Hansard — Tuesday, April 24, 2007 p.m.

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page


Introductions by Members		7083

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		7084
	Assessment Statutes Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 32)
	Hon. R. Thorpe

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		7084
	Flicka Gymnastics Club
	K. Whittred
	Minerals North conference
	G. Coons
	Volunteer support for RCMP services
	M. Polak
	Armenian genocide
	A. Dix
	B.C. Agriculture Day
	V. Roddick
	Violence against women awareness project in Campbell River
	C. Trevena

Oral Questions		7086
	Allegations of partisan media activities by Liberal staff
	C. James
	Hon. G. Campbell
	L. Krog
	M. Farnworth
	Hon. W. Oppal
	J. Horgan
	R. Fleming
	M. Karagianis
	J. Kwan
	D. Chudnovsky
	B. Ralston
	H. Lali
	Disclosure of documents on sale of B.C. Rail
	S. Simpson
	Hon. G. Campbell

Petitions		7091
	M. Sather
	S. Fraser

Motions on Notice		7091
	Referral of report on Legislature artwork depicting first nations people (Motion 49)
	Hon. M. de Jong
	M. Farnworth
	J. Nuraney
	S. Fraser
	B. Lekstrom
	J. Horgan
	Hon. L. Reid
	N. Simons
	D. MacKay
	H. Lali
	Hon. G. Campbell
	J. Kwan
	J. Rustad
	B. Simpson
	D. Jarvis
	M. Sather
	R. Cantelon
	D. Routley
	G. Coons
	Hon. K. Krueger
	C. James
	L. Krog
	C. Trevena

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When I look at the murals in the rotunda — their names are Courage, Enterprise, Labour and Justice — I don't always see courage, enterprise, labour and justice, but I see one person's interpretation of those significant emotions or attributes. Those were the vision of George Southwell. He was an artist of some significance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now, for me it was three stripes on a canvas; to those who know better, it was a masterpiece worthy of collection in our national gallery. So I can't stand here today and pass judgment on George Southwell's ability. I can't pass judgment on George Southwell's interpretation of history. But I can stand here in this place and say that those murals have been there for 70 years. We should take steps, through our reconciliation processes with first nations, to address the real substantive issues of alienation and stereotyping, rather than take old art and hide it away or cloister it in a building somewhere where it will not be seen again.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

George Southwell painted from oral history. He didn't have a picture to be able to make that decision from what was actually there. If you go down there and take a look at that mural, you will see a red-haired Englishman standing there with a big pack on his back. He's actually stooped over. He's carrying a heavy load.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To remove these paintings, which in my view are part of a historical value…. If we had photographs, it would be great. We could say: "This is exactly how it was." But we are now seeing the history of British Columbia through the eyes of an artist, George Southwell, in the paintings that are downstairs. If we continue to move items of interest, items of artwork, because somebody is offended by them, what are we as British Columbians and what are we as Canadians going to stand for in the future?

I guess in the next generation we could be asking ourselves: what do we stand for in this Legislature? Somebody could say, "Which way is the wind blowing," and I guess that's where we're going to go. We have to stand for something. I happen to believe that those murals downstairs are works of art, and they should not be tampered with.

Let me close with the words of Jane Munro, who is the granddaughter of George Southwell. She has some great comments, and I'll close off with that. First of all, we should remember this. This is taken from an interview with Jane Munro. She says: "Surely British Columbians are civilized enough to realize one doesn't desecrate or destroy historical artworks, even if some say they send out the wrong message. Art is not a disposable commodity to be used as a pawn in political gamesmanship."

This is Jane Munro speaking now. She says: "I don't think jackhammering my grandfather's frescoes off the walls of the rotunda will atone for the past wrongs to alleviate the poverty, illness, addictions and social injustices afflicting B.C.'s first nations."

There is one more piece of paper that I forgot to mention when I opened up my comments, and that has to do with the historical value of the paintings in this building, of the artwork in this building. That happens to be the heritage act.

This building is a heritage building. The heritage act is a federal statute, and I want to read something from the heritage act which states this…. This is from the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada. It says we must "conserve the heritage value of a historic place." And this is a historic place. "Do not remove, replace, or substantially alter its intact or repairable character-defining elements. Do not move a part of a historic place if its current location is a character-defining element."

I consider those murals downstairs to be a piece of art, a piece of British Columbia history, and I think that we are sending the wrong message if we vote in support of Motion 49 to have those murals removed. I think it has been shown over and over again by experts that we can't do that without destroying the paintings.

H. Lali: Hon. Speaker, the kind of depictions that you see in the murals in question are the kind of scenes that make me hang my head in shame as a British Columbian. It's not something that I feel proud of when I look at that.

Following up on the comments of the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine…. I was going to stand up and speak for a couple of minutes and sit down, but after listening to the hon. member speak, I decided to write down a few notes. The kind of views that I just heard and this assembly just heard from that member can be described in one word: narrow-mindedness. That kind of narrow-mindedness is exactly the reason that we should be removing those murals from the Legislature.

I got a first glimpse of the murals in 1989 when I had a chance to visit the NDP caucus at the time. My first glance at them didn't sit well with me, even though it was just in passing. I looked at that, and somehow I knew it wasn't right. Then when I got elected the first time in 1991, of course, the Parliament Buildings become your home during the parliamentary session. As an MLA, I had a chance to actually take more of a closer look, spend some more time to actually think about it. I would pass by these paintings and look at these murals. I found that it wasn't right. No matter if it's a work of art or if it's got historical significance, it wasn't right. It didn't sit well with me.

Then it was an NDP government in 2000-2001 when that report was commissioned. Obviously, the election got in the way. It was up to this government to bring it forward, as they've done under Motion 49 here today.

I recall that even last November I was actually in the rotunda when Chief Ed John happened to be passing by at the same time. We talked for a brief couple of minutes, and I remember him saying: "Harry, you guys gotta get rid of these."

D. MacKay: I was given the opportunity in this democratic chamber to speak my mind on an issue that I have some feelings about. However, to have the member for Yale-Lillooet stand up and use the term "narrow-minded" because I have a political view on an issue that I want to discuss I think is somewhat degrading to myself. I would ask the member to please withdraw that statement.

Deputy Speaker: Member, the member is offended. It would be helpful if you'd like to withdraw that remark.

H. Lali: Hon. Speaker, I'll withdraw, but I don't think "narrow-minded" is any point of order to be offended by, in terms of terminology.

H. Lali: Just to continue on, I know that the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine might not like the terminology that was used. That's fine. I made my withdrawal.

Obviously, I would point out that the member's views are not normally accepted in a modern-day small "l" liberal–minded society with all of the positive movements that have taken place — not only the democratic movement but the liberation movements, the women's movement and also the movement to see that justice is brought into existence for all people, regardless of their skin colour, race, ethnic background, sex or gender, etc.

In that spirit, the views of that member are not often accepted. He's got the right to air his views if he chooses, but at the same time he's got to realize that's not the conventional wisdom that is accepted today.

Having said this, I was referring to Chief Ed John. We had a brief encounter, having served in cabinet in the late 1990s for several months. After exchanging a few niceties, he said to me, "Harry," — sorry, I shouldn't use my first name; excuse me. He used my first name and said: "You know, you guys really got to get rid of these murals from here. They're very, very offensive to aboriginal people, and they really should have no place in the people's House."

I know that in terms of the historical view, if you want to take a look at the definition of racism, obviously, there was a time historically when racism was accepted. It was the norm. It was okay for the majority view to prevail upon minorities, or for the view of those in power to prevail upon those who were without power. They could get their way, and their way often was very aggressive, authoritarian over those who didn't have the power and the control.

There was a time when it was accepted in society to have not only a negative view of people in this country who were not of a shade that was white — specifically, the aboriginal people, and then the Chinese, the Indo-Canadians and other groups came along later. I know that some eastern European groups that came here witnessed it as well, simply because they were different in their ethnicity, religious background or languages. It was an accepted view. It was considered okay to physically, verbally and psychologically abuse people who were not with authority.

At that time it may have been accepted — in the 1700s, 1800s or even in the early 1900s — to have a negative opinion or a negative view of aboriginal people. That's not to say that at that time the person who did the murals was necessarily thinking of racism when he painted those murals. But when you look at it, even though it was an accepted view at the time, it still doesn't excuse a person from having actually practised what is considered today to be racism.

Through a small "l" liberal education we are, as a society, becoming more open-minded and more tolerant and getting rid of all of those barriers that were there before. When I look at these paintings, it's got all those aspects of what is termed racist.

You know, in the depiction by the artist of aboriginal people, they're in a subservient role. The aspect of slavery tends to be shown, even with the aboriginal individual in full regalia standing there before some magistrate, judge or someone of authority with his hands behind his back in a real kind of submissive, inferior way while the European-descent person is meting out justice. It's a depiction, obviously, of one group in control over another.

It also depicts aboriginal people as having practised lawlessness. It's up to the non-aboriginal person to mete out justice. If the idea by the artist was to paint this mural and depict aboriginal people as some sort of noble savages…. I don't agree at all with that kind of a depiction or that terminology — "noble savage." I find it offensive. But if that's what the artist was trying to depict, even then they missed the mark.

If you look at the proud history of aboriginal people in this province, this country and this continent, there is so much that we can all be proud of in terms of what they lend and what they give — what aboriginal people give to us, passed on from generation to generation. We as a society are all wealthier as a result of the positive contributions of aboriginal people.

Yet when you look at the depiction of non-aboriginal people, they are always shown in a position of power, control and authority. They're supposed to be the folks that are just, and the aboriginal people are the lawbreakers. It just doesn't sit well. It has all of those ingredients to term those pictures, the murals, as racist depictions.

I find that not only is it historically inaccurate and offensive to people — not just aboriginal people but to so many people that I know, non-aboriginal people included — but it's also a racist depiction.

There are those who will argue that it's a work of art, and it was a depiction of what took place at that time. We're talking about the 1930s. Aboriginal people had made so many positive contributions, not the least of which was to join up in the Canadian Armed Forces in mass numbers and fight the European wars. It wasn't even their war. But they were there, standing alongside the rest of the Canadians to go fight in Europe and in other wars — to serve this country in a very proud way.

It could have been a depiction of aboriginal people in Armed Forces uniforms. That's not there. So many aboriginal people at that time even owned their own businesses. You don't see aboriginal people in those murals being depicted as business persons.

This country and continent has a proud tradition of so many of the historical industries that made Canada and United States such great countries that they are. The backbone of the economy, the fur trade, the hunting and the fishing in the traditional way…. The aboriginal people actually originally looked after European settlements when they faced starvation.

There are countless examples of that on the east coast. It was always the aboriginal people who came to the rescue, without whose help we probably wouldn't have seen the presence of Europeans linger on for too long after that — had they not received help from the aboriginal people. But that's not depicted.

That was a part of our history. That's not depicted in those murals. Anything that was positive that the aboriginal people contributed — that's not depicted in those murals. But all of the negative stereotypes that you could think of…. It's those negative stereotypes that are depicted in those murals.

Aboriginal people are as much a part of Canadian society as anybody else. They have a right, as much as any other Canadian, to be able to display their sentiments.

When we look at this Legislature, which is the people's House…. It doesn't belong to the New Democratic Party or the Liberal Party or the Social Credit Party of the past, or to the Speaker or any one individual member, the Premier or the Leader of the Opposition, or all 79 members of this House. We're just here, renting space for four years of an election. We're here today and gone tomorrow, and that's how the cycle will continue. But the House, this Legislature, will always remain the people's House.

The aboriginal people, the first nations, are the first people of this continent. They are the first people. They're as much a part of the people's House as anybody else. If a segment of the people says they find those murals offensive, racist, inaccurate or any other terminology that could be used, they have a right to express those opinions, and as the people, they have a right to have something in the Legislature that's going to be displayed and depicted in a positive manner and not in a negative and historically inaccurate manner.

No art should denigrate the contributions of a set of people. Those four pieces of art should not denigrate the positive contributions that aboriginal people made for millennia on this continent. There is nothing that says that when there is art that is placed for display, whether it's a mural or a painting or some other kind of an artifact, it has to remain in that same locale forever and ever. There's nothing that says that.

We've seen pieces of art around this Legislature that have come and gone. We have the legislative dining room. Every few months there's a new set of art that is displayed on the walls. I've seen so much art that has come through the dining room for people to see.

Since the 1930s — it's been over 70 years — we've seen the negative depiction of aboriginal people. It really is time for those murals to go — and, I think, the sooner the better. Obviously, the recommendation is to have those removed in a way that when they are removed, it could be done in a manner that's not going to damage or destroy that depiction that is out there. So they could be placed somewhere else.

This really is the people's House. If you look at it, in the upper part of the rotunda, there are four other murals painted there. All of them show different industry that we've had here in British Columbia in terms of economic contribution. It shows people of European descent, but you won't find anything negative in there. There is no negative stereotyping shown in those murals. Yet when it comes down to the four depicting the aboriginal people, it's done in a negative light.

Obviously, after these murals are removed — in my opinion, the sooner the better — something could be commissioned. Maybe through our colleges, our universities and our schools there could be a contest to see if we can have some sort of a positive depiction of a historical contribution that aboriginal people have made to this great country. I think that would be appropriate and very much in line.

I've made my statement. I am in support, obviously, of sending this to the Legislative Assembly Management Committee and for the recommendations that have come down from this committee to be implemented. The sooner those murals are gone from the people's House, the better it is.

Hon. G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak in favour of the motion:

I think that as we stand in this House today and discuss, debate and hopefully come to a conclusion on this motion, it's important for each of us to recognize what this place is. This is a place for all of the people of British Columbia, all of the people who have helped to shape the province in the past and that will help shape it in the future.

When I think of that, I can't help but think of the first time that I came into this place as an elected representative. I felt a sense, really, of awe at how this place makes you feel when you're given the opportunity to serve the public as a representative. You serve not just as a representative for your constituency; you serve as a representative for all of British Columbia.

Today we had a very important ceremony with regard to how we are going to try to build a better future for first nations and aboriginal people in this province. I believe we have launched into a new relationship that calls on all of us as British Columbians to make sure that this place, this House, is a place that's

opening, that's welcoming, that's inclusive, and that says to everyone: "This is your public home; this is your public House."

It seems to me that as we read the words of the report of the Speaker's advisory panel — made up of people who know much more about these things in detail certainly than I will ever know — it's important not to lose track of the fundamental purpose of the Parliament Buildings, of this centre of government, public life and democracy in British Columbia.

Democracy says: "Let's encourage all citizens to participate; let's encourage all citizens to be part." I think that if you have a place which we all celebrate as British Columbians where one group of people in British Columbia feels alienated, feels hurt, feels misunderstood, feels excluded, then we are falling short of the goals and the spirit of this parliament, this building and this Legislature.

As I looked at the panel's report, I noted in its terms of reference specifically four areas for consideration: options to address concerns raised by the First Nations Summit Task Group, the image and message respecting aboriginal people that the murals convey, the historical and artistic value of the murals, and any other factors the panel deems appropriate to consider.

The panel was diligent. The panel spent a great deal of time considering this and weighing it. As my colleague the House Leader for the government side pointed out, this in no way is meant to belittle the artistic talents of the artist or the generosity of spirit that may well have motivated and probably did motivate Provincial Secretary S.L. Howe in 1932.

But I think we should reflect back on what we are really and truly trying to accomplish here. What I would like to accomplish as we build a new relationship, as we build a spirit of reconciliation and understanding, is really to have a spirit of respect. When you say that, it's hard to measure it. It's hard to say how you can show that respect.

But I know this. First nations who have come to this place to celebrate the historic agreement between the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations, when we reached an agreement on the location of this Legislature on the traditional territories of the Songhees and the Esquimalt…. I know that there was a feeling of discomfort because they told me — not because I am them, not because I am in their skin, but because they told me. They told me they felt uncomfortable. As we celebrated a historic agreement between two first nations and the government and the people of British Columbia, they said: "Yes, we will celebrate this, but this place made us feel uncomfortable."

So the First Nations Summit Task Group brought it forward and said to the previous Legislature: "This is something you could be concerned about." And to give them their credit, they launched the review that has sat on the shelf. It is time for us, I believe, to pick that review up, to look at those recommendations. I trust that the members of the House will join me in passing and approving this motion.

When I look and I see what we have depicted there…. And I understand the feelings of first nations. I think we all have to recognize that as we make decisions in this House, we make decisions not just for ourselves today but for future generations of British Columbians as well.

This is no small decision. I don't want to pretend this is some trifling matter. In fact, I think the discussion that we've had here today suggests it is a significant decision. It is a decision that carries with it the weight of our responsibility as elected representatives of the province and the people of British Columbia — not of political parties but of people across this province; people who have built this province; people who have helped create and shape this province in ways that many times we have taken for granted in the past.

I believe that it's critical for us to recognize that first nations people were the first people of this province. First nations people were the people that ensured that when new people came, when new immigrants came from all over the world, they were first welcomed. Here today we should open those arms of welcoming that we see so often from the Coast Salish first nation. You come to the Coast Salish, and when they welcome you they say: "Welcome. Hychka." They let us know that we are welcome in their lands and their territories — in their place.

Here in this great place in British Columbia, the least we can say to all British Columbians, first nations and non–first nations alike, is: "Welcome. Hychka."

When we respect the dignity of all people in the province — their histories, their traditions, their cultures — we are respecting each of them as an individual citizen. Our first nations deserve that respect from each of us and from our public institutions.

The recommendation that came forward from the panel is fairly explicit and as has been pointed out today during the discussions in this House, that specificity points out how important this is. This is a challenge with regard to art. This is a challenge with regard to our public buildings. This is a challenge with regard to preservation, restoration, but mostly this is a challenge to us to make this a home for all British Columbians — first nations and non–first nations alike.

I believe the panel made a recommendation that said that they hoped we could protect and preserve those pieces of art for the long term for the province. I don't disagree that they should be preserved. I believe that the Legislative Assembly Management Committee can find ways they can be protected and preserved, but they should not be part of the major rotunda — a major ceremonial place, a major welcoming place for all British Columbians.

If literally tens of thousands of British Columbians feel insulted and hurt by the depictions that are there on the walls, I believe that it's critical for us today to reflect the new relationship, the new spirit of reconciliation, and recognize that as we do that, this is symbolic.

It is symbolic. It will not close the gaps. It will not assure that first nations people have the same level of health determinants as the rest of us. It will not close the gap in education. It will not close the gap in economic development. But it will say that we are closing the gap in understanding between first nations and

non–first nation British Columbians. It will say that we will reach out and embrace first nations and all they represent, for our province and for our future.

It says that in that reaching out, we will listen to their voices, which…. I think we should take some pride in the fact that those voices are now being amplified. Those voices are now clearer. Those voices are now more focused with the sense of hope and opportunity. But we are partners in assuring that those voices reach all British Columbians — through British Columbian institutions, through places that British Columbians value.

To me today we are sending a clear and unequivocal message, should we pass this motion, that we value all the contributions that first nations have made to our province in the past, and even more, we value what they will contribute to our province in the future.

We want this place to be inclusive. We want first nations to be comfortable. We want young first nations kids who walk into that rotunda to say to themselves: "Some day that could be my place. Some day I could sit in that chamber. I am not someone who is apart. I am someone who is a part of a great endeavour of celebrating our diversity, of celebrating first nations cultures, of celebrating one another and the goals and dreams and objectives that we set for ourselves when we work in unison to accomplish them."

I support this motion. I look forward to the decision of the assembly. Next year it's 2008. In 2008 British Columbia, the jurisdiction, will be 150 years old. I would hope that in 2008 we'll have a lower rotunda that's a place of welcome and inclusion for B.C. citizens — aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike.

I ask members to take the next crucial step on the road to reconciliation. I ask members to take the next crucial step in building and acting on the initiatives of respect that are so critical to our future. I ask members to join with me in supporting this important resolution for the province and the people of British Columbia.

J. Kwan: I rise to speak to the motion that the Government House Leader has moved. It is a motion that reads:

This motion is premised on a report that was tabled to the Legislature on March 28, 2001, by a panel of people who had done an enormous amount of work in evaluating the murals downstairs in the rotunda. Of course, that was really work begun by the former minister of the Crown, Grand Chief Ed John, who raised the issue with the then government, the New Democrats. Hence, the review took place, and the report was tabled to the Legislature.

It is now April 2007, and the motion is before us. The government has finally seen fit to look and to engage in implementing the recommendations. I have to just pause for a moment because I think it is relevant in this context, as we're talking about the history of the past, and really, the murals represent a significant historical value to a degree, by various people — hence the importance of the preservation of the murals.

Others would argue that the offensiveness of the murals challenges all of us to think about the context of what this Legislative Assembly building represents and therefore what actions should follow suit in addressing these concerns.

The government has been busy, quite frankly, since 2001, with other things. What have they been busy with? Of course, it comes to mind that the government was quite busy with a very divisive referendum that they had tabled against aboriginal people, which was put to British Columbians. In fact, the referendum promoted the vote of the majority of British Columbians against a minority group, which I know that I and many British Columbians strongly opposed. That's part of the historical context of: how come it took so long, really, for this report to surface, for this government to act on this report?

The new relationship was newly founded by the government. It certainly wasn't there in 2001 to 2005, I dare say. I wonder whether or not it is there — and it remains to be seen — in the future in terms of actual actions of government.

I went back to look at the report, just to remind and refresh my own memory around it. It was actually back on April 5, 1933, that the House unanimously resolved to accept the gift from the then Provincial Secretary, with respect to these murals. In fact, the resolution that was passed in this House read: "By leave of the House… it was resolved unanimously… that the thanks of the House be tendered to the hon. S.L. Howe, Provincial Secretary, for his generosity in providing the splendid mural decorations, representative of the early history of the province, in the lower rotunda of the Parliament Buildings." That's on record.

What are these murals, and what was that representation at that time that was unanimously supported by the then Legislature? Well, there are four pieces to the murals. One is depicted as courage, and it shows the meeting of Captains Vancouver and Quadra at Nootka Sound in 1792. Two is a mural of enterprise, and it demonstrates, accordingly, Hudson Bay's Company chief factor, James Douglas, landing from the Cadboro at Clover Point to select a site for Fort Victoria. Three supposedly depicts labour, and that is the building of Fort Victoria in 1843 — also described as the building of Fort Langley, late 1820s. The fourth mural depicts justice: Colonial Chief Justice Sir Matthew Baillie Begbie holding court in Clinton during the Cariboo gold rush in the early 1860s.

Those are what those murals were supposed to represent at that time. However, times have changed. Since that time we have now come to recognize that historical wrongs against the aboriginal people must be redressed; that residential schools were wrong in the

history of British Columbia; that we must work towards treaty-making in recognizing aboriginal people and their rights; and that we must honour the first people of this land, who actually allowed non-aboriginals to settle here and shared their space and their land with the rest of us.

That has taken many years to evolve to this place, where even the Liberals of today have this new-found vision — at least, so they say. That's taken many, many years to evolve to this place. Now we're in April of 2007, and the question becomes the murals that are sitting in, for all intents and purposes, the living room, if you will, of the House of the people — the Parliament Buildings of British Columbia. They depict information that is wrong historically around the role and place of aboriginal people and, more than that, that is offensive to many aboriginal and non-aboriginal people alike.

The report that was done back in March of 2001 actually took some time and found some documentation that also had the artist who painted the murals and provided information to describe what the murals meant. According to the information in the report: "The panel Justice is of an incident of later date, when Judge Begbie and Secretary Pooley visited Clinton to pacify troublesome Indians who threatened war on the whites and, by brilliant compromise and fine judgment, the efforts culminated in success…. There are many figures of various types including settlers, miners, voyageurs, packers, trappers and prospectors who are still to be found there."

That was what that mural was supposed to mean, from the person who painted that mural, in an interview in the Vancouver Sun dated May 28, 1938.

With justification, the people who find the murals offensive have been raising these concerns and, finally, were in a place where we could potentially move forward with yet another shameful chapter of the history of British Columbia related to aboriginal people. In that context I would support the recommendations.

I recognize that it is important to document this historical wrong. I think it is important to preserve the murals so that future generations can learn about the history of British Columbia and the struggles that aboriginal people had to engage in for so many years — and who continue to fight for social and economic justice.

We just had a group of students in the gallery. It is for that future generation — isn't it? — that we work hard to preserve and not erase this history, so they learn from it. Most important of all, the lesson is to learn from it so that it must not be repeated again for any groups in our community. How can you do that? On the one hand, one would argue that you cannot do that by removing the murals because that would erase that history. I beg to differ, in that I think you can.

It is the recommendation of the report to ask the Legislative Assembly to endorse a recommendation and for LAMC to act to remove those murals but, at the same time, to preserve them and figure out how to ensure that history and those lessons can continue in a different way. How do we do that in a respectful way so that the Legislative Assembly, which is the House of the people, becomes a place where everyone truly feels welcome when they walk into it?

I have got to say this. It's not about me, but it does come to mind that from time to time…. I am not any strong critic of the artistic universe by any means, and I certainly appreciate art from time to time. I have a few pieces of art hanging at my home.

I have to say this, though. Every time I come across it — whether it be paintings, drawings, photographs that depicted a shameful part of the racism that existed in our communities around the Chinese community, around other communities — I can't help but feel the shame around it on many levels — shameful that that was part of our history; shameful and regretful that we haven't done things fast enough or enough things to redress that; and shameful to a degree, especially on issues related to the Chinese community, where I experienced racism.

It felt shameful and reminded me and made me small once again, like when I was nine years old, when I was first landed here in British Columbia and experienced racism. It brought all those emotions back, rightly or wrongly. I'm a very proud Chinese Canadian today, but rightly or wrongly, those emotions come flooding back in an unbelievable way.

Why on earth would we allow the Legislature, the people's building, to have any work that would be offensive to a group of people in that way? Why on earth would we do that, in the year 2007, at a time when the government has finally come on board — at least so they say — and they want to build new relationships with aboriginal people?

I will finally close with this. I will never forget the day, as a young legislator in this building, when Chief Joe Gosnell came to the Legislature and spoke to the Nisga'a agreement that was to be ratified in this Legislature. He told of stories and histories of the past, when his ancestors came and were turned away and were not allowed to stand at the Bar of this building to address the assembly. As they were trying to seek social and economic justice, as they were trying to raise the issues that were important to the aboriginal people, they were turned away.

I will never forget that day how emotional it was for all of us. I'll never forget that day because the Liberal opposition then stood up in this House and voted against it. How dismayed I felt.

We have come a long way. In the government since that time, things have changed indeed. As the Premier says, things have changed indeed. The referendum is no longer out there. Or at least, it's the past chapter of that history between 2001 and 2005 — another past chapter, a shameful chapter of this Legislature — not to be forgotten but always to be reminded of so we don't repeat ourselves once again.

There are, of course, other issues related to this in terms of the new relationship. The mural is one component of it, to be sure, and I think that this is a step in the right direction. The proof in the pudding, in terms of the government's commitment to the new relationship with the aboriginal people, remains to be seen.

It remains to be seen whether or not the government will actually come forth and address the issue of poverty, which many aboriginal people face in British Columbia. It remains to be seen whether or not the government will come forth with concrete solutions, commitments and investments on the issue around homelessness for aboriginal people. It remains to be seen whether or not the government will invest in addressing the ill health that many aboriginal people are faced with, disproportionate to the rest of the community in British Columbia.

It remains to be seen whether or not the government will invest in addressing addiction issues for aboriginal people so that we can actually ensure for future generations that the capacity of aboriginal people, that the opportunities of the future will be available and will be made available to them. It remains to be seen whether or not educational opportunities will be made available to aboriginal people.

It remains to be seen whether or not the Ministry of Children and Family Development and its policies and the changes that are required there — particularly for the most severely impacted communities, and the aboriginal community is one of them — would actually materialize in a way and with the kind of financial support that the government claims they want to build in for a new relationship.

The mural is one component piece, to be sure, as a step in the right direction. But is it all that is required in terms of building a new relationship? The answer is no.

With that, I would certainly rise to support the recommendations in this House. Let us not forget — just because we've removed the murals, if that's the will of the Legislature here — the history of the aboriginal peoples' treatment in the past by this government, as recently as the years of 2001 and 2005, and of how it dealt with and how it has mistreated aboriginal people.

J. Rustad: I feel compelled to rise and speak to this motion, Motion 49. I found it quite difficult, when the concept of the motion was first brought forward, in terms of what the right thing to do was. We've heard lots of politics and other things getting thrown into this, but the bottom line is: what is the right thing to do?

For me, it's quite an honour to be in this House, to stand as part of this history and to get an opportunity to be able to join in the debate, set the course for this province and partake in the $36 billion or $37 billion that goes on in terms of running this province and in the decisions for the improvement and betterment of lives in this province. And that's an important point: for the improvement and the betterment of lives in this province.

I went back and read the report that was written in 2001. I just want to read something in here that was from the paper at the time, the Daily Colonist, on April 6, 1933. The article in the Colonist the next day referred to the public-spirited action of the Provincial Secretary and his personal gift to the province. "The contributions that Colonel Howe is making towards the cultural advancement of the province and the public appreciation of pioneer life will remain as a tribute to his ideals as long as the Parliament Buildings stand."

It's quite a phenomenal statement to be made about artwork that was presented in this building. It captures a mindset. It captures the thought of the time that…. Well, I guess it was present and what ultimately led to those murals being painted.

To me, the thought, and why this is so difficult, is that there is a need, in my opinion, to preserve history. Yet at the same time, if we continue to do the same things that we have done in the past, how is it that we are going to be able to progress forward and forge a new relationship and try to heal some of that past?

It's my fondest hope that 20 years from now or ten years from now — perhaps even less, perhaps more — people of that time will look back at this and wonder why there was even a debate at all. We'll look at that artwork, and it'll just be like any other artwork, because we will have been able to move on from the hurt that is in our past. We will be able to have had that new relationship working for years. We will have seen the prosperity. We will have seen the differences that we're hoping to be able to achieve for our first nations.

When I say, "We are hoping to achieve," I don't mean that in terms of any particular group. I mean that collectively, we all have a vision in terms of wanting to be able to see improvements, which is what the new relationship is really all about.

One of the things that I've also found interesting in the report was back when the Speaker met with the First Nations Summit Task Group on the 31st of July in the year 2000. At that meeting it was agreed that the paintings should not be damaged or destroyed by whatever course of action is eventually taken. I find that interesting, because that ultimately speaks, also, to the importance of these murals in terms of wanting to be able to preserve them as part of our history.

Across this province we undertake significant investment in terms of archaeological assessments. Whether we're building a road or a building, whether there is any kind of disruption, whether it's forest activities or otherwise, we actually spend time to make sure that there isn't archaeological significance, historical significance to a particular site. We collect artifacts, and we do the work that it is important to do.

We have in this building a historical site, which the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine has mentioned. The things that are in this building are of historical importance to the site.

Now, I am not in disagreement to this motion. It took a while for me to come to that recognition, because I do believe that it's important to be able to reach out, to be able to try to create the new relationship, to be able to reach out and try to heal some of those

wrongs. But at the same time, I also want to respect the battle that goes on in terms of the historical value.

I want to read into the record — and I know this has been read before — just what the recommendation is. It says: "After lengthy and detailed consideration the panel came, however, to a unanimous recommendation. The panel unanimously recommends option 5: that the murals be removed, with the proviso that they not be destroyed in the process."

It's to that motion that I ultimately came to the decision that — for the importance of the first nations as being part of this building, as being part of this province, but also for the importance of the history — I'm willing to support this motion. The motion does say that that is the option and that these murals will be preserved.

I think that art is art. Whether you agree or disagree or respect the particular art is, quite frankly, irrelevant. Art is art if it's hanging on a wall or if it's part of a wall. I think there is the potential that we could move that art and be able to put that on display for historical purposes at another time.

I look forward to the work that LAMC now will undertake in terms of trying to make sure that they preserve the art — that the art will not be destroyed in terms of moving. And at some point in the future, if that is not possible for whatever reason, I look forward to the opportunity to be able to discuss that matter further, to look at what other options may be able to suit both purposes — both in terms of preserving the history of this building as well as being able to move forward in our attempts here and our efforts in terms of making a new relationship.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to this. I think that the lengthy debate you've heard today speaks very loudly about the importance of this motion, the importance of the history but also, more importantly, to the importance that this has to the first nations people and the fact that it is an issue that we need to address so that this building will be welcoming.

B. Simpson: Like the member before, I had some struggles with how I was going to land on this motion. And as other members of this House have had the freedom to speak to what their concerns are, I think that's an important part of our democracy and an important right that's been accorded to them.

As I looked at the motion and at the murals and at the report, the things that went through my mind had to do with all of the various arguments associated with keeping the murals as they are or supporting this motion and having those murals removed. There is the argument about the art and the value of that art and how that art would be preserved, in particular because they are murals. It's not like a painting that you can just take off the wall, move somewhere else and preserve both the art and the opportunity for people to see that.

I hope that as this motion passes, as it looks like it will, LAMC will do all due diligence around preserving these murals for other people to see and for future generations of British Columbians to see and, in particular, anybody that looks at the Hansard of this debate to understand the nature of the debate that we had and why it was so important to us to take the time to do this.

There is also the heritage component to this. In a previous life I was trained as a historian. My first degree is in history. I spent a lot of time travelling in Europe, and that's what intrigued me about history in the first place. In Canada and North America we simply don't have that psyche. We don't have that sense of history that is self-evident in Europe.

I would be hard-pressed — and I stand to be corrected — to find a debate like this anywhere where there is a deeper sense of culture and a deeper sense of how culture transforms over time, which leads me to one aspect of this that I want to spend a little bit of time on. That's the sense that in removing the murals, are we simply engaging in revisionist history? Are we simply hiding something that actually did happen and removing it from our view so that we are no longer held responsible for those actions? That's what I really want to explore.

I also looked at the whole issue of censorship and whether or not this is an act of censorship. In my estimation, it's not, because I haven't heard anybody say that we should put these murals away forever, that no one should ever see them again, that they are an assault to people's sensibilities in the crassest sense because they are profane in any way.

It's more the sensibilities of their placement in the Legislature of British Columbia that is the debate. So I don't sense that this is censorship in the truest sense of that word. I sense that it's more a matter of place. Is this the appropriate place for the depiction of our relationship with first nations that the murals represent?

I also want to talk about the nature of the integrity of the building, because that's been raised. The report from the panel is very clear that these are an addition to the Legislature. They were not part of the original design. In fact, some things never change. The original Legislature was over budget, and that area of the Legislature was in fact not completed. So we don't learn some things from our history. They are an addition. They were not part of the original Legislature.

In scanning all of this, I have decided to support this motion, and I will state why after I address the issue of revisionist history. One of the things that troubles me about today's debate is the use of it for political purposes with respect to the government's agenda around first nations and the statement that this is proof positive of that emerging new relationship that this government has taken so much pride in, particularly in the last year.

I wonder how much further ahead we would be if before 2001, while in opposition, members of this government had not challenged Nisga'a as they did — had not challenged Nisga'a in a way that the court actually reprimanded those members of the opposition at the time, who challenged it in the way they did.

How much further ahead would we be in defining our new relationship with first nations if we hadn't

chosen to do the referendum, if we hadn't chosen to engage in that debate and tried to extinguish first nations rights by referendum?

How much further ahead would we would be in defining a new relationship with first nations if we had not tried to extinguish their rights through the court system and have to be told time and time again by the courts that the actions of the government dishonoured the Crown?

How much further ahead would we be if the B.C. Treaty Commission, in 2001, had been resourced even more fully? If in fact that's what we wanted to achieve, why weren't the resources put in there? Why wasn't there a continuation of those efforts at a much higher level?

What I struggle with is the revisionist history that's occurring in this room today about the government's relationship with first nations and now using this motion as an opportunity to say: "Aren't we the good neighbours? Aren't we the good government?" In fact, one of the members said that this is a Premier that has done more for first nations than any other previous Premier. That's revisionist history.

While we debate the murals, we've given the government an opportunity to stand up and suggest that they are other than they seem to be. There are no murals that we can remove and put somewhere else that can erase what will be in Hansard.

All I can say is that the first nations I work with, the first nations who are asking very clearly what the nature of the new relationship is, the first nations communities who still live in poverty, the first nations community in my riding who still cannot get clean water…. The first nations community in my riding still has to live with the outcomes of residential schools and the alcoholism and the loss of parenting skills that that caused. We are not close to a new relationship, and we have a long way to go.

The removal of these murals will not take us down that path any further. It is redressing an old wrong; it is not addressing a new one.

One aspect of this that strikes me as I sit and listen to the government members today — those in favour of the motion and speaking to the government's role with first nations — is that at the beginning of this year the sitting government extinguished the first nation rights of the Kwagiulth when they removed private lands from a tree farm licence.

We have the documentation. It is extensive, asking the government time and time again: "Please do not do this. Please give us some resources, because the removal of these lands from under the obligation of the Crown forest management means the extinguishment of our ability to redress our issues." Yet the government proceeded to do that. So again, we have an action just this year that calls into question the so-called new relationship that the government has embarked on.

With respect to the murals themselves, beyond the revisionist history that's occurring here, my sympathies are with the member from Peace River South and what he has presented with respect to their historical value in this House. My sympathies are also with the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine and some of the things he has raised. But one thing I do not agree with is the fact that because it was not offensive to that member, it is not offensive to many other people who walk into this building.

That's where I landed. Should we as the seat of government — the place where British Columbians come to seek redress to their issues, to meet with ministers, to meet with members of the Legislative Assembly, to do the people's business — have in any way, shape or form something in this building that gives offence?

What struck me is that the panel actually speaks to that in its recommendations, and I'm going to read. It's a lengthy paragraph, but I think it's worth having in the record. I've heard pieces of it, but I want to have the whole piece in the record. This is from the Speaker's advisory panel of 2001, and it's in their recommendations. It can be found on page 31 of the document.

That's what I would suggest is my answer to the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine.

It has nothing to do with whether he finds offence or not. That's his choice. As the panel pointed out, it has everything to do with those who do find offence.

That's the reason why the panel recommended that we look at removing those murals from the precinct.

That's where I landed, based on the research that I did, based on my thoughts, based on listening to members in here. I believe that is the right thing to do. So I speak in favour of the motion as it comes to us.

I do want to speak to the fact that we also need to take advantage of the opportunity to replace those murals. I hope, again, that LAMC will find the mechanism to remove and preserve them as art. But we need to replace those murals with something that depicts

where we want to go with first nations, which depicts with honour and respect the contribution that first nations communities have made in this province and continue to make.

As a historian, one thing I learned is that perspective is everything and that most history is written from the perspective of the conquerors. It's now interesting to see histories coming out that speak to the third party or the second party, speak to those who lost, speak to those who are disadvantaged and to those who were taken advantage of.

Those histories in many cases are called revisionist histories by people, when in fact what they are is a different perspective of the same event. That's not revisionist. That is opening up our minds and our hearts to the diversity that exists in our world. In any circumstance at any time and any event at any time, people have different perspectives, depending on how they have been raised, depending on their cultural background and depending on their own history and their own morals and values.

Today we are making a decision here not as an act of revisionist history but in recognition that what those murals depict is a view of history that no longer stands. It's a view of history that ought not to continue to be supported. I believe we should replace those murals with something that does value first nations, which represents the relationship we wish to have with first nations.

I'm all for the fact that we may use the rotunda as a place to rotate art through so we can celebrate the art and the culture of all British Columbians — the Indo-Canadian community, the Chinese community, my Scottish heritage. Put some kilts in there one day, showing all the variety of colours we Scots used to wear.

I think it is time for this to be done. I hope we can do it in a way that respects the art as art and preserves that art and puts it in a place that is appropriate for exhibiting it and in which interpretation could be provided so that the context for that art is understood.

D. Jarvis: I rise to speak on the principle of Motion 49 that's before us. We've certainly seen a divergence of opinions today.

The murals that we are discussing today have different interpretations and mean different things to different people, of course, as most art or depictions do. Therefore, what was then and what is now is certainly subject to interpretation. Not only were we not there, but we can only assume that the artist himself was interpreting some 145 years after the event.

What the artist himself was interpreting and what I've read about him…. He was a historical artist. He was not one whose intent was to demean those whom he painted. We can only assume that what the artist painted was a thing of strength and beauty to his artistic bent, not subservient or distasteful or prurient.

These rotunda paintings are, as I said, of historical heritage facts. We must remember that what we do not like, what is distasteful or what we find inaccurate does not give us the right to remove or destroy them. I would state that there is no evidence in the reports to signify that the murals can be removed without destroying them. That is censorship and revisionism.

We wonder: when they do it, where does it stop? We have seen what has happened in the old Yugoslavia. We've seen what's happened lately, too, in Afghanistan. That is revisionism and censorship. Do we go do the library next or, even to the extreme, go do a museum?

From what I've read, as I said, the artist was from the impressionist movement, and the mural is art that is a part of our B.C. history. Whether you agree or disagree with the values depicted in the paintings in the current conditions, they serve as a reminder to us that at one point people did think wrongly about the first nations culture. Regardless, to change the painting is to create a form of collective forgetfulness, and it will not serve to teach us a lesson.

Are we perhaps pandering to a very small minority? Do we see an outcry about the three dozen statues above us, which may be considered offensive to some? Again, to go to the extreme, when you look at David, probably the greatest sculpture ever in the world, do we find that offensive? Some probably do.

But I can't support this motion, and I question the authority or the society that would destroy any art that does not please some or all of them that vote against it. Again, I say the murals serve as a reminder that at one point, perhaps, people did think wrongly about first nations culture — but not that it be destroyed.

M. Sather: I rise to address the motion with regard to the murals in the rotunda, and I'll be speaking in favour of the motion. I have to say, though, in the beginning that I do find it a bit peculiar that we're addressing this issue at this particular time, given that all these years have elapsed and it hasn't been done. In the context of the government being under some rather considerable duress, we are now discussing the motion.

Notwithstanding that, I think the motion does deserve discussion, and I'm glad that we're having the opportunity today to discuss and debate it. Clearly, as I listen to the presentations by hon. members on both sides of the House, we see the issue and the conflict of values, the issue and the conflict of perceptions. The understandings that we all bring to it, I think, have a lot to do, as well, with our personal and cultural history.

Our relationship, no doubt, to aboriginal people comes into it as well. Certainly, it's the aboriginal people first and foremost that have expressed their concern and the fact that they feel considerable distaste — as was said this morning by the Opposition House Leader — when they walk through that part of the people's buildings here that we occupy.

When I look at the murals, they don't all strike me the same. Of the four that are under consideration, the one that's called Justice portrays an aboriginal woman — before Justice Begbie, I guess it was, at the time of the gold rush — hands behind her back, head bowed. It is distasteful to me personally. I don't know if insulting is the word, but certainly — I think I used the word

earlier today — it's nauseating. But that's my perspective, and I acknowledge that. Not everybody has that perspective when they see it.

I try to imagine what it must be like for aboriginal people who look at that painting. I can only imagine that their response at a gut level is probably far deeper and far stronger than mine.

Earlier this afternoon the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant talked about her experience in observing or looking back on cultural depictions of the Chinese community that were not flattering, correct or just and about her feeling of shame at having to observe those. So I can imagine it's most distasteful for aboriginal people.

Overall, I think that's what we need to keep in mind. It's not about our views and my particular view. I've heard the opposite view expressed here, and I take what those members say seriously, because it's their point of view. I think, in fact, it's not so much about how we as members of this House view it, because it's not just our House. We sometimes think of it as our House, I think. But it is the people's House, and aboriginal people shouldn't feel shamed when they come here, shouldn't feel embarrassed and shouldn't have to avoid a part of the Legislature.

Clearly, it's a major issue with regard to art. It's a major issue with regard to history. A member earlier — one of the earliest speakers to it — expressed that art is about depiction of the facts. I have to disagree with him there. I don't think that art is necessarily about the depiction of the facts.

I don't know, for example, whether the mural that's labelled Justice has to do with fact or not. It very well could be a depiction of something that happened — or something that maybe happened all too often, unfortunately. And what has changed? It's happening all too often today, that aboriginal people are in front of magistrates and justices and are ending up incarcerated in far larger numbers than would be expected by the numbers of aboriginal people that there are in the province.

That particular mural may be accurate historically, or it may not. I expect that it probably is in many respects. But the impression of it is one of subjugation, in my opinion, of a…. Well, why did it happen to be…? I mean, I suppose you could argue that it could have been a Caucasian person. But if we look back at the history of our treatment of aboriginal people and the number of times that….

Well, we tried to eradicate them, quite frankly. It's well known in history that disgraceful behaviours like spreading blankets contaminated with smallpox were things that we did. So you can imagine that the attitude toward aboriginal people, particularly in pioneer times, was not good at all.

I like to think that it has improved now. Nonetheless, looking back, I'm sure it's not something that aboriginal people want to be exposed to or reminded of. They don't want to be, I'm sure, humiliated by that experience. I think there is good cause to take what is, no doubt, a drastic step.

Other members have referred to the drasticness of removing art. I'm not going to argue whether it's art or not. I expect that it is art. I think that it's art, but it's not art that is acceptable to many, many people. That's the part that we have to address.

It's going to be controversial. There is no doubt about that. I had a woman come to my office not long ago. She is of Spanish heritage, and of course we know the history of the Spanish in our province in those days. She is very adamant that those murals not be removed.

I can respect her position from that point of view. There are many others that are going to just simply have a different view about it. Historical people and people who…. So it's going to be a difficult decision, but it's one that we've put off for a long time.

The report came out some six years ago or so, or at least the impetus for it, and we have to deal with it. I can think of no other way than the way that is recommended by the report. So it would be sent to the Legislative Management Committee, as I understand, to adopt the recommendation that the mural be removed.

That's a tough thing to say indeed, because it certainly can be argued many ways. When you are talking about censorship, you get into very rough waters. I think others have probably referred to the statuary that surrounds and that is within this building. Looking up now, I see one statue after another depicting the torso of a naked woman. I'm sure that may also be offensive to people. So we are in very rough waters when we talk about moving art. There is no doubt about that.

I recognize that it is art. I just think that it's inappropriate that it be here in this House. I'm hopeful that the wisdom of the people on the committee can do what needs to be done in the most respectful way possible, and that all of us will be able to accept that, I guess, or come to terms with what is likely to happen, unless there is information that comes out — I suppose, in addition to what we've heard already — that it may not be physically possible to do. That would be determined later on, and I assume there would be further discussion.

I don't want to belabour the point further other than to say that I support the motion, and I'll take my seat.

R. Cantelon: It's been really a privilege to take part in this debate today, as I'm about to take part, and to listen to the views on both sides of the House so freely expressed. I think it's been a very enlightening and very good debate, and that's what democracy is about. We're very privileged to carry out our exercise of democracy here in this beautiful — what is a real work of art itself — wonderful building.

When I first came here from Winnipeg, though, in 1977 I was quite excited, as a new resident of British Columbia, to show my children this wonderful building, this beautiful building. We went through the rotunda, and my children were of small school age, and they looked at these pictures, and they didn't know what to make of it.

They kind of tittered a bit and asked me: "Dad, is that what it was really like here?" Frankly, I wasn't able to answer. My immediate reaction was that it didn't

We've heard a lot today about art, about history and about what should or shouldn't be part of this building. But the reaction of my young children, I've learned today…. As this debate has gone on, not only within this chamber but outside of this chamber among staff and other people that work in this building….

Another member related to me some of the things that he overheard in the hallway. They are saying, "Thank goodness you are finally doing something about this," because they are getting tired of trying to explain what this picture means or what meaning it conveys and, in effect, apologize for it.

Apology is perhaps quite appropriate, because it is a depiction — as the member opposite and other members on both sides have said — that gives offence and shame. That is the principal reason to remove it.

I won't argue the merits of art versus what is not art. I think art is in the eye of the beholder as well as the eye of the artist. I won't dispute the merits of this on the case of it being art.

It may or may not represent…. There have been comments on both sides that it doesn't represent a depiction of actual historical context. I think, more importantly, in the context historically of this building and of what it does or doesn't depict, is the fact that it really wasn't an integral part of the building when it was built.

It was really a gift, as indicated earlier. The building was unfinished, so to try to fill up the walls, Provincial Secretary Howe in 1932 commissioned George Southwell to do a painting of what he thought might be typical, and of course that is what we have.

Now, that is quite different than the way we go about things that we put up on our walls in this building today. I think more typical of how we would approach it today would be the incident last November, which you all remember.

It was a very emotional time when the bagpipes returned of piper James Richardson, this young man who was killed at the Battle of the Somme the day after he bravely led his troops in battle. They were missing from this province for many, many years. It was an historical, heartwarming and enriching episode when those were returned. They are now proudly displayed in the Legislature.

I think when you have events of that significance to all the people of British Columbia — an inspiring story of courage by this young man — that that's the kind of thing we would and will celebrate in the Legislature.

I don't want to demean or discredit the intention of the artist. I think he was very genuine and very sincere in the attempt to represent what he saw or thought of as the history of our province in doing the walls. But we wouldn't do it that way.

I would also comment that it was almost incidental. "Let's paint something on the walls." That's not how we would go about it today. However well-intentioned it was — and I come back to the central point — it gives offence and shame, and we can't do that in this House. It's time to right that wrong. I won't belabour the point. I think most of the points have been made on both sides.

We have to have a building, and we have to have this building particularly, as a place that welcomes everybody so that no one walking through these doors should feel that anything represented shames or gives offence to them.

In concluding, I would like to offer my support. I think it's been a healthy exercise and a good exercise in democracy. We should, I think, conclude the debate by supporting the motion. I encourage all members on both sides of the House to do so.

D. Routley: I will rise to support the bill but not without making the following comments.

It has been a long, hard six and a half years for the aboriginal people of British Columbia suffering under the many cutbacks that have been imposed by the B.C. Liberal government. There have been a great number of cutbacks that have affected very harshly the living conditions of aboriginal people living off reserve.

The fact that provincial resources have not been available in housing, in income support or in training has driven people back to their reserves. The cup of cuts that was imposed by this government has overflowed into our reserves so that those people who are forced back on reserve are now depleting scarce federal resources in housing and other programs.

I think it is unfortunate that the government has chosen policies that have so negatively impacted the lives of British Columbia's aboriginal peoples. It is also doubly unfortunate that the government hasn't made true, through actions, its words when it comes to reconciliation. So many of the choices that the government has made have so negatively impacted the lives of aboriginal people in so many ways.

For us just to rely on symbolism and acts of symbolism or words and slogans and throne speeches as being sufficient to make up for the many hardships imposed on aboriginal people by choices of this government is unfortunate, to be as polite as I could possibly be. It's unfortunate.

It's very sad that a people, such a proud people, who have stood on the shores of this province waiting for the partner that they knew they needed, and finally hearing from the government the words of reconciliation…. But to witness the actions of division, the actions of cutback, the actions of deprivation brings hypocrisy to the words of the government.

It's unfortunate the government doesn't take seriously its responsibility to provide for the uplifting of the conditions that aboriginal people live in and experience every day. It's all well and good for the government to make arrangements with leaderships. That, of course, is a laudable goal and notable achievement. But if it isn't materialized in real benefit to the living conditions of ordinary aboriginal people, then it becomes meaningless.

It becomes less than meaningless when a cynicism is added to the horrible conditions that they have

experienced. When words like reconciliation and rebuilding are cast about in such a cavalier way and without the substance of action, it feeds into a cynicism and a depression and a feeling that, in fact, the more things change, the more they remain the same.

Unemployment rates on reservations are still in the 90-percent range. People are suffering poverty. They are hungry, and they have mouldy homes. The programs on reserves have been overburdened by those returning due to the cuts in the inner city. For the government now to stand up and shine its apple this way is at best unfortunate.

I will support the motion to send this for consideration to LAMC, but not without those remarks and not without the disappointment of serving in a House that has contributed to the lowering of standards of living on our reserves, rather than the uplifting of standards. That should be the purpose of government when it comes to dealing with any of the vulnerable peoples of this province.

What makes those people vulnerable is also what makes them beautiful, much like the wings of a butterfly. The callousness that this government has shown to the interests of aboriginal people over the last six and a half years can hardly be made up by a few slogans in a throne speech and this unfortunate, rather divisive debate. But I will support the motion to send this to LAMC.

G. Coons: I am pleased to rise to speak to Motion 49. I'd like to bring to the debate some personal experiences I've had in the House, this being the people's House. We can go through the report, and I have read through the report. I've seen the comments from the First Nations Summit, read the comments from Chief Sam about the negative stereotypes and colonial attitudes and not factual….

What really hits home is constituents of mine, friends of mine, that have come to this House — first nations from the Nass Valley, from Haida Gwaii, from Tsimshian Nation — who I have taken out for a walk through this magnificent building to admire the masterpiece, the artwork, the woodwork.

We take a stroll through the murals, and I just wait for a comment. These constituents of mine, these friends of mine, these first nations people from my constituency tell me they have this attitude, this feeling, that this is not a comfortable room to be in. They do not feel welcomed. That's shameful for that to happen in a wonderful House such as this.

A couple of weeks ago I had the opportunity and the privilege of escorting four students from the Nass Valley here, and we discussed issues and had a small tour. Again, we went into the mural room, and I just waited for a response. You could see the uncomfortableness. You could see these young students realizing that there is something wrong. Motion 49 is an opportunity for us to right the wrongs, and I support it fully.

As we go through everything, I look back and read about when it was commissioned — 1932, the height of residential schools. We look at the shameful attitudes that we had as we tried to assimilate our friends, our neighbours — aboriginal people.

The loss of their culture, the loss of their heritage — those are effects that we're seeing continually in the first nations throughout the province and in most of the villages that I represent. I think this is the opportunity, hon. Speaker and colleagues, to right the wrongs, look at respect and make sure that this House is a place where people feel comfortable, a place where we feel comfortable bringing our constituents in — bringing our youth, our students.

I would at this point in time give my full support to Motion 49 and hope that the House does.

Hon. K. Krueger: I had actually told our House Leader that I was going to withdraw from the speaking order, because while some of our first nations guests were still here, they whispered to me that they were hoping we'd take the vote soon — that they've been waiting so long for this.

They felt the debate was going on too long. They've grown weary of waiting and have departed. I listened, not to the last speaker, who was very gracious, but to the speaker before from the opposition, and I thought: I guess I really should respond to the remarks from Cowichan-Ladysmith.

This is a wonderful day as far as first nations are concerned. They're delighted that the government of British Columbia is finally responding to this longstanding hurt they've felt. Early in the afternoon, just when the debate had begun and our House Leader spoke, one of the first nations chiefs said to me: "When you guys drum on the desks like that, we feel like getting up and dancing." This, to them, is a day for celebration.

These murals, whether other folks feel the same or not, have been a cause of hurt and discomfort and are reminders of an unfortunate past and hurts of the present. The first nations are going to be glad to see the last of the murals in the B.C. Legislature.

Leaving aside the question of art and the merits of art — and it is in the eye of the beholder — if I had an item in my home, let alone in the Legislature, and found out that it hurt the feelings of any person who might visit, I wouldn't want it to be there when they arrived. I'd make sure that it was removed before they ever walked into my home.

I appreciate art, but I just wouldn't want the art I like to make anyone feel unwelcome in my home. How much more important is it that we not have art in the Legislature that offends British Columbians when they visit here or that makes them feel uncomfortable?

We heard the Premier himself say that first nations people aren't guests. They belong here just as much as the rest of us do. They belong here. First nations people have said to the Premier and others: "Those murals make us really uncomfortable."

I just made a quick trip to the washroom a few minutes ago, and there were a couple of people who

work in this Legislature every day. They work here every day. They were leaving. Their shift was over. They had their lunchbuckets with them.

They said: "Are we ever glad the government is doing this. We hear from visitors all the time." They're not necessarily first nations. From their experience, mostly it wasn't first nations. People have been saying to them for years: "Why are these murals here? They don't belong in this place." The staff here is really happy that we as a Legislature are taking this action today.

First nations people didn't come here to listen to politics today. I spoke to my friend from Powell River–Sunshine Coast, who expressed genuine anger about this and misinterpreted motivations. There was no discussion on the government side or in the government caucus about trying to do politics here or splitting the opposition caucus or anything like that. People are welcome to speak their views about art — and censorship, potentially. All of those things are welcome.

We have free voice and free vote in our caucus. I gather that the opposition has been given free vote today as well, and that's good. That's democracy. It's one of the reasons that I first decided to be a B.C. Liberal candidate.

The Premier, then Leader of the Opposition, had taken the time to spend with me on a lengthy drive. He said: "You'll have free voice and free vote on everything but confidence votes, which are on the throne speech and the budget." He has always lived up to that, uncomfortable as it has been at times. We have a free vote on this matter, and we're glad if the opposition does. We feel that this is an action whose time has long since come.

We've actually matured a lot, and I certainly have in my attitudes and convictions about first nations issues. I always considered myself to be a person who wasn't just tolerant but genuinely welcoming of the diversity in our society and in our culture, but I came to realize that some of the positions I had held over the years before I was elected just weren't valid with regard to first nations issues.

We don't talk about ceding, releasing and surrendering and things like that anymore. We have a Premier who has emerged as the acknowledged leader in Canada on first nations relations and reconciliation issues. We've heard that from Prime Ministers past and present, and that is a view that's held right across this country. We believe in the new relationship that the Premier has pioneered, and we're seeing the success of it all across the province.

Chief Stewart Phillip came and spoke to the B.C. Liberal convention this past fall. He was our keynote speaker, lead-off speaker, and he said: "I would never have believed a year ago and even less that I would ever speak at a B.C. Liberal convention, let alone be able to tell you how I feel when I feel so good about how things are changing in British Columbia." It doesn't mean he's happy with us on every issue — he has expressed unhappiness on issues before then and since then — but he knows that our hearts are genuine and our intent is pure.

We believe in the approach that we're taking. We're committed to it, and we're seeing tremendous success. I had a councillor from the Adams Lake Indian band say to me: "We can't believe in our band how different we feel today about British Columbia and about the government of British Columbia than we felt a few years ago." There were people from that band and the Neskonlith who were involved in the Gustafsen Lake standoff. There were all sorts of issues that had arisen to make Adams Lake Indian band people very unhappy. Those are things of the past.

An elder spoke at a recent meeting I had with him, where the Minister of Forests signed a forest and range agreement and an allotment of timber. He said: "Our young people are saying to us: 'We want you to get into the mainstream. We've been isolated too long.'" Then the elder said: "We realize we've been making a mistake, and we want to be a part of what's going on."

Our government gave the Adams Lake Indian band a grant to install a water system, and when I went to tour what they were doing, we realized that they could have an independent power-production project. They're completely gung-ho about the changes that are happening and the improvements that have occurred and are continuing to occur in British Columbia.

Last week I met with leaders of the Tsay Keh Dene First Nation. They were quite unhappy when they came into the meeting. When they left, their chief spokesman said: "I have never felt this good after a meeting." Things are improving, and that's how we're going to improve the living conditions of first nations people living on and off reserve. I want to assure the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith, who spoke in such a negative way on such a positive day, that we're sincere in our intent and that we're delivering the results that we're looking for.

I am certainly supporting the motion. I hope there is no damage to the murals as they're removed, and we all sincerely hope that on this side of the House. It's the right thing to be doing. We talked about: "Couldn't we just cover them over?" Of course, that was one of the options that the report suggested, but they'd still be there, and first nations people would know that. They still wouldn't feel good about the existence of those works of art within these walls.

We've made the decision that is included in the resolution. I am voting for it. I certainly hope that this resolution passes, this motion, with a resounding majority in the House. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to share those points of view.

C. James: I rise, as well, to speak in favour of Motion 49. I want to talk a little bit about history, a little bit about democracy and the people's House, a little bit about art and a little bit about first nations.

When we take a look at the context that we're having this discussion on the murals in, we have to remember — and always remember — that this is the people's House. It's critical — regardless of where you come from in British Columbia, regardless of your politics, your religion and your race — that people in

British Columbia feel that this is the people's House. For democracy to truly work, people need to feel that this is their place, that they are represented by the people they elected and they chose to come to this Legislature — although we disagree and often disagree strongly. Part of that comfort is having people feel that the Legislature is their House.

Some very important studies, very important issues, have been raised around concerns by first nations people in British Columbia about the murals and the uncomfortableness they feel with that historic perspective being displayed in the people's House. Those are issues that I think we need to take very seriously as legislators, because that isn't simply a first nations issue. That's an issue that all of us should feel is important, as British Columbians.

Things have been talked about in this debate related to politics, to the importance of this discussion and of politics getting into this discussion. I have to say that it is important all of us remember the need to right the wrongs for first nations, and there is history on this issue. There is very clear history by government on this issue. That is part of our history that we must remember. to ensure that we don't repeat the same mistakes. I don't see that as bringing politics into the debate. I see it as part of the discussion that we remember the wrongs that were done and that we utilize that to make sure those mistakes don't ever happen again.

I mentioned that I would talk a little bit about history. History is another important context in this discussion on the murals, because we have to remember where we came from. We have to remember our past. We've had discussions over the last couple of weeks around the Holocaust and remembering the atrocities that occurred. We have to remember those same histories with first nations people and aboriginal people in British Columbia.

Those murals are part of our history. They are part of a context of how people portrayed first nations and aboriginal people. I believe that those murals must remain. I'm not a supporter of getting rid of art that reflects the history and the time, because that's also part of us remembering our past and not repeating mistakes.

As I said at the start when I was talking about the people's House, there's a place for that kind of historic art. There's a place for that kind of historic art in art galleries, in museums and in places where the full context can be talked about and explained. I would love to see these murals in a museum, with people able to talk about the history, able to talk about the mistakes that were made and able to make sure that we don't ever repeat those mistakes.

I certainly hope that we're able to do that. As the committee takes a look at the removal of the murals and looks at moving them, I sincerely hope, on behalf of first nations people and of all British Columbians, that those murals are able to be moved somewhere. We can actually make sure that we learn from our history.

I do rise to speak in favour and support of this motion. I think it's an important step for us as British Columbians to ensure that this Legislature truly is seen as the people's House and belonging to the people of British Columbia, and that includes all people in British Columbia.

L. Krog: We have spent a great deal of time in this chamber today debating this issue, the motion before the House. It's occurred to me that perhaps 50 or 100 years from now, people might look back on this debate and say: "My, it was a great deal of effort over nothing that's really that important."

I have been moved today to vote in favour of this motion after considering this very carefully. I was moved by the remarks made outside this chamber by the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, who said to me that she had been hurt many times in her life by the portrayal of people of her ethnic ancestry in the media and in art in this province. For me, that is what must motivate the thinking of all of us here.

One can arguably say that it is far more important for this province to look at the content of this chamber, in a sense — in other words, the people who are here and the faces that they reflect, the ethnic communities, the diversity. In that sense, this place has done a very poor job. I don't see first nations faces here. There's no Frank Calder here any more. There's no Larry Guno. We have a very long way to go — a very long way to go.

One could argue that there are portrayals in this building that are offensive as well. I hate to disagree with the member for Yale-Lillooet, but he commented earlier that the murals in the rotunda itself aren't offensive. I went out, and I checked them again, as I've done a couple of times today, looking, trying to see — through the eyes of those who are offended by the murals on the lower floor — what the murals in the upper area represent.

I see a depiction of three white fishermen. I see a depiction of two white miners. I see a depiction of one white logger — all men. Then there is this idyllic scene in the orchard of two women holding a basket of apples, the traditional gathering role of women.

When I look upwards in this chamber as I speak and I see bare-breasted nymphs and I see a chamber surrounded by the sculpted — I'm not sure whether they're sculpted or moulded — faces of a lot dead white men, I would suggest that we've got a long ways to go as well. There is reason to draw offence.

When I spoke to Ed John earlier this afternoon, someone I've known since we started law school together back in 1976, I said to him: "How important is this?" He said: "It's important to first nations because it is symbolic." It is symbolic.

At the end of the day, symbols are important. Notwithstanding the criticism that was extended to the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine earlier today when he talked about his support of the RCMP uniform, of the monarchy, we all recognize that symbols are important in our lives. Symbols are important in our culture.

The symbolism of those murals for first nations people and what it represents to them and how it offends them has to ultimately win the day in this debate.

Notwithstanding the incredible reservations I have about the removal of what is art, the art of its time by a prominent British Columbia artist, I have to come down on the side in favour of voting for this motion.

Let us hope that they can be preserved, because those murals are the art of their time. Not everyone may appreciate it, but one could argue that throughout history there's a great deal of art that doesn't portray things we necessarily support or are in favour of but is reflective of the period.

In this chamber today what we are doing is making a very important symbolic gesture in favour of first nations. I sincerely hope that 50 or 100 years from now, if our grandchildren or our great-grandchildren have the honour and privilege to sit in this chamber, they will be able to look around this chamber and, with the greatest respect to myself, not see as many white, middle-aged male faces — that they will see at least half of this chamber are women and that every significant visible minority in this province will be represented appropriately.

As I said at the start, what is most important is the content of this chamber and what it reflects and says about British Columbia as a province. We have come a long ways, but we have a long, long ways to go.

Let us today, by voting in favour of this motion, affirm our commitment to reconciliation with first nations and, finally, the settlement of longstanding grievances — a recognition of aboriginal rights — so that all of us together may move forward in the great history of this wonderful province.

C. Trevena: It's been a very interesting afternoon. I think it's an extraordinarily healthy debate to hear the very differing opinions from both sides. I come to this, like my colleague from Nanaimo, looking at this and thinking quite deeply about this, because I look at the very new history of British Columbia.

We are in a historical building, and as my colleague from Nanaimo mentioned, we have the rococo art of this building, with our pillars and the nymphs and the faces and so on, which impress some and offend others.

I look at the murals, both in the upper and the lower rotunda. I look at it as a person who appreciates art in a very amateur way. I like looking at paintings, and I have some understanding of art history. I see very much the paintings of their time — 1930s murals. Whether I like them or not — that's another issue. They are very representative of their time and represent an interpretation of British Columbia's history.

I'm very cautious about losing history and eradicating history — rewriting history, painting over history, taking history away. That has concerned me in the discussion about these murals, about how they will be removed, where they will be moved and whether we will be rewriting history.

Taking my colleague from Nanaimo's argument one step further, would we then be removing the paintings in the upper rotunda because they don't represent how our society is today? And would we be replacing the rococo art work in here? No, we won't.

These paintings in the lower rotunda cause such offence to such a large segment of our community in British Columbia. It is that which will make me, in the end, support the motion and vote in favour of the motion.

We should be working towards a new relationship, and we should be going beyond rhetoric. We should be going beyond just looking at paintings and having the rhetoric and funds for new relationships. We should be actually making something happen.

What I would hope is that in the spirit of this very important step for our first nations we also take seriously other issues that you hear, not in this House but in cities, where there are large first nations populations; and on reserves, when you hear about the issues of poverty, of unemployment, of housing, of education; and the issue of respect — not just respect for how first nations are portrayed in this House but respect for the treaty process and respect for an equality for first nations.

I have very much appreciated hearing from colleagues on both sides of the House. I think that many of us have thought very long and very hard on this. In the end I will be voting in favour of this motion, but I do appreciate having heard the very strong arguments against it as well.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation closes debate.

Hon. M. de Jong: Thank you, Mr. Speaker — and to all of the members of the House who have participated in the discussion. I, too, have been impressed by the manner in which most of the members who spoke have, in a very candid way, revealed the depth of thought that they have felt obliged to apply in analyzing the motion and their response to it.

They have, I think, candidly referred to the internal struggle that many people have experienced in terms of measuring, on the one hand, a genuine desire to move further along the path of reconciliation but also the cautionary tones against steps that might be misconstrued as being censorship of expression or attempts to rewrite history.

I have appreciated hearing the manner in which members have reconciled those views and come to a conclusion on this matter that will be apparent for all in a moment as we vote on this matter.

I'm sorry that in several cases members felt obliged — although I believe they probably did so genuinely — to articulate or feel a suspicion about what has motivated the government's desire to bring this matter forward, to do so in a way that recognizes the contribution of the report that was written in 2001 under a previous administration and forwarded to a previous Speaker — Speaker Hartley.

I'm sorry that in the minds of at least a couple of speakers, the steps that have been taken thus far — insofar as the many agreements that have been signed with first nations; the settlements of outstanding litigation involving a variety of bands and first nations and

hundreds of millions of dollars; in fact, the establishment of things like the new relationship trust — apparently, are not worthy of favourable consideration.

That, of course, is their view, and as always, we respect their right to bring those views here. But I do want to urge members and endeavour, lastly, to emphasize that we do believe this is an important step. I believe this is an important step.

Others have commented upon the symbolism. The symbolism is important for what it conveys to the people — in this case, thousands of people — for whom this symbol is of genuine paramount importance.

I want lastly, Mr. Speaker, to convey to members of the House…. I listened to most of the debate. I ducked out briefly as our guests — the first nations leaders, some of them — were obliged to leave. I do want members of the House to know this — that in making comments to members of the media….

I was again impressed no end by the fact that on a day when I can say with certainty that the first nation leaders were celebratory in the decision they hoped this House was going to make — and, based on the debate, that I think it is going to make — they also went out of their way to point out and emphasize that…. In celebrating the decision they hoped was going to be made, they wanted to emphasize to the descendants of the artist Southwell that their joy at what is, we think, about to take place is in no way designed to reflect badly on the artist or his descendants.

Isn't it typical of our first nations and their leaders that they would be mindful that as we celebrate this step forward, there will be, for a few people directly connected with the creation of the murals that are the subject of this debate, cause for a bit of sadness? I thought that the House would like to know that, as well, insofar as those comments were made.

Lastly, I should advise members that we have benefited thus far from the contribution, obviously, of the authors of the report, but also of an unofficial working group comprised of Councillor Frank George of the Songhees First Nation, Chief Lynda Price of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, Howard Grant of the First Nations Summit and Denise Walker from this ministry. That group, I am hopeful, will remain in place and will, if this motion passes, work with LAMC to move ahead with the implementation of the recommendation contained within the report.

I again thank all members for their contribution to the debate, most assuredly a historic debate and yet another step along that vital path of reconciliation that we are walking.

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.


	YEAS — 68

Falcon	Reid	Coell
Ilich	Chong	Christensen
Les	Richmond	Bell
Krueger	van Dongen	Roddick
Hayer	Lee	Nuraney
Whittred	Horning	Cantelon
Thorpe	Hagen	Oppal
de Jong	Campbell	Bond
Hansen	Abbott	Penner
Neufeld	Coleman	Hogg
Sultan	Hawkins	Bennett
Mayencourt	Polak	Brar
S. Simpson	Fleming	Farnworth
James	Kwan	Ralston
B. Simpson	Cubberley	Hammell
Coons	Thorne	Simons
Fraser	Hawes	Yap
Bloy	Horgan	Lali
Dix	Trevena	Robertson
Karagianis	Krog	Austin
Chudnovsky	Chouhan	Wyse
Sather	Macdonald	Conroy
McIntyre		Rustad

	NAYS — 3

Jarvis	Lekstrom	MacKay