not what happened. Mr.

Bruce used that money to lobby the Premier and call in his credits. That was a

clear violation, and the Premier was directly involved.

I say to the Premier today: will he stand up today, denounce Mr.

Bruce's activities and explain why he doled out $3 million to fund Mr. Bruce's

own salary and cover up this creative bookkeeping?

Hon. M. de Jong: There's actually an intervening step, and

it is for this member to show some courage and integrity and make the same sorts

of assertions outside of this chamber that he's making inside the chamber.

I have noted a developing trend on the part of this opposition.

That is their willingness to malign the

[ Page 8547 ]

characters of private citizens within this chamber and not make the same

statements outside of this chamber, and that is deplorable. I suggest that the

member knows better.

D. Routley: I stand with the people of Cowichan — the

Cowichan Tribes. I've stood with them since I was barely big enough to stand and

played road hockey and done everything with them, and I know the life they're

living. I know what they've had to put up with, and this is too much.

The facts are clear. These are the facts, and they speak for

themselves. Graham Bruce is a Liberal insider who cashed in on his political

credits to secure his own salary. Treaty moneys were used, in clear violation of

the rules, and this government approved it. Graham Bruce tried to cover it all

up with some creative bookkeeping, and no one has done anything about it.

Can the Minister of Aboriginal Relations explain why no one in

government has acted to hold anyone accountable for this misappropriation of

funds?

Hon. M. de Jong: I accept at face value the hon. member's

assertion that he is well acquainted with the Cowichan First Nation. I know it

to be so. In fact, I've seen correspondence recently where he applauds the

Cowichan First Nation for the efforts they are taking to secure funding to

proceed with the presentation of the Indigenous Games next year.

It presumably, therefore, could not have been news to the hon.

member that Mr. Bruce was involved with the Cowichan First Nation, he himself

having been so intimately familiar with the inner workings of that group. So to

come….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: For him to come here today and suggest

that this is some sort of earth-shattering revelation really does defy

description and speaks volumes to the political agenda that is really at play

here.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

D. Routley: It may be no news to the minister that Mr.

Bruce was involved in inappropriate lobbying. It certainly was news to us. This

scandal is about this government. At least three cabinet ministers were

involved, and it goes all the way up to the Premier.

Again to the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation:

why has he ignored this serious scandal, and why has no one been held

accountable?

Hon. M. de Jong: It seems that this is all news to the hon.

member — that somehow he has woken up in the last few days to the knowledge that

Mr. Bruce has been working with the Cowichan First Nation. Well, surprise,

surprise. I suspect that the Cowichan First Nation are working with all sorts of

people to try and present the best possible Indigenous Games ever hosted in

North America.

[1415]

If the hon. member is offended by that notion, then he should make

those views known here, and he should make it clear to the Cowichan First Nation

that he's offended by the actions they have taken to date.

We are not offended by the fact that the Cowichan First Nation are

working hard on behalf of their people, working hard to solve a housing dilemma

that they've faced for too long, and want to host the best possible Indigenous

Games in all of North America.

J. Horgan: Two sets of rules in this place: one for

everyone else and one for Liberal insiders. "I'm calling in my credits with

these ministers and other government officials," and "We've had to do some

creative bookkeeping."

For several months the Minister of Aboriginal Relations has been

aware of this issue. It was brought to his attention on June 11, 2007, by

disturbed band members from the Cowichan Valley. All they got back from the

minister was: "Thank you very much."

For four months the Minister of Aboriginal Relations has known

that his old buddy the House Leader, the guy who introduced the Lobbyists

Registration Act, was violating it. What has he done about it? You've known

about it for four months. What have you done about it?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Just take your seat.

Minister.

Hon. M. de Jong: Look, I've never known this hon. member to

be a shrinking violet. If he has an allegation to make, he should make it. He

should have the….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue.

Hon. M. de Jong: He should have the courage to make the

same assertion outside of the House. It would appear, in so doing, that he is

perhaps in possession of information that the rest of us are not in possession

of. But if he is in possession of that information and if he is serious about

wanting this matter pursued, presumably he would make that same information

available to the responsible authorities.

In the absence of that, I can only conclude that the member is

more interested in chasing political spectres than in actually forwarding this

issue along.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

J. Horgan: The minutes were on the Internet, so it's not an

issue of public disclosure. The minister has had

[ Page 8548 ]

this information since June 11. Concerned citizens in the Cowichan Valley,

band members, approached this minister — the one that they thought was

accountable to them — with a concern four months ago, and nothing has happened.

Nothing happens over four months. In my dictionary that's

cover-up. When will the minister take action to get the Liberal hand out of the

public purse? When is that going to happen?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, if inaction equals a cover-up, then

we suffered from a decade of it in the 1990s.

If I can sift through the political rhetoric, I think what I am

hearing today, amongst other things, is an allegation that the Cowichan First

Nation, through their agents….

[1420]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Take your seat. Minister, just sit down.

Members, we're not going to continue till there's quiet.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. de Jong: An allegation that the Cowichan First

Nation, through their agents and leadership, have somehow participated in some

illegal scheme to misappropriate funding from one source or another….

Conspiracy by its very nature — and I think I've heard that phrase

— involves more than one person. If that is the assertion, if that is the

allegation, then members should make it, and they should have the courage to

make it outside of these doors.

J. Kwan: This is actually a very serious matter. The

minister may want to reply with cute statements, but let us be clear. According

to the minutes of July 19, 2006, of the Cowichan Tribes treaty committee

meeting: "The reason why Graham Bruce was brought aboard was to secure Cowichan

Tribes' shares of $3 million for the 2008 North American Indigenous Games."

It goes on to say — and I quote directly from the document — that

Graham Bruce said:

"I'm only here to assist Cowichan Tribes for a short term

and don't plan on being here to the year of 2010. I don't expect Cowichan Tribes

to pay for my services. I will be self-funded.

"At the last council meeting I stated that there was a

Treasury Board submission that went in. It has been approved, and those funds

can be called for, but right now they can't be called for until certain matters

have been handled or until I call for them."

Then it goes on to say:

"On Monday, July 10, 2006, I contacted the Premier and

informed him that I was presenting a proposal to the Cowichan Tribes chief and

council and wanted to ensure that he knew of this initiative because we would be

looking for the province's support in making these initiatives happen. I'm

calling on my credits with these ministers and government officials to use their

full capacity to support Cowichan Tribes and the new initiatives."

Mr. Speaker: Member, can you pose the question.

J. Kwan: Under the Lobbyists Registration Act, Graham

Bruce, an ex–cabinet minister of this government, violated the act, and the

Premier knew it. Not only that, the minister knew it as well.

Mr. Speaker: Member, pose the question.

J. Kwan: My question is to the Premier. Does he condone

this act, and if not, what is he going to do about it?

Hon. M. de Jong: Whilst I'm always obliged to the hon.

member through the years for the benefit of her expert legal opinion on matters,

I was not aware of the extent to which her qualifications extended far enough to

allow her to draw the conclusions that she just has about the application of the

act or the findings that she has rendered in this House.

There are, of course, processes by which those accusations can be

dealt with and those findings could be made. It is not, however, in my view, for

this member — or for me, for that matter — to draw those conclusions, and I

suggest that she is mistaken in her political zeal to do so.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Kwan: I've got to say this. Maybe the minister would

actually take the time to read the correspondence that comes through his office,

because he was well aware of this situation. This was brought to his office, and

it was acknowledged by his administrative assistant by receipt, by virtue of an

e-mail that stated that they got the documentation. The minister would be wise

to read the documents and know what he's talking about before he attacks the

opposition.

[1425]

Let me say this. The minutes go on to say, from Graham Bruce:

"I am self-funded for the work that is being done. Nothing

came from Cowichan Tribes administration or treaty department funds. We did

total the amount of moneys that went out and when moneys came back, we did have

to find some creative ways to return the funds.

"All the funds have been returned. If there are

some discrepancies, I would like to find out what they are. The amount is

approximately $117,000 to $121,000."

The minister and the Premier should know, as the head of

the executive council, that an ex–cabinet minister is not to lobby his own

government with inside information that he had obtained through Treasury Board

submissions. That's what we have in this documentation here in these minutes.

To the Premier, the head of the executive council: is this

appropriate behaviour from an ex–cabinet minister

[ Page 8549 ]

that served under him? And is it appropriate for him to respond to Graham

Bruce, who violated the acts that should govern ex–cabinet ministers?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: The hon. member moves back and forth

selectively through, potentially, the applicable legislation. She knows full

well that the Members' Conflict of Interest Act sets out certain requirements.

It sets out requirements for members of the chamber and, at a certain point,

refers to the conduct of former members of the chamber and executive members.

The individual involved, the private citizen, has apparently —

based on the information that is in the public domain — consulted with the

Conflict-of-Interest Commissioner in 2005 and, we are told — it is in the public

domain — is engaged in discussions with the Conflict-of-Interest Commissioner

today. So the conclusions that may be drawn from that are yet to be drawn.

I must say, as well, that I am…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue.

Hon. M. de Jong: …interested to know, in drawing on the

documentation that the hon. member has, which is allegedly the minutes of a

meeting….

Interjections.

Hon. M. de Jong: I say allegedly because I haven't seen

them, but I will take what the member says.

I am curious to know how the opposition purports, on the one hand,

to rely upon the minutes of a meeting of an organization which presumably

endorses those minutes and the actions therein and, on the other hand, says that

when I suggest they are maligning the behaviour of that organization, somehow

that is incorrect or inappropriate — because they are doing precisely that. They

are maligning the individual and the organization, the Cowichan First Nation.

M. Farnworth: What is offensive to the people of this

province is how this government consistently tries to hide behind bluff and

defence to avoid telling the truth to the people of this province.

We have heard in minutes — minutes that were made available to

this government more than four months ago — about calling in credits and

creative accounting. One of my questions: was the issue of creative accounting

raised with the conflict commissioner? This stinks, and it needs to be

investigated.

My question to the Attorney General: will he not hide behind the

courts? Will he not say: "Go to the authorities"? Will he stand up and appoint a

special prosecutor to look into these issues and ensure that things are all on

the up and up? [Applause.]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[1430]

Hon. M. de Jong: The longest applause I've got in this

chamber for a long time.

The question reveals much about what is at the heart of this

entire line of questioning. The Attorney General does not appoint special

prosecutors. It is precisely to ensure that that process is kept at arm's length

from the political wing of government that the act was constructed in a way that

ensures it's not an elected representative who is making that appointment.

I understand that when you are in the business of maligning the

character of individuals, when you are in the business of maligning the

intentions of a first nation trying to do good for their people, you're not

really interested in the facts and you're not really interested in the law, but

on this side of the House we are.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Take your seat for a while.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Question period is over.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Hon. M. de Jong: I table the Tsawwassen First Nation harvest

agreement, tax treatment agreement and real property tax coordination agreement.

Petitions

D. MacKay: I have a petition to file on behalf of 145

constituents in Atlin who are opposed to the draft framework agreement with the

Taku River Tlingit on the land use plan in Atlin.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call second reading of Bill 40, the

Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement Act.

Second Reading of Bills

TSAWWASSEN FIRST NATION

FINAL AGREEMENT ACT

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, it is a great honour to rise in the

House today and move second reading of this landmark bill — to do so in the

presence of chief and

[ Page 8550 ]

councillors. I'm not sure if Chief Baird and Councillor Cassidy were present

earlier when I indicated to the House that they have accepted the challenge

associated with staying for the duration of the second reading debate. I'm

pleased about that. In offering her profound remarks yesterday, I want to thank

her again and her council and the Tsawwassen First Nation.

[S. Hawkins in the chair.]

I also want to thank all hon. members and take this moment to

point out and alert Chief Baird to the fact that the historic invitation that

was extended yesterday was an invitation from all members of this House and a

very personal one, by virtue of the rules that exist in this chamber.

I say to all hon. members on both sides of the House: many thanks.

Many thanks for extending that invitation and providing that opportunity to

Chief Baird to come to the Bar and provide those remarks to us.

[1435]

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

It's only the second time in the legislative history of this

province that a member has had the opportunity to stand and present legislation

to enact a modern land claim. There are a few of us who were around the last

time it occurred, and I'll talk a bit about that a little later. But other than

that, we are very much in the realm of firsts.

This is the first final agreement treaty to reach the floor of

this House, to emerge from the made-in-B.C. treaty commission process. It is the

first treaty made between the government of British Columbia, the government of

Canada and an urban-based first nation. Chief Baird is the first female chief to

lead her first nation to this stage in the Treaty Commission process, to lead

her community through the ratification process. She is the first female chief to

come to the Bar of this chamber and provide the historic and sage words that she

did yesterday. I say again: Chief Baird, thank you. Congratulations. [Applause.]

I can't promise members at the commencement of this discussion

that my remarks will be particularly brief. I think it's important that some

things be said about not just the history of this treaty but the history of the

province and the country that allow us to arrive at this point and conduct this

discussion.

Treaties are many things. They are, of course, legal instruments:

complex, complicated, weighty — in this day and age, at least — legal documents.

They are economic agreements. I'll talk about that, because I think that is an

important component — important to the Tsawwassen First Nation and important to

the other signatories to the agreement.

They are political instruments in the sense that they include

provisions that allow for self-government — reinstitute, as it were, elements of

self-government. They are government-to-government-to-government arrangements,

products of that tripartite governmental negotiation. But they are also, I

think, themselves an instrument in the journey towards reconciliation.

I know I'm not the only member of this chamber that was profoundly

impacted by what Chief Baird said yesterday when she began her remarks by

pointing to the significance of this final agreement from the perspective of

achieving that reconciliation.

As we consider where we are along that path, I'd like to take a

few moments to consider where we've been as a country and as a province in that

journey towards reconciliation, a journey that I suppose you could say began

over 400 years ago on this continent, on the shores of North America or in this

case on the shores of Canada, I suppose — the shores of New France and later

Upper Canada and Lower Canada.

We can trace that journey in the early years through things like

important instruments like the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which — the argument

is made — included a recognition, implicit in an instrument like the royal

proclamation, of aboriginal occupancy of the lands and included provisions

whereby only the British Crown could acquire lands from aboriginal peoples and

only do so by way of a treaty.

[1440]

Of course, the irony of that situation, which has come home to

visit upon us in British Columbia, is that in this province that work,

undertaken in many of the other parts of Canada, was not completed here. In

fact, in many ways, it had barely begun when James Douglas became the prefect

for the Hudson's Bay Company and later the governor of the colony of British

Columbia.

He actually began some of that work by acquiring lands from first

nations in 14 instances, I believe, if my memory is correct, between 1850 and

1854. But even in terms of the colony of Vancouver Island, that was merely 1

percent of the overall land base. So the questions around rights and title went

unaddressed and if we are candid about our history over the last 150 years, I

think it is fair to say, more than just went unaddressed.

Attitudes on the part of non-aboriginal peoples — colonial

settlers, if you will — hardened, and an attitude of denial set in. Today we

see, as we look back over historical documents, plenty of evidence of that. I

suppose the poster child of that hardening attitude has become, in our history,

Joseph Trutch, who probably was articulating — at a certain point he was

articulating — actual governmental policy when he said that in his view,

aboriginal peoples had no right to the lands that they claimed — period.

That was an attitude that blossomed into a full-fledged policy of

denial, certainly by 1871, at the time British Columbia entered into

Confederation. It really influenced in a significant way the relationship that

developed between first nations and non-aboriginal government in British

Columbia. It really impacted upon the manner in which issues that arose between

those two groups were addressed and, certainly, the land issue.

It was, I think, 1899 when Treaty 8…. There are members in this

House who reside in the northeast part of the province, in which Treaty 8

remains in

[ Page 8551 ]

effect. That was the last time that treaty discussions took place and matured

until almost 100 years later — a big gap with profound consequences for

aboriginal peoples, first nations, British Columbians, Canadians generally.

Today we are talking about the Tsawwassen First Nation and its

role in that developing journey, that tumultuous journey, towards

reconciliation. The Tsawwassen is more than a small first nation located on the

shores of Georgia Strait and the mouth of the Fraser River. They are a people

with a proud history, a seagoing history. They are a seagoing Coast Salish

people with their own language who for generations resided in and cared for

their lands and their waters in the lower Fraser and in the southern Strait of

Georgia.

I won't profess to be an anthropological expert but have read

enough and spoken enough to people from the Tsawwassen to know about the

lifestyle — the seasonal migration that took place, the winters spent in

magnificent longhouses, the summers spent in less permanent structures, the

cedar mats — as people moved from place to place. Tsawwassen itself, I'm told —

the place we now know as Tsawwassen — was originally a winter site for the

Tsawwassen First Nation. It actually means "people facing out to sea."

[1445]

The geographical knowledge of this area is so rooted, so strong,

so solid that it actually, I'm told, dates back to when Tsawwassen was itself an

island, which connected to the mainland over time through the deposits that

flowed down the Fraser River. Tsawwassen — a society of artisans, craftspeople,

hunters, fishers, equally at home on the land and on the sea and, by all

accounts, a very generous people guided by the principle of sharing the fruits

of the Earth.

In fact, one of the stories conveyed to me — and I hope I do

justice to it in this debate here today — was the legend of the transformer

named Xaals, who arrived at Boundary Bay and confronted an older lady named

Skee-math-iya. The story goes that he confronted her because she was unwilling

to share her accumulated clams. The legend goes that as a result of that, the

transformer condemned her to live amongst the clams and turned her into a stone.

But even the legends convey that sense of sharing of the fruits of the Earth.

It was that generosity and that spirit of sharing that would be

sorely tested in the years following contact with Europeans. People came —

thousands, hundreds of thousands, ultimately — over, in historical terms, a very

short span of time. They came. Borders were drawn. International borders were

drawn. District borders, regional borders — all drawn with no real input from

the Tsawwassen or aboriginal people generally. A colony was born, later a

province and a country.

In 1871 that process of settlement and colonization evolved to a

point where the boundaries of the Tsawwassen reserve — a new term in those days,

I suppose — were laid out. It was, I'm told, originally about 400 acres. A part

of the history we don't like to talk about but which lives in the minds of the

Tsawwassen people themselves, of course, is that by 1900, I am advised, the

population of the Tsawwassen people had depleted through the ravages of disease

to no more than 50 people, from the thousands that had resided there previously.

The reserve eventually settled in at 290 hectares. I'm not sure what that

translates into acreage-wise but, suffice to say, a modest volume of land by any

measure.

It would be incorrect, however, to say that this all took place

without the Tsawwassen First Nation possessing voices as they pursued justice

and fairness and, to use Chief Kim Baird's terms, genuine reconciliation with

the new arrivals.

One of those voices, one of those strong voices, was a man named

Chief Harry Joe. He was, by all accounts, quite a remarkable man, not just

because he was Chief Kim Baird's great-grandfather but because, in the very

decisive decades of the early 20th century, he spoke out forcefully and he spoke

out often and eloquently for the Tsawwassen First Nation. He also, through the

1920s, went to great pains to record the oral history — history that might

otherwise have been lost — about the Tsawwassen First Nation.

He confronted, by all accounts, the pressures facing his people

and their lands with realism and genuine resolve. He was not, I am told, a

romantic. He understood that the world was changing, and he wanted to negotiate

space and a place where the Tsawwassen could flourish amidst the changes that

were occurring around them.

[1450]

He appeared before the McKenna-McBride royal commission in April

1914. Imagine that. Imagine what was taking place in the world. The events that

would catapult the world into the first of a worldwide conflict were scant

months away, but Chief Harry Joe was before the McKenna-McBride royal

commission.

He said the following: "I am going to speak to you gentlemen and

to tell you that we have been in this place from time immemorial, and I am going

to explain to you gentlemen how our ancestors were created in this place right

man of this race was created."

Chief Harry Joe had a profound sense of the history of the

Tsawwassen First Nation and understood the need to reconcile that history and

the Tsawwassen place in this country with what was taking place around him. In

Chief Harry Joe's time there was an insatiable appetite for land on the part of

the largely agrarian European settlers that were coming. That would cause a

growing tension.

Ironically, if we fast-forward to today and the discussion we're

having, that tension around an agrarian-based society and affection for lands

and agricultural uses of land has not gone away. It is with us to this day, and

I know it has been the basis for some difficulties that members have experienced

in trying to decide their response to this product of a negotiation between the

parties.

At the same time that Chief Harry Joe was expressing his views and

articulating on behalf of the Tsawwassen, there were other powerful speakers and

[ Page 8552 ]

leaders. First nations were beginning the process of organizing. It was in

1890 that the first Nisga'a Land Committee came into being. Between about 1905

and 1913 delegations from British Columbia, various first nations, would travel

to Victoria, Ottawa and London.

You have to be careful how you say that in 2007, because it rolls

off the tongue very easily. But imagine what that meant in the early part of the

20th century for a group of people to travel vast distances. Sometimes days and

days were spent on an oceangoing canoe to come down the coast or make their way

to places far, far away. It is a reflection of the tenacity and the passion that

people like the Tsawwassen felt for what was happening around them that they

committed to those exercises and sought the reconciliation that proved so

elusive.

In 1915 the Allied Indian Tribes of B.C. formed. In the 1960s, in

response to the now famous federal White Paper, the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs

formed, both to respond to the White Paper but also to seek recognition of

aboriginal rights and title. It's something that that organization continues to

pursue to this day.

In 1982 the National Indian Brotherhood evolved into the Assembly

of First Nations, and we heard yesterday profound words in the morning ceremony

from regional Chief Shawn Atleo of the Assembly of First Nations — very much a

part of the equation when it comes to effecting the reconciliation that Chief

Baird spoke so eloquently about yesterday.

Then in 1990 the creation in British Columbia of the First Nations

Summit, comprised of the majority of first nations and tribal councils in B.C.,

actually, and originally formed around the working group on treaty issues. It,

as well, remains a very important component of the landscape when we talk about

reconciliation within British Columbia.

[1455]

All of that was occurring and continues to occur against an

evolving legal and constitutional backdrop. I won't pretend to say that in this

country we have made the journey towards reconciliation any easier by virtue of

some of the decisions we've made.

In 1867, for example, in the British North America Act we

apparently thought it was a good idea, on the one hand, to enshrine

constitutionally the notion that what was then termed Indians and the Indian

land issue would be vested in the federal Crown, but lands and resources would

become a provincial jurisdiction. Unbeknownst, I suppose, to the Fathers of

Confederation, that would have profound consequences for decades in the pursuit

of the reconciliation that Chief Baird spoke about.

It really would be decades before a leading member of the Nisga'a

Nation, Frank Calder, whom the province lost last year, would see a case through

to the Supreme Court of Canada. That high court would rule that Nisga'a

aboriginal title did exist. That first modern-day recognition of the concept of

aboriginal title would become a facet of Canadian common law.

That led to the federal government initiating a comprehensive land

claims process, but at that point still without the participation of the

province. For the Tsawwassen and countless first nations right across British

Columbia the notion of resolving these issues would prove elusive, insofar as

one of the key players constitutionally remained unengaged.

In 1982 another piece of the puzzle emerged, insofar as

section 35

of the Constitution Act affirmed existing aboriginal rights. Big challenge. What

are they? What were they? In saying those things, what did we mean? That has

proven to be a key piece in the puzzle as we move along the path towards

reconciliation. Other leading court cases, like the Sparrow decision, talked

about the government's rights, first nation rights — the government not

unjustifiably infringing on those aboriginal rights as referred to in the

constitution.

But 1990 was a watershed year for another reason, and I think, in

retrospect, it represents a major step along the path to reconciliation. It was

in that year that a tripartite task force, comprised of first nations, Canada

and British Columbia, developed a process for negotiating treaties throughout

British Columbia.

That task force introduced 19 recommendations. They were

unanimously accepted by the three parties, and amongst those recommendations was

the establishment of a B.C. Treaty Commission to facilitate the process of

negotiation and a six-stage process by which negotiators could move through that

treaty commission process.

The first commissioners were appointed in April of 1993, and a few

months later, in December of that year, the commission invited first nations to

enter into the process by submitting their claim intentions.

It is not insignificant to point out that the Tsawwassen First

Nation was amongst the very first to take advantage of the opportunity and

signal their desire to move along the path of reconciliation by notifying the

Treaty Commission that they wanted to be part of this exercise — that they

wanted to pursue their dream, their aspirations and seek that elusive

reconciliation in a way that they could defend to their people.

[1500]

This might be a good time, since we are dealing with the first

treaty to emerge out of the B.C. Treaty Commission process, to say a few things

about the commission. I'll start by paying tribute to some of the people who sit

on the commission today.

No stranger to this House is Jack Weisgerber, who served with

distinction for a number of years. He's actually the interim chief commissioner

and, I think, can also boast having been appointed British Columbia's first

Aboriginal Affairs Minister. I know that he has relished the opportunity to

continue in the service of the province and the Treaty Commission process

through his term on the Treaty Commission.

Jody Wilson was re-elected to a second term as a commissioner in

March 2005 by the First Nations Summit and is someone who has dedicated her life

these days to the fulfilment of the mandate that the commission holds, as does

Robert Phillips, who was elected by the First Nations Summit to his first term

in March 2007.

The commission boasts a record of some eminent British Columbians.

This might also be an appropriate time to mention at least two, for fear of

offending those

[ Page 8553 ]

that I don't mention. Mike Harcourt — who, as well, is no stranger to this

chamber and who served here as Premier — also served with distinction on the

B.C. Treaty Commission. As Premier, he deserves credit for having moved that

process forward in the government of the day.

If reconciliation is an evolutionary concept, then it is worth

pointing out and acknowledging the contribution that people have made along the

way. Certainly, former Premier Harcourt, both as Premier and as a commissioner

on the B.C. Treaty Commission, deserves that recognition for the leadership he

showed, as does another individual who is now an occasional visitor to this

chamber.

That is His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor who, prior to his

appointment, acted as chief commissioner to the B.C. Treaty Commission. He is an

individual deeply committed to achieving the kind of reconciliation that Chief

Baird spoke about yesterday in this chamber.

Which brings me, at the risk of embarrassing her further, to Chief

Baird herself. It is ironic — isn't it? — that we would be here today, a century

after her great-grandfather really began the process on behalf of the Tsawwassen

First Nation by speaking out at commissions like McKenna-McBride, and that a

great-granddaughter of Chief Harry Joe should have played such an instrumental

role in guiding this final agreement through the various stages of negotiation.

Like her great-grandfather, many of the formative events in Chief

Baird's life have taken place against the backdrop of negotiations. Members may

not be aware, but Chief Baird spoke publicly for the first time at a gathering

of the Coast Salish people when she was only 14. Even by the standards of the

political-minded individuals in this room, that is a tender age at which to have

the courage to stand and speak about her aspirations for herself and the

Tsawwassen First Nation. She was elected chief at age 28, I believe.

[1505]

There's something that I understand she is teased about

occasionally. She and Steve have seen their two children Amy and Sophia born at

particularly instrumental times in the negotiating process. It was just a few

days around the AIP that Amy emerged in this world, and Sophia just a few days

after the initialling of the final agreement in Tsawwassen on that day last

year.

Through the strength of her commitment, through the strength of

the people around her and through her ability to look beyond the struggles and

beyond the technical impediments, she has been able to lead her people through

to the negotiation of an instrument of reconciliation. For that, although I am

certain she has not done so with this in mind, she has carved out for herself a

place in our province's and country's history.

I say yet again to Chief Baird: madam, we are eternally grateful

and eternally respectful for the leadership that you have shown. Thank you very

much.

What is in this instrument of reconciliation? It is surely part of

our task here today and in the days to come to consider what has been laid

before us by negotiators, by the government in this case. I will restrict my

comments to some broad themes because I know we'll have an opportunity in the

days ahead to speak to some of the specifics that comprise this agreement and

some of the detailed work that goes into it.

Let me say this about what is contained within the various

chapters and provisions. There is a land component to this final agreement, land

that will comprise the treaty settlement lands and form the foundation —

literally the foundation — for the building of a community into the future.

I don't think I need to convince many of the members in this

chamber about the intrinsic connection that exists between aboriginal peoples,

the Tsawwassen in this case, and the lands that they reside upon. The 724

hectares of settlement land, it is obvious, are a mere fraction of the lands

that 150 years ago the Tsawwassen would have moved within and utilized for

hunting, gathering and sustenance. Those 724 hectares include what are now

reserve lands and some additional lands, including former provincial Crown

lands.

There are other opportunities for the Tsawwassen First Nation to

add to those treaty settlement lands in certain circumstances, and there are

specific details that we can discuss as part of the detailed debate — how they

exercise those options, when and how long those options exist.

The point I would like to make to members is that in many ways at

the heart of and affecting the reconciliation is the confidence that the

Tsawwassen wanted, needed and deserved to say: "We can build our community. We

will have that foundation upon which to ensure that our members have the

housing, have the space that we need to develop an economy and develop some

options."

I know that for some of the members of this chamber, given where

the Tsawwassen First Nation is, that has caused some difficulties, because this

agreement also includes provisions whereby Crown land that is being transferred

to the Tsawwassen First Nation to form part of the treaty settlement lands will

be designated, by virtue of the legislation before the House, to be exempt from

the Agricultural Land Commission.

[1510]

We will have an opportunity to explore, I'm sure, in greater

detail the rationale for that, or the specifics around it and the rationale.

Let me say this, at this juncture of the debate. I believe that

the Tsawwassen community need the same opportunities that other communities

have. I believe that where they are, like any other community in British

Columbia, they deserve an opportunity to develop as they see fit, to create

employment opportunities and, like other communities, do so in a way that is

responsible and responsive to the environmental concerns of their members, their

neighbours.

I believe that this agreement and the manner in which it is to be

implemented allow them to do that, and I believe that they will do it

responsibly and in accordance with the wishes of their community, pursuant to

the terms of the constitution that they ratified some days ago — some weeks ago,

actually.

[ Page 8554 ]

I believe this as well, Madam Chair, because I have heard the

suggestion that a more appropriate course of action would have been to transfer

these lands and leave all of them subject to the provisions of the agricultural

land reserve and the Agricultural Land Commission. That, I believe, would have

been unfair to the Tsawwassen, and I believe it would have been unfair to the

commission.

Settlement of these claims affecting reconciliation with first

nations is not something that presently exists within the mandate of the

Agricultural Land Commission. It would have been unfair, in my view, to strike

an arrangement that was contingent upon some arm's-length body coming to a

particular decision, and we chose not to. We'll have an opportunity to discuss

that. Members will be able to express their views on it. But I believe that just

as every other community in the province possesses a mixture of land — both

agricultural and non-agricultural, commercial, industrial, residential — the

Tsawwassen deserve the same opportunity. That's why I'm proud of and in full

agreement with the provisions that exist within this treaty and within this

settlement legislation.

There are provisions in this treaty that ensure public access over

public roads. There are, obviously, financial components that we will explore in

the subsequent debate, transfers to the Tsawwassen First Nation, and governance

provisions that will ensure that the instruments exist for the Tsawwassen First

Nation now and well into the future. Maybe there's another generation of

leadership in Chief Harry Joe's lineage. Maybe Sophia, having attended all of

these negotiations, has acquired, through some process of osmosis, an appetite

for the leadership that her mother performs with such admirable ability. Who

knows?

The constitution and the governance provisions that exist within

this agreement will ensure that the Tsawwassen have the tools they need now and

well into the future to make the kinds of decisions that communities want to

make on matters that touch directly upon their lives. That is, I believe, as it

should be and is included within the provisions of the settlement legislation

and settlement agreement that is before the House today, provisions dealing with

taxation.

The Chief spoke yesterday both within this House and, I have read,

outside of the House about the fact that a negotiation and the pathway to

reconciliation involve compromise on the part of all parties. I have no doubt

that Chief Baird and the treaty negotiators for the Tsawwassen would point to

the provisions around taxation as an example of where they have shown

flexibility and compromise.

[1515]

That is very much the hallmark of many of the provisions of this

agreement, but I thought it was worth pointing out that in coming to this

agreement, there are aspects to it that…. There's no perfection here. I think I

heard Chief Baird say that yesterday. This is not a perfect deal, not from her

perspective, and I doubt from the perspective of any member in this chamber. But

for reasons I'll allude to in a moment, I think it's astronomically better

than….

Deputy Speaker: Minister, excuse me. Are you designated as

well as the mover?

Hon. M. de Jong: Yes, I have been designated.

Those provisions exist, and I know we'll have an opportunity to

review them. Members will have a clear understanding, if they wish, of how they

will operate — how the treaty interacts with the agreements that are not formal

parts of the treaty instrument but are negotiated and have been negotiated as

part of the larger umbrella discussion that took place.

There are provisions that deal with non-member representation in

situations where decisions are made that affect people who are not members of

the Tsawwassen First Nation. They will be consulted. They will have an

opportunity to have representation on Tsawwassen organizations, bodies that

purport to make decisions affecting those people. Significantly, the rights of

both Tsawwassen First Nation members and non-members will continue to be

protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

This is a complex, complicated, large document, and in many ways

it represents a culmination of that journey along the path towards

reconciliation, as the Chief said. It also represents the beginning of a new

relationship in a formal, and perhaps a less formal, way. It is a new

relationship between neighbours, and I do want to take a moment to talk about

that, because the Tsawwassen First Nation, following the enactment of this

agreement and the effective date, will in a very formal way take their place

amongst the communities in British Columbia.

The arrangements that have been or will be negotiated to allow for

the shared services, for purchasing into water agreements and sewer agreements,

for other service agreements and the interaction that will take place between

the Tsawwassen First Nation and Metro Vancouver, or GVRD as we formerly knew it

— all of these are contemplated and a part of the discussion.

Not just at what we sometimes call the senior governmental levels,

as between the Tsawwassen First Nation and the governments of British Columbia

and Canada, but also at a local and regional level the basis, the framework

around which that new relationship can take root and flourish is enshrined

within these agreements. At the end of the day, as we frequently say, genuine

reconciliation takes place from the ground up. By virtue of what we have seen

and heard….

By the way, I want to say this. Through the course of negotiations

there have at times been some passionate exchanges at the regional, local,

provincial and national levels, but I was so pleased to see the mayor of Delta

and, I think, the entire council here yesterday. I interpreted that — and it was

reinforced with me — as a show of support for what has taken place and as a

desire to give effect to that new relationship and to move forward in a

cooperative spirit with the first nation.

[1520]

[ Page 8555 ]

I applaud Mayor Jackson and members of the Delta council for being

here, for tangibly showing that support and for saying: "We're going to move

forward. We want to welcome in a very real way to the community of communities

in the lower mainland in British Columbia the Tsawwassen First Nation as

represented by this agreement." I think that's a good sign, and I know that

Chief Baird and the council welcome it and will take advantage of that spirit of

cooperation.

It is an instrument in reconciliation arrived at through a process

of negotiation, but also a process of negotiation that was built around the

principle of self-determination. This is the Tsawwassen treaty. It engages all

of us as representatives in the province of British Columbia and nationally, but

it is the treaty that the Tsawwassen have negotiated on the basis of mandates

that they have received from their community — a treaty that was voted upon by

members of the Tsawwassen First Nation community and that received 70-percent

ratification.

It was an informed debate. It was a vote that took place after

careful consideration — I know there were passionate views expressed as part of

that discussion within the Tsawwassen First Nation — a decision that the

Tsawwassen members made that said: "This is the right thing for us to do." This

is the mechanism by which the Tsawwassen, as Chief Baird said yesterday, choose

to shake free from the shackles of the Indian Act.

Now, in the year 2007 it is easy to stand here and not be

cognizant of the impact of the Indian Act over the years. I think most of us

know some of the most egregious details. We know about the laws that were

enshrined within that piece of legislation to preclude the potlatches from

taking place, that were designed to preclude ceremonial dress and regalia. In

the worst instances in the early part of the 20th century, laws contained within

the Indian Act made it illegal to hire a lawyer to pursue the land issue.

Yet even today the tentacles of the Indian Act reach out to

constrain the ability that communities have to realize their destiny. Imagine a

situation where along a beach, trees blow down or something washes in from the

sea and the first nation community is precluded from addressing that issue

without first consulting with bureaucrats thousands of miles away in Ottawa.

The stories are legion. How is it that we thought that we could

create viable communities, that people could realize the things they wanted to

do by maintaining this link through this piece of federal legislation to a

system and a bureaucracy that had very little, if anything, to do with allowing

that self-determination, that economic development to develop from the ground up

within the communities?

Madam Chair, the Tsawwassen, through their elected representative

and council — Chief Baird and her council — have said that enough is enough.

They said: "We are shaking free of the constraints of the Indian Act, and this

is the instrument, this is the mechanism, by which we choose to do it."

I say this, perhaps not so much for the audience in this chamber

but for others. The Tsawwassen do not seek to impose this instrument by which

they effect reconciliation with us on anyone else.

[1525]

They do not hold this up as a template — nor do we — and say to

others: "This is the model. This is perfection. This is nirvana in the world of

reconciliation." They say: "No, this is what works for us." I accept that. We

accept it, and I think the majority of members accept it.

There are other paths along the road to reconciliation. There's no

doubt about that, and we have explored some of those roads. We have, on the

property upon which this very building stands…. I talked earlier about those

early days under Governor Douglas when attitudes hardened and the notion of

having to reconcile, to settle outstanding land issues, didn't seem that

important.

That was important. Just under a year ago, we were able to settle

one of those — to effect that reconciliation with the Songhees and Esquimalt

First Nation. Similarly, a half century ago when we made decisions as a province

to develop resources in the Williston reservoir — the construction of power

projects, the Tsay Keh Dene and Kwadacha — no one thought about the impact or no

one considered the need that existed to address the impacts. Hard to effect

reconciliation when those kinds of issues remain unresolved, and yet we have

begun the process of resolving them.

We have begun, through things like the transformative change

accord, to address head-on the challenges of bridging the socioeconomic divide

that has driven aboriginal and non-aboriginal peoples apart for so long.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

It is a remarkable history, sometimes sad, but hopefully one that

has allowed us to learn along the way. I think it's possible to effect

reconciliation, create a new relationship through a variety of instruments, not

just treaties. The creation of a new relationship trust that says to first

nations: "Look. Here are funds." It's never enough, but it's not a bad start —

$100 million. It says: "Arm's length from government, you will make some

decisions now around how these resources are put to use to develop capacity, to

protect culture."

I don't think we ever move fast enough. I think there's always

more work that needs to be done, but reconciliation in a genuine new

relationship comes in many shapes and sizes. We are intent on exploring all of

them, and I say to people who expressed that concern: there are a variety of

ways to effect that reconciliation, a variety of ways to address the issue of

unresolved rights and title. The government is prepared and has and will

continue to explore those other paths.

The Tsawwassen have said this is the correct path for them. The

Tsawwassen have said, after extensive internal discussion, extensive negotiation

and much soul-searching, that in this agreement lies the foundation upon which

to build a prosperous community, one in which families can have dreams and

realize those dreams.

Mr. Speaker, before I conclude, I want to pay tribute to some of

the individuals who have contributed to the realization of this dream. I will

read some of their

[ Page 8556 ]

names into the record, because it is a task that sees many people labouring

behind the scenes and a few people who are able to step forward and receive some

of the credit.

[1530]

On the various treaty teams, I'd like to extend thanks and pay

tribute on the British Columbia treaty team to the following people: Bronwen

Beedle, Phil Symington, Cory Herrera, Frances Statham, Mark Atherton, Catherine

Lang, Tara Todd-Macdonald, Jill Summers, Kerry Craigie, Michael Matsubuchi,

Margo Elewonibi, Lloyd Roberts. Some others that have contributed as well: Steve

Munro, Julie Williams, Geri Hutchings, Andrew Alley. Some previous folks who

played a key role: Katherine Gordon, Ellen Frisch, Kim Ott.

I'd like to acknowledge, as well from Canada, members of their

treaty team past and present: Tim Koepke, Margo Novak, Marion Wu, Maureen Parks,

Bruce Hamilton, David Miranda and Robin Dodson.

For the Tsawwassen, because Chief Baird always takes great pains

to explain that this was very much a team effort as well: their chief negotiator

Chief Kim Baird; Laura Cassidy, of whom I spoke earlier; Andrew Bak; Valerie

Cross-Blackett; Tanya Corbet; Doug McArthur; Sophia Nishimoto; Tina Dion. And

previously, Tony Jacobs, Susan Alcott and Brenda Nichols — all of whom have

contributed over the past 14 years to the conclusion of this agreement.

We're lucky. We occupy this chamber at a remarkable time in the

history of the province. It was, as I indicated, nearly one hundred years ago

that Chief Harry Joe greeted commissioners from the McKenna-McBride commission

to the Tsawwassen lands, onto what he described as "the land facing the sea" in

Tsawwassen.

He had, if you read through the transcripts, a fairly

straightforward wish. He didn't want his people condemned to a postage-stamp

reserve. He wanted the Tsawwassen to have title in their lands. He wanted a

future. He wanted a degree of self-determination that any community wants, an

ability to control the destiny of their people to build an economic foundation,

to develop a means by which families could prosper, children could be raised and

not be forced away from home simply to earn a living.

This legislation that has been made possible through the tireless

efforts of a great many, not the least of which Chief Harry Joe's

great-granddaughter, is an achievement that I believe Harry Joe would be proud

of.

As we approach British Columbia's 150th anniversary — that is the

founding of the Crown colony of British Columbia — it is worth reflecting both

on our past and on the exciting days that lie ahead, days that we hope will

include subsequent debates in this chamber about final agreements, not

necessarily that look precisely the same as this one, but subsequent final

agreements and other instruments by which we effect reconciliation with our

first peoples, with aboriginal peoples in British Columbia and Canada.

As I think about this journey, I think about the contributions

that people have made that allow us to get here. I think about the fact that the

Nisga'a treaty was negotiated. I'm mindful of the fact that I was in this

chamber when the Nisga'a treaty was negotiated — in a different role, and very,

very critical of that agreement.

[1535]

I suppose part of that related to the duties to critique, but I

think as well for me, there may have been something else at play. I think I

harboured a bit of a fear that perhaps the agreements that that represented,

agreements of this sort, were going to drive us apart as Canadians and British

Columbians. That hasn't happened.

One of the things that has made a profound impact on me…. We went

to the Nass Valley earlier this year with the Tsawwassen First Nation Chief

Baird and the Huu-ay-aht people and their leadership, and precisely the opposite

has occurred. There is a pride now that I dare say didn't exist.

I believe these agreements bring us closer together. I believe

these instruments of reconciliation provide us with an opportunity to accomplish

things that were outside of our reach just a few short years and decades ago.

For that reason, I am grateful to the Nisga'a, who welcomed me

back into the Nass Valley, and grateful for the Tsawwassen and the leadership

that they have demonstrated in providing me with that opportunity and that

insight that I might not otherwise have received.

I say to members that I believe this is an agreement that will

stand the test of time, that will provide the Tsawwassen First Nation with the

tools they need, and to close — in the terms that Chief Baird has expressed and

used — provide us with an instrument of reconciliation that is appropriate, that

is defensible, that is historic, that is reasonable. For that reason, I hope

that members of this chamber will stand with us, stand with Canada and stand

with Tsawwassen in support of the Tsawwassen First Nation final agreement.

C. James: I rise with pride today to speak to the

Tsawwassen treaty. I rise with feelings of pride and optimism for the future of

Tsawwassen people, but I also have feelings of great concern about this

government's approach to treaty-making — past, present and future. And I'm going

to take some time this afternoon, as I go through my remarks, to talk about that

and to talk about some ideas of how to improve that process.

But I want to start by saying how proud I am to stand with my

caucus to support the Tsawwassen treaty. It will be a momentous day for the

Tsawwassen people when this treaty is finally ratified by all parties and comes

into effect. It will be a genuine cause for celebration.

The Tsawwassen people deserve this treaty, and I want to offer our

congratulations to Chief Kim Baird and the Tsawwassen people for this incredibly

historic achievement. It was an incredibly moving experience for all of us to

hear Chief Baird talk about the history, talk about her people, talk about the

fact that they have negotiated hard and fairly to resolve longstanding issues of

self-determination, land ownership and economic independence for themselves —

things that

[ Page 8557 ]

other people look at as givens, things first nations people have had to fight

to be able to achieve.

[1540]

The Tsawwassen people can look forward to a brighter future,

secure in the knowledge that they will have a much greater say in shaping their

own destiny. The Tsawwassen treaty makes history by becoming the first treaty to

be successfully concluded under the B.C. treaty process.

Seven years ago the Nisga'a people made history by concluding the

first modern treaty in B.C. history. I would like to point out, for all the

members who are present, that both the Nisga'a treaty and the B.C. treaty

process were accomplishments of former New Democrat governments. The Nisga'a

treaty, a treaty fiercely opposed by many members opposite, was negotiated and

ratified under the governments of Mike Harcourt and Glen Clark, and they deserve

congratulations today as well. The B.C. treaty process itself was put in place

by the government of Premier Mike Harcourt.

We in British Columbia can sometimes be a little provincial when

talking about historical questions. The truth is — and we heard this as well

from Chief Baird — that the Tsawwassen treaty is a victorious moment in a

500-year story of aboriginal-settler relations on this continent. The aboriginal

self-government debate that dominated the news coverage in the 1990s was

certainly not a new issue. It actually began in the 16th century when the

Spanish conquistador Hernán Cortés destroyed the capital of the Aztec

confederacy.

When Cortés landed his army on the beaches in Mexico, the very

first thing he did was create an instant municipality, Veracruz, which was the

first European-style municipality in all of North America. Ever since that time

period, colonial governments have been trying to force first nations to become

provincially sanctioned municipalities.

In 1550 the Spanish monarch Charles V established the first royal

commission on aboriginal people — 1550. I think of how many royal commissions,

how many papers, how many studies since 1550 we've seen on the issue of

aboriginal people.

In that hearing, they defended Cortés, saying that Mexico's

indigenous people needed Spanish rule because they were inferior, just as apes

to man. In response, the first bishop of Chiapas argued that the Spanish

conquest was illegal and that nothing justified the destruction of Mexico's

aboriginal government. That hearing in 1550 was the beginning of the debate

about aboriginal self-government — which, as we know, continued into the late

20th century.

Directly tied to the question of self-government is what for 100

years of frustration the Nisga'a nation called "the great land question." First

nations have always governed the lands that they owned. Their communities owned

those lands. Their communities made laws about the wise use of those lands.

With the coming of the European settlers, all of that changed.

Ever since, settlers and indigenous peoples have been arguing about who owns the

land. Colonial authorities justified the stealing of indigenous hunting grounds

by European farmers by asserting that aboriginal people were wasting the land.

In fact, by the time Europeans arrived in the Americas, most first nations were

farmers and fishers, not hunters.

But according to European thinking, their great crime was the

tribal or collective ownership of land. Members of this House will remember that

this was the basis of much criticism of the Nisga'a treaty — because, of course,

tribal ownership of land means tribal governance of those lands. At the

beginning of the 18th century, aboriginal people still outnumbered settlers on

this continent, but the settlers kept coming, and across North America first

nations resisted this occupation.

[1545]

In 1763 Ottawa Chief Pontiac organized a pan-Indian resistance to

fight the British occupation. He quickly took all but one of the British forts.

Pontiac's military success horrified the government in London, and it decided to

make a new policy — the Royal Proclamation of 1763. The Royal Proclamation

affirmed the tribal ownership of lands. It recognized tribal governments, and it

required the public negotiation of treaties before settlers could purchase those

lands.

A very important piece of our history that we should never forget

— I heard the member opposite mention British Columbia's birthday, and I think

this is an important thing for us to remember as we move to British Columbia's

birthday — is that of all the British colonies, only one rejected that Royal

Proclamation: British Columbia.

James Douglas, the colonial governor in Victoria, did make

treaties with some Vancouver Island first nations. But after British Columbia

entered Confederation in 1871, beyond an extension to Treaty 8, there would be

no more treaties until Nisga'a — from 1871 until the Nisga'a treaty came

forward.

From the beginning, treaty policies have divided British Columbia.

James Douglas made treaties. Joseph Trutch, the Chief Commissioner of Lands in

the newly united colony of British Columbia, refused to make treaties. Tom

Berger went to the Supreme Court of Canada on behalf of the Nisga'a in 1973, and

afterwards, he never stopped fighting for aboriginal rights.

Melvin H. Smith, who advised several British Columbia governments

on aboriginal rights, opposed the negotiations of modern treaties. Premier Bill

Bennett said that his government didn't recognize aboriginal title. Premier Mike

Harcourt worked to establish the B.C. Treaty Commission.

In the 1990s the Leader of the Opposition, now the Premier,

opposed race-based aboriginal government. The Nisga'a treaty was

unconstitutional, he said. Non-Nisga'a citizens would be subject to Nisga'a

laws, he said. Non-Nisga'a citizens would be burdened by taxation without

representation. Even when the courts told the Premier that he was wrong, he

fought back with a terribly divisive and racist provincial referendum that did

nothing except create more divide — after a history of divide in our province —

and delayed treaty talks.

Then we all know that suddenly, in 2005, the Premier began

promoting a new relationship. Given the

[ Page 8558 ]

Premier's history, first nations and the general public both have good reason

to wonder whether they're dealing with a far-sighted statesman or a partisan

tactician.

I have to say that I believe a statesman would have found an

honourable way to treat the Tsawwassen First Nation and protect the agricultural

land reserve. A partisan would have played one off against another. A

far-sighted strategist would have worked hard to resolve this critical land use

dispute. A mere tactician would have gone for short-term political gain.

We all know what happened in this case. As a result, neither first

nations nor the general public really knows where this government and this

Premier stand on the toughest of historical treaty issues.

His party fought the Nisga'a agreement. They fought it in the

Legislature, in the courts and in a divisive referendum. Until the fall of 2004

this government's lawyers were still arguing at the Supreme Court of Canada that

British Columbia had no duty to consult first nations when contemplating

development on lands in first nations traditional territory. It took the Supreme

Court of Canada to tell the Premier that he was wrong.

Then in the spring of 2005, on the eve of an election, the Premier

negotiated the new relationship accord, a remarkable political statement

acknowledging provincial responsibility for post-colonial aboriginal

dispossession.

[1550]

This was a statement that should make us all proud, but what has

happened since then calls into question the Premier's commitment. Has the

Premier signed the accord document? Did the Premier embed the accord's

principles into provincial policy on forests, on children and families, on fish

farms, on agricultural land?

Has the accord fundamentally improved provincial mandates on

aboriginal self-government? Has the Premier explained why the word "treaty"

appears nowhere in the accord? I think one of the most critical questions of all

is: has the accord — this supposed new relationship — improved the day-to-day

lives of aboriginal people in British Columbia?

I stand here saddened to say that the answer to all those

questions is no. This province still faces many challenges at the treaty tables.

For a province with only limited acres of farmland but a rapidly growing urban

population, the agricultural land reserve, which was created by the Dave Barrett

government, was one of the most imaginative and best-admired policy achievements

of any provincial administration.

Essentially, it applied the zoning concept to protect precious

soils for agricultural production. Surely no government, even one beholden to

land developers, would wilfully abandon this policy. I suggest: let us in this

Legislature here and now affirm our strong commitment to the ALR.

Another challenging issue that we hear a great deal about is the

issue of overlap. All B.C. first nations have competing claims to lands in their

traditional territories. One first nation might have used a river valley for one

purpose; another may have used it for entirely different ends. One may have

hunted it; one may have fished its waters. To successfully conclude treaties,

both nations' interests must be addressed.

There's nothing new in any of this. All treaties deal with this

issue, as did the Yukon land claims settlement, as did the Nisga'a. In fact, the

Tsawwassen treaty

section on overlapping claims is the same as the text of the

Nisga'a agreement. It's interesting to look at the history of other areas that

have dealt with first nations claims. In the Yukon, first nations had to resolve

their overlapping claims before signing treaties.

In British Columbia that hasn't been resolved, and here's an area

where I think improvement could be looked at. This is a situation in which the

B.C. Treaty Commission could actually play a much larger role.

When the Treaty Commission was established in 1992, many hoped

that it would extend its facilitation activity into the area of mediation. Many

governments resisted this. However, I think the issue of overlap and overlap

areas is a perfect subject for active mediation by the Treaty Commission.

In a comprehensive review of treaty-making in the Americas, the

United Nations special rapporteur concluded that the greatest failure of

treaty-making was the failure of colonial governments to fully implement what

they had negotiated with first nations. They signed off on the agreements, but

in many cases the implementation never occurred.

Here, with our process, the B.C. Treaty Commission is supposed to

close its doors when treaties have been negotiated. But if you take a look at

the structure — with two aboriginal and two government commissioners, with a

neutral or rotating chair — it may actually be appropriately structured to

adjudicate future implementation issues.

This certainly would be much less expensive than resorting to the

courts and, I would hope, a much more successful conclusion for first nations

than the existing process that leaves them to fight amongst each other and

leaves them without any ability to resolve the disputes.

[1555]

The B.C. Treaty Commission process has cost the better part of a

billion dollars but, as we know, so far has produced only one treaty. More than

anything, it appears that treaty-making in British Columbia lacks any sense of

urgency. Given the sorry indicators of aboriginal life in British Columbia, this

is tragic.

I'd like to take a few minutes to take a closer look at what life

is like for aboriginal people in British Columbia. The statistics I'm going to

quote are shocking enough in themselves, but they only begin to convey the

challenges that are faced by aboriginal communities throughout our province.

Let's start with the basic health indicators. They paint a grim

picture. Aboriginal people, on average, live seven years less than the rest of

the population. Aboriginal infant mortality rates run between two and four times

the average for non-aboriginals.

HIV and AIDS rates for aboriginal people are twice as high as for

the general population. Rates of diabetes — triple the rest of the population.

Alcohol-related deaths are four to nine times higher for aboriginal

[ Page 8559 ]

people. Drug-related deaths — two to four times higher. Hospitalization rate

— 40 percent higher for aboriginal men and almost 80 percent higher for

aboriginal women.

The rate of aboriginal teenaged mothers is almost six times the

rate amongst the rest of the general population. The poverty rate for aboriginal

children is twice the rate of non-aboriginal children.

Between 1997 and 2005 the number of aboriginal children in care

increased by more than 50 percent. Some 50 percent of the children in care are

aboriginal, according to the Representative for Children and Youth. Only 16

percent of aboriginal children in care graduate from high school — 16 percent.

Aboriginal youth were seven times more likely to be in prison than

their non-aboriginal counterparts. That's actually up from ten years earlier,

when they were only three times as likely to be in prison.

On the education front, the situation is not a good one either.

Only 47 percent of aboriginal students complete high school, compared to 82

percent for the rest of the population.

With poor health and poor education outcomes, it comes as

absolutely no surprise that aboriginal people are struggling in the job market.

Unemployment among aboriginal people is more than double the rest of the

population.

For those with just a high school education, the average hourly

wage for non-aboriginal workers rose 6.2 percent between 2004 and 2006, yet

during that same period the average wages declined by 30 percent for aboriginal

workers.

We know that this government likes to trumpet an economic boom,

but it's clear that aboriginal people are not feeling that effect. I cite these

statistics both with sadness and with anger. These conditions are being

perpetuated in large part by the absence of fair and honourable treaties. First

nations see treaties as a key component of their effort to escape these

conditions.

Once you make allowances for it being an urban rather than a rural

treaty, the Tsawwassen treaty, in almost all major respects, is no different

than the Nisga'a treaty. Yet while in opposition, this government opposed the

Nisga'a treaty with all its might.

Meanwhile, the conditions of aboriginal people throughout this

province continue to rival those in many Third World countries. It should be to

the everlasting shame of this Premier and this government — what they've done to

perpetuate those conditions even one day longer than was necessary.

[1600]

It's not just the way this government has played politics with

treaty in the past that's a problem. Their current handling of treaties, I also

believe, leaves much to be desired. But don't take simply my word for it.

The Auditor General has been very critical of this government's

approach to treaty negotiations. He's noted how slow the negotiations have been.

The Auditor General also singled out the government's new relationship as an

impediment to moving quickly on treaties.

A little piece of history again. Following the Supreme Court of

Canada's 2004 ruling in Haida, the province began to aggressively negotiate

accommodation agreements, forest and range agreements and other interim

measures.

Now, it's completely understandable why first nations would pursue

these agreements — to give them even a small piece of the resources that have

been taken away from them for years and years and years, to give them the

ability to have some control over what they should have complete control over.

But we should never mistake those interim agreements as an alternative to

treaties.

These measures give industry access to the resources of first

nations traditional territories, they give revenues to the provincial treasury,

and they give certain benefits to first nations. I'm sure most of the members in

this House, if they've been listening, have heard the concerns from first

nations about these interim agreements, the challenges that they're facing in

moving ahead on economic development, the promises that were made but not kept,

the ability to control things that hasn't ever occurred.

We have to remember again — I think it's important to restate it —

that these interim agreements do not settle either the land or governance

questions that are the reason for treaty negotiations. They can't be an

alternative to treaties.

This government has negotiated one treaty and many interim

measures or accommodation agreements. A negotiator for this government recently

told a public meeting that this province has the political appetite for

negotiating only one treaty per term in office. I say that can't be true,

because at that rate we're still going to be negotiating treaties with B.C.'s

first nations into the 24th century. Surely that can't be true.

This would be historic injustice piled upon historic injustice, an

error compounded repeatedly by this government's policy. For the sake of our

collective future, we have to do better — much better.

For far too long provincial attitudes towards aboriginal people

were just that — too provincial. We all need to open our eyes and our ears to

see and hear what is going on around us. The new relationship accord was a good

start on paper, but as we're finding out, it has to reflect more than simply

words on paper, and it's not. First nations people came to the table hoping that

that document would make a difference, hoping that the Premier was serious this

time, hoping that it would improve the lives in their communities. We haven't

seen that.

I think it was very telling when, in the last legislative session,

we took the opportunity to ask a number of ministers what they were doing in

their area to implement the new relationship — what more could they have

undertaken in their ministry to implement the new relationship. The answer was

consistent: "It's not our job. It's not our responsibility. It's the

responsibility of the Minister of Aboriginal Relations."

Well, Mr. Speaker, until this government recognizes that the

changes and the words in the new relationship are implemented through every

ministry in govern-

[ Page 8560 ]

ment and that everyone takes them seriously, we're really not going to see

the kinds of changes that aboriginal people expected through that new

relationship. We need to see the new relationship accord reflected in all

provincial policies. I gave some examples earlier: fish farming, forest tenures,

aboriginal government — all areas that are being ignored by the new

relationship.

[1605]

In 1763 colonial authorities committed themselves to public

negotiations of treaties, but this government abolished treaty advisory

committees, and now the ordinary citizen has almost no access to treaty

negotiations.

I talked earlier about the divide of treaties in our province's

history, about how we've seen governments use it as a political tool, about how

it's divided the people in this province. The treaty advisory committees were an

opportunity to build that knowledge, to have aboriginal and non-aboriginal

people learn about what was going on at the treaty table, to have non-aboriginal

people understand how important the treaty process is to first nations in our

province.

Again, one of the recommendations that I certainly would make is

to bring the public back into the room, to shine some light on the proceedings

and to let people hear what's going on so that we can build that understanding

all across British Columbia.

We all know that the federal and provincial governments have a

secret formula based on so much land and so much money per citizen — that that's

what they use at the negotiating table. Everyone also knows that this formula

wasn't enough to conclude a treaty at Tsawwassen.

So I say: why not table the formula? Let the public know what the

government is using for negotiations. Let first nations have a debate about

whether it's fair or not. Let's put those issues on the table, the valid

concerns being raised by first nations about their struggles in the treaty

process. Surely that would only speed up the process, if we actually have a good

strong dialogue on the challenges that are being raised.

British Columbia has good negotiators, but there aren't enough of

them to staff all the treaty tables in the province. If we're serious about

treaty settlements, if we really take it as a priority that we need to get on

with in British Columbia, then we need to expand and strengthen B.C.'s

negotiating teams.

Accommodation agreements and interim measures may be valuable

increments to the treaty process, but they can't resolve the historic land and

governance issues. They can't be used as substitutions for treaty agreements.

This government has to get on with providing the treaty process the resources it

needs to negotiate at a number of tables and get on with speeding up the

process.

When faced with difficult issues such as overlapping first nations

claims to traditional territories, we should encourage the British Columbia

Treaty Commission to actively employ mediation and alternative dispute

resolution tools to resolve those issues today.

Let's stop trying to impose municipal forms of self-government on

first nations communities. Let's actually open the door and facilitate

intergovernmental and service agreements between first nations and neighbouring

municipalities. Let's grant the Treaty Commission more independence so that it

can play a better role of facilitator, mediator and adjudicator.

Rather than rigidly imposing one model of treaty settlements in

British Columbia, let's meet with those parties who are concerned about the

process. Let's explore all kinds of alternative final agreements. Let's have

that discussion with first nations in British Columbia. Let's draft the treaty

language in plain language so that British Columbians can read it and understand

what's been negotiated.

Above all, I call on this government to demonstrate the political

will to complete British Columbia first nations treaties within the next ten

years. That would be a legacy to all of us in British Columbia.

The just and lasting settlement of treaties with first nations is

one of the greatest issues of our time. Our province was built on the backs of

our first citizens. Our past can never be reconciled to the values we claim to

hold for our communities, and our future cannot be built on a foundation worn by

generations of neglect, injustice and oppression.

[1610]

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the day soon when aboriginal people

have control of their destiny. I look forward to the day when I live in a

province where aboriginal people are equal members of society in law and in

condition. I look forward to the day when we can celebrate the victory over

poverty and despair.

I look forward to the day when our children and our grandchildren

learn about the injustices against aboriginal people as part of our past, not

part of our present and not part of our future. I am incredibly proud to support

this treaty with Tsawwassen as an important milestone on that journey. We all

look forward to the Tsawwassen people controlling their own destiny.

V. Roddick: I rise in support of Bill 40, the ratification

of the first urban-rural signed treaty between Tsawwassen First Nation, the

province of British Columbia and Canada. I firmly believe that this bill marks

the beginning of a new

chapter for the people of Tsawwassen First Nation and the

municipality of Delta — a new

chapter and a brighter future for us all.

We are a close-knit, active community. This treaty will provide

confidence and a foundation for capacity-building. We look forward to forging a

new and thriving relationship.

Congratulations to Chief Kim Baird and the Tsawwassen Nation. Kim

is a remarkable and admirable young woman whose strength, courage and commitment

have empowered her community to achieve a landmark treaty and with it economic

opportunity, self-sufficiency, hope and a proud future for the Tsawwassen

people.

In her address to this House yesterday Chief Baird mentioned

throwing off the shackles of the Indian Act. I do not think that we all really

realize what this means. Recently I was talking to a member of the Squamish

[ Page 8561 ]

Nation who thanked us profusely for what was being achieved, what we were

going out and really trying to do. He said he never honestly thought he would

ever live to see the day when he would be free of the Indian Act.

This is an admirable achievement, and the hard and heartfelt work

done by everyone involved in this treaty has been exemplary. It is so necessary

that the people of Canada continue to work to address outstanding aboriginal

issues facing our country. This will not be an easy task, but it certainly is

not an insurmountable goal if all levels of government work together. Think

global. Deliver local.

It will be exciting in the very near future to work with

Tsawwassen First Nation, the municipality of Delta, the province of British

Columbia and Canada to participate in the growth and development not just of our

neighbour but of ourselves as well.

This treaty has elements on both sides that will have to be

carefully planned and carried out. Two of the major issues are the fact that

this has always, since the beginning of time, been a fishing place and that in

the last 150 years it has also become a number one agricultural area for the

province. From the fishing point of view, we used to work together, and we can

again. It's a question of putting the fish first, something that actually needs

to be done worldwide.

[1615]

Agriculture, farming, is a different challenge. Land, and a

critical mass of it, is required. The treaty is only one of the contributors to

the ongoing problem facing the farming business in Delta South. Land is being

sucked up by roads, railways, highways, port development, all of which are

economically necessary for the first nations, Delta, British Columbia and

Canada.

Land is also desperately needed for birds of all descriptions as

well as other for environmental requirements. This is where outside-the-box

thinking is most necessary. We need economic development to provide goods and

services to maintain a reasonable lifestyle — no question about that — but how

do we achieve this goal without negatively affecting our overall environment?

Richmond and Delta are man-made. With global warming hitting us

between the eyes, maybe the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and NGOs such as

the David Suzuki Foundation and Ducks Unlimited should be looking at surge dikes

and making new or more land for the birds and, very importantly, for growing our

own food, because as everybody knows by now, we all have to eat to live.

Our various levels of government can also utilize the new

relationship, as well as the treaty, to look at how to grow, build and enhance

our neighbouring communities and find solutions to the many thorny issues facing

us. Our government is determinedly working within each and every ministry to

work closely with first nations to help grow and expand capacity on all fronts —

a true new relationship.

There has been significant investment in both design and

implementation of arrangements and programs which will improve and promote

aboriginal inclusion in agriculture; education, both K-to-12 and advanced

education; health; mining; forestry; 2010 and all that that entails; small

business; and children and families, to name a few. First nations are charting

and driving on a new positive path in their long history.

By working collaboratively, we can accomplish these goals.

Partnership is the key. This truly is a new era of golden opportunities. We

collectively have a huge opportunity. We will not fail. Our future generations

that are up there and out there depend on this success.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity to support Bill 40.

S. Fraser: It's an honour to be able to speak to Bill 40

today. I will be speaking in support of the Tsawwassen treaty, in support of

Chief Baird and the council and