Hansard — Tuesday, October 16, 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		8541

Tributes		8542
	Frank Garden
	B. Simpson

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		8543
	Ramadan
	J. Nuraney
	International Day of Older Persons
	C. James
	Economic goals of Nanaimo community leaders
	R. Cantelon
	Shelagh Germyn
	C. Trevena
	East Kootenay Regional Hospital
	B. Bennett
	People with developmental disabilities
	N. Simons

Oral Questions		8545
	Lobbying activities of Graham Bruce
	C. James
	Hon. W. Oppal
	Hon. M. de Jong
	L. Krog
	D. Routley
	J. Horgan
	J. Kwan
	M. Farnworth

Tabling Documents		8549
	Tsawwassen First Nation harvest agreement, tax treatment agreement and real property tax coordination agreement

Petitions		8549
	D. MacKay

Second Reading of Bills		8549
	Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement Act (Bill 40)
	Hon. M. de Jong
	C. James
	V. Roddick
	S. Fraser
	R. Cantelon
	L. Krog
	J. Rustad
	G. Gentner
	B. Bennett

Hon. P. Bell: I was joined today in the Legislative Assembly by a number of distinctive groups who have formally announced their endorsation of the provincial mountain caribou recovery strategy. I'd just like to take a few minutes to introduce them.

We had with us today Candace Batycki of ForestEthics, and we had John Bergenske of Wildsight. Both of these organizations represent a total of ten conservation organizations in the province, including ForestEthics; Wildsight; Conservation Northwest; Fraser Headwaters Alliance; Sierra Club of Canada; B.C. Nature, which is the Federation of B.C. Naturalists; North Columbia Environmental Society; Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society; Quesnel River Watershed Alliance; Shuswap Environmental Action Society.

We were also joined by Les Auston, the general manager of the B.C. Snowmobile Federation; Dave Butler, who is a member and past chair of the environmental committee for HeliCat Canada; and John Allan, the president and CEO of the Council of Forest Industries. Jim Hackett from the Interior Lumber Manufacturers Association also joined us.

It was a very exciting day for all of British Columbia, particularly for the future of the mountain caribou. I would ask everyone in the House to please thank the organizations I've mentioned here today.

C. James: I am pleased to welcome Mary Ann and Al Fleming, who have travelled here from Nanaimo to join us in the gallery. Mary Ann came today to share the story about the treatment her mother received at a Retirement Concepts facility in Nanaimo.

Hon. T. Christensen: As many members will know, the province has proclaimed October 2007 as Community Living Month. This is a time for communities across British Columbia to celebrate the abilities and achievements of people with developmental disabilities.

The B.C. Association for Community Living is using Community Living Month to raise awareness about employment for people with developmental disabilities. We are joined today in the gallery by 15 individuals who are all making a contribution to our collective understanding of inclusiveness and the abilities of persons with developmental disabilities.

I would ask the House to please join me in welcoming Michael Prince, who's a board member of BCACL; Paul Pallan and Connie Clarke, both board members of BCACL; Wendy-Sue Andrew, who is a parent and president of Community Living Victoria; Carlene Thompson, a family member and member of the Community Living Victoria board; Joanna Frey, who is a participant in Community Living Victoria's day program; Marion and Patrick Frey, who are Joanna's parents; Linette Baker, a manager of community services for Community Living Victoria; Jenny Howard, a parent and supervisor of Community Living Victoria's supported-apartment-living program; David Martin, a participant in Community Living Victoria's supported-apartment-living program; Ashley Haagensen from the Garth Homer Society supported employment, who is a client of the supported-employment services seeking employment; Mary Emmond and Carol Stocker, who are both Garth Homer Society supported-employment-services clients who are currently part of the workforce; and Kim Dillon, who is a Garth Homer Society supported-employment-services employment counsellor.

I would ask that the House please make all of these individuals very welcome today to help us support Community Living Month.

D. Routley: Could the House help me welcome my friend Meaghan Walker, her partner Charles Champion and their baby Douglas Champion. Meaghan is a Cowichan Tribes member and a dedicated servant to her community. I want us all to help make them very welcome to this House.

J. Yap: It's always a great joy when a new baby is born. Today I would like to share with the House the great news of the birth of Alyssa Joyce Robertson, born to Brianna Kempton and Ben Robertson. They actually are constituents in the riding of my friend the MLA for North Vancouver–Seymour.

I'm told by the grandmother that Alyssa was born 17 days early on August 29 at 1:34 p.m., weighed 6 pounds 1 ounce and, according to grandma, is the most beautiful baby in the world — grandma being Paige Robertson, my constituency assistant.

N. Macdonald: I'd also like to take this opportunity to introduce John Bergenske and commend him for the work he did on the caribou. I know how many years he's worked on that. I also commend him for all the work he does on many land use issues in our area. So welcome, John, and the House can join me in that welcome.

J. McIntyre: I was hoping the House would join me today in a warm welcome to the grade 5 students from West Bay Elementary in my constituency of West Vancouver–Garibaldi. They were here this morning with teachers and parents, and we had a wonderful visit in the rotunda. We were joined by the Premier, and the kids had lots of interesting questions as usual. I hope everyone will give them a warm welcome in the House today.

C. Trevena: I have great pleasure in introducing a number of people from Campbell River in the House today.

Firstly, Shelagh Germyn, who a week ago left Campbell River on a run to highlight the lack of child

care in the province. Her Million Steps for Child Care gained huge momentum, and she's taken her message through Vancouver Island. Shelagh is an amazing and practical advocate for her passions for women's education and for child care.

In the gallery with her are people who have been delivering child care, campaigning for child care and making sure our children get the best start in life. There's Kathy Rae, child care consultant from Sunrise Resources for Early Childhood Development in Campbell River; Gwen Bennett, who is the manager of Cari's Infant and Toddler Centre in Campbell River; Monica Brown, the manager of Christian Life Daycare; Joyce McMann, the family place coordinator for Campbell River; Sharlene Poslosky, who's a early childhood educator; Bonnie McGill, who's also an early childhood educator; and Brenda Rempel from Christian Life Daycare, who is a supervisor there.

We also have Brian Staton, the RV driver and retired teacher from just south of the Oyster in Miracle Beach who drove down the RV for the run. I hope the House will make them all very welcome.

R. Cantelon: I'd like you to welcome today a delegation that's in the precinct this afternoon from Nanaimo. Community leaders are here to advance their shared economic vision of the city. They include Chief Viola Wyse from the Snuneymuxw First Nation; councillor Bill Yoachim of Snuneymuxw First Nation; His Worship Gary Korpan, mayor of the city of Nanaimo; city councillor Jeet Manhas; Bill Mills, the CEO of Nanaimo Port Authority; Ross Fraser, the chair of Nanaimo Port Authority; Jerry Pink, the chair of the Nanaimo Airport Commission; Mike Hooper, the CEO of the airport; and Dr. Leslie King, the vice-president of Malaspina University College. Please make them feel welcome.

For a further indulgence, I'd like to report today on the progress of our absent member for Kelowna–Lake Country. He visited our constituency in Nanaimo to join me in cheering on his team, the Okanagan Sun, in the B.C. championship game against the Vancouver Island Raiders. Needless to say, the Vancouver Island Raiders triumphed, but although his team didn't do well, Al made out with me quite well as far as our considerations of the opportunities therein. Please wish Al his best. He's doing well and hopes to be with us soon.

B. Bennett: I wanted to welcome three of the people who were here for the caribou recovery announcement today. Dave Butler lives down the street from me in Cranbrook. Dave, welcome to the House. Dave represents the commercial recreation sector. Les Auston is with the B.C. Snowmobile Federation, as the minister said. Les led the two clubs in Cranbrook and Creston to voluntary agreements with regard to caribou habitat.

Jim Hackett is here representing a lot of really small mills in the Kootenays and elsewhere in the southern interior. They also made some voluntary deferrals that helped make this whole thing work. I would like to welcome those three people.

Hon. M. de Jong: In the gallery today, fresh off her triumphant premiere in this chamber yesterday, is the chief of the Tsawwassen First Nation, Chief Kim Baird. For members' information, she has informed us that she intends to be here for the duration of the debate that will take place in this chamber. We're pleased — I'm sure all members are — about that.

She's joined by Councillor Laura Cassidy. I just want to take a moment to pay tribute to Ms. Cassidy who, during the time that I have been intimately involved in the discussions and negotiations that led to yesterday's historic tabling of that agreement, has been just a stalwart supporter of the Tsawwassen and Chief Baird. So please, if members would also welcome Councillor Laura Cassidy.

They are both joined by two senior staff from the Tsawwassen First Nation. Please welcome Tanya Corbet and Melinda Cassidy.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, last Thursday an event of some significance took place that I think all members and British Columbians can take pride in. On Thursday of last week in the city of Montreal, a young British Columbian donned the storied jersey of the Montreal Canadiens. Carey Price put on number 31 and tended net, I think, 21 years to the day after another goaltender of note did the same thing — Mr. Roy — for the Montreal Canadiens.

Carey Price, the son of Lynda Price, who is a chief in British Columbia and a member of the First Nations Leadership Council, proceeded as a rookie in his first NHL game to stone Sidney Crosby and the Pittsburgh Penguins. He did his team proud, and he did all British Columbians proud.

B. Simpson: I have sad news to convey to the House today. A former member of this House, Frank Garden, passed away this weekend from colon cancer.

Frank was born in Scotland, became a journeyman bricklayer and then immigrated to Canada where he spent about three decades in the forest industry, first with MacMillan Bloedel on the coast and then with Weldwood of Canada in Quesnel.

Frank was a city councillor and then became MLA for Cariboo North and served for a term here. I remember Frank as someone who always had a quick smile on his face and a kind word to say. As a Scotsman, I always thought he had a touch of the blarney; there must have been some Irish in his blood somewhere. I can still hear him sing "Danny Boy," and I'm sure members of this House have heard him sing that on many occasions.

Unfortunately, he has now left his family, his five grown children and his wife. A memorial service will be held this Friday in Powell River. I'd ask the Speaker to convey our regrets on behalf of the House to his wife and family.

J. Nuraney: I rise today to expound on the virtues of the month of Ramadan. This year Ramadan started on the 13th of September and ended on the 12th of October. Ramadan is the ninth month in the Islamic lunar calendar. Every day during this month, Muslims around the world spend daylight hours in complete fast. Muslims refrain from food, drink and other physical needs during this time. It is a time for sacrifice, discipline and reflection.

Let me also say that religiosity without social service is a show of conceit. Ramadan is the holy month during which Muslims not only fast and reflect but indulge in the practice of generosity and help those who are less fortunate.

Muslims believe that it was during this month that the Koran was revealed to the prophet from Allah. There are approximately 80,000 Muslims in the lower mainland, and they play an active role in the development of our province. The diversity and pluralism of our country are a great testament to the great values Canadians espouse and are in keeping with the ethics of Islam.

It may be of interest to this House to know that it was Prophet Muhammad who incorporated human rights and multiculturalism in the first constitution he declared when he moved to Medina from Mecca some 1,500 years ago.

C. James: Today I rise to acknowledge a day that is past but needs to be recognized. October 1 marked the United Nations International Day of the Older Person. I was fortunate to be able to spend that day with members of the Fairfield New Horizon seniors centre right here in this community.

This day allows time to reflect on the contributions and challenges facing an aging global population. It's also an opportunity to reflect on those challenges right here at home. Senior citizens contribute enormously to the well-being of our communities serving in countless ways. We owe them a very special debt. Many seniors do very well and are redefining what it means to grow old in an age where increased life expectancy is contributing to the rapid greying of our communities.

But as we've seen in recent weeks, others are not being treated so well, and today I'd like to speak about a particular individual. Mary Lavallee lived in Nanaimo. She had children, grandchildren and great grandchildren. She was a World War II veteran, and on December 14, 2006, she died after suffering a stroke.

Mary was a resident in Nanaimo at a care home operated by Retirement Concepts. Before moving into that home, Mary lived with her daughter Mary Ann. Mary Ann considered it a privilege to care for her mother, but the demands became too great, and she ended up going into a care home.

Mary Ann noticed things. Her mom's feet weren't elevated. Pills were on the floor. The quality of food declined. Staff changed often and struggled to learn the routines. Two months before Mary died, she complained of a sore mouth, and the doctor said she had a bad infection caused by a lack of oral hygiene at the facility.

This one story — just one story, Mr. Speaker — reminds us all of our unique obligations to B.C.'s seniors. Though all promises should be kept, promises to seniors carry special moral weight.

So to acknowledge the International Day of Older Persons, I ask every member in this House to join with me in affirming our commitment to do well by the seniors of our province.

R. Cantelon: It's a challenge when communities like Nanaimo move from resource-based economies — in this case, forestry and fishery — to a more broadly diversified economy. It's a challenge to the leadership of the community to move forward with new innovative ideas and different strategies.

Anytime you move ahead of the pack, you're subject to the criticism of naysayers who would always want to punch a hole in a good idea and shoot it down. The best strategy is to move forward in a group that's committed to the plan and that's committed to the strategies.

It worked very well in revitalizing downtown. They formed a formal partnership between city councillors and the business leaders in the community, resulting in 110 new businesses in five years, a thousand new jobs, a 20-percent increase in employment and a great success.

The new conference centre is about to open in 2008, and that's already booked well into 2008 and all the highlight season of 2009.

Now we're ready to take it to the next level, and the group that I introduced to you earlier today are ready to lead that with a common vision and common goals to expand the economic opportunity for all the citizens.

It's going to open up transportation. It's going to open up the gateways. It's going to expand the airport and the cruise ship area and benefit all the people in the community — most significantly will be the partnership with first nations. Nanaimo has a rich history of partnering with first nations, and now we want to take that and expand the opportunity for all first nations people.

Malaspina University College plays a key role in this in building capacity among first nations. I think it's very noteworthy that the enrolment of first nations in Malaspina University College is the highest in the province at 1,885 students — 10 percent of the total enrolment.

Let's congratulate these community leaders on their successes and encourage them to take it to the next

level. I'm sure the citizens, first nations and all, will benefit from their efforts.

C. Trevena: A week ago today on a rainy, dark morning about 50 people gathered in Campbell River for a pancake breakfast and a celebratory send-off. Child care providers, child care workers, people who care about child care and children joined together to show their support for Shelagh Germyn, who was about to start A Million Steps for Child Care.

She was piped through the city with a parade of people behind her as she started those million steps and hundreds of kilometres. A week later she arrived in Victoria, having run the entire way from Campbell River to the capital. Everywhere she went, she was greeted by people who care about child care. They carried bright banners, which they have now brought to the Legislature.

Shelagh is a remarkable woman. She takes a cause on, is passionate about it and makes something happen. Last winter she saw on Campbell River's community television station a recording of a meeting about the crisis in child care. She heard about the huge wait-lists and about families who couldn't find child care and how that was impacting their ability to work. She heard about the early childhood educators leaving the profession they love because they don't get paid enough.

Shelagh is not one to sit by and let something that's wrong continue. She decided to do something about it. So she decided to bring the crisis in child care to people's attention by doing one of the things she loves — running.

Shelagh doesn't need child care. Her children are adults, but she doesn't want to be the caregiver for her son or daughter's children because they can't find child care, and she doesn't want that to happen to anyone else.

On that wet autumn morning in Campbell River, Shelagh stood in front of her supporters and told them the reason she was doing that run. She told them it was because our children need high-quality child care. She told them it was for them and for their kids.

Let's hope that this run doesn't just end at the capital and at the Legislature but is the start of something new and is the start of a program of child care for every child who needs it in B.C.

B. Bennett: You know, Mr. Speaker, almost every day we come in here, and during question period we hear about one crisis in the health care system after the other. I guess the public could be forgiven if they began to get the impression that that's all health care is about and that there's no progress being given.

So today, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to take this opportunity to tell you a positive story in the context of B.C. — the Conference Board of Canada actually saying that we do have the best health care system in the country.

Where I live, in the East Kootenay, we now have a regional hospital that serves all 80,000 residents. I just want to read into the record what we have accomplished at the East Kootenay Regional Hospital over the past five years.

We now have a dedicated chemotherapy unit that functions as a satellite to the cancer centre in Kelowna, providing adult oncology services to all of my constituents and the constituents from Columbia River–Revelstoke.

We've got telemedicine now available for renal, thoracic, oncology and pharmacy. We've got new nursing positions, an infection control officer, a clinical nurse educator and a respiratory therapist. We've got mobile MRI. Who would have ever thought that the East Kootenay would have access to an MRI? We have that now; we didn't have that before.

We've got capital improvements at the actual hospital. We've got upgrades to the facility infrastructure. In the 1990s they let the air conditioning, the heating and the electrical deteriorate to the point where the facility was hardly operational.

We've got a new emergency facility, a new ambulatory care unit, a new and expanding diagnostic imaging centre, a new reception, a new medical records system. I don't have time to read all of the new specialists that we now have serving the 80,000 people in the East Kootenay.

I just want to say that health care has a positive story. There are lots of positive things happening in British Columbia today. Where I live, the people of the East Kootenay have access to a better level of care than they have ever had in the history of our region.

N. Simons: I'd also like to acknowledge Community Living Month by extending the best wishes of this caucus to people who work in the community living sector and to the people with development disabilities who benefit from their dedication. Today we're all wearing the "I believe" button, which was designed by Chris Arnold of Terrace, who spent his life helping to raise the quality of life of people with developmental disabilities by helping them find employment.

People with developmental disabilities enjoy the right to participate as full members of our society, alongside their brothers and sisters in school, with friends and relatives in the workplace, and in their living arrangements with partners, families, caregivers or on their own throughout the communities.

For a long time families had difficulties caring for their own family members because of a lack of understanding and a lack of resources available in our communities. People became marginalized both physically and socially when they lived in institutional settings and went to their own schools.

But over time we began to value and celebrate inclusion. As a society, our policies and legislation began to respect the inherent abilities of each person to contribute in a meaningful way to society.

I have two minutes to recognize the government's proclamation of October as Community Living Month. It's two minutes to express goodwill and thanks and to recognize the dedication of all those who work with and advocate for people with developmental disabilities.

I'd like to thank them for highlighting the achievements of those they work with but also for taking the risk and registering their concerns about the dangerous lack of services that exists in our communities; about the wait-lists that continue to grow; about the administrative mess resulting from continual reorganization; and not least, about the funding gaps that look like canyons to us and must feel like despair for those in the sector.

To you and to our friends who receive services throughout B.C., your concerns will continue to be raised in this chamber, and your voices will be heard long after Community Living Month is over.

C. James: Yesterday when the opposition raised questions concerning the lobbying activities of Graham Bruce, a former cabinet minister, the Attorney General told us to take it up with the proper authorities.

Today we hear that Mr. Bruce denies that he was a lobbyist. I want to quote from minutes from the Cowichan Tribes treaty committee: "The reason why Graham Bruce was brought aboard was to secure the Cowichan Tribes' share of $3 million for the 2008 North American Indigenous Games." Sounds like lobbying to me.

Those same minutes show Mr. Bruce met directly with the Premier to secure these funds. Again, sounds like lobbying to me.

My question is to the proper authority — to the Premier. When is he going to close the gaping loopholes that allow his Liberal friends and insiders to walk on through, to be able to lobby without ever registering as a lobbyist?

Hon. W. Oppal: If there are serious allegations that are made — and they were made yesterday and again today — then they should be made to the proper authorities. It doesn't do any good at all to raise these questions in this House regarding allegations…

Hon. W. Oppal: …of misconduct. You know, it's easy to slag persons' reputations while being clothed with the cloak of immunity in this House, but we're dealing here with reputations of people.

If there is wrongdoing, if there's any evidence of wrongdoing on the part of any of those persons, the law is clear. Read the law. The law tells you what you can do. You have remedies under the law. That's what I would suggest the opposition do.

C. James: At the last legislative session in the spring, the only response we got from the government was: "It's before the courts." Now it appears the only response is: "Go to the courts." What is this government doing? Absolutely nothing.

Mr. Bruce met with the Premier to secure funding for an agency that he represented. He succeeded in getting that money, and the minutes show that Mr. Bruce used that money to fund his own salary — to line his own pockets. Mr. Bruce contacted the Premier directly on July 10, 2006, to make his pitch. He also made it clear he was lobbying other ministers, including the current Minister of Community Services and the current Minister of Children and Family Development.

Mr. Bruce told the Cowichan Tribes treaty committee — and I quote from the minutes: "I'm calling in my credits with these ministers and other government officials to use their full capacity to support Cowichan Tribes with new initiatives."

Again, to the Premier. One of his friends has been caught lobbying the Premier's office to secure funds for their own personal benefit, and it's certainly not the first time this has happened. Why didn't the Premier put an end to this blatant insider trading? Why is he trying to protect his own?

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, that's a brand-new definition of insider trading. The securities lawyers will be pleased to hear about that one.

Hon. W. Oppal: I repeat: the issue is simple. If there is wrongdoing here, if the allegations represent wrongdoing on the part of any person, then the remedy is there. Read the law. Read the act. The act sets out the remedies that are available.

C. James: You would think that the Attorney General and the Premier would be concerned about this kind of information, but apparently not, according to the Attorney General.

I'll provide them with more information. We know that a former cabinet minister called in his credits with the Premier and other ministers to secure $3 million in funding. The minutes show that $121,000 of that money went directly to Graham Bruce for lobbying. He secured his own salary.

The trouble doesn't end there. Mr. Bruce convinced the treaty committee to front his salary out of moneys loaned to the band from the B.C. Treaty Commission, which is a clear violation of the rules governing treaty negotiations in this province. Mr. Bruce was paid with treaty money to lobby his cabinet friends on a matter that wasn't related to treaties.

He then committed to repay the moneys once he secured the funding by lobbying the Premier.

My question is directly to the Premier. Why did he help Mr. Bruce violate basic finance rules and then try and cover it up?

Hon. M. de Jong: It may appeal to the opposition leader's sense of politics to cast aspersions over characters in this chamber, where she is granted the immunity that all members do enjoy. But there is a process in place, whether it is via the Lobbyists Registration Act or the Members' Conflict of Interest Act.

I am aware of information that is in the public domain from Mr. Bruce, where he confirms he contacted the Conflict-of-Interest Commissioner in 2005 and is in the process of meeting with him again to ensure….

Hon. M. de Jong: Now, members opposite, in pursuit of their political agenda, may not wish that process to run its course, but that is the fair and equitable thing to do.

And while I am on my feet, quite frankly, before the Leader of the Opposition maligns the Cowichan First Nation, I want everyone in this House to know that we stand with the Cowichan First Nation in pursuit of hosting the 2008 Indigenous Games. We stand with the Cowichan First Nation as they pursue solutions to a housing issue that has gone unresolved for far too many years, and we will continue to stand with the Cowichan First Nation as they seek reconciliation in British Columbia.

L. Krog: Well, hon. Speaker, bluster just doesn't cut it, for the integrity of government and the processes by which we operate in this province are in jeopardy when this government refuses to respond to appropriate questions about a very serious matter which was raised in this House yesterday. I'm astonished at the reaction of the Government House Leader to what is a very serious issue.

This is a quote from Mr. Bruce, from the treaty committee minutes: "We've had to do some creative bookkeeping in how we can present it to the appropriate authorities, but everything is okay."

The Attorney General likes to talk about appropriate authorities. I would remind him that he is the chief law enforcer in this province.

So I'll ask the Attorney General: who is the appropriate authority when taxpayer dollars are caught up in a misappropriation scandal and cover-up?

Hon. M. de Jong: What a remarkable assertion from a member who should know better. To make these conclusions on the basis of incomplete information — information that is not available to me, not available to him….

Hon. M. de Jong: Yet in his zeal to try and malign the character of individuals who are not here in this House to defend themselves, he draws these conclusions and makes these assertions. It's inappropriate.

It is inappropriate to make those sorts of assertions in a way that also casts aspersions on the Cowichan First Nation, who are out there trying to do their best on behalf of their people, trying to host an indigenous games next year, trying to solve a housing issue that has plagued them for too long. I think it's shameful on the part of this member.

L. Krog: If the Government House Leader would spend as much time listening as he did talking, perhaps he'd be interested in a solution to this. Perhaps he'd be interested in talking about an investigation. Perhaps he'd be announcing in the House that it was an independent prosecutor appointed. Perhaps he'd be interested in defending the integrity of government processes.

I would remind him that the rules governing loans from the B.C. Treaty Commission are absolutely clear. Loans are to be used for treaty negotiations, not lobbyists. The rules state that loans are to be used to prepare for and carry out treaty negotiations, but that's not what happened. Mr. Bruce used that money to lobby the Premier and call in his credits. That was a clear violation, and the Premier was directly involved.

I say to the Premier today: will he stand up today, denounce Mr. Bruce's activities and explain why he doled out $3 million to fund Mr. Bruce's own salary and cover up this creative bookkeeping?

Hon. M. de Jong: There's actually an intervening step, and it is for this member to show some courage and integrity and make the same sorts of assertions outside of this chamber that he's making inside the chamber.

I have noted a developing trend on the part of this opposition. That is their willingness to malign the

characters of private citizens within this chamber and not make the same statements outside of this chamber, and that is deplorable. I suggest that the member knows better.

D. Routley: I stand with the people of Cowichan — the Cowichan Tribes. I've stood with them since I was barely big enough to stand and played road hockey and done everything with them, and I know the life they're living. I know what they've had to put up with, and this is too much.

The facts are clear. These are the facts, and they speak for themselves. Graham Bruce is a Liberal insider who cashed in on his political credits to secure his own salary. Treaty moneys were used, in clear violation of the rules, and this government approved it. Graham Bruce tried to cover it all up with some creative bookkeeping, and no one has done anything about it.

Can the Minister of Aboriginal Relations explain why no one in government has acted to hold anyone accountable for this misappropriation of funds?

Hon. M. de Jong: I accept at face value the hon. member's assertion that he is well acquainted with the Cowichan First Nation. I know it to be so. In fact, I've seen correspondence recently where he applauds the Cowichan First Nation for the efforts they are taking to secure funding to proceed with the presentation of the Indigenous Games next year.

It presumably, therefore, could not have been news to the hon. member that Mr. Bruce was involved with the Cowichan First Nation, he himself having been so intimately familiar with the inner workings of that group. So to come….

Hon. M. de Jong: For him to come here today and suggest that this is some sort of earth-shattering revelation really does defy description and speaks volumes to the political agenda that is really at play here.

D. Routley: It may be no news to the minister that Mr. Bruce was involved in inappropriate lobbying. It certainly was news to us. This scandal is about this government. At least three cabinet ministers were involved, and it goes all the way up to the Premier.

Again to the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation: why has he ignored this serious scandal, and why has no one been held accountable?

Hon. M. de Jong: It seems that this is all news to the hon. member — that somehow he has woken up in the last few days to the knowledge that Mr. Bruce has been working with the Cowichan First Nation. Well, surprise, surprise. I suspect that the Cowichan First Nation are working with all sorts of people to try and present the best possible Indigenous Games ever hosted in North America.

If the hon. member is offended by that notion, then he should make those views known here, and he should make it clear to the Cowichan First Nation that he's offended by the actions they have taken to date.

We are not offended by the fact that the Cowichan First Nation are working hard on behalf of their people, working hard to solve a housing dilemma that they've faced for too long, and want to host the best possible Indigenous Games in all of North America.

J. Horgan: Two sets of rules in this place: one for everyone else and one for Liberal insiders. "I'm calling in my credits with these ministers and other government officials," and "We've had to do some creative bookkeeping."

For several months the Minister of Aboriginal Relations has been aware of this issue. It was brought to his attention on June 11, 2007, by disturbed band members from the Cowichan Valley. All they got back from the minister was: "Thank you very much."

For four months the Minister of Aboriginal Relations has known that his old buddy the House Leader, the guy who introduced the Lobbyists Registration Act, was violating it. What has he done about it? You've known about it for four months. What have you done about it?

Hon. M. de Jong: Look, I've never known this hon. member to be a shrinking violet. If he has an allegation to make, he should make it. He should have the….

Hon. M. de Jong: He should have the courage to make the same assertion outside of the House. It would appear, in so doing, that he is perhaps in possession of information that the rest of us are not in possession of. But if he is in possession of that information and if he is serious about wanting this matter pursued, presumably he would make that same information available to the responsible authorities.

In the absence of that, I can only conclude that the member is more interested in chasing political spectres than in actually forwarding this issue along.

J. Horgan: The minutes were on the Internet, so it's not an issue of public disclosure. The minister has had

this information since June 11. Concerned citizens in the Cowichan Valley, band members, approached this minister — the one that they thought was accountable to them — with a concern four months ago, and nothing has happened.

Nothing happens over four months. In my dictionary that's cover-up. When will the minister take action to get the Liberal hand out of the public purse? When is that going to happen?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, if inaction equals a cover-up, then we suffered from a decade of it in the 1990s.

If I can sift through the political rhetoric, I think what I am hearing today, amongst other things, is an allegation that the Cowichan First Nation, through their agents….

Hon. M. de Jong: An allegation that the Cowichan First Nation, through their agents and leadership, have somehow participated in some illegal scheme to misappropriate funding from one source or another….

Conspiracy by its very nature — and I think I've heard that phrase — involves more than one person. If that is the assertion, if that is the allegation, then members should make it, and they should have the courage to make it outside of these doors.

J. Kwan: This is actually a very serious matter. The minister may want to reply with cute statements, but let us be clear. According to the minutes of July 19, 2006, of the Cowichan Tribes treaty committee meeting: "The reason why Graham Bruce was brought aboard was to secure Cowichan Tribes' shares of $3 million for the 2008 North American Indigenous Games."

It goes on to say — and I quote directly from the document — that Graham Bruce said:

J. Kwan: Under the Lobbyists Registration Act, Graham Bruce, an ex–cabinet minister of this government, violated the act, and the Premier knew it. Not only that, the minister knew it as well.

J. Kwan: My question is to the Premier. Does he condone this act, and if not, what is he going to do about it?

Hon. M. de Jong: Whilst I'm always obliged to the hon. member through the years for the benefit of her expert legal opinion on matters, I was not aware of the extent to which her qualifications extended far enough to allow her to draw the conclusions that she just has about the application of the act or the findings that she has rendered in this House.

There are, of course, processes by which those accusations can be dealt with and those findings could be made. It is not, however, in my view, for this member — or for me, for that matter — to draw those conclusions, and I suggest that she is mistaken in her political zeal to do so.

J. Kwan: I've got to say this. Maybe the minister would actually take the time to read the correspondence that comes through his office, because he was well aware of this situation. This was brought to his office, and it was acknowledged by his administrative assistant by receipt, by virtue of an e-mail that stated that they got the documentation. The minister would be wise to read the documents and know what he's talking about before he attacks the opposition.

The minister and the Premier should know, as the head of the executive council, that an ex–cabinet minister is not to lobby his own government with inside information that he had obtained through Treasury Board submissions. That's what we have in this documentation here in these minutes.

To the Premier, the head of the executive council: is this appropriate behaviour from an ex–cabinet minister

that served under him? And is it appropriate for him to respond to Graham Bruce, who violated the acts that should govern ex–cabinet ministers?

Hon. M. de Jong: The hon. member moves back and forth selectively through, potentially, the applicable legislation. She knows full well that the Members' Conflict of Interest Act sets out certain requirements. It sets out requirements for members of the chamber and, at a certain point, refers to the conduct of former members of the chamber and executive members.

The individual involved, the private citizen, has apparently — based on the information that is in the public domain — consulted with the Conflict-of-Interest Commissioner in 2005 and, we are told — it is in the public domain — is engaged in discussions with the Conflict-of-Interest Commissioner today. So the conclusions that may be drawn from that are yet to be drawn.

Hon. M. de Jong: …interested to know, in drawing on the documentation that the hon. member has, which is allegedly the minutes of a meeting….

Hon. M. de Jong: I say allegedly because I haven't seen them, but I will take what the member says.

I am curious to know how the opposition purports, on the one hand, to rely upon the minutes of a meeting of an organization which presumably endorses those minutes and the actions therein and, on the other hand, says that when I suggest they are maligning the behaviour of that organization, somehow that is incorrect or inappropriate — because they are doing precisely that. They are maligning the individual and the organization, the Cowichan First Nation.

M. Farnworth: What is offensive to the people of this province is how this government consistently tries to hide behind bluff and defence to avoid telling the truth to the people of this province.

We have heard in minutes — minutes that were made available to this government more than four months ago — about calling in credits and creative accounting. One of my questions: was the issue of creative accounting raised with the conflict commissioner? This stinks, and it needs to be investigated.

My question to the Attorney General: will he not hide behind the courts? Will he not say: "Go to the authorities"? Will he stand up and appoint a special prosecutor to look into these issues and ensure that things are all on the up and up? [Applause.]

Hon. M. de Jong: The longest applause I've got in this chamber for a long time.

The question reveals much about what is at the heart of this entire line of questioning. The Attorney General does not appoint special prosecutors. It is precisely to ensure that that process is kept at arm's length from the political wing of government that the act was constructed in a way that ensures it's not an elected representative who is making that appointment.

I understand that when you are in the business of maligning the character of individuals, when you are in the business of maligning the intentions of a first nation trying to do good for their people, you're not really interested in the facts and you're not really interested in the law, but on this side of the House we are.

Hon. M. de Jong: I table the Tsawwassen First Nation harvest agreement, tax treatment agreement and real property tax coordination agreement.

D. MacKay: I have a petition to file on behalf of 145 constituents in Atlin who are opposed to the draft framework agreement with the Taku River Tlingit on the land use plan in Atlin.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call second reading of Bill 40, the Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement Act.

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, it is a great honour to rise in the House today and move second reading of this landmark bill — to do so in the presence of chief and

councillors. I'm not sure if Chief Baird and Councillor Cassidy were present earlier when I indicated to the House that they have accepted the challenge associated with staying for the duration of the second reading debate. I'm pleased about that. In offering her profound remarks yesterday, I want to thank her again and her council and the Tsawwassen First Nation.

I also want to thank all hon. members and take this moment to point out and alert Chief Baird to the fact that the historic invitation that was extended yesterday was an invitation from all members of this House and a very personal one, by virtue of the rules that exist in this chamber.

I say to all hon. members on both sides of the House: many thanks. Many thanks for extending that invitation and providing that opportunity to Chief Baird to come to the Bar and provide those remarks to us.

It's only the second time in the legislative history of this province that a member has had the opportunity to stand and present legislation to enact a modern land claim. There are a few of us who were around the last time it occurred, and I'll talk a bit about that a little later. But other than that, we are very much in the realm of firsts.

This is the first final agreement treaty to reach the floor of this House, to emerge from the made-in-B.C. treaty commission process. It is the first treaty made between the government of British Columbia, the government of Canada and an urban-based first nation. Chief Baird is the first female chief to lead her first nation to this stage in the Treaty Commission process, to lead her community through the ratification process. She is the first female chief to come to the Bar of this chamber and provide the historic and sage words that she did yesterday. I say again: Chief Baird, thank you. Congratulations. [Applause.]

I can't promise members at the commencement of this discussion that my remarks will be particularly brief. I think it's important that some things be said about not just the history of this treaty but the history of the province and the country that allow us to arrive at this point and conduct this discussion.

Treaties are many things. They are, of course, legal instruments: complex, complicated, weighty — in this day and age, at least — legal documents. They are economic agreements. I'll talk about that, because I think that is an important component — important to the Tsawwassen First Nation and important to the other signatories to the agreement.

They are political instruments in the sense that they include provisions that allow for self-government — reinstitute, as it were, elements of self-government. They are government-to-government-to-government arrangements, products of that tripartite governmental negotiation. But they are also, I think, themselves an instrument in the journey towards reconciliation.

I know I'm not the only member of this chamber that was profoundly impacted by what Chief Baird said yesterday when she began her remarks by pointing to the significance of this final agreement from the perspective of achieving that reconciliation.

As we consider where we are along that path, I'd like to take a few moments to consider where we've been as a country and as a province in that journey towards reconciliation, a journey that I suppose you could say began over 400 years ago on this continent, on the shores of North America or in this case on the shores of Canada, I suppose — the shores of New France and later Upper Canada and Lower Canada.

We can trace that journey in the early years through things like important instruments like the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which — the argument is made — included a recognition, implicit in an instrument like the royal proclamation, of aboriginal occupancy of the lands and included provisions whereby only the British Crown could acquire lands from aboriginal peoples and only do so by way of a treaty.

Of course, the irony of that situation, which has come home to visit upon us in British Columbia, is that in this province that work, undertaken in many of the other parts of Canada, was not completed here. In fact, in many ways, it had barely begun when James Douglas became the prefect for the Hudson's Bay Company and later the governor of the colony of British Columbia.

He actually began some of that work by acquiring lands from first nations in 14 instances, I believe, if my memory is correct, between 1850 and 1854. But even in terms of the colony of Vancouver Island, that was merely 1 percent of the overall land base. So the questions around rights and title went unaddressed and if we are candid about our history over the last 150 years, I think it is fair to say, more than just went unaddressed.

Attitudes on the part of non-aboriginal peoples — colonial settlers, if you will — hardened, and an attitude of denial set in. Today we see, as we look back over historical documents, plenty of evidence of that. I suppose the poster child of that hardening attitude has become, in our history, Joseph Trutch, who probably was articulating — at a certain point he was articulating — actual governmental policy when he said that in his view, aboriginal peoples had no right to the lands that they claimed — period.

That was an attitude that blossomed into a full-fledged policy of denial, certainly by 1871, at the time British Columbia entered into Confederation. It really influenced in a significant way the relationship that developed between first nations and non-aboriginal government in British Columbia. It really impacted upon the manner in which issues that arose between those two groups were addressed and, certainly, the land issue.

It was, I think, 1899 when Treaty 8…. There are members in this House who reside in the northeast part of the province, in which Treaty 8 remains in

effect. That was the last time that treaty discussions took place and matured until almost 100 years later — a big gap with profound consequences for aboriginal peoples, first nations, British Columbians, Canadians generally.

Today we are talking about the Tsawwassen First Nation and its role in that developing journey, that tumultuous journey, towards reconciliation. The Tsawwassen is more than a small first nation located on the shores of Georgia Strait and the mouth of the Fraser River. They are a people with a proud history, a seagoing history. They are a seagoing Coast Salish people with their own language who for generations resided in and cared for their lands and their waters in the lower Fraser and in the southern Strait of Georgia.

I won't profess to be an anthropological expert but have read enough and spoken enough to people from the Tsawwassen to know about the lifestyle — the seasonal migration that took place, the winters spent in magnificent longhouses, the summers spent in less permanent structures, the cedar mats — as people moved from place to place. Tsawwassen itself, I'm told — the place we now know as Tsawwassen — was originally a winter site for the Tsawwassen First Nation. It actually means "people facing out to sea."

The geographical knowledge of this area is so rooted, so strong, so solid that it actually, I'm told, dates back to when Tsawwassen was itself an island, which connected to the mainland over time through the deposits that flowed down the Fraser River. Tsawwassen — a society of artisans, craftspeople, hunters, fishers, equally at home on the land and on the sea and, by all accounts, a very generous people guided by the principle of sharing the fruits of the Earth.

In fact, one of the stories conveyed to me — and I hope I do justice to it in this debate here today — was the legend of the transformer named Xaals, who arrived at Boundary Bay and confronted an older lady named Skee-math-iya. The story goes that he confronted her because she was unwilling to share her accumulated clams. The legend goes that as a result of that, the transformer condemned her to live amongst the clams and turned her into a stone. But even the legends convey that sense of sharing of the fruits of the Earth.

It was that generosity and that spirit of sharing that would be sorely tested in the years following contact with Europeans. People came — thousands, hundreds of thousands, ultimately — over, in historical terms, a very short span of time. They came. Borders were drawn. International borders were drawn. District borders, regional borders — all drawn with no real input from the Tsawwassen or aboriginal people generally. A colony was born, later a province and a country.

In 1871 that process of settlement and colonization evolved to a point where the boundaries of the Tsawwassen reserve — a new term in those days, I suppose — were laid out. It was, I'm told, originally about 400 acres. A part of the history we don't like to talk about but which lives in the minds of the Tsawwassen people themselves, of course, is that by 1900, I am advised, the population of the Tsawwassen people had depleted through the ravages of disease to no more than 50 people, from the thousands that had resided there previously. The reserve eventually settled in at 290 hectares. I'm not sure what that translates into acreage-wise but, suffice to say, a modest volume of land by any measure.

It would be incorrect, however, to say that this all took place without the Tsawwassen First Nation possessing voices as they pursued justice and fairness and, to use Chief Kim Baird's terms, genuine reconciliation with the new arrivals.

One of those voices, one of those strong voices, was a man named Chief Harry Joe. He was, by all accounts, quite a remarkable man, not just because he was Chief Kim Baird's great-grandfather but because, in the very decisive decades of the early 20th century, he spoke out forcefully and he spoke out often and eloquently for the Tsawwassen First Nation. He also, through the 1920s, went to great pains to record the oral history — history that might otherwise have been lost — about the Tsawwassen First Nation.

He confronted, by all accounts, the pressures facing his people and their lands with realism and genuine resolve. He was not, I am told, a romantic. He understood that the world was changing, and he wanted to negotiate space and a place where the Tsawwassen could flourish amidst the changes that were occurring around them.

He appeared before the McKenna-McBride royal commission in April 1914. Imagine that. Imagine what was taking place in the world. The events that would catapult the world into the first of a worldwide conflict were scant months away, but Chief Harry Joe was before the McKenna-McBride royal commission.

He said the following: "I am going to speak to you gentlemen and to tell you that we have been in this place from time immemorial, and I am going to explain to you gentlemen how our ancestors were created in this place right over here, known as Skalip, or English Bluff. That is the place where the first man of this race was created."

Chief Harry Joe had a profound sense of the history of the Tsawwassen First Nation and understood the need to reconcile that history and the Tsawwassen place in this country with what was taking place around him. In Chief Harry Joe's time there was an insatiable appetite for land on the part of the largely agrarian European settlers that were coming. That would cause a growing tension.

Ironically, if we fast-forward to today and the discussion we're having, that tension around an agrarian-based society and affection for lands and agricultural uses of land has not gone away. It is with us to this day, and I know it has been the basis for some difficulties that members have experienced in trying to decide their response to this product of a negotiation between the parties.

At the same time that Chief Harry Joe was expressing his views and articulating on behalf of the Tsawwassen, there were other powerful speakers and

leaders. First nations were beginning the process of organizing. It was in 1890 that the first Nisga'a Land Committee came into being. Between about 1905 and 1913 delegations from British Columbia, various first nations, would travel to Victoria, Ottawa and London.

You have to be careful how you say that in 2007, because it rolls off the tongue very easily. But imagine what that meant in the early part of the 20th century for a group of people to travel vast distances. Sometimes days and days were spent on an oceangoing canoe to come down the coast or make their way to places far, far away. It is a reflection of the tenacity and the passion that people like the Tsawwassen felt for what was happening around them that they committed to those exercises and sought the reconciliation that proved so elusive.

In 1915 the Allied Indian Tribes of B.C. formed. In the 1960s, in response to the now famous federal White Paper, the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs formed, both to respond to the White Paper but also to seek recognition of aboriginal rights and title. It's something that that organization continues to pursue to this day.

In 1982 the National Indian Brotherhood evolved into the Assembly of First Nations, and we heard yesterday profound words in the morning ceremony from regional Chief Shawn Atleo of the Assembly of First Nations — very much a part of the equation when it comes to effecting the reconciliation that Chief Baird spoke so eloquently about yesterday.

Then in 1990 the creation in British Columbia of the First Nations Summit, comprised of the majority of first nations and tribal councils in B.C., actually, and originally formed around the working group on treaty issues. It, as well, remains a very important component of the landscape when we talk about reconciliation within British Columbia.

All of that was occurring and continues to occur against an evolving legal and constitutional backdrop. I won't pretend to say that in this country we have made the journey towards reconciliation any easier by virtue of some of the decisions we've made.

In 1867, for example, in the British North America Act we apparently thought it was a good idea, on the one hand, to enshrine constitutionally the notion that what was then termed Indians and the Indian land issue would be vested in the federal Crown, but lands and resources would become a provincial jurisdiction. Unbeknownst, I suppose, to the Fathers of Confederation, that would have profound consequences for decades in the pursuit of the reconciliation that Chief Baird spoke about.

It really would be decades before a leading member of the Nisga'a Nation, Frank Calder, whom the province lost last year, would see a case through to the Supreme Court of Canada. That high court would rule that Nisga'a aboriginal title did exist. That first modern-day recognition of the concept of aboriginal title would become a facet of Canadian common law.

That led to the federal government initiating a comprehensive land claims process, but at that point still without the participation of the province. For the Tsawwassen and countless first nations right across British Columbia the notion of resolving these issues would prove elusive, insofar as one of the key players constitutionally remained unengaged.

In 1982 another piece of the puzzle emerged, insofar as section 35 of the Constitution Act affirmed existing aboriginal rights. Big challenge. What are they? What were they? In saying those things, what did we mean? That has proven to be a key piece in the puzzle as we move along the path towards reconciliation. Other leading court cases, like the Sparrow decision, talked about the government's rights, first nation rights — the government not unjustifiably infringing on those aboriginal rights as referred to in the constitution.

But 1990 was a watershed year for another reason, and I think, in retrospect, it represents a major step along the path to reconciliation. It was in that year that a tripartite task force, comprised of first nations, Canada and British Columbia, developed a process for negotiating treaties throughout British Columbia.

That task force introduced 19 recommendations. They were unanimously accepted by the three parties, and amongst those recommendations was the establishment of a B.C. Treaty Commission to facilitate the process of negotiation and a six-stage process by which negotiators could move through that treaty commission process.

The first commissioners were appointed in April of 1993, and a few months later, in December of that year, the commission invited first nations to enter into the process by submitting their claim intentions.

It is not insignificant to point out that the Tsawwassen First Nation was amongst the very first to take advantage of the opportunity and signal their desire to move along the path of reconciliation by notifying the Treaty Commission that they wanted to be part of this exercise — that they wanted to pursue their dream, their aspirations and seek that elusive reconciliation in a way that they could defend to their people.

This might be a good time, since we are dealing with the first treaty to emerge out of the B.C. Treaty Commission process, to say a few things about the commission. I'll start by paying tribute to some of the people who sit on the commission today.

No stranger to this House is Jack Weisgerber, who served with distinction for a number of years. He's actually the interim chief commissioner and, I think, can also boast having been appointed British Columbia's first Aboriginal Affairs Minister. I know that he has relished the opportunity to continue in the service of the province and the Treaty Commission process through his term on the Treaty Commission.

Jody Wilson was re-elected to a second term as a commissioner in March 2005 by the First Nations Summit and is someone who has dedicated her life these days to the fulfilment of the mandate that the commission holds, as does Robert Phillips, who was elected by the First Nations Summit to his first term in March 2007.

The commission boasts a record of some eminent British Columbians. This might also be an appropriate time to mention at least two, for fear of offending those

that I don't mention. Mike Harcourt — who, as well, is no stranger to this chamber and who served here as Premier — also served with distinction on the B.C. Treaty Commission. As Premier, he deserves credit for having moved that process forward in the government of the day.

If reconciliation is an evolutionary concept, then it is worth pointing out and acknowledging the contribution that people have made along the way. Certainly, former Premier Harcourt, both as Premier and as a commissioner on the B.C. Treaty Commission, deserves that recognition for the leadership he showed, as does another individual who is now an occasional visitor to this chamber.

That is His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor who, prior to his appointment, acted as chief commissioner to the B.C. Treaty Commission. He is an individual deeply committed to achieving the kind of reconciliation that Chief Baird spoke about yesterday in this chamber.

Which brings me, at the risk of embarrassing her further, to Chief Baird herself. It is ironic — isn't it? — that we would be here today, a century after her great-grandfather really began the process on behalf of the Tsawwassen First Nation by speaking out at commissions like McKenna-McBride, and that a great-granddaughter of Chief Harry Joe should have played such an instrumental role in guiding this final agreement through the various stages of negotiation.

Like her great-grandfather, many of the formative events in Chief Baird's life have taken place against the backdrop of negotiations. Members may not be aware, but Chief Baird spoke publicly for the first time at a gathering of the Coast Salish people when she was only 14. Even by the standards of the political-minded individuals in this room, that is a tender age at which to have the courage to stand and speak about her aspirations for herself and the Tsawwassen First Nation. She was elected chief at age 28, I believe.

There's something that I understand she is teased about occasionally. She and Steve have seen their two children Amy and Sophia born at particularly instrumental times in the negotiating process. It was just a few days around the AIP that Amy emerged in this world, and Sophia just a few days after the initialling of the final agreement in Tsawwassen on that day last year.

Through the strength of her commitment, through the strength of the people around her and through her ability to look beyond the struggles and beyond the technical impediments, she has been able to lead her people through to the negotiation of an instrument of reconciliation. For that, although I am certain she has not done so with this in mind, she has carved out for herself a place in our province's and country's history.

I say yet again to Chief Baird: madam, we are eternally grateful and eternally respectful for the leadership that you have shown. Thank you very much.

What is in this instrument of reconciliation? It is surely part of our task here today and in the days to come to consider what has been laid before us by negotiators, by the government in this case. I will restrict my comments to some broad themes because I know we'll have an opportunity in the days ahead to speak to some of the specifics that comprise this agreement and some of the detailed work that goes into it.

Let me say this about what is contained within the various chapters and provisions. There is a land component to this final agreement, land that will comprise the treaty settlement lands and form the foundation — literally the foundation — for the building of a community into the future.

I don't think I need to convince many of the members in this chamber about the intrinsic connection that exists between aboriginal peoples, the Tsawwassen in this case, and the lands that they reside upon. The 724 hectares of settlement land, it is obvious, are a mere fraction of the lands that 150 years ago the Tsawwassen would have moved within and utilized for hunting, gathering and sustenance. Those 724 hectares include what are now reserve lands and some additional lands, including former provincial Crown lands.

There are other opportunities for the Tsawwassen First Nation to add to those treaty settlement lands in certain circumstances, and there are specific details that we can discuss as part of the detailed debate — how they exercise those options, when and how long those options exist.

The point I would like to make to members is that in many ways at the heart of and affecting the reconciliation is the confidence that the Tsawwassen wanted, needed and deserved to say: "We can build our community. We will have that foundation upon which to ensure that our members have the housing, have the space that we need to develop an economy and develop some options."

I know that for some of the members of this chamber, given where the Tsawwassen First Nation is, that has caused some difficulties, because this agreement also includes provisions whereby Crown land that is being transferred to the Tsawwassen First Nation to form part of the treaty settlement lands will be designated, by virtue of the legislation before the House, to be exempt from the Agricultural Land Commission.

We will have an opportunity to explore, I'm sure, in greater detail the rationale for that, or the specifics around it and the rationale.

Let me say this, at this juncture of the debate. I believe that the Tsawwassen community need the same opportunities that other communities have. I believe that where they are, like any other community in British Columbia, they deserve an opportunity to develop as they see fit, to create employment opportunities and, like other communities, do so in a way that is responsible and responsive to the environmental concerns of their members, their neighbours.

I believe that this agreement and the manner in which it is to be implemented allow them to do that, and I believe that they will do it responsibly and in accordance with the wishes of their community, pursuant to the terms of the constitution that they ratified some days ago — some weeks ago, actually.

I believe this as well, Madam Chair, because I have heard the suggestion that a more appropriate course of action would have been to transfer these lands and leave all of them subject to the provisions of the agricultural land reserve and the Agricultural Land Commission. That, I believe, would have been unfair to the Tsawwassen, and I believe it would have been unfair to the commission.

Settlement of these claims affecting reconciliation with first nations is not something that presently exists within the mandate of the Agricultural Land Commission. It would have been unfair, in my view, to strike an arrangement that was contingent upon some arm's-length body coming to a particular decision, and we chose not to. We'll have an opportunity to discuss that. Members will be able to express their views on it. But I believe that just as every other community in the province possesses a mixture of land — both agricultural and non-agricultural, commercial, industrial, residential — the Tsawwassen deserve the same opportunity. That's why I'm proud of and in full agreement with the provisions that exist within this treaty and within this settlement legislation.

There are provisions in this treaty that ensure public access over public roads. There are, obviously, financial components that we will explore in the subsequent debate, transfers to the Tsawwassen First Nation, and governance provisions that will ensure that the instruments exist for the Tsawwassen First Nation now and well into the future. Maybe there's another generation of leadership in Chief Harry Joe's lineage. Maybe Sophia, having attended all of these negotiations, has acquired, through some process of osmosis, an appetite for the leadership that her mother performs with such admirable ability. Who knows?

The constitution and the governance provisions that exist within this agreement will ensure that the Tsawwassen have the tools they need now and well into the future to make the kinds of decisions that communities want to make on matters that touch directly upon their lives. That is, I believe, as it should be and is included within the provisions of the settlement legislation and settlement agreement that is before the House today, provisions dealing with taxation.

The Chief spoke yesterday both within this House and, I have read, outside of the House about the fact that a negotiation and the pathway to reconciliation involve compromise on the part of all parties. I have no doubt that Chief Baird and the treaty negotiators for the Tsawwassen would point to the provisions around taxation as an example of where they have shown flexibility and compromise.

That is very much the hallmark of many of the provisions of this agreement, but I thought it was worth pointing out that in coming to this agreement, there are aspects to it that…. There's no perfection here. I think I heard Chief Baird say that yesterday. This is not a perfect deal, not from her perspective, and I doubt from the perspective of any member in this chamber. But for reasons I'll allude to in a moment, I think it's astronomically better than….

Deputy Speaker: Minister, excuse me. Are you designated as well as the mover?

Those provisions exist, and I know we'll have an opportunity to review them. Members will have a clear understanding, if they wish, of how they will operate — how the treaty interacts with the agreements that are not formal parts of the treaty instrument but are negotiated and have been negotiated as part of the larger umbrella discussion that took place.

There are provisions that deal with non-member representation in situations where decisions are made that affect people who are not members of the Tsawwassen First Nation. They will be consulted. They will have an opportunity to have representation on Tsawwassen organizations, bodies that purport to make decisions affecting those people. Significantly, the rights of both Tsawwassen First Nation members and non-members will continue to be protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

This is a complex, complicated, large document, and in many ways it represents a culmination of that journey along the path towards reconciliation, as the Chief said. It also represents the beginning of a new relationship in a formal, and perhaps a less formal, way. It is a new relationship between neighbours, and I do want to take a moment to talk about that, because the Tsawwassen First Nation, following the enactment of this agreement and the effective date, will in a very formal way take their place amongst the communities in British Columbia.

The arrangements that have been or will be negotiated to allow for the shared services, for purchasing into water agreements and sewer agreements, for other service agreements and the interaction that will take place between the Tsawwassen First Nation and Metro Vancouver, or GVRD as we formerly knew it — all of these are contemplated and a part of the discussion.

Not just at what we sometimes call the senior governmental levels, as between the Tsawwassen First Nation and the governments of British Columbia and Canada, but also at a local and regional level the basis, the framework around which that new relationship can take root and flourish is enshrined within these agreements. At the end of the day, as we frequently say, genuine reconciliation takes place from the ground up. By virtue of what we have seen and heard….

By the way, I want to say this. Through the course of negotiations there have at times been some passionate exchanges at the regional, local, provincial and national levels, but I was so pleased to see the mayor of Delta and, I think, the entire council here yesterday. I interpreted that — and it was reinforced with me — as a show of support for what has taken place and as a desire to give effect to that new relationship and to move forward in a cooperative spirit with the first nation.

I applaud Mayor Jackson and members of the Delta council for being here, for tangibly showing that support and for saying: "We're going to move forward. We want to welcome in a very real way to the community of communities in the lower mainland in British Columbia the Tsawwassen First Nation as represented by this agreement." I think that's a good sign, and I know that Chief Baird and the council welcome it and will take advantage of that spirit of cooperation.

It is an instrument in reconciliation arrived at through a process of negotiation, but also a process of negotiation that was built around the principle of self-determination. This is the Tsawwassen treaty. It engages all of us as representatives in the province of British Columbia and nationally, but it is the treaty that the Tsawwassen have negotiated on the basis of mandates that they have received from their community — a treaty that was voted upon by members of the Tsawwassen First Nation community and that received 70-percent ratification.

It was an informed debate. It was a vote that took place after careful consideration — I know there were passionate views expressed as part of that discussion within the Tsawwassen First Nation — a decision that the Tsawwassen members made that said: "This is the right thing for us to do." This is the mechanism by which the Tsawwassen, as Chief Baird said yesterday, choose to shake free from the shackles of the Indian Act.

Now, in the year 2007 it is easy to stand here and not be cognizant of the impact of the Indian Act over the years. I think most of us know some of the most egregious details. We know about the laws that were enshrined within that piece of legislation to preclude the potlatches from taking place, that were designed to preclude ceremonial dress and regalia. In the worst instances in the early part of the 20th century, laws contained within the Indian Act made it illegal to hire a lawyer to pursue the land issue.

Yet even today the tentacles of the Indian Act reach out to constrain the ability that communities have to realize their destiny. Imagine a situation where along a beach, trees blow down or something washes in from the sea and the first nation community is precluded from addressing that issue without first consulting with bureaucrats thousands of miles away in Ottawa.

The stories are legion. How is it that we thought that we could create viable communities, that people could realize the things they wanted to do by maintaining this link through this piece of federal legislation to a system and a bureaucracy that had very little, if anything, to do with allowing that self-determination, that economic development to develop from the ground up within the communities?

Madam Chair, the Tsawwassen, through their elected representative and council — Chief Baird and her council — have said that enough is enough. They said: "We are shaking free of the constraints of the Indian Act, and this is the instrument, this is the mechanism, by which we choose to do it."

I say this, perhaps not so much for the audience in this chamber but for others. The Tsawwassen do not seek to impose this instrument by which they effect reconciliation with us on anyone else.

They do not hold this up as a template — nor do we — and say to others: "This is the model. This is perfection. This is nirvana in the world of reconciliation." They say: "No, this is what works for us." I accept that. We accept it, and I think the majority of members accept it.

There are other paths along the road to reconciliation. There's no doubt about that, and we have explored some of those roads. We have, on the property upon which this very building stands…. I talked earlier about those early days under Governor Douglas when attitudes hardened and the notion of having to reconcile, to settle outstanding land issues, didn't seem that important.

That was important. Just under a year ago, we were able to settle one of those — to effect that reconciliation with the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nation. Similarly, a half century ago when we made decisions as a province to develop resources in the Williston reservoir — the construction of power projects, the Tsay Keh Dene and Kwadacha — no one thought about the impact or no one considered the need that existed to address the impacts. Hard to effect reconciliation when those kinds of issues remain unresolved, and yet we have begun the process of resolving them.

We have begun, through things like the transformative change accord, to address head-on the challenges of bridging the socioeconomic divide that has driven aboriginal and non-aboriginal peoples apart for so long.

It is a remarkable history, sometimes sad, but hopefully one that has allowed us to learn along the way. I think it's possible to effect reconciliation, create a new relationship through a variety of instruments, not just treaties. The creation of a new relationship trust that says to first nations: "Look. Here are funds." It's never enough, but it's not a bad start — $100 million. It says: "Arm's length from government, you will make some decisions now around how these resources are put to use to develop capacity, to protect culture."

I don't think we ever move fast enough. I think there's always more work that needs to be done, but reconciliation in a genuine new relationship comes in many shapes and sizes. We are intent on exploring all of them, and I say to people who expressed that concern: there are a variety of ways to effect that reconciliation, a variety of ways to address the issue of unresolved rights and title. The government is prepared and has and will continue to explore those other paths.

The Tsawwassen have said this is the correct path for them. The Tsawwassen have said, after extensive internal discussion, extensive negotiation and much soul-searching, that in this agreement lies the foundation upon which to build a prosperous community, one in which families can have dreams and realize those dreams.

Mr. Speaker, before I conclude, I want to pay tribute to some of the individuals who have contributed to the realization of this dream. I will read some of their

names into the record, because it is a task that sees many people labouring behind the scenes and a few people who are able to step forward and receive some of the credit.

On the various treaty teams, I'd like to extend thanks and pay tribute on the British Columbia treaty team to the following people: Bronwen Beedle, Phil Symington, Cory Herrera, Frances Statham, Mark Atherton, Catherine Lang, Tara Todd-Macdonald, Jill Summers, Kerry Craigie, Michael Matsubuchi, Margo Elewonibi, Lloyd Roberts. Some others that have contributed as well: Steve Munro, Julie Williams, Geri Hutchings, Andrew Alley. Some previous folks who played a key role: Katherine Gordon, Ellen Frisch, Kim Ott.

I'd like to acknowledge, as well from Canada, members of their treaty team past and present: Tim Koepke, Margo Novak, Marion Wu, Maureen Parks, Bruce Hamilton, David Miranda and Robin Dodson.

For the Tsawwassen, because Chief Baird always takes great pains to explain that this was very much a team effort as well: their chief negotiator Chief Kim Baird; Laura Cassidy, of whom I spoke earlier; Andrew Bak; Valerie Cross-Blackett; Tanya Corbet; Doug McArthur; Sophia Nishimoto; Tina Dion. And previously, Tony Jacobs, Susan Alcott and Brenda Nichols — all of whom have contributed over the past 14 years to the conclusion of this agreement.

We're lucky. We occupy this chamber at a remarkable time in the history of the province. It was, as I indicated, nearly one hundred years ago that Chief Harry Joe greeted commissioners from the McKenna-McBride commission to the Tsawwassen lands, onto what he described as "the land facing the sea" in Tsawwassen.

He had, if you read through the transcripts, a fairly straightforward wish. He didn't want his people condemned to a postage-stamp reserve. He wanted the Tsawwassen to have title in their lands. He wanted a future. He wanted a degree of self-determination that any community wants, an ability to control the destiny of their people to build an economic foundation, to develop a means by which families could prosper, children could be raised and not be forced away from home simply to earn a living.

This legislation that has been made possible through the tireless efforts of a great many, not the least of which Chief Harry Joe's great-granddaughter, is an achievement that I believe Harry Joe would be proud of.

As we approach British Columbia's 150th anniversary — that is the founding of the Crown colony of British Columbia — it is worth reflecting both on our past and on the exciting days that lie ahead, days that we hope will include subsequent debates in this chamber about final agreements, not necessarily that look precisely the same as this one, but subsequent final agreements and other instruments by which we effect reconciliation with our first peoples, with aboriginal peoples in British Columbia and Canada.

As I think about this journey, I think about the contributions that people have made that allow us to get here. I think about the fact that the Nisga'a treaty was negotiated. I'm mindful of the fact that I was in this chamber when the Nisga'a treaty was negotiated — in a different role, and very, very critical of that agreement.

I suppose part of that related to the duties to critique, but I think as well for me, there may have been something else at play. I think I harboured a bit of a fear that perhaps the agreements that that represented, agreements of this sort, were going to drive us apart as Canadians and British Columbians. That hasn't happened.

One of the things that has made a profound impact on me…. We went to the Nass Valley earlier this year with the Tsawwassen First Nation Chief Baird and the Huu-ay-aht people and their leadership, and precisely the opposite has occurred. There is a pride now that I dare say didn't exist.

I believe these agreements bring us closer together. I believe these instruments of reconciliation provide us with an opportunity to accomplish things that were outside of our reach just a few short years and decades ago.

For that reason, I am grateful to the Nisga'a, who welcomed me back into the Nass Valley, and grateful for the Tsawwassen and the leadership that they have demonstrated in providing me with that opportunity and that insight that I might not otherwise have received.

I say to members that I believe this is an agreement that will stand the test of time, that will provide the Tsawwassen First Nation with the tools they need, and to close — in the terms that Chief Baird has expressed and used — provide us with an instrument of reconciliation that is appropriate, that is defensible, that is historic, that is reasonable. For that reason, I hope that members of this chamber will stand with us, stand with Canada and stand with Tsawwassen in support of the Tsawwassen First Nation final agreement.

C. James: I rise with pride today to speak to the Tsawwassen treaty. I rise with feelings of pride and optimism for the future of Tsawwassen people, but I also have feelings of great concern about this government's approach to treaty-making — past, present and future. And I'm going to take some time this afternoon, as I go through my remarks, to talk about that and to talk about some ideas of how to improve that process.

But I want to start by saying how proud I am to stand with my caucus to support the Tsawwassen treaty. It will be a momentous day for the Tsawwassen people when this treaty is finally ratified by all parties and comes into effect. It will be a genuine cause for celebration.

The Tsawwassen people deserve this treaty, and I want to offer our congratulations to Chief Kim Baird and the Tsawwassen people for this incredibly historic achievement. It was an incredibly moving experience for all of us to hear Chief Baird talk about the history, talk about her people, talk about the fact that they have negotiated hard and fairly to resolve longstanding issues of self-determination, land ownership and economic independence for themselves — things that

other people look at as givens, things first nations people have had to fight to be able to achieve.

The Tsawwassen people can look forward to a brighter future, secure in the knowledge that they will have a much greater say in shaping their own destiny. The Tsawwassen treaty makes history by becoming the first treaty to be successfully concluded under the B.C. treaty process.

Seven years ago the Nisga'a people made history by concluding the first modern treaty in B.C. history. I would like to point out, for all the members who are present, that both the Nisga'a treaty and the B.C. treaty process were accomplishments of former New Democrat governments. The Nisga'a treaty, a treaty fiercely opposed by many members opposite, was negotiated and ratified under the governments of Mike Harcourt and Glen Clark, and they deserve congratulations today as well. The B.C. treaty process itself was put in place by the government of Premier Mike Harcourt.

We in British Columbia can sometimes be a little provincial when talking about historical questions. The truth is — and we heard this as well from Chief Baird — that the Tsawwassen treaty is a victorious moment in a 500-year story of aboriginal-settler relations on this continent. The aboriginal self-government debate that dominated the news coverage in the 1990s was certainly not a new issue. It actually began in the 16th century when the Spanish conquistador Hernán Cortés destroyed the capital of the Aztec confederacy.

When Cortés landed his army on the beaches in Mexico, the very first thing he did was create an instant municipality, Veracruz, which was the first European-style municipality in all of North America. Ever since that time period, colonial governments have been trying to force first nations to become provincially sanctioned municipalities.

In 1550 the Spanish monarch Charles V established the first royal commission on aboriginal people — 1550. I think of how many royal commissions, how many papers, how many studies since 1550 we've seen on the issue of aboriginal people.

In that hearing, they defended Cortés, saying that Mexico's indigenous people needed Spanish rule because they were inferior, just as apes to man. In response, the first bishop of Chiapas argued that the Spanish conquest was illegal and that nothing justified the destruction of Mexico's aboriginal government. That hearing in 1550 was the beginning of the debate about aboriginal self-government — which, as we know, continued into the late 20th century.

Directly tied to the question of self-government is what for 100 years of frustration the Nisga'a nation called "the great land question." First nations have always governed the lands that they owned. Their communities owned those lands. Their communities made laws about the wise use of those lands.

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

But according to European thinking, their great crime was the tribal or collective ownership of land. Members of this House will remember that this was the basis of much criticism of the Nisga'a treaty — because, of course, tribal ownership of land means tribal governance of those lands. At the beginning of the 18th century, aboriginal people still outnumbered settlers on this continent, but the settlers kept coming, and across North America first nations resisted this occupation.

In 1763 Ottawa Chief Pontiac organized a pan-Indian resistance to fight the British occupation. He quickly took all but one of the British forts. Pontiac's military success horrified the government in London, and it decided to make a new policy — the Royal Proclamation of 1763. The Royal Proclamation affirmed the tribal ownership of lands. It recognized tribal governments, and it required the public negotiation of treaties before settlers could purchase those lands.

A very important piece of our history that we should never forget — I heard the member opposite mention British Columbia's birthday, and I think this is an important thing for us to remember as we move to British Columbia's birthday — is that of all the British colonies, only one rejected that Royal Proclamation: British Columbia.

James Douglas, the colonial governor in Victoria, did make treaties with some Vancouver Island first nations. But after British Columbia entered Confederation in 1871, beyond an extension to Treaty 8, there would be no more treaties until Nisga'a — from 1871 until the Nisga'a treaty came forward.

From the beginning, treaty policies have divided British Columbia. James Douglas made treaties. Joseph Trutch, the Chief Commissioner of Lands in the newly united colony of British Columbia, refused to make treaties. Tom Berger went to the Supreme Court of Canada on behalf of the Nisga'a in 1973, and afterwards, he never stopped fighting for aboriginal rights.

Melvin H. Smith, who advised several British Columbia governments on aboriginal rights, opposed the negotiations of modern treaties. Premier Bill Bennett said that his government didn't recognize aboriginal title. Premier Mike Harcourt worked to establish the B.C. Treaty Commission.

In the 1990s the Leader of the Opposition, now the Premier, opposed race-based aboriginal government. The Nisga'a treaty was unconstitutional, he said. Non-Nisga'a citizens would be subject to Nisga'a laws, he said. Non-Nisga'a citizens would be burdened by taxation without representation. Even when the courts told the Premier that he was wrong, he fought back with a terribly divisive and racist provincial referendum that did nothing except create more divide — after a history of divide in our province — and delayed treaty talks.

Then we all know that suddenly, in 2005, the Premier began promoting a new relationship. Given the

Premier's history, first nations and the general public both have good reason to wonder whether they're dealing with a far-sighted statesman or a partisan tactician.

I have to say that I believe a statesman would have found an honourable way to treat the Tsawwassen First Nation and protect the agricultural land reserve. A partisan would have played one off against another. A far-sighted strategist would have worked hard to resolve this critical land use dispute. A mere tactician would have gone for short-term political gain.

We all know what happened in this case. As a result, neither first nations nor the general public really knows where this government and this Premier stand on the toughest of historical treaty issues.

His party fought the Nisga'a agreement. They fought it in the Legislature, in the courts and in a divisive referendum. Until the fall of 2004 this government's lawyers were still arguing at the Supreme Court of Canada that British Columbia had no duty to consult first nations when contemplating development on lands in first nations traditional territory. It took the Supreme Court of Canada to tell the Premier that he was wrong.

Then in the spring of 2005, on the eve of an election, the Premier negotiated the new relationship accord, a remarkable political statement acknowledging provincial responsibility for post-colonial aboriginal dispossession.

This was a statement that should make us all proud, but what has happened since then calls into question the Premier's commitment. Has the Premier signed the accord document? Did the Premier embed the accord's principles into provincial policy on forests, on children and families, on fish farms, on agricultural land?

Has the accord fundamentally improved provincial mandates on aboriginal self-government? Has the Premier explained why the word "treaty" appears nowhere in the accord? I think one of the most critical questions of all is: has the accord — this supposed new relationship — improved the day-to-day lives of aboriginal people in British Columbia?

I stand here saddened to say that the answer to all those questions is no. This province still faces many challenges at the treaty tables. For a province with only limited acres of farmland but a rapidly growing urban population, the agricultural land reserve, which was created by the Dave Barrett government, was one of the most imaginative and best-admired policy achievements of any provincial administration.

Essentially, it applied the zoning concept to protect precious soils for agricultural production. Surely no government, even one beholden to land developers, would wilfully abandon this policy. I suggest: let us in this Legislature here and now affirm our strong commitment to the ALR.

Another challenging issue that we hear a great deal about is the issue of overlap. All B.C. first nations have competing claims to lands in their traditional territories. One first nation might have used a river valley for one purpose; another may have used it for entirely different ends. One may have hunted it; one may have fished its waters. To successfully conclude treaties, both nations' interests must be addressed.

There's nothing new in any of this. All treaties deal with this issue, as did the Yukon land claims settlement, as did the Nisga'a. In fact, the Tsawwassen treaty section on overlapping claims is the same as the text of the Nisga'a agreement. It's interesting to look at the history of other areas that have dealt with first nations claims. In the Yukon, first nations had to resolve their overlapping claims before signing treaties.

In British Columbia that hasn't been resolved, and here's an area where I think improvement could be looked at. This is a situation in which the B.C. Treaty Commission could actually play a much larger role.

When the Treaty Commission was established in 1992, many hoped that it would extend its facilitation activity into the area of mediation. Many governments resisted this. However, I think the issue of overlap and overlap areas is a perfect subject for active mediation by the Treaty Commission.

In a comprehensive review of treaty-making in the Americas, the United Nations special rapporteur concluded that the greatest failure of treaty-making was the failure of colonial governments to fully implement what they had negotiated with first nations. They signed off on the agreements, but in many cases the implementation never occurred.

Here, with our process, the B.C. Treaty Commission is supposed to close its doors when treaties have been negotiated. But if you take a look at the structure — with two aboriginal and two government commissioners, with a neutral or rotating chair — it may actually be appropriately structured to adjudicate future implementation issues.

This certainly would be much less expensive than resorting to the courts and, I would hope, a much more successful conclusion for first nations than the existing process that leaves them to fight amongst each other and leaves them without any ability to resolve the disputes.

The B.C. Treaty Commission process has cost the better part of a billion dollars but, as we know, so far has produced only one treaty. More than anything, it appears that treaty-making in British Columbia lacks any sense of urgency. Given the sorry indicators of aboriginal life in British Columbia, this is tragic.

I'd like to take a few minutes to take a closer look at what life is like for aboriginal people in British Columbia. The statistics I'm going to quote are shocking enough in themselves, but they only begin to convey the challenges that are faced by aboriginal communities throughout our province.

Let's start with the basic health indicators. They paint a grim picture. Aboriginal people, on average, live seven years less than the rest of the population. Aboriginal infant mortality rates run between two and four times the average for non-aboriginals.

HIV and AIDS rates for aboriginal people are twice as high as for the general population. Rates of diabetes — triple the rest of the population. Alcohol-related deaths are four to nine times higher for aboriginal

people. Drug-related deaths — two to four times higher. Hospitalization rate — 40 percent higher for aboriginal men and almost 80 percent higher for aboriginal women.

The rate of aboriginal teenaged mothers is almost six times the rate amongst the rest of the general population. The poverty rate for aboriginal children is twice the rate of non-aboriginal children.

Between 1997 and 2005 the number of aboriginal children in care increased by more than 50 percent. Some 50 percent of the children in care are aboriginal, according to the Representative for Children and Youth. Only 16 percent of aboriginal children in care graduate from high school — 16 percent.

Aboriginal youth were seven times more likely to be in prison than their non-aboriginal counterparts. That's actually up from ten years earlier, when they were only three times as likely to be in prison.

On the education front, the situation is not a good one either. Only 47 percent of aboriginal students complete high school, compared to 82 percent for the rest of the population.

With poor health and poor education outcomes, it comes as absolutely no surprise that aboriginal people are struggling in the job market. Unemployment among aboriginal people is more than double the rest of the population.

For those with just a high school education, the average hourly wage for non-aboriginal workers rose 6.2 percent between 2004 and 2006, yet during that same period the average wages declined by 30 percent for aboriginal workers.

We know that this government likes to trumpet an economic boom, but it's clear that aboriginal people are not feeling that effect. I cite these statistics both with sadness and with anger. These conditions are being perpetuated in large part by the absence of fair and honourable treaties. First nations see treaties as a key component of their effort to escape these conditions.

Once you make allowances for it being an urban rather than a rural treaty, the Tsawwassen treaty, in almost all major respects, is no different than the Nisga'a treaty. Yet while in opposition, this government opposed the Nisga'a treaty with all its might.

Meanwhile, the conditions of aboriginal people throughout this province continue to rival those in many Third World countries. It should be to the everlasting shame of this Premier and this government — what they've done to perpetuate those conditions even one day longer than was necessary.

It's not just the way this government has played politics with treaty in the past that's a problem. Their current handling of treaties, I also believe, leaves much to be desired. But don't take simply my word for it.

The Auditor General has been very critical of this government's approach to treaty negotiations. He's noted how slow the negotiations have been. The Auditor General also singled out the government's new relationship as an impediment to moving quickly on treaties.

A little piece of history again. Following the Supreme Court of Canada's 2004 ruling in Haida, the province began to aggressively negotiate accommodation agreements, forest and range agreements and other interim measures.

Now, it's completely understandable why first nations would pursue these agreements — to give them even a small piece of the resources that have been taken away from them for years and years and years, to give them the ability to have some control over what they should have complete control over. But we should never mistake those interim agreements as an alternative to treaties.

These measures give industry access to the resources of first nations traditional territories, they give revenues to the provincial treasury, and they give certain benefits to first nations. I'm sure most of the members in this House, if they've been listening, have heard the concerns from first nations about these interim agreements, the challenges that they're facing in moving ahead on economic development, the promises that were made but not kept, the ability to control things that hasn't ever occurred.

We have to remember again — I think it's important to restate it — that these interim agreements do not settle either the land or governance questions that are the reason for treaty negotiations. They can't be an alternative to treaties.

This government has negotiated one treaty and many interim measures or accommodation agreements. A negotiator for this government recently told a public meeting that this province has the political appetite for negotiating only one treaty per term in office. I say that can't be true, because at that rate we're still going to be negotiating treaties with B.C.'s first nations into the 24th century. Surely that can't be true.

This would be historic injustice piled upon historic injustice, an error compounded repeatedly by this government's policy. For the sake of our collective future, we have to do better — much better.

For far too long provincial attitudes towards aboriginal people were just that — too provincial. We all need to open our eyes and our ears to see and hear what is going on around us. The new relationship accord was a good start on paper, but as we're finding out, it has to reflect more than simply words on paper, and it's not. First nations people came to the table hoping that that document would make a difference, hoping that the Premier was serious this time, hoping that it would improve the lives in their communities. We haven't seen that.

I think it was very telling when, in the last legislative session, we took the opportunity to ask a number of ministers what they were doing in their area to implement the new relationship — what more could they have undertaken in their ministry to implement the new relationship. The answer was consistent: "It's not our job. It's not our responsibility. It's the responsibility of the Minister of Aboriginal Relations."

Well, Mr. Speaker, until this government recognizes that the changes and the words in the new relationship are implemented through every ministry in govern-

ment and that everyone takes them seriously, we're really not going to see the kinds of changes that aboriginal people expected through that new relationship. We need to see the new relationship accord reflected in all provincial policies. I gave some examples earlier: fish farming, forest tenures, aboriginal government — all areas that are being ignored by the new relationship.

In 1763 colonial authorities committed themselves to public negotiations of treaties, but this government abolished treaty advisory committees, and now the ordinary citizen has almost no access to treaty negotiations.

I talked earlier about the divide of treaties in our province's history, about how we've seen governments use it as a political tool, about how it's divided the people in this province. The treaty advisory committees were an opportunity to build that knowledge, to have aboriginal and non-aboriginal people learn about what was going on at the treaty table, to have non-aboriginal people understand how important the treaty process is to first nations in our province.

Again, one of the recommendations that I certainly would make is to bring the public back into the room, to shine some light on the proceedings and to let people hear what's going on so that we can build that understanding all across British Columbia.

We all know that the federal and provincial governments have a secret formula based on so much land and so much money per citizen — that that's what they use at the negotiating table. Everyone also knows that this formula wasn't enough to conclude a treaty at Tsawwassen.

So I say: why not table the formula? Let the public know what the government is using for negotiations. Let first nations have a debate about whether it's fair or not. Let's put those issues on the table, the valid concerns being raised by first nations about their struggles in the treaty process. Surely that would only speed up the process, if we actually have a good strong dialogue on the challenges that are being raised.

British Columbia has good negotiators, but there aren't enough of them to staff all the treaty tables in the province. If we're serious about treaty settlements, if we really take it as a priority that we need to get on with in British Columbia, then we need to expand and strengthen B.C.'s negotiating teams.

Accommodation agreements and interim measures may be valuable increments to the treaty process, but they can't resolve the historic land and governance issues. They can't be used as substitutions for treaty agreements. This government has to get on with providing the treaty process the resources it needs to negotiate at a number of tables and get on with speeding up the process.

When faced with difficult issues such as overlapping first nations claims to traditional territories, we should encourage the British Columbia Treaty Commission to actively employ mediation and alternative dispute resolution tools to resolve those issues today.

Let's stop trying to impose municipal forms of self-government on first nations communities. Let's actually open the door and facilitate intergovernmental and service agreements between first nations and neighbouring municipalities. Let's grant the Treaty Commission more independence so that it can play a better role of facilitator, mediator and adjudicator.

Rather than rigidly imposing one model of treaty settlements in British Columbia, let's meet with those parties who are concerned about the process. Let's explore all kinds of alternative final agreements. Let's have that discussion with first nations in British Columbia. Let's draft the treaty language in plain language so that British Columbians can read it and understand what's been negotiated.

Above all, I call on this government to demonstrate the political will to complete British Columbia first nations treaties within the next ten years. That would be a legacy to all of us in British Columbia.

The just and lasting settlement of treaties with first nations is one of the greatest issues of our time. Our province was built on the backs of our first citizens. Our past can never be reconciled to the values we claim to hold for our communities, and our future cannot be built on a foundation worn by generations of neglect, injustice and oppression.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the day soon when aboriginal people have control of their destiny. I look forward to the day when I live in a province where aboriginal people are equal members of society in law and in condition. I look forward to the day when we can celebrate the victory over poverty and despair.

I look forward to the day when our children and our grandchildren learn about the injustices against aboriginal people as part of our past, not part of our present and not part of our future. I am incredibly proud to support this treaty with Tsawwassen as an important milestone on that journey. We all look forward to the Tsawwassen people controlling their own destiny.

V. Roddick: I rise in support of Bill 40, the ratification of the first urban-rural signed treaty between Tsawwassen First Nation, the province of British Columbia and Canada. I firmly believe that this bill marks the beginning of a new chapter for the people of Tsawwassen First Nation and the municipality of Delta — a new chapter and a brighter future for us all.

We are a close-knit, active community. This treaty will provide confidence and a foundation for capacity-building. We look forward to forging a new and thriving relationship.

Congratulations to Chief Kim Baird and the Tsawwassen Nation. Kim is a remarkable and admirable young woman whose strength, courage and commitment have empowered her community to achieve a landmark treaty and with it economic opportunity, self-sufficiency, hope and a proud future for the Tsawwassen people.

In her address to this House yesterday Chief Baird mentioned throwing off the shackles of the Indian Act. I do not think that we all really realize what this means. Recently I was talking to a member of the Squamish

Nation who thanked us profusely for what was being achieved, what we were going out and really trying to do. He said he never honestly thought he would ever live to see the day when he would be free of the Indian Act.

This is an admirable achievement, and the hard and heartfelt work done by everyone involved in this treaty has been exemplary. It is so necessary that the people of Canada continue to work to address outstanding aboriginal issues facing our country. This will not be an easy task, but it certainly is not an insurmountable goal if all levels of government work together. Think global. Deliver local.

It will be exciting in the very near future to work with Tsawwassen First Nation, the municipality of Delta, the province of British Columbia and Canada to participate in the growth and development not just of our neighbour but of ourselves as well.

This treaty has elements on both sides that will have to be carefully planned and carried out. Two of the major issues are the fact that this has always, since the beginning of time, been a fishing place and that in the last 150 years it has also become a number one agricultural area for the province. From the fishing point of view, we used to work together, and we can again. It's a question of putting the fish first, something that actually needs to be done worldwide.

Agriculture, farming, is a different challenge. Land, and a critical mass of it, is required. The treaty is only one of the contributors to the ongoing problem facing the farming business in Delta South. Land is being sucked up by roads, railways, highways, port development, all of which are economically necessary for the first nations, Delta, British Columbia and Canada.

Land is also desperately needed for birds of all descriptions as well as other for environmental requirements. This is where outside-the-box thinking is most necessary. We need economic development to provide goods and services to maintain a reasonable lifestyle — no question about that — but how do we achieve this goal without negatively affecting our overall environment?

Richmond and Delta are man-made. With global warming hitting us between the eyes, maybe the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and NGOs such as the David Suzuki Foundation and Ducks Unlimited should be looking at surge dikes and making new or more land for the birds and, very importantly, for growing our own food, because as everybody knows by now, we all have to eat to live.

Our various levels of government can also utilize the new relationship, as well as the treaty, to look at how to grow, build and enhance our neighbouring communities and find solutions to the many thorny issues facing us. Our government is determinedly working within each and every ministry to work closely with first nations to help grow and expand capacity on all fronts — a true new relationship.

There has been significant investment in both design and implementation of arrangements and programs which will improve and promote aboriginal inclusion in agriculture; education, both K-to-12 and advanced education; health; mining; forestry; 2010 and all that that entails; small business; and children and families, to name a few. First nations are charting and driving on a new positive path in their long history.

By working collaboratively, we can accomplish these goals. Partnership is the key. This truly is a new era of golden opportunities. We collectively have a huge opportunity. We will not fail. Our future generations that are up there and out there depend on this success.

S. Fraser: It's an honour to be able to speak to Bill 40 today. I will be speaking in support of the Tsawwassen treaty, in support of Chief Baird and the council and in support of the Tsawwassen people's spirit and dedication in this important step along the way towards reconciliation and self-determination. I also applaud Chief Baird's words yesterday. They were inspiring, and they were historic in content.

But all is not well with the treaty process, and this government is burying its head in the sand to the fact that the public is not being made aware of the real challenges within the treaty process. This is a good-news treaty for many reasons, but we have to look at the larger context also.

The real challenges of the treaty process were reflected on to some extent outside of this building yesterday. Many first nations who are not involved in the treaty process in this province or who are involved in the treaty process or want to be and feel that they are not getting fair treatment were there yesterday.

As I stood outside on the front steps, I saw that the so-called new relationship was unravelling. I've been in an interesting position as the critic for Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, because I signed on to the new relationship — the government new relationship. The words are wise. They are simple in their wisdom, and they are supportable by the opposition. But we saw an inkling of them yesterday as they really are — words on paper, unformalized and adding to confusion, amongst other things, in the treaty process.

There were hundreds of people outside voicing their discontent, not at Chief Baird and not of the Tsawwassen peoples but at this government's handling of the treaty process, or mishandling of the treaty process, and this government's mishandling of the new relationship. Words are not enough.

Last month at the United Nations the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous people was passed. This is a good-news story. But there's a dark side to this. Shamefully, our Canadian government voted no, one of four countries to do so — 144 yes and four no votes. One was Canada.

Just as shamefully, this provincial government remained silent when the government of Canada was one of only that handful of countries to vote no. It has significance in the context of treaty, and it has

incredible significance in its timing. The declaration is significant for treaty processes here, including the Tsawwassen treaty.

This is a quote from the Secretary General's spokesperson at the United Nations:

That was dated September 13 of this year, this last month. So at a time when we're bringing forward a treaty, the second treaty to get to this stage in British Columbia history, this declaration was not passed by this country and was not even mentioned by this government. The sections within this declaration from the United Nations — articles 3, 4, 5 and others — speak directly to issues of self-governance — of treaty, if you will.

Time and again New Democrats called on this Premier and this government to join with us and support the UN resolution. I think it should have been synonymous with treaty and the Tsawwassen treaty. That they refused to do so was an embarrassment to all British Columbians and is indicative of something much larger.

The Leader of the Opposition called repeatedly in this House for the government to stand strong to support the UN resolution, as did I as the critic. It is truly about reconciliation — not just the word "reconciliation," not just a slogan, but the real thing.

I did a two-minute statement in this House on this last year and asked that we, in a non-political way, support this. It represents the whole reason for treaty-making. It represents what we're here for today — we as the opposition, with government, supporting the Tsawwassen treaty, the Tsawwassen people and their rights in the international community and in this province.

Silence from this Premier and this government. Abraham Lincoln said: "To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men." Martin Luther King Jr.: "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that happen." Edmund Burke: "All that is necessary for triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

Human rights are not just a passing fad for New Democrats. The NDP has long stood up for the rights of first nations in British Columbia and throughout the world. It was an NDP government that brought forward the very first modern-day treaty in British Columbia, Nisga'a. The day when the Nisga'a treaty was ratified in this B.C. Legislature was a proud day for all New Democrats.

When New Democrats stood and voted for the Nisga'a treaty, we stood alone. Liberals voted no, and they took their opposition even further. Along with the now Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, the now Premier of the province launched a narrow-minded court challenge to try to stop the Nisga'a treaty.

We all remember quotes, like from the now Premier: "We have no choice but to proceed to court. The treaty is unconstitutional because it would establish a Nisga'a government with authority to make laws which prevail over federal and provincial governments." That was the now Premier.

Well, we all recognize that for what it is today. That was damaging. It was fearmongering, and it was misinformation designed to turn the public against the rights of first nations in British Columbia. After he became Premier, he as well as the minister responsible spent four years resisting the treaty process that we're now speaking of today.

I don't need to remind anyone in this House or this province about the horribly divisive referendum. The B.C. Liberal government set us back years in the goal of achieving reconciliation with first nations. The Tsawwassen treaty is good news, and it's years later than it should be.

We spoke out strongly against those policies back then, and we were right. Now the Premier and the minister say they've come around. In the Legislature today we are doing the consideration of ratification of the Tsawwassen treaty, and this is a historic moment for which all New Democrats should be proud, because the Tsawwassen treaty was signed under a process initiated by the NDP 15 years ago.

Many parts of this treaty — self-governance, taxation, resource use — are very close, if not identical, to the Nisga'a treaty that was fought by this government. But this treaty is a big step forward, and it has important implications for the Tsawwassen people, the community of Delta, the neighbouring communities and the future of the treaty process.

As has been mentioned, the Tsawwassen treaty has not been without debate. New Democrats have strong and passionate beliefs. Two of those issues that we feel most strongly about are settling first nations treaties — it's a human rights issue — and preserving B.C.'s food-producing lands.

It was also the NDP that created both the ALR — the agricultural land reserve — and the treaty process. So as a party and as a caucus, we have the obligation to carefully consider the implications of the Tsawwassen treaty for farmland. This debate is intelligent, it's healthy, and we should all be proud of it.

The New Democrat caucus has had in-depth discussions about these issues, and we've come to a decision to support the treaty. However, as the official opposition, it is our right and our role to raise important questions. So we will stand in the Legislature and give voice to your concerns, which we all have in

British Columbia, about the loss of agricultural land, which produces food for communities in the region and beyond.

The ALR is one of B.C.'s greatest legacies, and we will not lose sight of that — of the crucial importance of the legacy of the ALR for the people of British Columbia, particularly in the times of climate change.

We will also raise important concerns about this government's plans for expansion of Deltaport and how these plans impact the fertile and irreplaceable agricultural lands in the area, especially when alternatives are available — ports, facilities such as in Prince Rupert.

During the debate we will also talk about how all is not well with the B.C. Liberals' approach to treaties. While we recognize that certain sensitive discussions must take place behind closed doors, we believe that reconciliation through the B.C. treaty process should be an open and inclusive process and should never divide and isolate communities, first nations or not.

S. Fraser: I note that the member across is quite rude, but I will continue, hon. Speaker, in light of that.

You know, the treaty process was intended to be a dynamic one. I believe it needs to grow. The treaty process was never designed to be etched in stone. With changing realities, the treaty process must grow. With changes in case law, the treaty process must grow. It must try to be an inclusive process that addresses some of the concerns that we certainly heard yesterday in front of this building.

The treaty process must grow from legal precedent, and it must grow from improving values, if that's the right term, encapsulated in, for instance, the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous people that the loud members across the way were not so loud on — were silent on — as Canada voted no.

The Premier's approach to treaty-making has been divisive, and that has not been fair to chief and council of the Tsawwassen people in what is a great process of reconciliation, I know, for them. The treaty process under the Premier has been divisive. It has created winners and losers, and frankly, there are not that many winners under this government's stewardship.

We are hearing that loud and clear. If any members of the government had dared step outside to look at the real world yesterday, hundreds of representatives of first nations were on the front steps — not protesting Chief Baird, not protesting the Tsawwassen people, but protesting this government and the veneer that's peeling off the so-called new relationship. But the members from the government side didn't go outside. Their heads remained buried in the sand throughout that.

The B.C. Liberals' approach to treaty-making is divisive, and it leaves too many people behind. It is a secretive model, and it pits communities against each other. That's not the design that was intended. The Auditor General is critical of the lack of definition around the new relationship in particular and critical of the Liberal government's approach to treaty.

That was reflected on the lawn of the Legislature yesterday. The same issues came forward from first nations from all over the province about this government's mishandling of the new relationship and of the treaty process.

We on this side of the House also recognize just how badly this government has been handling both. In May, as critic for Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, I introduced a private member's bill to empower the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs to address some of these grave concerns being brought forward, because all is not well in the province with the treaty process and with this government's handling of the new relationship. Those concerns were displayed yesterday here, outside this building, to the breaking point.

This government ignored what happened yesterday on the lawn. They ignored my request to empower the standing committee through a private member's bill. The reaction was the same appalling silence — it's becoming habit-forming — as this government had regarding the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous people. Silence in the face of oppression and injustice is oppression and injustice.

The Auditor General had a number of issues from 2007 in April. He's critical of this government's lack of definition around the new relationship and particularly critical of the Liberal government's approach to treaty negotiation on several fronts. The Auditor General points out that one of the biggest problems with the new relationship is that it is not defined. We heard that loud and clear from first nations yesterday. This lack of clarity and focus has led to much uncertainty.

The breakthrough strategy…. This Premier, when he came into office, not only set back the treaty process with a divisive and inflammatory referendum, but he cut resources to the treaty process. Those limited resources are now focused on a very few tables at the expense of others, and this is affirmed by the Auditor General. It's affirmed by the many, many first nations in the province who have signed on to the unity protocol to protest this government's handling of the treaty process, their unwillingness to open their thoughts to expanding that process to meet the needs of the modern day.

The other thing the Auditor General said, hon. Speaker, was that this government has been less than open about the real challenges faced in this process. With the public they've been less than open. That's not going to help reconciliation.

The government's arrogant disregard for the serious concerns being brought forward by actually a majority of first nations in this province, serious concerns affirmed by the Auditor General and the official opposition, who actually go out and listen to first nations when they speak about these issues…. This arrogance and this ignorance is threatening the very fabric of the much-vaunted new relationship and the entire treaty process in this province.

For a New Democrat government, if we had been at the treaty process throughout this process, the entire process, I submit that the treaty may have looked

significantly different. But we were not at the table when the treaty was finalized, and we cannot now pick and choose from this treaty. That's like walking into office and tearing up negotiated contracts that were duly negotiated, breaking the constitution in the process, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

That's something we can't do on this side of the House. To stall the treaty process now would be a step backwards in our journey towards reconciliation, certainly with the Tsawwassen First Nation, who have been in this particular process for 14 years, this one treaty — actually longer, hon. Speaker, but in this treaty process as it stands in modern day. It also would be a step backwards in the treaty process in general in B.C.

We must also remember that throughout history, throughout centuries of history, colonial peoples have used one reason more than any other for stealing land from aboriginal peoples, and that has been agriculture. That has been farming.

Our caucus will vote for the treaty out of respect for the Tsawwassen people, out of respect for Chief Baird and the council of the Tsawwassen nation, and out of respect for 14 years of hard work at the negotiating table. We will vote for the treaty out of respect for the rights of first nations of this province who have chosen to take this process, who have never surrendered their traditional territories, who have never been defeated in war and who are participating in this treaty process in good faith.

As New Democrats, we will build on the momentum that the Tsawwassen treaty offers, momentum towards reconciliation — more than just the word — and towards protecting farmland, which is our future food security. As we continue the journey towards reconciliation, the NDP will stand by our commitment for the preservation of farmland — not just today, not just for today's generation, but for future generations. This must also be a key part of the treaty process.

R. Cantelon: I listened to the debate from the other side of the House with quite some interest. At times, until later in…. The member for Alberni-Qualicum finally said it's good news, and talked about the actual issue that we're here to debate. There was a time when I wondered not only if we were talking about the right issue, but whether we were even in the right House or jurisdiction.

I'm going to move backwards. He spoke about a UN resolution. I understand, if I recall correctly, their legislation happens in New York City. Then he talked about the House of Commons, on issues that we don't have jurisdiction or control over, or are matters of concern in this House, particularly.

What is of concern in this House is resolving our longstanding issues with first nations, and this treaty is a very concrete and progressive step towards doing just that. It is good news, and I'm glad to hear from the members opposite that they're in favour of the treaty. I didn't hear that when the Leader of the Opposition spoke, and I waited for some time to hear a yes or hear a no. I heard nothing.

R. Cantelon: I was listening, and I'll tell you what I heard, Member. What I heard was this, and I have to raise my voice to go over what you're saying.

R. Cantelon: I don't have the transcript in front of me, but I'll tell you what we did hear. What we heard was a very clumsy, inappropriate tactic to use this for a partisan vehicle to attack the Premier. Let me address that.

R. Cantelon: I'll try to be perhaps less passionate in my remarks, but I don't promise it, because it is an issue about which I feel very passionate.

What I did hear was…. It's quite interesting because the member opposite used the word "divisive" many, many times. I don't think that's an appropriate word to be using in the context of where this treaty is taking us and where the new relationship is taking us.

However, what I did hear towards the end…. I think it was more than just a subtle acquiescence to the direction that this government has taken with reconciliation, by saying that we have momentum towards reconciliation. Yes, we do indeed, and that began with the signing of the accord and establishing and branding our entire department of first nations with the word "reconciliation."

It's interesting, too, that the members opposite care to use the word "divisiveness." We must get beyond that. I think the whole issue here is this: yes, there were mistakes. Are we going to move forward with fear, based on the mistakes and the errors in the past, with pessimism and cynicism and words like "divisiveness," or are we going to move forward with hope and words that inspire hope — words like "reconciliation"?

I found it interesting that Chief Kim Baird…. I lost count of the number of times she used the word "reconciliation" in her speech. It's obviously a word that resonates with first nations people. It's obviously a word that offers them hope, that turns away from the mistakes of the past and the fears that those mistakes could engender in the future — a move towards hope.

Now, the Leader of the Opposition spoke about: "Well, it had absolutely no effect." She said, too, that it isn't…. She said: "What work in your ministry?" She found no answers that it was working in any of the ministries.

Well, of course, I don't have as broad an experience as she does throughout the province. What I can speak

of is how it's impacted my riding. It's been very positive with the effects in my riding.

Let me give you a couple of examples. The Vancouver Island Aboriginal Transition Team, VIATT, has now worked and received authority to manage the affairs of children and youth within first nations.

R. Cantelon: I can tell you once again that on Vancouver Island they're leaders.

I was there at a very moving and heartfelt ceremony where the aboriginals embraced the opportunity to once again look after their own. How did this come about? It came about through the leadership of the Premier and the leadership of the reconciliation accord. These things move things forward.

They were very keen and spoke glowingly of the relationship they had with the Minister of Children and Family Development. It was attended by the children's representative. It was quite a moving ceremony. I was asked and was honoured to be a witness to it. That's just one of them.

I found it quite ironic. She said fish farming…. "Ignored" was the word that the….

You can check your Hansard, Member opposite, and I'm sure you'll find those words exactly written in there.

Not only were they ignored, but the members opposite who led the commission, who led the majority of the report, crushed the hopes and expectations of those who want to do fish farming.

We have the village of Klemtu. What did they say to them? They said: "Well, you can expand, but you'll have to put those fish farms in nonexistent tanks. That's how it's going to work, because we don't want you to have the opportunity to expand your economy with the traditional, very successful net pen technology." That was the answer they gave. I found it quite ironic that that was the case.

There are many opportunities. Today I spoke with Chief Viola Wyse, the Chief of the Snuneymuxw First Nation. She told me directly, personally, how the concept of new relationship has moved them forward.

Of course, I too am now not speaking directly to the motion. Certainly, the members opposite tried to skirt around it until I did hear from the member from Alberni, who did. I hasten to repeat that it's good news, and it is going to gain momentum for reconciliation. I thank him for those encouraging words.

She spoke of how, rather than being focused on the legalities, which are bound up in the Charter of Rights and other considerations that we would have to face in any case…. In any legal agreement, of course, people will never agree on either the meaning or the words that are put in the agreement. That is why the term "reconciliation" is so important. It's a hopeful word that takes us ahead and beyond where the treaties will take us.

The treaties, of course, are necessary, and this is a very important and a very significant treaty. It will lay the groundwork, but it's only a step. The real work will be done by the good intentions of both parties, and the reconciliation has already been happening.

Let me give you a couple of other examples in Nanaimo. Again, coming to the issue, the Leader of the Opposition said: "not work in your ministry." I've given you one with the Ministry of Children and Family Development. Let me give you another one, and that's with the Ministry of Environment. A very unique and special agreement was signed in Nanaimo between the city of Nanaimo, the Ministry of Environment and Snuneymuxw.

We had a tripartite agreement on managing what has been quite a controversial piece of property, Newcastle Island, which is a provincial park just off of Nanaimo. The three parties agreed in a historic agreement on how to manage that park for the benefit not only of first nations but of all the people in Nanaimo and the surrounding community.

Would that have happened without the reconciliation accord? I don't think so. But that offered a positive, hopeful and forward step to lead them to hope that there could be more and greater partnerships between first nations and those of European ancestry who now control the province.

There's no doubt that many wrongs have been done. There's no doubt that there were many injustices. Much harm was done — physical, mental and other — to the first nations, and reconciliation is an attempt to look forward and beyond to an era where we can work together cooperatively.

We can look at this agreement — and many will — and say: "This phrase means that, and this phrase means this." There are those in our party — and this is, of course, a free vote — who may not support it, who may infer meaning that was not intended in the agreement, who may look for ghosts and look for hidden snares in the agreement. I would say to you that any lawyer could lay out an agreement that we could argue is other than…. Of course, we have the Attorney General in the House today, who could give us more guidance.

We have to look beyond what is written in the agreement and look to the reconciliation — and where that, which is the thrust of this government, is taking us. It's taking us to a place where good things can happen, and that's the expectation of the Snuneymuxw First Nation.

We had a meeting today, and Chief Viola Wyse stated directly to the Premier her heartfelt words — how happy she was with the accord and what hope reconciliation offered to her community. We did something we probably wouldn't have been able to do. We had members of the airport commission, the port authority and city council all together with a unified vision of where we want the economy of Nanaimo to go. That wouldn't have happened five years ago. I don't think it would have happened without the initiatives of reconciliation and the accord. It's moving forward, and it's a positive thing.

Treaties aren't going to solve everything. Treaties are but the necessary framework to redress ancient wrongs, but they do settle it. It does provide certainty

within the limits and the context, as the lawyers would say, within the four corners of the agreement. Does it solve everything? No. Is it intended to solve everything? No. Can it? No, but it does anticipate future agreements that will resolve the issues and future mechanisms to resolve all the issues.

Most important, however, is the word "reconciliation." I come back to the fact that it was used many, many times by Kim Baird in her agreement. I lost count at ten, and I ask anybody…. Perhaps the member opposite who wants to audit the Hansard can count them for me. But they're significant.

It's not only in Nanaimo. I had the opportunity to go to a celebration on the west coast in Bamfield where chief councillor Robert Dennis's band had approved by 92 percent the agreement that they've signed, and there are four other bands that have yet to vote on it. It's looking good. They'll be voting later this month. What he told me was really significant.

I have to tell you a story. When I first got elected, he asked me to intercede for him. He wondered if the Premier was still mad at him because he was carrying on a lawsuit over some timber issues that he felt needed to be settled. They were settled, I understand, but he was very relieved that things could still move forward, and he was very encouraged and heartened by the accord and by the reconciliation initiatives.

Here's a leader who has taken that forward. He's seeking independence of the band, to come as equals. Frankly, that's all first nations ever want. We heard about the employment figures, and certainly, they're bad. They don't want more than what we have. They want just at least the opportunities that we have.

I'm proud to be in a community where that's working, where that's happening. The first nations have just signed the second agreement with the school district to renew the aboriginal educational agreement with school district 69 — a very forward-thinking, forward-moving agreement. It has achieved the highest rates in the province of K-to-12 accomplishment and secondary graduation. I'm very proud, as I mentioned earlier in the House, to know that 1,800, or 10 percent, of the students enrolled in Malaspina University College are first nations.

Reconciliation can move forward. It is moving forward, and I would say that the agreements provide the skeleton on which we can move forward to build a new relationship with first nations, but the reconciliation initiatives will put the flesh and the strength to move the muscles, to bring them forward into equality with us.

I am very disappointed, and again I would criticize. I didn't hear quite clearly any statement that resounded for me from the Leader of the Opposition. She chose to use it as an awkward vehicle, at least, to attack the Premier. She said he's not a statesman; he's a tactician. Then I hear the member opposite talk about divisiveness many, many times.

Well, I would suggest to you that she's neither a statesperson nor a tactician, because clearly you need to be both. This is an area where tact and diplomacy are of utmost importance, and you need to be a tactician as well as a statesperson. We're doing both. That's why we have reconciliation moving the agenda forward at the same time as we're moving forward with agreements.

This won't be the last of them. We'll see more, and it's going to bring a new era for all British Columbians. It'll bring prosperity to first nations as we support the agreements that are established in treaty with economic reconciliation and with initiatives that improve the opportunities for them.

In closing, I want to give you, Madam Speaker, my enthusiastic support, and I salute the member opposite who said it's good news. It is indeed good news. He used a good phrase. We have built momentum to reconciliation. I wish I'd said that first. It's worth repeating, and that's where we're going.

L. Krog: I rise today, conscious of the historic nature of the debate in second reading. This is, after all, the first treaty to arise out of the treaty process started by Mike Harcourt back in 1992.

I want to read into the record today the words of a very young, fresh-faced MLA. He said at that time, on March 19, 1992, after the election of the NDP government: "The government has enunciated a clear program and commitment to a negotiated settlement of land claims and aboriginal rights that I am very proud of. I look forward to being able to meet the aboriginal people of this province face to face some day and know that I was a member of a government which had, after over a hundred years of failure, finally done the right thing for aboriginal people."

That was me. That was March 19, 1992, and I was full of optimism, absolutely full of optimism that the treaty process would start rolling quickly, that within a few years things would move forward and that the incredible historic injustices of this province's history with respect to its first nations people would finally have some form of resolution.

I want to also read the remarks made by the then Premier of the province, Glen Clark, on December 14, 1998, when he closed second reading debate on the Nisga'a agreement. He said:

It was a woman who dispatched them, and it was a woman who led her first nation to bring the first treaty

before the House in the history of the province of British Columbia. That's a pretty remarkable achievement.

I don't always agree with the member for Nanaimo-Parksville, but he said in his remarks today, "Treaties are not going to solve everything," and they're not. When you think of the long struggle for independence from the British in India itself, the source of the great misnaming of the first nations people of North America…. It led to partition and bloodshed and violence.

The passing of treaties in and of themselves will not solve all of the problems, but I am conscious of the fact that they will create a society — and I say that in the broadest sense of including all British Columbians — that can only be better than what we enjoy today.

I have a picture on my wall in my office in Nanaimo, and it's a wonderful photo taken in 1918. It's my grandfather on horseback, my grandmother standing beside her pony, and my mother, who is two years old, sitting on the pony, with a big Irish wolfhound and a little sheepdog down below. It's a wonderful scene taken on the Prairies.

The buckskin jacket my grandfather is wearing and, indeed, the first footwear my mother ever had — moccasins — were made by the same person: Chief Eli Whitford's granddaughter. It's not a great name in Canadian history. It won't mean much to the members here. But Chief Eli spent three years in Battleford jail for fighting for justice in the second Riel rebellion.

We have, I would like to think, come a long way, but we have a long way to go. As I said earlier, I thought after the election of 1991 — if I was thinking far enough ahead to 2007 — that we'd be a lot further down this road. But the issues are difficult, the problems profound. The problems and the solutions are complex, the difficulties so enormous sometimes that one can understand how frustrating it must be for those first nations who have engaged in the process and withdrawn.

The member for Nanaimo-Parksville talked about Chief Viola Wyse and the Snuneymuxw First Nation. They're outside the treaty process right now. They're not negotiating. They've pulled out.

The majority of first nations in British Columbia right now are not involved in the treaty process. Many have gone. Some have gone in and left, others have given up — the frustration building, the costs rising. The moneys borrowed to negotiate are a burden on themselves that they see as perhaps too much.

Many first nations leaders have stated bluntly that they are not prepared to negotiate the rights that the courts have essentially recognized — the fact that they were nations. My leader spoke earlier today about the treaty of 1763. The fact is that throughout the history of this country, first nations were recognized as nations.

Yet they became, in time, beggars in their own land as a result of the policy of what is now referred to loosely as the dominant culture. Beggars in their own land, confined to reserves, their children stolen and shipped off to residential schools to be abused, their dignity taken, their culture made illegal in many cases.

So I must say with some sense of anger and frustration today that when I listen to the members opposite, when I listen to those on the government benches brag about getting us to this stage, taking credit for negotiating this first treaty, I want to remind them — and I'm sure other members will — of how vigorously the Premier of this province pursued litigation to set aside the Nisga'a agreement.

After all the injustices, after all of the struggles of the Nisga'a people, after the heart-wrenching story of those chiefs dispatched by Frank Calder's grandmother to come down here to Victoria, to the white man's capital, to ask to negotiate…. After all of that, how they opposed in the '90s with such vigour and, I would suggest, venom the aspirations of first nations people in this province to finally see some justice…. How they can sit here today and applaud themselves and congratulate themselves, I must say, is a little hard for me to take on occasion.

But I'm mindful of the fact that we are here today talking about the first treaty negotiated out of the process. I'm going to accept that the government members have changed their minds, many of them. I'm going to accept that they are now sincere in their support for first nations people across this province. I'm going to accept that they want to build a just society, a society where social and economic justice are the hallmarks, not just for those of the dominant culture but for those who are of first nations ancestry — those who occupied the land from time immemorial, long before the Spanish came or the Russians or the English or the French.

I'm going to believe that they're sincere in that. I'm going to believe that they want to do the right thing. But the way the agricultural land, which is of such great importance to British Columbians, was included in this treaty gives the opposition some reason for concern.

The commitment to preserving agricultural land is one that is strongly felt by British Columbians. It is indeed the one thing, apart from some awful tinkering, that successive governments, since its introduction by Dave Barrett and Dave Stupich, have not really tried to trifle with.

There have been some changes under this government that are quite unpalatable and that any responsible government elected to succeed them will change, but the fact is they haven't played with it. They understood its importance and its significance to British Columbians, just as the preservation of land, and the land, is so important to first nations people in this province, understanding that intense relationship that exists between first nations people and the land.

One could say that if the NDP had negotiated this treaty, maybe we would have and could have done it differently. But as I have said to some of my constituents who question the treaty, this is like an election. This is exactly like an election. You never get to pick the perfect choice. We have a treaty that we can support or we can oppose. We don't get the treaty that each and every one of us might exactly support.

Chief Baird herself acknowledged that not everything in that treaty is what she would want. But if there is anything to be said for politics, it is about the art of compromise. It is about achieving something. It is about moving forward, and that's what has happened here.

The opposition will support this treaty. The opposition will continue to have its concerns about the agricultural land. But when you weigh the issue of the ALR and agricultural lands against the profound importance of the treaty process succeeding, I would suggest to those who have those concerns that the success of the process far outweighs the issue of the agricultural lands.

I say that as someone who is profoundly proud of the agricultural land reserve, as someone who is absolutely astonished that this government, in a time when we're all talking about hundred-mile diets and the importance of being self-sufficient in food and about food security, would throw this in as part of the treaty — to use it as some political football, arguably.

But you know something? I trust the Tsawwassen people. They have much for a future to look forward to. As the member for Nanaimo-Parksville indicated, yes, it's not going to solve everything, but it will, hopefully, create a basis on which the Tsawwassen First Nation, living in a world far changed from that which existed at first contact, will be able to develop the structures and the economic base that will finally allow them to be secure in themselves, to enjoy the kind of income and social benefits, if you will, that are felt by others.

I don't have to repeat in this House what has been said by other speakers during this debate and other debates, to recite the statistics around alcoholism and infant mortality, longevity, education and incarceration that relate to first nations people in this province.

It is astonishing to me sometimes how little people in this province know of first nations history, of how we got to where we are, of how peoples who once occupied the whole of this province were reduced to living on little parcels, confined almost like prisoners. And indeed they were prisoners.

When I represented Parksville-Qualicum, Snaw-Naw-As First Nation — Nanoose First Nation — was part of my constituency. It's a lovely little reserve in terms of its location — waterfront property, beach level. It's a beautiful spot, but it's tiny.

Even after it was established, it was bisected by a railway and by a highway. We couldn't even allow that tiny little piece of land allotted to them to survive intact.

When you look at what the Tsawwassen First Nation faces, their land, tiny as it is — what's being acknowledged now as their territory; I won't say given over or transferred; it was theirs to start with — is really very insignificant. It takes courage, and it took political courage for those peoples to give up so much, I would argue, just as the Nisga'a gave up so much in the negotiation of their treaty.

I am hopeful that what will come out of this first modern treaty, this first treaty out of the process, is some kind of a template that will allow all first nations in this province to achieve some measure of justice at long last.

Maybe 20 or 30 years from now — I'm less optimistic than I was in 1992 — someone will be putting the lock on the door to the Treaty Commission office. It will be part of British Columbia's history. Students in some university will be writing about how it was done and whether it could be done better. Could it have been done differently?

I would really like to see that day in British Columbia. I would like to see a day where first nations people walk the streets of every community with the same kind of pride that many citizens do.

This may sound racist when I say it, and forgive me if anyone is offended by it, but I see so many first nations people in this province who still look cowed and beaten, because they're walking through streets where other citizens don't respect them, do not acknowledge their history or their culture or their contribution or their incredible heritage or the fact that they were the rightful owners of this province. I look forward to the day when that will pass.

I look forward to the day when this assembly will see not only, as I've said before, an appropriate representation of women in this chamber, but an appropriate representation of first nations people. It's been a long time since Frank Calder took his seat in this assembly in 1949, a long time.

Today — apart from my leader, who has some aboriginal heritage — we, I would argue, have not come very far at all. It is remarkable to me that that is the case, because I have met many first nations people, gone to law school with them — who, if anyone is listening, I strongly encourage to pursue a seat in this assembly. Let their voices be heard in this place. Let the benefit of their culture and their wisdom improve what goes on in this chamber.

I'm not ashamed of my background and my ancestry, but I accept fully the fact that the same English culture that produced Shakespeare also produced the shameful reserve system that the South African government used as its model for apartheid. I have to take, if you will, the good with the bad.

I would like to think that the Tsawwassen peoples, having taken this enormous step forward, will accept the good with the bad and acknowledge that we are moving forward, that the negotiation of this treaty and its settlement and its passage and, most importantly, its implementation will create a society we can all be proud of.

We will look back on the shameful period of history when first nations people were confined to tiny reserves around this province as just that — history.

Economic and social justice will be as felt by first nations and enjoyed as it is by everyone else.

I would hope that the passage of this treaty will give encouragement to all, that we will see a new era — not just some fancy phrase developed by spin doctors but a genuine new era — in which everyone in British Columbia will be at the table, where all will share, where the needs of all will be met.

Right now we have a long ways to go, a very long ways to go. Until the majority of first nations people in this province have confidence in the treaty system, then we will continue to see the incredible deprivation and social injustice continue.

There are interim measures being taken. They are improving lives somewhat. But you have to step back as a British Columbian — particularly those of us who occupy this chamber who are largely, I will say, the children of privilege, in many respects — and think to yourself: what if you were a 21- or 22-year-old first nations kid living on a reserve in this province where the unemployment rate was 30, 40, 50 percent and the infant mortality rate was what the statistics tell us it is?

You have to ask yourself: would you sit patiently by? Would you wait for the treaty process to bring justice? I'm not sure we would.

What I do know is this. Chief Baird and the Tsawwassen First Nation, having been involved in this process as long as they have, are a model for success. I am hopeful that their model will encourage the incredible patience I have come to so admire in this province of those who, notwithstanding the injustices of the last 200 years, are still prepared to engage in negotiation, are still prepared to talk, are still prepared to deal with this in a way that speaks volumes about their character, their strength and their patience.

To the Tsawwassen First Nation people, my compliments, my congratulations, my encouragement and my best wishes for your future and your success as full participants in British Columbia's life in a way that you choose for yourselves — not one that is imposed upon you by the rest of society, but one that you choose for yourselves.

Hopefully, what this treaty will do is give you the tools and the opportunity to achieve that — to make those choices, to rebuild your nation and, in doing so, provide leadership to first nations across this province and to provide an example to other nations that are still struggling with the problem of recognizing the rights of aboriginal peoples.

This is not just British Columbia's issue. This is an issue that Australia has. This is an issue that even the Japanese have. Let us be an example here. Let this treaty be an example. Let this be something positive. Let this be an opportunity for growth, and let this be an opportunity, finally, for reconciliation amongst all British Columbians.

J. Rustad: It is truly an honour today to have an opportunity to rise to speak to this bill. With something as historic as this coming into the House, it does give a person a reason to pause and think a little bit about the role that you play, even though it's so very minute, in the history that has gone on that's brought this treaty to the House.

I want to start, first of all, by saying congratulations to the people of the Tsawwassen First Nation for having the courage to look and imagine something different, to hope and dream and sit down at the table and, through very many long years and some tough negotiations, to be able to have brought forward a treaty. It is a treaty that, to quote Chief Baird, is now "for the people…a time of great hope and optimism, a time for revival and renewal."

That's very significant for me, when you think about where things have come from. I must admit my own knowledge of our first nation history in this province is not perhaps what it should be. But I do know that throughout our time in this province, there have been some rather challenging circumstances — to put it mildly.

Could you imagine for a moment having your children taken away from you and shipped off to school? Could you imagine what that does to a family, to the bonds? You can imagine, then, if that happens now for generation after generation, as it has throughout the history of residential schools.

Then imagine compiling on top of that the practice of discouraging culture and language, the practice of saying to a people that their values, their history, the essence of what makes them a people are not legal — at one point even imprisoning and taking away cultural artifacts because they chose to try to practise their culture and their traditions against policy that we imposed. Now, imagine that for well over a hundred years, in terms of our contact and the challenges that that has created.

I find the first nations people a remarkable people, because they are optimistic about their future. They hope, and they dream. Despite the fact that there have been challenges, they're willing to set them aside to create that new relationship, to create this treaty and to be able to move forward. To me, it is quite an incredible feat.

As Chief Baird has said, this treaty is the right fit for their nation. I'm not going to question anything that is in this treaty because of that, because for them, it is the right fit. I also know that through the process, the other two levels of government, both the Canadian and the British Columbian governments, have been at the table and have gone through. The treaty is not perfect for everyone, but no treaty is, no agreement is. There is always give-and-take.

I just want to point out the fact that the Tsawwassen treaty passed with the Tsawwassen people by a 70-percent margin. That speaks volumes for that people, but it also says there are 30 percent of the people that were opposed to it. I think when you look throughout society — certainly in my riding — there are a number of people that are opposed to the treaty and to various treaties, whether it's a fear of the unknown, a fear of a

change, or it's some other underlying feelings as to how the world should be structured.

But I think about the words of Gandhi, who said poverty is the worst form of violence. When I look at some of the challenging situations of some of the first nations in my riding as well as other first nations around the province — the high unemployment levels, the issues of drugs and alcohol, the social issues that are created within their communities — I find it remarkable that a first nation can step forward and say, "I think we found a path to be able to move our people, to be able to build a bright future, to be able to 'undo the legacy of oppression'" — as I quote from Chief Baird.

I just want to make a quote that's found in the treaty. One of the things that's written in there is: "The Tsawwassen people have the right to practise the culture of the Tsawwassen First Nation and to use their language in a manner that is consistent with this agreement."

Think about that for a moment — that a people would actually have to have in a treaty, an agreement, a clause that gives them the right to practise their culture. Think about that in terms of our history and how it came to be that we actually had to put that right which all of us would just assume should come naturally. They have to actually put that right in a treaty. It is quite remarkable.

As has been said, the treaty is not a perfect fit. Perhaps a treaty is not the right fit for other first nations in the province in the path towards reconciliation and a new relationship.

I know that many first nations around the province and up in my area struggle with many, many issues. Maybe it'll be generations before the kind of final agreement that we see here on the floor has an opportunity to flourish in other corners. But my hope is that through the steps that we've been taking in forming new relationships, in trying to build partnerships and in trying to be able to move forward, whether it's in education or health outcomes or resource sharing or land use….

My hope is that through all those steps we're taking that we will be able to step forward. We'll be able to step out of the history that we have had and be able to say that we do truly want to see a new relationship. We truly want to see reconciliation, and we want to be able to see prosperity for all people in this province.

I congratulate Chief Baird for taking this step. There's no question this must have been with a lot of angst to be able to step forward and say, "This is going to be our direction" — to be able to sign a treaty saying that this is our aboriginal rights and title.

I think back to a community in my riding of Fort St. James, where more than 200 years ago Europeans came and settled. When they came and settled, they worked alongside first nations from that area and extended hands in friendship. That cooperation was the foundation in that community, which you can still see today in many aspects, despite some of the challenges that we have imposed. It's pretty remarkable when you consider it.

I know there have been some people that have stood up and have said that in this treaty there's the issue of the agricultural land reserve and what may become of those lands. Some of my colleagues from across the floor have also mentioned that, "Perhaps, if we were at the table, the treaty would be different," to quote the member for Alberni-Qualicum.

But I'd like to say that in any negotiation there are issues that come up. I believe and I trust that the issue around the ALR and around all the issues that were in this treaty were dealt with in good faith, were brought forward and placed on the table. I believe that this treaty is the right treaty. It's the right fit for the Tsawwassen First Nation, as Kim Baird has said.

I would hate…. Disappointed, I guess, is a better word. I would be disappointed if we were to see a move to say: "Well, we really like this treaty. We really think it's the right thing to do, but you really should just change this, or you really should just think about that."

We were not at the table. We have not been through the 14 years of negotiations. We don't know what was taken off the table or added, what needed to be done. But we do know that we have a treaty, and we do know we have something that has created a sense of excitement at the same time as a sense of apprehension, as Chief Baird has said.

For me, I know there are a number of people in my riding, both first nation and non–first nation, that are extremely leery of seeing treaties go forward. They're worried about what the costs may be, what the precedent is, whether or not too much is being given away, and I mean that from both sides of the equation.

There are some people who have approached me and asked me how I can support this treaty. I can say quite clearly that I support this treaty because I want to be able to see the Tsawwassen First Nation prosper. I want to be able to see them prosper in partnership with all of us in this province, first nation and non–first nation alike.

If you're going to build a great society, if you're going to be able to build the kind of province that I believe all of us want to see, then we need to be able to address the concerns and the systemic issues that have been created over generations. We need to be able to address those. We need to be able to see that kind of opportunity.

I applaud the Tsawwassen people for their strength, for their courage in this. I would say that I will be as supportive as I can be, because down this road, no doubt, there will be some challenges. There will be challenges for all of the people, both within the Tsawwassen and without.

I do know that as part of this treaty what you see is a relationship. You do see a new relationship. You do see reconciliation, and you see opportunity to be able to work forward. I believe that the Tsawwassen First Nation has the strength to be able to walk this path that is least travelled, to be able to walk this path that will have its challenges and to be able to do so in partnership so as to make a better place for their people — and not just for their people, but for all people in this province.

I'm very honoured today to have had a chance to say a few words with regards to this treaty, to be able to participate in the debate of this treaty in the House. I'm also very pleased to see that the majority on both sides of this House will be supporting this treaty, because I believe it is the right thing to do.

Doing the right thing may not always be the easiest thing to do, but at the end of the day, it feels good. It will produce the best results, and I think, in terms of partnership, we will see great things and prosperity come on all sides. Thank you very much.

G. Gentner: I will address the bill, the ratification, in a straightforward manner that echoes the Minister of Aboriginal Relations when he was opposed to the Nisga'a treaty. He stated at the time: "We come here, I hope, prepared to speak with passion and conviction, expecting that our colleagues will do likewise, and always mindful of the dangers that will follow when attempts are made to intimidate or stifle the views of those with whom we disagree."

Not only will I be straightforward with the full expectation that honest debate will not be stifled in any manner, but I will also be respectful of the various perspectives represented in a democratic debate that seeks to shed light on all aspects of a bill that will have profound ramifications not only for the Tsawwassen First Nation, the agricultural land reserve and the environment but that will have immense significance for the future of all British Columbians and our children's children.

Respected Chief, elders, members of the Tsawwassen Nation, Members of the Assembly and the people of British Columbia, let me begin by acknowledging the historical context which brings us to this point of treaty negotiation. I cannot pretend to fully comprehend the impact that colonialization had on the indigenous peoples of the Americas from the time of first contact.

The diseases that came with the ships, the arbitrary appropriation of viable land, the destruction of cultural practices, the outright attempt to quash any indigenous culture through various means from the taking of potlatch paraphernalia to the taking of indigenous languages at residential schools — the multigenerational consequences are evident to any student of history.

We the non-indigenous citizens of British Columbia must remember that this land on which we live and thrive came at a terrible cost. It is that cost that brings us today to the subject of negotiating treaties.

What is it that we are attempting to achieve, ultimately, through these negotiations? What price do we put on what has been lost? How do we make up for the actions of past colonizers? How do we divvy up lost lands, resources and rights? How do we attempt to do what is morally right for a horrendous wrong?

Funny thing about morals and what we consider to be right — things change. It fluctuates with time and priorities and lessons learned. The colonizers, those who were not land speculators but earnest Christian folks, thought they were doing the right thing by encouraging indigenous peoples to assimilate. Now we know without a doubt that what they did was terribly wrong.

We know this through hindsight, through the very sad results of the strategies and policies, through listening with open minds to the indigenous peoples and hearing, truly hearing, about their loss and what they now want to achieve for themselves.

I believe that is the purpose of treaty negotiation. It is to listen and hear what the indigenous peoples want for their future and how they wish to achieve their own goals. It is a means by which a first nations people, such as the Tsawwassen First Nation, can address issues of poverty and education, housing and job development, infrastructure needs and economic independence. I have no problem with this at all, and I applaud all efforts to move this onerous and oppressive process forward.

However, times have changed. New knowledge is coming forward for our consideration. We are learning, hopefully, from the mistakes of our past. We are becoming enlightened in areas that years ago were not even considered. The remarkable thing about us, the human race, is that we are curious creatures.

For example, one thing we've learned is that the climate is changing. We can debate until doomsday why and who is responsible. The fact is that the planet is warming. This affects different places in different ways. Hot places will get hotter. Wet places will get wetter. Storms are getting stormier. Lowlands will ultimately get swamped.

Arable land is not only a rare commodity but an absolute necessity for our very survival. Every year the amount of farmland lost to erosion and urban sprawl is equivalent to the size of Scotland. In North America close to 60 acres of farmland is lost to development every hour. More than 50 percent of our food comes from lands adjacent to rapidly developing urban centres.

The point is that we value industrial and residential land far more than we do farmland. This is indicative of how much it is worth. It's so easy for a land speculator, very much akin to the speculators that came years ago, to buy up cheap farmland and then either to push for zoning changes or to wait for a change of government legislation, to claim the neglected farms are unworkable and then to make an outrageous profit by paving over our future food source.

You and I will never benefit from such a deal. In fact, such deals are ongoing up the Fraser Valley. The best land possible for farming is found along the Fraser delta, along river deltas. From Hope to Tsawwassen the farmland that still exists is the best that can be found in western Canada, if not all of North America.

Think about that, folks. In British Columbia, only 5 percent of the land is arable, and less than 1 percent is rated class 1 in productivity. We are losing even that through the removal of land from the ALR for development purposes. There is no plan for no net loss of farmland here, because the shell game of replacing acre for acre of the very best soil-based farmland in the province cannot be found anywhere else in the province.

There is no land available that can best serve future organic food resources for our growing population, and make no mistake, our population is growing. The lesson we are learning the hard way is that we need to value the arable farmland even more than ever before because God, the great spirit or whatever deity you believe in, just ain't making any more for your convenience, for all of us.

In the meantime we have an economic system which is market-driven and which we now refer to as globalization. Again, we can debate the merits of such a system until it collapses. As all economic systems do, given time and human activity, they break down. Any student can attest to this.

However, the fact is, for good or ill, global forces guide our economic development. Globalization takes on many forms. In particular, we negotiate treaties or trade deals with various nations whereby we send them stuff, they send us stuff, and somewhere someone makes a lot of money doing this. Call it supply and demand. We demand, they supply, and vice versa.

To do this, we build roads, ports, railways, ships and airports and use whatever means to ship stuff here or to send stuff there, to build the infrastructure, the factories, the rail yards, the ports and the city to house the workers. Land is assembled, acquired and expropriated for development — lots of it. I mentioned before how much. I also mentioned that someone's making money doing that.

It's getting harder and harder for people in developing countries to farm and feed themselves. If they do farm, much of it is exported to us. Most of our food is produced somewhere else and shipped here, often travelling on average 1,500 miles to our dinner plates.

Since contact, the colonial — now western — economy dictates the lay of the land. Like before, under the mercantile exploitation of the new world, globalization means that power lies with global markets, not British Columbians or first nations peoples.

The Liberal government believes, inextricably, that the global market, freed of inhibiting regulation, will gradually establish international economic equity that will culminate in evenhandedness for the Tsawwassen First Nation. The premise is that the market would unleash waves of trade and that these waves would in turn unleash a broad economic tide of growth. But will it?

Everything we buy in a store that wasn't made in the back of a local shop adds to our carbon footprint. Do you know how much your shirt is really worth to the environment? The farther it came, the more it cost the environment to get it on your back.

To feed our consumerism in this global market, developing countries are building coal-fired power plants. China builds the equivalent of one per month. The pollution from these and their factories and industries, blown by westerlies, is found in our mountain snow peaks. How's that for a carbon footprint?

In the name of economic development, in the name of market supply and demand, in the name of globalization, we need more ports, more roads, more rails — more, more and yet more. When will we have enough?

We are parasites. Like parasites, we will feed off our planet until it is dead. Our obsession with things will kill us. The bumper sticker that says "The man with the most toys when he dies wins" doesn't tell you that he will also be the last man on the planet.

We ship out our logs and coal. Our carbon footprint grows exponentially with every cargo, and our arable land decreases just as quickly. But as we completely self-destruct the species, are there no redeeming features of the human race? Do we truly not care about our little planet?

Well, it seems that everyone cares now. It's a wonderful thing to be green now. Years ago, however, it wasn't so easy to be green.

Over 30 years ago a very prescient NDP government put in place an innovative, radical legislation, the Land Commission Act. It was radical because it represented a dramatic shift in the way we think as a society and what we fundamentally value in the province.

This act protected our arable fields. It controlled urban sprawl, it encouraged density, and it encouraged sustainability long before the term became a popular buzzword at media scrums. It was, in retrospect, the right thing to do, as we still benefit from it today.

It concerns me greatly that despite all the talk about being green, the intent of the act has lessened in time, the protections have lessened and the amount of land has lessened. It concerns me greatly that it is being expropriated for major road projects and port expansions.

It concerns me greatly that we will be relying more on global food imports than what we grow in our own backyard. It concerns me greatly that its value is not in providing for our future but as a bargaining chip for negotiations.

During the golden years of the NDP government, provincial treaty negotiators for the Tsawwassen treaty were adamantly opposed to the removal of the ALR lands within the definition of a treaty settlement. That changed under a Liberal government.

On March 24, 2004, Canada, B.C. and the TFN signed an agreement-in-principle that insisted that the final agreement would engage in a process with the Agricultural Land Commission and how the objective of the TFN may be addressed by excluding specific parcels of Tsawwassen lands from the agricultural land reserve.

We may never know how the dialogue between the TFN and the ALC went. However, one can surmise that given the mandate under statute of the ALC, it is dubious whether it could agree to the removal of North America's best agricultural soil.

By November 2004 things had changed dramatically, and the treaty process was undermined. The Tsawwassen First Nation, VPA, Roberts Bank development memorandum of agreement laid out the execution order. Both senior governments, Canada and British Columbia, through their respective Crown agencies, the Vancouver Port Authority and B.C. Rail, were identified in the agreement.

The memorandum skewed the independent approach to treaty-making. Section 27 clearly sentenced the agricultural land reserve to death. This contract clearly obstructed any fair negotiating through the treaty process.

That was outside the treaty process. Mr. Speaker, this agreement was concocted outside the treaty process, and this government was party to it. Plainly, this was interference. Plainly, the catalyst behind ALR removal was port development. It seems to me that the corporate elite is governing the interests of B.C. and Canada, not the people. Whose democracy is this anyway?

Clearly, with this agreement the Liberal government was going to remove land out of the ALR for port expansion, with or without a treaty.

Consequently, the TFN and the Vancouver Port Authority received provincial compliance under the final treaty agreement much sooner than two years before settlement.

It's no wonder that the authorities insist that after ALR removal, the appraised land values will remain low. It's no coincidence that the province only two weeks ago depreciated assessed values at port-related industrial lands once again.

The deal apparently compensates the first nation for decades of negative environmental impact and resource effects from the port. The irony is that compensation for decades of negative impact means many more decades of even greater degradation.

Removal of land out of the agricultural land reserve is all about hegemony. Land is generally managed by the province, and land needed for port-related industry would never have been removed from the agricultural land reserve.

The government meticulously circumvented due process under the Land Commission Act. Clever politics, because the government shifted the blame of farmland environmental degradation away from itself and Gateway, the messenger of globalization. They ship it to the citizen, who must bear the guilt of historical injustices.

As seen with the VPA agreement, port expansion was contingent on agricultural land removal. The Liberal government doesn't care about land claims. It only cares about the needs of the corporate entity, the VPA.

If removal of land in the ALR was deemed essential for treaty settlement, then why is the government proposing to destroy an additional 245 acres of prime agricultural farmland outside the TFN settlement for the building of the South Fraser perimeter road? Liberal absolutism will compromise farmland in spite of TFN claims, in spite of its impacts on climate change and in spite of the wishes of the affected municipalities.

The anticipated South Fraser perimeter road that will feed the port has created a speculator's feeding frenzy in Delta. In many places farmland values over the past six years have quadrupled, increasing property taxes for farmers. There are reports that farmland prices have soared close to $60,000 an acre within six months.

When I say we should value the land, this isn't it at all. The South Fraser perimeter road will fragment farmland. The critical mass will be lost, and now more is to be given to the port under the guise of treaty settlement.

I will not for one instant deny the right of the Tsawwassen First Nation to negotiate a treaty that is fair in their eyes, that has been thought through carefully, that does meet their goals and that does address in some form — though I don't know how anything really could — the wrongs that were done so long ago and still reverberate through our time. But if we dare to look at the big picture, if we dare to look into the future, what will history make of this?

Will this decision be considered a prescient decision that not only redressed wrongs done in the past but brought mutual benefit for the whole society, or as is most likely, will our great-great-grandchildren be aghast at the shortsighted profiteering under the guise of helping a first nation achieve its goals?

I mean, we want to talk about compromise? The senior governments could have compromised. They could have easily given the first nation a piece of the port itself. They could have easily said that we're going to put a surtax on every container going through TFN lands. That was never on the table. That was never part of the deal, because it had nothing to do with the interests of the TFN.

Tryon Edwards wrote: "Compromise is but the sacrifice of one right or good in the hope of retaining another, too often ending in the loss of both." I believe this is true in this case.

This treaty, in addressing old wrongs, is writing into history, I believe, a new wrong. The new wrong is the dismantling of the agricultural land reserve, and it will be the death of the ALR. If we approve the removal of the province's most valued agricultural land for treaty settlement, then all agricultural land is on the table, Crown or otherwise. The precedent will be set. The province's willingness to barter away farmland is the death knell for more to be lost.

Further, by losing that land for the express interest of global profits, from which you and I really won't benefit, we are also sounding the death knell for our

future food resources, our future health and welfare, our future environment and, indeed, our very future.

I asked at the beginning: what price do we put on what is going to be lost? It seems to me that what we have here, written in such fine detail in the VPA agreement, is that the costs of repairing the past is the future of farmland. Is this what we want?

What was done in the past and the long-lasting impacts on indigenous people was, to our modern and hopefully more enlightened minds, morally reprehensible. There should have been amends long ago, and it is long past time to sign treaties and enable first nations to move toward their own future.

But what future will that be if we do not protect the very land that feeds us all, if we do not protect the environment that is our collective responsibility?

We are in the process of legislating the end of the agricultural land reserve and gaining a parking lot of containers. Fields of containers is what our future will be with this legislation — the legacy of this government. We are going to fix a horrendous wrong with containers. Is this truly what we want?

The Premier stood in front of cameras recently and tried to convince us that he is green. He is for lower emissions. He is for the environment. He is for healthy children and a viable future. He has said a lot of really nice, motherhood-type of words that makes us all fuzzy and warm and secure.

We feel so comfy knowing that he is out there protecting us from worrying about such nasty things as increased particulate emissions, increased carbon dioxide, increased road and truck traffic, increased and unregulated ship emissions, increased port traffic, the destruction of farmland, the destruction of the ALR — oh, wait a minute — expanding ports, building roads and destroying farmland. Aren't these the causes of what we worry most about?

Someone is going to make a lot of money from this, a heck of a lot of money. Only a very few people will benefit, and it won't be all the TFN members. A special few will benefit, most of whom live outside the province.

The rest of us will pay. We'll pay with our taxes, pay with our health and pay with our future. The Premier is finding that it isn't really easy being green.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to leave you, our honoured guests and the members of this august body with a thought by Alfred Russel Wallace, who wrote in 1903: "It is among those nations that claim to be the most civilized, those that profess to be guided by a knowledge of laws of nature, those that most glory in the advance of science, that we find the greatest apathy, the greatest recklessness, in continually rendering impure this all-important necessity of life."

Negotiate treaties to a successful conclusion. Save our farmland for our farmland, for our future. These are not mutually exclusive. These are mutually beneficial. Are we enlightened enough yet to see that?

B. Bennett: Now for an entirely different perspective. Chief Baird said yesterday that she would prefer that this debate…. That's what we call it here. It's not really a debate in a way; it's a discussion. Chief Baird said that she would prefer that this discussion not become politically partisan. So despite the fact that the previous speaker provided enormous opportunities, actually, for a response in a partisan manner, I'm not going to go there.

I do want to start and say that anytime you get on your feet in this place, it's an honour to be here. It's difficult to get here for any of us. It is an honour to speak because you're speaking in a hallowed place that represents democracy in this province. You're speaking, really, on behalf of the constituents that you represent. So it is an honour to be here.

Today it's an extra honour, in my opinion. It's certainly an extra honour for me to speak in support of this legislation and in support of this treaty because of what it means to me personally, certainly to our government, and especially to the people of the province.

I've worked closely with aboriginal people for most of my life, and every time I hear the expression "the best place on earth," I think to myself: how can that be? How can B.C. say that this is the best place on earth and how can Canada say that it's the best place on the globe to live when we have the kinds of inequities that exist in first nations reserves all across this country?

I don't know whether members have had the same opportunity that I've had throughout my lifetime to spend time in northern Canada. I spent over 20 years in northern Canada. I've worked across northwestern Ontario, northern Manitoba, northern Saskatchewan, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon territory.

I've spent a fair bit of time in reserves, especially in northern Manitoba, and I can tell you those places are not the best places on earth. We have a lot of work to do in this country to provide the same level of opportunity for first nations people that the rest of us, frankly, expect as a matter of course. I admit that. We have a long, long way to go in this country. But we need reconciliation, and we need action, as Chief Baird said.

I want to tell you a story that happened to me many, many years ago. When I was about 18 years old, I was living in southern Ontario. That's where I grew up. I got a job as a fishing guide, and I went to work in northwestern Ontario in the Red Lake area just in from a small community called Ear Falls.

I was working there as a fishing guide. I wasn't a very good one at the time, but I was enjoying life, and it was probably the best job that I ever had. Most of the guides and the staff at this fishing lodge were Ojibwa people from northwestern Ontario. One day I was hanging around down by the dock and standing by the ice house. We used to saw the ice out of the lake in the spring and haul it into the ice house and cover it with sawdust.

I was standing by the ice house. I noticed this shadowy figure kind of lurking behind the ice house. I went behind the ice house, and here was this 11-year-old aboriginal boy standing there. I said: "Who are you?" He said: "I'm Russell Keesig." I noticed he didn't have any shoes on. So I said: "Russell, where do you come

from?" He said: "I come from here. My uncle works here. My uncle guides here, and my aunt guides here, and my cousins are all here."

I said: "How did you get here?" He said: "I walked." I said: "Where did you walk from?" He looked frightened. He looked more than dishevelled. He said: "I walked from Sioux Lookout." I said: "Sioux Lookout? How many miles is that?"

I looked it up today, just for the heck of it. It's 313 kilometres by highway that this 11-year-old boy walked because he was in a residential school in Sioux Lookout, and he didn't want to be there. I got to know Russell over the next several years, because I worked at that place for eight summers. He eventually met an untimely demise, as so many first nations people do in Canada.

I never forgot the description that Russell gave me of what it was like as an 11-year-old boy to be sitting in the cabin with his mom and dad. You hear the sound of the floatplane, and the floatplane is coming to get you, and it's coming to get your brothers and sisters. It's going to haul you away to a residential school someplace literally hundreds of miles away from your parents. You're not going to see your parents — probably not even at Christmas; maybe at Christmas if you're lucky — for the whole school year.

Chief Baird said yesterday that we need action and that reconciliation — true reconciliation — signifies real action and tangible change. I don't want to lapse into what we often do in this country, which is to feel guilty about our past. I think we should reflect on our past. I don't think we should forget our past as it relates to first nations people, but I don't think that guilt and shame are very productive or constructive emotions. It's just that I do believe that we should remember the impact that European culture has had on aboriginal people in this country.

One of the things I picked out of this treaty is that the Tsawwassen people will now have control over the care of their children. When Chief Baird says that true reconciliation signifies real action and tangible change, I think that's tangible change — having control over the care of your children finally, after hundreds of years of somebody else having control over the care of your children.

I think another example — and she mentioned it yesterday — of tangible change is the appointment, of course, of the Hon. Steven Point, the Lieutenant-Governor. I don't think, frankly, that ten years ago or 20 years ago we could have imagined that we would have an aboriginal person as the Lieutenant-Governor of this province. It's an amazing accomplishment.

On the appointment of Steven Point and, frankly, in getting this far with this particular treaty, I think that one person stands out, at least in terms of elected people, in having brought us this far and having forced some of us to think about what needs to happen and to make some very difficult decisions. That's the Premier of the province.

I'm not going to say a whole bunch about the Premier here; that's not the purpose of raising his name in this speech today. I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker. History will record the work that this government, because of the leadership of the Premier, has done with first nations in terms of reconciliation and trying to find a way for first nations people and the rest of us to come to terms with our different cultures — and finding that elusive respect, I think, that has been missing for so long in this province.

Frankly, I might be all wet. I am all wet about lots of things. My experience with first nations people is that they just want respect. They want to be treated like everybody else. They want to have the same opportunities we have within the context of the reality that they come from a different culture. This treaty is going to help the Tsawwassen people find that respect and those opportunities within the context of them having a different culture.

I mentioned a few seconds ago about the impact of European culture, and I was struck by Chief Baird's description of their reserve. I think she said it was a tiny postage stamp located between two large industrial installations. I think one of them was the coal port, and the other one was the ferry terminal. I guess that's a fact of life for the Tsawwassen people. That's the way it is for them.

You think about what they had before this — what they had 100 years ago, what they had 200 years ago, what they had 5,000 years ago. Well, they had essentially no disease in their communities. They had unbelievable access to a healthy lifestyle, to the best food that Mother Nature could provide. They had a wonderful system for looking after their children and their elders.

Look at what they've got now. When somebody says to me, "Are you going to support this treaty…?" Yeah, I'm going to support this treaty. That's why I'm going to support this treaty.

I liked Chief Baird's comment that the treaty proves that reasonable people can sit down and settle historical wrongs. This is the first treaty that has been settled. I realize it has to be voted on in this Legislature, and I realize it has to be voted on in the federal parliament. I surely hope that whatever is happening with the federal parliament tonight in terms of their throne speech and possible elections, and so forth, doesn't get in the way of parliament ratifying this important treaty.

What's important for me is that now we have a treaty that proves that what Chief Baird said is true — that reasonable people can sit down and settle historical wrongs. Frankly, it has been in question up until this point. We haven't really known in this province if reasonable people can actually sit down and negotiate, coming from different cultures and very different points of view, to address historical wrongs.

Apparently, as of the Tsawwassen treaty, yes, they can. That's another reason why I'm going to support this treaty and why I'm going to support this legislation.

There are other good things going on in B.C. with regard to aboriginal people. When I had the Mines portfolio that my colleague from Kamloops–North

Thompson is looking after so capably now, I was surprised, actually, at how much interaction I had with first nations people. I was also surprised at how many first nations people really wanted to get involved in mining and sought after the good jobs that mining offers.

Companies like NovaGold…. Rick Van Nieuwenhuyse, the CEO of NovaGold, has done a wonderful job of understanding the need for mutual respect. I think he's done a great job with the Tahltan people, and the Tahltan people have done a great job with him.

There you have this business deal, essentially, between the Tahltan and NovaGold that's going to provide the Tahltan with resources long, long into the future. Those resources will be used to educate their children and improve their standard of living.

It's not like this treaty is the first and only thing that has happened over the past five years that's going to benefit first nations. I'm going to actually leave it up to other speakers to get into all the things that are covered by the new relationship. But I did want to mention mining and the Galore Creek deal, because it is such a great example of how the new relationship is actually working in this province.

I reflect back to the day when I first heard about the new relationship. I heard about it by e-mail, of all things. I sent an e-mail back to my colleague, who had said: "Have you heard anything yet about the new relationship?" I wrote back and said no, and I said something else about relationships that I won't repeat in the House.

It took me a while to get my head around…. What is this new relationship? Being a lawyer, I first gave it a legal analysis. I think there's some benefit to giving it a legal analysis, because frankly, what we were doing in this province — and what we do in this country, from a legal perspective — was basically forcing first nations to challenge us in court every time they turned around. We wouldn't even accept their existence in the pleadings. Our process that we are accustomed to, our legal adversarial process, is a very disrespectful process in terms of aboriginal culture — anywhere in the world, as far as that goes.

A legal interpretation of the new relationship basically is: let's stop playing games legally. Let's just talk to one another, let's respect one another, and let's try and go forward on that basis, instead of having the lawyers trying to do it for us. That obviously wasn't working, and it was very expensive, with all due respect to my colleagues at the bar.

The chief yesterday mentioned the need for compromises, and I read some of her comments that she made to the media after. Somebody asked her if she was happy with the whole treaty, and she answered: "No, of course not." They had to make compromises. Those compromises were extremely difficult for her and her community to make, and I commend her.

Without her leadership, I doubt that this would have happened. In respect for some of the things she said yesterday, I think I should also say without the leadership of all the leaders that came before her, because she gave them credit. I think that without them, it wouldn't have happened. Similarly, without the leadership of the minister responsible and especially the Premier of the province, this also would not have happened. This treaty would not be happening.

B. Bennett: Let me just say one last thing. I want to quote from what the chief said yesterday. She said: "We are decolonizing through accommodation of our differences, not assimilation. That…is the true benefit of true reconciliation." I thank her for that. It is so true.

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.