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)

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2007

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 23, Number 3

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First

Reading of Bills

Electoral Boundaries Commission

Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 39)

Hon. W.

Oppal

First Nations Heritage Protection

and Conservation Act, 2007 (Bill M223)

Karagianis

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

New Vista Foundation

C. James

Volunteers

D. Hayer

Kootenay region United Nations

Association

Conroy

Environmental leadership in North

Vancouver

Whittred

Diabetes

A. Dix

Steelhead

Sultan

Oral Questions

Distribution of booster seats to

low-income families

C. James

Hon. L.

Reid

Trevena

G. Coons

H. Bains

Farnworth

School district funding

Cubberley

Hon. S.

Bond

Call for audit of tree farm

licence land removals

Simpson

Hon. M.

de Jong

Employment practices at

Retirement Concepts seniors facilities

A. Dix

Hon. G.

Abbott

Musqueam treaty negotiations

Simpson

Hon. M.

de Jong

Second Reading of Bills

Tsawwassen First Nation Final

Agreement Act (Bill 40) (continued)

Robertson

J. Kwan

Farnworth

C. Evans

Standing Order 45 A

(Speaker's Ruling)

Second Reading of Bills

Tsawwassen First Nation Final

Agreement Act (Bill 40) (continued)

C. Evans

Fleming

Nuraney

Simons

Hammell

Hon. M.

de Jong

Final Agreement Consequential

Amendments Act, 2007 (Bill 41)

Hon. M.

de Jong

Fraser

Treaty First Nation Taxation Act

(Bill 42)

Hon. M.

de Jong

Fraser

Greater Vancouver Transportation

Authority Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 43)

Hon. K.

Falcon

[ Page 8775 ]

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2007

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. G. Abbott: It's Diabetes Day in the Legislature today. We

have in the gallery, and I know elsewhere in the precincts, representatives and

volunteers from the Canadian Diabetes Association. They have been discussing the

many serious challenges we have with type 1 and type 2 diabetes with members on

both sides of the House and with staff here in the buildings. They're here to

share the latest developments in diabetes management, healthy living and

prevention of diabetes complications.

I'd like the House to join me in welcoming three representatives.

There may be more, but I want to welcome these three. They're the ones I've been

advised are with us today: Jean Blake, who is the executive director for the

Pacific area; Dr. Karen Philp, vice-president for public policy and government

relations; and from my own constituency of Shuswap, Nel Peach, who is a

marathoner extraordinaire as well as the president of the Salmon Arm–Shuswap

branch of the Canadian Diabetes Association. Please join me in welcoming all of

our guests.

R. Lee: Joining us in the Legislature today are 80 grade 10

students from Burnaby Central Secondary School accompanied by their teacher Mr.

Axford. They are here to learn about legislation as well as how government

operates. Would the House please join me in welcoming them to the Legislature.

J. Nuraney: My colleague just introduced a school in the

gallery, and I want to make particular mention of a teacher par excellence. I

had the pleasure of attending her wedding not too long ago. She's Dana McKay.

Welcome to the Legislature, Dana.

[1335]

R. Chouhan: I would like to introduce a couple of very

important people in the Legislature, in the gallery today: Pat Kasprow, the CEO

of New Vista Care Home; and Sandra Price, chair of New Vista Foundation. Please

join me to welcome them.

M. Karagianis: I see an old friend of mine here today on

behalf of the diabetes campaign. He left my constituency just recently but has

been a longstanding supporter of Esquimalt-Metchosin, and that's Mr. Des

McCambridge. Could we all please give him a good, hearty welcome.

I. Black: I have two introductions to make today. The first

is a couple of people here on Diabetes Awareness Day. Diabetes educator Ellen

Kirk-Macri is from the great riding of Port Moody–Westwood, along with Keith

Lee. Would the House please join me in making them feel welcome.

Second, it's a distinct honour to introduce the mayor of Port

Moody. Joe Trasolini is with us today, meeting with us here discussing the

interests of the Tri-Cities in general, particularly focused on transportation.

J. McIntyre: I also have the pleasure of introducing a

constituent today who's here for Diabetes Day, Geoff Goldsmith-Jones. I don't

know if he's used to this, but probably his distinguishing characteristic these

days is that he's the husband of the mayor of West Vancouver, Pamela

Goldsmith-Jones. I ask the House to welcome him today too.

J. Kwan: It gives me great pleasure to ask the House to

welcome Byron Plant, who was a former intern with the opposition caucus in 2004.

I've said in this House many times that the smart interns that were assigned to

our caucus during those incredible years actually saved my life and that of Joy

MacPhail. So I would ask the House to please welcome Byron, coming back to visit

us from Saskatchewan.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I would like the House today to welcome

Lynn Kelsey, visiting from Penticton. She's here with the folks from the

Canadian Diabetes Association. Would the House please make her feel very

welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES COMMISSION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

Hon. W. Oppal presented a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment

Act, 2007.

Hon. W. Oppal: I move that the bill be introduced and read

a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. W. Oppal: I am pleased to introduce Bill 39, the

Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 2007. This bill follows a

commitment made by the government this past September to request the Legislature

to give the current Electoral Boundaries Commission instructions and a new

framework to ensure that voters in all regions of the province have an effective

voice in the assembly and the required authority to provide for effective

representation and better voter parity, as required under the Canadian

constitution.

This bill provides the commission with legal tools, direction and

the flexibility to ensure that no region in the province has less representation

under the new electoral map and that people living in growing population centres

also gain the representation to which they are entitled.

[ Page 8776 ]

The bill achieves these objectives by directing the commission to

keep the current number of electoral districts in the three most sparsely

populated regions of the province that the commission identified as the north,

Cariboo-Thompson and Columbia-Kootenay. To achieve this goal, the commission has

authorized for these three regions to go beyond the population deviation rule

contained in the act and to provide for eight, five and four constituencies

respectively.

[1340]

To help the commission better achieve the goal of representation

by population or voter parity, the bill also increases the total number of

districts to be proposed by the commission to 87, which is two more than was

unanimously approved by this Legislature under the current maximum under the

act.

The commission made it clear that they could not meet our goals of

protecting regional representation while also providing fair representation for

growing regions with the six seats originally allocated. Therefore, under the

new legislation, the commission will be given an additional eight seats in the

Legislative Assembly.

We believe this new framework provides a balance and flexibility

and gives the commission the necessary room and flexibility to achieve a parity

of voting power and effective representation without a massive increase to the

size of the Legislative Assembly.

Mr. Speaker: Can the Attorney put the question.

Hon. W. Oppal: I also want to make it clear, Mr. Speaker,

that it was never the government's intention, nor the Legislature's intention,

to reduce the existing levels of regional representation in British Columbia.

Reducing rural representation is unacceptable.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 39, Electoral Boundaries Commission 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.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

FIRST NATIONS HERITAGE PROTECTION

AND CONSERVATION ACT, 2007

M. Karagianis presented a bill intituled First Nations Heritage

Protection and Conservation Act, 2007.

M. Karagianis: I move that the bill intituled First Nations

Heritage Protection and Conservation Act, 2007, be read for a first time today.

Motion approved.

M. Karagianis: I'm honoured to introduce the First Nations

Heritage Protection and Conservation Act, 2007. This bill will better protect

first nations heritage objects and sacred sites.

The bill amends the heritage protection act to include a process

by which first nations can trigger protection orders when heritage sites,

objects or remains are discovered. I believe that this bill amends the heritage

act to provide a better set of guidelines and tools that first nations, local

government and the province need in order to implement protection, stewardship

and conservation of first nations heritage and culturally significant areas,

their artifacts and their sacred history and, as well, provide for the creation

of a program to accomplish that goal. I ask that all members please review the

bill and support this.

I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M223, First Nations Heritage Protection and Conservation 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) NEW VISTA FOUNDATION

C. James: I rise today to recognize the New Vista

Foundation and to acknowledge New Vista's CEO Pat Kasprow and the New Vista

Foundation chair, Sandra Price, who've joined us in the gallery today.

This organization was founded in 1943 by Ernest Winch, a Burnaby

MLA and one of the founders of the CCF. New Vista is a not-for-profit society

and charity which is dedicated to providing support and housing to senior

citizens. New Vista operates a residential care home and an adult day program,

and provides housing for low-income families and seniors on its 17-acre site in

Burnaby. Its mission statement is to provide a progressive, dynamic non-profit

society dedicated to enriching the lives of seniors, families and community

members.

Last week I was proud to attend and speak at New Vista's annual

gala fundraising dinner to raise money for their therapeutic garden. Therapeutic

gardening enables seniors to participate in group and one-on-one programs.

Residents who otherwise might appear lonely and isolated are engaged in

meaningful activities that contribute enormously to their quality of life.

The fundraiser brought people together from all walks of life to

show their support, and at the gala dinner I heard many other stories about

incredible programs that New Vista offers. In particular, I was really pleased

to hear about the camping trip that they took a number of seniors on.

[1345]

It's wonderful to hear about a seniors care facility in this

province that understands that quality of life for seniors doesn't stop at the

door to a care home, that

[ Page 8777 ]

seniors in care can live enriching and rewarding lives in a supportive and

caring atmosphere. I would ask all members of this House to join me in

celebrating the amazing ongoing work of the New Vista Society.

VOLUNTEERS

D. Hayer: The true heart of a community is its volunteers,

and in my community there are many. Without volunteers, the elders would not be

well looked after or cared for, pioneers would not be remembered and heroes

would not be honoured. For that matter, many of us in this House may not have

been elected had it not been for the diligent work of many volunteers.

Assistance provided to the province and to its citizens by those

who volunteer, who give so generously of themselves and their time, is

priceless. I doubt that the economy could ever generate the funding to

adequately pay for the services that volunteers give from their hearts.

I'm always honoured at the services provided by the volunteers in

my riding. I meet with groups every week that are driven by the contribution of

volunteerism. There are dozens and dozens of these volunteer organizations in

Surrey-Tynehead, and I try to meet with all of them as often as possible.

Some of these volunteer groups I have met with include the

community associations of Guildford, Port Kells, Fleetwood, Fraser Heights and

Tynehead. Along with those, I have met with the Rotary clubs of Surrey,

Guildford and Cloverdale and many other groups representing communities of

German, Scottish, Irish, Indian, first nations, Chinese, French, Ukrainian,

Danish, Portuguese, Punjabi, Spanish, Greek, Pakistani, American, Caribbean,

Mexican, South American, Fijian and many other societies and service

organizations.

The list of those who help others as devoted volunteers is almost

endless in my community, and I am certain that in every other region of this

province, the worth of volunteerism is boundless. I ask the House to join me in

offering heartfelt thanks to hundreds of thousands of British Columbians who so

generously give their time and skills and volunteer for our province.

KOOTENAY REGION

UNITED NATIONS ASSOCIATION

K. Conroy: Today is United Nations Day. The UN does so many

things worldwide that it is difficult to focus on the magnitude of what they do

in a two-minute statement. Due to the contributions of many Canadians, Canada

has been an instrumental force in shaping the international system.

Stephen Lewis, Canada's former ambassador to the UN, was the UN

Secretary General's special envoy for HIV/AIDS in Africa, a position that

continues to influence his work today. As well, there was John Humphreys, who

helped to draft the UN declaration of human rights, and Lester Pearson, who won

a Nobel prize for his peace-brokering during the Suez crisis — to name a few.

However, I want to bring it closer to home and talk about a local

individual and group that are closely aligned with the United Nations. In the

Kootenays we have the Kootenay region branch of the United Nations Association

in Canada, which we refer to as KRUNA. They sponsor three annual events: the UN

Environment Day on June 5, the Hiroshima remembrance on August 6 and the UN

International Day of Peace on September 21, as well as rallies and vigils for

domestic and international developments as needed.

This group has many amazing people involved in the organization,

and I want to acknowledge the good work they do. I want to touch briefly,

though, on the work of J.J. Verigin Jr., the president of KRUNA and executive

director of the Union of Spiritual Communities of Christ. J.J. is the son of the

present-day leader of the Doukhobors and the great-grandson of Peter Lordly

Verigin, the original leader of this peace-loving group of Russian immigrants.

The Doukhobors followed the belief: "Toil and a peaceful life. The

welfare of the whole world is not worth the life of a single child." J.J. takes

this philosophy literally and puts his beliefs into actions. He is well known in

the United Nations circle in New York as well as across Canada, especially by

those actively involved in the peace movement. He is an individual who continues

to make the United Nations the viable organization it is today.

Without the unity and cooperation and a forum to discuss

international issues, the world would be a much worse place. The clear impact of

the United Nations and the advancement of human rights will never, ever go away.

Today in the chamber, I ask all members of the House to join me in wishing the

United Nations a happy 62nd birthday and many more to come.

[1350]

ENVIRONMENTAL LEADERSHIP IN

NORTH VANCOUVER

K. Whittred: Today I rise to congratulate the city of North

Vancouver for their commitment to creating a green and healthy community. As a

fitting tribute to their leadership in this area, the city of North Vancouver

was this year's winner of the province's inaugural Green City Awards for a

population of 25,000 to 100,000 people.

Along with providing substantial cash awards to local governments,

the Green City Awards provide provincewide examples of municipal leadership

encouraging healthy lifestyles, energy conservation and beneficial environmental

practices.

The city of North Van is quickly increasing its density, yet it

maintains easy access to green space. The city is planned to encourage and

enable people to leave their cars at home. Projects like the Green Necklace are

creating green cycling and walking trails in the heart of high-density

residential areas, which enable residents to get to their destinations while

leaving the car at home.

The Lonsdale Energy Corp. is an award-winning creation of the

city. The LEC provides high-efficiency heating systems which reduce carbon

dioxide emissions and can in the future be powered by alternate energy sources

such as solar. In fact, the city is a

[ Page 8778 ]

pioneer in public solar power usage and will have solar power in its new

library.

Congratulations to the city of North Vancouver for its leadership

in promoting healthy living and innovative conservation practices.

DIABETES

A. Dix: Today in the Legislature is Diabetes Day, and I

want to acknowledge all the volunteers and staff of the Canadian Diabetes

Association who are here with us. We learned today that there are 250,000 people

who suffer and deal with diabetes every day in British Columbia and that that

number is expected to grow dramatically over the next few years.

We learned that people with diabetes are twice as likely to

die early, that their life expectancy is on average 13 years less than the

average person's and that diabetes is a leading cause of heart attacks, strokes,

kidney failure, adult blindness and limb amputation. I know many members on both

sides of the House met with people today. We also saw many people who are

expressions of hope in how to deal with this disease.

We met with Heather Van der Geest of Victoria, who is a champion

rower and who spoke to us about her efforts and her life dealing with type 1

diabetes. We met with David Sky of Vancouver, who has struggled for 40 years

with the disease. David is blind and on dialysis, and he lives with two

prosthetics, but his story of courage and determination shines through.

We met with Sheila Jack from Langley, who works for the Langley

school district with aboriginal people and who has type 2 diabetes. She not only

deals with her own disease in a courageous way but also works with aboriginal

people, who have suffered an epidemic of diabetes in British Columbia.

I think their stories tell us that it is important for us all to

work together to help people with diabetes manage their disease. I have the

disease. Good health care helped me achieve many of my dreams. I hope all of us

will work together on this day as legislators to ensure that we help all people

with diabetes achieve their dreams.

STEELHEAD

R. Sultan: I propose that we should declare that the

magnificent steelhead is our provincial fish. Steelhead are big, muscular,

good-looking, self-reliant, loyal to their origins and demanding of a clean

environment — just like other British Columbians. They thrive in fast, clear

water from Haida Gwaii to the alpine meadows of Sustut and Johanson.

As we look forward to 2010, we should also recognize that

steelhead are aquatic Olympians, travelling farther and faster than any other

salmonid — almost to Asia. They are not preprogrammed to spawn and die. They

travel back and forth up our waterways and back to sea, always searching for the

most favourable domicile — just like other British Columbians.

Are there other contenders? Well, of course. Some advocate the

salmon. Now, salmon have achieved iconic status prehistorically on totem poles

and on our dinner tables. It would add little to their lustre to name them now.

[1355]

Some advocate for white sturgeon, relics of the preglacial period.

True to their creed, members opposite point out that sturgeons qualify on

grounds of seniority. But we must disqualify them as hardly handsome.

Finally, there's the stickleback, where males of the species

prepare a spawning site and court passing females who tarry a while and then

take off, leaving the males to raise the children. While some might relish such

role reversal, we cannot recommend it.

Therefore, the evidence is clear. The steelhead wins.

Oral Questions

DISTRIBUTION OF BOOSTER SEATS

TO LOW-INCOME FAMILIES

C. James: Yesterday it was revealed that the Minister of

State for Childcare chose to politicize child safety. Instead of using

government service agencies like the Employment and Income Assistance offices

that are located in communities, instead of using her own ministry's regional

offices which are located in all communities, the minister instead chose 12

Liberal constituency offices. Instead of putting trained caseworkers across this

province in charge of getting booster seats to low-income families, she chose

partisan photo ops.

To the Minister of State for Childcare. The BCAA made it very

clear to the media that the decision was made in her office. So my question is:

why did she put photo ops and politics ahead of child safety?

Hon. L. Reid: I understand the public perception around

this issue, and in retrospect we probably would do the distribution differently.

But the facts remain. Every region of the province benefited from this program.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. L. Reid: I'm happy to repeat it. Every region of this

province benefited from this program fairly and equitably. In fact, 53 percent

of the family resource programs which received seats in this province were in

opposition-held ridings. It was done with the full support of the Automobile

Association and the Association of Family Resource Programs, and they, in fact,

chose the families who were to receive the seats.

Let me also remind the opposition that they were the ones who

voted against the funding when they voted against the budget.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental.

[ Page 8779 ]

C. James: The one thing the minister said that was accurate

is that the facts are clear. The facts are very clear that this minister chose

partisan politics over child safety. If she now is saying that she would have

done things differently, will she take responsibility, admit her mistake and

step down?

Yesterday one unnamed Liberal MLA actually said to the media: "I

asked what the hell was going on. They said, when they arrived, 'Just give them

away.'"

David Dunne of the Traffic Safety Foundation told the media that

it was the minister's office that provided the list of Liberal-only offices.

The minister made the decision to politicize this. Only Liberal

offices got the booster seats. Only Liberal MLAs passed them out and got the

photo ops.

Again, my question to the minister of state: will she admit that

she was wrong? Will she stand up in this House and say that she was wrong to put

Liberal politics ahead of child safety?

Hon. L. Reid: Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition was not

listening.

The promotion of child safety is a government initiative in

British Columbia. The objective of this program was met in terms of

distribution. All regions of the province received seats.

[1400]

In fact — and I will repeat for the interest of the Leader of the

Opposition — 53 percent of the family resource programs that received seats were

in opposition-held ridings. Vulnerable families who needed seats received them,

hon. Speaker.

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

supplemental.

C. James: The Minister of State for Childcare wants us to

believe that politics had nothing to do with this. Well, Mr. Speaker, what she

forgets to say is that those booster seats were handed out to agencies from

Liberal MLA constituency offices only. That's the only place they were handed

out from.

It doesn't explain why Liberal MLAs, including the Premier

himself, actually had photo ops handing out booster seats. Amazingly enough, his

office wasn't listed on the distribution list that was passed out by the

minister yesterday. But on the top of his own website was a picture of the

Premier passing out booster seats — on his own website.

Of course, in the last 24 hours the Premier's website has had that

picture removed. It's incredible. I'm happy to say that the Premier can't hide

from Google. We found the picture of the Premier.

Again, to the minister of state: it's very clear that the Premier

is embarrassed by this entire incident. The Premier is so embarrassed that he

removed the picture from his website of himself handing out a booster seat. Why

isn't the minister herself embarrassed by this situation?

Hon. L. Reid: I'm happy to state again that I understand

the perception around this issue. Certainly, we would do distribution

differently in the future. I am happy to put that on the record.

I'm also happy to say we're proud of the partnership we have with

the B.C. Automobile Association. We've achieved the purpose of the program —

child safety seats into vulnerable families in British Columbia.

The provincial distribution objectives for the program were met.

Certainly, the B.C. Automobile Association, the B.C. Association of Family

Resource Programs…. I want to assure you and other members of the Legislature

that all of the family resource program members in the province were invited to

submit requests for seats specifically for families who could least afford the

added expense. Family resource programs located in communities throughout the

province submitted their requests, and the list was sent to David Dunne at the

British Columbia Automobile Association.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

C. Trevena: I'd like to quote the Premier, who said when he

was Leader of the Opposition: "Let's forget about how parents voted. Let's try

and provide the facilities for the kids where they need it."

Unfortunately, his minister really didn't live up to that

statement, because while she may say that we have 53 percent going to NDP-held

areas, we have very strange instances where some areas got almost none.

I represent North Island. North Island got five booster seats in

Port McNeill. Campbell River got none. I'd like to ask the minister why she did

choose to use Liberal offices to really score political points, when certain

communities didn't get any seats. She could have used the government

infrastructure, MEIA offices or MCFD offices, to ensure that these seats got

thoroughly distributed.

Hon. L. Reid: We achieved geographic reach across British

Columbia. In terms of the distribution centres….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. L. Reid: In terms of the distribution centres selected

— Kootenays, Kamloops, the lower mainland, Peace River, Prince George, Surrey,

Burnaby, Mission, the Sea to Sky corridor — a pretty effective reach across

British Columbia.

In fact, have we indeed achieved the distribution objectives of

this program? Yes, we have.

[1405]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue.

Hon. L. Reid: Are children today safer as a result of this

program? Yes, they are.

[ Page 8780 ]

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

C. Trevena: I find the minister's understanding of

geography a little confusing and her geographic reach somewhat confusing. The

North Island constituency covers about half of Vancouver Island, and we have had

five seats distributed there. I know that in other instances there have been no

seats distributed.

Yesterday the minister of state produced a list which showed that

12 offices of Liberal MLAs served as these distribution points. We have heard

that the Premier got to hand out booster seats. His office wasn't on that list.

The Minister of Employment and Income Assistance, the member for

North Vancouver–Lonsdale, the member for Delta South and the Attorney General

also got booster seats, and they weren't on the minister's own distribution

list. They got the booster seats, and as people have been saying, they were able

to boost their political profile.

I ask the Minister of State for Childcare yet again: why did she

put partisan politics ahead of kids' safety for every child in this province?

Hon. L. Reid: The member opposite seems to have a

particular interest in Vancouver Island. I am more than happy to put the entire

distribution for Vancouver Island on the record.

Black Creek, 20 seats; Courtenay, 15 seats; Duncan, seats;

Gabriola Island, seats; Ladysmith; Nanaimo, Pacific Child and Family Enrichment

Society; Boys and Girls Clubs of Central Vancouver Island; North Island

Community Services in Port McNeill; Saanichton; Saltspring Island; Sidney; Sooke;

Victoria. This may be of interest to the members opposite. We certainly have the

UVic Family Centre, James Bay Community Project…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue.

Hon. L. Reid: …Esquimalt Neighbourhood House…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue.

Hon. L. Reid: …Burnside Gorge Community Association,

Blanshard Community Centre, Capital Families Association and Oaklands Community

Centre.

All in all, for Vancouver Island: 390 seats.

G. Coons: I find it interesting that the minister put on

record today that all areas of the province were treated fairly and equitably

and that all regions of the province received seats. The minister of state wants

us to believe Liberal offices were used out of fairness, but not one booster

seat made it to the Queen Charlotte Islands.

She could have sent booster seats to the Ministry of Children and

Family Development office in Queen Charlotte City. She could have sent booster

seats to the Employment and Income Assistance office in Masset. That's where

professionals who work with low-income families work.

Again, to the minister: if this wasn't about politics, why didn't

she use her own regional ministry offices to get these booster seats to people

who need them the most?

Hon. L. Reid: I believe the member opposite perhaps has

missed the point about how the distribution was done. I'm happy to put it on the

record.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, continue.

Hon. L. Reid: He continues to speculate that indeed the

seat distribution was not done by professionals who understood vulnerable

families in the communities of British Columbia. Again, the B.C. Association of

Family Resource Programs….

I'm happy to repeat it, hon. Speaker. I want to assure you…

[1410]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue.

Hon. L. Reid: …and other members of the Legislature that

all of the family resource program members in the province were invited to

submit requests for seats, specifically for families who could least afford the

added expense. Family resource programs located in communities throughout the

province submitted their requests, and the list was sent to David Dunne at the

B.C. Automobile Association.

H. Bains: This minister is desperately trying to make us

believe that this is not about partisan politics, but she forgot to tell that to

BCAA. When one of the opposition MLAs in Surrey contacted BCAA to get some

booster seats for that office, during the discussion she was asked if her MLA is

a Liberal MLA. Guess what. That MLA did not get any booster seats after

requesting them.

This minister clearly shows that she was using taxpayers' money

and children's safety to boost Liberal political gains. What she finally can do

— the least she could do — is stand up and apologize to the families of B.C. who

were left out because of her politicization of children's safety.

Hon. L. Reid: As I've said, the promotion of child safety

is a government initiative. In terms of the Fraser Valley distribution: 345

seats — Coquitlam, Delta, Hope, Langley, Maple Ridge, New Westminster. In

Surrey….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[ Page 8781 ]

Hon. L. Reid: Options: Services to Communities Society in

Guildford, one in Clover Valley, one in Newton and one in Whalley, so very close

to 60 seats for Surrey.

M. Farnworth: The minister wants to stress that they went

fairly, but she misses the central point — that it was done through partisan

political offices, and it was done deliberately….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

M. Farnworth: It was done deliberately through Liberal

constituency offices. That's a partisan political decision — when it was not

done anywhere else.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Member, just take your seat.

Members, listen to the question; then we'll listen to the answer.

Continue, Member.

M. Farnworth: I guess the members didn't listen to what the

minister said, because she herself said that perhaps she should have done it

differently.

Well, guess what. She should have done it differently. She took

what was a great idea, debased and botched it through incompetence. She should

apologize to the Premier, who was so embarrassed he had to take it off his own

website.

More importantly, will this minister apologize to the hundreds of

capable civil servants and government employees working in British Columbia, in

distribution centres paid for by the taxpayers of this province, who work with

low-income people every day and who could have done that job very, very

effectively?

Hon. L. Reid: I'm not sure there was a question there, but

it gives me a great opportunity to talk about the program.

Constituency offices….

Interjections.

Hon. L. Reid: The British Columbia Automobile Association

will continue to distribute seats in British Columbia, as will the family

resource programs in British Columbia. I can assure the member opposite that we

on this side of the House…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[1415]

Hon. L. Reid: …don't believe the constituency offices are

partisan. Nor do we believe that booster seats are political.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

SCHOOL DISTRICT FUNDING

D. Cubberley: School districts in British Columbia trusted

the minister and her deputy minister when they said, time and again, "The money

is the money," and they planned their current school year accordingly. They

absorbed the loss of fee revenues and the held-back money. They offset as best

they could the lack of support for special needs kids, and they got on with the

job of delivering a quality education to all our children — until last week when

they received a directive cancelling stable funding for kids taking fewer than

eight courses in high school. Boom — just like that.

My question to the minister: why did the minister make yet another

unilateral change to school funding without notice, without consulting and

without calculating the impacts on school district budgets?

Hon. S. Bond: One thing I am absolutely certain about is

that in British Columbia today, the public education budget is higher than it

has ever been in the province. In fact, in March this government said that it

would send a record $4.34 billion in operating funds to school districts, and as

of today and as of tomorrow and as of the months that lie ahead, that will not

change. Every dollar that we committed in the budget will go to education in the

province.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member has a supplemental.

D. Cubberley: Well, the minister didn't actually answer the

question as to why she cut the stable grant in the course of a current school

year. Cutting the base grant for every student and replacing it with a

per-course grant will cut funding to schools and districts facing declining

enrolment.

The minister must be aware that many kids don't take eight courses

in high school in a school year for all kinds of reasons. For schools with a lot

of those kids, this is a funding cut, pure and simple. So why spring it without

warning, without guaranteeing no net loss of funding? Why make it retroactive

with the year already in progress?

If the intent isn't to disrupt and destabilize the system, will

the minister immediately rescind the order and agree to consult with trustees

and identify the impacts before implementing funding changes?

Hon. S. Bond: Perhaps now we have a much clearer

understanding of why the 1990s ended up the way they did when the NDP do math

like that. In fact, let's be clear.

Interjections.

[ Page 8782 ]

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, take your seat.

Minister, continue.

Hon. S. Bond: Well, in fact, there was inequity in the

funding system. On this side of the House we actually believe that we should

fund students appropriately, but we should not double-count students. That's

exactly what was happening. Every single dollar that was committed in the budget

— over $4.34 billion, the highest amount ever — will go to education this year.

We're proud of that record, and that will happen as it was said it would.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member for Cariboo North.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Just take your seat for a second.

Members.

Continue.

[1420]

CALL FOR AUDIT OF

TREE FARM LICENCE LAND REMOVALS

B. Simpson: Mr. Speaker, tree farm licences were issued in

this province in the 1950s. Here's what the 1956 royal commission on forestry

says was the fundamental reason a tree farm licence was awarded: "First, the

stability of employment in dependent communities and, second, establishment of

permanent forestry on private lands." That was the social contract — community

stability and permanent forestry, not tax-free status until the time was right

to sell the land for other uses.

Today the environmental law clinic, on behalf of a host of injured

parties, has asked the Auditor General to conduct an investigation into the

Minister of Forests's failure to get fair compensation for the people of British

Columbia. As we know, the Auditor General, as a result of Liberal budget cuts,

has limited resources.

My question is to the Minister of Finance. Will the Minister of

Finance ask the director general to conduct an audit into all private land

releases to determine what compensation the province of British Columbia should

have received?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'll take the question on notice for the….

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Taken on notice?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'll take the question on notice for the

Minister of Forests, Mr. Speaker.

EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES AT

RETIREMENT CONCEPTS SENIORS FACILITIES

A. Dix: Lynanne Beck has been an acute care nurse for over

30 years. She has a master's degree in health studies. On September 30, as the

Minister of Health will know, she wrote to the minister and the appropriate

licensing branch of the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority, raising concerns

about a health care facility that she was working in as an agency nurse.

Subsequent to writing that letter, she was fired from her position from We Care.

Does the Minister of Health agree with me that that is a

completely unacceptable way to treat people in British Columbia, especially

people who are bringing issues of serious concern to the attention of the proper

authorities? Will he condemn this action, and will he take steps to ensure that

she is reinstated?

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for his question. Ms.

Beck did send a letter to my constituency office, I think, in very late

September. It was received in my Victoria ministerial office on October 2. On

October 3, Vancouver Coastal Health contacted Ms. Beck, and on October 4 the

licensing official from Vancouver Coastal Health visited the site and began a

review in respect of the allegations that had been tendered by letter by Ms.

Beck.

I should note for the member that Ms. Beck is not a government or

a health authority employee. I understand that she is employed by a private

firm. I do not know the contractual basis of her relationship with that firm.

But if Ms. Beck has an issue with respect to her employment or termination of

her employment, I'm sure she will avail herself of the employment standards

branch, the Labour Relations Board or other appropriate authority to remedy the

matter.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

A. Dix: The minister's position appears clear. "If you have

issues with Retirement Concepts, don't bother me. I'm only the one responsible.

Take them up with Retirement Concepts."

If you bring issues that are appropriately the jurisdiction of the

Minister of Health to the attention of the Minister of Health, you are in fact

subject to firing in British Columbia. This is a shocking situation. Doesn't the

Minister of Health agree with me?

Isn't this an argument for independent reviews? Isn't this an

argument for whistle-blower protection so that people don't have to suffer this

kind of attack when they simply do what they have to do, what they are obliged

to do as registered nurses, which is to protect standards?

Shouldn't sending a letter to the Minister of Health get you some

respect in British Columbia, when you do it appropriately, rather than being

fired?

[1425]

[ Page 8783 ]

Hon. G. Abbott: Anyone who has a concern or an allegation

to make in respect of the operation of a care home or indeed some other facet of

health care delivery in this province should absolutely bring those forward. It

is always tempting to want to submit political judgments for legal or other

judgments, but I think it would be most inappropriate.

I'm sure members opposite would be the first to say, were I to

attempt to substitute political judgment for the legal rights of Ms. Beck, that

I was wrong. I'm sure they'd be the first to say that.

We have to ensure that these matters are adjudicated

appropriately. Clearly, if there is an employment or contractual issue between

Ms. Beck and her private employer…. Again, she is not a government employee; she

is not a health authority employee. If she has an issue, she should take it up

with the appropriate authority.

MUSQUEAM TREATY NEGOTIATIONS

S. Simpson: Mr. Speaker, recently on Voice of B.C.

the Minister of Aboriginal Relations confirmed that about 35 acres of Pacific

Spirit Park are involved in the discussions with the Musqueam at this point.

Could the minister confirm for us whether it is now the position

of the government that parkland, whether it be provincial or regional, is now

potentially on the table for negotiations — and for treaty negotiations? And if

that is the case, when did he plan to have a discussion with the people of

British Columbia about putting parkland on the table for negotiations?

Hon. M. de Jong: I can advise the member — and I thank him

for his question — that as I indicated on the program that he has referenced,

there have been discussions taking place for some time involving the Musqueam. I

think that is well known and in the public domain.

Those specific discussions have focused on a parcel of land,

approximately 13.8 hectares — whatever the conversion on that is — which is

stranded from the main part of Pacific Spirit Park. It is on the south side of

Marine Drive, and there are discussions. It is a parcel of land that the

Musqueam have had an interest in for some time, and as I indicated on the

program, it has been the subject of the discussions and negotiations that are

ongoing.

[End of question period.]

Hon. M. de Jong: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

For the second time this week the Leader of the Opposition has

made accusations that are simply without foundation. I am prepared to accept….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: Earlier in question period — and perhaps

if members making comments don't know the rules, they will take the time to find

them out; I did not interrupt proceedings during question period, as is the

practice in this chamber — the Leader of the Opposition prefaced her remarks by

making reference to a particular photograph on a website. Her statement was

incorrect. I am reliably advised that it is simply incorrect.

I am prepared to accept, for the purpose of this discussion, that

she did not purposely mislead the House, but I do think she owes this chamber

the duty of ensuring that her information is accurate and, where it is not, to

accept at face value what I am telling her and to apologize for providing

information that is inaccurate.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

M. Farnworth: That's not an official standing point of

order, and we stand by the information that was presented.

[1430]

S. Hammell: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

S. Hammell: I'd like to acknowledge both June and Joe

Laitar, who are in the chamber. June is the president of Kla-how-eya Aboriginal

Centre, and Joe is one heck of a supportive husband. They make that place sing,

and they do wonderful work for the first nations and aboriginal community in

Surrey and Delta. So would the House please make them welcome.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: Continued second reading debate on Bill

40, Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement Act.

Second Reading of Bills

TSAWWASSEN FIRST NATION

FINAL AGREEMENT ACT

(continued)

G. Robertson: It is indeed my honour to speak today to Bill

40. To begin with, I want to recognize our presence today in the traditional

territory of the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations.

I rise today to speak in support of Bill 40 and, specifically, the

Tsawwassen people, who have worked long and hard for this agreement. I

congratulate, first and foremost, Chief Kim Baird and all of the people in the

band for this most historic achievement.

Generations of Tsawwassen people have negot-iated tenaciously to

resolve these issues of self-determination, land ownership and economic

independence. Kudos go to you all — from those who have

[ Page 8784 ]

passed on to join the ancestors, to Chief Baird and her community. Today you

can all look forward to a brighter future, knowing that your children and your

grandchildren have far more control of their own destiny.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

The great injustice of this land, of this province, is the

outrageous theft of land and self-determination from the first nations by the

people who came here in modern times. It has not been resolved. It continues to

haunt this province, to hold us back as a society, as an economy, as human

beings. Today we take another small but important step in addressing that

injustice, but as important a day as this is for the Tsawwassen people, we must

recognize that the legislation we're passing into law is imperfect, and the

litany of injustices affecting the first nations of this province are anything

but solved.

So in addition to recognizing the Tsawwassen people, I will take

this opportunity to address those imperfections and injustices, in the hopes

that we can redouble our efforts to settle treaties, to improve the substance

with all future treaties and to ensure that the words in this House translate

into meaningful action for all aboriginal people in this province.

I'm the fifth generation of my family to live on this coast, to

share the land and sea with the first nations who have lived here for countless

generations. For my family, this coast was like a homecoming. Driven from our

ancestral lands in Scotland and Ireland by war, by religious and ethnic

persecution, we were given sanctuary and a new beginning in this country. We

were able to escape injustice and oppression, but we gave up our homeland to do

that. Fortunately, we were welcomed here by the first nations.

Eventually my family came west to this coast — a coast that's

quite similar to where we originally come from in Scotland and Ireland, loaded

with salmon, loaded with nature's abundance. My people were a minority here in

B.C. for some decades, but were treated as if we had every right to be here and

to build better lives. We had the advantage of many generations of experience

[1435]

We were equipped, therefore, to capitalize on the fast-evolving

economy, to seize the opportunities that this province had in spades. The

resources and the population growth created mind-boggling economic potential

which was realized by those who could adapt or had a hand up at the start, and

we did.

Much of this happened at the expense of the first nations. Despite

attempts by some immigrants — new citizens of Canada and B.C. — to support

aboriginal people who welcomed them here, the tables turned all too fast. The

tragic history of epidemics, loss of traditional territories and cultural

traditions, ruthless discrimination and expropriation is something that every

British Columbian must acknowledge and lament.

Acknowledging our history and this sordid history is the first

step in reconciliation. Even more important, though, is accepting that a great

deal remains to be done today. A great deal remains the same for many aboriginal

people in B.C. as the inequity continues.

The deplorable standard of living for many aboriginal people has

been described in great detail by my colleagues here in the Legislature in this

debate. Some of the statistics are incredibly shocking.

HIV and AIDS rates for aboriginal people are twice as high. Rates

of diabetes are triple the rest of the population. Alcohol-related deaths are

four to nine times higher for aboriginal people. The teen pregnancy rate is six

times higher. The imprisoned-youth rate is seven times higher. Child poverty is

double the rate. Unemployment is double the rate of the rest of the population.

These numbers are staggering. They roll off the tongue like any

other number, but the true impact on human lives and communities is brutal.

These conditions did not exist before the onslaught of immigration from Europe

and Asia. They're certainly perpetuated by the absence of fair and honourable

treaties.

First nations rightly see treaties as a crucial component of their

efforts to eliminate these conditions. We must be steadfast and determined to

settle treaties and to expunge the injustices and inequities in this province. I

trust that this agreement will go a long way to address this for the Tsawwassen

people, but I fear that it may not go far enough. In fact, it may compromise the

critical treaty process for other first nations.

I'm greatly concerned, as well, that the focus on treaties alone

won't do it. There's a big disconnect between the endless mumbo-jumbo of

protracted negotiation, debate and law-making between all of these governments

and the incredible need for action on the ground in communities.

The B.C. Treaty Commission process has cost us as taxpayers a

billion dollars to date and has produced only one treaty. That must change.

Treaty-making in B.C. must have a sense of urgency, but beyond the treaty-making

is the need for implementation. In their comprehensive review of treaty-making

in the Americas, the United Nations special rapporteur concluded that the

greatest failure in treaty-making was the failure of colonial governments to

fully implement what they had negotiated with first nations — to make it real.

Here we are in 2007 with only one modern treaty in place through

the process and a painfully slow treaty process grinding along, with intolerable

living conditions a daily reality for far too many aboriginal people. We have a

substantial agreement before us to debate, and concurrently, we have a raft of

interim measures — stripped-down business deals, if you will — in place to drive

some economic growth.

No doubt, there's lots of room for improvement, so I will focus my

comments on how to go about this improvement. I'll start where this agreement

falls short, regretfully, and then address some of the broader needs of our

treaty process.

The Tsawwassen agreement is very significant in that it is the

first treaty to be successfully concluded

[ Page 8785 ]

under the B.C. treaty process. It's a good thing that it's being concluded,

but there are dangerous precedents within it that must be reckoned with.

At its core this is not a treaty. This is a business deal. There's

no mention of the word "treaty" in the agreement. My support for this

legislation shouldn't be mistaken as approval of the business deal as such.

[1440]

There are many problems with the deal — there has been great

compromise — and I will voice these in the hopes that these mistakes are not

made again. If these mistakes are perpetuated and compounded, the consequences

will multiply exponentially, and the treaty process could be hopelessly

compromised.

Tragically, the agreement fails to recognize aboriginal rights and

title. This agreement purposefully embraces modification rather than recognition

of aboriginal rights and title, which is a key element of reconciliation.

There's been much talk about reconciliation, but business transactions, by their

very nature, cannot address true reconciliation.

Any modification of constitutionally recognized rights in an

agreement that comes before this Legislature is of great concern. By failing to

recognize these rights specifically, this agreement flirts with denial or even

extinguishment of aboriginal rights and title. We in this House must be vigilant

to ensure that this modification is not, in fact, the new relationship, and we

must demand those assurances from the government.

At the core of reconciliation is the recognition of the existence

of aboriginal rights and title. This was the basis for the new relationship

document and the Kelowna agreement. This recognition was expected to result in

changes to legislation, policy, regulation and ministry service plans and

budgets. These are the tangible products of the provincial government, but this

isn't happening. It's not in this agreement, and the commitment to recognize

aboriginal rights and title hasn't made its way into the legislation, policy or

regulation emanating from this government.

What we have from this government and within this agreement are

business deals, resource agreements, program agreements, interim measures.

There's no sign of the Premier's commitment to recognize aboriginal rights and

title, which essentially means the adversarial approach continues. Talk about a

missed opportunity. Here was the first chance to combine the B.C. Treaty

Commission process with the new relationship to achieve true reconciliation, but

the recognition of rights and title is missing, and modification appears to be

the de facto substitute.

This glaring omission is an ongoing source of frustration and

mistrust for many first nations, who continue to have to resort to protests,

blockades and even legal action against the provincial government to pursue true

reconciliation. Does this sound like a new relationship? Does this sound like a

genuine commitment from the provincial government to reconciliation? No.

It's very important to consider this agreement in the context of

the new relationship, but this is challenging, particularly given the lack of

clarity about how the new relationship will catalyze real change and the

contradictions between this document and the ongoing actions of the Premier and

his government.

B.C.'s Auditor General is critical of the lack of definition

around the new relationship, which only leads to more uncertainty. The Auditor

General is also critical of the so-called breakthrough strategy, where

negotiators concentrate on a few tables at the expense of all others. The April

2007 report from the Auditor General also points out that these business deals

being done outside of the treaty process may prove to be a disincentive to

successful negotiations.

The failure to follow through on the new relationship commitments

is notably evident in the Premier's refusal to speak out against the government

of Canada's shameful rejection of the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous

peoples. Only three countries in the world voted against this declaration, with

144 supporting, and B.C.'s Premier was silent on this outrageous stance. This

belies the trust of the first nations and is a total embarrassment for British

Columbians and all Canadians.

The Leader of the Opposition asked some very important questions

about the new relationship. Has the Premier signed the document? Has the accord

fundamentally improved provincial mandates on aboriginal self-government? Has

the new relationship improved the day-to-day lives of aboriginal people? The

answer to these three questions is no. So much for transformative change.

[1445]

The commitments of the Premier in the new relationship document

must be solidified and honoured by this government. Rather than cutting more

business deals, they must focus on true reconciliation.

Now, this agreement is very specific to the Tsawwassen First

Nation, and it will no doubt bring positive change for the people, but it falls

short of the crucial commitment to true reconciliation. Beyond this missed

opportunity to achieve reconciliation, there are other important concerns about

this agreement, concerns that have been expressed by other first nations. I'll

address those now.

There is the potential for negative impacts on the rights and

title of neighbouring first nations who aren't currently in negotiations with

government — first nations such as Semiahmoo and Sencoten and all of the first

nations on southern Vancouver Island who entered into treaties with the Crown

under Governor Douglas. This government is obliged to provide clear assurances

to those first nations, and legislation would be the most unequivocal way to

provide this. Will this be forthcoming from this government?

There is great concern about this agreement serving as a template

for future agreements or treaties. Again, the failure to explicitly recognize

aboriginal rights and title comes into the picture. The absence of this and the

potential that this agreement creates a limit or ceiling on other negotiations

or agreements are both very problematic.

This is particularly troubling due to the "me too" clause in this

agreement that ensures the Tsawwassen

[ Page 8786 ]

First Nation that any improved terms in future deals will automatically be

imported into this agreement. Although this certainly makes sense for the

Tsawwassen people, it has the potential to have a chilling effect on other

agreements as negotiators insist that they can't exceed the terms that are

comparable to those within this agreement. The consequences are potentially

disastrous for the treaty process if, indeed, this is the resulting impact.

With all of these concerns with this final agreement and its

shortcomings as an actual treaty, I want to return to the issue of business

deals. In many ways this agreement walks and talks like a business deal, but it

is many steps beyond the typical business deals being done around the province

with first nations, most of which are referred to as interim measures or

accommodation agreements.

Given the snail's pace of the treaty process and uncertainties

about the eventual results, it's totally understandable that first nations

pursue interim measures. It's an opportunity to get a share of the resources

that were taken away, but these business deals are not alternatives to treaties.

These interim measures give industry access to resources in first

nations traditional territories. They generate revenue to the provincial

government, to the treasury, and create some benefits for first nations, but

they don't settle either the land or governance questions that are the very

reason for treaty negotiations. They certainly don't address aboriginal rights

and title. Therefore, they are not alternatives to treaties.

Rather than taking a bold step forward and negotiating a treaty

that recognizes the fundamental issue of aboriginal rights and title, my

profound concern here is that this government insisted on an agreement that more

closely resembles a business deal. By doing so, a great opportunity was

purposefully averted by a government with a long history of disrespecting first

nations.

The most troubling element of this business deal approach by the

government is the inclusion of lands from the agricultural land reserve in this

agreement. The precedent for removing 207 hectares, about 500 acres' worth, from

the ALR from this agreement is of great concern to many British Columbians, as

this could intensify our enormous challenges with food security.

As hard as it may be to imagine, food security is paramount to

survival. Most of us here in B.C. are well insulated from this threat, but our

survival hinges on the daily arrivals of food from far away. This is a dangerous

dance we do, and if we ignore it, we ignore it literally at our peril.

As a former farmer, as someone who has made a living from land,

raising my kids from the bounty of the farmland along the Fraser River, the

potential loss of excellent farmland to industrial use is very disturbing. My

hopes are very high that the Tsawwassen people will steward this land for its

highest purpose, which is supporting life. It is incredibly productive land,

whether as cropland for humans or forage and habitat for other species.

[1450]

The Tsawwassen took care of this land for thousands of years

before either industry piled up at Deltaport or the ALR was created. There's no

reason to assume they would sacrifice such precious soil for a short-term cash

flow. That hasn't been their way, but stranger things have happened and

certainly happen every day with non-native communities.

It's assumed that some development will occur on this returning

land base to accommodate the Tsawwassen people and to develop their economic

base. This is certainly reasonable, given the limited space and unacceptable

conditions that they've been living in for generations. But the hope for many of

us is that the prime agricultural land won't be lost to industrial development.

The Tsawwassen people are in an unfortunate predicament. The vast

majority of their lands have been taken up by third-party interests. They need

living space, they need working space, and they need to create a local economy.

The limited area there on the delta includes a significant proportion of ALR.

The solution put forward in this agreement by this government is

unacceptable to many British Columbians, who fear the worst, who assume that the

exceptional soil will be paved for industry. Loss of this land to industrial

usage for Deltaport expansion would be a travesty. It would be the antithesis of

sustainable development.

Again, the blame lies squarely on this government and their

approach to negotiating this agreement. The government could have come up with

other proposals for economic development that minimize or eliminate the

potential for industrial development on the productive farmland. There should

have been a solution that prevented the removal of fertile farmland from the ALR.

The fact that removal of ALR is in the agreement stirred up a

great deal of debate within our caucus and within the New Democratic Party and,

more broadly, in the communities that we serve. Indeed, it should. This is a

huge dilemma — the prospect of settling a treaty but potentially losing farmland

from production permanently.

This forced us to grapple with our core values: social justice and

stewardship of the land. We don't accept that this trade-off is necessary. The

government could have taken a different approach. This is their scheme, and it

does create a dangerous precedent for future treaties.

We must raise our voices to prevent further loss of lands in the

ALR. We must be vigilant in all dealings to protect this critical resource. It

is our lifeline. Despite over half of our food being shipped in from hundreds,

thousands or even tens of thousands of miles away, the time will very likely

come again when we are far more dependent on our local food supply.

It's only a matter of time, because the one-time burndown of

stored energy on our planet will result in a world where the mass movement of

goods won't be physically possible. This will happen in concert with the

depletion of soils, making any remaining productive soils invaluable for life as

we know it. This is just common sense. Most of our food comes from the soil. We

sacrifice it at our own demise.

The ecological case against putting ALR at risk of industrial

development is very clear. I have yet to hear

[ Page 8787 ]

a compelling case for paving farmland or estuaries. What's the upside?

Maximizing short-term profits for faceless shareholders somewhere? These

shareholders would need to share the wealth with the stewards of the land — in

this case, hopefully, the Tsawwassen First Nation.

But if those resources are ultimately what's needed, destroying

the land is an unconscionable price to pay. If this transpires, it won't be much

different from business deals that get done all over the world every day. Trade

off a viable future for short-term needs, pave the land, degrade the ecosystems

— all in the name of progress, profit and paycheques.

Again, I'm hopeful that the Tsawwassen people have a very

different vision for their lands. That is the hope of our caucus. We trust that

the Tsawwassen people will take care of their land and recognize that this is

once again their land for countless generations to come. It was their land

before the ALR and industry appeared, and it's surely in their own best

interests to steward this land for its highest purpose.

We will continue to fight hard to protect the ALR. We are calling

for every precious acre of land that is removed from the ALR to be replaced

immediately with land of comparable productivity in the same bioregion. That

call certainly applies to these 207 hectares, and failure to do this is truly

jeopardizing the lives of the generations to come.

[1455]

I just want to make some conclusions in terms of really impacting

the lives of aboriginal peoples in a positive way through the treaty process.

Things have to kick into gear in a big way. A more public, nimble and creative

treaty process is needed. Some excellent suggestions to improve the process have

come forward, and I will echo them here.

Give ordinary citizens access to treaty negotiations. Make public

the so-called secret formula that the federal and provincial governments use,

based on so much land and money per citizen. Open-source it. Let first nations

debate whether it is fair. That could only speed up the process.

Expand and strengthen B.C.'s negotiating teams to staff more

treaty tables. Encourage the B.C. Treaty Commission to actively employ mediation

and alternative dispute-resolution tools to resolve difficult issues such as

overlapping first nations claims to traditional territories.

Stop trying to impose municipal forms of self-government on first

nations communities. Instead, facilitate agreements between first nations and

neighbouring municipalities. Grant the Treaty Commission more independence so

that it can better play the roles of facilitator, mediator and adjudicator.

Explore alternative kinds of final agreements rather than imposing

one model of settlement. Draft all treaties in plain language so that every

British Columbian can read and understand them. Finally, let's see a firm

political commitment to complete all B.C. first nation treaties within ten

years. Just some ideas to improve the process.

With the greatest respect for the Tsawwassen people, I am

extremely disappointed in this Premier and his government for not finding better

solutions. We can always do better, with solutions that are all about true

reconciliation and that recognize aboriginal rights and title, solutions that

don't compromise other first nations or the treaty process itself, solutions

that respect the Tsawwassen and the ALR. The combination of settling treaties

and resolving land use is among the toughest challenges we face as a society,

but we should be setting the bar high.

Nevertheless, a deal's a deal. The Tsawwassen people have

negotiated in good faith. I raise my hands to Chief Baird and her people. Their

patience and goodwill are remarkable. I congratulate them on this achievement

and wish them well in their important decisions on stewarding their lands.

J. Kwan: I rise today to give my support to the Tsawwassen

treaty. I stand in solidarity to support the Tsawwassen people and their quest

for justice, reconciliation and equality. I would also like to take the time to

commend the courage of Chief Kim Baird and the people of Tsawwassen, whose story

of resilience is an inspiration to all of us.

To be a 37-year-old female chief to her people is an

accomplishment unto itself. The fact that we're here today debating this bill is

a testimony to her resolve to never waver from her desire to conclude a treaty

and move forward for the Tsawwassen people and, no doubt, for future

generations. I've watched her in this House as she listened to the debate with

her babies in this Legislature.

This is not to say that there are not issues with the treaty

process or this treaty in particular. Certainly, what gives me cause to reflect

and critically examine this particular treaty has been this government's tepid

and, I dare say, hypocritical and reckless approach to relations with aboriginal

people.

Let us recall that not many years ago British Columbians were

going through an unnecessary referendum on aboriginal rights. It was not only an

embarrassing moment in the history of our province; it was reckless, divisive

and mean-spirited. The policies of this government were designed to divide

people across the province. I often ask myself the question: why and how could

such a racist policy come about? Is it because the Premier thought that he could

get away with it without much accountability?

[1500]

After all, in those days there were only two opposition members. I

and Joy MacPhail were in the House to oppose the Premier's mean-spirited agenda.

When you think you can get away with something truly nasty, like a race-based

referendum on minority rights, and you actually go through with it, isn't that

moment in time a true snapshot of your true self? British Columbians still want

to know if the Premier thinks that reconciliation with aboriginal people has

suddenly become politically fashionable or if he's genuine in his commitment to

this new relationship.

[ Page 8788 ]

In 2001 the Liberal government commenced an unprecedented assault

on civil society in British Columbia. Under the leadership of this Premier the

province suffered massive cuts to social services, social housing programs were

cancelled, and people were put on the street. The rich became richer, and the

poor became poorer. Aboriginal people had to endure a fundamentally racist

position on aboriginal land claims that did not reflect the court rulings that

had recognized aboriginal title and the need to negotiate.

The treaty process, as a result, was delayed and set back years as

the Premier conducted his meaningless referendum at a cost of $9 million to the

taxpayers of British Columbia. Aboriginal people, the first people of this land,

bore the brunt of this shameful act. Had it not been the policy of this Premier

from 2001 to 2005 to fight the aboriginal people every which way for

reconciliation, Bill 40 would have been before this House much sooner.

Contrary to the Premier, I am proud to stand here as a member of

the NDP with a consistent position in support of aboriginal people.

Treaty-making is the form we have created to deal with the very

important issue of aboriginal reconciliation. As imperfect an instrument as it

may be, when it works, it is emblematic of our resilience and our collective

ability to reconcile historical injustices.

History, trauma and memory are embedded in our contemporary

Canadian culture. This year, actually, marks the 100th anniversary of the

anti-Asiatic riots that took place in my constituency in 1907. Today, as a

Chinese Canadian, I have the great honour and good fortune of being an elected

member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, where I have the opportunity to represent

my constituents.

All injustices must lead to some kind of reconciliation and

political expression. It is the essence of a developed democracy. The drums that

beat for justice should never go silent, and it is the job of government and

policy-makers to accommodate these tensions and bring people to the table as

equals.

The legacy of colonialism and the arrogance of institutions, which

quite frankly we are still fighting today and will for many generations, is

deeply entrenched. Trying to address these questions in an open and honest way

should be central to our identity as Canadians and British Columbians.

Treaty-making is about rights, land rights, justice,

reconciliation and self-determination. It is about an obligation to future

generations. Too many lives have been lost and damaged by the institutions of

colonialism, from the residential schools, such as Alert Bay, to countless

apprehensions of first nations children that still happens disproportionately

today, to the poverty cycle and addictions cycle that is so very prevalent

amongst aboriginal people. We are still fighting those injustices in our

communities across British Columbia today.

History reminds us that people were taken from their villages by

the RCMP and sent by Union Steamship to Alert Bay from places like Bella Coola,

Bella Bella, the Haida Gwaii and all along the northern part of the B.C. coast

and the interior. Even at a reunion a few years ago, people were still kneeling

over and crying from the pain of that experience.

[1505]

At that ceremony a few years ago Chief Bill Cranmer said:

"We used to line up to pray to a god that we didn't

believe in. Our role models weren't positive. We suffered from diseases

brought in by colonialization, the residential school system, which hurt our

culture, and the potlatch prohibition. They took away our humanity. We need to

help our people help ourselves.

"We used to be beaten for speaking our

own language. We were removed from our own communities. We need

to remove the trauma, so we can develop in the way we want to. We need to move

forward. We hope you share with us the notion that this shouldn't have

happened to us or our children.

"The future belongs to us. We need to

rebuild our history."

Madam Speaker, it is said that everything is connected.

Did you know that the U'mista Cultural Centre in Alert Bay plans to take over

the old St. Michael's Residential School building and teach the traditional

language of Kwak'wala?

Former Chief Joe Gosnell graduated from that residential school in

Alert Bay, and he went on to negotiate the Nisga'a treaty, the first modern-day

treaty in British Columbia, which this Premier and his caucus and the Liberal

Party fought every step of the way.

Out there in Alert Bay, while whales dance in the ocean and eagles

soar overhead, first nations carvers build canoes and totem poles on Sunday

mornings. Up the hill at the big house the support beams are held up by the

Sisiutl, a Zen-like symbol of balance with two serpent-like flickering tongues.

They say that its glare can cause a man to die by turning him to stone and that

one must have balance in one's life to stare it in the eye and live to tell the

story.

People should be coming from around the world to visit Alert Bay

and take a look at this monumental statue. Some say it is paradise on earth, but

how can we invite the world to come to British Columbia when so many British

Columbians don't even know our fascinating history? I hope that one day soon

this history of injustice and successive governments' role and attempts and

failures to reconcile our history will be taught to every student in British

Columbia.

In my constituency too many young first nations people leave rural

reserves for the life of the downtown east side. While it is a community with a

great many strengths, it is also a community with a great many challenges. We in

our community need socioeconomic justice. The treaty process may be part of that

answer, to be sure, but it certainly is not the whole answer.

We need comprehensive and long-term plans to bring justice to the

aboriginal communities. There's an urban native youth centre which is looking to

build a longhouse in my constituency, a proposal that is once again being lost

amidst the finger-pointing between the provincial government and the federal

government.

[ Page 8789 ]

Programs like BladeRunners place young aboriginal people onto a

construction site where they can earn over $20 an hour, no matter what their

background or the complicated nature of their lives. Yet there are not enough of

those BladeRunners workers working on Olympic construction sites today despite

an inner city inclusivity agreement.

The missing women in my constituency who lived life on the

margins, in poverty, who were in the sex trade and not respected by people….

Many of these women are aboriginal, yet organizations such as PACE cannot get

the adequate funding to engage in the kind of outreach work that they need to do

with sex trade workers to ensure that they have access to health care services

and options.

The totem pole project, which teaches young aboriginal youth to

carve totem poles and commemorates the missing women in the downtown east side,

is in dire need of financial support. We have an obligation to engage with our

citizens no matter what led them here, yet our government continues to sit on

the sidelines without so much as lifting a finger to offer assistance.

Why is this relevant, Madam Speaker? Because on the issue around

treaty-making, we need to also ensure that there are ongoing long-term programs

that support aboriginal people on and off the reserves.

[1510]

Women who are fleeing violence and looking for a safe place to

rest their weary bodies, an advocate to give them voice, a place that they could

call home, are left wanting, for women's centres across the province have been

cut severely. In my own community the Downtown Eastside Women's Centre continues

to run a temporary shelter where dozens of women sleep every night because of

the piecemeal funding from this provincial government.

The dangers of street life disproportionately affect women. We're

in grave need of permanent housing solutions and program support from this

government, and so far all we've gotten are band-aid solutions.

Drug addiction continues to destroy lives. Heroin and crack

cocaine — drugs that make people run away from their pain — leave people looking

for a daily fix, yet programs designed to support this segment of the population

are chronically underfunded.

The Helping Spirit Lodge, which provides an array of programs to

the urban aboriginal, has yet to receive support from this government for its

capital campaign. More than that, they've just lost their funding for a

successful employment program run by aboriginal people for aboriginal people.

The Aboriginal Friendship Centre continues to struggle on

year-to-year funding, which does not allow them to plan ahead. There remains a

great need for aboriginal-specific housing projects and shelters.

When Miloon Kothari, the UN special rapporteur on the right to

adequate housing, came to Vancouver a couple of weeks ago, one of the areas he

was looking particularly closely at was housing for aboriginal peoples. Why?

Because aboriginals are overrepresented in the homelessness rate. The UN would

not be looking at housing for aboriginal peoples if the federal government and

the provincial government were adequately dealing with the situation.

Madam Speaker, this gives you a glimpse into the struggles of many

urban aboriginals, and to understand the essence of our history is to understand

the kind of investment that is necessary to break the vicious cycle that has

been brought to bear upon first nations people.

Perhaps our official recorded colonial history makes us a young

province, but there are many myths and legends that beat with the narrative of

this geography, this amazing place, this electrifying history that is begging to

come to life. These stories are timeless and borderless, and they evoke genuine

desire for empathy and understanding.

It is said that the last war fought on Canadian soil was in the

Chilcotin plateau. It was an era of goldminers, prospectors, gamblers and

roadbuilders. The blood of 14 men was spilled in the Homathko River before dawn

on the morning of April 29, 1864. By the end of May, 19 roadbuilders, packers

and farmers were dead. It is the deadliest attack by aboriginal people on

immigrants in western Canada before or since.

They were killed because the white people were coming up and

building a road into the Chilcotin and they were raping the first nations women.

They were feeding the workers from the first nations only scraps, and above all,

they threatened them with smallpox.

The leaders at the time felt that they had no other recourse, so a

raiding party went out and unfortunately, a number of people were killed. Within

six weeks, over a hundred men were in the field to hunt down the leadership of

the Tsilhquot'in. Soon after, the chiefs were persuaded to give themselves up,

and they went to attempt to make treaty in Quesnel. Instead, they found

themselves being put in jails.

On September 28, 1864, Chief Klatsassin and eight others went to

trial, and by October 26 they were hanged at Quesnellemouth at 7 a.m., with 250

people in attendance, after being sentenced by the notorious Judge Begbie, the

infamous hanging judge.

Today the Tsilhquot'in elders work with anthropologists to bring

their oral histories into the courtroom, where they bring to life their

connection and history with the land, all for reconciliation and justice. B.C.

will become best place on earth when we reconcile our history with the reality

of our colonial past.

To this day the Tsilhquot'in people are still looking for the

graves of the chiefs that were hung in Quesnel somewhere. It is quite probable

that the hospital is sitting on them. They're using very sophisticated means to

try and find those bodies. It is very important to the peace of mind of those

people that they find the leaders.

[1515]

Madam Speaker, this story is still so compelling, this colonial

story of tensions and land rights, that Stan Douglas, an artist who lives in my

constituency, made an art film few years ago where Chief Klatsassin was the

subject. To this day it is part of our history that still resonates, still

connotes meaning and still is being fought in our courts.

[ Page 8790 ]

In those days, there was a different way of dealing with things.

In 1910 some chiefs in the Secwepemc region met with Wilfrid Laurier. At that

time, the Chief said:

"We never asked them, the white men, to come here, but

nevertheless, we treated them kindly and hospitably and helped them all we

could. They had made themselves as if they were our guests. We treated them as

such and then waited to see what they would do….

"They commenced to take up pieces of land

here and there. They told us they wanted only to use those

pieces of land for a few years, ad then they would hand them back to us in an

improved condition. Meanwhile, they would give us some of the products they

raised for the loan of our land.

"Thus they commenced to enter our

'houses' or live on our 'ranches.' With us when a person enters

our house, he becomes our guest, and we must treat him hospitably as long as

he shows no hostile intentions. At the same time, we expect him to return to

us equal treatment for what he receives.

"Some of our chiefs said: 'Those people

wish to be partners with us in our country. We must therefore be

the same as brothers to them and live as one family. We will share equally in

everything — half and half — in land, water and timber, etc. What is ours will

be theirs, and what is theirs will be ours. We will help each other to be

great and good….'

"They have stolen our lands and

everything on them and continue to use the same for their

purposes. They treat us as less than children and allow us no say in anything.

They say Indians know nothing and own nothing, yet their power and wealth have

come from our belongings. The Queen's law, which we believe guaranteed us our

rights, the B.C. government has trampled underfoot. This is how our guests

have treated us, the brothers we received hospitably in our house….

"We have no grudge against the white race

as a whole nor against the settlers, but we want to have an

equal chance with them of making a living. We welcome them to this country.

"It is not, in most cases, their fault.

They have taken up, improved and paid for the lands in good

faith. It is their government which is to blame by heaping up injustice upon

us. But it is also their duty to see that their government does right by us

and gives us a square deal."

He went on to say:

"We condemn the whole policy of the B.C. government

towards the Indian tribes of this country as utterly unjust, shameful and

blundering in every way. We denounce same as being the main cause of the

unsatisfactory condition of Indian affairs in this country and of animosity

and friction with the whites."

Those were the words of the Chief, and those are the

lessons that we should have actually embedded in our hearts and minds, not just

today but back in 2001 and beyond. In fact, governments before that,

conservative governments who did very little to advance aboriginal rights….

Hence, we're here today dealing with Bill 40 in the year 2007. But

had we learned the lessons of the words of the Chief much earlier, would we have

had Bill 40 before us much earlier than today?

In the interior, where people were looking for justice and

reconciliation, we had the untold horrors of places like St. Joseph's

Residential School. Over 100,000 children across Canada attended residential

schools. Reconciliation and treaty-making must consider the injustice of

institutional racism, of unjust laws and inequality, the trauma of dispossession

and the ongoing attacks on aboriginal identity.

Through acts of government we put aboriginal people on reserves,

denying them their rights, and somehow we expect them to live some other way

than the way we are living. The aboriginal people, the Tsawwassen people, have

negotiated hard and fairly to resolve longstanding issues of self-determination,

land ownership and economic independence for themselves.

[1520]

The Tsawwassen treaty will be the first treaty concluded under the

B.C. Treaty Commission process, a process started under the NDP government. Let

me add that it was the NDP which concluded the Nisga'a agreement, which many

members opposite opposed vociferously and, I might add, irrationally and without

thought or deliberation. They certainly did not look at the history of the past

to try to learn from those lessons.

The B.C. Liberal Party wanted to divide British Columbians and

unite the right wing in this province in a dangerous agenda that did not

acknowledge court decisions and the tide of history which was screaming out for

reconciliation. The Premier and the Liberal Party played politics with this very

important issue, and by virtue of that, they played with people's lives.

In July of this year Valerie Cross-Blackett, a Tsawwassen band

member who was involved in the negotiations, said:

"The agreement sets out the structure to address the key

issues to support self-government, and we are moving forward with the best

deal that was possible. We can't be afraid of change. There are clear benefits

in this agreement, and it is an opportunity to move out of the colonialism of

the past 130 years in a way that will improve both the health and wealth of

our people.

"We are part of a system that does not

allow us to break the cycle and be self-sufficient. It was

important to make changes and break the cycle in a long-term way."

I stand in support of this treaty for the Tsawwassen

people because of people like Valerie Cross-Blackett — who has spent so much of

her life seeking reconciliation and a chance to move forward — and many people

like her. People like Ms. Cross-Blackett remember when the highway was built out

to the ferry and how it split her community in half.

The opportunity to break out of the governance of the Indian Act

is of fundamental importance. When the treaty comes into effect, the Tsawwassen

people will own their land outright, and there will no longer be reserves. The

final agreement sets out law-making authorities which the Tsawwassen may

exercise on their own lands. It will also allow the Tsawwassen government to

become a member of Metro Vancouver and appoint a director to sit on the regional

district board.

We have a rich and detailed history of not dealing with our past

in British Columbia. When Chief Pontiac organized a pan-Indian resistance to

fight the British occupation and took all but one of the British forts,

[ Page 8791 ]

the government in London responded with the Royal Proclamation of 1763. It

affirmed the tribal ownership of lands and recognized tribal governments and

public negotiation of treaties before settlers could purchase the land. Of all

the British colonies, only British Columbia rejected this policy.

Although James Douglas, the colonial governor in Victoria, made

treaties on Vancouver Island, beyond an extension of Treaty 8, as we now know,

no more treaties were made until Nisga'a. It is through the heroic efforts of

Thomas Berger and the many, many others that were here talking about the

important process of reconciliation: people like Frank Calder — just to take a

moment to remember him — who brought forward the case and even sat in this

Legislature for a period of time; people like Mike Harcourt, who set up the

treaty process; people like Glen Clark, who was the Premier that was not afraid

to sign the Nisga'a treaty in spite of vicious, vicious opposition from the

Premier and the Liberal Party.

As with any compromise and negotiation, there are heartbreaks and

difficult decisions. The ALR is, of course, a difficult part of this deal — what

some are calling the port expansion through the back door.

I support the ALR. I support local food production and the B.C.

agriculture industry. We know that there is a need for more irrigated land in

the fruit, vegetable and dairy production area and for more broadly applied

pasture and forest management practices. The ALR is the land belt that has put

the borders on suburbia. It has become the model for people like Portland.

People come from around the world to study it and to emulate it.

The Liberal introduction of the Agricultural Land Commission Act

has opened up farmland for development. This government's record on protecting

farmland is the worst in almost four decades. I am a committed supporter of the

ALR land, as is our caucus. Frankly, the best thing for the ALR would be to

defeat the Liberal government in 2009.

[1525]

Tony Penikett, the former Premier of the Yukon and the former

deputy minister in charge of negotiations for the B.C. government, recently

wrote a book on first nations treaty-making in B.C. I was at his book-launching.

He included ten recommendations for policy-makers, which I'd like to put on the

record now.

Bury colonial attitudes about aboriginal institutions with a new

commitment to accommodation, reconciliation and treaties.

Open up negotiations by tabling government land and money,

negotiating mandates.

Hire creative negotiators, and give them incentives to settle.

Do not use interim measures as substitutes for treaties. Use

alternative dispute resolution techniques, and bring mediators to treaty tables.

Allow first nations to litigate disputes when necessary.

Respect the aboriginal right to self-government but invest in

aggregation — democratic, efficient and effective institutions of governance.

Build a truly independent British Columbia Treaty Commission to

fund negotiations.

Fully inform citizens, and adjudicate implementation issues.

Create options for fast-tracked treaties and high-level dialogues

on co-jurisdiction.

Write treaties in plain language.

Show the political will to complete Canada's reconciliation with

aboriginal peoples through treaties and other agreements.

University of Toronto scholar Thomas Homer-Dixon called what we

have an ingenuity gap. Escaping the bulk of bureaucratic inertia and

passive-aggressive behaviour requires imagination.

If we want to move forward on treaty-making, do what the United

States has done, to a degree. When Robert Kennedy became Attorney General of the

United States in 1961, he hired more lawyers and gave them mere months to settle

hundreds of outstanding land claims. That is political will.

I believe that social justice, economic prosperity and

reconciliation depend on expeditiously negotiating long-term aboriginal land

claim issues. British Columbia can do that, and the Premier can show that he

truly has found the new relationship in his heart.

Invest in the negotiation process. Study from others what they

have done. Take some of the suggestions and the recommendations from Tony

Penikett. Look at what the former Attorney General of the United States has

done, and invest in that.

Above all, come into this House and apologize to the aboriginal

people for the shameful acts between 2001 and 2005 and for the delay of this

Bill 40, which we could have seen in this House, had the government taken a

different approach with aboriginal people and its relationships with them and

moved forward for a truer, brighter future for the aboriginal people, the

Tsawwassen people and British Columbians.

M. Farnworth: It's my pleasure to take my place in this

historic debate on Bill 40 and to offer some comments around Bill 40 and the

importance of settling the Tsawwassen treaty land claim and why it's so

important that we ratify it.

I want to welcome Chief Baird to these deliberations. I can let

her know that we are nearing the end of second reading debate. Then we will be

on to the committee stage in subsequent days ahead. In terms of second reading

debate, we are nearing the end of that.

I think it's important to reflect on a number of things that have

been said during this particular debate. I heard the member for Prince George

North comment: "Well, what did you do?" I just want to talk about that briefly.

We're a party that has firmly, historically supported treaty

negotiations and the land claims process. As has been mentioned already, former

Premier Mike Harcourt set up the B.C. Treaty Commission. He was very much

involved in that process, and it was very much a highlight during our two terms

in office.

The culmination of that….

Interjections.

[ Page 8792 ]

M. Farnworth: I hear muttering from the bench. Perhaps they

don't like to acknowledge the role that former Premier Harcourt played, but he

played a significant role, and it's worth noting.

That commitment culminated….

Interjections.

M. Farnworth: Again, I hear natterings from the opposition.

It's unfortunate that they don't want to….

[1530]

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: And it will be a very long day, hon. Member.

It can be a shorter day, or it can be a very long day. The choice is up to the

government minister.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

The point is that the work culminated with the historic Nisga'a

treaty in the term of Glen Clark. I stood in this House at that time and spoke

in favour of that. I was proud to do so then, and I'm proud to stand in support

of this treaty now.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: The member says "leadership." Well, it is

leadership. We took leadership in the '90s in negotiating a treaty with the

Nisga'a. It's unfortunate that the member who made those comments wasn't able to

show that same leadership and support that treaty back then in the '90s.

We're debating Bill 40 here today, and Bill 40 deals with the

Tsawwassen treaty. I am pleased that members across the way have had that

epiphany, that they have seen the approach they had was wrong and that the right

approach is the treaty process — to negotiate a treaty with the Tsawwassen.

That's what is here today.

In going through this treaty, a number of things struck me. One is

the similarities between this treaty and the treaty with Nisga'a in terms of how

we deal with so many issues in terms of local governments. That tells me that

the principles then were right, around the Nisga'a treaty, and the principles

today around this treaty are the right ones. That's why I'm proud to support it.

We've heard a lot about the history in terms of colonialism, the

impact of Joseph Trutch, various treaty commissions — the McKenna-McBride

commission in the '20s and how lands were taken away. I'm not going to dwell on

those.

I want to talk, for people who are not involved intimately with

treaties, about why this is so important in my mind — why it's important that we

settle treaties, why it's important that we resolve land claim issues. We are

the last province to do so. As such, I think we have a responsibility not only

to ratify this one but to get other treaties to this House to be ratified as

well.

It means the end of an economic situation. It means the end of a

paternalistic relationship with both the province and the federal government for

the Tsawwassen. It means they truly are in control of their own destiny. There

have been a lot of speeches raised in this House that deal with what's gone on,

but I really do think we need to focus on just how important this ability to

control one's destiny is economically, politically and culturally. We often miss

some of the importance of that.

There are members in this House who have spoken against that

treaty, and that's their right. Some have raised important concerns on both

sides of the House, and again that's their right. But when you look at it from

the perspective of the Tsawwassen, you realize something.

Since the 1870s, since the times of Joseph Trutch, since the era

of colonialism, they have lived under a paternalistic system on what

historically was their land — not just a few generations but going back hundreds

of generations. When people raise concerns about how the land is going to be

used, how are they going to organize themselves, how do we know that this is the

right thing to do…. It is the right thing to do.

We have to put our trust in the Tsawwassen. We have to put our

trust in them that they know the right thing to do from their historical

perspective, their cultural perspective and the economic opportunities that this

treaty puts forward.

Think about it: Chief Baird and the rest of the Tsawwassen on that

current piece of land that makes up the reserve and, when this treaty passes,

the adjacent lands, who will be part of no longer a reserve but their own lands.

They've been walking those lands for thousands and thousands of years.

[1535]

If you're a member of the Tsawwassen, you're not just looking at a

piece of land. You're not just looking at a field. You're not just looking at a

piece of coastline or a mud flat. You're looking at land where you know your

parents, your grandparents, your great-grandparents and generations and

generations and generations going back were born. They lived, they walked, they

looked, they laughed, they cried, they fought, and they died on those pieces of

land.

You cannot destroy that connection or take away that connection.

That's a very profound tie to a piece of land — to look at something and know

that your ancestors lived their entire lives there. They fished there, they

played with their children there, they collected berries there, they made tools

there, they built houses there, they built homes there, they built societies

there, they built a culture there, and they built a history and a heritage.

If people take the time to think about that, they will understand

that there can be no argument that the land that this agreement…. The Tsawwassen

will do what's in the interest of the Tsawwassen, and it will respect all those

things that went before. It will respect all those ancestors, all their history,

all their heritage, all their culture and all who went before — before Europeans

came, during the time that colonialism took place, during the time that the

struggle for rights and treaties took place. It will serve as a base and a

foundation for the future of the Tsawwassen nation.

[ Page 8793 ]

That to me is the underlying strength of this treaty and why, once

it's passed, it will succeed. It is such a powerful claim and link, which very

few of us in this room are able to understand and have a direct connection with.

I think this treaty is a remarkable document that is full of

promise and hope and opportunity, which deals with injustices and wrongs and

relegates them to where they belong — to history, not to be forgotten, not to be

pushed away but to be remembered and to be learned from along with that rich

tradition, history and culture that the Tsawwassen have always had, maintained

and remembered to build a strong foundation and a strong sense of hope for the

future.

Hon. Speaker, there will be, in committee stage of this bill, an

opportunity to deal with a lot of specific issues. We will be addressing those

at committee stage — specific questions around issues that the public has and

that critics have, around ALR lands, around subsurface rights, around issues of

consultation, how a new seat with local government for the Tsawwassen will work.

All those technical questions will be dealt with in committee

stage of this bill, but the fundamental question on the justness of this treaty,

on the rightness of this treaty, we deal with in this debate in second reading.

[1540]

To me, this is a culmination not just of the Tsawwassen's efforts

but of aboriginal peoples across this province for so long. I hope when we pass

it that we truly celebrate it, that we recognize what it means and how important

it is. It is another piece of the reconciliation puzzle that's in place.

It means there's still a lot more to do, but we are well and truly

on that path, and there is no turning back. There is only one way, and that is

forward.

I said that my remarks would be brief. I look forward to hearing

the remarks of my colleague the member for Nelson-Creston. As I said to Chief

Baird, this is a tremendous debate, a tremendous treaty, and I look forward to

its passage.

C. Evans: I rise today to speak on the subject of the

Tsawwassen treaty. I'd like to begin by expressing my appreciation to the Chief

for her efforts thus far and for attending the debate; also to the negotiators,

who I think for more than a dozen years struggled to create a document that all

parties could agree to; and to the members for their debate. I'd like to express

my appreciation for the elevation of the discourse.

I would like to congratulate the government, not necessarily for

this treaty, but for their quite monumental, historical reversal of their

position on treaties in general and their willingness to negotiate.

I cannot vote for the treaty; neither can I vote against it. This

speech is intended to explain and, hopefully, to defend that position.

Before I begin, earlier in the debate the member for West

Vancouver–Garibaldi rose and expressed what she said was some sadness that the

opposition members had been gagged from expressing their honest views on this

subject. I've never been gagged by anybody in many years in this place. One

Premier tried once. He didn't succeed.

I'd like to prove that to you now and prove it to the member for

West Vancouver–Garibaldi.

Hon. Speaker, I ask all-party unanimous support for a suspension

of the rules to allow me to speak until I'm finished expressing my views. I

would request an extension on the 30-minute rule. I'll take my seat while you

ask for permission.

Deputy Speaker: Minister.

Hon. R. Neufeld: On a point of order. Actually, I see the

Speaker coming in, so we'll just wait a minute.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Standing Order 45 a

(Speaker's Ruling)

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I know the member for

Nelson-Creston has asked the House a question to leave or suspend Standing Order

45A, which affects time limits for members when speaking to bills and motions

before the House.

The accepted procedure for amending a standing order is by way of

motion, on notice of which a motion would state clearly the amendment desired.

Such a motion, when called, would be debated by the House and passed or defeated

in a normal way.

The time fixed for Standing Order 45A is quite specific and

applies equally to both sides of the House. It's my respectful opinion that it

would be inappropriate to request a significant amendment to the standing orders

in the course of second reading of a bill.

I therefore decline in these specific circumstances to put the

question of leave of the House to grant the member an exemption from the

application of Standing Order 45A. All members are bound by the provisions of

the existing standing order, and so I rule.

Member for Nelson-Creston continues.

[1545]

Debate Continued

C. Evans: Thank you, hon. Speaker. Let the record suggest,

then, that on this day, dealing with tremendously important issues for which I

feel quite deeply and have the desire to express my historical context for my

position…. I asked for the time, and it is not rejected by the opposition, who

has not gagged me. It is decided by the House that I will be limited to 30

minutes.

I thank you for your judgment and ask that the 30 minutes start

now.

Mr. Speaker: That's fair enough. Start the 30 minutes now.

C. Evans: Yes, sir.

[ Page 8794 ]

I'd like to start with a bit of history on the subject of the

Delta lands in question and Tsawwassen — not first nations history. My objection

to the content of the treaty and the method of its negotiation has to do with

government history and what has happened in Delta over the time of the existence

of this parliament and the various governments that served here.

I'd like to discuss the development of the history of Roberts

Bank, starting with the ferry issue. As we all know, everybody rides the ferry.

How did it come to get there?

In the 1950s the route from Vancouver Island to the lower mainland

was via steamships — this is from a document by the Vancouver Port Authority —

that stopped at towns on Vancouver Island and the lower mainland.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

In 1958 the employees went on strike. The government of the day,

Social Credit, responded to the strike by invoking the Civil Defence Act and

nationalizing the steamship properties for as long as was necessary and then,

led by Premier W.A.C. Bennett, announced that it would establish a ferry service

between the Saanich Peninsula on Vancouver Island and the lower mainland.

The location chosen for the ferry service, nationalized by Social

Credit, was to be Tsawwassen, which was selected as the most favourable route —

between Tsawwassen and Swartz Bay, between the lower mainland and Victoria.

Then, after the ferry came coal. That is the next development that

this building imposed upon the people at Tsawwassen. In the mid-1960s Kaiser

Resources — that's a California company — agreed to buy the coal rights from a

coal operator in southeastern B.C., somewhat near my constituency, only if a

contract to sell coal to a Japanese buyer could be negotiated.

Again according to the Vancouver Port Authority's own document, in

1968, as a result of securing rail transportation, Kaiser Resources signed a

15-year sales agreement with a large Japanese steel producer, Mitsubishi. In the

sales agreement, Kaiser Resources committed to ship coal by 1970. This meant

that construction of both the coal port site and terminal facilities had to be

thought up, designed and built within 16 months.

The south Roberts Bank location was chosen over other locations

because it best fulfilled all requirements for a new port location: direct,

uncongested railway access for all railway operators; large areas of undeveloped

land immediately adjacent to berth areas; direct access for vessels for deep

water, with no tidal or other navigational delays; water depths of at least 20

metres and the possibility that it could be increased by dredging; and

"remoteness from densely populated areas to minimize impacts on occasional air,

water, and noise pollution and direct access to a principal highway system."

At no point did anybody ask the opinion of the Tsawwassen people

who lived there. Then, to coal and ferry service, we added a general port, an

industrial dream. I quote from Vancouver Sun , March 15, 1968: "Highways

Minister Phil Gaglardi has been given authority by the provincial cabinet to

acquire some 2,000 acres of land needed for the creation of Deltaport, by

expropriation if necessary. A cabinet order-in-council gave the authority needed

to begin land acquisition for the development of a superport at Roberts Bank."

At no time, and I did considerable research, could I find

considerations of the Tsawwassen people in any of those three activities in the

1950s and 1960s — a moral and a legal and a political failure that I think we

are struggling here to reverse today.

[1550]

It was W.A.C. Bennett's vision and dream to develop an industrial

port — called a superport in the Vancouver Sun — expropriate the farmland

in the back for what was called backup lands. Backup lands meant backup

industrial lands for factories, essentially from the water back to the highway,

to feed the port as storage and for industrial activities. Some 4,056 acres were

expropriated from the families who had diked the land and farmed the land for

generations.

That expropriation and the idea of that level of development on

the edges of Vancouver became the political issue of the day. There was an

election in 1972. Every political party in that election had the protection of

farmland in some form in its platform. New Democrats opposed the superport idea

and the expropriation.

Expropriation itself became a political issue. In 1972 New

Democrats won. They had a mandate — in fact, a requirement — to then deal with

the farmland issue right in Delta. Delta was the centre; Delta was the point.

Delta was the apex of the protection-of-farmland issue. This very land that

we're debating here today was the land that created the political issue in 1972

that created the agricultural land reserve, which became law in February…. The

Agricultural Land Commission Act was tabled here on February 22, 1973.

All of the land expropriated — 4,056 acres in Delta — then was

halted as industrial activity. It was put into the agricultural land reserve.

The point is that this land that we're debating here today is the paradigm, the

symbol of agricultural land all over the province in every single one of these

members' constituencies of whatever political party.

But W.A.C. Bennett's vision was not dead. Although it was defeated

in this room, the Harbour Board and the railroad maintained the vision of the

superport that they would like to see built one day.

In fact, B.C.'s Harbour Board says in a letter in 1976, after the

Agricultural Land Commission was created: "Since its inception, it has been

board policy to keep all lands suited for the purpose of port development in

agricultural production where they were not required for development in

association with port development."

In other words, they desired to keep them in agricultural

production but not private ownership in order that they could get on with

industrial development someday. It remained expropriated from the families that

owned it and farmed it for decades. Then former Ombudsman Karl Friedman in the

1990s, on behalf of the farm families in Delta and led by former Speaker

[ Page 8795 ]

Joan Sawicki, argued that the land that had been expropriated for the

superport ought to be returned to the families that it had been taken from,

because it was out for 30 years and never used for the purpose that the

government in this room expropriated it for.

In 1996 I actually became the Minister of Agriculture. Against the

wishes of almost the entirety of the legal apparatus and Treasury Board and all

the big heads that work here, I thought it would be a good idea to return the

land to the people that owned it.

Negotiations began with cabinet, with the Tsawwassen people and

with the farmers themselves. On August 24, 1998, the following press release was

issued: "The majority of the Roberts Bank land held by the Crown will be made

available for sale and a further portion for long-term lease. Approximately 25

percent of the expropriated lands will stay as provincially owned land under

relatively short-term leases, pending settlement through first nations treaty

negotiations."

So 2,688 acres of the cutoff lands were sold back to the owners,

694 acres were leased, and 1,197 acres were withheld to negotiate the treaty. It

was my job to go to Delta and say to the families who weren't going to be

allowed to buy their land back that we had decided that they couldn't have their

farm back because we wanted to save that land to solve treaties.

[1555]

One family sent their grandchildren up to me — little kids crying

— who handed me a letter that said: "Why won't you return my granny's property?"

It was my job to say: "It is meet and right, as it says in the Bible, that we

should withhold this land to solve treaties. I'm not going to let you guys have

it back, because we've got to do this treaty, but it will stay as farmland."

That position was backed up on April 5, 2001, in a letter offering

315 hectares to the Tsawwassen people as farmland.

"April 1, 2005. Dear Chief Baird: On January 25, 2001, British

Columbia made a presentation that outlined its view of the land and cash

components that should be included in a joint treaty settlement counterproposal

to the Tsawwassen First Nation."

I'm just reading elements of the letter, hon. Speaker. "These

provincial Crown lands would be transferred to the Tsawwassen First Nation with

existing land use designations, including, where applicable, the agricultural

land reserve. Any application for removal of this designation would have to

follow the policy and procedures of the Land Reserve Commission, which is

responsible for administering these lands."

I might also say, hon. Speaker, that the Tsawwassen people

participated in the negotiations of the resale of the land and accepted $1

million as good faith against the return of this land.

I left office in 2001 believing that we had paved the way in

negotiations and in law for an honest and fair settlement that would see land

transferred to the Tsawwassen people, and any future development would go

through the Agricultural Land Commission.

My first clue after that election that the government had no

intentions of proceeding in the way that we had believed we had laid the

groundwork for was when they fired Christine Hunt from the Agricultural Land

Commission. The first first-nations person who ever sat on the Agricultural Land

Commission and who was there to begin to develop the culture of the commission

to deal with the issue of treaty — fired.

Of course, it's the government's right to fire anybody they want

when they become government. I accept that. But did they replace Christine Hunt

with another first nations person on the Land Commission? No. Not then, not

since — no attempt whatsoever on the part of the government or the Land

Commission to have its membership incorporate folks of the culture who were

going to receive agricultural land in future. I was not involved again in the

lands at Delta until 2006.

I was out in Maple Ridge. I was trying to sort out a wonderful

farm family. Ting Wu and Risa Lyn grow blueberries, and the government wanted to

put a road through the middle of their blueberry farm. I was struggling out

there, and I couldn't understand why we couldn't just put the road on the edge

of the farm. It seemed to me that common sense had gone down, and it seemed like

there was something else going on.

When I asked questions, I began to hear about something called

Gateway. I didn't have the slightest idea what Gateway was. People said it meant

a whole bunch of new roads. They said it would pave 241 acres, and it was

essentially a road network that would go from the Fraser Valley out to this

port.

Then I began to hear about the Tsawwassen treaty and the role of

the Vancouver Port Authority, and how it might someday pave the land that we had

set aside for treaty. I learned that in November of 2004, unbeknownst to any of

us, an agreement had been signed by the Tsawwassen people and the Vancouver Port

Authority that said: "The Vancouver Port Authority and the TFN agree that

development of a container handling facility shall be a priority" — remember,

this is 2004 — "project for a joint investment of the joint venture investment

fund. Should a project proceed, the parties will work jointly to ensure that the

TFN settlement lands that are required for the project are expeditiously

transferred to the TFN and removed from the application of the agricultural land

reserve designation."

It began to seem to me at the time that the Vancouver Port

Authority was governing. The Vancouver Port Authority appeared to have signed a

document that committed cabinet to remove lands, and then further in the same

document it says: "If the effective date of the final agreement" — which we're

debating here today "is not within two years of the settlement date, the

Vancouver Port Authority and the TFN will request the province of British

Columbia to transfer the amount of land needed for a container handling facility

to the TFN from the proposed settlement lands and will request Canada to

establish the land as TFN reserve."

Then on January 20, 2007, I was invited over to Delta to visit the

farm of Peter Guichon, one of the farmers I had helped to return land to. I

thought we would have