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, APRIL 24, 2007

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 18, Number 9

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First

Reading of Bills

Assessment Statutes Amendment

Act, 2007 (Bill 32)

Hon. R.

Thorpe

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

Flicka Gymnastics Club

Whittred

Minerals North conference

G. Coons

Volunteer support for RCMP

services

M. Polak

Armenian genocide

A. Dix

B.C. Agriculture Day

Roddick

Violence against women awareness

project in Campbell River

Trevena

Oral Questions

Allegations of partisan media

activities by Liberal staff

C. James

Hon. G.

Campbell

L. Krog

Farnworth

Hon. W.

Oppal

Horgan

Fleming

Karagianis

J. Kwan

Chudnovsky

Ralston

H. Lali

Disclosure of documents on sale

of B.C. Rail

Simpson

Hon. G.

Campbell

Petitions

M. Sather

S. Fraser

Motions on Notice

Referral of report on Legislature

artwork depicting first nations people (Motion 49)

Hon. M.

de Jong

Farnworth

Nuraney

Fraser

Lekstrom

Horgan

Hon. L.

Reid

Simons

MacKay

H. Lali

Hon. G.

Campbell

J. Kwan

Rustad

Simpson

Jarvis

Sather

Cantelon

Routley

G. Coons

Hon. K.

Krueger

C. James

L. Krog

Trevena

[ Page 7083 ]

TUESDAY, APRIL 24, 2007

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. de Jong: We are honoured today to have representatives from the Songhees First Nation, on whose traditional territory we occupy our time in this chamber. We have Chief Robert Sam and Councillors Frank George and Gary Albany. I hope members will make them feel very welcome here.

[1335]

From the First Nations Leadership Council, the following distinguished persons are guests here in the chamber: Grand Chief Ed John from the First Nations Summit, Chief Judith Sayers from the First Nations Summit, Chief Shawn Atleo from the Assembly of First Nations, and Chief Lynda Price and Chief Robert Shintah representing the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs on the First Nations Leadership Council. I hope all members will make these very distinguished visitors welcome here today.

Hon. G. Campbell: I'm certainly pleased to have the first nations leaders with us today, particularly Chief Lynda Price. As you know, her son is one of the great hockey players that's come out of British Columbia. I should point out that the Montreal Canadiens are going to be his team. Having said that, I should point out that I cheer for him only when it's the Canadiens playing someone else.

Today I think we should all congratulate the Vancouver Canucks as they go to Anaheim and wish them luck in the next stage of the playoffs.

C. Wyse: I also would like to add my personal welcome to a constituent of mine. I have spoken in this House on at least two occasions in recognizing her son and the achievements of her family. Indeed, I would like to extend welcome to Chief Lynda Price of the Ulkatcho First Nation community from the great area of Cariboo South. Her son finished as the highest draft pick of anyone here in this House — the fifth overall.

Hon. S. Bond: Joining us today in the gallery are a number of members of the Northern Real Estate Board. We had the opportunity to have breakfast with them yesterday and talk about some important issues.

I know the House will want to join me in welcoming Glen Holling, Willy Berger, Ted Shepard, Dorothy Friesen, David Black, Marnie Scott, Dave Eaton, Shawn McLaughlin, Linda Conroy, Gary Shannon, Judy Shannon, Tom and Carolyn Bulmer, Jackie Shepard and Fay Holling. Thank you for joining us in making them very welcome to the precinct.

D. Thorne: I have the pleasure today of having four friends in the precinct. I would like to introduce Jean Trask and Sam Takahashi from Langley and Pauline and Bruce Strong from Clarenville, Newfoundland. I would like the House to give a good west coast welcome to all of my friends from the east coast.

S. Hawkins: Visiting the Legislature today are some very special guests from Kelowna and from other parts as well. We've had some really good meetings with ministers regarding a very exciting new development in Kelowna — Kelowna Mountain.

I'd ask the Legislature to please help welcome from this project Mark Consiglio, Canada's and B.C.'s very own Olympic snowboarding gold medallist Ross Rebagliati, Rick Dowding and John Harding. Would you please help me welcome them to the House today.

K. Conroy: I've been asked to make an introduction on behalf of the MLA for Nelson-Creston. He's asked me to introduce Pattie Adam from Nakusp. She is the school board chair of school district 10 from the Arrow Lakes. Please join me in making her welcome.

J. Yap: I'd like to welcome to the precinct and the public gallery today a group of enthusiastic young grade 6 students from a school in my riding, Homma Elementary School. They're here to see how the Legislature works in their visit to Victoria. They're led by teacher Don Allison. Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

S. Fraser: They've been introduced by the minister in their important roles with the leadership council, but I'm going to introduce them as constituents: Chief Judith Sayers of the Hupacasath First Nation and Shawn Atleo, A-in-chut, from Ahousat.

[1340]

Hon. J. van Dongen: Today in the members' gallery we have a special delegation of visitors from Malaysia. Visiting Victoria for the first time is the hon. Fong Chan Onn, Minister of Human Resources for Malaysia. Dr. Fong has been a federally elected representative in Malaysia for 17 years.

Accompanying him are Mrs. Fong Chan Onn, the spouse of the minister; Mr. Chew Chong Lin, private secretary to the minister; Mrs. Hajjah Khamsiah, assistant secretary, international section, Ministry of Human Resources; Mr. Twan Haji Yunus, Director General, industrial relations department; Mr. Yau de Piyau, chief executive, human resource development fund; Mr. Kalil Bin Kadir, general manager of the interest department, social security organization; Mr. Mat Dris Yaacob, Consul General of Malaysia in Vancouver; and Mrs. Janet Ambrose. I ask the House to please join me in giving a warm welcome to this delegation from Malaysia.

J. Horgan: Joining us in the gallery today is a constituent of mine, a poet and published author, Jane Munro, who also happens to be the granddaughter of George Southwell, who we all know is the artist of the

[ Page 7084 ]

murals in the rotunda. Would the House please make Jane welcome.

Hon. R. Neufeld: It's not very often someone comes from up north down here to visit, but it's great when they do. A good friend of mine — someone who has been introduced before, but I can't resist reintroducing this person — and a constituent of mine, Dave Eaton, is well known in northeastern British Columbia and a good friend. I'd like the House to please make him welcome.

Hon. W. Oppal: Visiting the House is a dear friend of mine from the city of Richmond, Miss Janice Johnson. I'd ask that the House make her feel welcome.

Hon. P. Bell: Today is Ag day in British Columbia, and we're joined by a large number of members from the B.C. Ag Council, who are committed to providing great quality products for our consumption on a day-to-day basis. So rather than naming them all, I'll certainly point out Dick Klein Geltink and Steve Thompson, and there are many, many more joining us. I would ask that the House please make them very welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

ASSESSMENT STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

Hon. R. Thorpe presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Assessment Statutes Amendment Act, 2007.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I move that Bill 32, entitled Assessment Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, be introduced and read for the first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Thorpe: The bill proposes a number of amendments to the property assessment and assessment authority statutes. The amendments in this bill reflect our commitment to continuous improvement in customer service by providing a service that meets the needs of customers, provides for fair and efficient assessment administration, and maximizes economic growth opportunities and job creation in British Columbia. The bill proposes amendments to the Assessment Act and the Assessment Authority Act. I will elaborate on the nature of these amendments during second reading of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill 32 be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 32, Assessment Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) FLICKA GYMNASTICS CLUB

K. Whittred: Today I rise to pay tribute to the Flicka Gymnastics Club, one of the oldest, largest and most successful gymnastics club in Canada and indeed in North America. It was founded in North Vancouver and is a fixture in my community. Flicka was established in 1962 with only two members, and 45 years later it has grown to an incredible 1,900 athletes. Flicka Gymnastics Club is not just for the elite athlete; it is a club for all ages. It offers classes for two-year-olds, moms and tots, through to seniors.

[1345]

Flicka is a non-profit organization with a volunteer board of directors, but the volunteering does not stop there. The volunteer hours of coaches, parents and the community have directly contributed to the organization's success over the years.

Thousands of gymnasts have passed through the doors of Flicka, many of whom have maintained strong ties after their gymnastic days are over, and they want to give back by coaching or managing the club.

The North Vancouver community is proud of the many athletes that have trained at Flicka. Lise Leveille represented Canada at the 2000 Olympics, adding to a long list of successful gymnasts who have represented Canada since the 1960s. Paige Gordon, who was a diver, actually began her training with Flicka. Debra Brown, who now creates magic on the stage of Cirque du Soleil, was a choreographer at Flicka. Numerous others have represented Canada on our national team.

I ask the House to join me today in celebrating the tremendous achievement of this organization and thank the many athletes, coaches and volunteers whose continued commitment contributes to its success.

MINERALS NORTH CONFERENCE

G. Coons: I'd like to take this opportunity to talk about the recent Minerals North 2007 conference that occurred last week in Terrace. The Minerals North conference brings the minerals industry together with a broad spectrum of people in northern B.C. communities, including municipal, aboriginal representatives, business people, contractors, students and environmentalists.

This year in Terrace it peaked beyond expectation with over 480 participants, and unfortunately, some were turned away from the door. The objectives of the conference — of establishing contacts and building relationships, of informing communities about mining and exploration projects and issues, of holding a dialogue on the impacts and benefits of mining — were met with high praise from all attendees.

Mining is an important part of northwest development, and the prospects are enormous. Sustainable practices coupled with social responsibility are a key to the future of the industry. Presentation after presentation outlined the potential opportunities that are on the

[ Page 7085 ]

horizon. But as the Minister of State for Mining heard and quoted, 99.9 percent of the people he talked to claimed that the electrification of Highway 37 is a major stumbling block for the region. I must add that that is something which needs immediate attention.

First nations perspectives were represented. The Kitsumkalum and the Gitxsan stressed that the engagement process must ensure human well-being and environmental integrity are achieved and explicitly addressed.

The warm hospitality that derives from community involvement always ensures that Minerals North is distinct from any other mining conference in British Columbia. I must acknowledge the hard work of the city of Terrace and the Terrace Economic Development Authority for their gold-medal performance.

Hon. Speaker, a reminder to all in the House: bring your gold pans to Smithers for Minerals North 2008.

VOLUNTEER SUPPORT FOR RCMP SERVICES

M. Polak: As Canadians we are all aware of the important role played by the RCMP both across Canada and in our individual communities. While their traditional role as enforcers of the law has remained, their role has expanded to include a broad range of crime prevention, safety and community support initiatives. In these areas we all depend on volunteers to support and enhance the work of the RCMP.

These volunteers provide office and clerical support, conduct periodic audits in parking lots, visit residences and businesses, participate in educational initiatives aimed at traffic safety, assist in special events and conduct home security inspections. Victim services volunteers provide crisis services to those who have been victims of crime.

These services could not be provided without the contribution of dedicated volunteers in our communities. Last year alone Langley volunteers gave over 30,000 hours to the community, the equivalent of more than 18 full-time employees.

The annual Langley RCMP volunteer appreciation dinner honours those many volunteers without whom the valuable community outreach work of the RCMP would not be possible. The attendance of Mayor Peter Fassbender from the city of Langley, along with Mayor Kurt Alberts from the township of Langley, served to highlight not only the significance of this recognition but also pays tribute to the partnership that involves both communities and supports the work of the RCMP in both Langleys.

Mr. Speaker, through their efforts, our volunteers have helped to make Langley a safer community. Through their hard work and dedication, they have become true ambassadors of the community.

[1350]

I ask the House to join me in thanking those dedicated volunteers in Langley and in communities throughout B.C. who work to support the RCMP as extra eyes and ears as well as caring hearts and hands.

ARMENIAN GENOCIDE

A. Dix: April 24 is the international day of remembrance in recognition of the Armenian genocide. On April 24, 1915 — certainly one of the most tragic days of the 20th century — some 2,300 Armenian community leaders and intellectuals were rounded up and killed. That was the start of what would be known as the Armenian genocide. The scope of the horror perpetrated at that time of the Ottoman Empire is virtually impossible to comprehend — 1.5 million people killed over eight years because of who they were.

There's an avalanche of evidence about the Armenian genocide, from eyewitness reports to comprehensive inquiries. Indeed, the person who coined the word "genocide," Raphael Lemkin — a Polish Jew who escaped Poland in 1941 — wrote of the slaughter of the Armenians in World War I as an example of what genocide is.

Yet there continues to be a well-financed effort to deny the Armenian genocide and the suffering of its victims. Last April this Legislature unanimously passed a motion recognizing the Armenian genocide as a crime against humanity, designating each April 24 as a day of remembrance for those who died. It was a proud day for this House and for the Armenian Canadian community in our province.

By calling genocide "genocide" in the case of the Armenians, we in this House are doing more than commemorating tragic events. There are consequences when steps are not taken and genocide is not recognized, a fact which is as true in 21st century Darfur as it was in the past.

After all, while the Armenian genocide was the first genocide of the 20th century, it was not the last. We need to restate on this April 24 that there's no room for dissembling or inaction in the fight against crimes against humanity.

B.C. AGRICULTURE DAY

V. Roddick: Today is Agriculture Day in our fair Legislature of British Columbia, the best place on earth. Mother Earth, who year after year, thanks to the careful stewardship of our farmers and ranchers, keeps us superbly fed. She never lets us down, although we might let her down from time to time. She adapts to all the innovative and technological changes and methods that we have seen worldwide since 1945, without too much complaint.

Modern-day agriculture has achieved unbelievable heights, which are now only slowly being recognized. In 1945 we spent 25 percent of our take-home pay on food. Today that figure is only 9 percent. In 1945, 40 percent of Canadians lived on a farm. Today it's only 1.5 percent, and we are producing more food than ever. But are we eating better? No — not according to current statistics.

Today's lifestyle is a huge part of the challenge. How do we think globally and support locally? How do busy moms, dads and kids cope? Collectively, we simply must change direction. Together, the farmers, ranchers, processors, wholesalers, retailers and we the customers can supply the impetus to make these changes.

[ Page 7086 ]

Government initiatives such as an agriculture plan for the product, ActNow, B.C. Agriculture in the Classroom, along with fruit and veggies and fridges in the school programs are an excellent start. I throw out the challenge to all of you, the customers: let Agriculture Day become agriculture year. Year in and year out, from this day forward, really think about what you eat and drink, and make the conscious decision to buy B.C. products, because we still have to eat to live.

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

AWARENESS PROJECT IN CAMPBELL RIVER

C. Trevena: I'd like to talk about Prevention of Violence Against Women Week, a week which — it would be remiss of me not to note — was inaugurated by a predecessor as MLA for North Island, Colin Gabelmann, when he was Attorney General.

[1355]

The week is being marked in Campbell River with a moving and powerful display. The Ann Elmore Transition House is hosting Project Clothesline. Tomorrow outside Zellers, a clothesline will be strung with about 50 T-shirts pinned to it. Each of those T-shirts will carry the story of violence against individual women, told by those women.

Over the last month, small support groups of survivors of violence have been making the shirts. On some there are text; on others there are pictures. All tell a story of things which should not have to be told of violence against women.

Violence against women is really our society's dirty little secret. Some women flee and ask why they should have to leave their homes. Some women are living dangerous lifestyles, are exploited and cannot escape. Some women have nowhere to go, and some women are killed.

The T-shirts which are going to be on display tomorrow are colour-coded. Red is for those women who've been sexually assaulted, beige or yellow for those who've been physically assaulted and white for those who have been murdered — women remembering women who've been killed.

The coordinator of the transition house in Campbell River told me that she's seen an increasing number of white T-shirts this year — an increasing number of women killed. The display is bright and attractive. From a distance, it pulls people towards it, to come and see it. It provides the opportunity to engage people to talk about the issue, to air our society's dirty little secret and to bring the horrific issue of continued violence against women to the forum.

This is just one week to raise awareness of something that is happening daily to too many women.

Oral Questions

ALLEGATIONS OF PARTISAN MEDIA

ACTIVITIES BY LIBERAL STAFF

C. James: Serious allegations were made in court yesterday that the Premier's senior officials, as well as ministerial assistants and caucus staff, have been actively engaged in partisan media manipulation. Fake calls, disguised voices, on-air ambushing — all out of this building.

In light of these serious allegations, my question is to the Premier. Has he taken any steps to ensure that his staff are not involved in blatant partisan activity, or do we have to wait for the results of another secret investigation?

Hon. G. Campbell: As we have canvassed in this House in the past and as I will repeat today, I have no intention of commenting on issues that arise during the court case that is currently before the courts. I think it's our responsibility to protect the integrity of that process. We will do that, and I will not be commenting on any issues that come out of that court case while it is ongoing.

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

C. James: Well, with all due respect, this is about more than what the court heard yesterday. Liberal staff have been caught several times crossing the line. Remember Prem Vinning? He lost his job in the Premier's office after he was caught misrepresenting himself to the media in 2005. Later that year the Deputy Premier's ministerial assistant, Steve Vander Wal, was caught attacking me on CKNW, pretending to be a concerned parent.

Again, my question is to the Premier. His staff have been caught before. What is he doing to get to the bottom of these allegations?

Hon. G. Campbell: My answer remains the same.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Campbell: The fact of the matter is that we have an obligation. I think that obligation is to let this court case run to its fruition. When it has concluded, if there are issues that should be addressed, they will be addressed. But we are going to let this run to fruition prior to any comment on any issues that arise out of that court case.

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

[1400]

C. James: It's not good enough to hide behind the court proceedings. The last time I checked, the Premier's staff weren't part of the court proceedings. I would think that the Premier would take these allegations very seriously, given the past record of his own staff. I would think that the Premier would think this was important enough to get to the bottom of the allegations.

My question, again, to the Premier: when is he going to take the time, on behalf of the public of British Columbia, to look into these allegations and ensure

[ Page 7087 ]

that his staff are not doing partisan work in this building?

Hon. G. Campbell: Issues that arise out of the court case will not be commented on by me prior to the conclusion of the court case.

L. Krog: Yesterday we learned that Dave Basi, when he was a senior Liberal government appointee, also had a lucrative contract with the B.C. Liberal Party to conduct media monitoring activities. It appears those media monitoring activities turned into media manipulation efforts on daytime radio talk shows during regular office hours.

Can the Premier assure this House that no other officials or staff inside his government have similar contracts today?

Hon. G. Campbell: The fact that the question is being asked in a different way does not lead to a different answer. The answer is that while there is a court case ongoing, I will not be answering…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Campbell: …questions with regards to that court case or issues that arise out of that court case. I believe that's the right approach to take to protect the integrity of that court case.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

L. Krog: There's a court case involving individuals, but issues that are important to the public that arise out of that are not subject to any kind of parliamentary privilege. The question for a full investigation has never really been asked.

Maybe we can ask this, because the Premier is well aware of this. The evidence presented indicated that he was aware of these media manipulation efforts. Indeed, his top officials, Mike Morton and Martyn Brown, appear to be directly involved. When did the Premier first discover these activities, and what did he do to put a stop to them?

Hon. G. Campbell: I don't know how I can be clearer. I will not be commenting on issues that arise…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Campbell: …out of the court case prior to the conclusion of the court case.

M. Farnworth: I'll be very succinct in my question. Last year the Premier added several new staff to his office — six more full-time staff just for communications in the Premier's office. Can the Premier assure this House today that none of those staff are engaged in any blatant partisan media manipulation?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. W. Oppal: You know, regardless of how you camouflage these questions, they arise out of the trial that's now going on before the Supreme Court of British Columbia. I think all members of this House should know that we do not comment on evidence that's before the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

[1405]

M. Farnworth: I didn't mention the term "courthouse." I didn't mention the term "trial." I didn't even ask if these employees came from the firm of Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Dean and Mitchell. What I asked, hon. Speaker….

There's a pattern in this government of senior staff misrepresenting themselves in the public. We've seen it with Prem Vinning, we've seen it with the Deputy Premier's assistant, and now we are asking questions about staff in the Premier's office.

So my question once again to the Premier is this: can he assure this House and can he assure the taxpayers of British Columbia that senior communications staff in his office are not working on blatant partisan media manipulation?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. W. Oppal: I know that the member opposite didn't mention the trial. He didn't have to mention the trial. Anybody that's read the morning Province knows what he's talking about. He's talking about evidence that emerges from the trial.

I want to point out one other thing, and that is that allegations are often made in court. They're not necessarily factual. You know, that might be news to the….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Attorney, continue.

Hon. W. Oppal: That might be news to members of the opposition. Allegations are often made. Evidence is often led, but evidence often isn't factual. It may or may not be proved. But it's not proper for those questions to be raised in this House and for anybody to comment on those. As lawmakers, we should be painfully aware of that.

J. Horgan: Last year the Premier's office added six full-time communications officers. My question is to

[ Page 7088 ]

the Premier. Can he advise this House what activities those six communications officers are undertaking and if, in the course of their duties, they are involved in manipulating the media?

Hon. W. Oppal: This is the same question, so I'll give the same answer.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Horgan: Well, it's a sad, sad day in British Columbia when you can't ask the Premier of the province what his staff do for a living. The taxpayers of British Columbia….

Interjections.

J. Horgan: I can well imagine that the Attorney is confused with all the investigations going on, but I made no reference to such investigations. I made no reference to the Supreme Court.

I asked a simple question of the Premier of British Columbia, the head of the executive council. He increased his budget to hire six new communications officers, and my question is a very, very simple one. To the Premier of British Columbia: what do they do all day?

Hon. G. Campbell: The staff of the whole government service are at work serving the people of British Columbia. It's the government service in British Columbia that has taken our economy from one of the worst in the country to one of the best. It is the government service that has led to a province which has the lowest level of unemployment in the history of British Columbia. It is the people in public service in British Columbia who have made sure that we had the largest expansion of educational institutions in the last 40 years in British Columbia. The public service in British Columbia are serving the needs of British Columbians, Mr. Speaker.

[1410]

R. Fleming: I think it is very disturbing that the Premier would drag the entire civil service into this matter and use them as human shields. We know that there are Liberal staff and supporters appearing as star witnesses and defenders before the courts. That's not what we're asking about today. We're asking about the former Deputy Minister of Finance….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue.

R. Fleming: We're asking about the former Deputy Minister of Finance, the Premier's hand-picked appointee to ICBC. He is now the subject of at least two investigations. The actions of the Premier's friend and top adviser are the subject, apparently, of a fact-finding mission.

My question is for the Premier. Exactly how many investigations are being conducted of his conflict-ridden government today?

Hon. G. Campbell: It's hard to sort out what the member's question was, but let me….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Campbell: The question seemed to be focused on former Deputy Minister of Finance Paul Taylor. As the members in this House know, the government received an e-mail written by a third party, and it was made public by the media. We received that information about a week or ten days prior to that being made available in the media.

My deputy minister did a review. Out of an excess of caution, she felt it was important to have an independent third party review that information. All of that information will be available to the public, subject to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, when that review is complete.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

R. Fleming: Well, so far the ministers have refused to table any details of the multiple investigations occurring or any details about their terms of reference. Does the government also think that the people of British Columbia aren't even entitled to know how many investigations are occurring? It's becoming increasingly clear that all too often, citizens only hear about these investigations when the government is forced into a corner. We learned of the McDonald review for the first time in question period.

When will the Premier come clean and tell the public how many investigations are going on in the Premier's office today, and will he add an investigation into media manipulation contracts to the list of those investigations?

Hon. G. Campbell: The independent review which is taking place into the substance of the e-mail that was written by the third party will be fully public. It will be available to the public, subject to freedom-of-information and privacy protection legislation.

M. Karagianis: Well, given the revelations in the news, it is reasonable to expect that the Premier would make every attempt to assure not only this House but himself that there are no blatant media manipulation efforts underway by his staff and that he would table the review that has been asked of him today.

So to the Premier again: has he made every attempt, in a reasonable way, to assure us that these manipulations are not ongoing in his own staff?

Hon. G. Campbell: Again, I've been very clear with regard to the independent review which is taking place

[ Page 7089 ]

with regard to KPMG. That review will be done. It will be complete. It will be made available, subject to freedom-of-information and privacy protection legislation. I think that's what people expect. It's a respectful process.

My deputy minister, in undertaking her review of the e-mail, felt there was no substance behind the e-mail. However, out of an excess of caution, she felt it was important that we enlist an independent third party to review that. That is taking place as we speak.

[1415]

Indeed, the public will be informed of the results of that review when it is complete. And that review, when it is complete, will be available to the public, subject to freedom-of-information and privacy protection legislation.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: Well, again, in a very reasonable way, will the Premier agree today in this House that that investigation will be expanded to encompass full investigation into media manipulation by senior staff in his office?

J. Kwan: It is very unfortunate that the Premier has displayed, in my view, complete contempt for British Columbia's…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

J. Kwan: …loyal opposition in asking these questions. These questions are legitimate. Liberal staffers have been caught with media manipulations for the government's political gain in the past….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue, Member.

J. Kwan: It is legitimate to ask the Premier whether or not any of those kinds of activities are continuing today. Will the Premier commit in this House to launch a full investigation into this matter? And will he confirm for members of this House that none of his staff are engaged in media manipulation for his own personal political gain?

Hon. W. Oppal: You know, it's dangerous to use terms like "being caught." Nobody is being caught. These are allegations….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. W. Oppal: This is precisely the reason we don't comment on these things. It's improper to comment on these things. These are matters of dispute, matters of evidence that are presently before the Supreme Court. You know, to….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. W. Oppal: It is both inflammatory and irresponsible for a lawmaker in this House to make those types of comments on allegations that are being made in the Supreme Court.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

J. Kwan: Prem Vinning lost his job because he got caught manipulating the media under a different identity. The ministerial assistant Steve Vander Wal also got caught attacking the Leader of the Opposition on CKNW, pretending to be a concerned citizen.

These matters are not before the courts. It should be before this House and before the Premier's office for an investigation in terms of what other political staffers are engaged in this kind of activity.

Will the Premier come clean and tell British Columbians whether or not he will actually launch a full investigation into the ongoing activities of manipulation of the media by his political aides?

Hon. W. Oppal: Yes, the names are not before the court. Those names are not before the court. But any six-year-old who reads the newspapers would know that all this arises out of the trial that's now being conducted in the Supreme Court.

[1420]

D. Chudnovsky: I don't want to ask about a trial, and I don't want to ask about the past. I want to ask the Premier a question about today.

Starting today, will the Premier agree to launch an investigation — today — about the current situation as to whether there is media manipulation going on as a result of actions of the staff in his office?

Hon. W. Oppal: You know, we don't conduct "investigations" while trials are going on. There's a trial going on in the Supreme…. The member can….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. W. Oppal: …say: "This is not about the trial; this is not about the trial." Then he goes and talks about the trial. He's talking about conducting….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. W. Oppal: I mean, who does he think he's fooling with that statement? The idea of manipulation,

[ Page 7090 ]

the idea of staff manipulating the public on talk shows or whatever…. All of those are matters that have arisen out of the Supreme Court trial that is presently going on in Vancouver. The member opposite can say what he wants — that this doesn't arise out of the trial. We don't conduct investigations that are parallel to trials.

B. Ralston: Like it or not, a cloud is hanging over the Premier's office at the moment. Completely unrelated to the trial, the public wants answers. Will the Premier provide the assurance to the public that his staff now, today and forward from this day are not engaged in the kind of activities that Prem Vinning and Steven Vander Wal did in the past?

Hon. W. Oppal: These are issues that arise out of this trial. The fact that they are allegations concerning conduct on the part of people who are alleged to have been calling talk shows in order to manipulate public opinion…. They are matters that have come out of the Supreme Court trial. Prem Vinning's name comes up. Again, that is the same issue. That issue arises out of the trial. We do not comment…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue.

Hon. W. Oppal: …on matters that are presently before the Supreme Court. The member opposite, who's a lawyer, should know that. He should know, above all, that we do not comment on those matters that are presently before the court.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Ralston: Why doesn't the Premier want to lift this cloud by answering the question? We've asked it now at least 19 times in this question period alone. I'm going to ask the Premier again. Can he assure the public of British Columbia that no one in his office today and from today forward is acting in the way that Prem Vinning acted in the past?

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, if the question has been asked 19 times, it's been answered 19 times. The so-called cloud that the member speaks of is a cloud that's over on that side of the House. I can assure the House that there's no cloud over this side of the House.

We act upon principle. We know what's right, and we know what's wrong. We know that it's totally wrong and improper to discuss issues that arise out of a Supreme Court trial.

[1425]

H. Lali: In 2005 the Premier's handpicked lieutenant in the Indo-Canadian community, Mr. Prem Vinning, was caught pretending to be somebody else on a radio call-in talk show. Later that year Steve Vander Wal, the Deputy Premier's ministerial assistant, was also caught pretending, on CKNW, to be somebody else.

The Premier has not stood up in this House to deny these allegations and the reports that are in the newspapers. The Premier has not done that.

My question is to the Premier. Either he knew about the activities and just turned a blind eye, or the situation was out of his control. When is the Premier going to stop pretending to be the Premier and actually call for an investigation of what was going on in his office and under his ministries?

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, I don't know how many more times we have to talk about Prem Vinning. The Prem Vinning issue obviously is arising out of the allegations that have been made by defence counsel during the course of this trial.

Interjection.

Hon. W. Oppal: Yes, his name wasn't mentioned. You're right. Prem Vinning's name wasn't mentioned, but the issue arises out of the trial, and we're not going to comment on it.

DISCLOSURE OF DOCUMENTS ON

SALE OF B.C. RAIL

S. Simpson: We know that the integrity of the Premier's office and of this government is in shambles, and it's unravelling more every minute in this question period as they deny information. In the court proceedings today…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

S. Simpson: …counsel for Mr. Basi and Mr. Virk made it clear that they will be seeking disclosure in the coming days for documents that this government is withholding. The counsel is making the assertion that those documents will confirm or deny that the B.C. Rail oversight committee, made up of senior cabinet ministers from this government, was aware of the discussions of a consolation prize in the B.C. Rail deal.

My question is to the Premier. If the Premier is so sure and clear that these are false allegations, will he commit today to release all of those documents to the defence?

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Excuse me.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Campbell: There is a case before the courts of British Columbia, which I believe both the opposi-

[ Page 7091 ]

tion and the government would like to see concluded. At least on this side of the House, we believe in the rule of law. We understand the role that a special prosecutor takes, and the members opposite…. Certainly, the member that asked the question clearly does not understand the role that is played by the special prosecutor.

We will not taint that process. We will encourage the prosecution to be to the fullest extent of the law. I'm sure the defence will provide their defence, and we will not in any way taint that process, so we can get to a resolution that every British Columbian can count on.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

[End of question period.]

M. Sather: I seek leave to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

[1430]

Petitions

M. Sather: I have a petition with 333 signatures calling on the provincial government to restore and maintain child care operating funds for the child care resource and referral centres to the funding rate as at February 13, 2007.

S. Fraser: I submit petitions with thousands of signatures from across the province, again in support of the Safe Antifreeze Act and asking this government to bring it forward for second reading.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call from the order paper, standing under my name, Motion 49.

Motions on Notice

REFERRAL OF REPORT ON

LEGISLATURE ARTWORK

DEPICTING FIRST NATIONS PEOPLE

Hon. M. de Jong: That motion reads as follows:

[Be it resolved that in the spirit of the Province's New Relationship with the First Nations and Aboriginal people, the Legislative Assembly accept and adopt the 2001 Report of the Speaker's Advisory Panel titled "A Review of the Depiction of Aboriginal Peoples in the Artworks of the Parliament Buildings" and refer this matter to the Legislative Assembly Management Committee for implementation of the report's recommendation.]

November 18, 2006, was a good day to be here in Victoria and to be here at the Parliament Buildings, the Legislature. That was the day that Chief Robert Sam and members of the Songhees First Nation and Chief Andy Thomas and members of the Esquimalt First Nation came here. I remember it very well, the procession that Chief Sam led jointly up the sidewalk.

We had a bit of a magical moment at the steps where the Chief pointed out, "I should be welcoming you, not you welcoming me," given the nature of the matter that was being discussed on that day, for it was on that day that a dispute dating back to at least 1854 began to resolve itself. An agreement was initialled dealing with a cloud that was hanging over the title of the land upon which these buildings are situated and that in many ways had gone on unresolved for too long.

That settlement, happily, has now been ratified by both the Songhees First Nation — my congratulations to the Chief and council — and the Esquimalt First Nation. The process of rebuilding and beginning a new relationship is in full flight.

I have to tell members that something else happened that day, though, as part of that whole exercise. The ceremony took place downstairs just off from the rotunda — the rotunda that is the subject of the debate that we're having here today. We left from the Rattenbury Room, and we walked through. Something caught my attention, and that was the reaction — it was subtle; it wasn't overstated — of members of the Songhees First Nation and Esquimalt First Nation — elders, young people and people in between.

As we went through the rotunda and people looked, they didn't say anything, but it was clear that they were uncomfortable. It was clear that what they saw troubled them. Many looked away, and many were anxious to leave that particular part of the building — in fact, in a couple of cases I think anxious to leave the building — because of what they saw.

No one said anything to detract from the celebratory atmosphere, but that made an impression amongst those of us who were there. The member for Port Alberni was there on that day, as well, as part of that celebration, and others from this House. It prompted me and members of the government to begin to think about that.

[1435]

These murals that are the subject of this motion have been an issue for a number of decades. Most recently it became an issue in, I think, the fall of 2000. In those days, Grand Chief Ed John played a role in government, the government of British Columbia and, obviously, with the summit. Some action was initiated, and that gave rise in the fall of 2002 to a committee being struck — a committee of eminent individuals, a Speaker's advisory panel. They presented a report at the end of March 2001 to then Speaker Hartley.

It was a different time then, the end of March 2001. There was an election campaign a few weeks away, and besides some preliminary commentary in a very politically charged climate at the time, the report kind of went away. It included some recommendations, and it kind of disappeared.

[ Page 7092 ]

I must confess that in the lead-up to that election campaign, I don't actually recall if I even read it, but the events of November 18 reminded me that maybe I should. Maybe I should dust off that report from five years earlier and have a read.

A lot has changed since 2001, and I suppose maybe we've all changed a little bit. I think I probably have. I've certainly learned. I've learned about the value of a new relationship with British Columbia's first nations, about the value associated with trying to understand feelings and frustrations that are forged and have been forged by a history too often marked by intolerance and injustice.

I've learned about the value and challenges associated with effecting genuine reconciliation and the willingness to deal with symbols, not because of the importance of the symbol itself but because of what it represents — sometimes to you and sometimes to others.

Over Christmas I read the report that was done by the committee to Speaker Hartley. At this point I want to at least acknowledge and mention the names of the people that comprised that committee: Dr. Jo-Ann Archibald, professor at UBC; Dr. Jean Barman, UBC professor; Dr. Martha Black from the Royal B.C. Museum; Dr. John Lutz, professor at UVic; and sadly, the now deceased Mr. Art Thompson, an aboriginal artist and educator.

They produced this report which we are now asking the House to consider and to formally recommend its adoption and implementation. It's a good report. I hope members have had a chance to read it. It's not overly lengthy, about 25 pages or so, and it gives a good history of the murals. It talks about how they were a gift from the Provincial Secretary, Mr. Howe, in 1932 and how he, as a personal gift, commissioned Mr. George Southwell to prepare and paint the murals.

In 1933 this chamber passed a motion acknowledging the gift and thanking the benefactor, Mr. Howe, for them. In 1935 the murals were completed. There are actually two parts to them: the ones that we're talking about now in the lower rotunda and the others that extend up to the dome.

There are two important things that I learned as a component of reading that report. One is that the murals were not original features of the building, as many people may think they are — the buildings, of course, dating from the 1890s. And the fact, also, that the murals, a personal gift, were not commissioned by the province.

[1440]

I should say a word about the artist, Mr. George Southwell, in these preliminary remarks, because I think this is important, and I do want to emphasize this as well. I hope nothing in these proceedings and certainly in my comments would be interpreted as impugning the artist Mr. Southwell's motives or our memory of him as a distinguished artist and public servant.

In fact, in the report itself at page 17, the authors make this point:

"At the time the murals were created, white British Columbians considered the imagery to be appropriate for their setting. The message respecting aboriginal peoples that the murals conveyed may have been considered, if anything, liberal. Southwell's granddaughter has reflected" — and I think this is important to read into the record on a day like today — "'I do not believe that my grandfather looked at natives as inferior. I do not believe that his paintings were motivated by either racism or colonialist propaganda. He himself was a renegade. He bucked convention and encouraged non-conformity in his children and grandchildren.'"

The point is also made in the report that he lived and travelled with native guides. He learned their stories and oral traditions. The report then goes on to talk about one aspect of the debate that has swirled around these murals for many years, decades, and that's their historical accuracy.

This report contains a detailed analysis on the question of historical accuracy, and it deals with some sensitive issues. It talks about how in at least one or two of the murals, there is nudity depicted. How accurate was that? How valid a depiction is that? It talked about what some have interpreted as a depiction involving the use of slave labour. Is that accurate? Is that appropriate? Did it meet with what actually took place in those days?

The best that can be said about the report and about those questions is that it is inconclusive. But the report draws this important conclusion at page 22 on the question of historical accuracy. It is, when I read it, the part of the report that began to be most determinative.

The report says this: "For many years, many aboriginal and non-aboriginal people have found the image and message of the murals to be not only disturbing but offensive and hurtful. The value of the art and the historical accuracy of the murals are less important than the hurt they cause others."

I am persuaded by that argument. I find that a very compelling conclusion to draw about a subject that has gone unresolved for too long. The report then talks about the second important feature of the murals, about how those feelings of hurt and frustration are amplified by virtue of where the murals are located.

The panel that completed this report said this at page 21: "Today it's not just the murals' content but their setting that causes concern. The Parliament Buildings are no longer the purview of a self-elected minority of British Columbians. Two aboriginal persons, Frank Calder" — and parenthetically, of course, we lost Frank Calder last year just before Christmas — "and Larry Guno, have been elected as Members of the Legislative Assembly." Calder was first elected in 1949 and was subsequently re-elected eight times. Guno was elected in '86 and served in the House for one term.

"Women and persons of diverse backgrounds are no longer the outsiders they once were, either as participants in governance or as visitors. Unlike two generations ago, the Parliament Buildings are now generally accepted as belonging to all the people of British Columbia."

[1445]

[ Page 7093 ]

These halls, this chamber, this building must, in my view, be seen as a welcoming place by all British Columbians, and that lies at the core of the report. The panellists, who in no way tried to diminish or dismiss some of the other arguments that people have made — and we may hear today — about the murals, say that the paramount and determining feature must be that notion of ensuring that there is a welcome atmosphere here for all British Columbians.

The panel goes on to identify five options, five possible courses of action. Leave the murals as they are and do nothing. That, of course, has been the choice for some decades now. Leave the murals as they are and add some explanatory material. We could alter the murals as sort of the paint-the-fig-leaf option, if I could put it crassly, and actually paint over the murals to try to correct some of the offending aspects of the murals. We could cover them up, or the panel identified the option of removing them.

It's interesting because, of course, the panellists ultimately got to the point where they unanimously recommended option 5: that the murals be removed, with the proviso that they not be destroyed in the process. If you read the report, it's interesting to note how people came to that conclusion, because I think when they began their process, at least several of the panellists would have expected that they would have come to a different conclusion.

Yet for the reasons that I've only touched on — and I hope that members with an interest will go to the report itself — they all ultimately came to the conclusion that these murals should be removed, with the proviso that they not be destroyed in the process. The rationale for that is probably best contained on page 31 of the report, where the panellists write: "It is the view of the panel that these merits are overridden" — talking about the merits of the other arguments — "by the principle that the 'people's house' for all British Columbians ought not to be the location for works of art that cause offence and shame to any part of the people of this province."

It continues on page 32: "As British Columbians, every one of us has the right to enter the Parliament Buildings without having to see ourselves portrayed in a way we feel is insulting." And lastly, "The panel stresses that, in the controversy surrounding the murals, their location is a more important factor than their content. The Parliament Buildings are not an art gallery with a specialized audience and function. They are, rather, the centre of our system of governance representing all the peoples of the province. No one should feel excluded here."

That, in essence, is what has given rise to the commitment given in the 2007 Speech from the Throne — a commitment, I might add, to bring this matter to this chamber and give its present occupants — those of us who have been given the honour to sit here — an opportunity to decide. There may be some differences of opinion, and it's important that people be able to express those differences of opinion and that they be able to offer their own thoughts on the wisdom of the action that we are recommending.

I know this, though — at least, I think I know this — that notwithstanding those differences, if we could address the socioeconomic disparity that has separated aboriginal peoples from the rest of society for so long by simply relocating a painting, we'd do it. If we could reverse the historical injustices that were perpetrated against aboriginal peoples by moving a mural, we'd do it.

[1450]

Of course, it's not that simple. The canvas that serves as the historical backdrop for the challenges we are facing today cannot be altered by replacing a few institutional props or bringing in a new set design. But we can do this. We can collectively reach for the brush of reconciliation and paint a new canvas coloured by the principles of respect and reconciliation. In 2007 we can say, locked arm in arm with our aboriginal brothers and sisters: "This is who we are. This is what we believe in."

Shawn Atleo just a few moments ago, just beside the rotunda, ironically, said this — very poignant: "The days of doing things to or for first nations are over. The day of doing things with our first nations brothers and sisters has dawned."

We can swing these doors open even if we don't understand all of the feelings that these depictions, these murals, evoke. It is enough for me. It is enough to know that people are genuinely troubled by what they represent to them. We can swing the doors of this building, this gathering place — dare I say this longhouse — this parliament, open to our aboriginal brothers and sisters and say: "This is your place. Join us. You are welcome."

M. Farnworth: It's my pleasure to take my place on the debate around Motion 49 on an issue that has, I think, troubled this chamber for a number of years, because of the difficulty of the issues that have been raised, the questions that have to be answered, and the willingness of us as legislators to recognize the issues that confront us — the question of the murals.

I think it's important that we recognize that this motion deals with not just history, not just how society has been in the past but also how it's changed and how it is now. It deals with the values that we hold for this building — that it is in fact the people's House. It also deals with us as members and as a society — how we hold those values and seeing in this House how we represent ourselves — but also with issues of history, issues of what is art, issues of what is censorship, issues of how we reconcile peoples, how we reconcile individuals and how we reconcile history.

The Government House Leader stated that this was a report that came about in a different time. It was. In 2001 we were government; they were opposition. Ed John was a minister in an NDP government. Events conspired, resulted in an election and a change of government, and nothing was done on that report. But we're dealing with that report today. We need to understand some of the context of that report. We need to understand some of the context around the issue.

[1455]

[ Page 7094 ]

The murals, as the Government House Leader has pointed out, were a gift. They were a gift at a time when we had a different view of aboriginal people in this province, when we had a different view of society in this province and a different view of how the world was ordered. Over the decades we have recognized the injustices that took place. We have recognized the change that needs to be made — sometimes willingly, sometimes being dragged kicking and screaming by society and by the courts to make decisions that ensure that we include everybody in this province.

Whether you are aboriginal or non-aboriginal, we are all British Columbians. We all have a role, and we all have a place in building this province so it's a province for everyone. Nowhere is that more demonstrated than in this building, which is in fact the people's House, where every British Columbian should be able to come and feel at home, and where every British Columbian should be able to come and see themselves not only represented in this chamber but also represented in the building itself in an accurate way.

That's what this is about. This report deals with the murals — murals which portray aboriginal people in ways which are not accurate, in ways which are demeaning and which reflect a different point in our history, a different point in our evolution as a province and as a people.

We have changed. There is — we hope on both sides of this House — a new relationship. The days of divisive referendums are hopefully over forever in this province.

There's a lot that remains to be done — child poverty amongst aboriginal communities, health issues amongst aboriginal communities, issues of suicide rates amongst aboriginal communities, issues of opportunity, issues around education, around control of resources and land and the whole treaty process. Those are complex issues that we have to work on every single day. They're not going to be dealt with today or tomorrow but only over time. We as a society, I believe, have reached that point in our province's history where we are committed to ensuring that that takes place.

But there are also other things that take place where we can have an immediate statement of our desire for change and our desire for reconciliation. The murals are one of them. I believe that's why it's important to support this motion. We send a strong message of reconciliation to aboriginal people. We send a strong message of reconciliation to the broader public, and we send a strong message of reconciliation outside of our own province to the rest of Canada.

I think we should be proud of that. We should celebrate that. But we also need to recognize that there are issues. There are people who have concerns and questions on the other side of this debate. Those views also need to be respected.

[1500]

People recognize the inaccuracy of the murals, but people also recognize that they have been part of this building for more than 75 years, that the issue of censorship is an important question that needs to be addressed and that the issues of whether you move them or relocate them are important questions that need to be answered.

We are not the first to struggle with these questions. Other societies, other places in this world even today deal with these questions. I spent some time in the Balkans for two years, and I was there just after the fall of communism and the emergence of democracy. In that change, in that desire to break free of what was for many people a very horrible past and to start anew was this desire to completely eliminate, to completely get rid of, in many cases to completely destroy what were works of art, what were symbols that had been around as a part of the history of those places for many decades.

It was interesting to see how these countries dealt with this issue. Some wiped it away. It never happened; it never existed.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

Others recognized that while these may not be desirable images, while they reflected what was in many cases a totalitarian history, they were still part of the collective history of those countries and of those peoples. While they should not stay in their perceived place of honour in front of a legislature or a civic square, they still were part of the cultural history of those peoples. They were relocated somewhere else.

We also need to remember that while we are engaged in a process of reconciliation, sending out a message to the people of our province and building a new relationship with aboriginal people, you cannot erase history. You cannot pretend it didn't happen, because that is the worst thing that you can do. What we must continue to do is learn from history — from the attitudes of the past, from the attitudes of societies long ago — to see how we have changed and to ensure that we don't make those mistakes again.

That's one of the challenges we face. That's one of the things in this recommendation that I think is key.

It is that in our desire for reconciliation, in moving the murals out of their location, we find an appropriate place for them, we place them in a context so that people not only recognize them — the history of them, the fact that they were a gift, the fact that at that time this was seen as an artistic gift that would add something to this chamber — but also recognize the cultural context — how we viewed aboriginal people in those days, what conditions for aboriginal people were like in those days, how we have changed, and the changes that are still taking place or that still have to happen before we have full reconciliation in this province.

That's one of the important things we need to accomplish in moving and in dealing with this motion. In the report there were options laid out. As has been stated, the authors of that report thought they might arrive at a different destination. They considered a lot of the questions that will need to be answered, and they came to that it is appropriate to move those murals to another location.

[1505]

[ Page 7095 ]

When this motion passes and this goes to LAMC, then those things need to be taken into account. Those issues will have to be dealt with, because what we do then is ensure that the goal of our motion and the goal of moving those murals is to create a people's building — a Legislature where everyone is represented, where everyone feels comfortable and at home, where we have images, arts and decoration that are appropriate for this place but where we also don't forget the responsibility of the other side of the coin.

That is to ensure that we recognize our history — good, bad and mediocre; that we have the ability to learn from the past; that we don't repeat the mistakes of the past; and that these things are placed in context.

With that, I will take my place in this debate, and I look forward to hearing the comments of other colleagues in this House.

J. Nuraney: I rise today with a sense of great pride — a pride in this government, which has the courage to correct a wrong. We have seen in the past the history of our aboriginal people. We have seen, heard and read about the injustices, about the residential school experiences, about how they were treated as second-class citizens — a community with which we should have nothing to do — and let them exist on their own in total isolation.

Those were terrible times. That was a part of our Canadian history that is stained and tainted. It is a strong resolve of this government to correct those mistakes and to see how we can best heal the wounds that were caused.

This afternoon the House is considering a motion of great significance to the cultural history of our province. It is a debate. It is a motion for the removal of the murals that are in this building.

There was an argument put forward that it is a work of art. I would like to contradict that statement. Art is a depiction of facts. When the panel made this report, it was mentioned that many visitors to the Parliament Buildings may continue to believe that the murals are accurate representations of past events and of the role of first nations people in the province's history. The report also says that this does not represent the facts and the way things were.

[1510]

Chief Sam amplified the First Nations Summit Task Group's concerns, explaining his position with three points: that the murals are not factual, that they perpetuate negative stereotypes of aboriginal persons, that they perpetuate colonial attitudes at a time when new relationships with aboriginal people should have been nurtured and made productive.

I submit that even for those people who consider this art, it perhaps is a design, in my opinion, of a gross misrepresentation. It is also said by the Songhees elders…. They reiterated that the aboriginal women depicted in the murals were always clothed in some fashion, often with cloaks or cedar skirts. The children were also always covered in some way.

Once again, Madam Speaker, I put it to you that these murals that are downstairs in our building represent no history. We in Canada are a nation of many peoples. We have come from all over the world, and the fact that Canada is considered a pride in the world is because of its pluralistic and multicultural values that are nurtured and cultured over time with a strong underlining of sentiments — sentiments of understanding, sentiments of generosity, sentiments of caring. And the most important sentiment is that of respect.

We are all immigrants to this land of the first nations. The land truly belongs to the people of the first nations, and we must always consider ourselves as their guests.

They welcomed us from the beginning with open arms. They welcomed us in the true spirit of what they believed in — of people, of humanity, of friendship. And today is a day that I stand in this House with great pride that we are, and I am, a part of that history where we are correcting the very first wrong that has happened to our people of first nations.

It is my absolute belief that the murals should be removed, should be out of sight for any person to see again. This building represents the House of the people of British Columbia. It is of all peoples, and I would not want to be in this building if this building represents any sort of hurt to any person who is a Canadian, a person of this land.

Madam Speaker, I have the great pride and privilege of supporting this motion, and I thank you for the time.

S. Fraser: I rise to speak to Motion 49 also. I believe that this place, this building, is a place of respect, and iissak is the Nuu-chah-nulth term for respect. I have learned much from Nuu-chah-nulth wisdom, and that is what this motion is about.

[1515]

I respect and agree with the recommendations of the panel, and I respect and agree with the rationale of the panel in the need to remove these murals. That being said, I must qualify that. I am not a fan of censorship, and these murals represent a depiction of a colonial past that also must not be forgotten. For me it is this place, the siting of these murals, that is wholly inappropriate.

No one should feel insulted in this building, ever — aboriginal or non. No one should feel intimidated in this building, Madam Speaker. No one should feel offended in this place, and no one should feel ashamed in this place. Those murals create those negative feelings for many that visit, and that should not be.

I do not believe that the previous speaker's statements…. I do not agree with some of them in the sense…. Removal, yes, but not removal from public view. I believe there would be an appropriate siting for these murals — for they are a part of our history, and that must not be forgotten — possibly at the museum, with a segue for those murals to show why they were removed and how far we have come.

We should not forget the attitudes of the past, which were not that long ago, that led to stereotyping. That was a different era, one we should not forget but one we could celebrate with this motion as a turning of the page.

[ Page 7096 ]

I have respect for the artists and the intent of honouring this building with art, and I do believe art is in the eye of the beholder. I have seen art that I think is bad art, and I have seen art that I believe is good art, but that is a subjective opinion. I do not believe that art should ever be destroyed. Nor should it be purposely removed, even for reasons that might be considered appropriate.

Having these murals removed from this building because of respect, because of iisaak , is essential, and the time is right. This report and these recommendations are a few years old now, so I believe that it is a good day to discuss this and decide to move this thing forward.

The motion would move it to LAMC, the Legislative Assembly Management Committee, to determine the best way to do that. I would hope that this would be done in a way where the artwork would not be destroyed, because that would be a tragedy also. I do not believe that the intent of the author of these artworks, the artist of the day, was to show disrespect.

It was based on an attitude that prevailed at the time. Again, that is an attitude that is best remembered — to show that we have moved, that we have progressed and that we shouldn't forget what the past was about. If we forgot that, we would be in danger of slipping backwards, and I don't think that would be in anyone's interest. It certainly would not serve reconciliation in any meaningful way.

In the interests of iisaak , Madam Speaker — respect — I will concur with the recommendations of Motion 49. I think it can be cause for celebration in the turning of a page in this House and in our history.

[1520]

B. Lekstrom: Thank you to the members for the comments that they've put forward. I am going to bring a different view to this debate on Motion 49.

What we're talking about today, in my view, is not about first nations or non–first nations. It's about the murals that we have done and see in the rotunda down below. I've heard words such as censorship. I have heard people talk about respect. All of those things are important, and I think we want to understand fully what we're debating here today and what the outcome could possibly be, depending on which vote and how it transpires.

I've read the report of 2001, and I think there were some tremendous submissions. I think there were points of view brought forward that I can respect. It doesn't mean I agree with them, but I can certainly respect them and how they were brought forward. There were five options in that report, and I certainly have my view on which one I would agree with. I'm going to get into that in a bit.

My colleague earlier said that art is in the eye of the beholder. I can tell you — and I'm not about to mislead the public — I am no art connoisseur. I enjoy looking at different pieces of art, and I know that what tugs at my heartstrings may not tug at the person standing beside me. When I look at a painting on a wall, I'm certain that if I had three or four people standing beside me, we would feel something different. It would mean something different to us.

That's what those paintings in our lower rotunda do. I was down earlier, before this debate, to look at those. I view them, obviously, differently than the people that feel they should be removed. I didn't read in the report of any of the presenters saying that they should not be retained but moved. That, although I disagree with it, I think was a very respectful approach to the discussions that took place in 2001, and here we are again today.

This building means a great deal, not just to myself and legislators that have sat in this building before but to all British Columbians — first nations, non–first nations. I think this is our building, and when I say our building, it's all-inclusive. It isn't that one person has more access to it than another.

I did read some comments in the report by a couple of people that presented who feel there's still not access for first nations. That one I do differ on. I think we have come a long way with the new relationship and with the reconciliation that has taken place in this province. There were wrongs that were committed many years ago, and I think society has accepted that and is moving forward to correct those inequities that existed.

I do want to speak about the five recommendations that were put forward. What we're debating here today is, I believe, recommendation 5, which is to remove the murals as they presently exist.

I support recommendation 2, which talks about leaving the murals as they are with the addition of other materials. Those other materials, I think, can better reflect our history as we move forward, because as we begin this debate, we're talking about history at that time. History doesn't have to be ten years ago, 20 years ago, 30, 50 or 100. History is every moment that passes us by, and we can learn from that.

What I would like to do…. I'm not going to belabour the issue. I certainly feel that if I'm going to cast a vote in a certain manner, I have a responsibility to stand up and explain to British Columbians why I'm going to cast my vote that way. Where I stand on this is quite clear. The history of this building means a great deal to me. To me, to take things away is not acceptable. To add things is.

History. In our case what we're talking about here is not always comfortable, but it's real, and we should not hide it. In this case we should not move it, but we should build upon it. So my support would be for recommendation 2.

My belief would be that those murals would remain where they are, but we would add new murals to this building depicting the new relationship that we have built with first nations across this province, and continue to build. We would partner with our first nations to have the type of art put forward that they would see, that is their view on the new relationship as it moves forward. It doesn't mean we've reached everything to everyone. It means we're moving in the right direction.

[1525]

Again, in closing, I do want to reiterate that this issue for me is about this building, the history of this building — not that I don't respect the feelings of

[ Page 7097 ]

others who have spoken before me; or the individuals that presented to the committee; or our first nations, who feel that something should be done and that moving them is their choice.

Just as I feel something should be done, I think that the issue of explaining those murals with plaques beside them, adding and building upon them with the new relationship and reflecting what this province has done — each and every person, not just government — is important, and that's the route I would rather go.

This is not a new issue. As was stated — I believe there has been some discussion — this recommendation comes from a 2001 report. In my mind, I don't see this as censorship. We could get into that debate of which books we like and which books we don't like. As my colleagues have said before, I've looked at some art that I couldn't even begin to understand fully. But because of that, I'm not about to pass my judgment on that art because it means obviously something to many people.

As I said earlier, when I walked by those paintings, I stood there — there was a colleague in this chamber down there as well, I'm sure, doing the same thing — and I looked. Those paintings, when I look at them, don't depict to me a colonial attitude in the sense that the white man was over the first nations. But we learn from it. I can tell you that in the job I hold today and in the past six years, I've learned a great deal about the relationship with first nations and their history.

My view — I'm going to close again; I've said that a number of times, but it's important enough to say — is that I'm not a supporter of this motion. I don't believe those murals should be removed. I believe that what we should do as a Legislative Assembly, as a province and as the people of British Columbia is build upon those murals and work with first nations and non–first nations to reflect where we were and where we're at today, which is many, many miles from where we once were in our relationship with first nations.

I thank you for the time, and I look forward to hearing my colleagues debate on this motion and certainly look forward to the vote. As we move forward, democracy works in the way that once a majority vote is taken, we step forward and make that work.

J. Horgan: I'm pleased to rise today to speak on the motion before us.

It's not surprising that I would follow the member for Peace River South, who I bumped into in the rotunda as we both were doing a little bit more due diligence. I find that he and I tend to be in the same place at the same time quite often on many issues in this place. I'm comforted by that — that across this floor we can periodically look at issues of importance such as this and reflect together collectively, not as New Democrats and Liberals or government and opposition but as human beings, individuals with thoughts and views and ideas on what is right and what is wrong.

I'm pleased to stand today and discuss this issue, not just because I happen to work here. I worked here in the 1990s, and that was when I first became aware of the murals in the rotunda. During that period of my life I was usually running through the rotunda from one place to another, and I didn't have time to stop and reflect on the murals as art.

It's not as a critic of art that I stand here today but as a representative in the Legislature for Malahat–Juan de Fuca, which is the home of Jane Munro, who I introduced earlier today, the grandchild of the artist, George Southwell. Jane, of course, has a particular view on the art as a descendant of the artist, and she's passed that on to me. I want my remarks today to reflect my listening to her and hearing what she had to say about those pieces as not just pieces of history in this building but pieces of history in her family.

[1530]

I also want to say that it's regrettable that Chief Atleo and others are no longer with us, because I wanted them to hear my comments directly. I had the opportunity to meet Chief Atleo in the Tsartlip longhouse on the Saanich Peninsula. I was honoured to be asked to participate in a longhouse ceremony. It was one of the most moving experiences of my life as a member of this Legislature. It was indeed humbling to be in a place where first nations had met for centuries to discuss issues of importance to their community, to their people and to this place that we now share.

I am here as a result of European expansion. I am not responsible for it. Nor am I responsible for the views of those who look at art and see history. I am a student of history. I have a master's degree in history. I'm a bit of a historian, I suppose you could say. At least, I've studied it, and I've read it extensively.

When I look at the murals in the rotunda — their names are Courage, Enterprise, Labour and Justice — I don't always see courage, enterprise, labour and justice, but I see one person's

interpretation of those significant emotions or attributes. Those were the vision of George Southwell. He was an artist of some significance.

I just want to read from the report. Not everyone who is viewing today or who will be reading the newspaper or television reviews of our discussions today will have an understanding of George Southwell, and I just want, for the record, to read in a portion of the report. It's from page 14, and it goes as follows:

"At the time when the murals were commissioned, the Daily Colonist reported that Southwell's paintings 'have been greatly admired by resident and visiting art connoisseurs.'"

This was the Daily Colonist , April 6, 1933.

"Although his reputation has faded and few examples of his paintings are in public collections in the province…Southwell was considered 'the dean of the artists in the 1950s.' His open-studio exhibits in Vancouver were popular, he was a respected teacher, and among his many works was a mural in the Devonshire Hotel in Vancouver. Just because Southwell is no longer a big name among today's relatively small roster of historical artists in British Columbia…does not currently say that his works should be dismissed as insignificant.

"Re-evaluation of artists and their works is constant in the study and critique of visual arts. There is no doubt that Southwell's paintings and career will be of interest to future historians of the visual arts in British Columbia and that the murals will be central to any re-evaluation of his practice.

[ Page 7098 ]

"In the current debate about the future of the murals, it is important to realize that the study of art in British Columbia is rudimentary. For example, there is no teacher at any of the universities in the province whose primary research and majority of teaching is focused on historical British Columbia visual art and artists."

We don't have a body of work to comment on the value, the importance or the

interpretation of Mr. Southwell's art in our rotunda, but we do have the heartfelt views of our first nations brothers and sisters. They are of the view that the art perpetuates negative stereotypes. I don't want to dispute that for a minute. I can completely understand how our first nations would feel that way, and I want, to the best of my ability, to respect that sentiment and do what I can to ensure that when they come into this place, they are as comfortable as I am or anyone else in this building.

Whether they be Buddhists, Sikhs, Protestants, Episcopalians, it need not matter. We are all British Columbians, regardless of where we come from. We are a result of European expansion. That's how we came here. That's why we have a British parliamentary system. That's why we're in this building today debating this motion.

I am concerned that we are passing our responsibility as legislators on to the Legislature management committee to deliberate. Like the previous speaker, my preferred option would be to leave the murals as they are and add additional materials and other works of art.

My home in Langford is festooned in aboriginal art. Richard Hunt is my favourite. Whenever I can, I collect his work, and we put it on the walls in our home.

I would rather see the $280,000 projected estimate to remove the murals put toward retaining first nations interpreters to tell us the story of this place — what the Songhees did and how they reacted to our arrival — so that we can have some balance when people come into this Legislature.

The stories and history and culture of the first nations on southern Vancouver Island and, indeed, right across this province are profoundly important to me and are profoundly important to the Legislature of British Columbia. A better way, in my mind, to bring that culture alive is to make sure it's part of what we do here.

[1535]

You'll know, hon. Speaker, that in the summertime quite often the Legislative Assembly hires young students to do skits and dramas around the buildings, pretending to be Amor de Cosmos and other leaders of this place. I don't know why we wouldn't want to retain young aboriginal students or young aboriginal dancers or young aboriginal interpreters to assist us in better understanding what happened when our ancestors arrived here in the 1800s.

I believe that we are going to pass this motion and, ultimately, we're going to continue to have some debate, but I just want to remind those who don't remember that there was a fellow named Barnett Newman, who painted something called Voice of Fire . The art gallery of Canada paid $1.8 million — 1988 dollars — to have this piece of art, which was three bands on a canvas, purchased so that the taxpayers and art lovers in Canada could, when they visited Ottawa or when the exhibit traveled, see this piece of art.

Now, for me it was three stripes on a canvas; to those who know better, it was a masterpiece worthy of collection in our national gallery. So I can't stand here today and pass judgment on George Southwell's ability. I can't pass judgment on George Southwell's

interpretation of history. But I can stand here in this place and say that those murals have been there for 70 years. We should take steps, through our reconciliation processes with first nations, to address the real substantive issues of alienation and stereotyping, rather than take old art and hide it away or cloister it in a building somewhere where it will not be seen again.

This is a profoundly important issue to first nations. I fully recognize that, but I do believe that there are better options than the one proposed in the report. Like my colleague from Peace River South, who I bumped into in the rotunda when we were doing our due diligence again today, I believe that we should not pass our responsibility on to our caucus leadership but that, in fact, we should stand here today and speak in favour of option 2, to leave the murals and add more materials to the rotunda so our first nations brothers and sisters are genuinely welcomed and can tell their story to all those who come and visit us.

Hon. L. Reid: It pleases me to have the opportunity to respond to this topic this afternoon, and I would ask the members present today to look around this chamber. This isn't a museum. It's not an art gallery. It's a parliament. For me the sense of belonging takes precedence over the other emotions expressed today.

I would not wish to see this place ever, ever put one moment of discomfort into any member who would come before. That is not what I believe this place is about. I believe you must come here unfettered, free to act on your beliefs and your abilities as you go forward. I, too, have had many conversations, many dealings with aboriginal people in British Columbia over my years of being in this place, and for us to suggest that to continue to keep the murals in the rotunda, to somehow continue to ask them to ignore that, doesn't warm my heart. There have to be opportunities where we, indeed, understand that a sense of belonging is vitally important.

I am always about respectful engagement. I want us to engage respectfully as we go forward — and that's with every person in British Columbia. Whether it's children and families, whether it's educators, it's about respectful engagement. If there are people in British Columbia today, aboriginal Canadians, people of aboriginal descent, who do not feel welcome in this place, that is, I believe, a calling that each of us must address in terms of how we solve that issue.

It is a collective solving of that issue, hon. Speaker. It is, I believe, about pursuing respect and reconciliation with aboriginal peoples. For me it's not about anything else. A whole array of different issues and subject matter can be brought into the debate. The principle at

[ Page 7099 ]

risk today is whether or not we truly wish this building, this place, to be welcome to all. I truly wish that for this place. I desperately want that for this place.

[1540]

When you see people of aboriginal descent and you see the Premier of this province say that we are all here to stay, that is the only issue of debate. We're here to stay, I think, with tremendous potential, tremendous promise and tremendous optimism. We're here to stay together. If there are, and there appear to be, issues that allow this place to create a sense of discomfort, we need to collectively strive, I believe, to ensure that does not continue.

I'm serious. I'm passionate about this. The level of stigma and depersonalizing that has gone on over the years cannot be allowed to continue. I think that it's tremendously important and a huge opportunity for us, when individuals who sit behind us today, have sat many a day behind legislators in this place and have come asking for that one piece to actually be removed from this building, that we honour that request.

I want very much to work in partnership. I do believe that it is about respect. I do believe that it's about respectful engagement, because this is a parliament. It's not any other place where one would display art. This is a parliament. This is an opportunity for dialogue, for creativity, for innovation, but it has to have a sense of fairness and a sense of welcome as we go forward.

I believe that heart and soul. I want very much for us to acknowledge that this is about pursuing respect and reconciliation with aboriginal peoples. I know colleagues opposite have talked about symbolism. Absolutely, this is an important symbol. This is an important message. It's an important action, and it's an important commitment that we will take forward. I truly want this place to be welcoming to every single British Columbian who enters these walls.

The students in the gallery today…. I don't want a single young person in British Columbia to ever question the rightness of their attendance in this place, not one — not the individuals today, not an aboriginal person across the land — to ever feel discontented or discomforted by being in this place. That is not what this place should be about, and I feel that passionately.

There have to be opportunities for us to do what is right and fair. This is, I believe, the right action that we can take. I want us to take it collectively. I do believe — and it's certainly the recommendation in the report — that "the mural's location in the Parliament Buildings invests them with enormous significance for many groups across British Columbia."

Their location within the Parliament Buildings "invests them with enormous significance" — page 31 of the report. So those who say, "Maybe we can just put some interpretive data around them…." It's their presence in this place — in a parliament — that is at issue today. It's the principle of welcome that we must, in my view, convey more effectively, more stringently and more vigorously than we have conveyed in the past. That is the issue that I rise to debate today.

The panel unanimously recommends option 5 — that the murals be removed. I support that recommendation wholeheartedly, and again, I speak as a former teacher and as a school administrator. Buildings that speak to people must speak to all people. Parliaments do that more so than any other building or any other physical plant in the land.

This place has energy, commitment and obligation vested in the people who come here. The people who come to this place as elected members do so because they want to make a contribution. I believe that. This would be an enormous contribution to what is right and to what is fair as we go forward as British Columbia.

We're going to be 150 years old in 2008 — the sesquicentennial of British Columbia in 2008. How do we want next year and the year after and the years that follow to go forward? I want it to go forward from a basis of an unfettered notion that this parliament welcomes every person in British Columbia — every ethnic group in British Columbia and every aboriginal person in British Columbia. I don't want there to be discontent or discomfort experienced when people come to the people's building. This is the people's parliament.

[1545]

Those who we represent today deserve to know that we as legislators believe, heart and soul, that this place needs to issue the strongest possible welcome to every single person who comes through the front doors — or any door — of this building. This is a building designed for people, for ideas, for innovation, for good works and for good will. It's a place where everyone needs to feel welcome. I couldn't believe that more strongly.

The notion that we have a report before us and a direction before us, I trust, will be supported by the members of this Legislature, because it's vitally important. We have begun a new relationship — respect and reconciliation. We've begun a new relationship. Every step along the way needs to be thoughtful, to be insightful, to be decent and to have tremendous humanity attached to it.

It's not about where else one might hang this art. It's about what we feel about this place, what the principle of interaction, welcome and, in my view, human decency is. That's what this place is about. For me, it's not about any of those other issues, and I don't mean to diminish them in any way. The people who will speak to them will speak passionately about them.

My purpose in rising today is to state as clearly as I possibly can that this is about respectful engagement. This is about continuing the new relationship in British Columbia and doing so from a place of enormous respectful engagement. Engagement means both parties believe heart and soul that there is strength in terms of coming together and strength in how they come together.

And Shawn Atleo today in the rotunda…. It's no longer about what we might do to aboriginal people. It is what we will do with aboriginal people in British Columbia that will matter, that will make the difference and that will carry us forward or not.

I am part of a government that is moving forward. We are doing our best, as we go forward, to understand. The House Leader spoke of it earlier when he talked about a ceremony here in the fall, in November,

[ Page 7100 ]

where there was a subtle discontent, a subtle discomfort, and about being sensitive to that, to understand that and to ensure that what we have within the power of this place to make better, we need to make better.

That is the essence of today's discussion. We can do it, and we should do it. For me, it is mightily important that we continue that work.

The aboriginal babies born in British Columbia today need to know as they grow up that there's pride and respect and decency in this place and that it encompasses each and every single person in this province. They need that message, and this is one way to continue to send that message as we go forward.

The folks who would rise to their feet and justify maintaining what gives people discomfort in a parliament, I can't fathom, can't understand. Other buildings, places, venues, museums and art galleries…. In terms of how I started my remarks today, all of those things and all of those places may be appropriate. It's not appropriate in a parliament. That is the essence of civilization, and for me that is all about civilized behaviour.

We have many issues that require a civilized response in today's age. How we go forward and create that sense of what happens next…. The sense has to be about optimism, goodwill, promise and potential. It cannot be in any way fettered by a discontent in terms of coming to this place. This is the people's parliament in British Columbia. I want it to welcome each and every soul who comes through the door. It's vitally important to me that that continue to happen.

Certainly, from page 32 of the report: "As British Columbians, every one of us has the right to enter the Parliament Buildings without having to see ourselves portrayed in a way which we feel is insulting." That's the essence. "The panel members believe that respecting the dignity of a people portrayed in a public building is the most important ethical principle here."

[1550]

It speaks to me that there is an ethical principle here. It's about respecting the dignity of a people. As British Columbians, every one of us has the right to enter the Parliament Buildings without having to see ourselves portrayed in a way we feel is insulting.

All of us elected today have that right. We don't see ourselves portrayed in ways we find to be insulting today. That's a given. Why is it that it can't be a given for aboriginal people in British Columbia?

The panel members believe that respecting the dignity of a people portrayed in a public building is the most important ethical principle here. I could not agree more strongly with the principle. It is about welcome, it is about dignity, and it is about a sense of belonging. This building belongs to the people of British Columbia — every single person in British Columbia. I want aboriginal people today to believe that in their hearts and souls as well.

N. Simons: I just want to rise and state quite clearly that I'll be supporting the motion, but I'd like to do that with this proviso or with this note of caution or with this disclaimer.

I find this government's decision to dust off a report in order to create a diversion from what is actually happening in this province…. The issues facing first nations people across this province are not going to be helped in a symbolic way. I know that the true impact of this particular action by this government is to point out some divisions, to presume somehow that when you speak about the quality of art, it is: "You're for us, or you're against us."

I categorically reject that premise upon which the government has brought this dusted-off report back to this House. I say to the House Leader, I say to the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation that the true reconciliation needs to happen where first nations people are living, and at the same time, perhaps, to engage in some other symbolic actions. But I don't believe that first nations people that I've spoken to in the last week believe this to be more than a public relations effort at this point because of other things that might otherwise tarnish government's reputation in the media, as we speak.

There are issues of huge importance. The suicide rate for aboriginal people in this province is still many times the average of the non-aboriginal population. We can look at every socioeconomic indicator, and the situation has not changed in the last five years. Yet we have spent more time today discussing this issue when I know that there are aboriginal children in this province who are hungry, aboriginal children who are separated from their family and aboriginal children who are living in poverty. These are the issues we should be speaking about in the House today.

I've worked with first nations people for many years. That does not make me an expert. It does not even give me the opportunity to say that I believe I know what first nations people are thinking. But the premise that I would know that is to assume that there's a homogeneous thought among first nations people about this particular subject, and I take exception to that assumption as well.

At the same time, the paintings that exist in this rotunda are equally insulting to me, because they represent a time when our colonial attitudes were strong, firm, entrenched and made first nations people subjugated to the non-aboriginal population. The situation, if you look at the indicators now, may be better — we're working on it — but that colonial attitude still exists in so much of what we do and how we relate to first nations people.

I speak to chiefs who wish somehow that they could have the benefits of being at the lead tables. They speak about the divisions that have been created by this government's policy of style over substance. I ask this government to make the same kind of effort into the condition of aboriginal people living in this province now as they do to this particular issue. That's what I'm asking for.

[1555]

I'm not saying don't do this motion. I'm not saying don't remove the offensive paintings from our building. I am saying that while you do that, do not allow

[ Page 7101 ]

the communities across this province, first nations or not, to believe that that is actually a symbol of anything other than what it is — a symbol. Let's redouble our efforts to bring up the issues of the abandonment of the Kelowna accord. I haven't heard more than one speaker in this House speak of that complete contradiction to what we're supposed to be standing for.

Let us go on from today. Let us reach out for true reconciliation, Madam Speaker. The reason that that is so discomforting as we walk through that hall is because the subjugation still exists.

I'm not taking on that battle in some way to protect; I'm talking about the experience that I've witnessed in the work that I do. Child welfare in first nations communities deserves more time than we are giving it. The social and economic conditions of aboriginal people living off reserve, or on reserve, need our attention. It needs our attention because we have to change the relationship that is portrayed in the paintings on the murals downstairs.

I commend the first nations leadership. I commend them for making sure that this government listens to their issues. Maybe this government is suddenly realizing that it doesn't want to associate itself with its past, the referendum and the lawsuit against Nisga'a. Let's not forget that, and let's use that as an example of the hypocrisy of bringing this now before us when in fact there are conditions in our province that need our attention more.

Madam Speaker, that being said, I believe that we need to redouble our efforts to teach young children in kindergarten, in grade 1, in grade 2, about the chiefs who fought against the oppressors when they came here. They need to know about the history of first nations, which is almost ignored in our curriculum or needs to be increased in our curriculum.

I speak with respect. I speak without telling anybody how they should do or what they should do. But I'm saying that, from my perspective, this government's attempt to use a highly symbolic act to create attention on an issue, which he dusted off his shelf, is not the priority that I feel that the first nations people who I represent should be focused on, nor are they bringing that to me. People are bringing to me their concern about the lack of consultation over fish farms and aquaculture, over the lack of consultation on the issuance of cutting permits in forests in their traditional territory.

These are the issues that this government should bring to the House, not divisive issues that are solely designed at finding those divisions and exploiting them.

I believe strongly in the importance of preserving art. I think that if the first nations people who I've learned from would tell me the truth, they would tell me that same thing: they had a disgust and a horrific abuse of culture when the colonial powers — whether they were represented by the church figures or by merchants — came and demanded that all regalia, all artwork be destroyed in a pile in the middle of the field. We're not talking about repeating the mistakes of our past.

My grandfather was a lawyer in Nazi Germany. He defended the right of artists to express however they wanted. I don't think that's what the issue is because the government is bringing it to us as an issue — an opportunity to find division where we were prepared to deal with more important, substantive issues.

I'd like to see this government deal with some substantive issues. I'd like to see them apologize for the disrespect they showed the communities in my constituency when they didn't adequately consult, when they were throwing referral after referral after referral to the first nations communities without the capacity that goes with it, in order to give them the perfect opportunity and enough resources to completely address the issues being brought forward in referrals.

Madam Speaker, I simply want to point out that I for one have not been fooled. I for one believe that the true issues facing first nations people as they've been expressed to me do not include this as a priority. It may be something that goes on, but we've taken time in this House to debate it. I would rather see us debating the issues that will truly have an impact on first nations community.

[1600]

I was on the band land when I saw people returning from the city, when the rules around how they were supported in urban centres were changed. People came back to the first nations community. They experienced the overcrowding. They experienced the mould in the homes. They experienced the social results of those indicators.

Those are the issues I prefer to bring to this House for debate. I prefer to bring to this House solutions that will actually have an impact for first nations communities. I believe that this particular issue, while it is important for the symbolism…. We need to make sure we balance it with the knowledge that, in fact, what we should be talking about are the substantive issues that will have an impact on the little boys and the little girls growing up in first nations communities, on their parents, on their grandparents — on all the people who bring them up in this world.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

They should be strengthened by what we offer. They should be strengthened by what we bring to the table. They should be strengthened by what we offer at the treaty table. They should be strengthened in the knowledge that people in this House are going to be concerned about the substantive issues and will continue to listen to them. In the meantime, while we deal with the art situation, let us remember that, so we don't think one has anything to do with the other.

I will cede the floor to a member from the government side. I will be supporting this motion.

D. MacKay: Following the comments from the member opposite, the first thing I should say is that I can't think of a government that has done more for reconciliation with our aboriginal communities than the government under the leadership of our Premier.

I believe that the motion before the House today comes at a time in our lives when we are going through

[ Page 7102 ]

a reconciliation process with aboriginals. The significance that is brought to the fore in Motion 49 is now coming to the forefront. I wonder how important this motion is going to be in the next generation, or even ten years or five years from now, after this process of reconciliation goes through its learning curve.

The first thing I want to talk about is the motion itself. The last couple of lines in the motion say: "And refer this matter to the Legislative Assembly Management Committee for implementation of the report's recommendation." It doesn't say recommendations; it refers specifically to a recommendation.

The report itself contains the recommendation. I'm reading from page 31 of the report that was submitted to this House in 2001. The recommendation of the panel who reviewed the murals downstairs said: "The panel unanimously recommends option 5." Well, if we go into the report, option 5 on page 28 says: "Remove the murals." Remove the murals. In my view, the motion that is before this floor makes one recommendation, and that is the removal of the murals downstairs that are the topic of our discussion today.

Also in the report were some technical considerations that I think have been overlooked. I'd like to read from pages 29 and 30 of the recommendations, where it makes reference to the following: "There is no guarantee that the process will be successful and that the murals and the fabric of the building will be undamaged. Unless a suitable venue can be found for the paintings, there is danger of their being damaged or destroyed after they have been removed from the walls." That's the part that causes me some concern.

Our House Leader introduced Motion 49. I have to tell you that I'm pleased to stand with the government, a government that allows free votes and members to disagree with government. I disagree with our government on Motion 49, which will see us remove those murals from the lower rotunda.

[1605]

There are 79 of us that sit in this chamber, and there are 79 views, I suspect, on a number of issues. This is an issue on which I disagree with our government. Reconciliation with our aboriginal people is absolutely necessary. The reserve system that they live on, that they were placed upon years ago — all well-intended — had some terrible consequences for future generations.

It's time that we got rid of those reserves. I don't agree with everything that we're doing in the reconciliation process either, but I do agree that we have to find some way to reconcile the differences that have now evolved between the aboriginal community and the rest of us who live in British Columbia.

We're down here today talking about some murals in the main rotunda. They've been there for 75 years, and some people in the aboriginal community find those murals offensive. Art is in the eye of the beholder. I don't know how many times I've heard people say that today. Art is in the eye of the beholder.

Unfortunately, there may be people that are watching this on television; however, the people in the gallery can take a look upstairs. I want you to have a look upstairs if you're sitting in the gallery, and you will notice the round windows have two women who are bare-breasted on each of those windows up there. There are 36 bare-breasted women upstairs.

I spend a lot of time looking at the ceiling, and I noticed that there are 36 bare-breasted women up there. I don't know if the members in this chamber, the women who are in this chamber, are necessarily offended by those paintings up there or those statues up there. I see some women looking up there for the first time, I suspect, not realizing that we actually have bare….

D. Thorne: I'm offended.

D. MacKay: You're offended. Fine. So there you go. We have one member who says she's offended by what she sees up there.

It begs the question: do we now start to remove the structures that have been part of this building since it was built in the late 1890s? Do we remove those because some people are offended? Well, the same thing could be said about what we have downstairs.

Artists are kind of interesting people. I have to tell you, hon. Speaker, that I actually play with a paintbrush every now and again. I'm not talking about the paintbrush that you paint your house with; I'm talking canvas. I actually have painted a few pictures. They were hanging up in some very notable places — many in my parents' place. I've actually had them hanging in my house, too, because nobody else wanted them.

I could never quite capture what I wanted because I didn't have the ability to actually paint what I saw. I guess if I really wanted to hang on the wall what I actually saw, I could take a photograph of it, because today we have cameras that take photographs.

Back when British Columbia was first colonized, we didn't really have cameras to record what took place in the province, so Mr. Southwell, in 1932, painted some pictures in the lower rotunda. Let me tell you a little bit about Mr. Southwell. He arrived in Vancouver in 1910. He spent a number of years sketching and painting in the interior of the province. During the 1920s he executed murals and illustrated books before being employed by the provincial government publicity bureau as a provincial artist.

The report goes on to report about Mr. Southwell: "The murals' creator, George Southwell, was a working artist for half a century in British Columbia, specializing in historical evocations, portraits and landscapes." I think the House Leader mentioned this: "The Legislative Assembly unanimously passed a motion on the fifth of April, 1933, accepting the gift of the murals and thanking the donor, the hon. S.L. Howell, Provincial Secretary." Now, that's kind of interesting in itself, and it gives a bit of history about Mr. Southwell — where he came from, what he did.

So what I did, much like the member for Peace River South and the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca, was I went down and looked at those murals several times. I have to say that I don't find anything

[ Page 7103 ]

offensive in those paintings. I'm going to touch on the four murals that are down there.

There are four down there. The first one is called Courage , which is the meeting of Captain Vancouver and Quadra on Nootka Sound. The other one, number 2, is called Enterprise , and it's the Hudson Bay Company's chief factor James Douglas landing from the boat at Clover Point to select a site for Fort Victoria.

The next mural talks about labour, the building of Fort Victoria. I think that this is the one that seems to create so much anxiety amongst our aboriginal community, because there is a bare-breasted woman working, building Fort Victoria. I think that's the one that seems to be at the crux of the matter. There's another one down there called Justice , and we have Chief Justice Sir Matthew Begbie holding court in Clinton. I'm going to touch on those four murals in a moment here.

[1610]

Where Captains Vancouver and Quadra are meeting at Nootka Sound is an event that took place in 1792. We didn't have cameras to record what actually took place there, so we've got oral history that's been passed down.

There are two young native children sitting there naked. There are two young naked children sitting there, and I'm assuming they're native children. I have to ask the question: what is offensive about young naked children? I'm a grandparent, and I've got pictures of my kids and pictures of my grandkids playing on a beach. You know what? They're naked. I don't find that offensive. What is better than to be free of our clothes and be as we were created? I don't find offence in seeing a young naked child in a painting like that. It's very respectful.

If you look at the natives in that picture, there are masks and there are baskets, indicating native art. It's not offensive, in my view. There are native blankets being worn by some native people, and they're decorated with the clans, I suspect, that they belong to. There's nothing offensive there, in my view.

Number 2 is the one where Sir James Douglas arrives in 1843, when there are seven people there. There are some native people in the background dressed appropriately, and there's one native chap holding the front of the boat as it's coming in to be docked.

The one that has created some of the controversy is number 3, which is of Fort Victoria being built. In that one there's a native woman who is bare-breasted. There are some native women there who are carrying packs on their back with head straps.

The women that are depicted in the paintings…. There's nothing disrespectful about them. They're healthy-looking. They're strong. Is there something wrong with being healthy and strong and showing a bare breast? Well, I'm going to touch on that in a moment, because I found some interesting stuff, side by side.

You know, when you look at that photograph, it shows Caucasians and aboriginal people working side by side, building Fort Victoria. This is one of the first communities colonized and built hand-in-hand by aboriginal people and the people who arrived here. How can anybody find that offensive? I'm sorry if the aboriginal people find that offensive. I don't. It's part of our history.

Now, there is some history about dealing with the…. Let me read this from the report; that's probably the best way to do. It says:

"The available oral and ethnographic history confirms that there was a diversity of beliefs about clothing practices among aboriginal peoples in the province. In some cultures, like the Nuu-chah-nulth, ordinary dress for women covered the breasts. In other cultures, including the Straits Salish and the Lekwammen people around Fort Victoria, some evidence available to the panel suggests that ordinary dress in the warmer months did not involve covering the breasts.

"As to the accuracy of the event, historical evidence indicates that the Lekwammen were hired to produce pickets to build Fort Victoria."

It also goes on to mention that the "only women who might do this heavy work were women of slave class."

[1615]

There is historical evidence that the Lekwammen did hire out their slaves to help build Fort Victoria. That's part of history, and that's what that number 3 on building Fort Victoria is all about. There is another one there that shows Judge Begbie in Clinton. We're assuming it's in Clinton. Mr. Southwell actually travelled to Clinton so he could get a historical picture of what Clinton was like.

He sits there at a table, and there is a native man standing over the table with his hands behind his back. His hands are not tied; his hands are clasped behind his back. He is dressed very appropriately in buckskin clothing — very clean clothing. He doesn't look like he's under any duress. He is standing there, looking over the table at the paper that Mr. Justice Begbie is writing on.

The story behind that is that there was talk of an Indian uprising going to take place in the Chilcotin. Judge Begbie travelled to the Chilcotin country up to Clinton, and through his great work the uprising did not take place. Now, I don't know if that is what the significance of the document was that was being signed or being looked at by the people who surrounded Mr. Begbie, but that's what mural 4 is all about. So it begs the question in my view, in my eyes.

I don't find anything offensive about the paintings on the walls downstairs. There's nothing down there that says that people of a certain class or colour are not welcome in this legislative building. I think we've heard from some of the members already that we've had two aboriginal people elected to this legislative chamber. They have been here. They have sat here and represented their constituents, as we are doing today.

I happen to be a bit of a traditionalist. I like some of the things that Canada stands for. The RCMP uniform is one thing that comes to mind, having been part of that. The Lieutenant-Governor, the Governor General, the monarchy — I happen to think those things are nice

[ Page 7104 ]

traditions to hold on to. These traditions have been carried on from generation to generation, and if we're going to continue as a country that welcomes people from all around this world into our country and into our province, I think we have to retain some of our traditions that we have become familiar with.

To remove these paintings, which in my view are part of a historical value…. If we had photographs, it would be great. We could say: "This is exactly how it was." But we are now seeing the history of British Columbia through the eyes of an artist,