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)

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 2007

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 25, Number 3

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First

Reading of Bills

Representative for Seniors Act,

2007 (Bill M228)

C. James

Community Care and Assisted

Living Act Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill M229)

C. James

An Act to Prohibit the Capture of

Wild Birds of Prey (Bill M230)

Sather

Representative for Children and

Youth Act Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill M231)

Simons

Smoke Free Cars Act, 2007 (Bill M232)

L. Krog

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

Diabetes awareness

H. Bloy

Tsilhqot'in history

C. Wyse

Endako Mines

Rustad

Safety of road to Bamfield

Fraser

Surrey Memorial Hospital

emergency centre

D. Hayer

Comparison of private and

universal health care

Gentner

Oral Questions

School district funding

C. James

Hon. S.

Bond

Cubberley

Call for investigation into

actions of Paul Taylor

L. Krog

Hon. G.

Campbell

Pope and Talbot bankruptcy

proceedings

C. Evans

Hon. R.

Coleman

Conroy

Transfer of Lytton Lumber assets

H. Lali

Hon. R.

Coleman

Residential tenancy branch

services

Thorne

Hon. R.

Coleman

Eviction of tenants in downtown

east side

Chudnovsky

Hon. R.

Coleman

Point of Privilege

Hon. G. Abbott

M. Farnworth

Petitions

C. Evans

Royal Assent to Bills

Tsawwassen First Nation Final

Agreement Act (Bill 40)

Final Agreement Consequential

Amendments Act, 2007 (Bill 41)

Treaty First Nation Taxation Act

(Bill 42)

Business Practices and Consumer

Protection (Payday Loans) Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 27)

Securities Amendment Act, 2007

(Bill 28)

Adult Guardianship and Planning

Statutes Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 29)

Statement

H.A.D. Oliver

Hon. G.

Campbell

C. James

Reports from Committees

Special Committee to Appoint a

Conflict of Interest Commissioner

I. Black

Farnworth

Motions without Notice

Appointment of

Conflict-of-Interest Commissioner

Hon. G.

Campbell

Reports from Committees

Select Standing Committee on

Public Accounts, second report

Fleming

Tabling Documents

Labour Relations Board, annual

report, 2006

Second Reading of Bills

Maa-nulth First Nations Final

Agreement Act (Bill 45)

Hon. M.

de Jong

Fraser

Cantelon

Trevena

Lekstrom

C. James

J. Yap

C. Wyse

Horgan

Puchmayr

Hon. M.

de Jong

[ Page 9413 ]

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 2007

The House met at 1:36 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Introductions by Members

C. James: Today I rise to acknowledge someone who is completing her term with the opposition caucus at the end of today. Jessica Asch has worked in our research department as a law co-op student since March of this year. She has worked tirelessly on a number of projects, and I know her expertise, good humour and patience with MLAs will be missed.

I want to take this opportunity to wish Jessica well as she's getting ready to depart on a six-month trip to Guatemala, to be followed up by a clerking position with the B.C. Supreme Court next spring. Will the House please join me in wishing Jessica well.

Hon. S. Bond: We are delighted today to be joined by a number of people. I have three that I'd like to introduce. First of all, we're happy to have with us Penny Tees, the president of the B.C. School Trustees Association, who joined us today for the introduction of the First Nations Education Act.

We are also joined by Scott MacDonald, who is the executive director of the Ministry of Education's learning management division and doing a fantastic job on some of the exciting initiatives we're working on.

Joining Scott is his daughter Miranda. She is finishing grade 12 at Oak Bay Secondary. She's taking this opportunity to learn more about our system of parliamentary democracy before she takes

part in Youth Parliament over the Christmas break. I'm sure she'll learn some helpful tactics for question period at Youth Parliament. Please join me in welcoming all of these guests to the gallery today.

C. Evans: In the galleries today are Joe Snopek, the mayor of Creston; James Thackray, the administrator; and Deryn Collier, who is the health recruiter for Creston.

Hon. Speaker, I was hoping to get to introduce John Kettle. I thought he was going to come with them, but I hear the guards wouldn't let him in with a cowboy hat, so he refused to come. Would the House please make them all welcome.

K. Whittred: In the House with us today is Dr. David McNeil, who is Clerk of the House in the neighbouring province of Alberta. I'd like all of you to join me in offering Dr. McNeil a hearty British Columbia welcome.

L. Krog: Joining us in the gallery today are six grades 11 and 12 students from Nanaimo District Senior Secondary. They form the core group of anti-smoking activists in our community — namely, Sky Breen-Needham, Jordan MacDougald, Monica McCaffrey, Dana Short, Blake Mattson and Tess Montague. Along supporting them are Howard Breen, Coralie Breen, Ciaran Breen and Joyce Mackie. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. W. Oppal: Today in the members' gallery I'd like to acknowledge some very, very special guests from Russia. With us today are Sergei Cheletnetsev, Sergei Savchenko and Sergei Kavishev. Please make them welcome.

M. Sather: Joining us today in the gallery is Patricia Christian, who lives in Oak Bay. Patricia is the mother-in-law of my constituency assistant Sheryl Seale. I understand that over the years she has been very good to Sheryl. So will the House please join me in welcoming her.

[1340]

Hon. M. de Jong: In the gallery in the precincts today is someone that is no stranger to this chamber or the members — the Chief of the Tsawwassen First Nation, Kim Baird. She is here to witness for herself an important historic moment that we anticipate happening very shortly in this chamber. I hope all members will make Chief Baird welcome again.

R. Fleming: With us in the gallery today is a delegation from the University of Victoria — a number of people with the Martlet Publishing Society. That's the newspaper on campus. Many of them are still students. They're at various points in their studies, so there's still time to change their major and look at other honourable professions available to them.

Will the House please make welcome Tim Lindsay, Rosemary Westwood, David Karp, Matt Gauk, Samantha Vanschie, Nathan Lowther, Gemma Karsten-Smith, Sean Peterson and Kim Magi.

M. Polak: In the gallery today is Mitchell Hudson. Mitchell is with Try Events, and he organizes the annual historic half-marathon in Fort Langley, the birthplace of British Columbia. Would the House please make him welcome.

S. Fraser: I won't have to go to the gym tonight. I've been up and down a bunch. I make a point of going to Brian Lavery's socials class at Alberni District Secondary School every year trying to describe what we do here.

I am honoured today to have a class of 22 students, who I don't have time to name, from Brian Lavery's grade 11 socials class. Would the House please join me in making them feel very, very welcome.

K. Conroy: Today I had the pleasure of having lunch with four of my favourite constituents: my daughter Sasha and her children — Daira, who is seven; Ryen, who is two; and

Aydenn, who is one. I'd like to thank the dining room for their patience and all the members who were down there, too, for their patience.

I told Daira, who is seven, that Grandpa Ed introduced her mom in the House when she was the same age. She was very disappointed that she couldn't stay

[ Page 9414 ]

here to be introduced because her brother and sister are "a pain" and too young to be in the House. So I said I would introduce her anyway, and she could get on the Internet and look it up. Please join me in welcoming them.

G. Gentner: I welcome to the House for the very first time

Lanice Thornsteinson. She's a renowned fundraiser, and she's also my long-lost sister, who I don't really have a chance to see that often. Sometimes she really doesn't want to see much of me, but she's here today. Thank you for coming,

Lanice.

J. Horgan: Today in the gallery we have two grade 11 students from the best high school in Langford, Belmont Secondary. They are Jonathan Russell and his friend and exchange student from Frankfurt, Germany, Frederick Winter. Joining the two students is the best CA in Malahat–Juan de Fuca, representing the Malahatians and the Juan de Fucans when I'm here, my CA, Shannon Russell. Please make them welcome.

N. Simons: I'd just like to take this opportunity to welcome to the House my adviser, my confidant and my life partner, Scott Scobbie.

C. Wyse: It is indeed my pleasure to rise today in the House to introduce some very special guests from my riding. Before I begin the introduction, I wish to acknowledge the traditional territory of the Esquimalt Songhees First Nations.

The visitors I am introducing today come from the farthest reaches of the Chilcotin, a part of Cariboo South. Amongst their busy schedule, they have taken time to join us today. They will visit, they will tour the building, and they will then join the Leader of the Opposition and myself for a light tea.

[1345]

I would like to introduce to the House Roger William, chief of the Xeni Gwet'in; Ivor Meyers, chief of the Yunesitin; Doris Baptiste, chief of the Esdilagh; David Setah, councillor, Xeni Gwet'in; staff member Loretta Williams of the Tsilhqot'in National Government.

With that, I would ask the House to extend an exceptionally warm welcome to these representatives of Tsilhquot'in First Nations and welcome them to the traditional territory of the Esquimalt Songhees.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

REPRESENTATIVE FOR SENIORS ACT, 2007

C. James presented a bill intituled Representative for Seniors Act, 2007.

C. James: I move introduction of the Representative for Seniors Act, 2007.

Motion approved.

C. James: Today I rise to introduce two pieces of legislation that will protect seniors from neglect and abuse as well as improve care conditions in facilities across British Columbia.

The first bill, Representative for Seniors Act, 2007, will create an independent advocate who will monitor issues facing seniors, especially those living in care facilities, and who will speak out on their behalf. The representative for seniors will monitor the performance of various programs and services to ensure that they are integrated, coordinated, non-discriminatory and accountable.

For far too long our seniors have been forced to put up with neglect, cuts to staffing levels and declining levels of care. Whether it's Beacon Hill Villa in Victoria or any number of facilities across this province, there's a real crisis in health care for seniors. There have been too many stories of abuse, neglect and cuts.

Workers are doing the best they can to provide care, but seniors need an independent voice to speak out and force real change from a reluctant government. Just like British Columbia needed a representative for vulnerable children and youth, we need one for seniors living in our communities.

The representative will work on behalf of seniors and their families to advocate and will report publicly to prevent vital information from being kept hidden. It is shameful that British Columbians had to learn about the abuse and neglect at Beacon Hill Villa through freedom of information. This legislation will ensure that that doesn't happen again.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill M228, Representative for Seniors 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.

COMMUNITY CARE AND

ASSISTED LIVING ACT

AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

C. James presented a bill intituled Community Care and Assisted Living Act Amendment Act, 2007.

C. James: I move introduction of the Community Care and Assisted Living Act Amendment Act, 2007.

Motion approved.

C. James: The Community Care and Assisted Living Act Amendment Act, 2007, will ensure that British Columbia develops a new accountability framework to protect seniors. This bill will mandate random annual inspections of facilities and will ensure that those reports are made public. This amendment will allow seniors and their families to be better informed and will lead to better care.

Seniors across this province and their families know that there are real problems with seniors care in

[ Page 9415 ]

B.C. Unfortunately, under this government, there is no accountability. The opposition had to use freedom of information to find out just how bad things had become at Beacon Hill Villa, a care home right here behind the Legislature.

This bill will begin to rebuild confidence in our system. It will give seniors and their families confidence that the government is actually having to do its job. British Columbians will be able to search an electronic registry and see inspection reports for themselves. Currently there's nothing compelling government to release such reports, which leaves residents and their families in the dark.

Seniors deserve to know that they are getting the best care possible and that where there are gaps in care, we can all work together to fill them instead of ignoring them. Combined with the seniors representative act, this bill will finally bring real accountability into the system to protect seniors and improve public health care.

I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill M229, Community Care and Assisted Living Act 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.

AN ACT TO PROHIBIT THE CAPTURE

OF WILD BIRDS OF PREY

M. Sather presented a bill intituled

An Act to Prohibit the Capture of Wild Birds of Prey.

M. Sather: I move introduction of a bill intituled

an Act to Prohibit the Capture of Wild Birds of Prey.

Motion approved.

[1350]

M. Sather: I'm proud to introduce a private member's bill intituled

An Act to Prohibit the Capture of Wild Birds of Prey. Our raptorial birds — that is, birds of prey — are suffering significant losses, particularly from the destruction of their habitats in British Columbia. It is time that we disband practices that put further pressure on these birds.

Of concern to many citizens is the practice of capturing our wild falcons for falconry and for public display. It is simply unacceptable that we allow birds, such as the merlin chicks that were taken from their nest in the middle of Maple Ridge this past summer, to be exploited for these purposes. There are plenty of birds of prey in captivity now that can be bred for falconry.

This act amends the Wildlife Act by adding provisions that prohibit the capture of wild raptors for the purposes of falconry or public display. It is

an act whose time has come, and I look forward to it being passed into law.

I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill M230,

An Act to Prohibit the Capture of Wild Birds of Prey, 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.

REPRESENTATIVE FOR CHILDREN AND

YOUTH ACT AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

N. Simons presented a bill intituled Representative for Children and Youth Act Amendment Act, 2007.

N. Simons: I move that the bill entitled Representative for Children and Youth Act Amendment Act, 2007, be introduced and read for the first time now.

Motion approved.

N. Simons: The purpose of this bill is to provide the Representative for Children and Youth with the ability to disclose the fact that her office is investigating a child's death or critical injury. This bill will provide the Representative for Children and Youth with the disclosure powers equal to those of the Ombudsman, the Auditor General and other independent officers, as well as the director of child protection, to disclose information to the public in special circumstances.

The representative has stated it this way: "When a parent or community inquires or when it's appropriate for reasons of transparency or accountability to inform the public, I am for reasons of drafting not able now to disclose that. It would be significant to tell not only families and communities but the public about cases under review."

The representative has indicated very clearly that this gap in her current legislation needs to be filled and that amendment is required to fulfil her mandate. Because this is important to families and to the community as a whole, I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill M231, Representative for Children and Youth Act 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.

SMOKE FREE CARS ACT, 2007

L. Krog presented a bill intituled Smoke Free Cars Act,

L. Krog: I move introduction of the Smoke Free Cars Act for first reading.

Motion approved.

L. Krog: The effect of this act will be to prohibit the smoking of tobacco and other substances in automobiles where children under the age of 16 are present. This represents a commitment and a fulfilment of a commitment I made this summer to the students I introduced earlier today, who have been actively

[ Page 9416 ]

pursuing this as a cause on behalf of the health of all young people in the province of British Columbia.

Recently this issue has been given a great deal of attention in the national press, because research shows that parents who smoke even three cigarettes while driving their children to school will build up enough carbon monoxide to cause an oxygen-deprived brain, impairing cognition. Kids won't be able to perform at school the way we expect them to.

We're all aware of the serious health risks surrounding smoking. Smoking in a car is a particular situation that is particularly damaging to the health of children.

This is an important step forward. This is the kind of legislation I would hope would receive the support of all members of the House. British Columbia, if it passes this bill or if the government brings in its own bill — and I encourage them to consider doing so — will be the first province in Canada to show leadership on this issue. The health of our children takes priority over the rights of smokers. I encourage all members to support this legislation.

I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill M232, Smoke Free Cars 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.

D. Routley: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

[1355]

Introductions by Members

D. Routley: Could the members of the House help me welcome Joanne Adamson and Don Burneski. They are float home owners from my riding.

They've come to talk to our caucus about the consumer protection issues that face float home owners. Please help me make them welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) DIABETES AWARENESS

H. Bloy: November is Diabetes Awareness Month, and I stand in the House today to raise awareness and talk about this important disease. For the first time ever, British Columbia declared November 14 World Diabetes Day to help people be more informed about how to prevent diabetes and manage that disease.

You may be surprised to learn that there are over two million people in Canada with diabetes. Some of you may not aware of the three types. Type 1 is usually diagnosed in young children and adolescents, and that's about 10 percent. The remaining 90 percent have type 2 diabetes. This type usually develops in adulthood, but we are seeing increasing numbers of young children in certain risk populations being diagnosed. A third type of diabetes is gestational diabetes. That's a temporary condition that occurs with women during pregnancy.

Type 2 diabetes is what I have. I was diagnosed over 12 years ago. With a healthy lifestyle, exercise every day and eating properly, you can control your diabetes. In the House here, in the jobs that we have in this House, it's very hard to control. But I do work at it, and I do exercise regularly.

Diabetes is a disease. Diabetes is progressive, so you have to work hard at controlling it. People can control diabetes and expect to live a healthy, active, independent lifestyle by looking after themselves. As our population ages, we know we are moving in the right direction as we work towards a more planned and integrated approach to delivering health care.

Government has implemented a number of high-impact, systemwide initiatives such as the primary health charter that will help patients with a planned approach to health care with measurable health outcomes. This includes training over 3,000 doctors.

I encourage everyone to live a healthy lifestyle.

TSILHQOT'IN HISTORY

C. Wyse: Many of us in this House will remember where we were 44 years ago today when an American leader, John F. Kennedy, was assassinated in Texas. President Kennedy was an important leader for American citizens, and his death changed the course of history for his country.

One hundred years before the death of JFK, another event changed the course of history for the Tsilhqot'in people of the interior. The Chilcotin War of 1864 was triggered by the arrival of Alfred Waddington and his men, who were intent on building a road from Bute Inlet through the Tsilhqot'in territories to the Cariboo goldfields.

The Tsilhqot'in Nation includes six bands. They are Tl'etinqox, Tsi Del Del, Yunesitin, Xeni Gwet'in, Tl'esqox and Esdilagh. These bands have lived on the interior plateau for thousands of years, sharing its resources. It has always been in their best interest to preserve this land for their livelihood.

This desire to preserve their way of life ended tragically in 1864 with the execution of five Tsilhqot'in chiefs at Quesnel. A sixth chief was later executed at New Westminster, although his body has never been recovered.

On October 26, I had the honour of attending a Klatsassin Memorial

at Battle Mountain in Bull Canyon. The Tsilhqot'in people gather there to

remember this tragic event in their history, to celebrate their language, to

share their stories, to honour the chiefs — Klatsassin, Biyil, Tilaghed, Taqed

and Chayses — and to pray for the return of [Tsilhqot'in was spoken] to his

home.

I request the House to join with the Tsilhqot'in leadership visiting the House today in celebrating their proud history.

[1400]

[ Page 9417 ]

ENDAKO MINES

J. Rustad: I'm pleased to rise today to speak about one of my favourite topics. No, it's not the Nechako white sturgeon, but Endako mines.

Thompson Creek Metals took over a 75-percent interest in Endako Mines because they see a bright future in this 43-year-old mine. Just a few years ago many people wrote off this world-class deposit because they thought the mine only had a few years of reserves left.

I am pleased to say that Thompson Creek Metals thought otherwise. They've undertaken additional exploration and designed a new feasibility study with fabulous results. Thompson Creek is now estimating that they'll be able to increase their production at Endako Mines from 28,000 tonnes per day to 50,000 tonnes per day, with at least 16 years of reserves.

This $373 million proposed expansion will create hundreds of jobs through the construction phase. It will modernize the facility, which, in turn, will increase productivity and recovery rates at the site. Most importantly, this project will secure hundreds of high-paying, quality jobs in Endako, Fraser Lake and other surrounding communities.

Endako Mines is a great example of the long-term benefits that mining can bring to communities, and this project clearly demonstrates how mining can be an economic driver for a region and also for the province. It also demonstrates the mining industry's confidence in doing business in British Columbia.

As we go forward looking for opportunities to help diversify some of our communities being impacted by the mountain pine beetle, Endako Mines stands as an example of what part of the solution can be. I encourage everyone from both sides of this House to join me in celebrating the success of Endako Mines. I also encourage everyone to help to encourage the expansion of mining in B.C.

SAFETY OF ROAD TO BAMFIELD

S. Fraser: The beauty and majesty of the Huu-ay-aht traditional territory and the Bamfield region are unparalleled. Besides the residents who live in the communities, powerful attractions like the West Coast Trail, world-class sport fishing and, of course, the Bamfield Marine Sciences Centre draw visitors from all over the world. And the community is a strong one.

On October 4 I attended a standing-room-only meeting at the Bamfield community centre. Attending the meeting is challenging. The road is atrocious. I have actually invited the minister to join me on a trip out there in his own car. I reissue that challenge.

The issue for the meeting was the deplorable state of the unsafe road. Rather than accepting the unacceptable, the people of Bamfield invited Mary Anne Arcand from the B.C. Forest Safety Council and Roger Harris, the B.C. forest safety ombudsman, to plan a strategy around the road. They chose to organize, to fight and ensure that all who travel on Bamfield Highway — locals, visitors, first nations, non–first nations, children, adults: everyone travelling on that road — can do so safely.

Of all the stories we heard there, there was an interesting one that was stark for me. The Coast Guard search and rescue — when their members travel the road, they give an estimated time of arrival when they leave the pavement in case they don't show up within two hours. Then, if they don't, they send out a search party, a rescue party for that person.

The thing that was stark about that is: 3,600 children travelled that road last year — kids like students from the ADSS who are here today. So I applaud the people of Bamfield and the Forest Safety Council for taking leadership to fight for the safety of those kids, of everyone travelling the road. I'll let them know that they don't stand alone.

SURREY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

EMERGENCY CENTRE

D. Hayer: I rise today to speak about the naming of Surrey Memorial Hospital's new emergency centre. On November 15 our Premier, along with representatives from the Surrey Memorial Hospital Foundation and Fraser Health made the announcement and unveiling of plans for the Guru Nanak Emergency Service Front Entrance, the main entrance to the new emergency centre. This announcement was very significant for the community and was also an important recognition of the contribution made by the South Asian community to the foundation and to Surrey Memorial Hospital.

Guru Nanak Dev Ji was born in 1469. He was the founder of Sikhism. He was the first of the ten Sikh gurus. He said: "Truth is highest of all things, and higher still is truthful living." A social reformer, Guru Nanak Dev Ji upheld the cause of women and equality of humans. He was against the caste system and treated the poor and rich equally, and he believed we are all equal regardless of our religion. He believed in simple living, honest work, charity and high morality. On November 24, the Sikh community around the world will be celebrating the 538th birthday of Guru Nanak Dev Ji.

[1405]

The current Surrey Memorial Hospital ER is one of the busiest in the province, with nearly 70,000 patients a year. Our government, our Premier, our hospital foundation, Fraser Health and all of the community are working hard and diligently to expand this vital facility. The new emergency centre will be three times larger than the existing one and will include a separate children's ER in addition to a mental health and addictions area, an enhanced minor treatment unit and an improved area for acute patients.

I would also like to recognize Red FM for hosting a radiothon tomorrow from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. to help the Surrey Memorial Hospital Foundation's $15 million emergency centre campaign.

[ Page 9418 ]

COMPARISON OF PRIVATE AND

UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

G. Gentner: Mr. Speaker, health care is not a business. It is much more than a service. It is a fundamental right. It is not about making a profit; it is about helping people.

The differences between private care and universal health care are many — far too many to detail here. However, the fundamental difference lies in the respect and dignity that universal health care affords each and every resident of Canada regardless of the ability to pay.

A quick comparison with the privatized health care system of the United States quickly points to the fact that every resident here is covered. Well over 40 million people in the States are not. Middle-class families in the States are struggling financially to afford medical insurance, and the financial impact on corporations and industries that pay for employee coverage is quite severe.

The difference between us and the U.S. is that a non–medically trained clerk in an insurance office in the States will determine what sort of treatment you will get, not your doctor. Individuals with a genetic predisposition to Huntington's disease will not be covered at all, and as a result, they are unemployable by any corporation that offers medical insurance as part of the benefits package. These folks have been barred from even suing to regain coverage.

By comparing service provisions of care between Canadian not-for-profit dialysis facilities and the American for-profit providers, there is a great difference between survival rates. Canadians have a far greater survival rate than Americans.

Yes, the health care system in Canada needs fixing. We believe that every British Columbian should be treated with respect and dignity regardless of circumstances. This week is National Medicare Week. Let's emphasize a British Columbia virtue — a virtue of care over a money-grabbing, profit agenda.

Mr. Speaker, in this assembly, we care. We care for British Columbians. We care for all British Columbians.

Oral Questions

SCHOOL DISTRICT FUNDING

C. James: Last spring school boards did their part. They went out, and they consulted with their communities. They created their budgets based on the numbers that the Minister of Education gave them. They developed their plans for programs and services to students.

Now that same Minister of Education is throwing the whole system into disarray. Her decision to change the funding formula in the middle of the school year is unacceptable and irresponsible. Ultimately, students will pay the price.

My question is to the Minister of Education: can she tell us today how much her money grab is taking away from students and school districts in the middle of the school year?

Hon. S. Bond: What's most disappointing about that question is that the Leader of the Opposition used to be a school trustee. In fact, the budget for public education in British Columbia has never been higher in the province. Not only that — perhaps the leader should do her homework — the budget for public education in British Columbia is going up by $116 million this year.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental.

[1410]

C. James: Let's take a look at a quote from this government on education. The B.C. Liberals promised stability in the funding formula. The B.C. Liberals in fact promised multi-year budgets. They promised "a stable and predictable environment in public education." How stable and predictable is it to pull back money from school districts in the middle of the year?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue.

C. James: As the minister mentioned, I know the challenges that school boards face because, yes, I was proud to be a school trustee and sit around that board table. But what's incredible to me is that the Minister of Education actually sat around that school board table as well. So she can't pretend that she doesn't know the impact of taking back money from school boards in the middle of the year.

School boards have already constructed their budgets, and now they're going to have to look at cutting programs and services. Again, to the Minister of Education: not how much is the global budget but how much are you clawing back? And why are you taking it back from boards in the middle of the year?

Hon. S. Bond: The Leader of the Opposition well knows that in March of this year we announced a record budget for education of $4.345 billion.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Just take your chair.

Members.

Minister, continue.

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, today, as in March, the exact amount of $4.345 billion will be going out to school boards, as we committed.

Let's look at our record in funding for public education. Let's look at this. In 2004-2005, an $85 million increase. That side of the House voted against it. In 2005-2006, 150 million additional dollars to education. That side voted against it. Last year alone, almost half a

[ Page 9419 ]

billion dollars to education funding, and they voted against it.

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

C. James: If the Minister of Education took some time to listen to school boards, she'd hear the concerns they have over the fact that they handed out the budget in March and then clawed it back from the boards in October.

I'll read from a few of those boards. "This letter is being sent to express our heightened frustration and anger with the Minister of Education's approach and the impending impact on students" — from the North Vancouver school board.

George Maclagan, the chair of the Campbell River school board has said that the clawback "puts our most vulnerable students at risk."

The Langley school board says they could lose $1.6 million. Prince George school board says $3 million; Victoria, $3.4 million; and Surrey says they'll lose $3.6 million. School boards across this province are angry. They're frustrated, and they're concerned for their students.

So again, to the Minister of Education: when will she put an end to this arbitrary clawback of funds from school boards in the middle of the year?

Hon. S. Bond: As I said previously to the Leader of the Opposition, in March we said that $4.345 billion would go out to school boards, and in fact $4.345 billion will go out to school boards.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Minister, just take your seat.

Now, we listened to the question. Let's listen to the answer.

Continue, minister.

Hon. S. Bond: I'll put this government's record of funding of public education up to the Leader of the Opposition any time. Let's look at what the Leader of the Opposition said in the campaign. Let's listen: "There's no money for teachers, for an increase for teachers, in our budget." That's what the Leader of the Opposition said during the campaign.

We've added almost a billion dollars to public education in the last four years. That's the record of this side.

[1415]

D. Cubberley: The minister just can't admit to British Columbians that she's taking 50 million bucks back from school boards.

Interjection.

D. Cubberley: Oh, she isn't, eh?

It's interesting. The Vancouver Island School Trustees Association calls the minister's money grab terrible and unacceptable, and the Richmond school board says it creates a climate of uncertainty and an unnecessary disruption of programs and services to students.

It's time the minister stepped back and ended the charade. She was a trustee. She should know that what she's doing is causing chaos for the boards. So why won't she stand up and just admit that her money grab from students is simply to fill a hole in her budget and protect her ministerial bonus?

Hon. S. Bond: There's a simple reason that I won't actually suggest that we're taking $50 million back.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Bond: The answer is that we're not.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: It's going to be a long question period.

Continue.

D. Cubberley: Well, is the Prince George school district wrong in what they say? Is the Richmond school district wrong? Is North Vancouver wrong? Is Langley school district wrong? Is Saanich school district wrong?

This money grab is all about the minister's budget. It has nothing to do with student achievement.

Here's what North Vancouver school board says. "This shortsighted funding policy change pressures nearly every school district in the province to throw out their well-planned and nearly fully implemented budget plans to solve the Ministry of Education's budget problem, apparently created by an inability to forecast expenditures."

To the Minister of Education: when will she step up and put students ahead of her bonus? Put an end to the money grab.

Hon. S. Bond: Let me just reiterate for the members opposite. We are adding $116 million to the budget of education in this province this year. In addition to that, all of the dollars that were committed to the operating budget for school boards — $4.345 billion, a record in British Columbia — will be sent out to school districts this year.

In addition, in British Columbia today we have the highest per-student funding ever, which was an increase of over $1,700 per student since 2000-2001, and the members opposite voted against every single increase that we brought to the Legislature.

CALL FOR INVESTIGATION INTO

ACTIONS OF PAUL TAYLOR

L. Krog: Yesterday the opposition released an e-mail that suggests Deputy Minister of Finance Paul Taylor was providing Pilothouse Public Affairs with sensitive and confidential government information. But

[ Page 9420 ]

Mr. Taylor's relationship with Pilothouse wasn't even touched on in the KPMG report released over a month ago. Because KPMG was given only limited powers of investigation, they were unable to consider important information.

British Columbians deserve answers. Will the Premier commit today to hold an independent investigation with full powers of subpoena into Paul Taylor's relationship with Pilothouse?

Hon. G. Campbell: Yesterday was the first we heard of the member's so-called additional information. We asked that he forward it to the office. He has done so. My deputy minister will review the new correspondence released by the opposition yesterday to determine the nature of any issues that may be raised.

I think it's important to understand what actually has taken place. This government has taken this matter very seriously from the outset. I should be clear that if the opposition has information, they should make that available. When that information is made available, we deal with it.

[1420]

KPMG has reviewed in full the issues that were raised in the spring, and they have said quite completely that they found there was nothing done wrong by Mr. Taylor. Let me underline that. Nothing was done wrong by Mr. Taylor.

Mr. Taylor's only offence is evidently that he served in the government. He served with respect. He served with integrity. Frankly, he's respected throughout the community because of the service he's made.

For this member to continue with this kind of diatribe requires him to go out in the halls and say if he thinks Mr. Taylor has done something wrong. It's been very clear from KPMG that Mr. Taylor did nothing wrong.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member has a supplemental.

L. Krog: Well, if the Premier had asked the tough questions in the spring, there wouldn't be any questions this fall. That's the whole problem with the KPMG report. The terms of reference were so narrow that it would be impossible to get to the bottom of any story, and that's the issue.

The Premier doesn't seem to begin to understand that — that these are important and serious allegations, and they're worthy of a proper and full investigation by a fully empowered inquiry commissioner.

Yesterday the Minister of Finance essentially said: "Over to you, Mr. Premier." So I say to the Premier today: instead of a weak-kneed, whitewash approach of an investigation, will he commit to a full and independent investigation with full subpoena powers, with terms of reference that actually make sense and don't limit the investigation so we'll get another whitewash report in this matter?

Hon. G. Campbell: You know, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Taylor is highly regarded in the community. KPMG is highly regarded in the community. This particular member has continually called down both of those groups, KMPG and Mr. Taylor.

Let me be clear. This government took this seriously from the outset. We will continue to take this seriously. We said there would be a review done. A review has been done. We said we would make that review public as soon as it had gone through freedom of information and protection of privacy.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Campbell: Only the members opposite would think they were standing up for someone when they're actually advocating that we break the law.

The fact of the matter is that we are going to put it through that screen. When that freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy commission report is done, it will be made public. It is in everyone's interest to make it public within the law and within the framework of the law.

POPE AND TALBOT

BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS

C. Evans: My question is for the Minister of Forests. Yesterday over in the Supreme Court in Vancouver I got to watch a bizarre, even Kafkaesque spectacle of 17 lawyers circling around the entrails of Pope and Talbot, attempting to get what they can. The lawyers planned to get paid and submitted to the court a plan to get paid by having an auction in about a month's time and auctioning off the assets of Pope and Talbot. One of those assets that they intend to auction is the licence, the people's licence, to log TFL 23.

The Minister of Forests' contract with Pope and Talbot from March 1, 2000, says: "If the licensee commits

an act of bankruptcy, makes a general assignment of its creditors or is otherwise acknowledged as insolvent, the licensee is deemed to have failed to perform an obligation under this licence."

Pope and Talbot went into

chapter 11 four days ago in the United States and a similar process yesterday in Vancouver. Amongst the 17 lawyers there, there was not one for the Crown. My question to the minister is: will you now, through the Legislature, instruct the courts and Pope and Talbot that they are in contravention of their contract with tree farm licence 23, that they have no asset, and that it will not be part of an auction process?

[1425]

Hon. R. Coleman: I don't have any advice back from my legal counsel at this point, so I'll take the question on notice.

K. Conroy: I thought we heard the minister say recently in this House that land could not be released

[ Page 9421 ]

until proper consultation was done. Well, that hasn't been done.

To the Minister of Forests: how did the people in this province lose control of our tree farm licences so that they now sit in the Supreme Court of B.C.?

Hon. R. Coleman: Pope and Talbot have filed under CCAA, which is a proceeding to try and restructure a company. They have to go through a process.

We intervened in that process in Ontario and asked that the hearings be brought to British Columbia, as I said to this House that we would. We will continue to monitor this as we come through, and we will certainly protect the interests of the Crown as we do so.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

K. Conroy: It was actually only after this opposition embarrassed that minister and that government to actually stand up for the people of this province, to ensure that there was representation in the court in Ontario, that the court decided to move the jurisdiction to B.C.

This is not private land that had been picked up by a market with a willing seller and a willing buyer. This was expropriated land transferred to a logging company years ago to employ people, and it should remain in the tree farm licence or be returned to the Crown.

Will the minister commit today to ensure that that land is not released? Will he stand up for the people of this province, for the people in the Kootenays and say that the land will not be released, that it'll stay in the tree farm licence? Will he do it today?

Hon. R. Coleman: The member opposite should also be aware that a company has made an offer to buy two of the sawmills in their area and the tree farm licence, because they would like to operate in the business if they can make it successful. I suppose she opposes that that offer would actually be considered by the courts. That doesn't include the private lands, hon. Member.

The fact of the matter is that we were moving on this long before…. As soon as we knew that this was being filed in Ontario, my folks were instructed to go through the AG and make the intervention. Your other description of this is absolutely wrong.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

TRANSFER OF LYTTON LUMBER ASSETS

H. Lali: Lytton Lumber went into receivership this summer. My question is to the Minister of Forests. Will he commit today to holding off on approving the transfer of the timber licence and also the ten-year pine beetle uplift to Aspen Planers of Merritt and assign a senior ministry official to work with this sitting MLA to find a solution for processing the wood locally and keeping the laid-off employees working in Lytton?

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm actually very disappointed in this question, and I'll tell you why. There's been a longstanding tradition in this House where members can walk over, sit down beside a member and hand them a letter and a request to actually help them solve a problem.

That took place yesterday afternoon, from the member for Yale-Lillooet. He came and spoke to me about Lytton Lumber. I committed to him then that I would connect him with the parties that may be interested in the assets and that I would have a senior member of my staff work with him on this file. That's the commitment I made yesterday.

I'm disappointed that within this House you can't have that discussion. Then you want to try and bring it up in question period. Go ahead, but it actually changes the dynamic of the one-on-one relationship between members of this House, in this chamber. I'm very disappointed in that particular member.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[1430]

RESIDENTIAL TENANCY BRANCH SERVICES

D. Thorne: I have a question for the Minister for Housing about basic rights as well. Under this government the basic protection for tenants is being quickly wiped out in British Columbia. Funding cuts have led to the closure of most of the residential tenancy branches and call centres.

Replacing real people has created serious hardships for tenants, especially seniors and new immigrants. People are waiting for hours on the telephone. Tenants and landlords are getting e-mail responses that say there is a minimum six-week wait for service. In some cases, people are being unfairly evicted before they even talk to an arbitrator, because of backlogs.

My question to the Minister for Housing: will he commit today to restoring the resources and the branches of the RTB so that vulnerable tenants all over this province will receive the level of protection they deserve?

Hon. R. Coleman: We have had some concerns with wait times at the residential tenancy branch. The member is aware of that, and so am I.

I have asked my folks to…. We've had an assessment going on with regards to it so that we can speed it up and improve the service. The fact of the matter is that if you look at the Residential Tenancy Act today and its relationship between landlord and tenant, it's substantially better than it was six years ago when the act got a plain-language rewrite.

We've streamlined administration to speed things up. We are working very hard. We have a very good director in there who is working very hard to find solutions to the capacity and some of the telephone issues we've had. I actually have a lot of confidence in her. I had a meeting with them a week or so ago with regards

[ Page 9422 ]

to it. Service is improving, and they feel that they're getting ahead of the game.

Mr. Speaker: The Member has a supplemental.

D. Thorne: I'd like to be very clear that I am not talking about the director of the RTB or the staff. I think they're doing an amazing job, considering they have two full-service offices left in British Columbia and three and a half offices cut in the last few years.

I think it's shameful. The only thing that's going to fix this problem is to put those branches back, put more staff back in those offices and give the resources back. The minister can huff and puff all he wants, but there is no doubt that the facts are very, very clear. People are being denied their rights. They're being denied arbitration hearings and reviews.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

D. Thorne: I can tell a story about a woman from the Okanagan called June, who just came down here all the way to Victoria to protest on the lawn by herself with her young child because she is in a terrible situation in her hometown. She can get no results. She was denied a hearing. Her arbitrator did not call in.

She waited and waited. Thank goodness she had the foresight to have two reliable witnesses with her to prove that she was on the line waiting. Then, when she complained about this and asked for another arbitration, it was denied, and the review was denied.

I will say once again to the Minister: will he please commit to closing all the loopholes in the Residential Tenancy Act, loopholes that are leading to many unfair evictions and hundreds of terrible, unfair decisions?

Hon. R. Coleman: I was in the residential tenancy business back in the 1990s, and most of the arbitrations then were done by telephone. There weren't offices all over the province. The arbitrations were actually done by telephone with an arbitrator in one community and people in another.

The other part of what the member brought up about arbitrators and the denial…. That, quite frankly, is a quasi-judicial position of an arbitrator, who makes that decision without influence from anybody. They take the information behind them. They can deny or grant a hearing, because that is their legal responsibility.

EVICTION OF TENANTS IN

DOWNTOWN EAST SIDE

D. Chudnovsky: The province signed the inner-city inclusivity agreement and committed to protecting rental housing stock, ensuring that people are not made homeless and ensuring that residents are not involuntarily displaced or evicted — all on Vancouver's downtown east side.

[1435]

On October 31 tenants of the Dominion Hotel were issued eviction notices. What is the "minister responsible for homelessness" doing to protect the residents of the Dominion Hotel, or do the commitments that were made mean nothing?

Hon. R. Coleman: Oh, Mr. Speaker, I've been waiting for a housing question in this House from the members of the opposition for a long time. So let's have a little review of the facts. In 2001 the entire housing budget of British Columbia was $120 million. Today it's over $350 million.

Two days before we announced the purchase of the SROs, I received a letter from the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, begging me to buy SROs in the province of British Columbia in Vancouver, and we bought ten of them on behalf of the people of the province.

Last year we launched the most successful housing strategy in the history….

Interjections.

Hon. R. Coleman: Oh, listen to this. Careful. Listen to this. We put outreach workers in over 20 communities in the province. Over the last year alone 1,600 people that were homeless have been connected to housing supports, and 85 percent of those people are still housed today. In 2001 there were 1,300 units of housing with supports in the entire province. Today: 3,600 units of housing supports.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

D. Chudnovsky: I would ask the members opposite not to make jokes about the homeless people in Vancouver. Stop making jokes about them. They deserve better in policy, and they deserve better in this House.

Now, hon. Chair, the minister knows…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

D. Chudnovsky: …and you know and everybody in the House knows that the minister didn't answer the question. It's not just the Dominion Hotel. Phoenix Apartments shut down, and the people had to leave; 334 Carroll Street closed as of February 28. There are lots more examples. In fact, the city report says that the downtown east side stands to lose an additional 660 low-rent units by 2010.

The commitments have to mean something. Will the minister answer the question? Do the commitments mean something? What is he going to do to protect those people who are facing homelessness in our city?

[ Page 9423 ]

Hon. R. Coleman: This is the group that didn't even come out a couple weeks ago and applaud the fact that we funded 24-hour service in every homeless shelter in the province of British Columbia — 24-7.

Thirteen hundred units of housing with supports in 2001; 3,600 in 2007; plus — because you asked me to stop — another 946 under construction today.

Interjections.

Hon. R. Coleman: Oh, the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant is getting very excited. I wish she'd got as excited when I bought the ten SROs after she begged me to intervene in the downtown east side of Vancouver.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[1440]

Hon. R. Coleman: There were 700 emergency shelter beds in British Columbia in 2001. Today there are 1,300 shelter beds in British Columbia.

Just one more thing. In just one year over 10,000 people — 3,600 families, 3,000 seniors — are receiving rent support so that they can have affordable housing in their communities where they live in the province.

[End of question period.]

Point of Privilege

Hon. G. Abbott: I rise today on a matter of privilege. Yesterday the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith levelled accusation in this chamber regarding the care of an individual at the facility the Lodge on 4th in Ladysmith. He made the following allegations, and I'll quote from Hansard : "There was not adequate time to properly administer her medications — medications she needs to breathe."

Further, the individual's mom "was covered with bedsores. That was the result of being in that care home for a few weeks." Further, he asserted: "The clothes that were packed for her were never used."

I have in hand today a letter from Mr. Howard Waldner, who's the president and chief executive officer of the Vancouver Island Health Authority. It is dated…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. G. Abbott: …today, and it regards yesterday's question period. I will table a copy of this letter with my privileged submission.

Mr. Waldner states the following in his letter: "Having reviewed the specific concerns raised with respect to the client, and after following up directly with our director of residential services and the director of care at the Lodge on 4th, I can confirm that these allegations are completely unfounded."

Mr. Waldner further states: "It is regrettable that the MLA failed to bring these concerns forward to the health authority for appropriate follow-up before raising unfounded allegations in the Legislature." The letter from Mr. Waldner provides further details regarding the specific allegations made by the member.

The facts are very clear, and I look forward to a submission from the member in which he will hopefully provide an explanation of how he did not knowingly mislead this House. I would also ask that the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith rise in the House today, as I believe is traditional in this assembly, and apologize not only to the members of this House but more importantly to the caregivers of the Lodge on 4th in Ladysmith, who provide excellent service day in and day out to the residents of that facility.

M. Farnworth: I rise to reserve our place to respond at the appropriate time to the documents the minister has read out.

Mr. Speaker: I'll take it under advisement after I hear from the opposition side.

C. Evans: I rise to table a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

C. Evans: I rise to table a petition with 551 signatures and 304 individual letters. That's 885 people from Nakusp and Arrow Lakes asking the Minister of Forests to see to it that they get paid before any tree farm licence is sold or any private land is transferred.

Hon. M. de Jong: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. de Jong: Although I made the introduction earlier, I see that Chief Kim Baird has arrived in the chamber to witness the historic event about to unfold in this chamber. I again ask all members to make Chief Kim Baird of the Tsawwassen First Nation welcome.

[1445]

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, if you would remain in your seat, the Lieutenant-Governor is in the precinct, and he will be arriving in the chamber soon.

Royal Assent to Bills

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his seat on the throne.

Hon. S. Point (Lieutenant-Governor): Okay, good afternoon. Everybody sit down. [Applause.]

[ Page 9424 ]

Clerk of the House:

Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement Act

Final Agreement Consequential Amendments Act, 2007

Treaty First Nation Taxation Act

Business Practices and Consumer Protection (Payday Loans) Amendment Act, 2007

Securities Amendment Act, 2007

Adult Guardianship and Planning Statutes Amendment Act, 2007

In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to these acts. [Applause.]

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Statement

H.A.D. OLIVER

Hon. G. Campbell: I know that momentarily we'll be hearing from the special committee to appoint the conflict commissioner, but while we're here today, I think it's important for us to recognize the exceptional service that we have received since 1997 from H.A.D. Oliver as the Conflict-of-Interest Commissioner for British Columbia.

[1450]

Hon. Speaker, I know that members of the House will agree with me that Commissioner Oliver has received numerous awards for his professional services — the national orders of merit from several nations. But looking back over his ten-year contribution to the people of British Columbia and — equally importantly, from our perspective — to the members of this Legislative Assembly, I think everyone would agree that there are two words that define the commissioner: unshakeable duty.

The commissioner has always been a man that has understood the importance of public duty. Throughout his life, he has served his community, he has served his province, and he has served his country. He served it with honour, with integrity and with commitment to the public good.

All British Columbians, and none more so than the members of this House, were well served by his obvious and steadfast belief in the importance of the work that we do in this House. Regardless of what takes place day to day, it is this House and this Legislature that people look to for guidance, for thoughtfulness and for direction.

The commissioner always understood that he had an important role to play for us as well as for the public. Who in this House will ever forget the first call to the conflict commissioner's office? When you arrived, just to make you feel comfortable, he said: "Would you like a biscuit with your tea?" They were always biscuits.

It was that charm that actually allowed the commissioner to serve us all so well, because while never losing sight of his public commitment, he never lost sight of the fact that each of us were individuals who were trying to serve. And as he served the public, so did he serve us.

Today on behalf of all members of this House both present and in the past — from 1997 on — I would like to say a special thank-you to the commissioner for the work he put in, for the time and the effort, for his commitment and for his service.

I would also like to say to the commissioner that I know his family has put up with this service as well. We hope that as he takes a little bit of time away, he will enjoy his family, he will enjoy his time, he will enjoy his city and he will enjoy his province and his country. He has been a nation-builder, a province-builder and a supporter of public institutions, which are critical to our democracy.

Thank you, Commissioner H.A.D. Oliver. [Applause.]

C. James: I want to add the words of the opposition in appreciation and thanks to H.A.D. Oliver for the work he has done, not only in this Legislature but, as was mentioned, across this province.

I think all of us will remember that one of the most important lessons we received when we went to visit the commissioner was his comment to all of us: "You should come and see me before you read your name in the newspaper." I think that was something all of us will remember — the courtesy that he gave us, the strength that he provided to this role, the wisdom that he brought.

What is so striking for me was the conversation in my last meeting that I had with the commissioner, where I asked him what he was going to do in his retirement. He had a long list of duties that he was already ready to take on in his retirement. I think retirement for H.A.D. Oliver is very different than for many people who retire.

I expect we'll continue to see him. He's going to be just as busy as he is in his current role. We wish him well, and we thank him for his years of service. [Applause.]

Reports from Committees

I. Black: I have the honour to present the report of the Special Committee to Appoint a Conflict of Interest Commissioner for the third session of the 38th parliament. I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

I. Black: I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

I. Black: I move the report be adopted, and in doing so, I would like to make some brief comments. I would like to, first of all, thank the members of this committee — who include, as Deputy Chair, the member for Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain; the member for Burquitlam; the member for Vancouver-Kensington; and the member for North Vancouver–Lonsdale.

[1455]

[ Page 9425 ]

I would also like to thank Craig James, our Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees, and of course, Josie Schofield, the committee research analyst.

I would like to thank the committee for the thoughtful deliberations that took place over the last several months in filling what is, without question, a crucial role for the work of this House. I would like to acknowledge our new conflicts commissioner, Mr. Paul Fraser, QC, LLD.

During his illustrious legal career, Mr. Fraser has specialized in civil and criminal litigation. He is currently providing counsel to the international law firm of Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP, based in their Vancouver office.

He possesses outstanding qualifications and has assembled a distinguished career as a senior figure in Canada's legal community. We are very fortunate indeed to have secured a Conflict-of-Interest Commissioner who has served in many prominent roles — as adjudicator, chair of inquiries and commissions, and as president of both national and international legal and human rights organizations.

M. Farnworth: I just want to add my voice to that of the Chair of the committee. I think we went through quite an extensive process. The committee worked extremely well. I want to extend my thanks to the members of the committee and the staff that supported the committee.

We look forward to the appointment of Mr. Fraser, feeling that he will follow in the footsteps of H.A.D. Oliver and provide the service that we all expect from a Conflict-of-Interest Commissioner.

With that, I thank the committee and take my place.

Mr. Speaker: The question is the adoption of the report.

Motion approved.

Motions without Notice

APPOINTMENT OF

CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST COMMISSIONER

Hon. G. Campbell: By leave I move:

That this House recommend to His Honour the Lieutenant Governor the appointment of Mr. Paul Fraser, QC as the statutory officer of the Legislative Assembly to exercise the powers and duties assigned to the Conflict of Interest Commissioner for the province of British Columbia pursuant to the

Members' Conflict of Interest Act (RSBC c. 287).]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Reports from Committees

R. Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the second report of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts for the third session of the 38th parliament. I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

R. Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

R. Fleming: I move that the report be adopted, and in doing so, I will comment very briefly.

This report summarizes the committee's review of 16 resolutions for records retention and disposal authorities submitted by the public documents committee, a committee that is chaired by the province's archivist and annually reviews the records retention schedules created by ministries and central agencies.

These recommendations from the public documents committee are made according to a set of legal, operational and financial obligations. Records with long-term value to the government, corporate entity, are retained in government archives. Confidential documents with limited value are placed in ministry storage and, after a statutory period of time, are confidentially destroyed.

Under

section 3 of the Document Disposal Act, the Legislative Assembly is required to approve the retention and disposal of government records. The 16 resolutions submitted in this report are of a housekeeping variety. They pertain to legal discoveries for tobacco litigation and record schedules from agencies covering topics from liquor distribution, police services, gaming, natural resource authorization and emergency health.

Mr. Speaker: The question is adoption of the report.

Motion approved.

Tabling Documents

Hon. O. Ilich: Mr. Speaker, I table the 2006 annual report for the Labour Relations Board.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call second reading debate of Bill 45, the Maa-nulth First Nations Final Agreement Act.

[1500]

Second Reading of Bills

MAA-NULTH FIRST NATIONS

FINAL AGREEMENT ACT

Hon. M. de Jong: What a delight, in the aftermath of having had royal assent granted to the first treaty to

[ Page 9426 ]

emerge from the B.C. Treaty Commission just a few moments ago by His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, to now be standing moving second reading of Bill 45, the Maa-nulth Final Agreement Act.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

It seems that at a time when we were often speaking of firsts…. There have been many over the last number of years and particularly this year. I think it's fair to say that amongst those firsts, we can talk about the first modern-day treaty — the Nisga'a treaty — that wasn't a product of the Treaty Commission process.

But with the Maa-nulth treaty, two distinguishing characteristics are of significance and of note. First of all, geographically, it's the first treaty to be negotiated on Vancouver Island, a historic part of not just the province but the country.

When we talk about the relationship between aboriginal peoples, first nations and Europeans — who were engaged in voyages of discovery, of course — that all took place on the west coast and on the west coast of Vancouver Island. So it's significant for that reason in terms of our joint histories.

At least as significant, it's the first time we are dealing with a treaty that has been negotiated at a single table but with multiple parties. These are the five Maa-nulth First Nations — five members of the Nuu-chah-nulth Nations — who came together and decided that they wanted to pursue a settlement jointly.

I think it is worth spending a few moments to describe or to relate to the assembly and to those watching just who the Maa-nulth are, their history in the province of British Columbia and, in fact, the history that predates the province of British Columbia.

The Maa-nulth communities and their leaders. I'll start with the Huu-ay-aht First Nation. The Huu-ay-aht comprise just over 600 members, some of whom live on reserve at Anacla and can actually trace their origins through their histories to Diana Island. It's a fascinating part of the province and part of the country to visit. Happily, I've had that opportunity under the guidance of Chief Councillor Robert Dennis.

[1505]

The Huu-ay-aht lands are located in Barkley Sound between Bamfield and the Sarita River — extraordinarily beautiful country. Pachena Bay — I suppose it won't be hidden for long — is this jewel of a place, a beach of extraordinary beauty that many people see as a bit of an oasis when they come to the head of the West Coast Trail. In fact, I think that will factor directly in some of the future plans.

The Huu-ay-aht have been active in developing land management. They have been active on the economic development side in terms of traditional resources from the sea, from the forest. They have band-operated shellfish aquaculture operations. These are all significant operations that the Huu-ay-aht have already undertaken in pursuit of economic development opportunities and employment opportunities for their people.

They've engaged in joint ventures with forest licensees. I had an opportunity in the case of the Huu-ay-aht to visit the log sort that they have purchased.

Interesting story about the log sort, and it says a lot about who the Huu-ay-aht are. As they were developing their forestry opportunities, they were confronted with a situation where, as logs were taken to the sort, they would find themselves in a lineup.

Whereas I suppose other companies, other agencies or other communities might have thrown their hands in the air and complained about how that was impacting their operation, they said: "No, I know what we're going to do. We're going to buy our own."

Now other operators come to them, and they're able to process that timber and that fibre in an operation they own and operate. They are actually now providing service to others in the forest sector — as I say, very typical of the approach the Huu-ay-aht have taken through the years, taking the bull by the horns and finding their own solutions.

They do welcome each year thousands of visitors to the Pachena Bay Campground. It's a modern, well-run facility. We had an opportunity to see it. I'm going to talk about that a little bit later when we talk about the significance of this treaty. There's an anecdote that Chief Robert Dennis related to me, which really speaks volumes to why this agreement is important and why I commend it to the members of the assembly for their support.

The Ka:'yu:'k't'h'-Che:k:tles7et'h' First Nation is first and foremost, I will confess, a bit of a mouthful for me. It has taken a matter of months for me to do justice to the name and pronounce it correctly, but I think I do finally.

The Ka:'yu:'k't'h'-Che:k:tles7et'h' is a first nation of approximately 500 members. A good number of them live on the reserve, others elsewhere on Vancouver Island and on the mainland. They're the northernmost of the Maa-nulth Nations, and I think it's fair to say they live on Kyuquot Sound, a fairly isolated place north of Nootka Sound.

The main village is only accessible by boat or airplane and adjacent to the non-aboriginal community of Walters Cove. Together, they have come to be known as Kyuquot. Again, incredibly beautiful territory. If people have an opportunity to visit there or take one of the last working freighters to ply the west coast, it's a tremendous way to get a sense of where the Ka:'yu:'k't'h'-Che:k:tles7et'h' First Nation resides.

These are entrepreneurial-minded people, as well, as I have come to know them. They are active in the forest sector. In 2005 they secured a forest and range agreement for 132,000 cubic metres of timber, and they are certainly interested in exploring and developing the tourism potential of their area. They have a special interest in low-impact ecotourism around the Brooks Peninsula Park. Everything I have seen confirms in my mind that, armed with the new tools that this final agreement will provide, they are well positioned to do just that.

[1510]

The third community, members of the Maa-nulth First Nation, the Toquaht has just under 150 members.

[ Page 9427 ]

A number live off reserve. Their main community is the Macoah Indian reserve 1, located near the mouth of the Maggie River on the north side of Barkley Sound.

They, too, have been very active in forestry through their economic development arms, Toquaht Enterprises and Toquaht Developments. They've participated in some real estate development and have been involved in aquaculture. They've got a small marina, and for people lucky enough to visit, again, through…. They are the main gateway to the Broken Islands group. I think the potential for developing sustainable ecotourism in that area is as great as their enthusiasm and desire is to do just that.

The fourth community, the Uchucklesaht band, has just under 200 members. They live on a number of reserves, like the other Maa-nulth Nations. A number of them live in and around the Port Alberni area. The main community Cowishil is located near the mouth of the Uchucklesit Inlet on the west side of Barkley Sound. There are other village sites.

As with the other Maa-nulth Nations, the final agreement recognizes their larger traditional territory and provides them with some of the new administrative tools that they will be using to manage those lands and resources to the benefit of their Uchucklesaht people.

They have been, again, active in forestry. They have a forest and range opportunity agreement, and they are certainly interested in diversifying their local economy into sustainable ecotourism. The T'iitsk'in Paawats , otherwise known as Thunderbird's Nest, which is a part of this agreement, is going to provide them with, I think, a focal point of some of that activity.

Finally, the Ucluelet First Nation has over 600 members. Over 200 of them live on the reserve near Ucluelet. There are actually ten reserves located in the area, and like the other Maa-nulth communities I've mentioned, they, too, have carved out for themselves a full participatory role in the forestry sector. They were one of the early first nations to jump on the opportunities afforded by the forest and range opportunity agreements, and that provided them with upwards of 91,000 cubic metres of timber in a licence.

They have an economic development committee, and some of their recent developments have included investments in a power partnership, Eagle Rock Aggregates. They have full ownership and control of the Ucluelet development corporation and Ucluelet First Nation Holdings, which is a forestry-based venture. They are intent, armed with the benefits of this agreement, to move in even a more concerted way into diversifying their real estate holdings.

The Ucluelet First Nation has recently acquired a motel in downtown Ucluelet. They are truly a part of the larger community and, with this treaty, will become the owners of some prime waterfront real estate, which I know they are going to consult with their community on and make some decisions around to develop in the way that best serves the interests of their community.

Those are the five communities that comprise the Maa-nulth. There is a storied history, over 300 years of history — actually many hundreds more than that. I suppose I should properly describe it as over 300 years of history between the Maa-nulth Nuu-chah-nulth people and the first Europeans that came and explored the coast. It was actually the Nuu-chah-nulth who were first to have contact — after the first indigenous people north of California — with those European explorers who came to the area.

[1515]

We tend to forget that this is a part of our country, a part of British Columbia, that was the site of some interesting international political contests between the Spanish, the British and the Russians and, of course, the indigenous people that were already there. Actually, some of these disputes amongst Europeans came to a head as late as the 1790s, when Spain and Britain got embroiled in a fairly bitter international dispute around Nootka Sound, which was ultimately resolved when the Spanish withdrew from the area.

It is, however, also a day — when we are considering the history of the Nuu-chah-nulth people — to remind ourselves that what have been termed the Nootka negotiations were conducted under the hospitality or the auspices of a very powerful Nuu-chah-nulth chief, Chief Maquinna, who was located in Nootka Sound. So even today it is possible to see the influence that the Nuu-chah-nulth peoples have had in the evolving history of our country and our province.

It's interesting to note, as well, that while we were talking just a few weeks ago about the evolving relationship and how it related to the Tsawwassen First Nation, the Coast Salish people, it wasn't necessarily the agricultural land or the agricultural prospects that attracted Europeans to the west coast of Vancouver Island, but it was certainly the forests, the trees, the prospects for the establishment of sawmills and of reaping the benefits of a developing forest sector and the use of the rivers for transport and for powering those mills and for the development of a commercial fishery and fish processing.

The story is not at all dissimilar from what took place elsewhere. If the attraction was slightly different, the result was, sadly, the same. The Nuu-chah-nulth, a nation whose population in the early 1800s is thought to have ranged in the neighbourhood of 7,000 to 8,000 people, were quickly decimated by the disease that European populations brought with them — the malaria, the smallpox — and ultimately by poverty.

Through the 1800s and much of the 1900s those populations dwindled, within 50 years, down to 3,500. By 1939, as the rest of the world was focused on the outbreak of hostilities half a world away, the Nuu-chah-nulth peoples were said to number from 1,500 to 1,600 — from less than a hundred years previously, when they were three or four times as populous.

By 1963 populations had rebounded slightly to around 3,000. Today, happily, as we consider and, I hope, agree to ratify this final agreement with the Maa-nulth First Nations, the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council identifies upwards of 8,000 members. With all of the challenges, with all of the difficulties and with that abiding socioeconomic gap that we are in the process

[ Page 9428 ]

of trying to address collectively, there has been a remarkable recovery.

That speaks volumes to a demographic reality that many in this House have spoken to in the past, which is that the fastest-growing demographic within our province and our country is today amongst our aboriginal peoples. That provides them and us with a unique opportunity but also with some unique challenges, which I know we will turn our minds to and which I believe this final agreement helps us turn our minds to and address.

[1520]

As I prepared for the debate and familiarized myself in the past number of months with the Maa-nulth and the Nuu-chah-nulth, it's interesting to realize how some of the misunderstandings that have characterized our relationship through the better part of a century and a half began virtually at the time of first contact.

I don't know about other members, but when I went to school, elementary school and high school, I was taught about the Nootka people. That was the term that teachers used when we were describing the west coast of British Columbia and the west coast of Vancouver Island.

It was Capt. James Cook who first coined that phrase and apparently did so — the original misunderstanding, perhaps…. He was being given directions by the Nuu-chah-nulth at Kyuquot and he was told that his ship should come around or circle around. The word nootka was part of the Nuu-chah-nulth phraseology, and he mistook that as indicating who these people were and labelled them in a way that stuck for 150 years until we realized that these were the Nuu-chah-nulth people, meaning "people all along the mountains."

At last we are coming to understand that and understand that the Nuu-chah-nulth dialects are part of a larger group called the Wakashan, which also includes the languages of the Oweekeno, the Haisla and the Heiltsuk. It's interesting how, as we become more familiar with one another's cultures, we learn about how some of these communities are tied together — how they're linked by culture, by history and by language group.

The Nuu-chah-nulth, of course, were and are consummate mariners. They have very much a maritime tradition, a maritime culture — and again, fascinating to read and learn.

It helps to do that when one considers the special attachment that lingers, to this day, with the sea and with the resources of the sea, and some of the incredible early technologies that were developed by the Nuu-chah-nulth to harvest fish — to harvest salmon in the fall, to fish deep-sea halibut without the benefit of the tackle and the hooks and the steel — and all of the equipment that is very much a part of that process now, of course. They were sealers, and they were whalers — a history of whaling within the Nuu-chah-nulth, and a wealth of shellfish at home.

Even today — and some members in the chamber I think have had this opportunity — it's fascinating to go to some of these communities, the Maa-nulth communities, and see the ongoing evidence of thousands of years of history and the physical evidence that remains on some of the islands and in some of the inlets where people lived, where communities existed, and to be able to see that evidence today.

That history includes a history of self-government, self-governance. I don't know that one can properly understand or purport to understand how these final agreements have been structured, or understand the constitutions that the communities have passed in advance of ratifying the treaties themselves — the final agreements themselves — because all of the communities have ratified constitutions, as the final agreements contemplate.

I don't think you can properly understand those things — the provisions of those agreements and those constitutions — without having appreciation for the notion of the ha'wilth or the tyee ha'wilth . We saw some of that yesterday in that historic moment when five Maa-nulth First Nations came to the bar and, in the case of Chief Councillor Robert Dennis, brought the ha'wilth tyee . I might have that backwards — tyee ha'wilth — the head Hereditary Chief.

[1525]

That notion of the Hereditary Chief, I have learned, figures so prominently in who the Maa-nulth are and how they govern themselves. The hereditary chiefs, leaders of their extended families, had responsibilities for the welfare and the well-being of not just their families but of the lands upon which those families were situated, with each family group headed by a ha'wilth associated with a stream, an inlet or a geographic feature. It provided a focal point. That focal point remains to this day and is embedded within this final agreement and the constitutions that have been passed as part of those agreements.

The very names of the chiefs and the families help to identify where the people are from. So in Kyuquot, the last syllable actually means "people of" — a particular part, a particular family or a particular territory — and that has survived. That has survived through literally thousands of years and, I suppose most importantly, through the century and a half, or two centuries, of concerted contact with European settlers.

Those are the communities. I haven't done justice to the thousands of years of history, but perhaps it gives us a sense of some of the pillars of what those communities represent and their histories.

Yesterday we were treated to an extraordinary opportunity to hear firsthand in this chamber from some extraordinary leaders. These are the chiefs that represent the Maa-nulth First Nations, and they are a combination today of elected chiefs and traditional hereditary chiefs or ha'wilth, as I said — or tyee ha'wilth for the head Hereditary Chief.

I want, in commending this final agreement to the members — recognizing that I think that the members are inclined to be receptive and supportive of this agreement — to spend a moment paying tribute to the leaders that have toiled to make this final agreement a reality, and I will again begin with the Huu-ay-aht community and their Chief Councillor Robert Dennis.

However, Chief Councillor Robert Dennis, I have learned, is a stickler for pointing out that he derives his

[ Page 9429 ]

authority in part from an elected process but always from his tyee ha'wilth and the other hereditary chiefs. That's why yesterday, when he stood up, standing right beside him was tyee ha’wilth Spencer Peters.

He had other hereditary chiefs with him: Derek Peters, Jeff Cook, Tom Mexsis Happynook — who, I should point out, has recently been elected as president of the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council; we wish Tom Mexsis Happynook well — Darlene Nukamus, Bill Frank, Andrew Clapis, and Daniel Williams Jr. These are all of the hereditary chiefs who assist him — Chief Councillor Robert Dennis would want to emphasize and did yesterday — and his council on a daily basis in charting a course for the Huu-ay-aht.

Chief Robert Dennis, however, is himself a remarkable individual. He has led a revival of Huu-ay-aht culture. He is an unbridled enthusiast for the drumming and the singing. He is a poet. He is the composer of song and has an enthusiasm for that culture that is in many ways infectious. He's also a political leader and has been involved in the Huu-ay-aht treaty team right from the outset and now to its conclusion — and will be, of course, through its implementation.

[1530]

There are many stories that I could tell about Chief Robert Dennis that are instructive as to how the Huu-ay-aht people feel about this treaty. The one that comes to mind for me, however, is the scenario, the situation, he described for me the last time I was in the Huu-ay-aht territory in Pachena Bay. He described what happened. We're in storm season again, about a year after the last storm season. Last year, members may recall, there were some terrible windstorms that blew through. We saw pictures from up and down the west coast. We saw pictures of Stanley Park.

Those same storms hit Pachena Bay and tore out some incredibly sized trees — snapped them off. They were strewn across the beach, and the beach is a big part of their tourism initiative. People come there. It's a beautiful campground.

The Chief said: "Well, we ran into all kinds of problems." I said: "Yeah, I guess the storm." He said: "No, no. The storm we dealt with. We got the power on in a week." So they were without power.

He said: "The trees on the beach." I said: "Well, what about them? You probably had some firewood." He said: "No, the problem is this. Under the Indian Act, we couldn't touch them." I said: "Huh?" He said: "No, under the Indian Act, we were precluded, without first getting permission from Ottawa, from removing those trees from the beach." I said: "Well, that's crazy." He said: "Well, we thought it was crazy too, so we finally did it."

In the grand scheme of things, that is maybe a small, insignificant anecdote about the frustrations that would have existed for a community living under the constraints of the Indian Act. He said to me, with a smile on his face: "That's what we want to move beyond. That's what we mean when we say: 'Let's take control of our own destiny. Let's start to make some decisions for ourselves and be accountable for those decisions.'"

I always think of that when I hear him talk about grabbing hold of destiny on behalf of the Huu-ay-aht.

Tessie Smith is the Chief for the Ka:'yu:'k't'h'-Che:k:tles7et'h'. She serves with her council and also with the assistance of hereditary chiefs who have been instrumental in the development of the treaty and the ratification of the treaty. They are tyee ha'wilth — Christina Cox for Ka:'yu:'k't'h' and Francis Gillette for Che:k:tles7et'h', this being an amalgam of two historic communities.

Tess was actually born in Ceepeecee, British Columbia, and is one of eight children. She grew up on Aktis Island, and she's lived there most of her life. She went away to school for a period of time, but she returned at the age of 19.

She has done virtually everything there is to do in the community of Ka:'yu:'k't'h'-Che:k:tles7et'h'. She's been a kindergarten teacher, a fishery technician, a fish guardian, a home care giver, a language inspector, a developer. She's done it all, and throughout, she has been motivated by her belief that language, culture and history are a vital foundation to her community. She has pursued the preservation and promotion of that language, culture and history with a zeal and passion that is reflected in the words she uses when she speaks, as she did yesterday.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

Her political involvement began in the early 1990s, when she was elected to council for four terms. I don't know where she found the time, but somewhere along the way she managed to raise four of her own children, fostered a number of other children and now is the proud grandparent of four grandsons of her own.

She said this as a reflection of the importance that the hereditary chiefs and the history continue to play in her community. "Our ha'wilth are important to our community, and we are proud of the fact that they will be part of our government." And indeed, they will be, because in the constitution that has been passed, they are going to play an active

part in the self-governance that this final agreement will ensure and make a reality.

[1535]

Yesterday members in this chamber got an opportunity, as well, to become acquainted, if they weren't already, with the elder statesman of the Maa-nulth First Nations, and that is Bert Mack of the Toquaht Nation. It is hard not to be impacted by the words, by the dignity, by the civility, by the patience of a man who has celebrated nearly seven decades as the Hereditary Chief of his community and 64 years of marriage, I think, to a woman who has stood by his side and helped him through many trying days, many difficult decisions.

To see them both here celebrating this accomplishment and knowing the impact that he has had in helping this to become a reality — in the tutelage, in the mentorship that he has shown to so many younger leaders, always with grace, always with dignity, always with fairness…. We saw some of that here in

[ Page 9430 ]

this chamber — the charm — but not to be mistaken for anything other than an astuteness and always a focus on what was in the best interests of his community.

He has pursued that with his wife Lillian, with his councillors, with the other elders and has also pursued…. You heard him speak in the Nuu-chah-nulth language here. When I asked him: "What do you think of at a time like this, after a lifetime spent in pursuit of an objective?" Chief Bert Mack is inclined to say, without any hesitation: "I did what my father directed me to do when he handed over the chiefdom to me 65 years ago. He told me to go out and work towards getting a treaty for my people."

Imagine that — 65 years on, to be able to stand before the Toquaht, to be able to stand before the members of this House, British Columbians and Canadians and say: "We've done it. I'm satisfied with what we've accomplished, and I'm convinced it's in the best interests of our people." To have seen that life's work become a reality must be incredibly satisfying for Chief Mack but also for a community that will reap the benefits.

The Uchucklesaht. They have been served by Chief Councillor Charlie Cootes for the better part of 25 years. His current ha'wilth includes Tom Rush, Chris Watts, Martin Sam.

Chief Cootes was born in Port Alberni, the eldest of three sons, and resides in Uchucklesit Inlet. Imagine this. He was first appointed Chief in 1983. He was subsequently elected to that position when the band moved to an elected system. He's also the president of the Maa-nulth First Nations treaty society.

A lot of the credit for guiding the Maa-nulth First Nations through these difficult negotiations deserves to go to Chief Cootes. He has been tireless in his pursuit of a fair and equitable settlement with Canada and British Columbia. When he says, "The treaty addresses everything that we need to move ahead to attain self-determination," when he says, "We have the opportunity to move from a dream into a reality," he believes it. He is convinced that this final agreement provides him and, more importantly, his community with the tools that they require to move forward.

[1540]

Finally, I must spend a moment referring to the leadership of Chief Councillor Vi Mundy of the Ucluelet. She would emphasize the contribution that she has received from her Ucluelet ha'wilth , including Wilson Jack, Edward Mack and Russell Roberts. Of course, she was served ably yesterday. It's rather remarkable, knowing Chief Vi Mundy and her passion for articulating her views, that she would be struck down by laryngitis on the day that she was scheduled to appear in this chamber. Be that as it may, her words were as powerful as ever.

She is an individual who was born and raised in Ucluelet, and she's been a part of that community for her whole life. She's been involved politically and administratively with the Ucluelet First Nation. She actually took on the role of chief in 2006 and has guided the nation through the final stages of these all-important discussions and negotiations.

She's found time to raise her four children, and it is for the children that she has been driven and that she has pursued this dream. "This treaty is for you, the youth," she has said. "Soon the fight will be yours, but you will be better equipped to succeed in ways that we couldn't even imagine."

Doesn't that go to the heart of the issue? Equipping the community to go places where in the past it would have seemed impossible or unlikely that the community should or could go.

So what about that agreement? I should take a moment, recognizing that other members will want to provide their views during this debate…. I do want to take a couple of moments to outline why I believe this is a reasonable settlement, a fair settlement — a reconciliation agreement, if you will.

Maybe that's what we should start to refer to these agreements as, because in many ways I have begun to discover that that word "treaty" can evoke different feelings amongst different peoples. As Chief Baird said last month, these are steps along the path towards reconciliation. Maybe we should start calling them that, because the path towards reconciliation can take many routes.

The land side. This final agreement's land component is about 24,500 hectares. Some of that includes the existing reserve lands upon which the Maa-nulth First Nations presently reside. There's some purchased private land and additional land which is primarily provincial Crown land that'll be held in fee simple. So about 24,500 hectares.

The public will have access to the public treaty lands for recreational and non-commercial use. The first nations will own their land, and they'll have the flexibility to manage it. They'll make decisions about how to manage it in accordance with the terms of the agreement, in accordance with their own constitution and the objectives they set for themselves in terms of economic development.

The agreement provides for cash payments. The Maa-nulth First Nations will receive a capital transfer of $73.1 million as well as, for each of the next 25 years, a resource revenue payment averaging an estimated $1.2 million per year.

[1545]

I think it's important to state even briefly that as the Maa-nulth First Nations begin to expand their economic footprint, because they've already established one…. I think that is worth emphasizing. They are not starting from ground zero here. They have made great strides, but armed with this final agreement, as they expand that economic foothold in the region, those funds are going to be spent locally. The benefits that go with that and the economic development will transcend any one community.

I was grateful that most of the chiefs who spoke yesterday made that point and said that this is not just

[ Page 9431 ]

a treaty, not just a final agreement for the Maa-nulth. This is an agreement for all British Columbians, for all Canadians. It speaks volumes to the understanding that these leaders have for their place and the place of their communities in our broader provincial and national sphere that they are able to properly, in my view, identify that fact and emphasize its significance.

The Maa-nulth First Nations will have law-making authority in respect of direct taxation of Maa-nulth citizens on treaty lands. Indian Act tax exemptions for transactions such as sales tax and other taxes like income tax will be phased out over the next eight to 12 years post–effective date.

The agreement deals with natural resources and subsurface minerals. The Maa-nulth First Nations will own subsurface minerals on or under the treaty lands, and they'll have the authority that goes with that to set fees, rents, royalties and other charges. They will own and manage the forest resources and have the right to harvest wildlife.

I am, however, mindful that other members want to participate and will do my best to accommodate them.

The agreement deals with protected areas, provincial parks. There are specific provisions dealing with culture and heritage and, of course, governance provisions that are included within this agreement. I've spoken previously about the constitutions that received overwhelming ratification prior to the ratification votes for the treaty. The fact — and this is also worth emphasizing — is that the final agreement will operate within the framework of the constitution of Canada and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which will also apply to the Maa-nulth First Nations governments.

Lastly, I do feel obliged to acknowledge some of the people that played an instrumental role in the negotiations that took place and the finalization of the agreement. One of them was mentioned extensively yesterday a couple of times in the chamber here. His name featured more prominently at the reception that followed. He's not here to hear his name mentioned.

George Watts — or, as Chief Shawn Atleo reminds us, Wawmeesh — for most of his life was a passionate advocate for the Nuu-chah-nulth people, for his community in Tseshaht, for young people and really for all British Columbians.

His is a legacy of public service in its own right with the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council, with the chief negotiators liaising with the B.C. treaty process. It was a tragedy when in 2005 he passed away at the tender age of 59, far too prematurely.

[1550]

What has become clear to me from discussions with the leadership within the Maa-nulth is the instrumental role he played, even in his final years at a time when negotiations could have gone off the track, in ensuring that they did not and in reminding all people involved that this was a goal worth pursuing and an objective worth achieving.

If I can at this point thank the B.C. treaty team, Mr. Mark Lofthouse, Heinz Dyck, Steve Winn, Dave Fern, Keith Brown and a variety of other individuals who have contributed — Rob Draeseke, Doug Bowen, Gordon Douglas, Terry Clark, Andrew Alley. I will undoubtedly forget to mention some of the people, but they have all been instrumental — Jenny Lariviere, Vera Vukelich and Nicole Vinette, previously.

I should pay tribute to the team from Canada, headed by Eric Denhoff, Bill Wray, David Adams, Gerry Fleming, Amanda Roelofson, and their previous treaty team: Marnie Monroe, Trefor Smith, Sena Parity, Monica Karpiak, Jana Kumi.

For the Maa-nulth First Nations, there is a long list of negotiators. Let me say that Gary Yabsley received the benefit of support from a range of leaders: Chief Negotiator George Watts — who I spoke about a moment ago — before he passed away, Bob Bocking, Larry Johnson, Tom Happynook, Dan Legg, Angela Wesley, Chuck Poschenreider, Brian Lehman. A whole host of people have made this a reality. I do want to leave some time for others, so let me say this.

When we were in the final stages of not negotiation but ratification — some members will know — a group of us, including the Huu-ay-aht, went up to Nisga'a. The Tsawwassen First Nation was on that trip and the Huu-ay-aht, because the Huu-ay-aht were scheduled to ratify at about the same time as the Tsawwassen. It was interesting for a variety of reasons to go up and see what the Nisga'a were doing, how they had developed and evolved internally under the treaty that was negotiated in the late 1990s.

For me, as someone who as a critic had been very critical of that treaty, I had a little apprehension about what the welcome might be like. Of course, I was mistaken to be apprehensive, because the welcome was tremendous. It was a remarkable opportunity to learn some things.

As I said in the previous debate, if I look back on those days and some of the criticisms and some of the concerns…. I'll say again that maybe the thing that worried me most in those days was that the negotiation or finalization of these agreements might drive us apart as British Columbians or drive us apart as Canadians to the point where we were thinking of ourselves as being separate and not together.

Yet yesterday in their comments in this House, in this chamber, precisely the opposite seemed to occur. That was so across the street at the reception as well, where speaker after speaker, hereditary chief after hereditary chief and elected chief after elected chief spoke with pride about how at last they were beginning to feel part of this province, part of this country.

When I read, on the day in October when he was asked about the ratification…. On October 22 ratification of the Maa-nulth treaty took place. Tom Happynook, who is today the newly elected president of the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council, said: "As of today, I am proud to be a Huu-ay-aht. I am proud to be a Maa-nulth. I am proud to be a British Columbian, and I am proud to be a Canadian."

I am proud to have been a part of an exercise, along with members in this chamber, where we have an opportunity to give effect to those feelings in ways that haven't occurred in the past.

[1555]

[ Page 9432 ]

These are remarkable days in British Columbia, remarkable days in Canada. As the rest of the country watches, we are able to say to them that we have journeyed a long way down the path of reconciliation, and this agreement pushes us just a little bit further.

So to the members, who I believe are predisposed to support this agreement, I say thank you. To the people who were instrumental in helping to negotiate it, I say thank you. And most of all, to the leaders, the hereditary chiefs, the elders, the members of those Maa-nulth communities who have waited so long and been so patient and pursued their objective with such passion, I say thank you most of all.

S. Fraser: I will note the previous speaker, the minister responsible, used some Nuu-chah-nulth phrases. That's heartening, because it's a language that's steeped in history — Nuu-chah-nulth and Maa-nulth as a part of that. It's an oral history, and the language is at risk. So for future edification, the thank you is klecko klecko . It's often used twice.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Maa-nulth peoples today. I have feelings of pride and optimism for the future of the Huu-ay-aht people, the Ka:'yu:'k't'h'-Che:k:tles7et'h' people, the Ucluelet people, the Toquaht people and the Uchucklesaht peoples.

I also have feelings of great concern about the handling of the treaty process that's currently underway with this government. But I want to begin by saying that I'm proud to support the Maa-nulth people, and the New Democrat caucus will be supporting this treaty.

It will be a momentous day for all Maa-nulth peoples when this treaty is finally ratified by all parties and comes into effect. It will be a genuine cause of celebration. The Maa-nulth peoples deserve this treaty, and I congratulate them on getting to this stage.

They have negotiated long and hard, and with patience, to deal with issues of self-determination, land ownership, economic independence for themselves. I think it is safe to say that they look forward to a brighter future, secure in the knowledge that they will have a much, much greater say in shaping their own destiny.

The Maa-nulth treaty makes history by becoming the first multination treaty under the B.C. treaty process. It was just seven years ago that the Nisga'a people made history by concluding the first modern day treaty in B.C. I would like to point out to the House that both the Nisga'a treaty and the B.C. treaty process were accomplishments of former New Democrat governments.

The Nisga'a treaty, a fiercely opposed treaty by many members on the other side, was done under the Mike Harcourt and Glen Clark governments. The B.C. treaty process was put in place by the government of Premier Mike Harcourt. The truth is that the Maa-nulth treaty is a victorious moment in a 500-year story of aboriginal-settler relations on this continent. It's not all a very pretty picture, hon. Chair, as you know.

The aboriginal self-government debate that dominated the news coverage in the '90s was not a new issue. It began in the 16th century when Spanish conquistador Cortés destroyed the capital of the Aztec confederacy. At the time, it was the largest city in the world. When Cortés and his army landed on the beaches in Mexico, the first thing they did was create an instant municipality — Veracruz by name, the first European-style municipality in all of North America. Ever since, colonial governments everywhere have been trying to force first nations to become provincially sanctioned municipalities.

[1600]

In 1550 the Spanish monarch Charles V established the first royal commission on aboriginal peoples — 1550. In its hearings, Sepúlveda defended Cortés, saying that Mexico's indigenous people needed Spanish rule. They needed Spanish rule because they were "as inferior as apes to men." In response, Bartolomé de las Casas, the first bishop of Chiapas in southern Mexico, argued that the Spanish conquest was illegal and that nothing justified the destruction of Mexico's aboriginal government.

That hearing in 1550 was the beginning of the debate about aboriginal self-government, which continues…. Well, it continues today. Directly tied to the question of self-government is an issue that has frustrated B.C. first nations for a century. It's basically the land question.

First nations have always governed the lands they owned. Their communities owned the land, and the communities made laws about the wise use of the lands. The use was wise and was sustainable.

With the coming of European settlers, all that changed. Ever since, settlers and indigenous peoples have basically been arguing about who owns those lands. Colonial authorities justified the usurpation of indigenous hunting grounds by European farmers by asserting that aboriginal people were wasting the land. In fact, by the time Europeans arrived in the Americas, most first nations were farmers and fishers, not hunters.

According to European thinking, their great crime was the tribal or collective ownership of the land. Members of this House will remember that this was the basis for much of the criticism of the Nisga'a treaty, because of course tribal ownership of lands means tribal governance of those lands.

At the beginning of the 18th century aboriginal peoples still outnumbered settlers on this continent. The settlers kept coming across to North America, and first nations did resist that occupation.

In 1763 Ottawa First Nation Chief Pontiac organized a pan-Indian resistance to fight the British occupation, and he quickly took all but one of the British forts. Pontiac's military successes horrified the government of the day in London. It decided to make a new policy, the Royal Proclamation of 1763.

This royal proclamation affirmed the tribal ownership of lands, recognized tribal governments and required the public negotiation of treaties before settlers could purchase the land. Of all the British colonies, only one rejected this policy, and it was British Columbia.

James Douglas, the colonial governor in Victoria, did make treaties — the Douglas treaties, which we know of — with the Vancouver Island first nations. But after British Columbia entered Confederation in 1871,

[ Page 9433 ]

beyond an extension to Treaty 8 there would be no more treaties until Nisga'a.

From the beginning, treaty policies have divided British Columbians. James Douglas made treaties. Joseph Trutch, the chief commissioner of the lands in the newly united colony of British Columbia, refused — treaties negotiated and refused.

Tom Berger went to the Supreme Court of Canada on behalf of Nisga'a in 1973 and afterwards never stopped fighting for aboriginal rights. Melvin H. Smith, who advised several British Columbia governments on aboriginal rights issues, opposed the negotiation of treaties.

Premier Bill Bennett said his government did not recognize aboriginal title. Premier Mike Harcourt worked to establish the B.C. Treaty Commission.

[1605]

In the 1990s the Leader of the Opposition, now the Premier, opposed what he termed race-based aboriginal government. The Nisga'a treaty was unconstitutional, it was said. Non-Nisga'a citizens would be subject to Nisga'a laws, he said. Non-Nisga'a citizens would be burdened by taxation without representation, it was said.

Even when the courts told the Premier he was wrong, he fought back with a very divisive provincial referendum that did nothing to benefit treaty or reconciliation. It's difficult for the public or first nations to really know where this government and this Premier stand on the toughest historical treaty questions. His party fought Nisga'a — fought it in the court, fought it in this House, a divisive referendum.

Until the fall of 2004 there were lawyers still arguing in the Supreme Court of Canada that British Columbia had no duty to consult first nations when contemplating developments on land in first nations traditional territory. That's 2004. It took the Supreme Court of Canada to tell the Premier he was wrong.

In the spring of 2005, on the eve of an election, the Premier negotiated the new relationship accord — a remarkable political statement, I have to acknowledge. It acknowledged the provincial responsibility for post-colonial aboriginal dispossession, which is a big step, I think. That statement should make us all proud.

But what has happened since calls into question the Premier's commitments. Has the Premier actually signed this accord? Did the Premier embed the accord's principles — formalize them, if you will — into policy? Has the accord fundamentally improved provincial mandates on aboriginal self-government? Has the Premier explained why the word "treaty" appears nowhere in the accord? Has the Premier explained how his government can ignore court decisions and his own new relationship goals when it comes to extracting resources from traditional territories? Has the Premier supported the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples?

The answer to all these questions is no.

This province still faces many challenges at treaty tables, and with the Maa-nulth treaty, it is no exception. We have unfortunately seen divisions between Nuu-chah-nulth peoples over this treaty. This government should have worked to prevent those, because it detracts from this day, from the treaty of the five Maa-nulth First Nations. That's regrettable.

I don't believe the B.C. treaty process should be divisive. I believe it must not be divisive. Every effort must be made to ensure that treaty is not about winners and losers.

The treaty process must be a dynamic one. It was never designed to be etched in stone. The treaty process must grow, not just in number of treaties signed. We're seeing more and more first nations disenfranchised from the treaty process, signing onto the unity protocol protesting the treaty process. Those values have to be reflected in the treaty process for it to become inclusive.

It must reflect changing values like the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. It must reflect case law, which we're all learning about very quickly with the decision yesterday. It must reflect legal precedent, because there have been many court cases before yesterday's decision — Justice Vickers's decision — that have not been reflected in a changing treaty process. The process must be as open and inclusive as possible.

I note that during Nisga'a, the parliamentary Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs met, I think — I tried to count this — 27 times on one treaty. That was addressing first nation communities, other first nation communities and non–first nation communities in a public way. The intent, I think, was to solve divisive problems around treaties, which are arguably inevitable. But every effort must be made to break those divisions down.

[1610]

There's a Nuu-chah-nulth term, hishuk-ish ts'awalk. It means all things are connected; everything is one. There's more wisdom in that term. You can apply it to almost anything. In a Nuu-chah-nulth treaty process, where it's been divided, everything is not one. It's a break of harmony, and that's a problem, I believe.

I note with disappointment that the standing committee has not been empowered at all under this government, and there have been three treaties come forward this far. There was the Lheidli T'enneh, which failed to reach the threshold. There's the Tsawwassen treaty, and now we're at Maa-nulth. The parliamentary committee on aboriginal affairs has not been called once to try to deal with some of these issues. Well, it was actually called — I'm mistaken — to address the very divisive referendum. That's the only time under this government.

I have a motion on the order paper from last spring urging the Premier and the minister to empower the standing committee on aboriginal affairs to address divisions, to bring communities together and to ensure that treaties can bring true long-term reconciliation for everyone involved.

That request has been met with silence — the same silence we received when we urged this Premier, this government, for strong and open support of the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous people.

A challenging issue in this treaty is the matter of overlaps. Now, all B.C. first nations have competing claims on the land in their traditional territories. There are no firm boundaries on any of these. With the Maa-

[ Page 9434 ]

nulth peoples and the Maa-nulth treaty and with other Nuu-chah-nulth, there was shared use of the land.

One first nation might have used a river valley for one purpose; another might have used it for quite a different purpose. But more than one first nation could have accessed the same land, of course, and have claims to that land. One may have hunted; another one might have fished the waters.

To successfully conclude treaties, the needs of all nations must be addressed. All the nations concerned must be addressed. If not, then it becomes a much more divisive and difficult process. It pains me to see that nations are pitted against each other.

I blame this government for not bringing the resources to bear to address the issues of, for instance, the Tseshaht nation, which the minister referred to before — the great statesman, Mr. Watts. The Tseshaht nation has been questioning where they are in the treaty process. The Ditidaht, I understand, are questioning boundaries and land issues. Other Nuu-chah-nulth, as well, feel that their rights have been either ignored or trampled on through this process. That should not be happening.

It's not the fault of Maa-nulth. The government has not brought the resources to bear to address that. This government cut resources to the treaty process. Then they focused those limited resources on a few lead tables at the expense of all the other tables. So while we see a success with Maa-nulth, we see lack of success with the rest of Nuu-chah-nulth. That is a problem. That is not about reconciliation.

Overlapping claims are not new. All treaties deal with this issue, and all treaties will deal with this issue, as did the Yukon land claims. In the Nisga'a settlement, there were also conflicting boundary claims.

[1615]

In the Yukon, first nations had to resolve their overlapping claims before signing treaties. Arguably, in British Columbia that may not be possible. But there were expectations from first nations that steps would be made to address those boundaries before we got to level 5, before we got to this stage in a treaty process.

This is a situation in which the British Columbia Treaty Commission process could have played a much bigger role, I believe. When the Treaty Commission was established in 1992, many hoped that it would extend its facilitation activities into the arena of mediation — conflict resolution, if you will. Governments resisted this, however. The new relationship accord suggested openness to mediation, so there was hope placed there through the new relationship.

Overlap issues may be a perfect subject for active mediation by the Treaty Commission. In a comprehensive review of treaty-making in the Americas, the UN — the same body that brought forward the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples that we couldn't get any support from the government on — special rapporteur concluded that the greatest failure of treaty-making was the failure of colonial governments to fully implement what they had negotiated with first nations.

The B.C. Treaty Commission is supposed to close its doors when all treaties have been negotiated, but it may be appropriately structured, with two aboriginal and two government commissioners with a neutral rotating chair, to adjudicate future implementation issues. I think there are progressive steps like this that could be made.

This would be much less expensive, much less costly than fighting these issues out in the courts. We're seeing an awful lot of that un