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, OCTOBER 18, 2007

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 22, Number 10

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

Immigrant women in B.C.

Whittred

Persons Case

Hammell

Galore Creek mine project

MacKay

Covenant House Vancouver

J. Kwan

Flood prevention volunteers

Rustad

B.C. members of Intergovernmental

Panel on Climate Change

Simpson

Oral Questions

Lobbying activities of Graham

Bruce

L. Krog

Hon. M.

de Jong

Health Ministry audit

A. Dix

Hon. G.

Abbott

Vancouver Island forestry issues

Horgan

Hon. R.

Coleman

Simpson

Musqueam treaty negotiations

Simpson

Hon. M.

de Jong

Highway of tears

G. Coons

Hon. J.

Les

Meat industry regulations

C. Wyse

Hon. P.

Bell

Routley

Macdonald

K. Conroy

C. Evans

Tabling Documents

Final Report of the 2007

British Columbia Judges Compensation Commission

British Columbia Judicial

Justices of the Peace Commission, report recommendations, 2007

Second Reading of Bills

Tsawwassen First Nation Final

Agreement Act (Bill 40) (continued)

Karagianis

Hon. J.

Les

Ralston

Hon. P.

Bell

G. Coons

MacKay

J. Brar

Hon. S.

Bond

Cubberley

R. Hawes

Routley

[ Page 8631 ]

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 18, 2007

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. S. Hagen: Visiting us today is Mr. Walter Deplazes, the consul general of Switzerland. Mr. Deplazes entered the services of the federal department of Swiss foreign affairs in 1973 and has been posted all over the world — South Africa, New Zealand and many places in Europe. He was appointed to his current position in May of 2007.

I had the pleasure of dining with him over the lunch-hour, together with some of my colleagues from the House. Would the House please make him feel welcome.

D. Cubberley: On behalf of the member for Vancouver-Fairview, who isn't here today, I'd like to ask the House to join me in welcoming Rosalind Kellett, a teacher from Eric Hamber Secondary in Vancouver-Fairview who's with us today.

She's joined by Marian Egan, who is her cousin, visiting us from London, England. I believe she's here with Naomi Adams, who is her daughter. So would the House please join us.

Hon. M. de Jong: It would be remiss of me not to alert members of the chamber that during the recent summer recess, an event of some renown took place again on the stately grounds of the South Cowichan Lawn Tennis Club. The member for North Coast joined me as a participant in the now infamous MLA versus press gallery tennis tournament.

[1335]

I know the hon. member and I are both of sufficient modesty that we would not want to reveal to the House the details of the outcome of that competition — that result always being in doubt until such time as the proper side is ahead, at which point the umpire and official sees fit to call the tournament at an end. In this case, he did so with his usual acclaim, and….

Well, I'm not that modest. We won, and once again dispatched the media in this tournament.

C. Trevena: In the precinct are a number of teachers from across the province who are participating in the fall teachers institute. Among them is Alana Check, the teacher at the one-room school in Echo Bay. Alana is an innovative and inspired teacher who embraces education and its possibilities for young and old.

Her school, a one-room school, does become the centre for the whole community, and I think we should note how important one-room schools are in our education system in our rural communities. I hope the House will make her and all the other teachers participating in the institute very welcome.

Hon. R. Thorpe: It gives me great pleasure to introduce the grade 11 civics class from Summerland Secondary School, who are visiting here today. Their teacher Dave Stathers makes this annual trip, granting his students the opportunity to see how government works in British Columbia. Would the House please make Dave and the students from Summerland Secondary School very welcome in the House today.

Hon. P. Bell: Birthdays are always an important time for people, and particularly when they try to hide the fact that they have one. So I hope that the House would please join me in wishing my ministerial assistant Jeremy Walden a very happy 26th birthday this coming Sunday.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) IMMIGRANT WOMEN IN B.C.

K. Whittred: October is Women's History Month. Also, 88 years ago today women became persons. We can never forget the five courageous women who challenged the legal definition of persons, which at that time excluded females.

Today we commemorate the Famous Five — Henrietta Edwards, Nellie McClung, Louise McKinney, Emily Murphy and Irene Parlby — and pay them tribute for ensuring gender equality and full participation of women in the economic fabric of this country.

The theme of this year's Women's History Month is immigrant women in Canada. Our province was built by immigrants, whether pioneer women who came from Europe or new immigrants who bring their skills and talents to make our province the best place on earth. All women can learn from the struggles that have been endured by immigrant women.

Each of us, I'm sure, can think of many immigrant women who enrich our community. One such woman is Shashi Assanand, who is the founding executive director of Vancouver and Lower Mainland Multicultural Family Support Services Society in Burnaby.

She came to British Columbia from Uganda in 1974, and she has dedicated her life to helping new immigrant women transition into Canadian society by addressing cross-cultural gaps and fundamental cultural differences. This September Shashi was honoured with the Anthony J. Hulme Award of Distinction for lifetime contribution.

Thanks to women like Shashi Assanand who have made a difference, and thank you to all immigrant women who have brought their skills, talents, courage and strength to establish a new home in British Columbia.

PERSONS CASE

S. Hammell: It does give me pleasure to talk today about Persons Day because it's a day we all take note of. On this day 78 years ago, women in Canada were declared persons under the law. Prior to this date the law stated that women were persons in the matter of

[ Page 8632 ]

pains and penalties but not in the matter of rights and privileges.

[1340]

The Persons Case, fought by the Famous Five, changed the

interpretation of the law by appealing as a last resort to the Privy Council in Britain. There, on October 18, 1929, five lords ruled that the word "persons" included both women and men, and any exclusion was a relic of days more barbarous than ours.

In recognition of the historical importance of this decision, Maclean's magazine chose to place the Famous Five women and the Persons Case among the 25 events that shaped our country's history in the past. Historically of even more importance than being allowed to sit in the Senate, which was the direct consequence of the decision, was the fact that the judgment overturned the arguments that had been used by lawyers and legislators for centuries to keep women out of many other aspects of public life.

The Persons Case was a vindication of a 60-year-old battle begun in 1867, during which women in Canada and Britain had sought in vain for a determination by the courts that they were entitled to hold public office and to enter universities and the professions. The judgment of the Privy Council was one of the most important milestones in the history of women's struggle for full citizenship and emancipation.

Never again could anyone argue that women were not persons and could not play their full

part in the public life of Canada, Britain or any other country in the empire.

GALORE CREEK MINE PROJECT

D. MacKay: NovaGold is a Canadian mining company doing business in Alaska and British Columbia. It is well known in northwestern British Columbia right now for its Galore Creek property. It is developing a mine west of the Bob Quinn airstrip, which is north of Smithers, in unheard-of proportions. The projected cost of this project is $2 billion. That's two, with a "b" in front of it for "billion" dollars.

They're building a pipeline with slurry — the concentrate — approximately 130 kilometres to the Bob Quinn airstrip on Highway 37 and then will dry the concentrate and truck it down to Stewart.

As exciting as this is, this is not what I want to talk about today. I want to talk about what is happening as a result of all the activity that is taking place at the camps and the roads and the eventual pipeline that is and will be built along that corridor.

There are approximately 700 people working on this project right now, and this will grow to 1,500 next summer. The 700-plus people working and staying in camps, like the rest of us in this room, need to eat to live. Food and non-alcoholic drinks are delivered by truck and helicopter. The non-alcoholic drinks arrive in a variety of containers. The recyclable items such as pop cans, plastic bottles, Tetra Paks and other items are trucked to Smithers for disposal. This is where it serves another purpose.

High Road Society is a non-profit society serving people with developmental disabilities. They own the recycling facilities in Smithers. When these items arrive from the Galore Creek project, it puts some of the people to work at $8 an hour sorting some of the products. When the items are sold, they generate around $1,800 a month — enough to pay for the operating costs of the drop-in centre for the challenged clients.

This is a benefit for the High Road Society and the clients they serve, and I would like to acknowledge the contribution the Galore Creek Mining Corporation is making as a result of the work they're doing in our part of the province.

Thank you to NovaGold and Teck Cominco.

COVENANT HOUSE VANCOUVER

J. Kwan: Covenant House was incorporated in 1972 in New York City. Since then more than 20 sites have opened in six countries.

Opening in Vancouver in 1997, Covenant House programs have supported over 400,000 young people across Canada. This year they're celebrating their tenth anniversary. Covenant House Vancouver provides food, shelter, clothing and counselling to the estimated 500 to 1,000 street youth in Vancouver.

Most of the young people who use the services of Covenant House have fled unspeakable abuses. Physical, sexual and/or emotional abuse have forced these young people onto the streets in search of a better life. But the streets are no place for anyone, let alone our nation's youth.

[1345]

Violence, poverty, sex trade involvement and addictions are just a few of the horrors associated with street life. Without the services of Covenant House, thousands of lives would be lost.

It is through civil society organizations such as Covenant House that young people have the opportunity to break the vicious cycle of poverty. My constituency of Vancouver–Mount Pleasant relies on the great work of organizations like Covenant House.

Covenant House Vancouver opened its doors in September of 1997 in response to a study that revealed that there were over 10,000 — and now 15,000 — runaways reported in B.C. annually. The study also revealed that young people were in desperate need of short-term transitional shelters and long-term supportive housing.

As the recent visit of Miloon Kothari, the special rapporteur on housing, revealed, the health and human rights implications of homelessness are much larger than the statistics reveal, especially for young people. Today, during Homelessness Action Week, I ask all members of this House to join me in recognizing the important contributions which Covenant House has made to Vancouver and British Columbia over the last ten years.

FLOOD PREVENTION VOLUNTEERS

J. Rustad: This past spring residents along the Fraser River narrowly avoided significant flooding. The preparation work we funded, combined with a

[ Page 8633 ]

little luck, saved thousands of families from a traumatic event.

One of the significant factors that helped us to avoid a devastating flood along the Fraser was a dam on the Nechako River. The controlled Nechako allowed for a more even flow throughout the summer and avoided the peak flows in early June that could have seen the levels on the Nechako River being eight or nine feet higher.

This was the best of news, but there were some who weren't so lucky. The people along the Nechako River paid a price. In Vanderhoof sandbags and gabion dikes provided by the province held back a four-foot wall of water for two months. People walked the makeshift dikes 24 hours a day, seven days a week while residents lived under a constant flood alert.

The community emergency response team worked closely with the province to do everything they could to protect the residents, but the real story was the number of volunteers. Hundreds of people came out to fill sandbags, transporting them along more than 2.8 kilometres of dikes and helping construct and shore up the structures.

Some churches cancelled Sunday services and brought out their congregations to help protect the community. Tourists and residents from surrounding communities joined in, and one group that holds a retreat once every two years cancelled one day of their retreat and bused their people into Vanderhoof to lend a hand.

I ask that the House join me in thanking the volunteers, staff and everyone involved in saving Vanderhoof from a catastrophic flood.

B.C. MEMBERS OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL

PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE

S. Simpson: On October 12 the Nobel peace prize was awarded jointly to former Vice-President Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change established under the United Nations. This was a major achievement and, I believe, an acknowledgment and recognition of the critical nature of climate change and its potential impact on the future of our planet.

While Mr. Gore has arguably done more than anyone to raise public awareness on this issue, the IPCC has provided unparalleled scientific analysis and credibility to the cause. In awarding the prize, the Nobel committee stated: "Through the scientific reports it has issued over the past two decades, the IPCC has created an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming."

British Columbians have played an important role in the work of the IPCC and the some 2,500 scientists who comprise the panel, and I want to recognize that contribution. The following British Columbians were either authors or reviewers with the IPCC: Drs. Ken Denman, Greg Flato and John Fyfe, all adjunct professors at the UVic school of earth and ocean sciences; Drs. Terry Prowse and Fred Wrona from the UVic geography department; Dr. Andrew Weaver from the UVic school of earth and ocean sciences; and Dr. Francis Zwiers, also from UVic, in the mathematics department.

All of these eminent professors have made a significant contribution through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I am sure all members of this House want to join me in congratulating these British Columbians on their accomplishments as part of a Nobel prize–winning team on climate change.

[1350]

Oral Questions

LOBBYING ACTIVITIES OF

GRAHAM BRUCE

L. Krog: Yesterday the government, in its attempt to distance itself from other lobbyist and conflict scandal, released a bogus time line to twist the facts with bogus bluster. But the facts that this government cannot ignore come from Graham Bruce himself and the Cowichan minutes, which no one is denying are accurate. "I'm calling in my credits." "We've had to do some creative bookkeeping." "I will be self-funded."

Graham Bruce was lobbying the government for eight months after leaving office. He secured funding for his own fees, and he didn't register.

My question to the Attorney General — he's promised it before: when is he going to close the loopholes in the legislation to put an end to Liberal insiders lobbying the Premier and cashing in their credits?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, the week began with a flurry of accusations from the opposition side. They included, amongst other things, accusations emanating from the applicability of the Lobbyists Registration Act — apparently made before someone took the extraordinary measure of actually consulting the Lobbyists Registration Act and at least familiarizing themselves with the provisions that spoke to first nations and first nations government.

Then the accusations moved on to allegations of misappropriation of Treaty Commission funding. Well, in the face of a withering attack from the Cowichan First Nation itself, we don't…

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Continue.

Hon. M. de Jong: …hear much about that.

What we did see was a Leader of the Opposition leave this chamber red-faced for alleging impropriety around funding that had been announced three years prior to 2006, when they allege this improper behaviour took place.

Now the member has filed a complaint with the Conflict-of-Interest Commissioner, and perhaps he would await the response and the opinion in response to that application.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

[ Page 8634 ]

L. Krog: Well, with great respect to the Government House Leader, I don't feel particularly withered over here. I think I'd be somewhat embarrassed over there about failing to meet with the press and discuss this issue in the appropriate manner.

But let's get back to the basics. A Liberal insider walks into the Premier's office, doesn't register, cashes in and then drives a truck through the loopholes in the act. Today we heard from the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. Mary Carlson said they're making inquiries into Mr. Bruce's activities. But she was forced to admit once again that they can't really do anything because they don't have investigative powers.

Again to the Attorney General — enough dithering: when is he going to bring in real lobbyist rules to prevent the Premier's closest friends from using inside information for personal gain?

Hon. M. de Jong: It's helpful to know that the hon. member and his colleagues are not in any way feeling chastened by remarks such as this from the Cowichan, where they "caution the NDP that their reckless comments could jeopardize the entire reconciliation and legacy project, including the construction of 300 new homes." So I suppose it is informative to us to be….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue.

[1355]

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I suppose it is equally informative to all members to know that in the aftermath of filing a complaint — an inquiry with the Conflict-of-Interest Commissioner, which the member has chosen to do — he has also chosen today not to extend the courtesy to that individual, that officer of the Legislature, to render his opinion. It speaks volumes about what is really at play here, and that is a desperate opposition trying to make political mileage instead of letting due process follow its course.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a further supplemental.

L. Krog: I'm delighted to hear the bluster from the Government House Leader, but this is a serious matter. British Columbians take it seriously.

We have

an act that doesn't work. After Mr. Loukidelis released his report into Ken Dobell's failure to register, both the Premier and the Attorney General promised to review the act. They promised to strengthen it, but we haven't heard anything from the Attorney General. More stonewalling.

I say to the Attorney General…. I'd like him to stand up in this House today. Enough talk. Will he bring in lobbyists registration rule changes and end the abuses by Liberal insiders?

Hon. M. de Jong: Look, I am the first person to acknowledge that I am not that official who is responsible for either interpreting or applying the Lobbyists Registration Act.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue.

Hon. M. de Jong: I do note, however, that in

section 2 of the act, under the heading "Restrictions on application of Act," it reads: "This Act does not apply to any of the following persons when acting in their official capacity."

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue.

Hon. M. de Jong: It apparently eludes members of the opposition to engage in this research on their own, so I'm happy to oblige them in this chamber. But they must really pay attention if they're to receive the benefit.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Now, I am not the authority to determine whether that is applicable, but this member chooses to pass his own judgment. It is not proper for him to do so.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Hon. M. de Jong: He is increasingly desperate, and I suggest he await the response from the Conflict-of-Interest Commissioner.

HEALTH MINISTRY AUDIT

A. Dix: It's a simple question. Can the Minister of Health confirm that the audit of financial improprieties involving the knowledge management and technology division of the Ministry of Health is now the subject of a police investigation?

Hon. G. Abbott: I can confirm that an internal audit has been underway since late July in respect of an assistant deputy minister in the area the member referenced. I am advised that we were contacted by the RCMP in respect of that matter, but I cannot provide any further advice as to the status of that file. With

[ Page 8635 ]

respect to the RCMP, the member would have to confirm that from the RCMP themselves.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

A. Dix: As the minister will know, it's a very serious matter. Hundreds of millions of dollars in contracts have gone out of this

section of his ministry. The concerns involve not just an assistant deputy minister but his appointee to the e-health initiatives committee.

[1400]

I want to ask the minister whether the audit is completed, whether the audit will soon be tabled or whether the tabling of the audit is awaiting the results of a police investigation.

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, the member would have to contact the RCMP with respect to whether they have an investigation underway or not. I cannot confirm that. That is something he would have to contact the RCMP in respect of.

In terms of the audit, the internal audit is being undertaken by the comptroller general's office, I understand. That audit is still in process and, I'm sure, will report out appropriately when it's completed.

VANCOUVER ISLAND FORESTRY ISSUES

J. Horgan: My question is to the Minister of Forests. In January the Minister of Forests, without consultation, released 28,000 hectares of private lands from tree farm licences on Vancouver Island.

On April 18, I asked the minister during budget estimates whether the 50-year-old contract between the people of British Columbia and forest companies on Vancouver Island had been violated and what the effect would be on my constituents. He said the following: "I don't think there's any effect, quite frankly. This isn't a removal from forest production."

Yet months later we find that Colliers International is marketing 31 parcels totalling 2,500 hectares of property on the west coast of Vancouver Island in my constituency. This has disrupted forest workers. It has outraged recreationalists, surfers, local community members.

With the stroke of a pen, the Minister of Forests has put planning into chaos.

My question is a simple one. Will he reverse this misguided decision today?

Hon. R. Coleman: Under the Forest Act, companies can ask to have private lands removed from tree farm licences. That was done. That request had its merits. It went through my staff, through a process.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, could you….

The minister's mike isn't on.

Hon. R. Coleman: Evidently my light isn't working, hon. Speaker. There's a little note here that says mine's not working.

Mr. Speaker: Okay. Start again. Sorry, Minister.

Hon. R. Coleman: They probably thought I didn't need a microphone, and at times they are probably right.

So on its merits, this decision was made. It was recommended by staff as well as a decision by the minister. The land is removed.

Sometimes land is removed, and when it's removed, you know, it has a better use. In this case it could be visual aspects. It may never be able to be logged.

But the fact of the matter is that I made this decision on a number of bases. One of them included….

The member made one statement which is incorrect. This does not affect a single Western Forest Products employee's job. The decision was made. There are 3,300 people at Western Forest Products employed in the coastal forest sector in British Columbia. It was an important decision to help them put their business plan in place to put themselves on an economic footing to protect those 3,300 jobs.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Horgan: I hope we'll get some injury time here because of the technical difficulties on microphones. We're supposed to have 30 minutes of questions and 30 minutes of answers.

My question, the supplemental….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

J. Horgan: The supplemental question, hon Speaker, if the pinheads on the other side can stifle it for a minute. My question is to the Minister of Forests.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Member, just take your seat.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members. Excuse me. Just stop.

Member.

An Hon. Member: I withdraw the comment, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Okay.

Member, continue.

J. Horgan: I can appreciate the minister's response. He's claiming that no forest workers are concerned. That doesn't explain the 100-odd of them that showed up at a public meeting in Shirley concerned about their livelihood and for their future.

For generations people have been harvesting wood on the west coast of Vancouver Island in the interests

[ Page 8636 ]

of all British Columbians — a covenant between the people of B.C. and forest companies to enrich us all. That was thrown out the door by this minister with zero consultation.

Let me quote from the minister's assurances in April. Again: "My understanding is" that these lands will stay as "private managed forest lands." Again, on the development side: "That's not a consideration…. It's really, I guess, not my problem."

So my question to the minister is: what assurances are worth anything from this minister in this House? Is anything he says worth a dime other than to forest companies?

[1405]

Hon. R. Coleman: These lands were removed under the law. They were done on its merits. They were done on recommendations of staff, and the decision is not going to be reversed.

B. Simpson: Well, Hansard is full of assurances from the Minister of Forests and Range that have amounted to very little, that have amounted to no action.

Here's another example. A quote from Hansard : "I have launched a review…with the Coast Forest Products Association…. I have asked for submissions on what they think the fix is on the coast…. I've undertaken to move quickly on those fixes…." Continuing to quote: "I believe…that if we think outside the box…we can get ahead of this thing." That quote is from October 20, 2005.

We're now at the second-year anniversary of that assurance. Would the minister, in celebration of two years of a history of broken promises on the coast, table the coast recovery plan in the House this afternoon?

Hon. R. Coleman: Well, let's just review history for the member opposite. The statement was made in 2005. If he recalls — he may not recall — that at the Truck Loggers convention in 2006, they asked to enter into a process — the industry, labour, communities as well as other people with regards to the people on the coast of British Columbia.

They asked that we reinvigorate the process to look at the coast and issues. As we did that, a number of things they requested as they came through that process, like weigh scaling and things, were implemented immediately to actually fix some of the issues they had on the coast of British Columbia. But they also believed there had to be a larger vision.

We worked through that process into the spring of this year and, as the member knows, around May or June that was starting to have the final touches put on the coast recovery plan, including what would be required for legislation. The member may not be aware, but you have to take in requests for legislation to do that.

As I came through that, the coast entered into a labour dispute. The advice that I was given was to not put anything into the mix that might prejudice the negotiations by two parties in a private sector labour dispute.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Hon. R. Coleman: So the plan is ready. It will be released, as I said the other day, within a week of this dispute being finished.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Member has a supplemental.

B. Simpson: I love the phrase "within a week."

Hansard , again, is full of this minister using time…. He doesn't seem to understand that in this House, he is supposed to tell us what is actually going on, not what is in his mind.

Let me reference Hansard again, March 5: "You'll see the plan in the next few months." March 27: "Very, very short period of time." March 27 again: "Next 30 days or so…. We'll see it by mid-April." March 29: "We will shortly be releasing the coast recovery plan for the forest sector on Vancouver Island and the coast of British Columbia." April 17, 2007: Ken Dobell "is done on the coast. We're penning the plan." May 2: "The member knows there's a coast recovery plan coming forward very shortly."

Late May, at a Vancouver Sun editorial board, the minister actually nailed it. Remember, the strike did not start until July 21. In late May the minister sat with the Vancouver Sun editorial board and said: "You will see it in two weeks."

Now he's saying one week after the strike. Is there anything this minister says in this House that we can have assurance that he'll actually do something?

Hon. R. Coleman: Thank you for your comments, and thank you for the history lesson. I appreciate that.

The fact of the matter is that the member will recognize the two parties started to talk in June. The member can bluster all he wants, just like I could bluster in a second, but the fact….

This is it. This is the truth. Over the past two years a number of things have been done on the coast as companies, industry and labour have come to us — everything from safety to issues with regards to weigh scaling and things like that. We do know there's a larger plan that can be done. It's ready. It's going to be done.

[1410]

Now, the member opposite may not like that, but I'll tell you one thing that this plan will not do. It will not take $1 billion out of the forest sector of British Columbia like your old Forest Practices Code and the way you operated in the 1990s to bankrupt the coast.

MUSQUEAM TREATY NEGOTIATIONS

S. Simpson: In recent months the Premier has confirmed that the pending Musqueam treaty negotiations include the university golf course. Since that time Mr. Martin Zlotnik, the Premier's chief fundraiser, has been campaigning relentlessly to have the golf course removed from the negotiations and replaced by an equivalent amount of land taken from Pacific Spirit Park.

My question is to the Minister of Aboriginal Relations. Can the minister tell the House in clear and

[ Page 8637 ]

unambiguous terms: is the government considering Mr. Zlotnik's proposal, or are they rejecting it outright?

Hon. M. de Jong: We are rejecting it outright.

HIGHWAY OF TEARS

G. Coons: In two days the funding for the highway of tears coordinator runs dry. Lisa Krebs, the highway of tears coordinator, has a very difficult job — a job that will take longer, much longer, than one year. We can't abandon the families of women, most of whom are young aboriginal women murdered and missing along the highway of tears.

My question is to the Solicitor General. Will this government commit ongoing funding to this vital coordinator's position? Will the minister commit to finally establishing the highway of tears legacy fund that was another of the key recommendations?

Hon. J. Les: I appreciate the question. The highway of tears investigation, of course, is an ongoing matter. We all continue to hope for a resolution to those tragedies.

As far as the funding and the support of groups in the Highway 16 corridor, I'm sure the member is aware that we have made a considerable amount of funds available to the various groups and their families through victim services support as well.

That funding continues, and we are committed to continuing to fund the victim services programs and other support mechanisms, which actually amounts to about $5 million worth of annual support in that region.

MEAT INDUSTRY REGULATIONS

C. Wyse: Jasper, Noble and Bray are examples of families that are taking a huge cut in their income as a result of the new Liberal meat industry regulations. For example, Wally Bray must take his turkeys from Bridge Lake to the lower mainland for slaughter — a ten-hour return trip.

To the Minister of Small Business: why did you relax or eliminate safety, environmental or financial reporting regulations for corporations while increasing red tape, cost and regulations for small business people and farmers?

Hon. P. Bell: In fact, what we've done is make a significant commitment to the processing industry of British Columbia. That in turn creates opportunities for many different primary producers. In fact, the B.C. Cattlemen are just one example of a group that's excited about seeing the incremental processing capacity that's coming on stream.

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that when we started this process in 2004 as a result of the BSE crisis, there were 25 abattoirs around the province. As of today we've received over 71 different applications for funding, and the member will well know that he has a location in his own riding that has received funding and is doing a great job.

D. Routley: Vancouver Island farmers have been reducing and eliminating their herds. They've done so because of uncertainty over the new meat inspection, meat packing regulations. You can't give away hay. The farm suppliers have cut their staffs.

This Liberal government recklessly removed regulation throughout the province without a care of how they affected loggers, children in care and many others. Now they are haphazardly adding them without consideration to the impacts to the economy of Vancouver Island.

[1415]

Has this government done any predictions of the economic effects of these changes? Did you predict these losses, or was this a mistake?

Hon. P. Bell: The member should well know there's been significant expansion of processing capacity. In fact, on Vancouver Island — I'm looking at the list here — there's Gunter Bros. Meat in Courtenay, as an example. Als Feathers Be Gone — there's an interesting name. That one is from Port Alberni. Hidden Valley Processing would be another one.

There's a whole slew of processors that have developed up and down the Island, which creates opportunities for primary processors to move their product through to the marketplace. But my favourite one is in Qualicum, B.C., owned by Lori Gillies. That particular abattoir: The Cluck Stops Here.

N. Macdonald: We're going to continue with this theme. What the minister knows is that for two years this has been going on. He knows it's a mess.

Karen and Leo Downey owned a small buffalo ranch in the Blaeberry near Golden. They have been running a successful small business for years and would continue to do so if not for the B.C. Liberal meat inspection regulations. The minister knows that's the case.

The opposition and small businesses have repeatedly told the minister the problems with these regulations, and we have put forward solutions as a small business. When is the minister responsible going to implement regulations that work for rural British Columbia?

Hon. P. Bell: What the member is stating is exactly what's occurring today — 71 applications for funding through a program that this government created with $5 million of direct funding to build abattoir capacity around the province. There's an additional $12.5 million spread around the province that is to be utilized for SRM disposal.

But this opposition refuses to do their research, and it just shows how pathetic their research department is. I have a press release from October 5 that says the NDP rural caucus calls the meat industry regulations…. I'm not sure what this word is; I think it's boodoogle. Or is it boodogle? I'm not quite sure, but they might want to check their website and fix the spelling of that particular one.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[ Page 8638 ]

K. Conroy: Well, we have been doing our research, and our research includes talking to the rural ranchers and farmers that are out in B.C.

Dan and Carol Dumont with their sons are the fifth generation of Dumonts farming on their ranch in Bridesville. That's over in the Boundary country, for those of you that don't know. This family has survived the Depression, drought and BSE. Now, because of these B.C. Liberal meat regulations, they are seriously, for the first time ever, considering selling their ranch. Carol and Dan Dumont and their sons do not deserve this. Rural B.C. does not deserve this.

Today I want to see the Minister of Agriculture stand up in this House and say he is standing up for those rural ranchers, those farmers and their families, and tell them that they don't have to sell their farms because of these regulations.

Hon. P. Bell: I'll tell you what this government has committed to. It has committed to ensuring that there's a safe food system and that the consumer can rely on the products grown in British Columbia.

We've already grown the industry from just 25 abattoirs in British Columbia. As of today there are 44 licensed abattoirs around the province. That number continues to grow. I fully expect to see it grow to the end of the year and on an ongoing basis.

[1420]

Food processing is an integral part of the agricultural sector, and if we don't have a way of moving our product in a safe way through to the end consumer, I'm not sure that we have a full sector.

If the member really wants to perhaps follow up, she should check with a fellow member of her caucus. I've actually got a letter to the editor here, dated September 27, from the member for Cariboo South, where the member says: "I apologize for any

part I played in giving the impression that the new regulations would put them out of business." Check with your fellow member.

C. Evans: The minister is correct. There are 71 people who have applied to become abattoirs, and good for them. Those are good business people.

There are literally thousands of small business people in the farming industry that we have talked to, who are going out of business because they live in places where there is no place to process their meat. They're too far from some major centre. They have begged this minister or the Minister of Health to allow them, as they have done for generations, to engage in farm-gate sales — to kill a chicken or a hog or a cow and sell it to their neighbours.

The best food you can buy within the hundred miles. It's done all over this country, it's done all over the world, and this minister is making it illegal. This minister is turning historical business practices on the farm in B.C. into criminal behaviour.

Mr. Speaker: Member, could you pose your question.

C. Evans: Will the minister admit he made a mistake and simply allow farm-gate freezer sales in order that the people can stay in business and buy the food they want?

Hon. P. Bell: The member should know better than that. British Columbia is the last province in Canada that has implemented these regulations. We extended the regulations for 13 months, and we added a total of $17.5 million in funding to ensure that British Columbians have healthy, safe food.

[End of question period.]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Tabling Documents

Hon. W. Oppal: I have the honour to present the following reports: the Final Report of the 2007 British Columbia Judges Compensation Commission and the report recommendations of the 2007 British Columbia Judicial Justices of the Peace Commission.

I'm obliged to make some observations on the reports concerning the compensation of judges and judicial justices. Under

section 6(1) of the Judicial Compensation Act, when the reports that I have just tabled are tabled, I'm obliged to advise the assembly that pursuant to

section 6(3) of the act, if the assembly does not resolve to reject a recommendation contained in these reports within the time lines established by that act, then the judges and the judicial justices will receive the salary remuneration and benefits that are recommended in the respective reports beginning April 1, 2008.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call continued second reading debate on Bill 40, Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement Act.

Second Reading of Bills

TSAWWASSEN FIRST NATION

FINAL AGREEMENT ACT

(continued)

M. Karagianis: I would like to resume the debate. I left off yesterday talking about the appalling statistics for aboriginal communities, the challenges they will face in the growing economy of the future and their ability to fit into that.

This government likes to trumpet about the economy. Clearly, aboriginal people are not able to take advantage of the effects of that economy and may be marginalized far into the future because of the statistics and the reality for them. I think these statistics are sad. I think they are heartbreaking. I also think they are alarming and disturbing, and they should make every one of us very angry.

[1425]

[ Page 8639 ]

In the absence of fair and honourable treaties, first nations communities will continue to be prevented from escaping these conditions. The government knows this. The government understands it's a reality today. They travel just like we do all over the province. They see and hear the same things we do from first nations communities across British Columbia. And they understood it a decade ago when, in opposition, they threw themselves into the effort to stop the Nisga'a treaty.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

The Premier himself said: "It's especially unfortunate that Nisga'a should find themselves confronted with a final agreement that was honourably negotiated on their part but which nevertheless contains a model of self-government that we believe to be unconstitutional. All the fancy words and propaganda don't change the fact that it entrenches inequality in the constitution."

Or later: "This is a new, third order of government." Or: "We are saying that they should have these things. We think that self-government should be true municipal government with a delegated authority, not permanently fixed constitutional authority."

Well, of course, none of these statements was true then and certainly not true now in application to the Tsawwassen treaty. I know that the Premier stood in the House the other day and admitted he was wrong on all of these. Yeah, you're right. You bet. He was wrong on those things.

The B.C. Liberals did not stop there with those comments. In fact, they took the matter to court in 1998, and they brought suit against the federal and provincial governments and the Nisga'a Tribal Council, while in opposition. They sought to have the court declare the treaty as unconstitutional.

Quotes from the Premier at that time as Leader of the Opposition: "We have no choice but to proceed to court." Campbell said: "The party will challenge the judgment in B.C. Court of Appeal and if necessary take it to the Supreme Court of Canada."

Of course, the court saw no merit in this case, and in 2000 their application was dismissed. But they appealed it again. They only stood down when they formed government and realized that they couldn't sue themselves. That must have been a very interesting revelation.

The Premier did not stop there. In fact, he continued the battle against the Nisga'a treaty by holding what many members in this House have talked about — a very meaningless and expensive referendum on treaties in 2002, at a cost of $9 million to the taxpayers of this province.

In the end, the referendum results gave the Premier what he wanted: free rein to continue to negotiate treaties more or less the way they had always been negotiated. No move forward whatsoever. Political opportunism at its very worst.

The final twist in this saga, which I think is very interesting, is that the Tsawwassen treaty is in almost every respect based on the Nisga'a treaty, the same treaty that the government fought in opposition and held a referendum on. The Nisga'a treaty that this government opposed with all its might is the very foundation of the treaty that they have brought forward today.

Meanwhile, the conditions for aboriginal people throughout this province continue to rival those of many Third World countries. I know fellow colleagues of mine have spoken to this.

In my own community and across the south Island, first nations communities are exactly nowhere in the treaty process. Left out, their futures still unknown and undetermined.

The Auditor General has taken a critical view of the government's slowness on treaty negotiations, noting how slow they have been across the province, how counterproductive it has been. Partly this has been the result of cutbacks that this government made across government, resulting in a lack of staffing and resources to continue with negotiating — as the old saying goes, having cut off their nose to spite their own face.

What happened then? Well, the public affairs bureau went to work and decided they'd find a way to rationalize the government's actions and come up with a new breakthrough strategy on treaties. The logic behind it? Find the easiest, most favourable treaties and pursue those first, with the rationale that that would somehow smooth the way for future treaties.

In the case of Tsawwassen, it was very successful. It worked for them, and for that, we are very happy.

But it seems to me that the government, faced with the results of their own cutbacks, had no choice but to put in place some kind of system to rationalize that, a way to get at least some treaties moved forward with success. Not exactly a strategy but more of a process built out of desperation in facing the reality of the cuts. Of course, it was dressed up by the government and their spin doctors to seem like a pretty well-thought-out strategy.

[1430]

The Auditor General also has had many things to say about the new relationship, singling it out as, in fact, a barrier to moving forward on treaties. The new relationship seems to me to be little more than a slogan, certainly not a vision in any way.

There's no vision in the new relationship. It is a grab-bag of side deals meant to buy time, create the illusion of progress and forestall real criticism on the lack of progress being made. The Auditor General has said that these side deals coming out of the new relationship are a disincentive for many first nations, and surely they must be. Why proceed to treaty process when you can be distracted with side deals?

The new relationship is, in fact, a facade, a one-dimensional image with no substance behind it — no depth, no reality. Another one of the Premier's PR campaigns. This is very evident with every action that this government has taken towards treaties. During estimates, all of the critics on this side of the House asked about the new relationship and what resources were put into all of the service plans across government. What did we find out? None. No resources.

[ Page 8640 ]

In fact, every single service plan and every single minister reverted straight back to only the Aboriginal Relations Ministry. In fact, this is not an across-government new relationship. There are no resources, no real evidence of anything tangible in government's actions. I think those actions actually speak volumes.

This government's poor environmental record has negatively affected first nations since 2001. Fish farms have been expanded in first nations territories despite their wishes. Reduced regulation to protect ecosystems and groundwater has resulted in degradation of land and resources in first nations territories. Even the sale of B.C. Rail has reduced safety, resulting in increased derailments and environmental damage that offend first nations communities.

This government gutted the Environmental Assessment Act, shutting the first nations out of the process in the process of doing that. Where once under the old NDP legislation they were guaranteed a voice at the table, that is no longer available to them. Under MCFD, my former critic portfolio, the shift of responsibilities to aboriginal communities has faltered, stalled, is failing on many fronts because of a lack of resources, a lack of planning, inadequate training.

We have examples of the heritage protection act having no teeth in it to protect artifacts, sacred sites. We've had many examples of that across the province, and first nations have been asking for some legislation and some enforcement in the heritage act. The list goes on, proving the point over and over again about the lack of substance or real commitment to this relationship that is supposed to be new.

The government talks a really good line, but their actions speak much louder than their words. I believe those actions are hurting first nations communities more than they are helping. The new relationship is not true. There's nothing new. There's no relationship. I think that was evidenced by the dichotomy here on the first day of this sitting, when a demonstration on the front steps of this building occurred at the same time as a treaty was being brought forward.

The message from first nations is clear, and the government, as is their way, continues to bury their head and ignore the evidence. They're busy patting themselves on the back, talking loudly about their success — so loudly, in fact, that they cannot hear, or will not hear, that many first nations leaders are saying the opposite to them.

There's something else about this treaty that concerns me greatly, and I know my fellow colleagues have spoken about it in the House here. It is the unilateral removal of land from the agricultural land reserve. Here in British Columbia we have watched the slow and stealthy shift in policies that protected the agricultural land reserve. Piece by piece the government has supported the depletion of the land reserve. Here on the Island, across the lower mainland and all across British Columbia it is evident that this government does not value this land reserve, nor are they committed to its preservation, care and stewardship.

[1435]

At a time when greenspace is disappearing, when food security is the growing challenge and concern, and when the globalization of food production makes it more and more problematic for us to find locally grown food, this government is relentless in its quest to sell off, give away or dismantle the land reserve.

The old legislation was weakened at the request of the government's developer friends, all under the specious sort of logic that the need for housing — i.e., urban sprawl — somehow trumps the precedent for food production. Without accountability, without transparency, the protection of the land reserve is being co-opted every day, and each piece of that land that is lost is lost forever, irrevocably. That concerns me greatly.

As growing awareness and concern over climate change becomes a reality for all of us, we must make the paradigm shift to how and where we will obtain our food in the future as part of that discussion. Instead we have a government that's happy — in fact, eager — to tear up the social contract on the agricultural land reserve.

It's always amusing to hear members from the other side of the House talk about how you have to eat to live. We hear that in this House quite often. I guess they actually mean you have to eat to live from food that's grown in Chile or Mexico, that has to be trucked in from a long way away and that does not have the same protections around pesticides or organic growth.

This government has no hesitation in letting their developer friends come up with new, persuasive ways, special circumstances and rationales for taking the land out of the land reserve. It is the thin edge of the wedge, and it's a grave concern to all of us, and should be to everyone in this province, that this is happening.

It's interesting how nicely the government's actions dovetail with their Gateway project plans. Everyone knows that the land that has been offered up here in Tsawwassen has, in fact, been coveted for a long time for the Deltaport. It's interesting that the government could not make that kind of naked purpose known publicly. There may be a backdoor method being used here, where the government might be using this treaty as a pretext. I sincerely hope not, but time will tell, because history has a way of providing terrific clarity in situations like this.

I think it's important to look past many of these concerns at this time and focus in on a celebration for the Tsawwassen in the victory of their treaty, because it's been truly well earned by the Tsawwassen people. I wish these communities really great success in making this treaty work to develop a better future for themselves and for their children. Like my fellow colleagues here, I share in their joy that they have found a chance and a way to get out from under the Indian Act and all the bonds that have tied them to government for so many years. In fact, I'll be voting in favour of this legislation because of that.

It is also my sincere hope that the government will stop paying lip service to aboriginal people and will actually move to real reconciliation. This government — and in particular, this Premier — has got to show that there is more than just catchy slogans and PR

[ Page 8641 ]

campaigns to the new relationship. Frankly, a photo op is not a policy, not a relationship and not a treaty.

This government needs to show that they are fully committed to proper and lasting reconciliation with all first nations of this province. Our laws and the courts tell us that we must do this, and I think it's been plain for many years. Our business community knows that we must do it because there are compelling economic reasons to do so. This is not just about pet projects like the Gateway or the Olympics. This is about something that will affect the whole economy for a very long time. And because it's simply the right thing to do, we need to make sure that all first nations have the opportunity in a timely fashion to settle their treaties.

I know that the Premier had some kind of an epiphany moment just prior to the last election and has restyled himself as the champion of aboriginal people in this province. A real champion illuminates the way forward based on the actions of the past and his actions of the moment. A real champion provides substance, real commitment and tangible evidence — results, not rhetoric. It is my sincere hope that as we proceed forward from today, that will be what we get from this government.

[1440]

The proof, of course, will be in the history, because that's what we're writing today. It will, as I said earlier, give us the clarity as we look back on this from a distance.

Hon. J. Les: It's a great pleasure and actually an honour for me to be able to rise today to provide my comments on Bill 40, a historic piece of legislation that provides a new future and a new beginning for the Tsawwassen First Nation.

I am particularly pleased that we've been able to come to an agreement with the Tsawwassen First Nation. This is the first treaty under the B.C. Treaty Commission process, which has been ongoing now for many years. I suspect it's fair to say that over those years many people would have despaired that we would ever arrive at any treaties at all.

It's been a very arduous process. It's taken a lot of commitment. It's taken a lot of hard work, and I think that when we want to pat people on the back in this regard, our first congratulations should go to the steadfastness and the determination of the Tsawwassen First Nation and its leadership for having the fortitude and the stick-to-it-iveness to arrive at this historic occasion.

I was sorry, frankly, that the member who spoke just before me actually reduced it all down to describing it as a photo op. I think that is a particularly disingenuous and even disgusting characterization of what this is all about. This was about serious people doing serious business together, building a future for all of us, including the Tsawwassen First Nation.

I reflect, as well, on how long this process has been ongoing. As members of the House will know, I used to be involved in municipal politics before I had the honour of being elected to this place. In that regard, I was a member of several treaty advisory commissions in the Fraser Valley, first of all. By virtue of that, I was also part of the lower mainland treaty advisory committee. There were a lot of discussions, usually on a monthly basis, as municipalities also learned what the implications would be for them and their communities in the years ahead as these treaties started to take shape.

Also, in my term as president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, I instigated a standing committee on aboriginal relations, because I certainly knew from my B.C. perspective that communities would have to develop strong and enduring relationships with aboriginal communities. As they emerged and as they obtained new treaties and new opportunities within the economy, those relationships were going to be very, very important.

I remember working very closely with Chief Manny Jules of the Kamloops Indian band as the federal government changed legislation that allowed aboriginal first nations people to develop their own property taxation bylaws, which was another important step forward. As aboriginal communities in British Columbia started to implement those new powers, as provincial legislation was changed at the time — this was in the late '80s — people like Chief Manny Jules played a very important role in facilitating that process and helping to build understanding between aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities.

We've also seen leaders like Chief Clarence Louie of the Osoyoos Indian band. Although not involved in the treaty process, he certainly has taken the opportunity to move his first nation forward very strongly in terms of economic development and providing investment and employment opportunities in the Osoyoos area. He has been demonstrated to be a significant leader in the first nations community. Anybody who visits the Osoyoos area will see a lot of evidence that the Osoyoos First Nation has certainly moved forward.

I think that's indicative of the economic development potential that resides in many, if not all, aboriginal communities, and to me, this is one of the important aspects of the Tsawwassen agreement. This is the very foundation, I think, from which the Tsawwassen people can move forward and develop an economy, develop employment and jobs and opportunity for their people.

[1445]

They are, as we all know, very strategically located, and I think they can, in the future, take advantage of so many opportunities. Frankly, I will be front and centre cheering them on, because I think that what we need to do is work very strongly towards economic development, as many people have recognized in the past.

Having read some material on this from authors such as Calvin Helin, another first nations leader in this province, and an academic such as Menno Boldt at the University of Calgary, they have recognized clearly that one of the things we must do together is develop an economic future for first nations. Based on that economic future, we can then move forward to close the socioeconomic gap and the gaps in health care and education and also the cultural gaps.

[ Page 8642 ]

There are many, many good things that flow from a solid economic future. Without that economic future, I'm afraid, many of these things simply will not happen. As I consider the Tsawwassen First Nation agreement, I am filled with a lot of optimism that this will provide a great economic future for the Tsawwassen people.

As other people in the House have pointed out, one of the features of this agreement would see the removal from the agricultural land reserve of a portion of the lands that are being transferred to the Tsawwassen First Nation. Some have indicated that this is extremely problematic.

I certainly am not someone that would care to see the holus-bolus release of agricultural land everywhere from the agricultural land reserve, but I think we owe the Tsawwassen First Nation people some respect here. They are being given the custody of a significant portion of land, and I think we should have the decency to let the Tsawwassen First Nation people figure out for themselves what is the highest and the best use of that land for their purposes.

The non-aboriginal settlement of British Columbia has been going on now for something in excess of 150 years. We decided, for example, to develop cities like Richmond, communities like Ladner, places like Surrey, many of which, if not all of which, would today be considered to be first-class agricultural land.

We subsequently changed legislation to set aside agricultural land and keep it for food production, but the opportunities that we took advantage of for over 130 years of development in this province, we would purport to deny the Tsawwassen First Nation people. I think that is flat wrong. We ought to give them the respect that they deserve and allow them to make those decisions in their best interests.

When they do that, I think it will obviously be in their best interests, first of all, to make those decisions, then to benefit from those decisions and, frankly, as they develop their economic future, to engage with the non-aboriginal community around the Tsawwassen First Nation lands to the benefit of all British Columbians.

Just to summarize this portion of my remarks, I think this treaty is an awful lot about unlocking the economic potential for the Tsawwassen First Nation people. That is fundamentally important, and as I drive back and forth to the ferry terminal in the years ahead, I'm certainly looking forward to seeing that economic future and the social future for the Tsawwassen First Nation people move forward.

A number of people have already spoken before me, and I just want to note the comments of the member for Peace River South, who spoke yesterday and indicated that he would not be able to support this particular piece of legislation. He outlined briefly the reasons why he would not be able to do that.

What struck me is that we have a caucus and we have a leader on this side of the House that tolerate a diversity of opinion, that tolerate that diversity respectfully, and we don't particularly disrespect one another for a different point of view. We consider that point of view, we come to a consensus agreement, and as a government, we move forward.

[1450]

I want to say to the member for Peace River South that I very much appreciated his point of view. I don't happen to agree with it, but I certainly appreciate his courage in standing up in this House and honestly sharing with us his particular point of view.

Now, contrast that with the members on the opposite side of the House, the members of the opposition. The member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows also has difficulty, apparently, with this treaty. He's indicated quite publicly that he will not be supporting this treaty, and for his troubles, he was kicked out of the caucus.

In reflecting on that, I'm wondering: is the Leader of the Opposition that insecure that she can't tolerate a diversity of opinion within her caucus? Is she that intolerant of a divergent point of view that she has to resort to kicking people out of her caucus?

I think it's deplorable that the Leader of the Opposition basically takes the position that it's either her way or the highway. Frankly, I think it reflects very, very poorly on the opposition to tolerate that kind of leadership approach. It's shameful, and I would hope that there would be more tolerance and more democracy found amongst the members of the opposition.

I know the member for North Coast would like to engage me in debate. I understand that what I have just said is uncomfortable for members opposite, but it truly is a sad day when individual members of this House are apparently, on the opposition side, not allowed to state their honestly held opinions but are forced to kowtow to their leader who, I guess — seeing as she is in a bout of insecurity with respect to her leadership — has to resort to those kinds of draconian methods.

Anyway, as I said, this is a very significant moment in the history of British Columbia, but it builds on many other initiatives that have been developed over the last several years. When we reflect back over the last five or six years, I think we all have to understand and recognize that there has been very, very significant progress made in terms of the relationships with aboriginal people and the opportunities that are being put in place for a better future for aboriginal and non-aboriginal people alike.

This is obviously primarily about aboriginal people and their place in British Columbia, but when aboriginal people in the future do better, we will all do better, and we will do that in many different ways.

I just wanted to comment for a few minutes on some of the agreements that have been signed with first nations over the last several years. There was, for example, the education jurisdiction agreement with the First Nations Education Steering Committee and the federal government, which recognizes the right of first nations to make decisions about the education of their children. Again, I think something very, very fundamental.

We want to take the paternalism out of the relationships between government and first nations people, and I think that too was another huge step forward in that education is actually very, very fundamental and

[ Page 8643 ]

becoming increasingly more important. As our economy moves forward and becomes more globalized, we are going to have to compete on the basis of education. Without education, a lot of these opportunities will never prevail.

The aboriginal education strategy helps aboriginal students start, stay and succeed in post-secondary education and training. That was a $65 million agreement. Our government hosted the first-ever national summit on aboriginal health and released the first nations health plan, containing initiatives that allow the provinces and first nations to work together with the express goal of closing health gaps by the year 2015.

[1455]

We launched the ActNow program in British Columbia, and a specific aspect of that is a $6 million program to promote aboriginal health. We've granted almost $60 million to create 292 housing units in ten aboriginal communities across the province under the aboriginal housing initiative.

As we all know, housing is one of those areas of concern on first nations lands across the province. In British Columbia we are certainly doing our part to try and rectify that situation — to provide decent housing to aboriginal people on reserve and, I should say, off reserve as well.

Reconciliation is a process of coming to understanding with first nations to redress the hardships that have been endured by aboriginal people over the last several hundred years. When we look at some of those issues of redress, I think of issues like the settlement with the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations — a $31 million settlement relating to land that was unlawfully taken from them many years ago.

We have an agreement with the Tsay Keh Dene band and the Kwadacha First Nation. It's worth over $40 million in measures to address the flooding impacts of the dams that were installed in the 1960s on the Peace River.

We have agreed to remove or relocate, depending on the best option, the murals in the Legislature — in this very building — that were deemed to be offensive to First Nations people. We have supported first nations culture and heritage, including a grant of $1.2 million to support language revitalization — that is, first nations languages — and $3.5 million worth of support to the North American Indigenous Games that will be held in the Cowichan Valley next year.

Also, with the Métis Nation, we've signed a relationship accord to close the socioeconomic gaps that they experience.

That's not the end of it. I just mention those initiatives in order to outline that while treaties are very important, and we certainly are very supportive of the treaty-making process, it's important to understand that it's one set of tools in the toolbox. There are many ways in which we have to work with first nations to ensure that they get the services and the opportunities they need to move forward in step with the rest of the province.

I think it's important to understand that we need to continue to look for those opportunities wherever possible. In some cases that's going to be treaties, in the first instance. In some other cases it's going to be other types of agreements. I think some of the examples that I have outlined certainly give a pretty good array of the different kinds of agreements that we have with first nations people across the province.

It doesn't end there. I just listed the different initiatives that we've undertaken in the last several years, but we continue to sign agreements with first nations across the province, giving them community-level benefits that share in the revenue and access to resources. We have four long-term agreements with the Blueberry River First Nation, supporting aboriginal participation and economic certainty in the oil and gas, minerals, mines and forest industry in that part of the province.

We have developed land use plans with the Squamish First Nation, the In-SHUCK-ch Nation, the central coast first nations and first nations in the Morice planning area to create economic opportunities and establish management areas to protect cultural assets and environmental values in those areas.

We also have forest and range agreements with close to 130 first nations to provide $166 million in revenue and access to 24 million cubic metres of timber in this province and to provide opportunities in that industry for first nations people as well.

So as I've said, this is an important and historic moment in the province's history. It's an honourable moment, I think, for all of the various participants. Some would say this treaty is not perfect. I have no doubts that, as in many human endeavours, we have not quite achieved perfection in this piece of legislation and in this treaty.

[1500]

But I think it's also safe to say that in spite of its possible imperfections, this is, indeed, a huge step forward for the Tsawwassen people. I hope it is the harbinger of many other treaties to come.

I note that there are some votes coming up this weekend that will be important for advancing several other treaties. I hope to be able to rise on many future occasions as we continue to pass, through the Legislature, these treaties that settle for the future those differences that have for too long existed between the aboriginal and the non-aboriginal people of this province.

This truly will be the starting point, I think, for a new future and a new beginning for aboriginal people. I would encourage all members of the House to think clearly about the opportunities that these treaties provide and to vote in favour of these treaties. They truly do herald a future for all aboriginal people across this country.

B. Ralston: I rise to address Bill 40, the Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement Act and to speak in favour of the bill.

It's inevitable on such an occasion that one reflects historically as to how far we have come to reach this point. This bill, this treaty is an important step in the long struggle by B.C. first nations people to achieve a just resolution of the aboriginal land question in British Columbia. The essential issue of the land question is

[ Page 8644 ]

the fact that the lands that first nations people occupied, controlled and owned for centuries were taken from them without negotiations or compensation.

The history of British Columbia is stark in contrast to other provinces and other territories in Canada. The failure of successive governments to settle the land question is well known. There were some early attempts in 1850 to 1854 in the colony of Vancouver Island when James Douglas, the colony's first governor, negotiated 14 local treaties with tribal groups on Vancouver Island. In 1899 the Dene in the northeast of British Columbia signed Treaty 8. Then for another 100 years, until the Nisga'a treaty, there were no other treaties in British Columbia.

That was in large part because of the position taken by the Crown in right of the province here in British Columbia — which took a position, notorious in some circles, that they would not — the government, the Crown, the provincial Crown — negotiate treaties. In this particular case — the Tsawwassen First Nation — the land which is now the present reserve was taken from them in the late 1880s without negotiation or compensation. They were allotted the land that comprises the present reserve.

In 1914, in the history of the province, as the population of the province grew and population pressure on Indian land increased, a royal commission on Indian affairs for the province of British Columbia was struck, popularly known as the McKenna-McBride commission.

It toured the entire province looking at reserve land that had already been allotted. It had the jurisdiction and the power to add land to reserves but most notably, also, had the power to cut off reserve land. That jurisdiction was exercised, in the view of some, where the population pressure from settler society was the most intense. The commissioners travelled during the field seasons, as they were called, in 1913, 1915 and 1916, and they reported extensively on their travels.

[1505]

To give an example of what they did, in the city of New Westminster there were 22.48 acres which was a camping place for all the Fraser River tribes, which they used during the fishing season. That was in what is contemporary New Westminster. What happened during that fishing season was that the tribes would come down and use that land for camping. In other words, they would live there during part of the year. That was a regular occurrence. What the commission did was cut off or eliminate that as a particular reserve.

In particular, the commission made a stop at the Tsawwassen reserve and spoke to the Chief there, who I understand is the great-grandfather of present Chief Kim Baird. It's interesting and instructive to look at what he said when he addressed the commission. He was speaking through an interpreter, speaking in his own language, and a transcript was made of what he said.

I'm going to quote some of what he said.

"It is a long time ago that there were commissioners visiting various reserves in the province of British Columbia, and I have been awaiting their arrival here on this reserve. Indeed, I have a grievance. I have been speaking to the men appointed to look after our interests in British Columbia, but all our words seem to go unheard. Therefore, I shall repeat the same words that I have spoken about in former days.

"I had made up my mind in these days past, while my request was unheard, never to say anything but let things go as it should, whether it was right or wrong. Therefore, I am glad to see you gentlemen here today and I am going to speak of my grievance, and I wish it to be heard and settled."

He is questioned by the commission and asked some questions about the reserve. One question he is asked is: "Are there any white settlers living near you outside the reserve?" "Yes, there are a lot of settlers, and the reserve is almost surrounded by settlers." "Are the settlers around the reserve buying and selling the land which surrounds the reserve?" "I cannot say for sure if they are buying and selling it."

He's further questioned. The chairman asks him a question: "The land you have on your reserve, now, no one interferes with that, do they?" His answer is quite instructive and really expresses the dilemma that this treaty now seeks to address. "Well, the two governments and us — that makes three people who own this piece of land. I want to have this land so that no one can come and take it."

Commissioner McKenna, summing up what he had heard, says: "What the Indians particularly want at the present moment is that the present difficulty as to the title should be removed?" Answer: "Yes, I think it should be removed."

Then Chief Harry Joe concludes:

"I want to say a few words to the royal commissioners here today. The reason I am glad to see you royal commissioners here today is to explain what I have said. You have been appointed by the two governments. What I ask for now I want guaranteed so that I will not have trouble for the days to come. The reason we are asking for the title, it is not to sell the land that we are asking it, but to save troubles among ourselves. That is the reason I explained to you gentlemen that our land is not for to sell, but to keep all the time."

Clearly, at that point, the intention of the Tsawwassen First Nation was to settle a grievance and to clear title so that no one could take the land from them. Also, before the commission, the first nation, through Chief Harry Joe, applied to have land on Lulu Island, between Deas Island and Annacis Island, made a reserve land in the ownership of the Tsawwassen First Nation.

It's interesting to note in the decisions of the report of the royal commission that that request was denied. The first nation also applied for ownership of the tidal area of the reserve. That land was basically a salt marsh below the tide line. That request was denied.

[1510]

I bring these points before the Legislature in this debate to illustrate, I hope, the desire of the Tsawwassen First Nation, in this particular case, to resolve the land question — to clear title so that no one could take the land from them, in the words of Chief Harry Joe — is a longstanding grievance, as he put it, with both governments, with the Crown provincial and the Crown federal — which this process and this treaty is, in my view, a successful conclusion of.

[ Page 8645 ]

Sometimes when people speak of negotiations…. The most familiar form of negotiations to many people is labour negotiations. But there are very obvious differences between labour negotiations and treaty negotiations. Labour negotiations — while they're understandably very intense and can have huge consequences sometimes, in the event of a strike or a lockout, and can demand intense emotional, intellectual resources and time to solve as problems — generally only endure as agreements for three or four or five years. It's rare for an agreement to be longer than that.

What is being negotiated in the treaty process, of course, is something that is expected to endure forever. The issue of what finality means is obviously a question that is a live one within the jurisprudence, within first nations, and among those who discuss treaty negotiations. Nonetheless, a treaty is expected to have an enduring quality that a labour negotiation does not.

It's understandable that the commitment to negotiate a treaty — and particularly this kind of treaty, which is precedential, unprecedented in modern time — was a very long and very difficult process. In my view, certainly, the Tsawwassen First Nation, under the leadership of Kim Baird, are to be commended for the kind of patience, endurance, effort and commitment that it has taken to conclude this agreement.

In negotiating a treaty and reconciling the aboriginal interest with that of the Crown, in the spirit of true reconciliation, the Tsawwassen First Nation was faced with very difficult choices in deciding how it would negotiate and what land it would agree to seek for return or to be added to the land of the Tsawwassen First Nation. It accepted the position of the government that the lands returned under the treaty should be located or situated in close proximity to the existing reserve.

That's a logical step and, indeed, one that's supported by some of the jurisprudence. That would minimize the impact on surrounding communities. In an urban setting, finding land, as opposed to cash, to make a treaty agreement with is difficult to begin with. The land, obviously, that is spoken of is the land that is the subject of considerable debate — largely Crown-owned farmland.

Now, as I understand it, it was clear to the Tsawwassen First Nation that some lands would have to be available to meet their community and housing needs and to provide a basis for participation in the economy. Participation in the economy as a goal should not be underestimated.

The Solicitor General just a moment ago referred to Chief Clarence Louie of the Osoyoos band. Those who have heard him speak will know that he is a very forceful and distinctive speaker, if I can put it that way. He has a very, very strong view about the importance of economic development.

When I heard him speak, he spoke of looking at the typical spending of many reserves in British Columbia. He looked at them with a critical eye. Social spending was way up here, and spending on economic development was way down here.

[1515]

In his view, in order to be successful, in order to move aboriginal people forward, it was necessary to change that balance, to focus far less on social spending and far more on economic development.

Economic development, as his leadership has demonstrated in Osoyoos — very skilful leadership in the sense of creating economic opportunities for the Osoyoos band, whether it's the participation in a ski resort or in a winery or in other forms of business on and off reserve land — has been very dramatic and very effective.

To the degree that the Tsawwassen seek to emulate that kind of economic development, it's necessary…. I support their view that in order to do that and achieve that successfully, they need a further land base.

I will speak about the implications for the agricultural land reserve shortly. I think, given that the region from Hope to Squamish, to Delta and all of the lands in what is Metro Vancouver and further up the Fraser Valley have for over a hundred years supported much economic activity and made that region and this province one of the richest in the world, it's not unreasonable to think that the Tsawwassen First Nation are entitled to participate in that economic development as well. That would be meaningless and very difficult to achieve if some further land was not shared with them as a part of the treaty process.

Certainly, that is part of that negotiation. It's always easy to criticize a very complicated agreement that's negotiated over many years and to look back with the clarity of hindsight and criticize. But it's also very clear from what Chief Kim Baird has said and what others have said that compromises in the spirit of reconciliation with the Crown have been made. On balance, in my view, the treaty is a good one.

It's a belated recognition of the wrong that was done in the past and of the obligation to make amends for the treatment. It's

an act of redress, of compensation and reconciliation and, in my view, provides a real opportunity for the Tsawwassen First Nation to participate in the social, political and economic life of the region without drastically damaging the region's economic and political success.

Now, the issue of the agricultural land reserve and that land within the agricultural land reserve is obviously something that many people have considered. I'm not alone in that consideration. I've listened carefully to several former members of this Legislature — Harold Steves, whom I respect very much, and Joan Sawicki as well — who've brought to my attention their concerns about the implications of this treaty for the future of the agricultural land reserve.

I am particularly mindful of those points of view. I spent some time, at the request of my leader, as the Agriculture critic. I'm familiar with those issues about the future of the agricultural land reserve and have, indeed, participated in many debates on that topic.

I understand the value of the agricultural land reserve, particularly in a context where in British Columbia approximately 50 percent of our food is imported to the province and only the other half, obviously, is grown here. That is far from self-sufficiency in

[ Page 8646 ]

food. In a world where food supply change and climate change may lead to drastic consequences for food-producing areas — desertification, water problems in various parts of the world — food-producing land in the future will be more precious than it is now.

[1520]

Nonetheless, bearing in mind all of that background and consideration of the goal of reconciling the aboriginal interest with the Crown and in the spirit of compromise, I support, on balance, the treaty for those reasons.

The task ahead for the Tsawwassen is a daunting one. I recently had the occasion as a member of the Finance Committee in Terrace to meet with the leadership of the Nisga'a Nation — the chair and the secretary-treasurer, their CEO and their chief financial officer — as they were headed to a meeting in Victoria. What they expressed was that achieving a treaty — although it's an arduous journey to achieve one — is only the beginning of another process of self-government.

It's devising the policies, understanding one's leadership, hiring the right people, getting the right advice, planning and building the first nations' capacity to engage in the kind of economic and social development that this treaty sets the stage for.

I congratulate them on the steps they've taken and wish them well on the journey that they are about to embark upon, assuming, as I do, that this legislation will pass not only this Legislature, but the Parliament of Canada in the next step.

In the time that I have remaining I wish to look to the future. This agreement, while it is an important first step, really begins to beg the question: what's the future of treaty-making in the province? What other agreements are going to come about, and how will they come about?

The Auditor General did have some criticisms of the government in the post-2001 period, where the government chose a strategy of picking a few agreements, driving those forward and letting many other agreements really go unnegotiated — basically, focusing the resources on a few key treaties. It was called a breakthrough strategy. That, while it obviously resulted in this agreement, has led to frustration among many first nations who have seen their negotiations, their potential treaty, not move forward at all.

The agreement has come forward, I think it's fair to say, not without some criticism — and I would consider it quite legitimate criticism — of the implications of this agreement for the broader treaty process. Indeed, Grand Chief Edward John on October 15, just this week on Monday, spoke of his view of the so-called new relationship. While he said that the new relationship had been heralded by himself and many in the province, he had some difficulties, some concerns, about the direction the new relationship appeared to be taking.

He says, and I'm quoting from a statement that he released on October 15: "Although we remain the true optimists, the sad reality is the Premier's recognition commitment has yet to find its way into one piece of legislation, regulation or policy. It has not resulted in any meaningful change to the government's negotiation or litigation policies or mandates."

He does not condemn the Tsawwassen agreement. I want to be clear about that. He says: "The Tsawwassen First Nation should be commended for its significant efforts to conclude this deal. The community members considered the agreement and, given the unique circumstances that most of their lands have been taken up by third-party interests, voted to ratify it. It is an agreement that is unique to the Tsawwassen First Nation."

[1525]

He goes on to say: "But there are important issues which both governments need to consider seriously. The agreement embodies in it the core Crown strategy of 'modifying' constitutionally recognized and affirmed aboriginal rights — including the inherent right of self government — and title. The question is: how can you 'modify' constitutionally recognized and affirmed rights in a political agreement?"

There is a concern expressed by someone as distinguished as Grand Chief Edward John about the future of the new relationship. He goes on to also talk about the impacts. He has questions about the impacts of the negotiation of this treaty with neighbouring first nations who are not in negotiations with the government.

He has concerns about the impact of the interests of first nations in southern Vancouver Island, those who entered into the so-called Douglas treaties that I referred to at the outset of my remarks, and perhaps most significantly, his concern about how this agreement will be used in future negotiations with other first nations who are presently in the treaty process. Will it serve as a template or not?

Those are concerns that he raises about the path forward, and he certainly has opened the debate and continues the debate, and the government will be obliged to respond. In perhaps the spirit of attempting to provide some assistance, I was greatly helped by considering some of the remarks in a book by Tony Penikett called Reconciliation: First Nations Treaty Making in British Columbia . As many of you will know, he's a former Premier of the Yukon, former deputy minister of negotiation for the B.C. government and involved in aboriginal rights and negotiations for over 20 years.

He has a number of recommendations to make about the path forward. I think at this juncture, it's important not only to celebrate the treaty, to consider it in its full implications, but also to think about how we might move forward in negotiations, because while this is a significant treaty, a significant achievement, it's but one treaty. Many would wish for and hope for, as part of the reconciliation process, many other treaties.

He has a number of specific recommendations which I want to briefly discuss in the time that remains to me. He suggests that the government make a new and bold commitment to accommodation, reconciliation and treaties. He recommends, rather than individual departmental mandates, a broad statement, or a statement of the Crown's broad principles for treaty-making. That's necessary to do in order to move negotiations forward. He urges the government to table the land and money negotiating mandates. It's sometimes a source of considerable frustration for

[ Page 8647 ]

those at the table to not be clear about what the mandate that those on the Crown side have. It frustrates negotiations when that mandate…. The most cautious way to exercise the mandate is simply to say no rather than to have a mandate of sufficient clarity that one can move forward by agreeing.

[1530]

While he praises many of the professional negotiators who have sat at the table, he recommends hiring the strongest professional negotiators that one can imagine. His phrase is that the government "should be employing closers" — in other words, people with sufficient negotiating skill, expertise and experience that they know how to conclude a deal rather than continue talking endlessly.

The issue of interim measures is an important one, particularly after the Haida and the Taku decisions, which require the Crown to consult before taking numerous government actions.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

He has some words of caution about interim measures. He is of the view that although interim measures can expedite treaty negotiations, they can't settle either of the fundamental questions — land and government.

Some first nations may see interim measures as a better alternative than a land selection treaty, but it may be that at some point finance and justice departments will tally up the interim measures and tally them against a potential treaty settlement and deduct them — in other words, regard them as steps in a treaty negotiation, although they're not envisaged that way, and the agreement is not fashioned that way.

He says he's concerned that if a treaty is the shared goal of all three parties, then interim measures may represent a diversion rather than progress. He advocates the use of professional mediators, somewhat analogous to the labour context, to unblock stalled negotiations. He says that although treaties normally contain dispute settlement recommendations, they should be considered.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

B. Ralston: I'm not able to continue with his recommendations, but I would commend those to members of the House and to the government as a way forward from this historic step. I thank all members of the House for listening to me as I participate in this historic debate.

Hon. P. Bell: It's a real pleasure and a real honour for me to speak to the House in front of Chief Kim Baird, a true leader, a leader amongst all first nations people in British Columbia, and someone who has made the decision to be bold in her decision to lead her nation forward and to really demonstrate what reconciliation is all about and create a better environment for her first nation.

That does not come without challenge and courage. It is courageous to say yes. It is very easy to say no. No is the status quo. No means that things go on, that there is no change, and that it's very easy to accept. Yes is bold. Yes is incredibly challenging, but yes is the right answer. Chief Kim Baird is brought to us today and is sitting through the entire debate with her two children, and I admire her courage for building a new future for her children.

I have the honour of having another first nation located in my riding who, in the last six years, has signed an agreement as well. That is the McLeod Lake First Nation, who have signed a Treaty 8 adhesion agreement, which is not dissimilar from what we are debating here today.

To Chief Baird, I would tell you that six years from now, I'm sure you will be enjoying the same successes that the McLeod Lake First Nation is today. They have had incredible opportunities as a result of the treaty that they've signed. They have a broad variety of economic initiatives that are taking place within their traditional territories, partnerships that they've developed with the aboriginal community and non-aboriginal community.

They're seeing new economic ventures all the time. They now have the largest logging company, I believe, in British Columbia — aboriginal or non-aboriginal — and their new mining division actually has exceeded the size of their logging division. They truly, as a first nation, have started to lead the way forward in terms of economic development opportunities.

Chief Baird, they are a very similar-size nation to yours. They're not a large nation, but they're a strong nation like yours. I believe they are a good demonstration for what you will see. If you want to see what your nation will look like in six years, I'd encourage you to talk with Chief Alec Chingee of the McLeod Lake First Nation and discuss his experiences, because there will be challenges.

There will be challenges as you move through the next six years, and you will find difficult times. There will be days when you wonder if you did the right thing, but you did. It will make a huge difference for you, your children and their children going forward. I very much admire that.

[1535]

The McLeod Lake First Nation is not just about economic development, though. They have real balance. Chief Alec Chingee has a broad array of social objectives and goals. He has a wide variety of partnerships that have developed.

I attended their annual general assembly at McLeod Lake, which is actually the oldest permanently occupied community north of San Francisco. It's located about 130 kilometres north of Prince George, right on the side of the highway. I joined them for their annual general assembly this past August. It was very, very compelling what I saw occurring because it was a blending of tradition but also looking for new economic opportunities and moving forward into the future as well.

They in that community have developed scholarship programs. Part of the scholarship program that they encourage is to have their post-secondary students come and speak to their youth in their community, and they present a compelling argument.

[ Page 8648 ]

It's very interesting to see how they're challenging the youth within the community to move forward, to strive for more, to build partnerships, to build goals, to dream big.

There was one particular individual who spoke who clearly had had a challenging life. He shared his story about riding a motorcycle. He said he had got to the point where he had two things on his mind: homicide and suicide. What a devastating life that is, to only have that as your primary thought trains through your life.

He was in an accident on his motorcycle. Yet when he crashed, he found he had no pain. He found himself looking down at his body, and it was a lifeless body that he was looking at. As he looked at his body, he could hear the sirens off in the distance, and then he heard a message that came to him from what he termed as his creator. The message was: you need to make a decision. You either need to change your life for evermore now, or you need to end your life. He made the decision, and he went back down into his body.

Today he is an incredible example of a young leader, someone who cares about his community, someone who's driving forward hard, someone who works with the elders and the youth in the community. He has just completed his diploma program at the College of New Caledonia in Prince George, and he's going on to university to get his degree in social work.

That's what this is all about. It's about moving forward. It's about creating new challenges and new opportunities. The McLeod Lake First Nation is a great example. I know, because I know the leadership that Kim Baird has shown through this process, that the Tsawwassen are going to find similar opportunities and similar successes going forward.

There's another first nation that I want to just take a few seconds to talk about, as well, because I think this is really important, and that's the Lheidli T'enneh first nation, who went to treaty vote I guess about six months ago now.

Their treaty vote didn't pass. That doesn't make them a lesser first nation. They are still working collectively with the community. They're working with the provincial government. They're looking for opportunities. They're trying to build a better life.

All the work that went on over the last 20 or so years through the treaty process has not been wasted. It is not set aside. It still created that bond, that relationship, that opportunity between the Lheidli T'enneh first nation, the provincial government, the city and the non-aboriginal people in the region, and they are a better community for that.

My hope is that some day the Lheidli T'enneh will make a decision to come back to the table and really share, I guess, the opportunity to reconcile our differences permanently, as Chief Kim Baird articulated when she stood at the golden gate on Monday of this week.

But the Lheidli T'enneh are also working hard. They're also seeing real opportunities in their future, and they're also a first nation that is showing tremendous leadership. They may not be quite ready yet to move to the treaty step, but it's the leadership of individuals like Chief Kim Baird that will guide the Lheidli forward and create that opportunity for them, also, to achieve that final reconciliation and the final treaty.

I have a very unique opportunity in my role as Minister of Agriculture and Lands because, on the land side of my portfolio, I do a tremendous amount of work with first nations around the province in developing land use plans. Over the past two years or so we've signed in the order of 40 different agreements on land use plans and how lands are going to be utilized, respecting first nations and traditions.

[1540]

Although these agreements are not treaties, they are significant, and they are a step forward towards what Chief Baird has achieved here today and will achieve over the vote hopefully occurring, I guess, next week in this House and then in the federal House in Ottawa.

This is a significant step forward in the way that the provincial government is reconciling its differences with first nations in the province. It is meaningful, and it is different, and we are seeing a change on the landscape on a day-to-day basis.

I had the opportunity to be on the Queen Charlotte Islands, Haida Gwaii, just last week, and I can tell you that the relationship the provincial government has developed with the Haida First Nation is significantly different than it was just a year ago.

Over the past year I've gotten to know Guujaaw and Arnie Bellis, the two chiefs of the Council of the Haida Nation, very, very well and developed a strong relationship with them. I see very, very positive things going forward with the Haida First Nation. The work that Chief Baird has led over not quite half of her life — 17 out of 37 years, I understand — really will help guide us forward in terms of the relationship that we're developing with the Haida First Nation.

I had an opportunity this summer to sign an agreement with the Squamish First Nation, and it was very exciting. It was a tremendous ceremony. The Squamish felt that they really were in a position where they were able to sign off on a land use agreement in a government-to-government relationship where the provincial government dealt with the first nations government as equals, as partners in the development of that land use plan, respecting their traditions and respecting their heritage on the lands that are so important to them, that have been so much a part of their lives and their tradition.

That was another very exciting opportunity for us. There are land use agreements that we've signed all over the province over the last number of years, as I said — I think in the order of 40 or so agreements.

Treaties are also about compromise. I heard Chief Baird talk about that when she addressed this assembly earlier on this week. It's very easy when you spend 17 years building a treaty to be able to find things that individuals won't agree with. But it's so incredibly important to look at the treaty as a whole and not as individual pieces of the treaty because it is a balance.

There are pieces in every single agreement. It doesn't matter what agreement it is. When you have

[ Page 8649 ]

agreements between two individuals, you're never going to have a perfect agreement from both people's perspectives. But we respect that, and Chief Baird respects that, and she understands that, although it's not perfect, it helps guide her first nation forward and really develop the future that she's looking for, for her children and her grandchildren when they come.

That really is what this is all about: building a better future, respecting our differences and working together cooperatively because we are so much stronger together than we are apart.

That brings me to the issue of the agricultural land reserve lands. I've heard varying views on the decisions around the utilization of the agricultural lands in this particular area. But I ask you: what more transparent process is there than to bring that decision to the floor of this Legislative Assembly?

Every member of this Legislative Assembly is held accountable every four years by their electorate. Every single one of us will have to face our electorate with every decision that we make in here. I'm proud to be able to say that that decision is being made in this assembly. That is absolutely the right way to make that decision.

We all have an opportunity to stand up and let Chief Baird know what our view is of the removal of those agricultural lands from the agricultural land reserve, and every single one of us will be held accountable for that decision when we go to the polls in May of 2009. I think that open, transparent process is absolutely the right process to go through in order to make a decision of that nature. I support that decision.

Chief Baird and her first nation shared their lands with us. When we arrived on the shores as non–first nations people centuries ago, we were welcomed. We were welcomed by the first nation. We were welcomed to share in the plenty of the lands that they lived on. Yet what has occurred over the years is that their land base has been reduced and confined and reduced and confined.

[1545]

Who are we to say that we shouldn't share that land back with the first nation? It's very difficult, very complex in urban treaties to find suitable lands that are available for the first nation, to share those lands, to create that opportunity, whether it be for housing or other economic development initiatives. But I absolutely support the notion that these lands were set aside in the 1970s for the purposes of the treaty. It was recognized that that work needed to happen.

Now that those lands are being transferred, I think it is absolutely the right decision. I think it is totally inappropriate for us to try and withhold that decision on the lands.

I will just finish off. I've heard this mentioned a few times through the House today. On decisions of this nature, I just think it's so important that every member be able to speak their mind, because they will be held accountable. They will be held accountable by their electorate in May of 2009.

I'm proud to stand here in support of the treaty, but I also respect the member for Peace River South who has chosen not to support this treaty. I disagree with him. I think it's the wrong decision, but I do respect the fact that he stood up and said it, and he's not been penalized for that.

I think it's totally inappropriate for any leader on an issue of this nature — an issue that is so fundamental, so critically important — to require their members to vote in a certain way. I know that there are other members of our caucus that have concerns and will express them in the coming hours and perhaps into next week. But I know that there are people on the other side that aren't allowed to do that, and I think that's inappropriate.

I think every single individual should be allowed to stand up, express their emotions, express their feelings and be willing to be held accountable for those. I know that everyone on this side of the floor is absolutely willing to do that.

I will close off by saying this. Congratulations, Chief Kim Baird. You have been very brave. You have been bold. You've built an incredibly strong future for your nation.

G. Coons: It's an honour to rise to speak to Bill 40, the Tsawwassen final agreement. I believe it's a day of celebration, not only for the Tsawwassen people and for British Columbians but also for Canadians. I'd like to echo the member opposite. It is a great day. A lot of hard work and determination was put forth.

This treaty encompasses the hopes, the desires and the dreams of not only the Tsawwassen First Nation but all of those who believe in true reconciliation.

I will be speaking in support of this treaty, but I also have feelings of great concern about this government's divisive approach to the treaty-making process, not only in the past but in the present and, more importantly, in the future. In my comments I'll get to that. I support this historic treaty, but one must take into consideration the discontent that maligns the government's approach to the treaty process and where they have swayed over the last ten years.

I proudly support this treaty, the first treaty to be successfully concluded under the B.C. treaty process. I'm optimistic about the future of the Tsawwassen people. I look forward to the final ratification, and I acknowledge the hard work and determination of the Tsawwassen negotiators and of their chief, Kim Baird.

The speech by Chief Baird, given here in the Legislature, was a wonderful speech and an honouring tribute. I was especially thrilled to see her here with her family at her side for this momentous occasion.

I would be remiss if I did not mention the historic event of seven years ago with the ratification in this House of the Nisga'a treaty, the first modern treaty in B.C. history. I'd like to remind members in the House, as they already have been, that both the Nisga'a treaty and the B.C. treaty process were accomplishments of previous NDP governments. That's something that all British Columbians should be proud of.

[1550]

The Nisga'a treaty — whose territory falls within the electoral boundaries of my riding, the North Coast — unfortunately, was viciously, shamelessly opposed

[ Page 8650 ]

by many of the members opposite. The Nisga'a exemplified how a nation fought against all detractors, and they won. It had been a battle of more than a hundred years since three Nisga'a chiefs paddled their canoes from the Nass Valley to Victoria. They were here to discuss their people's claim to the land of the Nass Valley. They had their land issues that they wanted to discuss, but they showed up only to be rejected on the steps of the Parliament Buildings by the Premier of that day.

Rejection continued for many decades, until finally the Nisga'a treaty recognized the struggle that helped define the understanding of justice and true reconciliation. It was negotiated and ratified in this House under the governments of Mike Harcourt and Glen Clark, in spite of those who were blind to the injustices of the past and who rejected the 30 years of negotiation and compromise that were the result of this treaty.

Also important to note is that the current B.C. treaty process was put in place by the government of Premier Mike Harcourt, and if it weren't for that process, we wouldn't be here today to ratify the Tsawwassen treaty. So I can proudly support this treaty, support the determination of the Tsawwassen people and, more importantly, the role of successive New Democrat governments in making it a reality.

As I mentioned before, the North Coast encompasses the Nisga'a territory, the Haida, the Tsimshian, the Nuxalk, the Heiltsuk, the Kitasoo, who are all struggling in their own way to come to true reconciliation, true title and rights by all levels of government.

We look at the Haida land use plan. I've been on Haida Gwaii on numerous occasions, travelled the land, flew over the land, looked at the devastation of decades of pillaging of first nations territory and nothing left behind. I honour the Haida for their determination for what they've done.

Just a small story. When I was first in my election campaign back in 2005, I travelled to Haida Gwaii and happened to be at the airport when the Haida negotiators flew in. I was with the MP for Skeena–Bulkley Valley, Nathan Cullen. We met the Haida negotiators at the airport. I stood in front of them. They were towering; they were majestic. I stood in front of the set of them, the Haida negotiators. There was Arnie Bellis and Guujaaw and five or six of the chiefs and elders.

I was in awe. Guujaaw looked at me. Everything was quiet, and he said that they had just come back from negotiating with this provincial government. He asked me: "What's the answer?" And I stood there, looking up at these Haida chiefs, Haida statesmen, and I said: "The answer is here." It was a profound statement, but I made a mistake. I continued to talk. I said: "The answer is here, and I believe that…." And that's where Guujaaw stopped me. He said: "Stop it. You're starting to sound like a politician."

I honestly believe that the answer is with traditional nations in their own traditional territories to come up with the answers. The treaty process is the true way to come to reconciliation and recognition of rights and title.

While I support this treaty, I do so with a flurry of troubling questions and issues as we proceed through this government's era of a new relationship. It was recently described by Grand Chief Edward John from the First Nations Summit as the same old relationship.

Now, this government and this Premier showed a chameleon approach to how they react and work with first nations in our province. Coincidentally, just months prior to the last election, they had this chameleon change.

[1555]

In January 2005 the Premier met with first nations leaders to discuss putting aside the old adversarial approach and looking at a new way of working together. The Premier's new relationship was being formulated. But we now realize the political opportunity that this government was trying to take advantage of. They realized and recognized that their beliefs, principles, policies and actions of the day, which were denounced by some out there as racist and divisive, delayed any meaningful treaty negotiations.

They needed something in that last provincial election to win over those in an election campaign. Then came the headlines: "The road to a new relationship," and "Premier proclaims new relationship with native groups." For many years this Premier and the followers on the other side steered a course of wilful and knowing obstruction of the treaty-making process in British Columbia, and it still continues under their undefined new relationship.

Unfortunately for British Columbians and for the many first nations who put trust in a real process of true reconciliation, this government saw a political opportunity and took advantage. The Premier and many of the members here who sit in this chamber today saw nothing wrong with denouncing the treaty process, challenging the rights and titles of aboriginal people throughout this province.

This Premier and this government, as witnessed by British Columbians, systematically orchestrated a divisive campaign against the Nisga'a treaty. The Premier back then stated: "There is no question we are creating a whole new third order of government. We are creating new rights. We are entrenching inequality based on race." He also had the concern that we would, with the Nisga'a treaty, "erect new walls that will cleave our province into 50 or 60 gated communities" and, he went on, that would imply that the Nisga'a agreement would be a form of apartheid.

The Premier did not understand treaties back then, or perhaps he did, and they chose to distort and fearmonger to their own political benefit. Now, this government went even further, and they challenged the Nisga'a treaty in court. They brought suit against the federal and provincial governments and the Nisga'a Tribal Council to try to quash the treaty. Nisga'a chief Joe Gosnell, an honoured and respected statesperson, warned that if the case got as far as the Supreme Court of Canada, it would mean trouble. He went on: "I think it would create a major crisis with respect to all those tribes who have indicated their willingness to come to the negotiation table."

[ Page 8651 ]

At the time, many involved accused this government of threatening the whole treaty process as they fought against justice, as they spoke against equality and they acted against fairness for the first nations of British Columbia.

The Premier also conducted a meaningless $9 million referendum. At that time, former judge Thomas Berger said: "I won't be voting in the Premier's referendum, not because it is a hollow exercise, a waste of money and time. It is, in my view, a serious, not a frivolous, matter — serious because the referendum is subversive of the rule of law."

This referendum, as we know, was met with widespread opposition. Only 34 percent of voters returned their ballots, while across the province, ballots were ignored, turned into artwork, voided, spoiled or handed to first nations to be burned at public events.

Liberals were accused of polarizing British Columbians, of being racist and of not understanding the treaty process. Chief Stuart Phillip, president of the B.C. Indian Chiefs, said: "The referendum is playing on the uninformed majority about the constitutionality enshrined in judicially recognized aboriginal title and rights that exist in this province."

[1600]

Mind you, the referendum had garnered support from some British Columbians, and out there a key group was an organization called White Pride. They claimed that the referendum "will go down in Canadian history as enabling the most fundamental symbolic expression of white unity since racial pride went out of style almost 40 years ago." That referendum divided this province. This government needs to be accountable for that referendum.

After orchestrating a campaign against the Nisga'a treaty, challenging it in court, having a divisive referendum, the Premier then proposed his smoke-and-mirror new relationship that seems to reflect the same old B.C. Liberal relationship with first nations.

Many first nations accuse this government of playing favourites within the new relationship — making deals with bands — and that the new relationship has failed to produce the social and economic benefits that were promised. They have not translated into any action.

Stó:lô Tribal Chief Doug Kelly indicated that this government was trying to buy them off with beads and trinkets until after the 2010 Olympics. He thinks that "the Premier suffers from attention deficit disorder" as he gets a new project in his mind and does nothing about the last one.

That's what we've seen with this government — whether it's climate change, housing or the children's budget. Now we've got the new relationship — two years ago. First nations are determining it's not working. The Chief continues, indicating that the Premier is good at making speeches but doesn't move into action.

The Auditor General, as we've heard, also singled out this government's new relationship as an impediment to moving quickly on treaties. The new relationship seems to be little more than words on paper desperately in search of some sort of vision. Because there is no vision in the new relationship, it's a cluster of side deals with no real purpose except to bide time, to create an illusion of progress and to forestall criticism of lack of progress where it matters — in treaty negotiations.

The Auditor General sees the side deals. The Liberal trinkets and blankets of the new relationship are providing a disincentive for many first nations to either enter or move quickly within. I'm quoting from the report: "Until the provinc